36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 87
CONTENTS
Monday, May 1, 2000
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| CULTURAL INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Motion
|
1105
1110
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1115
1120
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1125
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1130
1135
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1140
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1145
1150
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1155
1200
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-31. Second reading
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1205
1210
1215
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
1300
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
1330
1335
1340
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1345
1350
| Mr. John Solomon |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| RÉFAP GALA EXCELLENCE
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1400
| VIETNAM
|
| Mr. John McKay |
| MENTAL HEALTH WEEK
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| ARMENIA
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| BIOTECHNOLOGY
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1405
| JEAN-CLAUDE MARCUS
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| THE LATE JACQUES BEAUREGARD
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| LAVAL UNIVERSITY
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1410
| INTERNATIONAL WORKERS DAY
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| CANADIAN EXECUTIVE SERVICE ORGANIZATION
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1420
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| COUNCIL ON CANADIAN UNITY
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1425
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| VIETNAM
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1435
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1440
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1445
| POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| ECONOMIC REGIONS
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1450
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| BILL C-3
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1455
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1500
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| National Highway System
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1505
| Breast Cancer
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Breast Cancer
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| Yugoslavia
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1510
| Gasoline Prices
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Breast Cancer
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| Child Pornography
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| Marriage
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| Housing
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Child Poverty
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| National Highway System
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Pay Equity
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1515
| Pornography
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-31. Second reading
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
1520
| Mr. David Price |
1525
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1545
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1550
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1555
1600
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1605
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1610
1615
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1620
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1650
| Mr. John McKay |
1655
1700
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1705
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1710
1715
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1720
1725
1730
1735
1740
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1745
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1750
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1755
1800
1805
1810
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1815
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1820
1825
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1830
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1835
| Immigration
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1840
| Foreign Affairs
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1845
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 87
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 1, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
CULTURAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give
consideration to exempting up to $30,000 of income from income
tax as a gesture of support for those artists, writers and
performers who work in Canada's cultural industry.
He said: Madam Speaker, I would seek unanimous consent of
the House to share my time with the hon. member for Dartmouth.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have agreement of the House to share his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise
today to begin debate on Motion No. 259, which speaks to tax
fairness for the working creators of our country.
We will all recognize that the Molson's Joe Canadian phenomenon
that was introduced a few weeks ago has touched a cultural nerve
in the country, that people genuinely feel proud of their
country.
They feel proud of what we have accomplished. They feel proud
about their culture and the fact that it is unique and different
from others around the world.
1105
Today we begin a debate to acknowledge those fundamental
creators who make this Canadian cultural phenomenon possible. I
would like to thank Joe Canadian for helping us out.
Today we recognize those who begin the creative process, those
who are the pioneers, those who create something virtually out of
nothing, and those who begin the process of our cultural
industry, the artists themselves. In other terms we would call
them the loggers and the farmers.
I want to begin my presentation today by reading a poem from a
professional cowboy poet in my community of Kamloops, British
Columbia. His name is Mike Puhallo. His poem is entitled
Sage and Pine.
I've traveled to your cities,
and for some they might be fine.
But I find myself amissin'
the smell of sage and pine!
Now I'm just a country poet,
Not prone to fancy verse.
My grammar is atrocious,
My spelling's even worse!!
But my tales are plain an' honest,
Like the children of the soil,
The cowboys, ranchers and farmers
Whose work is honest toil.
The urban crowd don't like my prose
they will pick at every line
my poems ain't read in fancy theatres,
where they sip champagne and wine,
and I sure ain't rich or famous,
But that just suits me fine,
`Cause you don't need fame or fortune
to smell the sage and pine.
That is a piece of work written by one of Canada's professional
poets and one of Canada's official creators.
I believe it is the role of the legislator to put issues on the
public agenda which will allow a healthy public discourse and
hopefully add to the public's understanding of an issue. This is
my hope, as we begin a debate on the tax status of Canada's
creators in the year 2000, as they continue to seek fairness and
consideration in our Income Tax Act.
A 1997 Price Waterhouse report done for the Department of
Canadian Heritage found that an unfair level of tax is shouldered
by cultural workers who are self-employed and who earn low,
fluctuating incomes. According to their analysis, the Canadian
who is most vulnerable under the present income tax system is the
one who is an artist and self-employed.
It is my belief that culture is the heart of a nation. As a
nation, Canada has developed a vibrant cultural sector with
numerous cultural institutions: a diverse publishing industry, a
talented music industry, a dynamic new media industry, and
critically acclaimed film and television industries.
Often we fail to recognize and appreciate that without the
individual artists in our country there would be no film
industry. There would be no television production. There would
be no book publishing or sound recording industry. There would
be no theatre productions or galleries and museums. Basically,
the cultural industry would collapse.
The important point which this motion attempts to point out is
that we must recognize those creators. If it was in a business
sense, I would say those innovators and creators who develop the
R and D of industry. We cannot have a dynamic industry in our
country without the researchers and developers; those people who
spend time in laboratories creating that first item.
What we are saying is that we need to apply this logic now to
the cultural sector to acknowledge those men and women who are
often investing vast amounts of their time and energy into
training and education for their professions. They actually
create something from which flows the theatre productions, the
film industry, the television series and so on; the downstream
sector.
I would point out in this very early stage of our debate that
this is a growing sector of our community. Those who read David
Foot's book Boom, Bust and Echo will remember that he said
the cultural sector would be one of the booming industries in our
country as a result of the demographic changes occurring.
We have also recognized that our cultural sector accounts for 5
per cent to 8 per cent of the Canadian labour force, larger than
agriculture, logging, forestry and mining combined. It is only
second to health and social services. This is a huge industry,
but this industry and all those who participate in it, either as
spectators or participants, depend upon those creators who start
the industrial process.
1110
Special treatment for artists exists in other countries, notably
Ireland, where income earned by artists, writers, composers and
sculptors from the sale of their work is exempt from income tax
altogether. There is no cap at all. Of course we all know from
our readings that the cultural sector of Ireland is alive, well
and dynamic as a result of a number of initiatives, including
this one.
Over the years we have spent a great deal of attention giving
our efforts over to political sovereignty, the development of
territorial sovereignty and our economic sovereignty. Now it is
time to devote that same attention, that same consideration, to
cultural sovereignty. As one music composer expressed in a fax
to my office the other day “Our cultural identity is barely
surviving the barrage from the American cultural industries.
Anything that will make it easier to be creative in Canada should
be done, particularly if it comes at a reasonable cost to
government”.
I want to say at the beginning that this would come at a very
reasonable cost to government, based on the Irish experience,
where there is no cap. If we were to put a $30,000 cap on it, it
would therefore be very, very reasonable.
In 1982 Canada commissioned a study of our cultural sector
called the Applebaum-Hébert report. One of its overall findings
was that the largest subsidy to cultural life in Canada comes not
from governments, corporations or other patrons, but from the
artists themselves through their unpaid or underpaid labour.
As recently as last month renowned writer Margaret Atwood
reinforced this conclusion by saying that the artist, by and
large, does subsidize the rest of us. Even when the artist does
make some money, others make a good deal more.
I am embarrassed to say that the average income of Canada's
creators, the average income of an artist in Canada today, is
about $13,000. Hon. members know that no one can make ends meet
on $13,000 a year, yet that is a fact.
I have thousands of things to say in this discussion, but I want
to share my time with our cultural spokesperson, the hon. member
for Dartmouth. I hope that this will put the issue on the public
agenda of the country and, perhaps more important from our point
of view, on the political agenda of the country to ensure that we
do whatever is possible as parliamentarians to ensure that our
creators, those who begin the cultural process, are fairly
rewarded. One of the things we can do is to consider this motion
that looks to the Income Tax Act to enable those artists to
exempt the first $30,000 of income from tax.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to stand this morning and be part of this important
debate put forward by my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys on the motion that, in the opinion of this
House, the government should give consideration to exempting up
to $30,000 of income tax as a gesture of support for these
artists, writers and performers who work in Canada's cultural
industry.
I should start by saying that I have a direct interest in this
subject matter. I made my living as a playwright for 15 years
before becoming a member of parliament. Many of my friends are
artists, actors, playwrights, directors, painters and sculptors.
Most of them cobble together a living without one whit of
financial security, but also with little real choice in the
matter because they are driven to create. They are driven to
express themselves. They believe that they have something to
say, that they can bring some clarity to murky situations, that
they can make people laugh or cry or feel deeply or change their
course of action, that they can make people rage at injustice,
cry out for more humanity, deepen their spiritual journey and
strengthen their ties to kin and community. In a word, they
believe, rightly or wrongly, foolishly or not, that through their
tiny contributions of creation they can have an impact, hopefully
a positive one, on the human condition. For this faint hope they
labour mightily in the field of culture, making on average,
according to recent testimony from the chair of the Canada
Council for the Arts, an income of $13,000 a year. They give up
a great deal.
People who have made the choice to be creators often find they
have no choice but to live in poverty. To be an artist in this
country means to concentrate on creating while worrying about
paying the rent. It means struggling to focus on art while
dealing with overdue bills and trying to practise a craft when
the basic cost of the tools is sometimes too expensive.
1115
It means trying to keep a creative spark alive, a creative work
moving ahead over a period of years while working on other jobs
to pay the bills. It often means forgoing family and children.
It often means disrupting marriages, families and home life since
people have to travel great distances to work as artists,
directors and actors.
Unlike MPs who get travel points, they cannot go home on
weekends. They do all these things year in and year out. We are
tremendously richer because of their sacrifices. Our nation
would be far worse off without the stout-hearted band of creators
who chronicle its course, tell its story, shine light in the dark
corners and provide the strength to face the uncertain future.
A couple of months ago I had the great pleasure to hear His
Excellency John Ralston Saul speak in Halifax on the subject of
culture. Mr. Saul is one of Canada's most respected writers and
philosophers. He made the point that culture is one of the three
pillars which provide a nation's strength in its relation to the
world. Culture, trade and security are each as important as the
other.
We are absolutely nothing as a country without our creators and
our culture. That is why I take every opportunity to raise
issues of culture and creation in the House. I am proud to say
that the NDP read poems of Canadian poets from across the country
last month in recognition of national poetry month. We speak out
loudly on behalf of the CBC, our public broadcaster and our
premier public vehicle for giving voice to the unique important
ideas from our regions. We speak out about protection for the
Canadian magazine and book industry so that the creators of
Canadian culture will still be able to find markets and shelf
space for their creations and that Canadians will be able to
feast on them.
That is why I support media concentration legislation, for the
very reason that allowing concentration of the means of
expression in a few private corporate hands limits the numbers of
voices which can speak out.
We need a noisy, raucous, exuberant, diverse and energetic
marketplace of Canadian creations. We need a nightly slot on the
national news, maybe right before the NASDAQ and the other stock
exchanges, informing Canadians about the number of Canadian books
sold, the number of paintings created and the number of Canadians
who saw a Canadian film or play that day. We need some kind of
measurement that will allow us to know the number of Canadians
who invested in Canadian culture that day. Even as I say that, I
want it very clear that I do not see culture as a commodity that
is being traded on the stock exchange.
As Margaret Atwood eloquently states, and we seem to quote her
quite a bit in the New Democratic Party, culture is not a soap
pad. Nor can culture be defined by beer ads, nor by press barons
who live in foreign lands, nor by national sports or Peter
Mansbridge. It is defined by our creators.
If we believe that our creators are important then Motion No.
259, which recognizes the importance of their contribution and
gives them a limited income tax exemption, is a simple and
eloquent response. It is one way of saying that we value their
contributions by giving them special status within one of the
most all encompassing laws in Canada, the Income Tax Act.
This is certainly not a new response to recognizing the
significance of an important activity in our country. Government
often uses tax changes as a means to demonstrate a concrete
expression of support for a specific economic sector.
How much will this change in legislation cost Canadian
taxpayers? It would be no great loss to the federal treasury
since, as I have said, the average income of artists in the
country is $13,000 a year. The motion is not primarily about
money.
Ireland has an absolute exemption for income tax for creators.
The total cost to its treasury is less than 10% of our
expenditure on the Canada Council, a total of less than $14
million or less than 50 cents per Canadian. I do not think the
question is one of money.
I wish to address some of the strange misconceptions about
support to our artists. Not long ago I heard another member of
the House, a member of the Reform Party, proclaim that she did
not believe we needed any support for cultural workers because
Celine Dion and Shania Twain have been so successful. She had the
audacity to say that members were being patronizing to our arts
community by having public policies in place that offered
support. This is clearly illogical. It presumes that all art in
Canada can be judged by commercial success in the international
market.
It suggests that people who create outside the mainstream, which
means less commercial success, are somehow less creative. It
says that standards for success in art is only as a commodity.
1120
History is full of great artists who died in poverty. If we
stuck by the logic of commercial success as the only way to judge
art then we would close our galleries, burn down our museums,
shut the theatres and concert halls, and let the mighty dollar be
our new art form. This mindset dictates that we should only
honour and worship that which can be bought and sold, not that
which can bring joy and sadness, provoke thought and enrich our
soul, not our wallet. This barren view of the world is one which
I trust will be held by a small minority in this place.
Instead I hope members of the House will see the motion as an
important and constructive step in attacking the obstacles thrown
into the way of our creators. I hope they will see it as a small
way of relieving the economic grind facing them, perhaps allowing
them to work in a more concentrated way on their art, perhaps
allowing them to create a book or a play in one year instead of
three or four years. It will give them some small financial
relief, but it will also give them one big boost symbolically in
terms of their importance to the country.
I strongly support the important motion put forward by my
colleague. In it we are saying as a parliament and as a nation
that what creators do is special to us. They provide the mediums
through which the heart and soul of this great nation are
expressed. With the motion we are collectively recognizing this
contribution. We are saying that we support them and that we
thank them.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the motion before us today,
brought forward by the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys, states that the first $30,000 per year earned
by artists, writers and performers be exempt from income tax.
I believe the intent behind the motion is very admirable.
Supporting our remarkable and diverse community of artists such
as poets, writers and visual performers is crucial to maintaining
our identity as a nation. It is absolutely vital that we possess
the necessary tools to safeguard our own culture and to tell our
own stories.
[Translation]
As members know, the government is already devoting considerable
resources to ensuring that our artistic and cultural industries
remain prosperous and healthy, particularly as Canada enters a
new millennium. These important resources are made available
through a number of organizations and institutions and show the
government's commitment to maintaining excellence in the arts.
[English]
I take this opportunity to highlight some of the main
institutions, programs and policies available to help Canadian
artists, writers and performers in pursuing their chosen craft.
For example, the government has implemented a considerable
increase in the financial support for the Canada Council, adding
$25 million to its annual funding starting in 1997-98. A further
$10 million were announced in the budget presented to the House
on February 28, 2000. In 1998-99 the council awarded nearly
5,700 grants for a total of $112 million in direct support for
Canada's artists and artistic organizations.
Our National Film Board is known throughout the world for its
quality reputation. The film board is dedicated to producing and
distributing films, audio-visual and multi-media works which
reflect Canada to Canadians and to the rest of the world. For
over 60 years the film board has played a very significant role
in Canadian and international filmmaking.
The Department of Canadian Heritage also offers a number of
important programs, including the cultural initiatives program
which facilitates the involvement of artists from across Canada
in over 150 national and international arts festivals and special
arts events. Canadian Heritage also operates the national arts
training contribution program, supporting national institutions
that prepare young Canadians for professional careers in the
arts.
1125
Turning our attention to the tax system, I would note that it
too already includes a number of favourable provisions targeted
to Canada's cultural sector. For example, artists may deduct the
cost of creating a work or art in the year in which the costs are
incurred, instead of when the work is ultimately sold. Moreover,
employed artists and musicians are entitled to deduct certain
expenses against their employment income, deductions which are
not available to other employees.
Other important tax provisions for Canadian culture include the
tax credit for Canadian film and video productions, write-offs
for Canadian art purchased by unincorporated businesses,
flexibility in evaluation of charitable gifts from an artist's
inventory, and the capital gains tax exemption on gifts of
cultural property.
Turning to the motion before us today, I once again wish to
applaud the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys
for seeking to provide additional support to our cultural
community. However, I feel that introducing a tax exemption for
income earned by certain individuals such as artists may not be
the most effective tool for achieving this result.
As I have already noted, the tax system recognizes the
circumstances of artists and musicians in a number of ways. These
special provisions ensure that such individuals are not penalized
as a result of various circumstances unique to their professions,
such as the necessity of maintaining valuable musical instruments
or the difficulty in valuing art pieces donated from an artist's
inventory.
However, outside these special cases which the income tax system
already accommodates, it is not clear that artists, writers or
performers have greater needs than other individuals with
comparable incomes. The tax system should as much as possible
treat individuals in similar circumstances in a similar fashion.
Thus, to provide a special tax exemption to an individual simply
because he or she engages in artistic activities would be very
difficult to defend on equity grounds. It would also lead to
requests for similar treatment from other groups that also
believe they are deserving of special status.
[Translation]
As to tax relief, I think that the government's approach of
sustainable general tax relief is the right one. The five year
tax reduction plan adopted by the government ensures real and
significant tax relief for all taxpayers regardless of their
chosen career.
Naturally, artists and writers will benefit from these historic
tax reductions like all other taxpayers.
[English]
In conclusion, it is my view that the motion, well intentioned
though it is, should not receive the support of the House at this
time.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take part in the debate
on Motion No. 259. The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys has his heart in the right place in advocating a
tax break for Canada's creators of culture.
As Canadians we are all indebted to our artists. The Canadian
Alliance believes that all Canadians need tax relief from the
government. We all know that Canadians are still the highest
taxed in the G-7. Tax relief should be broad based and not be
targeted.
I thank the Writers' Union of Canada for its correspondence
regarding the bill. I agree with it that culture is not a
partisan issue and that Canadian artists need a tax break. I
also agree that professional artists are among the lowest paid
workers in Canada.
That same message came out loud and clear during the public
hearings conducted by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
during the winter of 1998. The committee travelled from coast to
coast conducting meetings. Another recommendation that came out
of these meetings was that income averaging be looked at.
1130
Another issue addressed by the writer's union was that income
averaging for artists be implemented so as to alleviate the
unfair tax burdens. I agree that artists should be able to use
income averaging to level the ups and downs from year to year.
It is also interesting that countries like Australia, Germany,
Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece, France, the United Kingdom and
Luxemburg all have some form of income averaging for artists. All
members of this House should lobby the finance minister to
implement this worthwhile option for artists. I would challenge
all members of the House to do so by writing the Minister of
Finance.
The Canadian Alliance has a solution that will not only help our
artistic community but all Canadians. It is called solution 17,
the single rate tax. All taxpayers will pay less. The single
tax rate will have progressive deductions and our top personal
rate will be 17%. In fact the total tax savings would amount to
about $34 billion over five years, as well as paying down our
debt, $10.22 billion over five years.
The advantages of the progressive average tax rate in solution
17 will be that it will first create a single marginal tax rate
of 17%, 26% and 19%. Tax savings will total $17.2 billion. It
will also increase basic personal and spousal credits to $10,000
from $7,131 and $6,055. Hence, the levels of credit will be
protected from inflation once it is phased in. The tax savings
would amount to about $8.3 billion. When we increase the basic
rate, we know that, because the earnings of artists are low, all
artists would be exempt from paying personal income tax until
they make over $10,000 per annum.
Solution 17 would also introduce a $3,000 per year per child tax
deduction to recognize the costs and the value of child rearing.
Tax savings there would amount to about $2.4 billion.
A progressive average tax rate would decrease the EI rates to $2
from $2.40. It would also reduce taxes on employment. Tax
savings would be $2.7 billion.
The single rate would eliminate the 5% surtax which would again
give a tax savings of $762 million to all Canadians. It would
also increase our RRSP and RPP contribution limits to $16,500,
which amounts to about 30% of average income from $13,500, 18% of
income, and allowable foreign content to 100% from 20% over the
five year phase-in. This would improve the ability of middle
income earners to maximize their contributions and better plan
for their retirement. Tax savings would amount to about $600
billion.
Our single rate would also reduce capital gains tax to about 20%
from nearly 40%, encouraging success and risk-taking.
Our single rate reduces the general corporate tax rate to 21%
from 28%, equal to that levied on manufacturing and resource
firms. This would also eliminate discrimination against a new
economy. Tax savings for Canadians would be about $1.89 billion.
There is no doubt that solution 17 would reduce small business
corporate tax rates to 10% from 12%, encouraging the start up of
new firms. The tax savings would be $340 billion.
In summary, these are the main advantages of the single rate tax
plan.
Everyone, including artists, would benefit from tax relief. It
increases the disposable income for all Canadians, removes
discrimination between Canadian families and 1.9 million low
income taxpayers would be removed from the tax roll, of which
many of them are currently artists. There is no doubt that
success and risk-taking would be rewarded.
1135
As I indicated earlier, increasing the base exemption would
amount to $10,000. There is no doubt that artists, certainly
developing artists who make less than $10,000, would not have to
pay taxes on income earned below $10,000. This would remove 1.9
million low income taxpayers from the tax role altogether. This
would be a significant tax break for the working poor and would
also increase disposable income, increase financial freedom,
reduce child poverty and restore dignity by increasing
self-sufficiency and lessening the welfare trap that we seem to
be in today.
It is commendable that the member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys brought this bill to the House. I am sure his
message to all Canadians is that not only artists but all
taxpayers need a tax break from the government's tax policies.
There is no doubt we are in debt. We know how fortunate we are
to live in a country where our artists are very successful not
only in Canada but throughout the world.
Even though the bill is commendable, we in the Canadian Alliance
Party certainly cannot support a $30,000 exemption for artists.
We believe the solution is to give all Canadians broad based tax
relief. Canadians certainly deserve it at this time.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
wish to salute the workers of the entire world, and the working
men and women of Quebec and of Canada, on this May 1,
International Workers Day.
I appreciate the opportunity to be able to debate the motion by
my colleague from the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
Motion No. 259 reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give
consideration to exempting up to $30,000 of income from income
tax as a gesture of support for those artists, writers and
performers who work in Canada's cultural industry.
The objective of this motion by the hon. member for Kamploops,
Thompson and Highland Valley is certainly most praiseworthy. We
in the Bloc Quebecois made the same comment, moreover, in the
dissenting Canadian heritage committee report.
It is true that the financial situation of creative people,
regardless of their level of education, is precarious, indeed
very precarious. We are all aware that, according to Statistics
Canada, 58% of our artists need an income supplement in order to
survive.
Although Motion No. 259 is most praiseworthy, the Bloc Quebecois
will not be able to support it in its present form, for the
following reasons.
We are of the opinion that it is inadequate and liable to lead
the people and the taxpayers of Quebec and of Canada to believe
that there are two classes of people as far as income tax is
concerned.
We also feel that the measure proposed is not targeted
sufficiently, and will be hard to apply. For example, who will
be able to claim the status of artist?
This motion is unfair toward certain other workers who would not
have the opportunity to have an automatic exemption on $30,000
of their income.
1140
Moreover, this motion leads us to believe that this measure will
also benefit the small proportion of artists whose incomes are
very high.
The Bloc Quebecois would be prepared to support this motion if
it were amended to include the following, for example:
harmonization by the federal government of its tax system with
that of the Government of Quebec, which provides that royalty
income of less than $15,000 is not taxable; action by the
government on the recommendation by the Standing Committee on
Finance that income averaging be permitted for cultural workers,
a measure that existed in the 1970s and exists today for
professional athletes; equity for all taxpayers, with an
increase in the level of tax threshold. In Quebec, the tax
threshold is a lot higher than at the federal level.
I would like to give you a few examples. In the case of a two
income couple with two children, the tax threshold for 2000 at
the federal level is $14,392 and in Quebec it is $31,677. In
the case of a single parent with one child, the federal tax
threshold is $14,124, whereas the Quebec threshold is $21,764.
For a senior less than 65 years of age, the federal figure is
$7,464 and the Quebec one is $10,884.
By adjusting its tax threshold to that of the Government of
Quebec, the federal government would promote a situation that
would benefit artists and all of the people of Quebec and
Canada.
I invite my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys to amend his motion in the way I have set out, and the
Bloc Quebecois will be proud to support it.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure today that I rise to speak to Motion No. 259, a
votable motion put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops,
Thompson and Highland Valleys.
It is very important to recognize, going back to Pericles and
ancient Athens, that civilized societies have always supported
the arts and culture. It is a tradition that has been valued
throughout history. We should seek to maintain and improve this
with policies, not specifically tax policies, but policies that
support and encourage culture and the development of the arts in
Canada, which has had a long and diverse history.
As an Atlantic Canadian from Nova Scotia, one of the most
culturally diverse and productive regions of the country, we
value a tradition of excellence. In fact there are economic
opportunities for all Canadians in recognizing and harnessing the
power of the arts and culture community, whether it is the
Lion King in Toronto, or musicians like the Rankin Family
in Atlantic Canada who started from very humble means and have
done extremely well, to artists who have reached international
acclaim, like Dr. Alex Colville who is a resident of my riding.
These types of success stories are worthy of recognition.
However, we have to do more to help artists when they are
starting off.
1145
This legislation is very sound from the perspective of the hon.
member's desire to help. However there are some difficulties in
its implementation and I would like to point out a couple of
them.
It is very nebulous in terms of describing who qualifies and how
the term “artist” fits a specific individual and whether or not
that can be defined and the definition defended effectively.
Also, the hon. member points out the financial roller coaster
artists are on. An artist may go for several years without
payment and then receive a lump sum payment recognizing
contributions made over a period of time. The best way to
address that would be through income averaging. This would also
address other people who are similarly predisposed through the
nature of their business to receive a lump sum payment in
recognition of work completed over a period of several years.
Income averaging would be the best way to address that.
The average income of an artist in Canada is currently estimated
at about $13,000. The issue raised by the hon. member can be
addressed in a more broad based way by significantly raising the
basic personal exemption for all Canadians. The Progressive
Conservative task force which reported in January recommended an
increase to $12,000. This would help significantly. That being
the case, we should move over a period of time to raise the basic
personal exemption higher.
The hon. member also recognizes that tax relief can play a very
important role in helping artists pursue their chosen field and
that of culture and art and keeping them in Canada. That is
important because it indicates that he also recognizes the
importance of lowering taxes for all Canadians to ensure that
Canadians regardless of their career or life pursuits can choose
to stay and prosper here in Canada. Whether it is in dot-com,
e-commerce, biotech or traditional industries, Canadians can have
a future right here.
The hon. member has demonstrated clearly that he recognizes the
important role that tax policy plays in encouraging or
discouraging pursuits of particular activities. I think in that
vein he would agree with me, that we should continue to be
vigilant in ensuring that the tax burdens of Canadians are not
excessive when compared to those in other countries.
Clearly whether Canadians wish to pursue careers in the arts,
the new economy or the traditional economy, we want them to be
free to do so right here in Canada. I am sure he would share
with me the need to reduce taxes for all Canadians based on his
basic premise that decreasing taxes can help encourage people,
this case artists, to pursue and maintain a certain level of
activity.
The issue of capital gains taxes needs to be addressed as well.
In Canada we currently tax at 50% of the regular inclusion rate
for donations of publicly traded or listed securities to
charitable foundations or institutions. Whether it is a
hospital, a university, an endowment fund or a cultural activity
we tax 50% of capital gains. Inclusion rates are taxed in Canada
for donations of publicly traded or listed securities. In the
U.S. there is absolutely no capital gains taxes on contributions
of listed securities.
That has led over the years to a significant disadvantage for
Canadian universities, Canadian hospitals and the Canadian arts
community. It has created a disincentive for high net worth
Canadians to contribute listed shares of publicly traded
companies to the cultural and health foundations and
universities.
1150
I propose what we proposed at the time of the prebudget report.
The Progressive Conservative dissenting report recommended the
elimination of capital gains tax on gifts of listed securities.
That would go a long way to encourage high net worth individuals
in Canada and Canadians of relatively modest means who may have
done very well in equity investing in recent years to help foster
a greater environment for cultural activities in Canada. That is
one way this could be addressed.
I would also be interested in exploring the examples of other
countries relative to special tax exemptions for those engaged in
the arts. Some special tax treatment is available to those in
the arts in Ireland. We heard earlier today of the tax treatment
of artists in the province of Quebec. It would be interesting to
note the success of that over a period of time.
By and large there is only one party in the House of Commons
that consistently opposes any support for the arts in Canada. I
expect it would probably kick out a member of its caucus if it
were discovered he or she had gone to live theatre. It is
important that there be an almost all party commitment to the
arts and cultural community in the House of Commons.
While I may disagree with the particular vehicle set forth by
the hon. member to help create a better environment for culture
and artistic diversity in Canada, I can assure him that the
Progressive Conservative Party remains committed to work with
altruistically oriented parties in the House. We must seek
better ways to support and encourage the arts and all types of
creative endeavours for Canadians whether they be involved in
graphic arts, the dot-com universe, weaving, painting, dancing or
play writing. One of the things that defines us as Canadians is
our unique cultural vibrancy from coast to coast to coast and
which we shall continue to have with the proper support and
encouragement of all Canadians.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise with great pleasure in
this valuable debate in Canada's history. I thank my hon.
colleague from Kamloops for bringing this debate to the
forefront. As he mentioned, this is the third largest industry
in Canada and one that defines us as Canadians around the world.
There is a reason Canada is rated the number one country in the
world in which to live. When people in other nations around the
world have been asked if they had to live somewhere else where it
would be, unanimously over the last five years Canada has been
the answer.
The member for Dauphin—Swan River said that his party has a 17%
solution to all the tax problems in Canada. There is one problem
he forgets to tell Canadians which I wish he and his party would
start telling Canadians about in more realistic terms. I agree
with the member, his party and other parties that we should be
looking at tax reform for all sectors of our society.
However, the member forgets to mention the greatest avenue in
Canada for many artists from all mediums to bring their issues
and ideas to the forefront. It is through what I consider to be
one of the greatest things this country has, CBC television and
radio. His party proposes to get rid of the CBC. In our debates
in 1997 the person who ran against me specifically said that that
party's priority would be to privatize and eliminate the CBC.
Once that is found out by Canadians, they will look seriously at
what the Canadian Alliance really means by its 17% solution.
1155
If the government is looking for any avenues of advice, it can
look at what is done in Quebec. In the Quebec version of the
copyright income deduction, individuals can deduct the first
$20,000 net income earned from material for which they hold the
first copyright. The next $10,000 net income is also partly
deductible.
The provision applies to all writers, artists, filmmakers,
musicians, performers and anyone who produces copyrighted
material that generates income. Since copyright is clearly
defined through the Copyright Act, such a provision is very easy
to administer. There can be no argument as to who the first
copyright holder is. It is the creator, exactly the person we
must encourage throughout our country.
The copyright income deduction requires almost no calculation
and fits easily within the existing framework of the income tax
form. There are many precedents already on the form, such as the
deduction for employment income earned outside Canada or the
deduction for employees of certain international organizations,
such as the United Nations.
The member for Dauphin—Swan River mentioned that many countries
in Europe give generous allowances to their cultural communities.
May I add that most of them are social democrat countries. This
shows once again that social democrats in the House of Commons
and throughout the country take culture very seriously.
A few years ago one of the greatest Canadians in the history of
our country, Stompin' Tom Connors from Skinners Pond, P.E.I. said
“Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, there are a million
Canadian stories out there that need to be told”. The question
is, does the government have the political will to get those
stories out into the forefront? He was a starving artist. He
starved literally. He travelled the back roads and brought great
songs to Canada, such as “Hockey Night”, who could ever forget
that one, and “Sudbury Saturday Night”. I cannot think of one
member of parliament who could not name a couple of his songs.
Stompin' Tom Connors is what starving artists strive to be, to
bring our country together from coast to coast to coast.
One of my favourite artists of all time was the incomparable
late Stan Rogers. His stories not only of Nova Scotia but of the
entire country were brought to the forefront on stage by his
band, his brother Garnet and their guitars. Their music brought
out the essence of what it is like to be a fisherman, a farmer, a
miner, a woman, a young person, a player in sports. Stan Rogers
brought to the forefront what it is to be Canadian in French and English
Canada as well as in our aboriginal communities.
I have heard many times in the House of Commons and in other
areas that the country is based on two founding cultures: French
and English. I remind the House one more time that the country
is actually based on three founding cultures: the aboriginal
community, our francophone community and our anglophone
community. Three cultures define and have founded this great
country of ours, not two.
Margaret Atwood was quoted earlier as saying that it is really
the artist who subsidizes the nation and many other businesses.
How many times have we used aboriginal art and culture for our
own means to an end for profit making? It is a disgrace how we
treat our aboriginal people when it comes to their arts and
culture. I cannot help but notice in the last few years that
aboriginal culture throughout the country has started to expand.
Many people around the world come to Canada for that very reason.
I cannot help but think that after careful consideration members
throughout the House, especially the member for Parkdale who is
smiling back there, will say that this is a great initiative. I
am sure she will support the party and get the rest of the
Liberal Party to understand the importance of this initiative to
our artistic community.
The other day I was at the Twin Oaks Memorial Hospital
fundraiser at the Petpeswick Yacht Club. This absolutely
outstanding event raised a lot of money for the Alzheimer's
society. The five best items for sale were original watercolours
by local artisans. I want to thank those artisans in Musquodoboit
Harbour, West Petpeswick and the entire area of the Eastern Shore
and the riding I represent very much for donating their time and
genius to this very worthy cause.
1200
If the people of my area understand quality art when they see it
in its original form, imagine what the rest of the country must
have in areas such as British Columbia, Yukon, Ontario, Quebec,
the prairies and Newfoundland, for example, where the culture
comes out of everyone's pores. It is absolutely fabulous.
I cannot help but notice that one of the greatest cultural icons
in the country, Mr. Greg Malone, has now dedicated his time to
run for the New Democratic Party in the riding of St. John's
West. He is bringing culture to the forefront and showing
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians how proud they can be of their
culture. They do not have to move away for a job. They do not
have to move away to other parts of the country, which might not
be as receptive as their own communities, homes and families.
If we can initiate this kind of action, then we would have more
success stories like the Rankins, the Barra MacNeils and all
those beautiful musical bands and the Natalie McMasters of the
world who do tremendous work bringing forward Celtic music and
the Cape Breton tradition, the Nova Scotian tradition and the
maritime tradition right across the country. It is absolutely
fabulous.
I want to give a final plug for a couple of artisans in my
riding. Brenda Huddinott does wonderful prints and pictures.
Lily Snow does great work in photography. Brenda Anderson, from
Eastern Passage, does absolutely wonderful work in watercolours
and acrylics. My wife does wonderful artwork herself, along with
our neighbours. They get together once in a while to do
wonderful watercolours. They do not do it for profit. They do
it because of their love for culture, their environment. This is
the type of nurturing that needs to grow.
Is there a kindergarten class that does not experiment with
fingerpainting? We would love those five and six year olds right
across the country to expand their ideas to enliven all of us.
Many times we can learn from children and artisans, regardless of
the medium.
After careful deliberation, I know that this hallowed House of
Commons and all the provincial houses across the land will
carefully consider this very important bill and move it quickly
through the House so that we can give our artists from coast to
coast to coast the opportunity they need to expand, to reside in
their own communities and to nurture them so that we can grow in
the 21st century.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-31, an act respecting immigration to
Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are
displaced, persecuted or in danger, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present Bill C-31, the
immigration and refugee protection act, to the House for second
reading. This bill is the product of extensive and substantial
consultations. It follows on a series of government commitments
to modernize Canada's immigration and refugee protection systems
to better enable us to meet the challenges and take advantage of
the opportunities that the new century holds for our country.
Bill C-31 is a tough bill, but here I want to be quite clear.
It is tough on criminal abuse of our immigration and refugee
protection systems, but not on the great majority, like those
immigrants and refugees who built this country and who will
continue to do so in the years ahead.
This bill creates severe new penalties for people smuggling and
those caught trafficking in humans. Fines of up to $1 million
and sentences of up to life imprisonment are included in this
bill.
1205
It will also allow our courts to order the forfeiture of money
and other property seized by the traffickers. It will clarify
our existing grounds for detention to make exclusive provisions
for those whom we have reason to believe have arrived in Canada
as part of a criminally organized smuggling or trafficking
operation.
Bill C-31 also clarifies the criteria for inadmissibility to
Canada. It will provide immigration officers with the tools they
need to see that serious criminals, terrorists, threats to
national security, violators of human rights, participants in
organized crime, and members of terrorist organizations are
barred entry to Canada.
Criminal abuse of the refugee system will be countered with
front-end security screening of all claimants, fewer appeals for
serious criminals, and suspension of claims for those charged
with crimes until the courts have rendered a decision.
Bill C-31 will also streamline the assessment of claims.
Referrals to the Immigration and Refugee Board will proceed
within 72 hours of a claim being made, rather than the current
timeframe of one to six months.
By consolidating several current steps and protection criteria
into a single decision at the Immigration and Refugee Board, and
moreover by combining increased use of single member panels at
the board with an internal paper appeal on merit, we will see
faster but fair decisions on refugee claims.
In consolidating grounds for protection at the IRB, Bill C-31
will maintain due process and fair hearings for all claimants
while providing fewer opportunities for protracted judicial
reviews.
Contrary to certain uninformed reports, Bill C-31 does not
expand the current grounds for protection. It simply
consolidates several current protection criteria and
corresponding protection decisions into a single step. Grounds
for protection will remain the same as is currently the case, in
accordance with Canada's international obligations and our
humanitarian traditions.
Bill C-31 also strengthens our ability to manage repeat claims
by barring access to the IRB to those who return to Canada within
a year of their removal after a failed claim. These people will
be entitled to seek protection at any of our missions outside
Canada. If after one year they return to Canada seeking
protection, they will be given a pre-removal risk assessment to
determine whether circumstances relevant to their previous claims
have changed, but they will not be granted a new claim at the
Immigration and Refugee Board.
With these steps, Bill C-31 will prevent the revolving door
syndrome which has become associated with repeat claims.
Bill C-31 will also strengthen the integrity of our immigration
system. It will tighten up sponsorship provisions to ensure that
those who sponsor new immigrants are both able and willing to
meet the financial obligations they undertake.
In particular, Bill C-31 will deny sponsorship to those in
default on spousal or child support payments and to those on
social assistance.
Bill C-31 will also establish a new inadmissibility class for
those who commit fraud or misrepresentation on immigration
applications, and it will create a new offence for those caught
assisting someone to gain status in Canada through fraud or
misrepresentation.
To maintain immigration status in Canada, permanent residents
will be required to demonstrate a reasonable attachment to our
country. Bill C-31 will require physical presence in Canada for
at least two of every five years for new immigrants to maintain
their permanent resident status.
These changes are important ones for a very simple reason. It
is about respect. In all of my many discussions with individuals
and organizations across the country, I can assure the House that
this is the point which has been made abundantly clear.
Canadians want a system based on respect, both for our laws and
for our traditional openness to new immigrants, to newcomers.
That is why Bill C-31 is also drafted to improve our ability to
attract more skilled workers, speed up family reunification and
honour Canada's proud humanitarian tradition of offering safe
haven to those truly in need of our protection.
1210
Let me take a moment to outline the key provisions that will
apply to each of these areas.
Bill C-31 will modernize our selection system for skilled
workers in order to see that Canadian employers have easier
access to the best and the brightest from around the world. At
present, an occupation-based model is used to select skilled
immigrants, with points awarded for training and experience tied
to a specific occupation. Under the new system immigrants will
be selected for their adaptability, their level of education and
training, their language skills and their general level of
employability.
In today's rapidly evolving labour market we need people who are
best able to adapt to the new occupations as the needs of our
labour market shift over time. These are people who will thrive,
contribute and prosper, and who will contribute to our prosperity
in the emerging knowledge based economy.
Bill C-31 will also provide easier access to highly skilled
temporary foreign workers so that Canadian businesses can stay
competitive and seize every opportunity for expansion. Many
skilled workers who come to Canada on a temporary basis are
subsequently offered permanent positions. Bill C-31 will allow
these workers to apply for landing from within Canada under
certain conditions, just as it will allow foreign students who
have graduated and worked in Canada and who have an open-ended
job offer to apply to stay as well.
Bill C-31 also recognizes that family reunification has always
been a cornerstone of Canada's immigration policy. Canadians
know that new arrivals establish themselves more quickly in
Canada when they have the support of their extended families.
Bill C-31 and its supporting regulations will allow spouses and
dependent children to apply for landing from within Canada
provided that they are here legally and that they meet
appropriate admissibility provisions. The bill will shorten the
period during which sponsors and sponsorship provisions apply to
spouses from ten years to three. It will eliminate the bar on
admission for sponsored spouses and dependent children who may be
considered to impose excessive demands on health and social
services. The bill will extend the definition of dependent child
to include unmarried children under the age of 22. It will also
include common law and same sex partners in keeping with the
recent legislation passed in the House.
Bill C-31 will also strengthen Canada's selection and
resettlement of refugees overseas. Selection will proceed so
that protection considerations will take precedence over capacity
to settle in Canada. Family units will be kept together wherever
possible. Those in urgent need of protection will be attended to
and helped as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Our work
with refugee settlement groups overseas will be enhanced and
expanded and refugees in genuine need of protection will no
longer be barred owing to concerns about their potential demand
or need for health care.
I have made it clear on many occasions that I want to see
Canada's immigration levels increased. With our aging
population, our declining birth rates and with skilled shortages
in key sectors, we need to step up our efforts to bring the
world's best and brightest to Canada and to see that all regions
of Canada benefit from the prosperity that immigrants bring.
This is precisely the point of Bill C-31.
Closing the back door to those who would abuse our system will
allow us to open the front door more widely, both to genuine
refugees and to the immigrants Canada will need to grow and
prosper in the future. That is the dual mandate of my department
and that is the balanced approach to immigration and refugee
protection policy that Canadians want and need to guide us well
into the new century.
Since the initial passage of the current immigration act in
1976, the world has changed dramatically. More than ever before
people are on the move, for trade, tourism, investment and
education, to develop their skills, to share their knowledge and
to pursue their dreams.
1215
Canada has been an enormous beneficiary of this global movement
of people. Immigration is a continuing source of our social,
economic and cultural richness. We celebrate diversity.
Administrative changes are under way in my department to provide
overdue support to key offices at home and abroad in our efforts
to improve client service, reduce backlogs, minimize litigation
and confront every and any grievance or allegation of malfeasance
quickly and fairly.
New funding for my department announced in the recent federal
budget will provide for strengthened overseas interdiction, more
immigration officers at our ports of entry, better medical and
security screening of applicants, and an improved capacity for
the timely removal of inadmissible persons from Canada.
These steps, the new funding, and above all the swift passage of
Bill C-31 into law, will allow us to modernize our immigration
and refugee protection system and enable Canada to both meet the
challenges and take the opportunities that lie ahead. We want to
take advantage of those opportunities.
The bill is the result of extensive consultations with
Canadians, provincial and territorial ministers and officials,
and countless non-governmental organizations. I assure the House
that regulations in support of Bill C-31 will be developed in an
equally open and consultative manner that will give members of
the House, key immigration stakeholders and individual Canadians
ample opportunity to express their views.
Issues of immigration and refugee protection are very important
to the country. They represent many of the core values that we
share. An open and transparent regulatory process will ensure
that Canadians support and understand the new rules.
I also assure the House that Bill C-31 recognizes that
immigration is an area of jurisdiction which the federal and
provincial governments share. The bill commits the government to
continue consulting and working with the provinces in these
important matters.
The government is committed to the social union framework
agreement and recognizes that immigration impacts on areas of
provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education and social
services. Immigration also brings enormous social, cultural and
economic benefits to Canada and to its provinces and territories,
benefits that must be weighed against any short term costs.
Indeed, this is one of the reasons so many provinces are
currently looking to attract more immigrants. I am working very
closely with those provinces.
Immigrants and refugees built the country. Under the new
provisions of Bill C-31 immigrants and refugees will continue to
do so for many years to come. This is an important piece of
legislation. I hope it will receive the support of all members
of the House, and I am proud to move adoption at second reading
of Bill C-31.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-31, the new
immigration and refugee protection act.
The minister in her brief comments pointed out some of the
things that are in the act. I want to talk a bit about what is
in the act. Today is second reading debate. We like to talk
about legislation in very general ways at second reading debate.
My comments will be general by and large, but I will point to
specifics in the act to reinforce some of the things I say.
Today I will talk about what Canada's immigration act should
deliver. It is important to think about that as a starting point
before we get into discussion on what is and is not in the new
immigration act.
Second, I will comment on the minister's talk on the act and how
it actually relates to what is in the act. That is important
because the minister made some statements that make it sound like
she has dealt with the problem of people smuggling and illegal
immigration in a tough way, which is what Canadians want to hear.
Does the act deliver? That is the question I want to talk a bit
about today.
1220
The minister said as well that the act would close the back door
to those who are not wanted and who would abuse the system. At
the same time it would allow Canada to open the front door, as
the minister puts it, to immigrants who will benefit the country.
Those are good sentiments which the minister has expressed. I
will throughout my presentation today talk about whether or not
the legislation delivers that.
As well I want to talk about, again in a general way, what has
been improved and what is positive in the bill. I will start by
talking about what is positive in terms of the minister's message
because a lot of what is out there is the minister's message
rather than what is in the bill. I will talk about that because
I think it is encouraging that her message has changed. In fact,
it sounds a lot like the message that the Canadian Alliance Party
has been presenting for some time now. That has to be
encouraging, but will the act deliver? That is the question.
I will talk also about some particular sections in the act which
are good. Will these changes which are positive really lead to a
better immigration policy? That is the bottom line. If the
changes will not improve the system they are not of much benefit.
Even if they are in the legislation and things do not change to
allow their application to improve things, what has been gained?
I will talk about that today as well.
I will also talk about some things that are clearly negative in
the act and things which I think are so negative in some cases
that we cannot expect a lot of improvement in most areas of the
act. I will get to that.
I want to talk about what the immigration act should deliver.
The immigration act is made up of three separate streams. The
first stream is economic immigrants, people who are chosen to
come to Canada because they should benefit our economy quite
quickly. In the economic stream there are several different
categories. For example, there is the investor class, the
entrepreneur class, and several other classes in which people are
chosen for their special skills and education. That is a very
positive part of the immigration act. The focus on that clearly
must be the improvement of the immigration system. That is the
first stream, the independent stream.
When we look at the number of people who are actually chosen
under the independent stream based on their judged ability to
positively affect our economy, unfortunately we find that only
15% of all people immigrating to Canada fall into that category.
Statistics on the economic immigrant stream are much higher
because included in the statistics are dependants and others
brought in under the independent stream who are never judged,
even though they may qualify, based on the potential to add to
the economy very quickly. That is the first stream.
The second stream is the refugee stream. Refugees are to be
chosen not based on what they will add to our country or what
they will add to the economy but supposedly based on their need
for protection. Canadians welcome genuine refugees. From what I
have heard across the country over the past year and a half since
I have become the immigration critic, Canadians are quite happy
and quite proud to be able to accept people in need of
protection, genuine refugees.
1225
The concern about the refugee system is that many people who
enter the country as refugees are not genuine refugees. The
minister talks about that in her presentation, but the question
is what has been done about it. I will get into that as I go
along.
Canadians are quite happy to accept the current number of
approximately 23,000 refugees. I have not heard a great many
people express concern about those numbers. I think we should
have some discussion across the country about what is an
appropriate number of refugees. I think debate on the
immigration system is necessary and I hope the legislation will
provide that. That is the second stream, the refugee stream.
The third stream in our immigration system is the family
reunification stream, the families of people who qualify under
the economic category and the families of those who come as
refugees under the family reunification stream. Some different
rules apply but basically it is the same process.
The idea is to reunite dependants, including dependent children
and the spouse of the individual who has been accepted as a
refugee or as an independent immigrant, to allow for family
reunification of these people. It is certainly clear that our
system does not do a good job of that right now.
If we were to ask any member of parliament in the House how well
our system is working in that third stream of reuniting families,
I think we would find they would say it is not working well at
all. Every one of us has in our constituency people who have
come to us looking for help in reuniting their families, often
families that have been kept apart for three to five years or
more in some cases. The system is badly broken and the question
as I present my debate today will be whether this new act helps
to solve that problem. Those are the three streams.
I will examine the act based on how well the system works to
accept independent immigrants, to accept genuine refugees while
keeping out people who are not refugees and people who may harm
our country, people who are a threat to national security. There
has been a lot of talk about that lately. In her presentation
the minister talked about from her point of view what she thinks
the act has done in that regard. My point of view is slightly
different, but I will talk about that.
It has been an interesting process watching the minister and
listening to what she said since the new bill was tabled in
response to the leaked draft of the act which I received over a
month before Bill C-31 was tabled in the House. There was much
debate about the act long before the bill was officially tabled.
Many of the minister's statements reflect what Canadians feel
and what Canadians want on the issue. If what the minister says
the legislation will do and if what the minister says is in the
new legislation is accurate, it can be nothing but positive in
terms of the particular areas that are reflective of what
Canadians want.
As I go through my presentation today I think Canadians will see
that what the minister says and what is actually delivered in
Bill C-31, the new immigration act, are not the same at all. I
will talk about that in a few minutes, but before I get to it I
would talk in a general way about what is in the act.
The new immigration act deals with the non-administrative
aspects of immigration. I am not talking now about how
effectively it deals with that. It provides legislation but it
does not talk about the administration of the act. It talks
about the selection of immigrants, and I will talk about what it
does and does not say in that regard. It talks about who is
admissible and who is inadmissible to Canada. It talks about
the enforcement of the law to some extent.
It talks about detention and release of people who come to Canada
claiming refugee status or coming under some other category. It
talks about appeals. It talks about refugee protection. It
talks about the IRB, the new division and the reworking of the
Immigration Refugee Board. It talks about immigration offences,
probably in a way that is easier to understand than the current
act does. It also talks about other technical matters.
1230
It does encompass many different areas but let us have a look at
what is provided in the bill, which is, I think, a key to this
whole thing. Let us look at the independent categories. What is
an immigration system about? More than anything else, an
immigration system should allow Canada to choose people who will
benefit our country as much as possible. I have no doubt that
immigration has been a very positive influence in this country
generally.
I come from east-central Alberta and over the last century it
has been immigrants who have developed the area to make it a very
prosperous part of Canada. If we looked at any part of the
country we would see that it has been immigration which has
developed and built the country into one that provides us with a
good standard of living. That is important.
What was the purpose of immigration in my area of east-central
Alberta? How were immigrants chosen and what process took place?
I would suggest that several times in Canada's history our
immigration system has been well focused and the people
administering the system knew what type of people we needed and
wanted in our country. That was one of the times I believe when
the immigration department was very effective in attracting
people who could develop the agricultural areas of western
Canada.
The Lakeland constituency that I represent, which is east of
Edmonton over to the Saskatchewan-Alberta border, is an
agricultural area, and immigrants in different flushes, we could
say, have come and developed the area. The British people were
the first immigrants to begin farming in our area. Small groups
of Ukrainian and German settlers and small groups from the
Scandinavian countries also developed the country. As time went
on, throughout the early part of the last century, large numbers
of Ukrainians, Germans and others settled down and develop
agriculture in that part of the country and made it a very
prosperous part of the country generally speaking.
We all know that things are not always good for agriculture.
Right now things are not very good in the grain farming sector
but if we look at the long run it has been a very prosperous
business thanks to immigrants. I know every member of parliament
could talk about their constituencies and about immigrants who
have come to their part of the country and have built Canada into
a country for which we can all be proud. That is what should
happen and what has happened in the past. The question is, will
this bill allow that to happen again?
Not many would argue, including the minister herself, that the
system is not working well in terms of helping and choosing
people who will add to our economy very quickly. A large number
of people who do come under the independent categories are very
successful but it is not because the system is accommodating
them. I would suggest that there are large numbers of people who
would add to our economy very quickly but they are just not
allowed to come to Canada. They usually give up after a couple
of years of trying and go to another country. They have choices
now. Canada is not the only choice. Our system has failed us in
that regard.
1235
I will now talk about some of the positive changes that I see in
Bill C-31. Throughout our time in parliament we in the official
opposition have been very careful to not only oppose and
criticize legislation but to offer what we believe are positive
alternatives to what is being proposed. This is important
because if we only dwell on the negative I do not think people
across the country would see that as what they want. They want
the opposition, particularly the official opposition, to talk
about what is working as well as what is not working and what is
good in the proposed changes as well as what is not.
A positive thing about the new immigration act is that it is
written in much simpler language than the current act. It is
also much easier to read and thinner than the current act, which
is a hodgepodge. The current act was originally designed in
1975. Many changes have been made since 1975, with some very
substantive changes in 1989 with the development of the IRB. Some
major changes were made in early 1993 to that enacting
legislation in 1989. Substantive changes have been made
throughout the past 25 years so the current act is not really the
1975 act.
Unfortunately, the changes have not worked very well. I would
suggest that our immigration system really does not work as well
now as it did back in the 1950s and 1960s. I do not think many
people in the House would argue with that, including the minister
herself. I am sure that is why she has tabled new legislation.
Unfortunately, there are some negative aspects to the bill being
much thinner. One of the key negative aspects is the number of
different areas that have been left to regulation.
The legislation is extremely vague on the independent
categories, the whole positive side of immigration. I do
understand that many refugees add to our economy quickly, but
they are not chosen or I think they are not chosen for that
reason. Currently, refugees are chosen based on their expected
ability to adapt to life in Canada. Generally speaking, the
refugee system is meant to provide refuge for people who need it.
Let us look at the whole independent category, which is really
the backbone of our immigration system. How much deals with that
in Bill C-31? Would it be a third of the act? Would it be half
the act because it is an extremely positive side of immigration?
No. Two short paragraphs in this entire act deals with the
independent categories, or the economic categories which is the
term used by the government and the immigration industry. The
rest is left to regulation. That is one example of why the act
is so thin.
However, looking at the positive side, it is easier to read and
has been organized much better but there are a lot of holes in
the legislation.
Because of the amount in this new act that has been left to
regulation, the government is really asking us to take a blank
cheque, sign it, say that we approve of it and allow the
department officials and the minister to fill in the blanks
later.
That is completely unacceptable. On the one hand, the bill is
easier to read and it is shorter, but the reasons for it being
shorter are not very positive.
1240
We applaud the government for cutting out the right of appeal to
the IRB's appeal division for serious criminals. Many people in
the country, including many people who work in the immigration
system with refugees, have complained that people who are clearly
identified as serious criminals are allowed an endless stream of
appeals. There is at least one level of appeal in the act that
is cut out for serious criminals, although I would suggest that
all the levels that are added for most applicants and most
refugee claimants will slow the process down.
The next positive thing in the act is that Canada will for the
first time have a definition for people trafficking. It has
never really been defined in the past. It is good to see that
clause 111 actually defines what people trafficking is. We have
heard the terms “people smuggling” and “people trafficking”.
We often use them interchangeably but there are definitions that
are pretty widely accepted by countries around the world. Much
of that definition will still be determined by the regulation
which will be added later.
When it comes to regulation, it is unacceptable to leave so much
to regulation that when we examine a new piece of legislation to
determine what it does or does not say we really cannot determine
with any kind of certainty what is really in the act because so
much is left to regulation. That the definition is there is a
positive. However, we will not know how positive it is until we
see what exactly the regulation will mean and how helpful it will
be in terms of dealing with the system.
Another positive feature is clause 114 which will, we hope, give
the courts clear direction in the prosecution of people
traffickers by listing aggravating factors. In other words,
there is a list of things which, if they apply, will determine
how tough the penalty will be, how long the sentence will be, how
big the fine will be and those kinds of things. This is
important, somewhat helpful and does improve on the current act,
but I would suggest there should be much more in the legislation
itself than there is. It is a positive move but it unfortunately
only goes part way.
We do not always agree with the direction in which the
government is going as our philosophies are quite different on
most issues. However, for the first time in a long time in the
House of Commons, it is good to have clearly different
philosophies as to how the country should be run and in what
direction it should go.
I believe that for the first time in the next federal election
we will see an election that is based on the philosophical
differences of two parties. I have no problem with the Liberals.
They have a majority government and it is fair that their
philosophies show up in legislation. However, the problem is
that there is so little actually defined in the legislation.
While they go part way, which they often do, they really do not
go far enough to clearly define what they want.
It concerns me and the members of the Canadian Alliance when we
see the government laying out a little more detail but we still
really do not know where it will end up until we see the
regulations. That is a problem throughout the bill, as members
may have guessed. I will talk about this in a more comprehensive
way later because I think it is a key issue.
1245
Another positive I want to mention is that the provision to go
to one member panels in the IRB should allow the IRB to handle
more cases, at least in the first round of appeals, and that is
good. It is fine to have a one member panel as long as there is
some reasonable way to appeal if a decision is in question. The
appeal does not necessarily have to be an appeal to the courts.
I would argue that what we should have in our system is an
initial hearing, an appeal right at the IRB, by a very
experienced, well trained individual or panel. In some cases I
think we would want a panel of two or three persons to hear an
appeal. My concern is that this is already in the system to some
extent, but appeals to the federal court and to the judiciary are
still allowed. This results in even more appeals than in the
past. If the one member panel is put in place, that should speed
up the process. Then we would have the second level of appeal to
the IRB, which would slow it down quite dramatically, but there
would still be the appeals to the courts.
While this is positive when put together with everything else
contained in the act, it really will not help very much.
Unfortunately, even the positive moves in the bill really will
not do a lot to help make things work better. As we see the
debate progress throughout the day, I think that some of the
reasons for that will become clear.
There are some changes which are clearly negative. I have
already talked about the first one, one of the key ones, quite a
bit already, but I think it is something that has to be talked
about more. I am referring to the fact that there is so much in
this legislation that is left to regulation.
I have already used the example of the independent categories.
There are only two short paragraphs in the whole bill defining
who should be included and how the system will work. That is not
enough to bring to the House of Commons, expecting our support
for the legislation. I would hope that Liberal members would not
support it without more detail and more of the basic principles
that are to be applied being included in the legislation. Too
much is left to regulation.
Landings have been returned to our system. In other words,
people already in Canada could apply from within for landed
status. I think in some cases this would be positive and would
make sense.
For example, let us look at foreign students who have studied in
Canada, who have done very well and who have a degree or degrees
in a certain area or some very high level of expertise in a
technological area. These students have studied in Canada and
have adapted to life in Canada, and maybe, to some extent, the
workplace. At the present time they have to leave the country to
apply for landing. They may never come back. That is not the
intent. The intent of these foreign students is to return to
their country of origin, in many cases to help that country move
ahead.
Immigration in Canada should benefit Canada. What we want to do
is attract the very best of these students and encourage them to
stay. By allowing them to apply for landed status from within
Canada is positive. This may result in having more of the very
best of the foreign students decide to stay because they can
apply for landing from within the country. That is to be
applauded.
The whole idea of generally accepting far more people within
Canada is a real concern. This is something that happened in the
past which proved to be disastrous. People who clearly did not
qualify applied, resulting in a continually building number of
people in the country with no status.
1250
What happened in the past was that we had general amnesty for
tens of thousands of people because the system could not handle
the growing numbers. What governments have done on at least a
couple of occasions in the past 30 years was to provide a general
amnesty, whereby anyone who was here under certain circumstances
was allowed to stay.
Our system is accepting people who have not been screened. They
have not really been chosen based on their ability to add to the
country. They are still waiting for that to happen, but the
backlog has become so large that we have had these general
amnesties. From what I have heard from people who have been in
the system, general amnesties have caused a lot of problems.
I believe that is a concern. Clearly in certain areas it is a
good thing, but overall it will not work. It has been
demonstrated that it will not work. It is important that we do
not allow that to find its way into legislation. I hope the
government will see that it will not work.
Along the same line is the dual intent clause, which states that
a person may be granted a visitor's visa when that person clearly
plans to immigrate to Canada, which is not allowed under the
current system. It would cause the same kind of problem. We
would have people coming as visitors and then saying “We are
applying for landed status. We want to immigrate”, and they
will stay here throughout the process.
Of course the process already has a terrific backlog. Under the
independent categories people can expect an average wait of two
years. Many times, if the wait becomes too long, people give up.
But in the meantime what we will find are either continual
extensions of visitor visas or people with no status in our
country. That number will build and build until we will end up
with an even longer backlog in the system, leading to a complete
state of collapse. I would suggest that we are almost there with
the current system and that this new immigration act will not fix
the problem in general. Those are some of the negatives.
The regulations are very important. We have to have a lot of
what has been left to regulation put in legislation so that all
Canadians, when they are giving advice to their members of
parliament on what they want in the immigration act, know what is
being proposed, because it is in legislation.
Another underlying change has been made which will cause a
general breakdown of the immigration system, and that is the
implementation of the Singh decision. The Singh decision was a
supreme court decision of 1985 which stated, I believe, that
people who are in Canada are entitled to a hearing and an appeal
before they are deported if they are applying to immigrate.
Governments, the previous Conservative government and now the
Liberal government, have taken the interpretation of the Singh
decision and broadened it very substantially. They say that the
Singh decision means that everyone, even non-citizens who have
come to Canada, even if they have come illegally, is entitled to
the full protection of the charter of rights and freedoms.
That is the way it has been interpreted. That interpretation
found its way into the current legislation, but only in the
general information at the beginning. This new legislation has
expanded that charter protection for everyone in the application
clause.
What does it really mean to have it in the application clause of
the bill? It means that there is no doubt that this
interpretation will apply to all areas of the legislation. That
is a real concern because it clearly expands section 4 of the act
to include people who are not citizens of Canada, who have no
status in Canada, who are not even physically present in Canada,
and it will include people who may have applied to come to Canada
from somewhere outside the country.
1255
I do not know if people will believe what I am saying, but it is
true. It is in section 4 of the act. It is absurd. No other
country in the world would give that kind of protection to people
whose only connection with Canada is that they want to come to
our country, either as visitors or as immigrants.
The people who are expert in the immigration system, who have
given me advice on this legislation, say that it will do exactly
that, that it will cause a backlog in the system, and that it
really could cause almost a complete breakdown of the system as
we get legal challenges and the expensive process of giving
people who are not Canadian citizens, who are not present in the
country, access to our judicial system.
That underpinning factor which is now in the application clause
will cause long term problems. If this legislation goes ahead,
no matter what is done with the regulations, we will have an
immigration system which will function less well than the current
immigration system.
I started my comments by saying that most people in the House
would acknowledge that the current system does not work well.
People who would benefit our country soon after their arrival,
who would help our economy grow and fulfill a need that Canada
has, often give up and go to some other country like the United
States, Australia or New Zealand, countries very similar to
Canada. Many others are left in a state of limbo for years as
they try to come into our system. This bill will not help those
people.
Will the bill help genuine refugees? No, it will not. There is
nothing in this legislation which will cause the government to
choose more people from refugee camps overseas.
If Canada wants to help genuine refugees, should we not choose
people who have been designated to be refugees from camps
overseas? Does that not make sense?
The United Nations has a body that is quite capable. I do not
always give a lot of credit to the United Nations. I have
concerns in many areas. However, in the area of refugees it has
people and a system that is quite capable of choosing who is a
refugee, and in particular people who are in refugee camps.
To Canada's shame, of the 23,000 refugees who were chosen last
year, probably fewer than 3,000 came from camps overseas. About
7,000 came from overseas, but more than half of them were people
who had been rejected by European systems and Canadian officials
picked them up and brought them to Canada as refugees. I am not
saying that is bad because it makes sense in a lot of cases, but
what about the people in the camps, the people like those in
camps in Bangladesh who have been there for more than 50 years?
If the government is compassionate, why does the legislation not
provide for those people? It does not work for genuine refugees.
Does it improve things for people who come illegally and does it
improve things in terms of protecting Canada from organized
crime, terrorists, serious criminals or from people who come to
Canada with the help of people smugglers and traffickers? No.
There are some things in the bill which look good, such as
tougher penalties, which will help, but when we look at the whole
picture the legislation will not protect Canada better than the
current act.
Will the bill help to reunite families? It tears my heart out,
and I am sure it is the same for every member of parliament,
seeing so many situations in our constituencies where families
are waiting for years to be reunited. They are waiting two,
three, five years and longer because our system is so badly
broken. I would suggest there is nothing in the new legislation
to deal with that problem.
Overall the bill will not improve the system; it will slow it
down. I encourage the government to seriously consider
substantial amendments to the bill, and we could provide them.
1300
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to address Bill C-31 on immigration and the protection of
refugees.
Bill C-31 was introduced on April 6, 2000. It replaces the
current act, which dates back to 1976 and which has been amended
over 30 times.
When the minister made her announcement on this long awaited
bill, she called it a tough piece of legislation. She said that
the bill sought to close the door on illegal migrants, in order
to fully open it for immigrants.
Indeed, a large part of the bill puts the emphasis on closing
that door by strengthening the measures designed to fight fraud,
false statements and abuse, prohibiting criminals and those who
present a security risk from entering Canada, imposing harsher
penalties and so on.
When we read the bill, we notice that while it includes several
measures to close the door on illegal migrants, as the minister
said, most of the measures announced to fully open the door for
immigrants are merely proposals to change the regulations. As
pointed out by the Canadian Alliance member earlier, many of our
questions are left unanswered, because a fair number of measures
which we thought would be included in the bill will have to be
included in regulations. We do not really know what is really in
the bill.
With this bill, the minister is seeking among other things to
respond to a strong current of public opinion in the United
States which feels that Canada has become a kind of Club Med for
terrorists and that the United States should tighten up its
border controls, which is liable to be harmful to trade between
the two countries.
Among the measures aimed at discouraging illegal border
crossings, the bill includes the imposition of heavy penalties,
namely fines of up to $1 million and a life sentence for human
traffickers and smugglers.
Revision of the act, as well as cracking down on illegals, is
also intended to lighten the load on a system that for several
years has not allowed Canada to attain its annual objective of
300,000 newcomers.
I might point out that, paradoxically, at this time there are
more than 400,000 people within Canada and elsewhere who are
awaiting word on whether they will be able to settle in Canada.
Clearly, the present system shows that increasing numbers of
people wish to enter Canada, but also that the process and
procedure in place for examining both applications for refugee
status and for permanent residency are flawed and that there is
room for improvement in the way these are processed.
The need to speed up the refugee determination process is one of
the most positive measures contained in this bill. The minister
has, in fact, indicated that in future the time limit will be 72
hours instead of 3 months for a refugee claim to be filed with
the Immigration and Refugee Board, and it must bring down its
decision within six to nine months.
The minister also pointed out that her bill would significantly
simplify refugee claim processing in order to reduce the maximum
time frame from five to two years. New measures will be put in
place to modernize the procedure for selecting skilled immigrant
workers and temporary workers.
These measures, it should be pointed out, would not apply to
Quebec, because under the Canada-Quebec agreement of 1991, Quebec
chooses its own economic immigrants. Refugee selection and
family reunification remain under federal jurisdiction.
In terms of Canada's human rights obligations, as a signatory to
international human rights documents, Canada has certain human
rights obligations.
This new bill must take account of the standards established in
these documents. Unfortunately, despite a few references, the
bill does not incorporate the relevant texts.
1305
For example, in the case of the 1951 refugee convention,
although the mandate of the high commissioner for refugees is to
protect refugees, this responsibility also falls to the
contracting countries.
The basic instrument, indeed the cornerstone of the
international refugee protection system, is respect for the
principle of no return recognized by the member states and
enshrined in article 33, which provides, and I quote:
No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a
refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories
where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his
race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social
group or political opinion.
At clause 90(2)(a), the bill refers to the Convention Against
Torture and provides for the protection of persons threatened
with torture within the meaning of article 1 of the convention.
However, the bill does not fully respect the provisions of
article 3 of the convention, which prohibits the return of
anyone to face torture. In fact, according to the bill, the
prohibition does not apply to people considered inadmissible on
grounds of criminality or security, as in clause 108(2).
Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires
governments to give the child's best interest primary
consideration in all actions that concern him or her. However,
the bill proposes only that the best interest of the child be
taken into account.
The bill provides for the automatic detention of any person
entering Canada as part of an organized operation, but gives no
special status to refugee status claimants who are minors.
However, article 37(b) of the convention that:
—States Parties shall ensure that:
(b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully
or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child
shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a
measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period
of time;
The convention also provides, in article 22, that:
States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a
child who is seeking refugee status or who is considered a
refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic
law and procedures shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied
by his or her parents or by any other person, receive
appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the
enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present
Convention and in other international human rights or
humanitarian instruments.
As for the third instrument, which the bill does not address,
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights published a report
on the Canadian refugee determination system a few months ago.
Bill C-31 before us today addresses two of the report's
recommendations by including an appeal on the merits for refugee
status claimants and by making the pre-removal risk assessment
part of the decision taken by the Immigration and Refugee Board
of Canada.
In the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, however, there are many
other recommendations which the bill completely fails to address
and which aggravate the existing situation. For instance, the
report recommends that the decision as to admissibility should
be the responsibility of the Immigration and Refugee Board of
Canada.
In this regard, the bill, on the contrary, widens the categories
of people whose claims will be deemed inadmissible and who will
therefore never have an opportunity to be heard by the
Immigration and Refugee Board.
1310
The whole issue of detention is another component of the bill.
In Canada, we have had an extensive debate on this issue, a
debate that began, among other places, at the Standing Committee
on Citizenship and Immigration and which, I am convinced, will
continue during the review of Bill C-31. The debate is primarily
on clauses 50 to 55.
The Bloc Quebecois is particularly concerned by the fact that
the bill provides for the automatic detention of any person who
arrives in Canada in the context of an operation organized by
traffickers.
More specifically, the Bloc Quebecois opposes the fact that the
bill does not grant any special status to refugee claimants who
are minors, in spite of the fact that the UNHCR recently pointed
out to Immigration Canada that it was opposed to the
international rules governing the imprisonment of young
refugees, except in certain cases and for very short periods of
time, as provided by the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will continue its fight to ensure
that refugee claimants who are minors be exempted from the
detention rules. In addition to clandestine immigration, the
bill mentions three main reasons for detention, namely the risk
that the person will flee the country, the fact that the person
may be a danger to public security, or cases where it is not
possible to establish the person's identity. These three reasons
are already included in the current act. However, in several
respects, the bill broadens the scope of the provisions on
detention.
In addition, the bill accords new powers to immigration officers
to detain individuals at points of entry for purposes of
“administrative expediency” in order to complete an examination,
for example. The officers may also detain people when they have
reasonable grounds to suspect that they are inadmissible on
grounds of security or of having violated human rights. In this
regard, we wonder whether it was really important to add the new
grounds for detention based on expediency and doubt, reasons of
danger to the public or the risk of failure to appear covering
already all the situations requiring detention.
The bill broadens the measures pertaining to detention without
warrant.
At the moment, arrest without warrant is permitted only in
rather limited circumstances. Under the bill, immigration
officers will be able to arrest and detain without warrant an
individual they consider inadmissible, even if they are not
about to be returned. This gives a lot of power to these
officers, who, in many cases according to the report of the
standing committee lack the training to make the necessary
decisions on, going as far at times as, the merits of the
applicant.
We are therefore basically concerned about the increased powers
given the immigration officers in decisions on detaining
individuals and the assessment of very specific applications.
In addition, the bill expands the measures pertaining to
detention for reasons of identity. Any requirement for pieces
of identity is a threat to refugees.
In fact, these people are often required to flee the country
without documentation because their identity is precisely what
exposes them to persecution.
At the present time, detentions for lack of identification can
only take place at entry points. Under the bill, a person will
now be able to be detained within the framework of any procedure
covered by the law if he or she does not establish identity.
This means that refugee claimants could be detained if they do
not establish their identity at the hearing to determine refugee
status.
The bill also envisages regulations including special
considerations for the detention of minor children. In our
opinion—as I have already stated clearly before—the principle is
fundamentally sound. What remains to be seen, however, is what
these regulations will comprise.
1315
It is no secret that, as far as the detention of refugee
claimants is concerned, our preference would have been to have
the main principles set out in the legislation rather than in
regulations. Clearly, amendments will have to be introduced to
clarify this situation, so this clarification will not be
through regulations. Instead, it ought to be enshrined in the
law.
As for claims for protection, they are primarily governed by
clauses 89 and 90.
Under Bill C-31, what are presently two distinct decisions,
refugee status determination and review of the risk of removal,
will be a single decision made by the Immigration and Refugee
Board.
For every claim for refugee protection, and every application
for examination of risk of removal, the board will decide
whether the claimant is a Convention refugee as defined in 1951,
amended in the 1960s. It will also determine whether the
claimant is a person in need of protection, that is to say a
person who would be subject to a danger of torture within the
meaning of the Convention Against Torture to which I referred to
a moment ago, listing it among the three major conventions: one
against torture, one on the rights of the child, and the UN
convention relating to the status of refugees.
It will also be necessary to determine whether the claimant's
life would be in danger or whether he could be subjected to
cruel or unusual treatment or penalties, but only if the person
is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of the
state, if there is no possibility of haven in that country, if
the risk is not related to legitimate sanctions that meet
international standards, and if that risk does not have to do
with the unavailability of medical care.
We will also have to establish that the claimant is a member of
a category of persons whose need for protection is recognized
through regulations.
The important change is that when a claim is reviewed, a single
ruling will integrate two decisions, namely the one on the
determination of refugee status and the one on the risks
involved in sending the claimant back to his or her country of
origin.
I believe this will significantly speed up the review of these
claims, since both elements will be integrated. That will
certainly help us alleviate the human suffering when we review
each of these claims.
It is to be noted that the exclusion clauses of the refugee
convention, namely sections E and F, apply to refugees as
defined in the convention and to persons to be protected. These
exclusions include, among others, criminals, those who committed
a serious crime outside the country of refuge, and any person
found guilty of actions that are contrary to the goals and
principles of the United Nations.
I have two comments to make in this regard. Unifying the
decision making process at the Immigration and Refugee Board
will undoubtedly have the effect of making the process faster
and more effective.
As I said earlier, there were often cases involving a refugee
claim, where the claim would be reviewed and a ruling made.
At times, perhaps often, the ruling was negative. That was
followed by a review of the risks involved if the claimant was
sent back. The process was considerably longer.
This process created human suffering and certainly did not make
it easier to accept or reject the claim. In fact, it slowed down
or even blocked the whole process. I believe that grouping these
two rulings will speed up the review process.
1320
The reference to the convention against torture is new in the
bill, and we are delighted by it. It is new, and I would say it
is important. However, the definition of a person in need of
protection found in the bill is not entirely consistent with the
convention against torture, which, unlike the refugee
convention, contains no exemption clause.
Article 3 of the convention against torture prohibits the return
of anyone who may face torture, regardless of what the
individual may have done in the past or could do in the future.
In this regard, what is contained in the bill by no means
reflects the provisions and articles of the convention against
torture.
When this bill is studied, things will have to be levelled out.
If it is really the intention of this government to draw on the
convention and reflect the spirit of it in the bill, amendments
will certainly be necessary in order to regularize the
situation.
Another important aspect is the matter of claims for protection
and, more importantly, their determination, as covered in
clauses 94 to 96. Under the bill, only refugee claims deemed
admissible by Citizenship and Immigration Canada will be heard.
This is the present state of affairs under the current
legislation.
However, the bill provides that an examination of the criminal
record of a claimant that might result in an ineligibility
ruling will now be conducted as soon as the claimant has entered
the county and obtained refugee status and no longer at the end
of the process.
The bill also broadens the categories of persons whose claims
will be ruled ineligible, which means that they will not be
referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board for a hearing. At
the present time, claims are ruled ineligible on criminal
grounds only if the minister issues a public threat certificate.
They will now be ruled ineligible if the claimant:
(a) [has been] convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of
Parliament that may be punished by a maximum term of
imprisonment of at least 10 years and for which a sentence of at
least two years was imposed; or
(b) [has been] convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if
committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of
Parliament that may be punished by a maximum term of
imprisonment of at least 10 years.
In this regard, I wish to make a comment. Automatically
excluding persons convicted of offences outside Canada poses a
particular threat to refugees. Too often, the criminal law
system is used as a means of persecution. It is not unusual for
victims of persecution to be sentenced on the basis of false
accusations manufactured in order to convict them of crimes they
did not commit.
As for the first paragraph—having been convicted in Canada of an
offence that may be punished—we agree that, at that stage, an
assessment should take this factor into account.
As for the second paragraph, I think some caution is in order.
The evidence must be thoroughly verified and the claim assessed
more flexibly.
As for an asylum claim, and more specifically the process of
claiming asylum, this has been the subject of heated discussion
in recent years. There is no denying that the process is slow
and difficult to comprehend.
If I take the example of an office covering the territory of my
riding in Montreal, there is a wait of over 12 months for a
ruling. It cannot be said that this is an adequate refugee
determination system and process.
1325
This cannot be described as stringent and making it possible for
decisions to be reached within a reasonable length of time, on
the contrary. Not only does it have the impact of creating
personal dramas, as I have already said, by delaying, deferring
a decision made by an Immigration Canada office, but it also
does not allow a fair review, within a reasonable length of
time, of the cases of those who are awaiting rulings. This
therefore creates a dual problem with a dual impact.
When, as I have already said, we know what the objectives of
immigration are, and when we can see how long the wait is, there
are grounds for concern.
It is therefore obvious that we must make a commitment to work
toward a renewed refugee determination process because people
are having to wait too long and this creates serious personal
dramas.
According to the bill, applications for protection will be heard
by the Refugee Protection Division. At the present time, this
is done by the refugee status section, as we know. This is a
change in Immigration and Refugee Board terminology. Applicants
will have a hearing before a board member, whereas at present a
panel of two hears the case. Appeals against a decision by the
Refugee Protection Division may be submitted to the Refugee
Appeal Division by the applicant or the minister. This division
will not hold a hearing but will base its decision on written
submissions.
In that regard, the bill does not include any change to the
appointment process of board members. Over the past several
years, the Bloc Quebecois has repeatedly criticized the Liberals
for constantly making political appointments to the Immigration
and Refugee Board. We believe it is essential that any change in
the asylum claim process should seek to guarantee the integrity
of the refugee status determination system.
In order to achieve that, it is critical to put an end to
political appointments to the board and to establish a
transparent process—and I mean transparent—to appoint and
replace IRB members, so as to ensure full impartiality and
selection based on the candidates' qualifications and
professional experience, and not, as is often the case now, on
their political affiliation.
Since the bill provides that the decisions will be made by a
single member, it becomes even more important and in fact
essential that all the decision makers have the highest
qualifications. This goes without saying. I even think that some
Liberal members might agree with that statement. Several
political appointments were made to the Immigration and Refugee
Board.
With this new legislation on immigration and refugee status
determination, the Liberal government opposite has a unique
opportunity to show transparency and good will and to clearly
demonstrate that the government will set up an appointment
process that is not based on partisanship or on services
rendered to the Liberal Party of Canada, but on people's
professional experience and on their ability to make informed
decisions.
Unfortunately, when it introduced its bill, the government
missed the opportunity—and so did we—to establish a clear
process. We will review this issue in committee and I hope the
government will look at the auditor general's report and set up
a clear process that is not merely based on the experience and
expertise of people in certain political parties, but on
professional experience.
1330
Another important factor is the introduction of appeals on the
merits. Clauses 105 and 106 address one of the fundamental
weaknesses of the present refugee determination system. The
absence of an appeal mechanism was very recently criticized by
the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights in its report on
the Canadian refugee determination system. It should be noted,
however, that the proposed appeal provides only limited
protection to refugee claimants because it is based on written
submissions only.
A large percentage of claims are ruled ineligible on grounds of
credibility. It will therefore be extremely difficult to
challenge such rulings of non-credibility in writing.
Furthermore, written submissions also raise the problem of
claimants without representation, which is often the case
because of the inadequacy of legal aid.
Another comment I would have with respect to this paragraph and
this part of the clause is that the bill provides no guarantee
of the independence of the Refugee Appeal Division or of the
greater expertise of its members with respect to refugee
determination. If an appeal is to adequately correct the errors
of the first level, the appeal division must obviously be a
distinct and higher level.
In fact, it seems hard to guarantee the impartiality or
appearance of impartiality of the process when the members of
the Appeal Division are called upon to judge decisions made by
their own colleagues in the section of first instance. Such a
structure, in which members of the division are required to
review themselves, does not imply a critical eye, and cannot
therefore in our opinion present the necessary guarantees of
independence.
As for the whole issue of family reunification, I will make a
small comment if I may. There is very little in the bill on
family reunification, with the exception of certain measures
which are to come in the regulations. This is the problem with
this bill—the one to which my colleague from the Canadian
Alliance referred just now. The bill refers to principles only,
and makes several references to the regulations.
I believe it is the fundamental right of parliamentarians to be
able to examine a bill that includes a certain number of clauses
instead of one that merely refers them, and to a certain extent
the general public, to subsequent regulatory amendments.
As far as the entire issue of family reunification is concerned, the
bill has very little to say, referring instead to provisions
which are to come in the regulations once they are added. The
government has, however, announced certain measures relating to
family reunification. It would, in our opinion, be advisable
for the promised measures to be integrated into the bill, as I
have said, rather than just restating some old principles.
As parliamentarians, we would like to study the provisions,
debate them and discuss them in committee. The problem is that
we do not have the regulations before us. We cannot make a
proper decision on this bill, because many of the measures are
to come, many will not be incorporated in the bill. In the end,
I think that each parliamentarian is entitled to examine the
merits of this bill in terms of its provisions and not in terms
of future regulatory measures.
The bill proposes to prevent people on welfare from sponsoring
members of their family, including spouses and minor children,
unless they have special permission from the minister. In our
opinion, this is interference in the right to family unity
because of economic status.
At the moment, spouses and minor children are the only members
of a family that may be sponsored by a recipient of welfare. We
believe this represents serious interference, and it is clear
that we will never agree to two people having different
privileges.
1335
There cannot be a double standard based on economic factors, on
whether a person is on welfare or is working. I think that the
right is fundamental, and in this regard, we will clearly be
moving amendments.
As my time is running out, I will conclude by saying that the
Bloc Quebecois regrets the harsh tone adopted by the minister in
her speech, in her presentation, the hard words chosen by the
government to introduce the bill and the accompanying press
releases. From the way it addresses the question, we think that
the government, which seems to be trying to reassure the
Canadian right, is reinforcing prejudice against refugees and
immigrants. It is thus encouraging division.
In recent years, the Bloc Quebecois has said on several
occasions that Canada's refugee determination system should have
two essential features: it must be quick and fair to a person who
is legitimately seeking asylum and it must deter those who
overburden the system with unjustified claims. This slowness in
processing claims results in unacceptable human dramas and puts
people and families in extremely difficult situations.
For example, the average time to process a claim at the IRB's
Montreal office is ten months. Moreover, at the end of December
1999, there were over 7,000 asylum seekers in Montreal who were
waiting for a hearing. That is one third of all cases in Canada.
Indeed, one third of all such cases in Canada are handled by the
IRB's Montreal office. Is this not evidence of the laxness of the
refugee determination system?
We also believe that the new bill on immigration does not
reflect explicitly enough the actual scope of all the powers
gained by Quebec in this area. According to the Quebec Minister
of Relations with the Citizens and Immigration, Robert Perreault:
The act will have to include firm commitments in that respect
...Provisions will have to be added to the current bill to
ensure, among other things, the respect of Quebec's powers
regarding the selection of temporary workers or the maintaining
of a distinct program for investor immigrants.
That statement was made by the Quebec minister of citizenship
and immigration.
Clearly we will have amendments to clarify these two aspects,
which are not included in the bill.
The bill—I have mentioned this many times since it was
introduced—does not clarify Quebec's jurisdiction in this regard.
As we know, Quebec is responsible for independent immigration.
We would therefore have liked to see this mentioned in the bill.
But the bill does not make this clear. There must be clauses
spelling out Quebec's jurisdiction in this area.
In addition to the issue of Quebec's jurisdiction, it is
important to mention that, although the bill proposes amendments
with respect to refugee claims, nowhere does Ottawa undertake to
assume the costs resulting from its handling of those claims.
In fact, if the federal government believes in the effectiveness
of the measures proposed in its bill, it should be able to
undertake to assume these costs, and to do so until those
affected have been granted refugee status, have been granted
permanent residence, or have left the country.
Last February, it will be recalled, Quebec joined with Ontario
and British Columbia in criticizing the federal government's
handing of the movement of asylum seekers, calling for major
changes, and demanding that the federal government, which is
responsible for the entire refugee determination process, assume
all the costs of providing services to these individuals,
including social assistance, legal aid and education.
I would remind members that, right now, it is costing Quebec
over $80 million annually to look after people waiting for a
ruling from the federal government's Immigration and Refugee
Board.
1340
Clearly, the Bloc Quebecois is greatly concerned by the fact
that many crucial points are relegated to the regulations—and I
do not believe I am the only one to have said so today—rather
than being part of the bill itself.
At the present time we cannot be totally in favour of the bill,
obviously. Too many measures, too many provisions, are part of
the regulations, preventing us from giving our support at second
reading.
What we can do is to state that, at most, we are in favour of
the principle behind the bill, but we cannot come out in favour
of the bill at this point with our eyes closed. We are going to
look at it in committee, propose and debate amendments, and then
bring it back to the House for third reading. That is when our
decision will be made.
I must say, however, that it is disappointing that some of the
measures are contained, not in the bill, but in the regulations.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. Both he and I will be speaking to
the bill. We want the House to know that at the next opportunity
the NDP critic, the member for Winnipeg Centre, will be speaking
in greater detail about some of our concerns about the bill and
our general attitude toward it. Unfortunately he was unable to
be here today.
There probably is not a more appropriate time for members of
parliament to be debating amendments to Canada's immigration
legislation than after a two week parliamentary recess. If other
members' recesses have been anything like mine, I spent a fair
amount of time meeting with people who have problems of one sort
or another with immigration.
Over the course of the two weeks I met with a woman who fled
Liberia on a moment's notice in the middle of conflict and in the
middle of great confusion. She left behind some teenage children
and is now trying to get them into the country but is having a
very difficult time doing that.
I met with a young man who wants to get his pregnant wife in
Romania to Canada before the baby is born in September. I met
with people who applied for refugee status from Bangladesh and
are scheduled to leave the country in spite of the fact that
there appears to be documentation that was unavailable to the
refugee board when it made its decision.
I met with a family from India who would like relatives to be
able to come to Canada to attend a wedding. I met with another
family who wanted relatives to come from Chile in order to attend
a graduation. In both these cases the problem was visitors'
visas and sometimes the very difficult process that attends
people being able to get these visas. In these cases I know both
families. They are long established members of their respective
Sikh and Chilean communities. Yet they are having a difficult
time getting someone to Canada to be present at these important
family events.
These are just samples of the kinds of things MPs have to deal
with all the time. It is very frustrating for us not to be able
to immediately solve the problems people bring to our attention.
Not all problems are solvable but some of them could be solvable
if there were more resources dedicated to resolving them.
One of the messages I would like to leave with the minister and
the government at this time is that the process for these things
needs to be speeded up. It should not be speeded up in a way
that makes it sloppy or unfair but it should be speeded up. It
is a form of cruel and unusual punishment for a lot of people
that they cannot get the kind of resolution to their problems as
quickly as I think fairness would dictate.
1345
I think of the many times I have met with people in my office
for whom the refugee process has been very long and prolonged.
People have been here for many years in some cases. What has
happened often is that children have been born and the children
are actually Canadians. The only country they know is Canada yet
if the refugee process takes so long and in the end they fail,
the children can actually be sent away from their country which
is Canada. It is very important to deal with these matters
expeditiously so that children particularly are not put in that
position.
Those are some of the things I found particularly trying over
the years as an MP. People find themselves in a lot of very
difficult situations. I say it is trying for me, but of course
it is much more trying for them. What is trying for me is that I
cannot always do for them what I would like to do in the time
they would like me to do it.
All this relates to the bill in the sense that as MPs we are
dealing with people who are not in the country who are trying to
get into the country by way of the rules. Nothing makes that
interview more difficult in the constituency office than when
people point to the fact that other people get into the country
by breaking the rules. They say “We are trying to observe the
rules and we are doing everything that is required of us but it
takes forever”. Yet there are examples of illegal immigration
which for obvious reasons people find quite frustrating.
The minister has said that the purpose of the bill is to close
the back door to Canada while opening the front door wider. This
is certainly a principle and an intention of the bill that we
support. It is why we would like to see the bill go to committee
and be examined more thoroughly.
The point had been made earlier about the fact that so much is
left up to regulation. We do not know what those regulations
will be. We do not know whether those regulations will in fact
be consistent with the spirit of the bill. One of the things
that might be looked at in committee is how much more can be
specified in the bill so that less is left up to regulation.
We are concerned about the penalties with regard to people
making refugee claims who have been convicted of an offence
punishable by 10 years or more and have received a sentence of
two or more years, something which I believe all Canadians
support. We do not want an immigration system which allows
criminals into the country. However, we must also take into
account the fact that not all offences which are defined as
criminal activity in all the countries from which people seek
refugee status is in fact criminal activity. Sometimes the very
thing that has made them a refugee is political activity.
In my opinion, one of the things to be worked on in committee is
the need to be more articulate about what is a criminal offence
in the strictest sense and what it means to be a criminal. What
can sometimes be defined as criminal by a country that uses the
criminal code of the country to inhibit, punish or intimidate
political activity thereby creates the very refugees who are
coming to Canada with this alleged criminal record. That is a
concern we have about the bill and something which the committee
could very well look at.
With respect to family reunification, I understand one of the
other intentions of the bill is to broaden the notion of family
reunification. That is certainly something I think all Canadians
would support.
Again, referring to my own experience as an MP and I am sure
that of many other members, many times we have had people in our
offices who have one child remaining in a country but because the
child is now 19 or because of making the mistake of getting
married, the child no longer qualifies and cannot be reunited
with the family. There are many ways in which the current family
reunification rules need to be improved in order to address some
of the anomalies that exist. I would certainly urge that.
1350
I would also urge a more open and trusting attitude on the part
of Immigration Canada toward people who are seeking visitors
visas for relatives who are coming to attend special events, in
particular when these applications are being made on behalf of
families who have been in the country for a long time. I do not
think that how long they have been here has all that much to do
with it, but certainly it is a fact that many people who have
been Canadian citizens for a long time and want people from their
country of origin to attend special events are now finding that
very difficult to do.
I would urge the minister to see what she could do about that.
If that is not within the purview of the bill then perhaps she
could find another way.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join with my colleague the
member for Winnipeg—Transcona, and our immigration critic, the
member for Winnipeg Centre, in saying a few words on Bill C-31,
the immigration and refugee protection act.
In general this bill toughens the law with respect to illegal
immigrants. It streamlines the laws and regulations which would
facilitate easier access to our country by immigrants who wish to
come to our country through the front door or through the
regulatory process.
Immigration is very important. Practically all of our
grandparents, parents or members themselves immigrated to this
country from other countries in a process set out in previous
legislation in the House of Commons. All of Canada is much
stronger and is viewed as the best country in the world because
we have been very supportive and embrace new Canadians coming to
Canada to help build this great country.
My paternal grandfather came to this country in 1897 from
Ukraine. He was recruited by Mr. Sifton of the CPR to go to a
place called Fork River, Manitoba. He and many other Ukrainian
settlers were given a quarter section of forest in which they
were to carve out a living for their families, which he did.
My grandfather, Panko Solomon, went to the Fork River district.
Over a period of years he cleared a quarter section, or about 160
acres of land, out of the forest. He cleared about 10 acres of
trees with an axe, a saw, chains and a horse. To this day the
farm exists as a tribute not only to him and other Ukrainians and
settlers who built our country, but to all of our forefathers and
foremothers who came here to make a better life for us all.
As an aside, my uncle still owns the property. He has a larger
property but he has planted around the home quarter over 100,000
trees. My grandfather would probably turn in his grave if he
knew this to be the case, but it is a very nice shelter built
around the home quarter.
Bill C-31 tightens laws as they apply to the abuse of
immigration. It creates severe penalties for those who smuggle
people into Canada with fines up to $1 million and life
imprisonment for those who illegally bring in immigrants to the
country.
In essence, I think the tough on crime, tough on the causes of
crime as it applies to immigration is a very good approach. It
is one I personally support and I think most Canadians would
support. Public reaction to illegal aliens has been largely
negative. Some people have indicated they would halt virtually
all immigration. Some people feel deeply for refugees who are
following the rules. Those consigned to wait for years in camps
until Canadian law affords them the chance to come legally to
this country are looking to this bill with some interest.
The bill also increases the number of immigration control
officers abroad. I guess what has always been a problem with
Liberal legislation is that Liberals always introduce legislation
which makes people feel good, but they never back it up with
resources to actually implement the laws.
We have seen this for example in the smuggling of cigarettes.
Rather than toughen up the laws and introduce resources to hire
more customs officers to nail the smugglers, the Liberals passed
feel good legislation saying they are going to reduce taxes on
tobacco which will take the product off the smugglers' priority
list.
1355
Of course smugglers will move from smuggling cigarettes to
smuggling guns. Rather than commit resources of our country to
stop the smugglers of guns, the government passed the gun
registration law which does nothing to affect it. It makes
people feel good because the Liberals are doing something about
the problem, but nothing ever happens because there are not the
resources to back it up.
I am worried that there will not be resources. I would like to
see the minister's projections with respect to the number of
dollars and immigration officers the government is going to
commit in our consulates and embassies around the world to
actually undertake to enforce Bill C-31. I would like to see it
not only abroad but in Canada as well.
We have had some experiences in Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
with respect to immigration which are worrisome. Saskatchewan is
a landlocked province in the centre of our country. People who
come to our country wishing to immigrate or to bring in family
members always have to go back to the country of origin or go to
Seattle or Buffalo to the nearest Canadian consulates in the U.S.
to apply for immigration. That has been a travel hardship for
many people. I hope that the new rules will allow students
easier access to our country, those who have proven to be good
citizens while they were here.
The family reunification challenge has always been complex. In
Saskatchewan we have been very troubled with the lack of speed to
reunify families. As the minister has indicated, family
reunification is very beneficial. When their families are here
immigrants tend to work harder to make sure that their families
have a solid economic base. I am very concerned that this sort
of streamlining occurs in particular for the family reunification
process.
The bill has many parts. It provides things such as security
checks for persons making refugee claims. It bars access to the
refugee determination system and eliminates appeals for serious
criminals, security risks, organizers of criminal operations or
violators of human rights.
I wonder if the minister could tell us if this bill will address
the issue that appeared on the front page of the Globe and
Mail on Saturday dealing with Chinese triads.
The Speaker: I see that my colleague is getting into a
new thought with regard to his speech and I thought this might be
a good time to interrupt. He has over three and a half minutes
remaining and then questions and comments after that.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
RÉFAP GALA EXCELLENCE
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on April 15,
the Réseau des femmes d'affaires et professionnelles de
l'Outaouais celebrated the vitality of its members at its Gala
Excellence 2000.
This first major celebration of the millennium for the RÉFAP
provided an opportunity to honour the efforts and determination
of two important women in the Outaouais, Ginette Chassé-Séguin,
who was recognized as businesswoman of the year, and France
Gagnon, recognized as professional woman of the year.
More than ever, their success in undeniable proof of the place
and growing vitality of Outaouais women. Such examples of
success can only encourage more women to take an active part in
our community.
I take this opportunity to congratulate once again Ms.
Chassé-Séguin and Ms. Gagnon and to wish them good luck in their
future endeavours.
* * *
[English]
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this year Canadian farmers will have
to pay $44 million more to haul their grain because the Liberal
government refuses to reform the grain transportation system.
Last week the CTA announced that regulated freight rates will be
going up 4.5%. This is the latest graphic demonstration of the
failure of the status quo.
A reformed system could save farmers $300 million each year in
lower freight rates. Yet instead of going down, freight rates
will be going up.
The government's own experts have recommended a clear path to
reform. Give farmers a contractual driven system and remove the
Canadian Wheat Board's total control over grain transportation.
However, defending pet Liberal causes like monopoly control by
the Canadian Wheat Board is more important to the government than
improving the farmers' bottom line.
If the Liberals really cared about the plight of farm families,
they would stop defending the current broken system and
immediately give farmers the reforms they so desperately need.
Where is the transportation minister on this issue?
* * *
1400
VIETNAM
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Vietnam has been in the news lately: 25 years since the end of
the Vietnam war, the execution apparently of an innocent
Canadian, and the recall of ambassador.
What has not been in the news is the routine way in which
Vietnam abuses religious rights. Religious rights do not get
much play in the news here, in part because we take them for
granted and in part because of journalistic apathy toward people
of faith.
It does not much matter whether they are Catholic, Buddhist,
Muslim or Evangelical. If they do not worship at a state
sanctioned patriot facility, they are abused, arrested or
imprisoned. Religious rights are like the proverbial canary in
the mine shaft. If they have no religious rights, they probably
have no right to a fair trial, no right to freedom of assembly,
and certainly no contractual rights.
Two years ago I met with the minister of justice for Vietnam.
The bottom line was that he did not believe in the rule of law.
If one does not believe in the rule of law, certainly religious
rights are an easy abuse, as are other civil rights and
contractual rights. As long as Vietnam is stuck in a time warp,
it will not enjoy these kinds of rights.
* * *
[Translation]
MENTAL HEALTH WEEK
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to tell the House and the people of
Canada that the week of May 1 to 7 is mental health week. This
year's theme is “Workplace stress can throw you off balance.”
Given that 43% of Canadian adults aged 30 or over feel
overwhelmed by their work, their family responsibilities or
their financial obligations, it is clear that reducing work
related stress will have a positive impact on thousands of
people.
Statistics Canada estimates that $12 billion is the cost of work
time lost annually due to stress.
[English]
The Canadian Mental Health Association has created activities
across the country to promote wellness in the workplace. I ask
the House to join me in wishing the Canadian Mental Health
Association a very successful Mental Health Week.
* * *
ARMENIA
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to commemorate the memory of
victims of the Armenian genocide of April 24, 1915.
The Canadian government has yet to recognize in an official way
the reality of the genocide committed against Armenians by the
Ottoman Turks. However, in answer to my question in the House of
Commons on June 10, 1999, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs said:
On behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs I wish to inform the
House that together with all Canadians we remember the calamity
afflicted on the Armenian people in 1915. This tragedy was
committed with the intent to destroy a national group in which
hundreds of thousands of Armenians were subjected to atrocities,
which included mass deportations and massacres.
May the memory of this period contribute to healing wounds as
well as to the reconciliation of present day nations and
communities and remind us all of our collective duty to work
together toward world peace.
The recognition of Armenian genocide is not complete yet.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the hepatitis C victims of tainted blood are still waiting,
waiting for promised compensation if they were infected between
1986 and 1990; waiting in fact over two years while their lawyers
have already been well paid; waiting for help with 40 page forms
that are complex beyond belief; waiting for an explanation about
why U.S. prison blood came undetected into Canada; waiting for a
clear explanation from the ethics counsellor for a report that
supposedly cleared the finance minister of conflict of interest
but quietly admitted that the appropriate CDC minutes had
mysteriously vanished; waiting without hope if they were infected
prior to 1986, except that Ontario and Quebec provincial
governments have given them some compensation; waiting, except
for those who are no longer with us.
* * *
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
over the past several months members of the House have raised
questions and concerns over food safety as they relate to foods
derived from biotechnology. Some have even suggested that the
foods we eat are untested. This is simply untrue.
Foods derived from biotechnology must go through a very
stringent regulatory process to ensure that they are safe for
humans, for animals and for the environment before they are
approved.
Canada has the best food safety regulations in the world. Our
regulatory and approval processes are based on the best science
available. Canadian regulations are in sync with standards set
by the World Health Organization, food and agricultural
organizations, and other international bodies.
1405
Opposition members are simply trying to scare the Canadian
public into thinking that the food they eat is not safe. Quite
frankly Canadians deserve better than this. They deserve the
facts. Canadians should be proud of our regulatory system and
our world class food supply.
* * *
[Translation]
JEAN-CLAUDE MARCUS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after 20
years at the National Arts Centre, Jean-Claude Marcus will be
leaving his position as artistic director of the NAC's French
theatre.
During his stint at the NAC, Mr. Marcus has been both an
innovator and a pioneer. Among other initiatives, he created the
NAC's youth theatre program, Grands-Galop et Petits-Trot, the
program to promote theatre in the regions, including La
Quinzaine, which we are all familiar with, and the specialized
B.A. in theatre at the University of Moncton's department of
performing arts.
Jean-Claude Marcus was very involved at the international level
and his efforts to promote arts and literature in France and
throughout the world were recognized when he was bestowed the
insignia of Chevalier des Arts et Lettres.
All of us who have been moved, touched and even shaken by the
various NAC productions during the Marcus years—the last of these
productions is to be announced this week—say thank you to
Mr. Marcus and wish him and his wife a most pleasant time in
France.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the gratuitous execution of Canadian Nguyen Thi Hiep by
the Vietnamese government has shocked Canadians. The execution
violated basic principles of human rights by failing to provide
Nguyen with a fair trial and by carrying out the execution before
investigations were complete.
With such blatant disregard for human rights one can only
imagine the dreadful fate Ms. Nguyen's 74 year old mother faces
as she serves a life sentence in a Hanoi prison.
Canadians in their outrage are calling on the government to
exact a severe price and to review its co-operative agreements
with Vietnam. On behalf of the Canadian Alliance, we extend our
sympathies to the family of Ms. Nguyen. We call on all Canadians
to continue to fight against human rights violations.
Canada must send a clear message to international governments to
abandon such atrocities if they wish to carry on co-operative
relations with our country.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE JACQUES BEAUREGARD
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a few weeks ago, the mayor of Ferme-Neuve, Jacques Beauregard,
who was working as an ambulance attendant at the time, lost his
life in a tragic road accident.
I had the privilege of meeting the former mayor of Ferme-Neuve on
a number of occasions. He was very involved in his municipality
at a social, economic and community level.
Jacques Beauregard leaves a son, Martin, his spouse, Nicole
Sarrasin, his father, Roger Beauregard, his mother, Madeleine,
and three brothers.
Ferme-Neuve lost a mayor but, above all, a friend and a citizen
who was deeply involved in his community.
I wish to offer my sincere condolences to his family, his
friends and the residents of Ferme-Neuve in their great loss.
Thank you Jacques for all your work. You will always be
remembered in Ferme-Neuve and in the beautiful region of Labelle.
* * *
LAVAL UNIVERSITY
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every day,
globalization creates new challenges for workers and business
leaders. Everyone must develop new skills. In this context, I
pay tribute to an excellent initiative—the creation of a chair in
international affairs management at Laval University in my
riding.
The chair will help train qualified managers through support to
regular programs and through the development of ongoing training
activities tailored to the needs of companies. It will offer
the services of trainees specializing in international
management and student trade missions to explore international
markets in partnership with industry.
Initial efforts will focus on the internationalization of
technology-oriented SMEs, management of virtual enterprises,
economic intelligence, and international marketing of
educational products and services.
Congratulations to the founders and partners of this new
institution.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, May 1 is hepatitis awareness day. I
extend my personal thanks and my party's thanks to Mr. Joey Haché
of Ottawa and Mr. Bruce DeVenne of Nova Scotia for bringing this
very serious issue that affects over 300,000 people to the
forefront in the country and for putting pressure where it
belongs.
It is also international workers day. I remind the House that
workers rights are human rights, from those of the rural route
mail couriers throughout Canada fighting for collective
bargaining, to the families of miners fighting for proper
compensation from events such as the Nova Scotia Westray
disaster.
1410
It is time that the House recognizes the hon. leader of the
federal New Democratic Party and support her Bill C-259 in order
to lay corporate responsibility precisely where it belongs.
On behalf of New Democrats across the country, federally and
provincially, I wish to thank all those workers who put in a hard
day's work every day of the year.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL WORKERS DAY
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois is proud today to mark International Workers Day.
In 2000, 39.5% of workers in Quebec and 32.2% of workers in
Canada are unionized. In Ontario, 28% of workers are unionized
and in the United States fewer than 15% are.
It should be noted that it is often the people who are not
unionized and who are working in difficult conditions who are
most vulnerable to various forms of abuse.
In addition, workers who lose their jobs have an increasingly
difficult time qualifying for employment insurance, since the
reforms of the Liberal government.
Finally, the new reality of the job market means that many
workers are without union or legislative protection.
The Bloc Quebecois therefore promises to continue its fight to
defend the rights of workers in Quebec and in Canada.
I wish everyone a Happy International Workers Day.
* * *
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April 28 was
the National Day of Mourning, a day set aside annually to
remember workers who have lost their lives or been injured in
the course of their employment in Canada.
The main purpose of this day is to show Canadians' concern about
occupational health and safety.
The day is commemorated around the world. Although it began in
Canada, the Day of Mourning is now marked in more than 70
countries.
The reality is of great concern. In Canada, it is estimated
that 1 out of every 16 workers is injured on the job. This
means someone is being hurt every 9 seconds. Every year, over
800,000 work-related injuries are reported. Most at risk are the
young and the inexperienced.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of
victims. We too feel the loss of their loved ones.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government has the most dismal environmental record of
the past century. In fact the Prime Minister has overseen
Canada's worst environmental legislative agenda. His government
has not introduced a single environmental initiative in the past
seven years.
When it comes to species at risk Canadians want legislation that
works. With no environmental bills to its credit, the Liberal
government is in no position to deny input from stakeholders
offering legislative advice on a plan to protect species at risk.
This unprecedented consensus developed by environmentalists and
industry stakeholders is known as the species at work working
group. The government has ignored its recommendations.
The Progressive Conservative Party supports the recommendations
put forward by SARWG and believes the legislation should provide
for scientific listing and account for socioeconomic
considerations when designing the recovery plan.
In addition, we believe the bill should apply to all lands
except where equivalent provincial legislation exists.
Equivalency would be negotiated on a species by species basis
utilizing the framework—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia.
* * *
CANADIAN EXECUTIVE SERVICE ORGANIZATION
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to
two of my constituents who recently donated their time and talent
overseas in the service of the Canadian Volunteer Advisors to
Service, also known as CESO.
John Goodes volunteered in Ostra, Romania, where he developed a
strategic economic development plan for this economically
depressed community.
Bob Harvey went to Jelgava, Latvia, where he used his expertise
to advise on the management of health insurance companies as
Latvia implements a national health insurance program.
CESO is in its 33rd year of sending Canadian volunteers
overseas. Last year the organization provided over 23,000 days
of volunteer assistance.
Mr. Goodes and Mr. Harvey typify the many highly skilled
Canadian volunteers who donate their time and talent to help
around the world. It is because of the efforts of people like
them that our country enjoys such a strong international
reputation.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is good to be back. People around the world are
especially glad to see the Prime Minister back from the Middle
East where his foreign affairs expertise can be contained within
our own borders.
Four full months have passed since Canadians learned that the
government bungled $1 billion. There has not been a resignation.
There has not been a shuffle. There has not even been an
admission of guilt.
Canadians are dropping their tax returns in the mail today and
they want some answers.
Why should Canadians continue to send their hard earned tax
dollars to the government when the Prime Minister has done
absolutely nothing about the $1 billion boondoggle at HRDC?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Canada are very pleased to see that the
Canadian economy is working very well at the moment.
The people of Canada are extremely pleased that we have created
more than two million jobs since we formed the government.
The Canadian people are very pleased that we took a deficit of
$42 billion and turned it into a surplus of more than $10
billion.
The Canadian people are very happy that we are not obliged to
change the name of our party.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the system does seem to be working very well for
Liberals at least.
On February 4, 1997 a company called Mode Conili Star was
incorporated. Three weeks later the member of parliament for
Ahuntsic wrote a letter to the human resources minister lobbying
for government grants for that company. On April 10 the company
received three-quarters of a million dollars. Less than a month
later and in the middle of an election campaign, Mode Conili
graciously donated $7,000 to the member who helped them get the
grant.
At what point does Liberal fundraising involve using Canadian
tax dollars?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everybody in Canada knows that when we have a campaign
people contribute to political parties.
I discussed this issue in the United States last weekend when
people were asking how campaign funds were raised in Canada.
Everything is public. Everybody knows that any contribution
above $100 has to be reported. When people have a good member of
parliament, they are always happy to help that member of
parliament.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this is certainly out in the public and this is exactly
what happened. The member for Ahuntsic personally lobbied the
minister to give a grant to a company in her riding. That
company then turned around and donated $7,000 to her election
campaign. Mode Conili got $750,000 and the member for Ahuntsic
got the single largest political contribution of her entire
campaign. This is just another happy coincidence.
Why is it that when it comes to government grants Liberal
candidates have found a gold mine while Canadian taxpayers get
the shaft?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, members of the Reform Party do the same thing in their
ridings. They try to help their constituents and when election
time comes they ask these people to help them get re-elected.
What is happening at this time in the Reform Party, or whatever
its name is today, is that its members are for sale and Bay
Street is buying them.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate my hon.
colleague's sentiments. I am sure I speak for all Canadians when
I say that I hope it will be a very long time before we see a
sequel to the new show, Mr. Bean goes gaga in Gaza.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to go
to his question.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, the member for Ahuntsic raised
nearly 10% of her election funds from Mode Conili. The Liberal
Party also received donations totalling $2,000. The company had
no history of donating to the member or to her party in the years
leading up to the election. It just happened to donate after it
got $750,000 in grants.
Are taxpayers to believe that this is just the latest in a long
string of Liberal coincidences?
The Speaker: Order, please. The first couple of
questions were getting a little bit close. We must go to the
administrative responsibility of the government. I will permit
the Right Hon. Prime Minister or the government House leader to
answer the question if he so desires.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member across will
know, he and his party have contributed to the process.
We all know that the electoral law applies to all members of
parliament, to all Canadians contributing to political parties
and even to candidates during an election campaign. He should
not try to portray this in any way that suggests that this law is
designed in any way to favour anyone over anyone else. It is a
fair law and it applies to everyone right across the House of
Commons.
1420
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is the
awarding of grants by this government. If that is not government
business, I do not know what is.
Mr. Speaker, listen to this list: Confections St-Élie,
Aérospatiale Globax, Placeteco, Fermco Industries and now Mode
Conili. The list goes on. All these firms received HRDC grants
and then donated cash to the Liberals. A full 33% of donors to
the Prime Minister's campaign somehow got grants, but now we
learn that backbenchers are just as lucky.
Why has taxpayers' money now become just another tool for
Liberal fundraisers?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, as we all
do, that Canadians are free to donate to political parties during
election campaigns. They are free to donate to political parties
between elections and to candidates during election campaigns.
This is the law of Canada. This is the law of the land.
I remind hon. members that Bill C-2 will be approved by the
Senate, hopefully within a few weeks, and it even improves on the
excellent law that we have already.
* * *
[Translation]
COUNCIL ON CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for a
number of months, we have been asking to have the Council on
Canadian Unity audited so taxpayers can find out how public
money is spent there. The government refuses, even though the
council is on the list of agencies to be audited.
How does the government explain its decision to exclude the
Council on Canadian Unity from audits?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not the case at
all.
The Council on Canadian Unity will have some of its programs
audited shortly, some funded by the Department of Human
Resources Development and some by the Department of Canadian
Heritage.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are talking about all the programs and we wonder if the council
is not to be audited in connection with all the money accorded
it by the government because a few Liberal buddies are
benefiting.
If they really want some programs examined, will Option Canada
be one of them? It would be interesting, as about $4.8 million
has disappeared to date.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the people who benefit
from the programs managed by the Council on Canadian Unity are
the young people of Canada, primarily.
There is the Canada student exchange program in which 89 MPs
took part. All political parties were represented there. Over
50,000 young Canadians participated in the programs of
Encounters with Canada, and there was an Experience Canada
program, which will be interrupted between now and the fall.
Those are the programs and the young people are the ones who
benefited from them.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning a spokesperson for Heritage Canada was quoted in a
newspaper report as saying that her minister was waiting for the
Council for Canadian Unity's programs to be running smoothly
before any audit of its financial activities.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage acknowledge that the
Council for Canadian Unity, which was founded in 1964, has had
ample time to get its programs in working order and that it is
high time they were audited?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have already answered
that question. The programs I mentioned will be audited. These
are the programs administered by the Council for Canadian Unity
to which the Government of Canada contributes, for the benefit
of the young people of Canada and the future of Canada.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, may I
remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that, in 1997, the
director general responsible for departmental audits at Heritage
Canada reported that, as far as Option Canada was concerned, 20
of the 22 criteria required by the standard procedures for
obtaining grants had not been met, nor had even the Treasury
Board requirements for the payment of grants.
Above and beyond what the parliamentary secretary may say, can
we expect the government to commit to finally administering
public funds properly and to finally putting an end to doing
favours for its friends?
1425
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the friends to which the
hon. member refers are the 89 members of this House who last
summer were involved in the Interchange Canada program, which
benefited over 700 young Canadians.
Every year 3,000 students, totalling over 52,000 to date, have
benefited from the Encounters with Canada program.
That is who the government's friends were: young Canadians who
benefit from such programs.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health.
Unfortunately, over the last week's recess in Alberta the
premier of Alberta has not had a change of mind and bill 11 is
set to go forward. When I last asked the minister about this he
said that the government was studying the implications for NAFTA.
Can the minister report on what is the federal government's
judgment with respect to the NAFTA implications of bill 11? What
is it going to do about it? Time is even more of the essence.
Will the minister be going to Edmonton tonight to the rally
sponsored by the Friends of Medicare to indicate what the
government intends to do to stop Premier Klein from putting
medicare for all Canadians at risk through NAFTA?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we raised NAFTA concerns in our initial reaction to the Alberta
government's proposal back in November. Since that time, various
legal opinions have been received.
We have raised more than NAFTA concerns. We have expressed the
view that this is bad policy and it will not solve the problems
that Mr. Klein thinks it will. We have asked him to make
specific changes in the legislation now before his legislature.
We are watching with interest as the public of Alberta expresses
their own displeasure at this legislation. We will see whether
the legislature actually adopts the bill, and in what form, in
the days ahead.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the time has passed for watching with interest. The
time has come for action on the part of the minister. Will he go
to Edmonton tonight to join the leader of the NDP? If it is a
matter of money, we have a ticket here bought and paid for—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows better
than to use props. If the hon. minister wishes to respond I will
permit him.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I went to Calgary a few weeks ago and expressed in some detail
the reasons why this government thinks bill 11 is not in the
public interest and expressed the concerns we have with the bill.
Since then I have given detailed requests to the minister that
the bill be amended to accommodate the real concerns we have.
The bill is before the legislature. There are amendments before
that body and the debate continues. We do not yet know the final
form the legislation will take when it emerges from the Alberta
legislature.
One thing that is clear is that we will focus on and protect the
five principles of medicare.
* * *
VIETNAM
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, last week a Canadian citizen was tied up, gagged and
shot by the Government of Vietnam. While the family of Ms.
Nguyen Thi Hiep continues to grieve over her horrific death, the
Liberal government continues normal trade relations and aid
programs to Vietnam.
Canada has taken minimal action, simply boycotting this
weekend's Vietnam memorial and withdrawing support for Vietnam's
efforts to join the World Trade Organization. This is weak.
Canadians expect more.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What concrete steps have
been taken by the government to demonstrate Canada's outrage over
this execution?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada condemns the execution of Ms.
Nguyen Thi Hiep and extends our deepest condolences to the
family.
The Vietnamese authorities have not responded to any of the
concerns that have been raised by the government and we remain
completely unsatisfied with the public renouncement. Therefore,
the Minister of External Affairs has suspended all ministerial
level contact between Canada and Vietnam, other than the contact
that occurs in the context of multilateral meetings.
I am also postponing indefinitely upcoming consultations on
existing development assistance and future programming in
Vietnam. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has also requested that
our ambassador to Vietnam, who is currently—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, despite assurances from the Vietnamese authorities
to put the execution on hold while reviewing fresh evidence from
Canada, Vietnam proceeded with the shooting of a Canadian woman
who may have unwittingly been duped into carrying drugs.
On the heels of a disastrous trip to the Middle East, where the
Prime Minister's ineptitude with regard to foreign affairs was
evident, the Prime Minister remained completely silent on this
international tragedy.
1430
While playing golf again this weekend with the President of the
United States, did he enlist the support of the United States in
condemning this injustice? This is a woman's life.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the decisions and interventions of the government were
made last week. As the minister said, we deplore this absolutely
unacceptable conduct of the Government of Vietnam. We have taken
all possible steps to make sure it understands that such action
cannot be accepted and that the Canadian government absolutely
condemns it.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, thousands of Canadians are lining up today to send their
tax returns and personal cheques to Shawinigan. There are going
to be a lot more than three coins in that fountain.
Can the finance minister tell us why Canadians should literally
and figuratively send record high taxes to Shawinigan to fund
fountains and private businesses?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, three and a half months after the budget I would like
to congratulate the hon. member for his first question.
I would point out to him, three months later, that in the budget
the government brought down $58 billion worth of tax reductions
over the course of the next five years. We have reintroduced
indexation of the tax system to protect low and middle income
Canadians. We have cut the middle tax rate from 26% to 24%, and
it is on its way to 23%. I shall continue.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it goes to show that if they torture numbers enough they
will confess to anything I guess.
The finance minister overtaxes Canadians by billions of dollars
a year in order to fund boondoggle spending. Yet, before the
budget, he was running around telling journalists that the
government cannot pick winners in the private sector, but losers
sure can pick governments.
When did the finance minister change his mind and decide that it
was the role of government to fund fountains in the Prime
Minister's riding and private businesses?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member wants to see losers all he has to do
is look in the mirror. He looks a little fried.
The member only has to look at the government's industrial
policy in terms of our support for research and development, our
support for education and our support for the Canadians who will
build the economy of the future. If the hon. member would look
at our infrastructure program, which will be signed by the
President of the Treasury Board with the provinces and
municipalities across this country, he would see that the
government is laying the climate and creating the basic structure
that will give us the best economy we have ever seen.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we know that the RCMP filed an affidavit in the Court of Quebec
to the effect that it has evidence that CINAR used other
people's names.
Obviously, Revenue Canada's voluntary disclosure program
therefore does not apply in the case of CINAR. But negotiations
between CINAR and Revenue Canada under this program continue
nonetheless.
Will the Minister of National Revenue assure the House that he
is not in a race to save CINAR before the RCMP has completed its
investigation and reported to the Attorney General of Canada?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on numerous
occasions, first, under the law, with respect to questions on
specific files, this is confidential information that I may not
comment on.
Second, Canada has something called the Income Tax Act. It
applies to all Canadians, both individuals and corporations.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
without going into the details of the particular case of CINAR,
will the minister admit that, when the RCMP has evidence of
apparent tax fraud in a particular instance, his department's
voluntary disclosure program by its very description is no
longer applicable?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Once again, Mr. Speaker, first, I cannot
provide any specific information; second, the law applies to
everyone; and third, I wish to repeat what I have already said
in the House—there is excellent co-operation between the RCMP and
the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
* * *
1435
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, according to senior civil servants
who run job creation partnerships, the majority of funds for this
program are supposed to go to salaries.
However, in the Deputy Prime Minister's riding over 80% of $1.6
million went to buy materials like trees and toilets for a
waterfront park.
Would the minister not agree that this is the latest example of
flushing taxpayers' money away just to provide a Liberal member
of parliament with a photo opportunity?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not agree with the
comments of the hon. member.
If we look at this project, it was brought forward by the city
of Windsor as part of its strategic plan. In partnership with
the Human Resources Development Canada people in that area, they
identified 37 men and women who were on employment insurance, who
did not want to stay at home collecting benefits, but wanted an
attachment to the workplace, to get experience in landscaping, in
laying bricks and in planting trees.
What we now have is a vast majority of those 37 people working,
and we have a legacy in the city of Windsor of which all are
proud.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians want to
know, if this program is so good in providing these jobs skills
for people, why did only 20% of the funds go to job creation and
preparing for jobs? Why did 80% of those funds go to something
else?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me confirm that this project was
fully in compliance with the terms and conditions of the job
creation program.
I would ask the hon. member, if we want to provide 37 men and
women with the skills and experience they need to get full time
jobs in landscaping, how would they do that if they did not have
bricks, if they did not have trees, if they did not have
resources?
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one
cannot talk about voluntary disclosure in the case of CINAR,
since it was the Bloc Quebecois' questions that brought the
issue brought to the government's attention.
Under the circumstances, could the Minister of National Revenue
assure us, beyond any doubt, that no arrangement will be
concluded under the voluntary disclosure program with CINAR or
with any of the bogus companies involved with CINAR, since
whistle blowing was required to bring the whole issue to light?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, at the risk of repeating
myself, I cannot make specific comments on CINAR. However, I
wish to refer to the fairness initiative put forward by the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency of which I am very proud and
which includes several points.
That initiative includes what is called voluntary disclosure. It
goes without saying that the notion of voluntary disclosure
implies an initiative, a positive action taken by an individual
or a corporation.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is using confidentiality to avoid answering, but is he
not using it to protect CINAR and put a lid on the whole issue?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, as I said, the Income Tax
Act applies to all Canadians, it applies to all individuals and
corporations.
People clearly understand and support the principle of
confidentiality, a principle which I will uphold as Minister of
National Revenue.
Also, as I said before, voluntary disclosure is a positive
action. The government or any other entity must not have already
taken measures to recover funds belonging to the state.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
in a Montreal hospital a wealthy Moroccan patient was able to
buy heart surgery for $60,000. At the same time, 635 Canadians
were on the waiting list for the same surgery at the same
hospital in Montreal.
Why does this rich foreigner get to jump the queue while
Canadians die waiting for the same surgery?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member will know that the management of hospitals is in
either regional or provincial hands.
The member should also know that if the question of money were
the only issue, we should remember that the Government of Quebec
has some $800 million from last year's budget still sitting in a
bank account in Toronto.
If money were the only answer, then that problem would be
solved.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, obviously that money was for five years and it is just
using prudent management in terms of spending.
The member constantly hides behind the Canada Health Act. At
the—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: That is pretty rude of that bunch over
there.
1440
The Speaker: Order, please. I agree with the hon.
member. There is a bit of rudeness on both sides.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, the minister hides behind the
Canada Health Act. At the same time, the government has cut
funding, it has failed to modernize the decaying system and it
has forced hospitals to look at alternate types of funding.
Again, why is the government letting foreigners jump the queue
to buy complex surgery while Canadians are forced to wait on the
sidelines?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if this hon. member is to be the critic for the Canadian
Alliance, he had better do his homework. He would find out that
over the last 14 months the government increased by $14 billion
the amount available to the provinces for health. This
government has health as its priority.
The Reform Party would insist that we respect provincial
jurisdiction, and indeed we do. When the provinces come to us to
talk about improvements to the health care system, it means more
than just more money; it means better management. We are
prepared to work with our provincial partners to make sure that
happens.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the case of
pregnant women's entitlement to preventive withdrawal from the
workplace, women covered by the Canada Labour Code do not have
the same rights as those under the Quebec Labour Code. This
injustice can be promptly remedied if the minister has the
political will to do so.
Will the Minister of Labour commit to entering into an
administrative agreement with her Quebec colleague, as soon as
possible, so that all women workers in Quebec will have the same
entitlement?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Quebec Minister of Labour and myself are still at the stage
of discussing conditions, particularly the working conditions of
the women of Quebec and of Canada. I will be delighted to sit
down with her to discuss this situation.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Can she
inform the House whether she intends to make representations to
CBC-Radio Canada so as to ensure the retention of its local and
regional programs?
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe my hon.
colleague will acknowledge that the CBC is an independent body.
It would be inappropriate for the government to tell it what to
do. This would, essentially, be interfering.
Moreover, CBC President Rabinovitch acknowledged during his
appearance before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in
February that the corporation had a mandate to represent the
country's regions.
Canadians are free to contact Mr. Rabinovitch, or members of the
board, to voice their concerns about future decisions.
* * *
[English]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, operation sidewinder revealed that the Chinese
government and Asian criminal gangs have been working
hand in hand to set up shop in Canada. Their goals were to
influence Canadian politicians, steal high tech secrets, launder
money and gain control of legitimate Canadian companies.
Canadians want to know why CSIS shut down operation sidewinder
in 1997.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to forget a
little too quickly that the report released after this affair was
released jointly by the RCMP and CSIS. Therefore, this is an
illustration of the co-operation between these two agencies.
I must also point out that the Security Intelligence Review
Committee, SIRC, is currently reviewing the matter. Once it
hands in its report, we will be delighted to examine it together.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the sidewinder report obtained by the Globe and
Mail called this one of the greatest ongoing threats to
Canada's national security and Canadian industry. The
parliamentary secretary is correct in that it was a joint task
force of the RCMP and CSIS. They recommended expanding it to
include the Departments of Foreign Affairs, International Trade
and Immigration. Instead of expanding it, CSIS shut it down and
we want to know why.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his question. It gives me the opportunity to say something I
have wanted to say for some time.
1445
On the subject of international co-operation to protect the
security of Canadian territory, Janet Reno, the United States
attorney general, contacted our solicitor general to congratulate
him on the co-operation she received from the RCMP and CSIS in
resolving problems of international terrorism.
Sometimes, perhaps it is worth seeing the glass as half full.
* * *
[English]
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians value and believe in our universal health care system
and the right to education. Day after day we have taken this
government to task to stand up for medicare and to stop
privatization. Now Canadians are facing not just the threat of a
two tier health care system but two tier education.
I want to ask the Prime Minister is he going to stand by and do
nothing or will he say loud and clear that this government will
not allow private universities and that funding will be restored
for our public institutions to make sure that there is
accessibility for students? Will he do that?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is
always working together with its provincial counterparts on a
variety of issues involving education and anything else. The
hon. member opposite will know that we have increased the
government transfers under CHST. Contrary to the allegations
made by several members, including those in her caucus, the
amounts received by the provinces are not less now; they are
greater than what they were when we came to power in 1993.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC REGIONS
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on April 27,
in the Gaspe Peninsula, the Minister of Human Resources
Development said that her department was considering granting
the status of distinct economic region to the region of
Gaspésie—Les Îles, to better reflect employment insurance needs
in the area.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Is her department considering making changes to its economic
regions in all the regions of the country affected by seasonal
work, such as the Acadian Peninsula?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every five years the economic regions
have to be reviewed right across Canada. We are in the middle of
that process as we speak. The economists who are associated with
the Employment Insurance Commission will be looking at the
statistics and making recommendations for change as appropriate.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. Marine Atlantic
recently announced an increase in ferry rates between
Newfoundland and the mainland of Canada. However the Minister of
Veterans Affairs announced a couple of days ago that the ferry
rates would be placed on hold, I guess until the St. John's West
byelection is over.
Can the Minister of Transport indicate how long these ferry
rates will be placed on hold?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there has been no announcement and no approval of
ferry rate increases for Marine Atlantic. There have been
consultations between the management of Marine Atlantic and the
trucking industry in Newfoundland about the costing regime, given
the fact that there has not been an increase for about four or
five years. There has been no approval granted. Therefore my
colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs was entirely correct.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
know no approval has been given. This summer we expect a big
tourism season because of the Viking millennium celebrations.
Stable ferry rates can only help make this summer a great
success. Given the importance of that very link to the survival
and the continued growth of our tourism industry, will the
minister agree to freeze the rates indefinitely?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the hon. member stands in the House
with a straight face asking for a freeze indefinitely. There is
no freeze on any rate increases or any taxes or any guarantee
that could be made by any government. What I have said is that
there have been no increases that have been approved.
For the very reasons the member has outlined, we want to make
sure that we have extra capacity on the gulf run this summer to
deal with the burgeoning tourism industry. We will make that
commitment. It will be a good service and will provide all the
capacity for everyone in Newfoundland.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has just
returned from a trade mission to China and the Philippines. Could
the minister inform the House as to the trade benefits for
Canadian farmers resulting from this mission?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the delegation was very successful on two
accounts.
I had the opportunity to meet with Vice Premier Weng Giabao in
China and the president of the Philippines and their respective
ministers of agriculture to stress the importance of all of us
working together to eliminate domestic and export subsidies
around the world.
1450
In China I was able to sign a protocol that will allow the
Canadian pork industry to now ship pork into China, and also
another protocol that will allow Canada to be the first and only
country at this time to sell seed potatoes into that market.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor
general and is with regard to operation sidewinder.
We are talking about a massive international criminal
organization that is looking to win influence with U.S. and
Canadian politicians. It is looking to steal high tech secrets,
launder money and to use legitimate Canadian companies as shells
for its criminal activities.
Can the solicitor general explain to the House why and what was
behind the decision to abolish operation sidewinder?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, based on what the hon. member
said, I think he will support our bill on money laundering.
I understand the member supports our allocating moneys to fight
organized crime, particularly the $115 million for the CPIC, the
$78 million for the anti-smuggling initiative, the additional
$810 million, over a three year period, for the solicitor
general, the elimination of the $1,000 bill, and the
establishment of 13 joint units to prevent crime.
I could go on for three hours. This is what the member does not
want to recognize.
* * *
BILL C-3
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice is still refusing to let Quebec continue to
enforce the Young Offenders Act, even though all of Quebec's
stakeholders still say that the approach in her Bill C-3 is at
odds with Quebec's approach.
Does the minister not understand that a law cannot be enforced
on a regional basis and that, as a result, since her new law
would not exclude Quebec from its application, it must be
concluded that the Quebec model will disappear in favour of the
rest of Canada's punitive and repressive approach?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, far from having the Quebec
model disappear, the proposed new youth justice act will enhance
and encourage many of the strategies that the province of Quebec
and agencies and programs supported by it have in place.
I continue to ask the hon. member for identification of any
programs or initiatives presently undertaken in the province that
would not be continued under the proposed law. He has not gotten
back to me yet.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, western
Canadians are completely shocked with the 4.5% hike in freight
rates announced for grain last week.
Short weeks after the wheat board minister promised more than
1,000 SARM delegates that they could expect $150 million in
reductions this year in freight rates, the rates are actually
going up by $44 million. It is unfair, unwarranted, unbelievable
and the reaction across the prairies and in Saskatchewan
particularly is unprintable.
Will the transport minister tell the House why he has not
already ordered a suspension of this outrageous increase?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that it is the statutory
responsibility of the Canadian Transportation Agency to take into
account all the costs that railways are bearing in their
operations. Therefore it was fully entitled to make the judgment
it made some weeks ago.
I realize it has caused some concern with respect to people on
the prairies, but as the hon. member knows we are working hard on
a package to improve the competitive position of the grain
farmers in the prairies. I hope that some of those savings my
colleague talked about in the media some weeks ago can indeed be
passed on to producers.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of National Defence has been quite open to Canada's
involvement in a North American continental defence system. Our
wannabe minister of the Nobel peace prize would rather have us as
sitting ducks. Since the Minister of Foreign Affairs is
inactive, is the Minister of National Defence looking at an
amendment to bring the Russians on line or are we looking at the
death of NORAD?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has
raised some valid questions with respect to the proposal that is
now before the United States administration.
We are all concerned about these matters both from a defence
perspective and also from a perspective of international peace
and security. The right questions are being asked.
The United States has not made any decision with respect to the
matter. It has not asked Canada to participate. Canada will in
due course look at the matter very seriously and the Government
of Canada will make a decision on it.
* * *
1455
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in regard to the solicitor general's
answer last time, this side of the House supports the bill on
money laundering. It was this side of the House that brought the
bill in on organized crime. It was this side of the House, not
that side of the House.
If his government was not behind the destruction of the
sidewinder file, why will he not tell the House why the
sidewinder file was destroyed?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered this
question in French a few times already and apparently there is a
problem. Let me say it again in English this time.
Number one, sidewinder was not shut down. Number two, the
report which came out of the sidewinder operation was jointly
produced by the RCMP and CSIS. Number three, SIRC, the Security
Intelligence Review Committee, is looking at this report and is
going to produce its own findings.
Instead of basing my assessment on speculation as those members
would like us to do, I would rather base it on facts.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's claim last April that
there was no problem exporting GMOs, his secretary of state took
the opposite view in the fall of 1997, citing the example of the
ban on exporting transgenic canola to Europe.
How can the minister continue to deny the export problems, when
our producers are suffering the consequences of his failure to
take action?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will report again that this government
is involved very much with the Canadian standards board, with the
industry, with the Consumers' Association of Canada, with several
ministries of this government and the provinces in working toward
a set of criteria that could be used in order to label products.
There must be criteria. This is where other countries have found
a problem. They cannot get a set of criteria that is meaningful,
enforceable and credible.
* * *
NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
On February 15 of this year the Prime Minister said the
government would study the concentration of newspaper ownership
in response to Thomson's announcement that it would sell off most
of its newspapers. Given that Hollinger announced last week that
over 300 community papers and over 50 daily papers could now be
up for sale, can the Prime Minister inform the House of the
progress of his study? Will he use this unique opportunity to
bring in a newspaper act as the royal commission on newspapers
recommended?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think what the hon. member is talking about is not
concentration. It is the people who had concentration who want
to sell their newspapers. That is a different problem from the
question that was asked before.
If Mr. Black is selling his newspapers, someone else will buy
them and there will be less concentration rather than more
concentration. It is better to wait and see what he will do with
his newspapers.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, given the earlier answer about the assassination of
a Canadian citizen in Vietnam and the Prime Minister's non
response, I want to ask him again, did he take the time during a
four hour golf game with the President of the United States to
even raise the issue? The President of the United States took
the time to personally intervene to try to save this Canadian's
life. Why did the Prime Minister not do the same thing, pick up
the phone and extend a life line to a Canadian citizen?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I explained clearly the position of the Canadian
government on that. I do not have to ask the President of the
United States to state the position for Canada. Canada can state
its position on its own.
On the other hand I used the occasion of my talk with the
president. Last week I talked with him on the telephone and I
talked with him privately about the situation in the Middle East.
Not only that, Mr. Berger, the person looking after security,
came on Saturday morning to discuss for an hour and a half with
me the report of the Canadian mission in the Middle East. He was
very happy with the trip and what the Canadian government has
done.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Solicitor General for his answer in both
languages.
I understood it in both languages. He did not answer the
question.
1500
Let me ask him a simple question. Why did the government shut
down the sidewinder investigation when the RCMP wanted it
expanded?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the sidewinder was not
shut down. It is as simple as that.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110 these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
* * *
PETITIONS
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition from
tens of thousands of petitioners from my riding and throughout
British Columbia.
1505
The petitioners point out the need for a national highway system
and that an improved national transportation infrastructure would
lead to improved quality life for Canadians through greater
productivity, trade opportunities, job creation and tourism.
They call upon parliament to do whatever it can to encourage the
government to adopt a national highway system, to put into place
a national highway policy and to provide adequate funding for
highway development.
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians
including from my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that Canada has the second highest incidence of breast cancer in
the world, second only to the United States; that the United
States has had mandatory mammography quality assurance standards
since October 1994; and that Canada has no legislation for
mandatory quality assurance standards.
Therefore the petitioners ask parliament to enact legislation to
establish an independent governing body to develop, implement and
enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance and
quality control standards.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today on the issue of
marriage. One calls on the government to adopt Bill C-225 to
define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
The other petition calls on parliament to withdraw and overturn
Bill C-23, to affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in
legislation and to ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique
institution.
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a number of petitions to present today. In the first one
the petitioners ask that parliament enact legislation to
establish an independent governing body to develop and implement
uniform mammography testing.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition asks that we withdraw Bill C-23, reaffirm the
opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation, and recognize
marriage as an institution.
YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is with regard to Yugoslavia. The petitioners ask
that we put in some funds to help rebuild the entire country.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the last petition the petitioners ask that the government
reaffirm its 1989 resolution to eliminate child poverty by the
year 2000. They suggest that the federal government introduce a
multi-year plan to improve and establish legislation for
children.
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
the pleasure to table a petition signed by about 75 people of the
Saint-Maurice Valley, in the ridings of Champlain and of
Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding, and of Trois-Rivières
of course.
The petitioners call on parliament to quickly pass legislation
making it mandatory to label foods containing, partially or
totally, genetically modified organisms. I call the attention of
the House to the fact that hundreds of citizens from the
Saint-Maurice Valley have already made such a request.
[English]
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that is reflective of
the concerns of many Canadians pursuant to nuclear weapons.
The petitioners point out that over 30,000 nuclear weapons exist
around the world and that this huge stockpile of nuclear weapons
poses a threat to the health and survival of human civilization
and the global environment.
Therefore they pray and request that parliament support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention which will set out a binding timetable
for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the day before an opposition day on
GMOs, I have the pleasure to table a petition signed by 108
people, mainly in my riding, calling on parliament to quickly
pass legislation making it mandatory to label foods containing,
partially or totally, genetically modified organisms.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I also
rise to present a petition with respect to genetically engineered
foods.
These citizens call upon parliament to legislate clear labelling
on all genetically engineered seeds, foods and their byproducts
available in Canada and, further, that these products be banned
from the market until they have been rigorously tested.
1510
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from a very large number of citizens in
Peterborough who point out that increases in gas prices far
exceed what we should be paying based on current prices for crude
oil at the wellhead, resulting in the gouging of consumers at the
gas pumps and negatively affecting the economy of Canada.
The petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation to
regulate standard gasoline prices across Canada.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present, both of which are on
the same subject but were sent on different days. There contain
well over 400 names.
The petitioners are asking the government to recall Bill C-23,
to affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation
and to ensure that marriage be recognized as a unique
institution.
BREAST CANCER
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am submitting three petitions to the House of Commons.
The first is signed by 236 individuals who are concerned about
the high incidence of breast cancer in Canada. They are
petitioning parliament to enact legislation to establish an
independent governing body to develop, implement and enforce that
uniform and mandatory mammographies meet quality assurance and
quality control standards in Canada.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by 298 members of the
Highway Pentecostal Church in my riding who are concerned about
child pornography.
They are petitioning parliament to take all measures necessary
to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious
criminal offence.
MARRIAGE
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition is signed by 174 constituents in my
riding who are petitioning parliament to withdraw Bill C-23.
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by over 3,000
Canadians who are desperately concerned about the lack of
affordable and safe housing in Canada.
They call upon the federal government to recognize housing as a
human right and to work with the provinces to ensure that 1% of
the federal budget and the provincial budgets is dedicated to
this most basic human right.
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
also pleased to present a petition signed by over 600 petitioners
who draw attention to the fact that in 1989 the House of Commons
unanimously passed a resolution to eliminate child poverty.
Regrettably we are further from that decision today.
They call on the government to ensure that there are budgetary
measures to meet the goals of ending child poverty in Canada.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise in the House to present a
petition on behalf of some constituents in my riding.
They ask that parliament withdraw Bill C-23, affirm the opposite
sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure that
marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
we add yet 27 more names to over 500,000 on the issue of child
pornography.
These people are mostly from my riding. They are concerned that
the government seems to be paralyzed into inaction in its failure
to take action on the issue of child pornography. The
petitioners urge the government to do something.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a
petition on behalf of western Canadians who are disgusted with
the lack of a national highway program.
Canada is the only country out of the 28 OECD countries in the
world that does not have a national highway program. We have
experienced very significant problems in western Canada such as
deaths on the roads where we have not been able to twin them.
The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons and the
Liberal government to establish a national highway program which
the federal government could fund to help build our country from
coast to coast to coast. They are calling upon the government to
do something quickly with respect to an action plan on building a
national highway system.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to present a petition from my constituents. The
petitioners ask that parliament withdraw Bill C-23, affirm the
opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure
that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition signed by approximately 300 people on behalf of
the staff at the taxation centre in St. John's East-Stafford.
They are looking for equity in the issuance of pay equity
cheques. More specific, term casual employees and casuals who
have not been on current pay since July 1998 will not get their
pay equity cheques until the fall, while other employees received
their retroactive pay equity payments in April. All employees
are due these retroactive payments and I do not see why they
cannot all be paid at the same time.
1515
PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition signed by 45 residents of Newfoundland who wish
to call the attention of the House to the degrading nature of
pornography to individuals and to society as a whole.
They further call upon the House to urge the government to enact
legislation with a view to curbing the production and
distribution of pornographic materials.
CANADA POST
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition signed on behalf of the rural route mail couriers
of Canada.
The petition draws the attention of the House of Commons to the
following: that rural route mail couriers often earn less than
minimum wage and have working conditions reminiscent of another
era; that rural route mail couriers have not been allowed to
bargain collectively to improve their wages and working
conditions; that private sector workers who deliver mail in rural
areas have collective bargaining rights, as do public sector
workers who deliver mail for Canada Post in urban areas; and that
section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits rural
route mail couriers from having collective bargaining rights.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to repeal
section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, an
act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee
protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I was asking the minister at that time how Bill C-31
would impact on closing the door to criminal elements and gangs.
For example, on the front page of the Globe and Mail on
the weekend there was an article about the Chinese triads who are
infiltrating our country, or who have infiltrated our country,
and are establishing a very complex criminal process which is
taking advantage of our citizens, and certainly taking advantage
of being allowed to operate in our country as citizens.
I would hope that this bill would stop these sorts of very
terrible organizations from forming in our country. We have
enough crime as it is without having to import it from China and
other places.
We have some reservations about this bill. It is essential that
the rules apply in the name of fairness and justice and do not
result in a travesty of justice. The best example is that we
will not allow people who have been convicted of crimes to enter
our country.
I think that is a good standard; however, I do not think we
should be totally inflexible about it, because a person convicted
of a crime punishable by more than 10 years, and who has served
more than two years, someone like Nelson Mandela, would not have
qualified as a refugee to Canada under the proposed bill. I
think we have to look at what sort of criminal records these
individuals have and whether they were standing for human rights
in their country, charged and put in jail. We have to look at
those on a case by case basis.
Other examples are the people who hid Anne Frank and the brave
Canadians who helped build the underground railway for American
slaves. They would have qualified for stiff criminal penalties
under Bill C-31. We believe that there are some problems with
that, and I hope that in committee we would be able to resolve
some of those issues.
We also look forward to the minister's invitation to review and
have some input into the regulations. She indicated in the House
earlier today that all stakeholders, caucuses and political
parties would have an opportunity to mould the regulations of
this bill. I am looking forward to having our critic, our caucus
and our party make recommendations with respect to streamlining
the regulations, making them as fair as possible.
In summary, we in the NDP believe that the Immigration Act has
to be modernized. It has to be toughened up.
The two approaches this act takes, being tough on crime and tough
on the causes of crime, are important elements, but we should
also open the door for those who legitimately have grounds for
immigrating to our country to allow those people in.
1520
We have to have the resources backed up by the treasury of
Canada to allow that to happen. This means more resources in the
consulates and embassies of Canada around the world. One of the
biggest problems we have had, for example, is with our embassy in
Beijing. We cannot talk to people there. We only get a recorded
message. Anybody who wishes to make application from China to
Canada has to go through a very complex and frustrating process.
We are hoping that because of the increased resources that will
be provided with the bill this will allow the process to be
streamlined and allow potential new Canadians to actually talk to
existing Canadians on a one to one basis.
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-31, the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act.
We have been asking the government for a long time to introduce
this new immigration legislation, which was supposed to have been
introduced last year. Whether it is late or not, this bill comes
at a time when a lot of flaws and chronic problems are surfacing
at Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Today I will talk about several issues regarding immigration and
the proposed new bill. I will also touch on the auditor general's
report on immigration issued a few weeks ago.
It has brought to light problems that the government has been
aware of for some time.
I would like to set out the recommendations I have brought
before the committee. The minister has stated that the bill would
be tough on criminals, but I am not so sure. The clauses of Bill
C-31 on security are inadequate.
Before dealing with these issues and the bill itself, I want to
remind the House that the Progressive Conservative Party of
Canada is the party of immigration. In the 1980s, under a
Conservative government, the number of immigrants had
skyrocketed. In 1984, the last year of the Liberal government,
Canada had admitted 88,239 immigrants. In 1993, the last year in
office of the Conservative government, it had welcomed 255,919
immigrants. We know the value of increasing the number of
immigrants. Figures do not lie.
[English]
However, we are also aware of the flip side: the abuse of the
system that occurs all too often.
In the 1980s we introduced two controversial bills to deal with
imperfections in the system. These bills, one of which was
emergency legislation, were totally opposed by the Liberals. That
is hardly a surprise. The Liberal theory is all about ignoring
issues and letting them fester. Liberals do not take a stand on
issues out of fear of losing the next election.
When dangers arose we took action. I can assure the House,
during the course of this debate on the immigration bill, the PC
party will continue its tradition of fighting for an efficient
and effective immigration system.
We are familiar with the immigration system. That is why this
party is looking forward to debating the clauses and provisions
found in Bill C-31.
Just three weeks ago the auditor general released a damning
report of the department. Chronic problems exist therein,
problems the Liberal government has not addressed. Even worse,
there are problems the auditor general had discussed before.
Allow me to expand on these serious issues.
All newcomers to Canada must pass a medical test to protect
Canadian society from the risk of disease. Criteria for medical
tests are next to nil and have been standard for quite some time;
40 years. No testing exists for new diseases like HIV or
hepatitis. Even more, physicians do not determine medical
admissibility; officers do.
Approved doctors carry out examinations and forward their advice
to the officers. What medical risks are posed to Canadians?
What new diseases are routinely transported to Canada?
1525
Just this past weekend the American president announced that he
had declared HIV as the number one security risk for the U.S.A.,
and we are not really even looking at it.
Sadly, the auditor general underlined deficiencies in medical
examinations 10 years ago.
The Liberals need to get off their hands and address potential
medical risks to Canadians. How could they possibly delay this?
Reading through the immigration bill does not provide any
reassurances that the health of Canadians will be protected any
time soon. Medical tests and health provisions are given very
little space in Bill C-31. I am not satisfied that sufficient
preventive measures are taken in the new bill. When will the
criteria for medical admissibility be updated? What health
conditions are considered to be a danger to public health? What
diseases will excessively burden the health care system? These
are only a few questions that the minister should address in this
new piece of legislation.
The auditor general also addressed the department's computer
systems. The systems are outdated and not integrated. Are these
the kinds of computer systems that aid in determining medical and
criminal admissibility to Canada?
The minister has announced a new global case management system
which she says will cost $200 million. The department has
received $575 million in new funding, but $209 million has been
spent now. This new funding will be eaten up very quickly.
Where does the minister expect to find the extra funding that
will be required for the case management system and the increased
administration brought about by Bill C-31?
No one will ever know how many criminals are admitted to Canada.
Foreign police records may not be updated or reliable. Some
countries cannot provide the information due to internal turmoil.
The department's solution to this is to simply not require police
certificates from 40 different countries. This is a preposterous
means to deal with criminal admissibility to Canada.
That is not all. In 1998 over 1,300 ministerial permits were
issued to people with criminal convictions. What kinds of people
are routinely coming to this country?
Stiffer fines and longer jail terms may help in keeping
criminals out of Canada, but we need to start at the source. We
need to have a better detection strategy in place abroad to
screen criminals. Simply not requiring certificates from
unreliable countries does not take care of the problem.
I hope the minister sees fit to take an introverted look at her
department and fix it on the inside. I hope the new global case
management system will soon be up and running. I am not
satisfied that the new bill adequately addresses the holes in the
internal administration at the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration.
As the standing committee discussed its draft report on border
security I was able to secure two amendments in the final
report. That amendment was the requirement for all refugee
claimants to be fingerprinted and photographed at first point of
contact in Canada.
It often happens that refugee claimants disappear and do not
show up for their hearings. One statistic from the Immigration
and Refugee Board in Vancouver shows that 71% of claimants did
not show up for their hearings. Where are these people going?
How many criminals are passing through? What threats and risks
are posed to Canadians as these unknowns walk our streets?
As a party we are concerned about these potential criminals.
That is why identifying these individuals at first contact is of
prime importance. As a sovereign nation we have a right and a
duty to know who is entering our country. In such a large
country as Canada it is hard to keep track of every single
person, but we must make some attempt to be familiar with who is
coming in.
This resolution passed unopposed at committee. Members were
supportive that it be included in the bill. Members can well
imagine my astonishment that the minister did not include the
fingerprint and photograph recommendation in Bill C-31.
When I asked officials about this they told me that it would be
carried out by way of regulation. This does not suffice.
1530
Fingerprints and photographs must be provided for in the new
bill. We should not allow such an important provision, unopposed
by the standing committee, to be carried out only at the whim of
immigration officials. To have teeth, this needs to be written
into Bill C-31.
A second resolution I proposed at committee involves safe third
countries. A safe third country is one a potential refugee to
Canada has passed through on his or her way here. Safe third
country provisions would be an efficient and fair means to deal
with undocumented refugee claimants. These individuals would
have a safe haven in a safe third country.
The thinking behind the safe third country provision is that it
is mutually beneficial. More important, the refugee claimants
are given a safe haven in a country they pass through on their
way to Canada. Second, Canada is able to control its borders
from undocumented arrivals.
I am pleased that Bill C-31 makes provisions for safe third
country negotiations in clause 95. The government is willing to
pursue the idea of safe third countries, but why has it not taken
any action? Over the past seven years the Liberals have
negotiated safe third country provisions with only one country,
the United States. They spent one and a half years at
negotiations with no success. That is strange since it is
beneficial to both countries.
The minister must have an idea of what other countries are seen
as potential partners. I would ask if she would provide the
House with such a list and when negotiations will start.
One of the biggest fears of this party is the entry of foreign
criminals. As we heard from members of the NDP, Canada has
enough crime of its own. We do not need to start importing it.
Though the new bill purports to toughen our present stance on
criminals, much more can be done.
In the new legislation provision is made to bar individuals from
the refugee determination system in clauses 31 and 32. Clause 31
deals with those inadmissible on the grounds of having violated
human rights. Clause 31 refers to representatives “of a
government against which Canada has imposed or has agreed to
impose sanctions in association with the international
community”. Would the minister please clarify a representative?
Is it a government official or a national of that country?
Clause 32 of Bill C-31 sets out criteria for serious
criminality. I do not understand why a serious criminal is only
deemed to be someone who has been convicted of a crime punishable
by 10 years or more in Canada. Why these numbers? Is the
minister telling us that offences for which someone could serve
only nine years are not serious? What does she mean by serious
criminality? I am baffled at why the minister would not take all
crime seriously.
Even more, there is not necessarily consistency between the
justice systems of two countries. An offence punishable in
Canada by 10 years may not be punishable in another country at
all. I am not comfortable with these numbers. As they are set
out in the bill I do not see how these provisions will be
effective in keeping criminals out.
In the PC Party's platform for the 1997 election we spelled out
our commitment to end patronage appointments to the Immigration
and Refugee Board. In keeping with good Liberal traditions, part
4, clause 150, states in black and white that members of the IRB
will be appointed by the governor in council. No means of
ensuring meritorious appointments are outlined in the new bill.
This party and numerous witnesses at committee, including the
Canadian Council for Refugees and the Canadian Bar Association,
have called on the government to end patronage appointments. The
government has again cast aside this recommendation in favour of
its own partisan interests.
I believe an effective and representative opposition will
criticize the governing party when necessary but will also give
it a pat on the back if it does something right. I am pleased
that the minister has changed the provisions and requirements for
in Canada processing. Spouses, students and temporary workers
will now be able to apply for permanent residency from right here
in Canada.
They will not have to uproot themselves and go through the delays
in the immigration system once they have settled in.
1535
[Translation]
This is important for me because I come from Lennoxville, a
university city whose population increase in September with the
arrival of students who come from all over the world to go to
Bishop's University.
I have met many bright, talented, and ambitious students from
abroad who would have liked to stay in Canada to start a new
life. Unfortunately, I have also met some who did everything they
could to stay in Canada, but who had to interrupt their courses
or their work program to go abroad in order to apply for
permanent residence.
This is one measure that will be beneficial to those young
people who are brilliant and full of energy.
Recently, a woman from my riding was a victim of the flaws in
the current landing provisions. She moved to Canada two years ago
to live in the Eastern Townships with her husband, who left her
shortly thereafter. Since she had asked to come to Canada under
her husband's name, she found herself in a critical situation.
She must now leave Canada to be able to apply for permanent
residence.
This is all the more difficult since she has four young
children, two of whom go to school. That family has begun its
integration into Canadian society, but the mother is now forced
to leave Canada with her family to apply for permanent residence
in Canada. On top of all the trouble this is causing her, she
does not even know how long she will have to wait before being
granted permanent resident status.
I congratulate the minister for the measures she is taking in
that regard. It is a step in the right direction that will open
our front door a little wider.
I am happy to express my point of view and that of my party on
Bill C-31, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the
granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced,
persecuted or in danger. Members of the Progressive Conservative
Party will be at the forefront of this debate. As I said at the
beginning of my remarks, we are the immigration party. We took
the necessary measures to correct, as much as possible, the flaws
in our system.
We have a good knowledge of the subject and, as we have done in
the past, our party will see to it that Canada and its borders
are well protected.
[English]
I will talk about a couple of cases which may illustrate why I
feel a lot of things have not been addressed in the bill.
I had the opportunity to sit in on some interviews, the first
one being an immigration case involving a young gentleman and his
wife. The gentleman was an aeronautic engineer with six years
university in another country which he knew from previous
experience was not recognized in Canada. By the way, aeronautic
engineers were being given high marks on our points system.
He was applying as an aircraft mechanic since he also had
experience in that field. Unfortunately our points system had
not caught up and he was not recognized as being in demand in
Canada. He spoke both of Canada's official languages. He had a
young family and a good background and was willing to establish
in Canada. Yet, because of the problem with the points system and
with not recognizing certain educational certificates from other
countries, we are having to refuse people like him. That is one
point where our system is missing out, and it is not being
addressed in the new bill.
Since I do not have much time I will go directly to the problem
of border security. Customs officers in many cases are our first
line immigration officers. Unfortunately they have very limited
powers, resources and training. This is being looked at.
In my riding I have seven border crossings. The government has
decided that at one of these border crossings it will be training
people and giving them the required power they need and
everything that goes along with it. However, that is one border
crossing.
It makes absolutely no sense at all. That leaves six other
crossings in the riding for which there are absolutely no plans
for changing the people, giving them proper training and
equipment and everything that goes along with it. Therefore
there will not be a problem with any criminals who want to come
across the border. They will just pick another border crossing.
1540
That is not directly related to immigration but yet it attacks
immigration all along the line. I will leave it at that and I
will say that I look forward to bringing forth some amendments
and having some good discussion and debate in committee.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it was interesting that a member of the Conservative
Party pointed out that the Liberal government was not quite the
party of immigration it claimed to be.
That is a good point. The Liberals always talk like they care
about immigration, but they have let the system decay to a state
of shambles. It is not working for economic immigrants who would
help our country quite quickly. It is not working for genuine
refugees. It is working all too well for bogus claimants, for
people who come here illegally and for people smugglers. I do
not believe the legislation will help the government deal with
it.
At the same time the Liberals have allowed the numbers of
immigrants to decline every year since they were elected to
office in 1993. That party claims to be the party of
immigration. It has allowed the numbers of immigrants coming to
the country to decline every year since it has gained power. It
is not what it says it is.
My greatest concern is not the number of immigrants so much as
the fact that the system has collapsed so badly it just cannot
deal with the problem of proper screening and attracting the
people whom we need to help us build our country. We are at a
stage where our country needs rebuilding.
It is very interesting that the Conservative member talks about
the Mulroney Conservatives as having been the party of
immigration. It is true that the Conservatives allowed the
numbers in, but they were the ones following on the heels of the
Trudeau regime who allowed our immigration system, which once was
an excellent system, to collapse. They were the ones who allowed
that to happen. They allowed many people to come in under a
general amnesty. The numbers are there but there was absolutely
no screening of people allowed in under the general amnesty. That
is the way they allowed high numbers to come in.
The issue is how we help people who will benefit our country
most quickly to come to our country and how we keep people out
that we just do not want. The hon. member is not looking at the
Mulroney record very realistically if he considers that the
Conservatives had a good record on immigration.
Hon members should go to the 1990 auditor general's report. They
were in office three years after that. The auditor general
pointed out just a couple of weeks ago that exactly the same
problems are still there in 2000 which were there in 1990. The
Mulroney Conservatives did nothing to fix that up in the three
years they had to work on the system. Their record is no better
and I think the hon. member should acknowledge that.
My question for the member is about the issue of a safe third
country. I have heard people who have worked in the immigration
system at very high levels say that the reason our refugee system
is working so poorly, if we wanted to find one reason, is the
issue of a safe third country where refugees are allowed to make
claims, even if they come from a country that is considered to be
a safe country of origin. I have had more than one person who is
very knowledgeable about the system, having worked in the system,
tell me that had this issue been dealt with when the IRB was put
in place under the Mulroney regime our refugee system would be
working quite well right now. Because that was not done, the IRB
has been a failure from the start.
1545
How important does the member think this issue is of a safe
third country and not allowing people to make refugee claims if
they come from a country that is seen to be a country that
respects human rights and is a signatory to the United Nations
convention on refugees?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the
member's question. The safe third country is something that has
been bugging me all along.
I have no problem saying that the safe third was brought in by
our government in 1988 but, unfortunately, was never acted upon.
When we talk to the people in immigration now they tell us that
all they have done so far to the existing law that is on the
books is spend a year and a half negotiating with the United
States. No other country has been looked at so far, which is
really very unfortunate because a lot of countries are out there.
We have seen cases recently, such as the group that came through
India last summer from Tibet. We know for a fact that some of
those people spent several years in India and others spent
several years in Germany. They could easily have applied through
those countries. Since we know that they came from those
countries, had we had agreements with them, they could have been
sent directly back there to apply.
I do agree with the hon. member on that. It was one of the
recommendations I made in committee and one that was unanimously
accepted by all members. One of the items I had asked for, and
which was accepted, was that at the end of each year the minister
would bring a report to the House stating how many countries with
which they had been negotiating and how far the negotiations had
gone. Doing that on a yearly basis would probably push things a
little more to get this into the system.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to comment on the speech of the hon. member of the
opposition.
I wish to remind him that the vast majority of refugees do not
immigrate to Canada to settle here. On the contrary, they choose
to go to what they call a third country, the second or third
country they move to, namely neighbouring countries to their
country of origin. In other words, those who want to leave
Rwanda will first go by the thousands if not by the millions to
countries next to their own, rather than come to Canada.
When we talk about the few thousands of refugees who wish to
come to Canada, I think we must consider the issue in its true
perspective and consider the responsibility we have, as
Canadians, to accept them.
But most of all, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a
question. How can he reconcile what he said with the facts? The
fact is that when the Liberals formed the government in the
1950s and 1960s and even during the 1940s, immigrants came to
Canada from Italy, Germany, Greece, and we also welcomed Jews
who left Europe after the war. We welcomed them by the thousands
and they became the very backbone of our immigration. Today,
their children and grandchildren are Canadian citizens.
Therefore, when the hon. member says that the Liberal government
of the day never championed immigration, I would like him to
explain how, in the face of evidence to the contrary, he can
reconcile his comments with the facts?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question will
be very short. There were not only Liberal governments at the
time; there were two governments, the Conservative and the
Liberal. Both accepted immigrants during the years the hon.
member mentioned. I should know, because my wife is from Germany
and was a member of this group of immigrants during the 1950s.
1550
Times have changed a lot, needs have changed as well, and the
Liberal government did not respond. We responded to these
problems.
The Liberal government talks about 300,000 people. This is an
approximate number. I have just asked the committee to examine
this issue, and I believe it has agreed to examine the number of
people we would need now, because the figure is not known.
When we ask the minister, she tells us the figure of 300,000
comes from the red book. I do not think so. The last study was
done in 1980. There has been nothing since then.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague for the very thoughtful, balanced and
wonderful position that he put forward on Bill C-31. He
mentioned that he had suggested a fingerprint-photo ID with
respect to the policy we are now developing for immigration but
that the bureaucrats decided that it would best be done through
regulation as opposed to legislation. For my purposes, it is
always better to have it in legislation so that legislative rule
is in place for people to work with that type of
photo-fingerprint ID.
Can my hon. colleague tell me why it is that the bureaucrats are
so insistent that it be in regulation as opposed to legislation,
such as Bill C-31?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it is more
than just bureaucrats. The bureaucrats want to make the
regulations but they are being pressured by the minister. It
becomes a budget problem. The fact is that to do fingerprints
and photos requires equipment. Equipment is available in most of
the places but not everywhere. The problem is dollars. The only
way we to ensure we have a system like that is for it be in the
bill. We will then be guaranteed that the money will be there.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from time to
time, immigration makes the headlines. This is especially true
lately. Whenever this happens, there is always someone to say
that Canada should amend its immigration laws to fix the problem
of the day.
Since I came here, we have all heard this on various occasions
in the House. However, the time comes when we have to look at
the whole picture. Instead of asking for a particular amendment
to fix a particular problem, we must overhaul the whole
legislation. We have to rethink the way we do things.
Essentially, this is what the government has done with Bill C-31.
After extensive consultations, the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration recommended that we, parliamentarians, approve a new
legal framework for immigration and the protection of refugees
in Canada. We are not talking about tinkering. We are talking
about a whole new act in tune with today's needs and realities.
[English]
I want to spend a few minutes today covering some of the
fundamental reasons that Canada needs Bill C-31.
I will be sharing my time with the member for
Chatham—Kent Essex.
I want to talk about why the very structure of the act should be
changed. Much has changed over the almost 25 years since
parliament passed the current Immigration Act and over that time
there have been many amendments to the act. In fact, parliament
has amended the Immigration Act more than 30 times since the late
1970s. Even with all those changes, we still have issues to
address, issues that the bill does address.
Changing attitudes and changing court decisions have obliged
governments to see family relationships in a broader light.
1555
In fact, we in the House passed a law not long ago which
recognized our view of how family relationships have changed. As
a result, Bill C-31 allows the sponsorship of common law partners
as members of the family class.
Consistent with modernizing benefits legislation, regulations
will then define common law partners as including same sex
relationships.
[Translation]
Moreover, we are now living in a world where smuggling
immigrants and trafficking in human beings has become a very
lucrative activity for ignoble and unscrupulous individuals.
This past summer, we all read in the papers about the arrival of
hundreds of people being used by individuals who make money on
their backs.
We are not only talking about people being smuggled into Canada,
we are also talking about people who are trapped in clandestine
forced labour by criminals. The bill before us today deals
directly and harshly with such criminals.
These illegal migrants are just one segment of the growing
number of migrant workers throughout the world.
On the good side of the coin, Canadians must review the way our
government encourages people who could contribute significantly
to our economy to come to Canada. We must see to it that our
country continues to take advantage of qualified immigrants
coming to Canada in a world where competition is fierce to
attract those people.
We must not forget that, as a government, our first
responsibility is to Canadians and to the standard of living
they want to have.
This bill opens our doors wider. Overall, we need administrative
processes that yield good results in a more efficient manner.
This bill serves the taxpayers better in more than one respect
while preserving the basic principles of equity and a good
decision-making process.
It is impossible to patch up the existing legislation to
integrate all these changes as well as the other changes that
will stem from passage of Bill C-31. The time has come to pass
new legislation.
[English]
What kind of legislation will serve Canada best in the very
volatile world of immigration and refugee protection? Events
have already shown us that we need a flexible, responsive piece
of legislation, not a cumbersome, rigid law.
To answer that question, I want to turn to the very structure of
the act, which this bill would enshrine in law.
[Translation]
This is framework legislation. In other words, it sets out the
general principles and policies on which our efforts in the area
of immigration and refugee protection must be based. It says
clearly that the procedures for the application of these
principles and policies will be generally found in regulations.
Some claim, and I think they are wrong, that we are preventing
Canadians from reviewing these regulations and giving their
input. In fact, there already are many regulations and I can
assure my colleagues that the regulatory process in Canada is
very transparent.
There are measures to be taken before any proposed regulations
take effect. Members and interest groups must be informed and
consulted in that regard.
And, of course, with tools like the Internet, the government
gives Canadians the opportunity to examine existing and proposed
regulations and to make comments.
[English]
Even so, not everything can or should be in regulations. That is
certainly true of something as important to Canadians as
immigration and refugee protection.
Canadian immigration policies are built on three pillars. First,
we are committed to opening our doors to families and to
reunifying families to the extent possible and consistent with
Canada's interests.
Second, we are committed to opening our doors to people who can
make an economic contribution to this country.
Third, we are willing to meet our obligations to protect people
fleeing persecution and to continue our commitment to provide
assistance to those in need of protection consistent with
Canada's humanitarian ideals and traditions.
1600
[Translation]
Those are the principles underlying the current legislation that
will also underlie the new legislation. However, it is important
to note that they have never been included in the law before but
now will be.
The framework legislation is based on those principles. It
integrates the substantive rules that determine who should not
be eligible for settlement in Canada. The bill would guarantee
fundamental rights. It clearly indicates the criteria used for
the determination of refugee status. It clearly defines the
power of arrest.
Under Bill C-31, the elements that should be included in the act
would be included.
The government's decision to introduce the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act as framework legislation is easy to
explain. A brief overview of the comments on the current
Immigration Act is enough.
Many consultations were held in the last few years on the new
thrust this legislation should have. The opinions vary on many
aspects, but nobody claims that the current legislation is a
model of clarity and good public administration.
[English]
If we want usable and responsive legislation that can be
understood, we have to put into law what ought to be in law. We
should leave to regulation what is properly left to the
regulatory process.
[Translation]
We will therefore be able to adjust rapidly to meet the needs of
Canadians while ensuring that those rights and principles are
duly respected. Canadians will have the opportunity to voice
their opinion, which is as it should be in matters of public
interest.
I will be proud to support this bill when we vote. I urge my
colleagues from all parties to do so.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I wonder if the
member for Laval West could help me. Was the member for Laval
West splitting her time?
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated that I would be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I was paying such
rapt attention that the time flew and I thought, gosh, could 20
minutes have gone by that quickly. It must have.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the speech and I have a curious question.
In her speech the member mentioned the different things that
were changed in the Immigration Act. She drew attention to the
fact that changes had been put in to accommodate same sex
relationships. I am wondering how she envisions this working. If
two young men were to go to an immigration office, and they said
they were in a conjugal relationship, what is the government
going to do to ascertain that is the fact and that they are not
simply two friends from London who decided to come to Canada?
How is that going to work?
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, it is too early to answer these
questions in detail. However, I can tell my hon. colleague that
we had the same problem with regard to refugees. It is possible
to ask very specific questions to determine if people who wish
to immigrate have really lived together, for instance for
several years, and if they truly have spousal status.
In the Province of Quebec, where I come from, the legislation
allows same sex spouses to receive some benefits from the
provincial government. The beneficiaries only have to prove that
they have been living together for a specific period of time. I
believe we could apply the same rules in the case of
immigration.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member in light of her
speech and the government legislation that has been put before us
about the higher maximum penalties for the crime of human
trafficking.
1605
It is very commendable that the government has raised the
penalties to a high level, life imprisonment, high fines and that
sort of thing. In view of the fact that most of the people
behind human trafficking and human smuggling do not reside in
this country and conduct their business offshore, how in the
world would the government and the law be able to enforce such a
law when these people never set foot in Canada?
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, the question is extremely
appropriate.
As we know, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has just
returned from an official visit to the People's Republic of
China, where she discussed this issue with members of the
government, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and several
governors of provinces from which the illegal migrants and
illegal refugees are coming.
The idea here is to pass agreements with the governments of
countries where these criminals come from, so that once we have
established that these people have committed crimes and are not
Canadian residents, action can be taken on the basis of the
crimes they have committed. It is therefore a question of
signing bilateral agreements with other governments, similar to
those which already exist in other areas.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On questions and
comments, the member for Lakeland, a short question.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question that was asked
by my colleague because I do not believe it was answered.
The point is that while the minister has put in place in this
bill tough penalties for the top level organizers in people
smuggling, life imprisonment or a fine of up to $1 million, the
fact is that in the next 10 years we will not see anyone face
that law. The people who would face the top end of the penalty
do not live in Canada. The main organizers are in other
countries, in the country of origin.
I would like the member to answer that question. I think it is
good and I am glad it is there, but what good and how much effect
is it going to have on people trafficking when in fact the top
end organizers never will face our law because they operate
outside the country?
I have a second question which is on safe third countries. Some
people have told me that up to 90% of refugee claimants who come
to Canada, who land at our airports or cross our borders, come
through safe third countries. For example, many who come to
Vancouver would land in Hawaii, so the United States is the
first—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry. I knew
I was stretching it asking the hon. member for Lakeland to come
up with a short question because we did not have much time.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to answer the
question just asked. First of all, with all due respect, I must
tell my colleague that I think he answered the question himself.
The problem with illegal refugees is that they are not real
refugees but people who are being used by international criminal
groups. This is just like the problem with drugs, for example.
Therefore, we have to be able to track down criminals who have
very extensive networks and who do not reside in Canada. This is
the case for refugees as well as drugs and several other things.
We need agreements with the countries where those criminals live
and we are just beginning to do that. Furthermore, we need
co-operation with organizations like Interpol and I know that the
minister is working on that.
The problem of illegal refugees, and I insist on the word
illegal, is not a refugee problem, but a problem of
international criminal activity.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate on the second
reading of Bill C-31, the immigration and refugee protection act.
In a world too often torn apart by ethnic, racial and religious
strife, Canada is one of the model countries of the world. It
certainly is a privilege and an honour that Canada shares with
some other nations.
1610
One reason for this tolerance and compassion in Canada is that
we are a country of immigrants. Consider today that 46 members
of the House were born outside Canada. Our governor general,
Adrienne Clarkson, came to Canada as a refugee during the second
world war. In the nation's capital many Canadians have
participated in high tech companies. Many of the companies were
started by immigrants.
Immigrants enrich the everyday lives of Canadians as doctors,
nurses, people in our health care system, teachers and university
professors. Immigrants who write books, make films and entertain
have put Canada's cultural industry on the world stage often
winning international awards in the process.
My riding of Chatham—Kent Essex is rich in ethnic diversity.
Many of my constituents are refugees who have overcome great
economic hardships to build successful new lives for themselves
in Canada. Today they contribute to Canadian society as workers
in our economy, as volunteers in our communities and as nation
builders of Canada for tomorrow.
Indeed with the exception of our aboriginal people, we are all
immigrants or refugees or descendants of immigrants and refugees.
That is why this debate is so important today. Just as Canada
was built by immigrants and refugees, what the country, our
children and grandchildren will receive from us will be one built
by the systems that we alter and change today.
Honourable members of the House know that countries with the
most open minds to immigration throughout history have prospered
and flourished. That is why our government has a long term goal
of annual immigration levels of 1% of our population. This
government knows that healthy immigration levels are the fuel for
a dynamic and growing economy. With our declining birth rate and
aging population, a strong immigration program is an investment
in our future.
As we welcome new arrivals to our shores, Canada continues to
benefit from savings, earnings and investment that result and
which in turn lead to increased demand for our goods and
services. In today's emerging global markets, Canada's
multilinguistic and multi-ethnic workers provide us with a great
opportunity to be competitive throughout the world.
If immigration has been a vital part of our economic success,
our refugee system has earned us a reputation as humanitarian
leaders throughout the world. Canadians are proud of our
tradition of providing a safe haven for those in genuine need of
protection. Time and time again Canadians have opened their
hearts and their homes to those fleeing war, persecution and
horrendous violations of human rights. In the 1990s many of my
constituents joined Canadians across Canada in opening their
hearts, often by making financial and other donations to the
Kosovars.
The immigration and refugee system has indeed served Canada
well. However, the international and domestic environments the
systems work in have changed. Therefore, changes are required in
our Immigration Act.
Human smuggling has become a major underground industry as some
people try to circumvent immigration rules that are provided to
protect all. The United Nations estimates that international
trafficking operations smuggle over four million people a year
across national borders and that smuggling is a $10 billion
industry.
Civil war, racial tensions and religious persecution in other
parts of the world put innocent people's lives at risk. Requests
from refugees seeking safe haven in Canada have increased by
almost fiftyfold in the last 20 years, from 500 refugee claims in
the 1970s to 24,000 claims in the last few years.
The Canadian economy requires skilled workers and entrepreneurs
who can contribute to Canada's economic growth. The draft
legislation before us which addresses these and other issues is
the result of more than four years of work.
The process included nationwide extensive consultations with
provincial governments, business groups, the Canadian Bar
Association, refugee organizations and individual Canadians.
1615
As has been so aptly put by my hon. colleagues during this
debate, Bill C-31 has a dual purpose. The legislation will close
the back door for those who would abuse the system. For example,
by providing severe penalties and fines of up to $1 million and
life imprisonment for people who are smuggling or caught
trafficking in humans.
Closing the back door will allow us to open the front door even
wider both to genuine refugees and the immigrants Canada will
need for a growing, prosperous future. Yes, it is tough on
criminal abuse of immigration and refugee protection systems but
not on the overwhelming majority of immigrants and refugees who
have built this country and will continue to do so in the years
ahead.
The comprehensive package before us strengthens the program's
integrity and reduces cost without diminishing fairness or legal
safeguards that Canadians have built into the system over many
years. It also follows through on Canada's throne speech
commitment to strengthen measures directed at preventing
admittance as well as removal of criminals, terrorists, human
rights abusers and human traffickers. These reforms strike a
balance between enforcement measures to address the abuse and our
need for opening the system. New measures will also help Canada
attract immigrants who can contribute to the knowledge-based
economy of the 21st century.
Hon. members are very familiar with the backlogs in Canada's
immigration and refugee determination systems. We, as members of
Parliament, are often asked by permanent residents, families who
wish to sponsor potential immigrants and refugee organizations,
to help with the long delays. I hope Bill C-31 will quickly be
passed into law so that we will be able to inform people in our
ridings who ask for our help that concrete measures have been
taken to improve our immigration and refugee systems.
Let me enumerate some of the important measures the government
has already implemented or will be able to put into place when
Bill C-31 is passed.
Client service is being improved through the introduction of
global case management systems. This will result in faster
processing times. New funds have been designated to clear up
backlogs. The management of the inventory of applications for
permanent residence and immigration visas abroad is being
improved. These measures will mean immigration systems will
serve Canadians, permanent residents and potential immigrants
faster and more effectively.
The proposed in Canada landing class in the draft legislation
for temporary workers, foreign students and sponsored family
members of permanent residents would make it easier for these
people to remain in Canada. By facilitating the entry of
temporary workers through a more service oriented approach, the
government will assist employers to meet their immediate needs
for skilled workers faster.
There are many measures to keep the refugee system fair but make
it faster. These include required eligibility decisions to be
made within 72 hours; consolidation of protection decisions of
immigration and refugee boards; and the increased use of single
member panels supported by paper appeal on merit. All of this
will allow genuine refugees to be processed faster so that their
lives are not put in limbo while they wait for decisions crucial
to their future.
Canadians have made it clear to their elected representatives
that they want a system based on respect, both for laws and for
the tradition of welcoming newcomers. This bill strikes the
balance that Canadians want. I am confident my constituents,
both Canadians and those who are new immigrants and refugees,
will support the goals of this legislation. I request everyone
in the House to give it support.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I find it very interesting that everything the member
mentioned, except one item, has to do with the administration of
the act, something that is not included in any way in this
legislation.
There is no attempt to deal with the administration of the act.
1620
The one thing he did mention, which is included in the act, is
the one-member panel. He pointed out that this would speed up
the process. That would be true if we did not have additional
appeals inside the IRB. Those additional appeals will be used by
most people who apply and may require more than one panel member.
Since all the other appeals are still available, we will
probably see a further slowing down of the system. If it is
combined with other things in the act, the system certainly will
slow down.
Why did the member focus on administrative changes, which are
not included in the act in any way, as being a solution to the
problem? He has hit on a key point. The act by itself, even if
it were a good act, which I do not believe it is, would not solve
the problem. The administration is the problem. The auditor
general pointed that out in spades two weeks ago. How does the
member think the new act will solve the problem if administration
is not improved? The administration is separate from the act.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear, when we
look at our Immigration Act and the changes that have been
brought about today and will be continuing forever, that we have
to ensure that our system does move refugees through as easily
and quickly as possible.
There is absolutely no question that it is in part a legislative
process that has to be sponsored and supported very strongly by
the administration.
It is absolute nonsense for the critic, my hon. colleague across
the way, to suggest that a one-member board will slow the system
down. When we stop to think about the processes in place with
the boards that have been there, it is much easier and certainly
a heck of a lot more efficient if there is a person to listen to
the tremendous number of appeals going on to make sure they are
carried out in a much quicker way. We put extra dollars into the
system in order to make sure that those appeals can be heard and
dealt with in a lot quicker way. Yes, there may be some that do
go to an extra level of questioning and that is only fair. It is
only fair that we allow a broader appeal if we do not answer all
the questions in the first opportunity.
From the appeals I have seen from constituents in my riding, I
would suggest that they are very carefully put together. They
are put together in a way that one person listening to them can
certainly make judgments as to where and how the effects of the
appeals are carried on.
It is not a matter of having poor administration. It is a
matter that we are getting more and more immigrants applying to
Canada and we have to alter the system to a degree to make
certain that we give fair and open hearings to everyone who
requires it.
Attacking the administration really does not do anything. What
we need to do is look carefully at the suggested changes, at the
recommendations that are coming forward, and realize that they
will expedite cases in a much better way.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
participate in the debate on Bill C-31, an act respecting
immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to
persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.
Before I go further, I want to extend my appreciation to the
hon. member for Lakeland, the immigration critic for the Canadian
Alliance, for his thoughtful presentation in the debate earlier
today.
My office received numerous calls during the Easter break. I am
sure that other members also received many telephone calls
concerning this bill.
1625
I was on a radio talk show on the weekend discussing this bill.
The public is confused and fed up with the misinformation the
feds have fed us. There has been weak Liberal government
propaganda about changes to Bill C-31. They have given selective
information to the media. They have told us that this new act
will do certain things for new immigrants. They said that it
will give people an opportunity to sponsor any person or any
relative. This is one among many other misgivings they have
given. I had to defend the whole procedure by saying that this
was not yet an act but only second reading of the bill. I had to
explain the whole process of how a bill becomes law before people
could digest this.
In one of the phone calls I received, someone told me they were
going to arrange a marriage in the family but that they were
going to hold off with the plans because the new law will
probably help them to sponsor a relative to Canada. People are
making decisions based on government propaganda.
Before federal elections the Liberals have a habit of throwing
sugar-coated pills to garner political support from immigrants.
In their first red book, the propaganda was that they would
increase the immigration quota, so the immigrant communities that
thought the idea was good voted for them. Once the Liberals were
in power a smaller number of immigrants were allowed to come to
Canada.
Similarly, concerning the opening of the consulate office in
Chandigarh, in Punjab, India, statements and pictures appeared in
the newspaper saying that a consulate office was being opened in
Chandigarh. Most of the people from India who are in Canada are
from the Punjab and they were demanding a full consulate office
in Chandigarh.
The Liberals took pictures and made statements before the 1997
federal election and even before the 1993 election and all those
promises were not kept, particularly by the fisheries minister.
He is on record as having said that he helped the Liberal
government open the consulate office in Chandigarh. However, it
is only a liaison office. It does not give application forms for
visitor visas. Even if a marriage certificate is missing in a
file they do not accept that. The Liberals are in the habit of
this kind of propaganda.
Because the election is around the corner the Liberals have
started singing the same song. They forget that they can fool
people only once.
The purpose of Bill C-31 is to repeal and replace the current
Immigration Act of 1976. It attempts to address the growing
problem of people smuggling and human trafficking, Canada's
refugee determination system and the definition of who can become
a refugee in Canada with increased focus on protection. It also
attempts to address the creation of an in-Canada landing class of
immigrants, expanded criteria for family class immigration and
increased controls on sponsorship. This bill will not accomplish
its objectives. Rather, it will likely significantly slow down
the entire immigration system.
The government has failed to even make the changes based on
simple common sense. It will never be effective unless the
Liberal government, that lacks vision, makes improvements in the
management of the system: better training, tighter auditing and
meaningful enforcement.
Let me highlight some ineffective salient features of the bill.
Paragraph 3(3)(d) of the bill provides protection consistent with
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to all those in the
world who would seek admission to Canada. That means anyone who
is denied access to Canada has the full right to appeal the
decision, the same old onion effect will continue, the layers
will keep on peeling and it will never end.
1630
The legislation provides very little protection to Canada's
borders, as this clause ties the hands of the immigration
officials who may become increasingly reluctant to refuse entry
and it will significantly add to a litigious immigration system.
No other country in the world gives the rights of its citizens
to foreign nationals. While we should welcome genuine immigrants
to Canada, the department must be able to retain certain controls
of the system rather than handing over the controls to lawyers.
This bill, rather than tightening, broadly expands the
definition of refugee well beyond the UN definition of a
conventional refugee and in contrast to the direction taken by
most other western nations. This will continue to make Canada's
refugee determination system the easiest target in the world for
abuse and it will encourage human traffickers and smugglers.
This will almost guarantee that anyone arriving on our doorstep
with a good story provided by the smugglers will be accepted as a
refugee.
Canada currently accepts over 50% of the people applying for
refugee status, in contrast with the U.S. which accepts less than
20% of the people applying for refugee status. The United
Kingdom accepts less than 30% and New Zealand accepts less than
15%. The problem is not to accept refugees; the problem is that
the criteria should be such that genuine refugees are given the
protection, not bogus refugees.
While we should welcome genuine refugees to Canada, the
department must provide immediate protection to those refugees
and reunite their families as soon as possible, rather than
keeping them in the current clogged pipes of the system for years
and years.
I have firsthand experience in my constituency of Surrey Central
dealing with at least 40 refugee cases which were accepted five
or ten years ago but for which there has not been issued a landed
document. Therefore, the families could not be reunited. The
people involved cannot work properly.
I remember in one case the refugee was accepted, his
fingerprints were taken and he was accepted as a refugee.
However, the weak system failed to give him the landed
certificate. In the meantime, he was working under a work
permit, making a little money, and he wanted to buy a taxi. He
could not buy that taxi. He could not go into business because
he did not have the landed document. That is the kind of
clogging in the pipeline which inhibits the economic contribution
of these people who become immigrants in Canada. This is
unacceptable. We must not let it deteriorate further.
The bill provides for higher maximum penalties for human
trafficking and people smuggling. That looks good on the
surface. When the minister introduced the bill she delivered a
message from the government, but the message is on a different
track, and what this legislation would offer is on a different
track, and both tracks are going in different directions.
Similarly, it looks like tough talk, but whether it will be
practical, whether it will be implemented, that is the point.
The stiffest penalties would only apply to those in charge of
people drafting operations, and they operate primarily outside
the country and remain absolutely untouchable.
1635
The middle level organizers in Canada are protected by organized
crime rings and are rarely caught and seldom convicted.
The current maximum penalties have never actually been applied
to anyone convicted of people smuggling. In fact, as of 1999 the
highest penalty ever handed out was 10 months in jail and a
$3,000 fine. That is a mockery of the justice system. It is a
mockery of law and order.
Recently the minister went on a junket to the Fujian province of
China with a view to stopping human smuggling. It is laughable.
There are 150 countries from which thousands and thousands of
people want to come to Canada. They would use any kind of means,
legal or illegal. They do not care. Will the minister be going
to all of those countries to stop those people? She failed to
tighten our legislation here in this country. I thought it was
the responsibility of the foreign minister to use diplomacy and
be effective, not the responsibility of the immigration minister.
She failed earlier to send a strong message to smugglers around
the world by sending the illegal migrants back. That was her job
to do. She did not do her job, but she wanted to do the foreign
minister's job.
She has failed to put teeth in the new bill. Perhaps she would
prefer to go on an around the world trip and compete with the
foreign minister for air miles.
The bill also proposes that there be security checks for refugee
claimants prior to these cases being referred to the IRB. Is it
not shocking that this weak government admits now that this has
not been done in the past? Why not? Why were security checks
not done before the cases were given to the IRB?
Without more emphasis on enforcement it will be very difficult
to do proper security checks on 60% of the refugee claimants in
Canada, according to the Auditor General of Canada. They come to
Canada without identification. When they board the plane they
have some sort of identification documents, but when they get off
the plane they do not have any documents. According to the
auditor general, 60% arrive without documents. How can security
checks be done?
The new bill would allow foreign nationals to apply for
permanent residency status using the independent immigration side
of the act; that is, applying from within Canada. This makes
sense in certain cases, such as a highly skilled foreign worker,
or a student perhaps who has completed a post-secondary course
that is in demand in Canada. However, past experience has proven
that this cannot be maintained as a broad-based application and
would allow thousands of people without status to stay, further
clogging the system.
Another thing the minister mentioned this morning was that, as
usual, this bill will rely heavily on regulations for its
interpretation. The legislation is small, but there is a
truckload of regulations to follow. The legislation is like a
blank cheque signed by the ineffective minister. Without
backroom management, administration, enforcement and training,
the attempts to speed up family reunification for both
independent immigrants and genuine refugees will be irrelevant.
I am the co-chair of the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of
Regulations and I can testify that regulations, enormous in
number, come through the back door; whereas in the House, when we
debate, all the emphasis is placed on the legislation.
It would be correct to say that 80% of the whole effectiveness
of the law is through the back door, through the regulations, and
that probably 20% of the 300 members spend their time and energy
getting excited about that in the House.
1640
We need a better system to scrutinize the regulations so they
will be effective and keep the intent of the legislation which
was originally passed in the House.
What is the position of the Canadian Alliance? We see Canada as
a land built by immigrants. We will continue to welcome new
immigrants. I myself am an immigrant, and I did not come to
Canada a long time ago.
We would support sponsorship for immediate family members. Our
immigration policy would take into account Canada's economic
needs. We would introduce greater fairness and security to the
system, including enforcement of sponsorship obligations. We
would welcome genuine refugees to this country with open, warm
arms. We would work co-operatively with the provinces on the
settlement of immigrants. We would protect the integrity of the
valuable contribution made to the fabric of Canada by millions of
law-abiding immigrants. We would not allow their good reputation
to be jeopardized by those who engage in criminal activity, and
would speedily deport such individuals once their sentence was
served.
As well, we would affirm Canada's humanitarian obligations to
welcome genuine refugees. We are proud that our country has
provided a safe haven for displaced people from across the world.
To ensure fairness and put an end to queue-jumping, we would
immediately deport bogus refugees, those who would abuse the
system and other illegal entrants. We would severely penalize
those who organize abuses of our system. We would ensure that
refugee status was arbitrated expeditiously, consistently and
professionally. We would end the abuse of refugee claims as a
fast track to gaining the benefits of landed immigrant status.
The system should work for the legitimate, genuine people who
want to come to Canada, not for those who are criminals or who
would enter through the back door and abuse the system.
Our refugee system is such that it does not work for the genuine
refugee. Imagine those pictures we watch on TV about the UN
camps for refugees; those genuine refugees who are displaced and
suffering. However, if they cannot come into the system, the
system is not working for them.
I want to dedicate some of my time to express what my
constituents in Surrey Central are saying to me. Surrey is one
of the fastest growing communities in Canada, one of Canada's
more racially diverse and multicultural metropolitan centres. We
are proud of that.
I hear complaints about Canada's flawed and broken immigration
system. I heard complaints that people were taking bribes in our
embassies abroad. When I brought this matter to the attention of
the minister, the RCMP were expeditiously dispatched to
investigate the matter and people were punished. The point is,
why is the system not detecting the problem and working for the
genuine people?
Another problem is with the backlog of cases in Canada. I hear
from my constituents frequently that there is a funeral, a
birthday or a party and people want to come to visit their family
members, but they are not able to get a visitor visa. Some people
even gave personal guarantees or were willing to post a bond, but
the system did not work for them. If no visitors can apply
within Canada, how would those people get visitor visas to come
to Canada? The knot is tightening on visitor applicants, which
will make the system unfair. There is no right of appeal for a
visitor visa.
Members of parliament are caught in between. They can neither
help their constituents nor do anything else about the problem.
I wanted to talk about the head tax and non-governmental
agencies, but time will not allow that.
The system should be effective and working for genuine
immigrants. The government has failed to deliver what Canadians
want with this new act.
1645
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Mississauga South, Immigration; the hon. member
for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Immigration; the hon. member for
Davenport, Foreign Affairs.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of my colleague. He comes
from the riding of Surrey Central which has an extremely large
population of new immigrants.
A couple of studies done by two individuals have been released
through the media over the last couple of days which tell a
rather grim story. The first study was done by Jeffrey Reitz, a
professor of sociology, who questioned whether we were getting
the economic impact we should expect and the economic impact that
we used to get from new immigrants. That would lead me to argue
that the current system is not working well.
According to this rather comprehensive study done by Professor
Reitz, in 1981 new immigrants were getting paid about 80% of what
Canadian born workers were getting. By 1996 that dropped to 60%
of what Canadian born workers were receiving. It is extremely
disturbing when new immigrants, five years in the country, are
getting paid only 60% of what people born in the country are
getting. It shows there is a need for some improvement in the
immigration system. Would the hon. member comment on that?
A second study done by Jack Jedwab also indicated that new
immigrants were not getting the foothold they used to get. Would
the member comment on these studies and the information revealed
in them?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, all of us have heard
about discrimination in the wages and the earning power of
immigrants, but there is misinformation in the public at the same
time. If we go back in the history of Canada, everyone would
agree that Canada is a country of immigrants. They worked hard.
They were the architects of the county. They built the Canada of
today that we are proud of.
I will blame the government to some extent. For the last 132
years only two parties have been governing the country, the
Liberals and the Tories. In a way they are to be blamed. Let me
give an example.
In my view there is institutionalized discrimination by the
Liberals against economically poor countries. Let me talk about
the immigration fee which we call a head tax. The head tax of
$1,500 per person is a small amount in economically developed
countries. People in other parts of the world are living on a
couple of dollars a day, or even less in some economically
backward countries. These people will never get a chance to come
to Canada because $1,500 to them is a huge amount. This is
institutionalized discrimination by the government.
We should hire people based on merit. We should not hyphenate
people or go into ethnicity and other lines which divide us. I
believe the lines which define us are probably the lines which
confine us. All people should be treated based on their ability,
their merit, their qualifications and their experience, rather
than on ethnicity or the country they came from. Those things
should not be a subject of the 21st century.
1650
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was fascinated by the hon. member's response to that question. I
congratulate the minister on her willingness to listen to the
committee, her willingness to listen to other Canadians, and
having absorbed that material reflecting on it and producing the
bill. It is nice to work with a minister who listens. I
appreciate as well her work with the committee and her respect
for the committee. Over the course of my few comments I will
reflect on and refer to the number of recommendations she has
picked up. Before I go much further, I want to indicate that I
will be splitting my time.
I just returned from leading a multiparty delegation to Taiwan.
It was a fascinating trip. Taiwan processes about 1,200 visas a
day. It is the busiest visa office we have in the world. The
Taiwanese have a saying about Canada, that Canadians live quietly
in paradise. That is very interesting.
I would suggest that the way the Taiwanese see us is in large
measure the way many other people in the world see us. It is
therefore of no great surprise that many people in the world try
to get to our borders and will sacrifice anything they have in
order to get here. They will almost and literally sell their
souls to the devil in order to be able to come to Canada.
We should all have these problems. Other nations should have
these problems. The Prime Minister is fond of saying that when
he goes abroad and returns here he realizes that his problems in
governing this nation are frequently of less serious magnitude
than the problems of many other leaders.
It is reasonable to say that most countries would like to have
the same problems we have. People are literally dying to get to
this country and we therefore have a surfeit of human capital.
Nevertheless, we are inundated by those who wish to come here. We
literally have 39 million border crossings on an annual basis; in
other words, the population plus 10 million people. We issue
something in the order of three million visas on an annual basis.
In order to be able to control our borders and have some
semblance of an immigration policy we have to devote enormous
resources to it. Frankly we do not always do it as well as we
might, but the minister has in some large measure responded to
those issues.
Some criticisms of our immigration policy are legitimate. One
of them is that people come here and claim to be refugees. That
will get them into the system. Then they go through the refugee
system and if they are turned down they appeal that. If they
fail at the appeal they go back to claiming a risk review. Then
they go to risk review and if they fail at that they can appeal.
If they fail at that they come back to humanitarian compassion.
If they go to humanitarian compassion and lose on that, they go
to some form of appeal. If they do not like that they get a
removal order. They appeal the removal order and after that they
go to deportation. If they do not like that they disappear.
It is a system which is rife with abuse and something that the
minister has addressed. One thing she did, which was a
recommendation of the committee, was to try and consolidate the
process. She decided to consolidate the refugee determination
process, the risk review process and the humanitarian compassion
process so that they would all be done at one time.
1655
The minister has moved to end this interminable game of snakes
and ladders. This is a game with people's lives. Frankly it is
a game that challenges the tolerance of Canadians to be fair and
responsible to those who are in need of protection in our
country.
Currently the assessment of grounds for protection is handled in
several stages. One is at the IRB and the other is at the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The new system will
consolidate these grounds into one assessment during a single
hearing process at the IRB. Essentially the working thesis of
the bill is that the facts are the same. Whether the facts are
for refugee determination, risk review or humanitarian and
compassionate grounds, they are all the same facts. Therefore it
is only appropriate that all the same facts be dealt with at the
same time such that individuals who may or may not qualify for
refugee determination may well qualify for risk review.
The grounds for assessment of risk are the Geneva convention on
refugees, the convention on risk of torture and risk to life
and/or cruel and unusual punishment. These grounds are not new.
They are merely brought together so that there are no longer a
multiplicity of steps but one.
The second aspect of the consolidation of the review process
will be the shrinking of two member panels to one. Currently two
member panels hear refugee cases at the IRB. In the majority of
cases the decisions are unanimous. The process will be made more
efficient by the use of single member panels.
At the committee we heard some testimony on the part of those
concerned about refugees that in fact this may create its own
difficulties. The minister has responded by delegating a
specialized panel within IRB to do a paper review of the process
so that after determination under refugee criteria, determination
under risk review and determination under humanitarian and
compassionate grounds there will not be slip-ups and injustices.
There will be a paper review by the IRB on an internal panel
composed of experienced members.
The minister, by delegated authority to her officials, may
intervene at the IRB hearings more frequently to present security
information or other data pertinent to the case. We are hoping
that the minister becomes much more active in this process.
I quote the minister on her process because the bill she is
coming forward with is on something that Canadians have made
clear. Canadians have made it clear that they want a system
based on respect for our law. They do not want to continually
read Toronto Sun headlines about the latest this or that
which abused the process. We still want to maintain an openness
to newcomers and this is why the bill tries to be faster and
fairer in all our decision making.
The committee listened to hours of testimony. I thought it
would be instructive if I referred back to the committee's report
which was tabled last month. Looking at recommendations 9
through 23, I note that the minister has picked up on all those
recommendations.
The committee recommended that the refugee division sit on one
member panels with the option of sitting as three member panels
to hear test cases or cases that pose particular difficulties.
The committee recommended that there be an internal appeal
structure for rejected refugee claimants, and she has picked up
on that. It recommended that all the risk related decisions
concerning an individual be consolidated in the refugee division,
and she has picked up on that.
The committee recommended that the refugee division strive to
increase the percentage of claims handled through the expedited
process. She has picked up on that. It further recommended that
the current restrictions on the participation of the minister's
representative at the refugee hearing be eliminated and the
government be more active than it has been in the past in
choosing in which cases to intervene. Again she has picked up on
that.
Therefore I again acknowledge the courage on the part of the
minister to do these sorts of things and to take this very
activist role in reflecting what the committee actually hears.
1700
The other area the minister has beefed up is that of
admissibility. In other words, before the individual comes to
the country and is at the airport is a more useful time in which
to clear up areas of admissibility. The adjudicator will now
examine admissibility and will exclude those convicted of serious
criminal offences, that is, violations of human rights,
organizers of criminal activity, and security risks. Instead of
going to the IRB if the decision is negative, it will now go to
the federal court. In other words, it is the elimination of
another stage of the snakes and ladders process.
My final point is that the minister is also getting serious
about residency. Instead of simply having a casual definition of
residency, we will require actual physical residence in the
country for two out of five years.
This bill deserves the support of all members. This has been a
long process. The minister has engaged widely in hearing from a
variety of members, the committee and Canadians. I hope members
will see that in her bill and will give it much support. The
minister has listened to the committee and has put forward a bill
which reflects much of what we heard.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened
with interest to the speech made by my colleague, who is a
member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
As he well knows, the bill before the House today makes many
changes to the Immigration Act, which dates back to 1976. It was
changed rather considerably.
This bill makes changes in a number of areas. There is, among
others, the issue of immigration agents, who will have more
powers. We can even say that, to a certain extent, they will
have a discretionary power. There is also the issue of
detention.
The auditor general's report is very eloquent on this matter. Is
it normal that immigration agents not have the training required
to make a number of decisions, and yet make decisions on the
detention of certain people? That is my first question.
Another issue concerns the detention of children. As my
colleague knows very well, this is one of the issues I raised
when the bill was presented. There is nothing in the bill that
provides a special treatment to refugee status claimants under
18 years of age.
Is it appropriate that this bill does not make a distinction
between minors seeking refugee status and all refugee claimants,
since Canada signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child?
As I mentioned in my speech, Canada is a party to three
international conventions: the Convention Against Torture, the
Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 1951 Convention
Relative to the Status of Refugees. Does my hon. colleague think
it is appropriate to grant no special status to minors?
There is also the issue of the Canada-Quebec agreement. Canada
and Quebec concluded an agreement on everything that has to do
with the selection of independent immigrants.
We, on this side of the House, would have wished to see Quebec's
jurisdiction in this area not only recognized in that
Canada-Quebec agreement, but also clearly mentioned in this bill.
Nothing in this bill grants such recognition, and this concerns
us.
Those are the three questions I have for the hon. member and I
would like him to answer them.
[English]
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for good questions as opposed to other kinds questions sometimes.
1705
With respect to the admissibility issue, we heard a great deal
of testimony on that point, on admissibility at the airport and
should the discretion be in the hands of the officer. Our view
is there should be more discretion in the hands of the officer.
It should simply not be a rubber stamp process and then go from
there.
I like what the minister has done at the point of entry. She
has said there is more discretion on the part of the officer.
There is still an appeal to the federal court if those decisions
are not acceptable to the individual and then it goes from there.
That has cut out one point in the snakes and ladders process.
Before people went to the officer, and if they did not like that
decision they went to the IRB and if they did not like that
decision they went to an appeal. Consolidation of the process is
a good idea.
As to the second question with respect to children, the member
raises a valid point. The interesting aspect of children is of
course that it is a bit of a family package. The issue would be
if the adult applicants did not meet admissibility criteria but
the children in all other respects were acceptable. The
consolidation of the process in the board itself, that is, risk
review, refugee determination and humanitarian and compassionate
grounds will actually make it more acceptable for children where
their parents or whoever is their guardian is somewhat less than
acceptable as far as a refugee is concerned.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to speak on this issue. This file has been active
in my office since the day I was elected, as I imagine it has
been in many members' offices.
I would like to start by thanking the former minister of
immigration and the current minister of immigration, the more
than 50 people who sit on a committee I created in my riding to
look at these issues because of their importance to people, and
the staff of the department of immigration who work around the
world helping us reach out, sort out, facilitate and help the
people who do wish to come here.
This is not an easy business. It is a tough one for us to
understand. When I first was elected almost immediately people
were coming to my door raising questions about immigration
problems they were having with the department and problems they
were having getting people over here. I remember a couple of
cases in particular.
One man immigrated here when he was a student. He graduated
here, was landed and became a Canadian citizen. He went through
medicine and is now a family doctor practising in Winnipeg. He
has been practising as a physician for almost 20 years. He
married and had a child. He wanted his mother to come and share
his joy and excitement at having a new member of the family.
His mother lives in Ethiopia in what we in Canada would consider
to be relatively primitive conditions. She was immediately
denied. When he came into my office I could not believe it. I
guess I was young enough to be somewhat naive about what goes on,
but I thought this was silly. As a new parent myself I know the
desire to have one's extended family share in the joy that one
feels. I immediately wrote a letter, as we all do, and received a
letter back telling me to mind my own business, which rather
surprised me coming from a public servant.
1710
To make a long story short, after some period of time I went
back to him and asked him to tell me what was going on with his
mom. His mother did not want to emigrate. She did not want to
come here to live. She was very happy. She had her friends and
was very happy where she lived but he wanted her to come and
spend a few months here to let her meet one of her grandchildren.
I finally went to the minister's office to get a ministerial
permit. His mom came over and spent the summer here a year ago
and went back. It was a normal everyday occurrence in families.
This year he wanted to bring over his mother-in-law. We had to go
through the same tortuous process.
For years I have been talking with the ministers. Whenever I
travel abroad I make a point of going to see the immigration
staff in the department's offices. I have been to the very high
pressure office in New Delhi, India and China and Hong Kong.
I keep asking why these normal things, the type of thing we
would think we would enjoy as a right of citizenship, cannot just
happen. I have a list of files and I suspect other members do as
well.
The brother of an eminent microbiologist at the University of
Manitoba had retired from his job and wanted to come over for a
visit, again for a summer. It was denied. I happen to represent
the University of Manitoba. The sister of another scientist at
the University of Manitoba is travelling in the U.S. and Europe
and wanted to stop off in Canada. It was denied. It goes on and
on. Why? Why can Canadian citizens not enjoy this living
quietly in paradise, as my colleague mentioned. It is not an easy
issue.
I had heard all sorts of horror stories about the New Delhi
office. Having been a public servant I understand there are
always two sides to any story. I made a point of stopping in
there and spending time with them to ask them these questions.
I have been universally impressed with the quality of the staff
who work abroad, the time, energy, attention, care and thought
they give to the services they provide. The problem is analogous
to any problem of scarcity.
Canada is a paradise and there are millions if not billions of
people who would like to get here. There is enormous pressure.
When there is enormous pressure it is a recipe for exactly what
we see. It is a recipe for abusing people and for exploiting
people in the way we have seen with the snake heads. It is a
recipe for all sorts of corruption.
What we have to do is take the profit out of it. We have to
make it a system that people understand demands, deserves and
receives respect so that we can take the pressure off the front
door. How do we do it? Unfortunately, in a lot of social
control exercises there are no easy or clean answers.
What impresses me about how the former minister and now the
current minister have approached this task is that they have
taken it very personally. They have worked on it very hard.
I mentioned a committee. A fellow named Sharad Chandra and
another named Ken Zaifman chair a working group we have in my
riding. My colleague for Winnipeg North—St. Paul has a very
large population of new immigrants in his community. We all work
together. We first went through the initial offerings. The
initial concepts were put forward. The minister came and met
with them. We went through it clause by clause. People
literally put hundreds and hundreds of hours into thinking
through and grappling with the solutions being offered.
We met with staff from the department. I raised it with staff
overseas. When the minister changed, the new minister
immediately went into the same thing. The current minister stood
in front of an open meeting in my riding and we went through each
one of the very contentious issues with the people who are
directly affected.
1715
What we have here is an act that I believe is balanced but
heavy. It has a stick in it. It has a stick that says we have to
respect the law. It allows us to deal quickly and efficiently
when the law is broken. It allows justice to be done, but it
does it in the Canadian context. It does it in a way that
preserves the rights of people.
I believe that at the end of the day no piece of legislation
will solve all the problems. No piece of legislation will answer
all the concerns that are raised, but I think this piece of
legislation is an important step forward to allowing Canadian
citizens from countries where there is a very high demand to
enjoy their citizenship in the same way that I can.
It is interesting that my friends in the first nations
communities do not particularly like this, but we are all
immigrants in this country. We have collectively built a very
powerful, a very prosperous and a very wonderful nation. We want
to share it. We want people to come here, because each new group
that comes in adds to the quality of the fabric of this country.
When I talk to people who are in the most vulnerable group of
newly arrived immigrants, they do not want the abuses any more
than we do. Binding this process a little tighter and providing
some discretion to the staff in the field in whom I have great
confidence is a positive step forward. Properly implemented and
properly supported, I think it will assist.
Canadians citizens should not have to come to me to get redress.
It is nice that we can provide it, but the system should simply
allow people to interact within their families the way all of us
would like to do.
I am a supporter of the work that has gone on here. I am a
supporter of the particular piece of legislation, and I hope the
House will deal with it expeditiously.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker, I too
rise on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois at the request of my
colleague, the member for Rosemont, our immigration critic. I am
pleased to present the views of our party on Bill C-31, an act
respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee
protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in
danger.
As a professor of international law, I am especially pleased to
deal with this legislation since, when I had the privilege of
teaching public international law at the Université de Montréal,
on numerous occasions I had the pleasure of talking about the
1976 Immigration Act, to see it evolve, to see the many
amendments made to it and the many regulations aimed at
gradually implementing the act and its provisions.
I understand that with Bill C-31 the government intends to
overhaul the provisions regarding the issues of immigration,
asylum and protection of refugees in Canada.
After reading the bill and the presentation made by the minister
on April 6, the Bloc Quebecois, and on this I share the views of
my party and its critic, is of the opinion that the government
is taking a hard line, no doubt to appeal to a certain
electorate, probably the right wing electorate the Liberal Party
wants to win over from the Canadian Alliance.
In this respect, this bill seems to reinforce prejudice against
refugees and immigrants.
1720
This is legislation that tends to take a hard line toward
immigrants and refugees. Choosing the hard line toward
immigrants and refugees can exacerbate division, xenophobic or
racist feelings within a society that claims to be welcoming. We
see sometimes that it is less welcoming when immigrants come in
large numbers into this country or when people from various
countries claim refugee status.
Our party has pointed out several times over the last years that
the Canadian refugee status determination system should have two
essential features.
It should be diligent and fair toward the bona fide asylum
seeker in accordance with the rights recognized by the
international conventions Canada is party to. It should also be
dissuasive toward people clogging the system with unfounded
claims, people who are, for example, economic refugees and
people who do not meet the refugee criteria as set out by the
1951 Convention Relative to the Status of Refugees and its
additional 1967 protocol.
The slowness in the processing of claims is also something that
deserves to be corrected because it has led, in Quebec and
elsewhere in Canada, to unacceptable human tragedies.
It has put people and families in very difficult situations as
evidenced by the number of immigrants or refugee claimants who
sought refuge in churches and in other places where these people
who were requesting, and rightly so, that they be granted
refugee status knew they would be protected.
Talking about the administrative process that is too slow, for
example, just for the Montreal office of the Immigration and
Refugee Board, the average processing time is ten months. At the
end of December 1999, just a few months ago, over 7,000 refugee
claimants were awaiting a hearing, that is one third of all
cases in Canada. We know that Quebec is very generous to
refugees. It is now and must stay that way should it become a
country one day, as members of my party wish it would.
It will have to continue to open its doors to refugees.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, also believe that the new immigration
bill does not reflect explicitly enough the scope of Quebec's
powers in the area of immigration. As we know, this is a shared
jurisdiction under the Constitution Act, 1867, which allows
provinces to have jurisdiction over certain areas if so agreed
by both the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada.
According to the Quebec Minister of Relations with the Citizens
and Immigration, Mr. Robert Perreault:
The law must include firm commitments on this. Provisions need
to be added to the present bill, particularly in order to ensure
that Quebec's powers are respected relating to the selection of
temporary workers and the continuation of a distinct program for
investor-class immigrants.
The bill, which I have had the opportunity to read
carefully, does not include such guarantees, such assurances.
Moreover, all provisions relating to ensuring that Quebec assumes
jurisdiction over immigration, particularly immigrant selection,
is contained in an administrative arrangement, the
McDougall-Gagnon-Tremblay agreement, the latest in a series
between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec.
1725
The arrangement is still precarious because the agreement
involved has never been enshrined in the Constitution, despite
attempts to do so, particularly the failed attempts at
Charlottetown.
It would have been, and still is, desirable for there to be
recognition, as a certain resolution of this House of Commons
suggests, that the distinct society which Quebec is or would
be would deserve to have a very concrete mention in a federal
immigration statute, in which the particular and distinct status
of Quebec would be recognized, as far as immigration issues and
the selection of immigrants and temporary workers are concerned,
or the responsibilities Quebec wishes to assume as far as asylum
is concerned.
Apart from the issue of Quebec's powers, it must be noted that
the bill proposes changes to claims to refugee status, but
nowhere does the government agree to pay for the administration
of the system.
Actually, if the federal government believes in the
effectiveness of the provisions contained in the bill, it should
be ready to assume the costs and to do so until the people
involved have been recognized as convention refugees, obtained
permanent residence or left the territory.
In this connection it should be noted that last February
Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia joined forces to condemn
the federal government's management of the asylum seekers or of
their movements.
These provinces were asking that significant corrective action
be taken and that the federal government, as solely responsible
for this whole refugee status determination process, assume all
the costs related to the services provided to those people,
whether for income security, legal aid or education.
In fact, I think that members should be reminded that in Quebec,
and
the situation is probably the same in some other provinces,
proportionally, it costs more that $80 million a year to take
care of those awaiting a ruling from the Immigration and Refugee
Board of Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois is also concerned with the fact that many
rules provided for in this bill, or rules that will apply to
immigration and refugee protection, will be established through
regulations, through subordinate legislation. Such rules are
not, at least at the moment, included in Bill C-31.
This means that the government is basically excluding these
rules from the scrutiny of the House and that parliamentary
review of these important rules will be very limited. This also
opens the door to many changes, at the whim of the government,
or because of public pressure or discontent with a court
decision.
Like other parties, the Bloc Quebecois also deplores the fact
that the government would not take politics out of the
appointment process of people who will be selected or will
continue to sit on the Immigration and Refugee Board. This
critique is shared not only by opposition parties, but also by
the civil society, which considers that it is inappropriate for
the government to have sole control over the appointment and
selection of people who will be called to make major decisions
on immigration and refugee status determination.
1730
As my contribution to this debate I would like, on behalf of my
party, to point out some difficulties raised by the government's
desire to put into effect through this bill international
obligations arising from treaties Canada is party to,
obligations the bill is intended to fulfil, as clause 3(2)(b) of
the bill provides.
I would add that this bill is no doubt intended to get a jump in
a way on implementing the provisions of a draft treaty currently
under negotiation, that is the draft protocol against the
smuggling of migrants currently being negotiated by an ad hoc
committee on the drafting of a convention against international
organized crime, which accordingly is intended to set rules on
the smuggling of migrants by land, air and sea and which is a
protocol supplementing the United Nations convention against
international and transnational organized crime.
In a recent study, lawyer Philippe Tremblay, who thoroughly
examined the relationship between the revised draft and Bill
C-31, intimates that Bill C-31 is a precipitous incorporation of
evolving international law.
I cannot help but point out that, while this parliament
considers this bill, it has not had the opportunity, in truth,
either through this House or in committee, to examine the
negotiations underway being reported to the members of this
House, Canada's position in this matter and the progress of
discussions on this draft protocol.
This leads me to say that parliaments, and in particular the
House of Commons, must be party to the drafting of treaties
before they are asked to pass legislation to implement these
treaties, since, if they are not involved in the process of
implementing treaties through legislation, they end up having to
subscribe to the rules as negotiated and signed, without having
the right to vet the standards in the conventions, which a
country such as Canada in this case would have approved for its
signature.
This is all the more important since, when it comes to
conventions that have already been signed and ratified, a
parliament that was not able to take part in the discussions on
these treaties and that did not approve these treaties before
they were ratified is not really in a position to understand and
to adequately participate in their implementation.
Is this not the case here, since Bill C-31 explicitly seeks to
implement two treaties, namely the Refugee Convention and its
optional protocol, and the Convention Against Torture, two
conventions that have already been signed and ratified by Canada
without a true parliamentary debate on them, while a third
convention which is not mentioned in the bill, the Convention on
the Rights of the Child, should also have a real and significant
impact on the legislation before us?
1735
As regards these three conventions, which I will discuss one by
one, it seems to us, in the Bloc Quebecois, that there are major
flaws which could still be corrected to ensure that Bill C-31
adequately fulfils Canada's international obligations in this
regard.
Let me begin with the Refugee Convention and its optional
protocol. Explicit reference is made to that convention in
clause 2.(1), where that convention is defined and described.
That was also the case in the 1976 act, which preceded this
legislation. The bill's schedule also refers to certain
provisions of the Refugee Convention.
However, when we examine the bill, when we read it carefully, we
realize that it probably goes against the spirit, if not the
letter of the Convention Relative to the Status of Refugees and
its 1967 protocol.
For example, when we look at the provisions
on inadmissibility, when we read together clauses 29, 30 and 33
of the bill, when we look at the provisions that allow increased
use of the power to detain refugee claimants—I am referring in
particular to clause 50 of the bill—and when we see that this
bill restricts access to the refugee determination process, we
cannot help but think that it does not respect the spirit of the
Refugee Convention, a convention which seeks to make it easier
for bona fide refugees to have access to the territory of a
state and which seeks to protect these refugees.
The tighter provisions, which are very restrictive, much more so
than those agreed to in the earlier legislation, in the view of
the Bloc Quebecois, probably undermine certain guarantees of the
Convention Relative to the Status of Refugees and its protocol.
Having examined the Convention Against Torture, we feel that it
has not been fully and appropriately incorporated. This
convention includes an absolute ban on the removal of persons
likely to be tortured in the country to which they might be
removed. The reference to the Convention on Torture in clause
90(2)(a), is a useful one and is lauded in certain quarters.
But clause 91 tends to limit the protection of persons likely to
be tortured and does not seem to correspond appropriately to the
exceptions in paragraphs (e) and (f) of the Convention on
Refugees.
The principle of non-removal, which is incorporated into clause
108 of this bill and which is also intended to confirm
acceptance of the principle of non-removal in article 33 of the
Convention on Refugees, which deals with torture—and this is
something positive—is not reassuring in this regard because a
total ban on the removal of persons likely to be tortured is not
guaranteed.
Finally, I wish to point out that, in the opinion of our party,
the best interest of the child, as protected by the Convention
on the Rights of the Child, is certainly not the primary
consideration in this bill, since it provides that a minor child
could be held and that this could be limited only by regulation.
Our party therefore feels that the government should give very
serious thought to better implementing its international
obligations and making the necessary improvements to Bill C-31.
1740
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague
from Beauharnois—Salaberry gave us an idea of the importance of
the Canada-Quebec accord on immigration.
Among other things, he mentioned that, according to that
agreement, Quebec is responsible for the selection of
independent immigrants.
Why should we take that agreement further? Why are we insisting
on the need to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction in the bill
before us?
Members probably know that my colleague from
Beauharnois—Salaberry is a distinguished constitutional expert.
I would therefore like him to explain clearly the difference
between recognition of jurisdictions in an agreement between
governments and recognition of jurisdictions in legislation like
Bill C-31.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question. I want to take this opportunity to say that all the
members of the Bloc Quebecois are very proud of all the work he
does as our party's immigration critic.
Canada had its share of constitutional debates. Some people seem
tired of it. They are so tired of those debates that they do not
dare confront those who still think that the Constitution of
Canada should be amended. At this very moment, the Prime
Minister is inaugurating an exhibition on Canada's constitution.
When looking at the different exhibits and stands, we realize to
what extent the Constitution of Canada has been imposed upon
Quebec, be it the constitution of 1840, or Union Act, or the
Constitution Act, 1982, which was patriated without Quebec's
consent.
One area where there was a breakthrough is immigration. An
administrative arrangement was made, not thanks to the
generosity of the Canadian government, but because such an
administrative agreement is possible under the current
constitution, since powers regarding immigration are concurrent.
The federal and provincial governments and legislatures can
exercise these powers concurrently if the federal government and
parliament so desire. It is provided that in this regard the
federal government has precedence.
Whether or not there is an agreement with the provinces,
especially Quebec, and whether or not the provinces exercise
certain powers in the area of immigration depends on the good
will of the federal government.
The first agreements reached on this issue—the Andras-Bienvenue
agreement, if I recall, followed by the Cullen-Couture agreement,
and now the McDougall-Gagnon-Tremblay agreement—were the result
of negotiations.
To answer my colleague's question, the status of such agreements
is always precarious. If a government no longer wanted the
provinces to exercise powers in the area of immigration, it
could prevent them from doing so.
This is why immigration agreements were to be enshrined in the
constitution under the Charlottetown accord, so they would no
longer be precarious, but protected through a constitutional
amendment process preventing the government from unilaterally
modifying them. This is always a worry for us as the federal
government, at least the Liberal government, has often acted
unilaterally with regard to the constitution.
If these agreements were protected by a federal statute, the
current agreements would be less precarious, even if this
protection were incomplete, since the government would always be
in a position to amend or repeal the supplementary protection
referring to the intergovernmental agreements and working
agreements between the federal and the Quebec governments.
This is why our party, which wants to defend the interests of
Quebec right now, before the Quebec people democratically
chooses sovereignty, believes that it would be timely to grant
some protection, which will never be sufficient, since the only
useful solution would be to enshrine it in the constitution.
1745
As things now stand, it is hard to believe that we would want to
enshrine in the constitution something that would be in the best
interests of Quebec and all Quebecers, since it is believed that
the Quebec people have enough protection as it is.
Our party does not believe this to be the case.
This is why, even if we act in a constructive way in our
analysis of Bill C-31, we strongly believe that if Quebec is to
prosper in the international community, it has to gain control
over the immigration process to guarantee that it will in the
future develop into a French speaking country that will still be
generous without adopting the bad habits of a government which,
pretending to be very generous to refugees, is once again trying
to be very hard and to crack down on refugee status claimants.
This is a tendency that a sovereign Quebec will not want to
adopt once the Quebec people decides that it should achieve
sovereignty.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
listening to last part of the remarks of my distinguished
colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry, a question came to my mind.
I would like him to develop his point of view more at length.
As a sovereignist who has reached a certain age, it seems to me
that there are positives reasons for Quebec to become sovereign,
but there are also negative ones that should spur our reflection,
as a people.
The fact that Quebecers do not control their immigration is one
of the main elements we need to take into consideration, when we
think about holding another referendum on the future of
Quebecers.
I would like my colleague to explain even more fully the price
that has to be paid by a nation such as ours, a tiny French
speaking community in a whole English speaking continent, when it
cannot control the selection of newcomers. There is no place here
for racism or xenophobia, but we have to manage the situation
properly, when the very future of this unique nation in North
America is at stake.
I would like to hear my distinguished colleague on this.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, this question gives me the
opportunity to remind this House that, despite the latest
administrative arrangement between the Government of Canada and
the Government of Quebec relating to immigration and the
selection of foreign nationals and of refugees, Quebec controls
only 40% of its immigration and of the refugees admitted.
Despite the implication that Quebec is totally autonomous in
this area, it has a real impact on only 40% of persons coming
from abroad to live within its territory.
This means that the independence the present constitution is
prepared to give to Quebec is certainly insufficient, and
unsatisfactory, for a state such as Quebec, which has such a
great need of powers relating to immigration if it is to maintain
its present demographic balance.
A little over 80% of the population is French speaking
Quebecers, with English speaking Quebecers and those of other
origins, combined with the aboriginal nations, making up
approximately 18%. This is, overall, a totally acceptable
proportion and one which makes possible a rich, diversified and
pluralistic society, one with self-respect and with the right to
choose French as its common language.
This is why immigration is so important to Quebec. Enhanced
powers relating to immigration are so important to Quebec in
order to ensure that, when immigrants, even refugees, arrive in
Quebec, when they choose Quebec as their new country or their
place of refuge, it is made clear to them that they will have to
adopt French as their language of work.
1750
This way of looking at things is very difficult in a country
with two official languages, one trying to convince people that
immigrants may choose either of the two without distinction. That
is one of the reasons why it is a known fact, in my opinion, that
Quebecers are going to choose sovereignty one day, because they
will be convinced that control over all aspects of immigration is
a key to the survival, the maintenance and the development of the
French language in Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to speak to this bill. For the three years of
my incarnation or reincarnation as a member of parliament in this
place I have had the privilege of serving on the citizenship and
immigration committee. This past year I was elected as
vice-chair of the committee.
As a member of parliament from Mississauga, my riding, as
members will appreciate, is a hotbed of new immigrants, refugees
and problems dealing with citizenship and immigration. Indeed, I
have a full time staff person, Terry Kirsch, who virtually does
nothing but deal with citizenship and immigration issues. In our
community, which is a very diverse community, this topic is near
and dear to our hearts and is extremely important to my
constituents and to constituents right across the region of Peel.
One of the things we have learned in our time in federal office
is that the citizenship and immigration system appears to have
bogged down in a tremendous amount of bureaucracy and red tape.
The minister has recognized that exact problem and has brought in
changes that will improve the system. She is really known as the
just do it minister, the let us fix the problem minister and the
let us find out where the problems lie minister.
It was interesting to hear some of my colleagues speak, notably
the critic for the official opposition who spoke for about 40
minutes. In the first 15 or 20 minutes of his speech he talked
in terms of all the positive things he saw. I was getting a
little nervous. I thought he was about to come out in full
support of the bill and that we might have to go back to the
drafting table. However, that of course did not happen. As is
usually the case, while he and other members opposite were able
to find some good things in the bill, they tended to focus on the
negative. That can be no more clearly demonstrated than when we
deal with the very sensitive issue of refugees.
As everyone knows, this country became a signator to the Geneva
convention in 1949 wherein we agreed to take our share of
refugees, of people in trouble because of conflicts in their
country. The issue then is how to define our share. In reality
it has defined itself in terms of the numbers. Where we may see
200,000 plus or minus new immigrants come to this country, we
will see approximately 20,000 declaring refugee status.
What happens in the case of a refugee? If individuals quietly
show up at Pearson airport, come forward without documents,
simply claim refugee status and then tell a story of persecution
and problems back in their homeland, they go through a process.
In years gone by that process has taken several years to play
out.
However, if they arrive on a rusty boat off the shores of British
Columbia or wade ashore in the maritimes, soaking wet, having
come out of some kind of a boat, the TV cameras go on and it then
becomes big news.
1755
Just to put this in perspective, while we were dealing with
approximately 600 migrants coming ashore on the west coast in
what has been termed an illegal way, which it clearly was, we
deal with close to that number every single month at Pearson
International Airport. Do they get the attention? Do they get
the media? Do they get the negative comments that we hear from
critics of the government who simply want to use this tragedy?
Let me be clear. This is a human tragedy. This is as a result
of bondage, of trafficking, of slavery. This is as a result of
organized crime. It is easier today to smuggle people than it is
to smuggle drugs and, some would say, it is even more profitable
and less dangerous.
They get all of the attention when, as a result of the
interviews that have been done, they show that the majority of
these people are indeed victims. They are victims of an
international crime ring, of human traffickers and smugglers who
must be sought out, punished and dealt with in the strongest
possible terms.
I was proud to see our minister in China last week telling the
Chinese government that it must help us put a stop to this, and
going to Fujian province and telling the officials there that
they must tell their sons and daughters that this is not safe,
that paying $40,000 or $50,000 to be put on an obviously
unseaworthy, rusty, old tanker of a ship and being sent out to
sea for weeks to cross the ocean is just not safe, not sensible
and must stop. Our minister told the people in China that they
have the key to solving this particular problem.
However, there are people on this side of the ocean who would
like to use this for political advantage. I understand the
sentiment of, for example, the Chinese community in British
Columbia who said “We are upset because we do not want people
jumping the queue. We came here through the proper channels,
through the right methods and we don't want people coming in the
back door”. I understand and sympathize with that.
I say to them and to all Canadians that we must understand who
the victims are. The vast majority of these people who are in
detention in British Columbia are women and children. They are
not the criminals. The criminals are the people who organized
this trip from China with promises of better lives and days of
wine and roses or whatever. What happens? Why are they in
detention now when it is so costly to keep them there? If they
are released as refugees, the young girls could wind up in
prostitution, in the drug industry or in all kinds of illegal
underground activity that is equally unsafe.
This is not an easy problem to resolve. We are dealing with
language and cultural barriers. It is extremely difficult to
communicate the facts properly and appropriately to the people in
China but our minister is trying. In taking that message
directly to them and I am hopeful we will see some success.
Notwithstanding that issue, the bill brings forward some ideas
that members opposite have talked about, some in support and some
not in support, that will streamline the process.
It makes no sense whatsoever to put someone into a motel unit in
Mississauga or somewhere in this country to live as a family when
they have children who should be in school.
Why are they here? They are here because if they are legitimate
refugees they have a serious problem. As a result, it is up to
Canada, as one of the countries involved in the Geneva
convention, to find a solution to the problem.
1800
I believe that most Canadians, the vast majority of Canadians,
notwithstanding some of the rants that I have heard from members
opposite both in this place and in committee, would say that if
they are legitimate refugees, if they are in danger of
persecution, if they are in danger for their lives, if they are
in danger of being thrown into a rat infested prison somewhere,
then we should not send them back. We should find a way to make
that determination in as timely a fashion as possible so that if
they do have children they can get into the education system and
have the opportunity to build a new life.
I thought it was interesting this weekend, as we witnessed the
celebration of the 25th anniversary of the end of the war in
Vietnam, that someone talked about the boat people. In fact,
John Downing in the Toronto Sun wrote about his experience
in helping a number of the boat people settle in the Toronto area
when they arrived. They rented a couple of houses. They put
those people up first in one house until the health authorities
came along and told them they had too many people crammed into
the house and Downing and the Sun rented another house to
make more room for these people. We all remember them. They
were called the boat people.
There was this great paranoia, this fear that they were coming
up the credit river in tankers, for goodness sake, and that they
would somehow destroy our communities. The misinformation was
frightening, but it was fuelled by the negativity that existed in
people who opposed Canada accepting its fair share of refugees,
and that was the minority in my view.
I thought that Mr. Downing's article was brilliant because it
talked about the success of those people today. There was the
story of the Vietnamese refugee who showed up here, wound up in
Winnipeg and started a small tailor shop. Today, with no
education and no financial assistance, he has built a family
business. He has kids and a wonderful life in Canada. That is
what it is all about. That is what the Citizenship Act and the
Immigration Act should be about. How do we share the wealth of
this country and at the same time solve the problems, whether it
was 25 years ago coming out of Saigon or today coming out of the
Fujian province of China, wherever it is coming from?
I understand the frustration when people hear that refugees show
up at Pearson airport without identification. They must have had
it when they got on the plane. Where did it go? We know that it
gets flushed down a toilet, it disappears somehow or it is given
back to the carrier who sold it to them. We know that there is
illegal activity and we must put a stop to that.
The bill will increase the fine to the potential of life
imprisonment for trafficking in human beings. In fact, when we
spoke at committee I suggested that we need to create a crime
against humanity status for trafficking in human beings. It is
not referred to as that, but I believe it should be. There could
be nothing in this world more hideous than taking money from
people through criminal activity and putting them into a
situation where they know not what they are getting into. They
wind up in this country in detention, in uncomfortable
situations, and it is absolutely a crime against humanity.
The minister will close the back door; the back door that is
opened and fueled by criminals, whether they are in organized
crime or in ad hoc crime, who are using the situation to line
their pockets.
1805
The minister says we have to close the back door. Then, very
interestingly, she says “so that we can open the front door
wider”. It is an interesting idea.
If we were to ask in the good times if we should bring in more
immigrants, some Canadians would say yes, some would say no, and
some would say that we should ensure we get our employment up.
The reality is, what is Canada if it is not a land of immigrants?
If it is not a land built by the toil and the blood, sweat and
tears of immigrants, then I do not know what this land is.
My father came from Cardiff, Wales to work in the steel mills.
I am sure most of us could trace our ancestry, history and family
lineage to another part of the world. Some of us are even first
generation. That is one of the greatest things about this
country. Imagine coming from someplace else in the world, maybe
even destitute, and rising to become a member of parliament. It
is a job that I happen to think is dignified and worthy of the
respect of Canadians, notwithstanding comments made from time to
time in the media and by those on the opposition benches. It is
all about immigration.
We recently dealt with the citizenship bill. We see the pride
that new Canadians feel every time there is a citizenship
ceremony and they become new Canadians. It sends shivers up our
spines to see how they feel about it. People can be proud
anywhere in the world they go to say that they have a Canadian
passport.
We say often that Canada has been voted the greatest country in
the world in which to live for six years in a row by the United
Nations. I always say it is the greatest country in the world in
which to live unless people live here, and then they just want to
complain about it.
I went on a trip with a colleague from the Conservative Party
and the minister. We went through London, England and spent
three days meeting with our Department of Citizenship and
Immigration staff there, the visa officers, the young men and
women who try to process all of the applications for visitor
visas, landed immigrant status and refugee status. They try to
deal with all of that. In London they are overwhelmed without a
doubt because they have the reputation of being the most
efficient and the best place to go. People from Nigeria and all
over the western world are funnelling into London saying they
know they will get their visas quickly and that is why they are
there. They line up.
I sat in on some of the interviews. The London experience was
very insightful, very interesting and very educational for me. I
was astounded at how many we turn down. I thought this was a
rubberstamp and they all just came through, one right after the
other. Not true. They are turned down if there is even the
slightest inkling that they are not telling the truth. They are
turned down if there is even the slightest inkling that there
might be some security risk or danger to the Canadian public.
I was extremely impressed with the dedication of the people who
work for us in London, England, but the experience of a lifetime
in my 20 years in elected office was the next leg of the trip.
That was to Nairobi, Kenya. It is a city of six million people.
It is a city where 500 people a day die in the hospitals from
AIDS. It is a city where one dares not go out at night. It is a
city where, the minister will remember, people do not even drive
with their arm outside the window of the car for fear someone
will hack it off to get their watch. It is a city where our
employees, about 80 people in total, live in compounds that are
surrounded by a wall with electric fences, with 24 hour security
guards and with bars on the windows and doors of these beautiful,
magnificent homes with yards to die for. People would think they
were in Florida or Hollywood.
Hon. Elinor Caplan: Or Mississauga.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, Mississauga, of course, as the
minister says.
They live in danger all the time.
I went to the refugee camp and saw 110,000 people with one
source of water. Many of them had lived there for 10 years in
what can only be described as the most horrific living conditions
that I have ever seen and that any Canadian would ever see.
1810
I was hoping I would still have time left to tell the story of
the woman from Ethiopia with two children, who saw her husband
murdered, her teenage son murdered, her other teenage son
kidnapped, whom she has not seen since, who was imprisoned for
two months and gang raped every night as they hung her on a chain
against the wall. I saw this woman cry tears of joy when she was
told by the visa officer that she and the four little kids she
had left in her care were going to be approved to come to Canada.
I was never so proud to be a Canadian.
I am hopeful that the staff in Nairobi will follow up and inform
me of this individual and her children. Her 11 year old daughter
said through an interpreter that she wanted to grow up to be an
airline pilot. It was amazing.
We do wonderful things in this world through citizenship and
immigration. This bill will make it easier for all of our staff
to do those things and for Canadians to have confidence in one of
the finest systems in the world.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question about one of the principles of the new immigration bill
with respect to incorporating the best interests of the child. I
am interested in the idea that this bill will in some way reflect
the high value that Canadians place on the well-being of
children.
As the mother of a child with a disability, I am very interested
and concerned about how this new immigration act will treat
people with disabilities.
I often find in my life that government decisions seemingly are
not made to reflect the well-being of my child. I find that the
educational services are not available for him to have equal
access to education.
We have a charter of rights which talks about each Canadian
being entitled to equality under the law. The Will to Act Task
Force, which was established several years ago, talked about
equality of citizenship for persons with disabilities.
Clause 34 talks about how a foreign national or other permanent
resident would be inadmissible on health grounds if their health
condition might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand
on health or social services. This is the only clause in the
bill which seems to me would in any way relate to a person with a
disability making an application to come to Canada.
I would like to know if a family with a child who has a
disability such as Down's syndrome or cerebral palsy would be
accepted in this country.
The member talked about witnessing the process in London,
England. If I lived there with my family, would I be allowed to
come to this country with a child with a disability? Would he be
welcomed in this country?
I need to know that, and I think a lot of Canadians need to know
that.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
her very thoughtful question.
The member made two points. The first was the issue of the best
interests of the child. This is something we wrestled with at
committee, because it can be difficult to define. In whose
definition are the interests determined to be the best interests
of the child?
I think it is internationally accepted, in the Geneva convention
and other statutes, that the best interests of the child can
indeed be defined. In the case of a disabled child, I believe
that the intent is to prevent abuse. The abuse might be that the
only reason for someone wanting to come to Canada would be to
seek free health care of some type.
However, in the case of family reunification, if we are talking
about bringing a new family to Canada, if a child has a
disability, frankly, I am absolutely confident, having met the
men and women who work in citizenship and immigration, that we
would take all of that into account and we would not allow it to
stand in the way.
1815
I have seen situations in my own riding where people were trying
to get their elderly parents to come to Canada because they could
get better health care. We have to be understanding and fair. We
do not want to abuse the system, drive up costs and suddenly
become a home to anyone who is sick so they can simply come here
and get free health care. It requires compassion. It will be in
the delivery. It will be in the way the system is carried out.
The member might be interested to know that I have been actively
involved with community living in my own community. I am very
much convinced that we have an obligation to reach out to all
citizens in the world who are in need of help in coming to
Canada. I believe we will do that. I believe the bill sets in
place the format that will give our staff the confidence and the
ability to approve a person for entry into Canada as the member
has described.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
did not plan to speak today but as I listened to speakers extol
both the virtues and the concerns of the act I felt it important
on behalf of the constituents of Sydney—Victoria that I put
forward both the things I think are positive in the act and the
things that I have some concerns about.
Our party has spoken to this issue already today. The critic
for immigration, the member for Winnipeg Centre, will have a fair
amount to say when the bill comes back to the House. I know he
accompanied the minister on her most recent trip to China because
of the concerns this party has about some of the things that have
been happening.
This is a tremendously important issue. It has been said by
speaker after speaker in the House that this is a nation of
immigrants. I suppose some native people might say we are a
nation of colonists, but I think it is fair to say that we are a
nation of immigrants.
Everyone in the House has spoken about their own heritage.
Members of the House represent immigrants from all parts of the
world. My own heritage is Italian and Scottish. My grandfather
on my father's side came here when he was 15. I look at my own
son at 13 and wonder about my grandfather at 15 coming on a boat
from Italy, not speaking the language, alone, and with 25 cents
in his pocket. He chose this country to build a life. As I look
around the House, I think that is the story for most of us.
Immigration is tremendously important because it defines not
only who we let into the nation but how we will let the nation
grow. It sets out the kind of vision we have for Canada in the
future. It also defines whom we will not let in. That is as
important a part of this debate as whom we let in. It is a
reflection of our international obligations.
I commend the minister for reviewing the act and bringing
forward new legislation almost 25 years after the last act was
passed in the House in 1976. Because immigration is an important
topic, I congratulate and commend her for bringing forward new
legislation and opening the issue of immigration. It is an issue
that has polarized Canadians in the last two or three years.
The act has been amended numerous times. While it has been
talked about, it has only been since 1997 when we began to see
the boatloads of Chinese immigrants coming to British Columbia
that Canadians were galvanized and polarized by the issue of
immigration. That polarization is on both sides.
There are those who are adamant that we should not let anybody
else into the country. There are some groups in the country who
believe that if we should let anyone in they should for the most
part be of European ancestry. I know who those groups are
because when I was critical of them I received some of their
interesting mail. I know they put me on their website and did
some very interesting imaging things, so I guess they are
creative in a certain sense.
1820
We have those groups on one side. On the other side we have
some, critics might call, bleeding hearts who say we should open
the doors to everyone. Naturally the balance is somewhere in
between. That balance is something that is not easily achieved
but again as the minister has opened the door I think it is
something we have to talk about.
I do not think that we can talk about immigration without
setting it against a backdrop of international and global issues
because we are living in a global society. We are contributors
to both the good and the bad parts of the global community. It
should come as no surprise to us, with our vast amount of land
and with our vast wealth, that thousands and thousands of people
around the world want to come to Canada because of the inequities
of the global world.
Let us not forget that we live in the northern hemisphere. We
are the consumers of the vast majority of the world's energy. We
contribute the vast majority of waste and pollution to the
world's atmosphere. On the other side of the hemisphere are
millions and millions of people living in abject poverty. Yet in
the global world and in the information age these millions of
people know the life that we live.
I had an interesting conversation on the plane going home last
week with a friend of mine originally from Cape Breton who has
lived for the last almost 30 years in a remote village in the
Himalayas of India. He told me now it was not uncommon to see
satellite dishes on some of the little homes in that part of
India. Those people are watching for the most part American
presentation of life in the western world. We should not be
surprised, set against the backdrop of increasing poverty in the
third world and increasing wealth in the northern hemisphere,
that millions of people want to come to this country.
I heard the member for Mississauga talk about Canada taking its
fair share. I think we have to talk about our fair share and our
obligations. If we are consuming so much of the world's energy
and if we are contributing so much to increased poverty in the
world, surely we have an obligation. It is against that backdrop
and the backdrop of the tremendous increase in world population
that we have to look at our immigration policy.
Again let us be clear. It took the human race thousands,
thousands and thousands of years to reach a million people
worldwide. In the last 20 years the population has increased
fourfold or fivefold to the point where we now have six or seven
billion people. It is against that backdrop we have to look at
the good things the bill has to offer and some of the things that
may cause us some concern.
Of the good things, I look at what the bill talks about. It
creates severe penalties for those smuggling people into Canada
with fines up to $1 million and life in prison. I support that.
I think trade in human beings is the most despicable kind of
crime imaginable. To take those who are most needy and helpless,
to demand that those people pay a price to come to this country
and to traffic in human beings as if they were silk scarves, is
tragic. It is wise for us to be harsh on those who smuggle
people into this country.
I also think it is wise and again I commend the government for
talking about increasing the number of immigration control
officers abroad. The minister has said all along that what she
intends to do is open the front door wider and close the back
door. Part of the problem we have had is that we have not had
enough immigration officers.
People talked about the Chinese immigrants coming from Fujian
province and how they should probably go to the immigration
office and do it the right way. In reality, if we think about
where Fujian province is in China, where the immigration office
is and the fact that we had perhaps one or two refugee officers
in that province, it would have been impossible for those people
to go through the appropriate channels if they are refugees to
seek admission to this country.
1825
I am glad to hear there will be an increase in immigration
officers. I think the department needs them and it is fair for
public servants who had a huge workload in the last few years. It
is also wise to look at security checks for those who are serious
criminals. However, as has been mentioned by the NDP member for
Winnipeg—Transcona, what constitutes a crime in some countries
may be questionable as to whether or not it would constitute a
crime in this country. There are those people who are imprisoned
that fought for human rights in their countries and may have
criminal records. It would be my hope that the definition of
crime would exclude those individuals.
We commend the government for some of the points in the bill.
There are others that we will take under advisement and look at
very carefully, for example what constitutes a crime. Nelson
Mandela was a criminal in South Africa because he fought against
apartheid.
I had the fortune to meet with the vice-president elect of
Taiwan who spent five years in prison for challenging marshal law
in that country and today emerges as the vice-president. Her
sentence was commuted from 12 years to 5 years because she had an
illness. Would that person, because she carried a criminal
record, be denied entrance to Canada?
I also have some other concerns. I know we will have an
opportunity to examine them. I read the minister's press release
which talked about expanding policies to attract the world's best
and brightest to Canada. I do not know if under that criteria my
grandfather would have been able to come to this country. He did
not have a degree in computer science. He did not come with a
lot of money. He did not have financial backing.
Hon. Elinor Caplan: He was the best.
Mr. Peter Mancini: The minister says “he was the best”.
My family would agree with that. However he did not come with a
resumé, a business plan and talk about how he would expand the
country. He did expand it. He developed a business plan once he
got here. It was an interesting one at different times, but I am
not sure he would be considered the best and the brightest.
I agree that the immigration system should be bolstered by
denying sponsorship to those convicted of spousal abuse, to those
in default of spousal or child support payments, but then it says
those on social assistance. Surely poverty is not a bar to
immigration to Canada. Surely those who find themselves in need
in their own countries for whatever reason and have to rely on
state sponsorship would not be denied the opportunity to build a
life in this country, the way that many of our ancestors did.
I know that the minister will answer these questions. This is
the opportunity to debate and raise some of the reservations that
we have and I welcome the opportunity to do that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Sydney—Victoria will have approximately 10 minutes in time
remaining when next the bill comes before the House.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is somewhat coincidental that the matter on which I rise today
has to do with the Immigration Act. It is a question I posed of
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration regarding the ability
of students to study in Canada, depending on their status.
While I have this opportunity I want to say I have enjoyed the
debate that has gone on so far. I congratulate the minister on
the progressive steps that have been taken in this new
immigration and refugee protection act which addresses some broad
themes that I think Canadians were very pleased to see.
1830
Certainly there are the issues of maintaining the safety of
Canadian society, reducing abuses within the system, cutting
costs of the system and helping Canada's economy grow by
attracting those who would be able to provide the skills to fill
jobs particularly in our high tech sector.
The reunification of families certainly continues to be an
important issue for Canadian society. Increasingly the integrity
of the sponsorship is an issue. I mentioned it in the very first
speech I gave in the House back in 1994. I am quite delighted
with the progress the minister has made in bringing the
legislation forward.
With regard to the specific question, the issue was whether or
not something could be done to deal with the interpretation or
the confusion with regard to whether or not children who were
here may or may not study in elementary or secondary school.
Their education could be affected by their immigration status. I
think the House would agree with the issue of ensuring that our
children have the opportunity to go to school.
The minister did answer the question and gave me some
assurances. Perhaps the minister could also confirm something.
A permanent resident must be physically present in Canada for at
least 730 days in each five year period after being authorized to
enter and remain. With that as background, clause 26(2) states
that a minor child in Canada does not require an authorization to
study at the primary or secondary school level.
Could the minister explain how one establishes permanent
residency if in fact one of the criteria is one's tenure within
Canada over the last five years since becoming a permanent
resident? There may be an element of further question as to
whether or not permanent status has been maintained. What
happens to a child who started off and had the extension to allow
them to attend school but then there was subsequently either a
default or a question about the residency status?
It probably goes on further with regard to a minor child of a
temporary resident. I know there are temporary residents who are
here for some time, and to the extent that there is a minor child
within Canada, I am wondering what was the thinking with regard
to children who may very well be in that situation.
I hope the minister will take the opportunity to enlighten us on
those issues.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of education of children in
Canada is one which is very dear to my heart.
Even though education is within provincial jurisdiction, there
has been some interpretation of the current Immigration Act to
suggest that there is a requirement for a student authorization
before children are able to attend publicly funded elementary and
secondary schools. Some persons and school boards across the
country have interpreted these existing regulations as requiring
student authorization.
It is my very firm belief that children should not be denied the
right to an education. They should not be denied the right to
attend elementary or secondary school whether they have been in
Canada 10 years or 10 minutes. I further believe that the
current regulation in the existing Immigration Act requires
student authorizations only for students who wish to attend
post-secondary or vocational courses.
On April 6 I was pleased to have the privilege to table the new
immigration and refugee protection act, Bill C-31. The new act
states very clearly in clause 26(2):
A minor child in Canada does not require an authorization to
study at the pre-school, primary or secondary level.
It is important for people to know that there are many students
who come expressly to Canada on a student visa in order to
attend, usually university, post-secondary, but also on occasion
secondary and rarely but occasionally elementary school.
Those students who come here on a student visa specifically as
foreign students to study in Canada will still require their
student visa to study.
1835
The intention of the new act is to clarify a situation which I
believe already exists, that is, the Immigration Act is not an
impediment to any child who is already in Canada. We believe they
should have the right to go to school and get an education. We
think that is in Canada's interests and also in the child's
interest.
IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on February 8 I raised the matter of illegal immigration
with the minister in question period. My constituents had
serious concerns about our current Immigration Act and whether it
was as effective as it could be to both welcome legitimate
refugees and immigrants and prevent those who would abuse the
system from entering our country.
Three separate events in and around my riding serve to highlight
people's concerns. In Windsor, Sarnia and Wallaceburg several
people were captured by police as they entered or were already in
Canada illegally. It was proof that our immigration policies had
come under assault as some sought to jump the queue, mere pawns
in the hands of Chinese criminal organizations.
My constituents urged me to take their message of fairness to
the minister. People need to have confidence that our refugee
system is working as well as it should be.
The system is now plagued by people who use phoney travel
documents or destroy them on route to this country. Once here
they certainly have the right to make a refugee claim but
immigration officials are then hard pressed to positively
identify them or assess their criminal backgrounds.
Alarmed with the prospect of Sarnia becoming a major jumping off
point for illegal immigrants to try sneaking into the U.S., many
have called for improvements to our laws for people who enter
North America illegally.
As the daughter of an immigrant myself, Canada and its citizens
can be justifiably proud of our compassionate and humanitarian
nature. However we must not, we cannot, allow our nation to be
taken advantage of by those who would disrupt and disturb our
borders.
We should not be a haven for illegal immigrants. The criminal
snake head organizations in China and others who would exploit
the poor have to be dealt with in the harshest manner. They are
not here to embrace our nation but to exploit it. The terrible
plight foisted upon the young Chinese dropped in my riding comes
from the multimillionaire crooks at the top using them for their
own personal ends. I am pleased that the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration went to China last month to express Canada's
views forcefully and convincingly.
The minister's recent update to the Immigration Act is a
significant step in the right direction. We tell the world that
we welcome them and their families but do not manipulate the
system and do not confuse our time honoured Canadian compassion
with an acceptance of breaking the rules.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada recognizes there are those who
would surreptitiously enter Canada. There are those who would
try to enter this country in a way which would not give them
status and would make them illegal in Canada. We also know there
is a problem of transnational organized criminal activity that is
attempting to traffic and smuggle people around the world.
This is not just something that Canada faces alone. This is an
international problem which requires international solutions.
That is one of the reasons the United Nations is developing a
convention on transnational organized criminal activity. Canada
has taken a lead on the development of protocols, particularly
those that deal with trafficking in women and children.
While it is true there are some refugee claimants in Canada who
break the law after their arrival, the number who engage in
criminal activities is actually a very small fraction of the many
who come to Canada each year asking for our protection.
I recently tabled the new immigration and refugee bill which in
my view and I hope the view of the majority of the House will
curb the criminal abuse of our immigration and refugee
determination system. It is our intent to close the back door to
those who would criminally abuse our immigration and refugee
system so we can open the front door wider to both genuine
refugees in need of our protection and the immigrants we want to
bring here to help our country prosper and grow.
1840
I would like to highlight a couple of things that are in the
bill. I know I do not have time to do it all but I believe these
will significantly address the concerns the member has raised.
We are increasing the penalties for human trafficking which will
provide fines of up to $1 million and life imprisonment for
people smuggling and trafficking in humans. There are more
aggressive steps to seize the vehicles, vessels, aircraft and
other property used in the course of smuggling and trafficking.
There is the imposition of a screening mechanism for criminality
and security considerations at the very beginning of the refugee
determination system. As well we are clarifying the grounds for
detention to better deal with people trafficking and smuggling.
I would say to the member and to all members of the House that
there are occasions when genuine refugees arrive in Canada
undocumented or with fraudulent documentation. We therefore need
to be willing to hear their stories because often they have fled
and not had documentation. We cannot assume that everyone who
comes undocumented is not a genuine refugee.
The intention is to be faster and fair. We are going to be able
to remove those who are inadmissible persons in a more timely
way. Canadians are a fair and generous people but we will not be
taken advantage of. We will honour our time honoured
humanitarian traditions but we want to see our laws respected and
people treated fairly.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
February I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs to assure the
House that Canada would not join a North American missile defence
system as currently tested by the United States of America. Since
then this American proposal has spurred an international debate
escalating beyond the question of Canadian participation to the
point where the possibility of the United States implementing
such a system represents a potential threat to world peace.
Some American politicians have conjured up a doomsday scenario
of missile attacks from so-called rogue states such as North
Korea, Iran, Iraq or Libya. This absurd hypothesis omits the
fact that none of these states has nuclear weapons nor long range
missiles, that these countries are very poor and that their
leaders do not want to provoke retaliation.
Moreover experts agree that terrorist attacks, weapons stuffed
in briefcases or trailer trucks pose a greater danger to national
security than ballistic rockets, but this is not the point. The
point is that this foolish alarmism has triggered the most
contentious security dispute in a long time and is threatening to
undermine decades of good work toward arms reduction agreements.
The proposed United States national defence system would violate
the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty because the treaty bans
wide scale nuclear missile defence systems. To put such a system
in place, the United States would have to obtain Russian approval
to amend the treaty. Already the Russian president has publicly
stated that he would pull out of all bilateral arms control
agreements if the United States decided to go ahead with a
national missile defence system. In that case the Americans have
indicated they would simply abrogate the anti-ballistic missile
treaty and go ahead with the system anyway.
The reason the treaty bans national defence shields is they
would lead opposing states to develop new offensive weapons to
circumvent proposed defence systems, thus triggering an arms
race. Both Russia and China have therefore warned that ballistic
missile defence system deployment would be met with greater
nuclear warheads deployment. Such deployment would threaten
another key treaty under the arms control framework, the
non-proliferation treaty. A missile defence system therefore
would send the wrong message to non-nuclear weapons states, and
the non-proliferation treaty which historically Canada has
championed would crumble.
What has been Canada's reaction so far? Apparently the defence
minister is under pressure in view of the fact that he fears the
United States may pull back into a fortress mentality. However
the United States has already indicated its intent to act
unilaterally therefore isolating itself from the rest of the
world.
1845
It should also be noted that while the United States has made no
formal request to Canada for its participation some believe
Canada must join, because of NORAD, the North American Aerospace
Defence Command. The fact is Washington will go ahead with or
without Canada's support but would like to use our good
international reputation to gain support from other countries.
To conclude, it seems to me that Canadians now need reassurance
that Canada will not support the missile defence system ever.
Instead of debating why Canada should not join the system, we
should instead be promoting the reasons why there should be no
such system at all.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has challenged quite firmly and
forcefully the reasons for Canada's participation. I support his
stand and urge him to use every means at his disposal to keep
Canada out of the scheme and to discourage the United States from
going ahead. Could the parliamentary secretary give the House
reassurance to that effect tonight?
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the most important thing to
remember concerning the national missile defence system is that
it is an American program the United States has not yet decided
to implement and in which Canada has not been officially invited
to participate by the U.S. government.
If and when the Canadian government has to make a decision with
regard to this program, it will be in the light of many factors.
To deal with these factors, it might be useful to explain what
the NMD, or national missile defence system, is.
Since the end of star wars in the mid 1980s, the United States
has kept on working on a ballistic missile defence system. The
NMD would be a land-based system, not a space-based one, equipped
with space-based sensors to detect and monitor missiles. The
system would launch an unarmed projectile, a destruction vehicle
that would intercept launched missiles and destroy them on
impact. Currently, the NMD is planned to respond to a limited
number of attacks by missiles and nuclear warheads.
In the U.S., the proponents of the NMD claim that the emerging
threat coming from the missile and massive destruction armament
technology is a new factor, that today the bipolar world is a
thing of the past and that the security of the United States is
threatened.
Apparently, an outcast state armed with intercontinental
ballistic missiles could limit the United States' foreign policy
options by blackmailing future American administrations.
Intelligence reports indicate that the states in question could
have this strike capability within five to ten years.
On July 23, 1999, President Clinton signed the National Missile
Defence Act, which says that an NMD system will be deployed when
technologically possible. The decision to deploy such a system
has not yet been made, and maybe the current administration or
even any future administration in the United States will not
make that decision.
When he signed the National Missile Defence Act, President
Clinton also pointed out that a final decision on the deployment
of a national missile defence system could not be made before a
deployment preparedness study is conducted.
The study is scheduled for July. Although a decision on the
deployment of such a system could be made as early as August
2000, it would be a few years before the system could actually
be put in place.
In conclusion, the President of the United States has not yet
made the decision to deploy this national missile defence
system. Canada has not been invited to participate and,
therefore, the Canadian government has not yet decided whether
it would participate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.49 p.m.)