CONTENTS
Monday, February 6, 1995
Bill C-266. Motion for second reading 9165
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9168
Bill C-44. Motion for third reading. 9172
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9190
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9191
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 9192
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9194
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9194
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9194
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9194
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9195
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9195
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9195
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9196
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9196
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9196
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9196
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9196
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9196
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9197
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9197
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9197
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9197
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9197
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9197
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9198
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9198
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9198
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9199
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9199
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9199
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9200
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9200
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9200
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 9200
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9201
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9201
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9201
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 9202
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 9203
Motion for concurrence in 56th report 9203
Motion for concurrence in 53rd report 9203
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9204
Bill C-44. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 9210
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9211
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 9213
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9234
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9235
9165
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 6, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
Translation]
The Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy
has occurred in the representation, namely, Mr. Berger, member
for the electoral district of Saint-Henri-Westmount, by
resignation on December 28, 1994.
[English]
Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada
Act, I have addressed on Wednesday, December 28, 1994 my
warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for
the election of a member to fill this vacancy.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, prior to the
Christmas recess I made some unacceptable comments on a
decision that the Speaker made, which I appreciate in the
traditions of Parliament were inappropriate. I suggested some
motives which was also inappropriate. This morning I wish to
apologize for any problems that those remarks might have
caused you, Mr. Speaker, and withdraw those remarks.
The Speaker: I accept, of course, the explanation of the hon.
member for Kamloops.
I remind all hon. colleagues that any reflection on the
decisions of the Chair cause problems for us as a House of
Commons. I encourage hon. members to be very careful in any
remarks they make either inside the House or outside.
(1105 )
After all I am a servant of the House and I am a servant of each
and every one of you as members of Parliament. As such, any
words said that could in any way detract not so much from me
but from the Chair itself, and the institution, are not acceptable
to the House.
I do thank the hon. member for Kamloops for his words. I
accept them and I consider the matter to be closed.
_____________________________________________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP) moved that Bill C-266,
an act respecting the orderly marketing of potatoes, be read the
second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proposing a private member's bill
today that would have the effect of creating a national marketing
agency for potatoes.
As I go through the reasons for the bill members will see that
probably there are simpler ways of dealing with this problem.
However because Parliament in the past 20 years has been loath
to adopt a simpler way and has forced the dealing of national
agencies commodity by commodity, I am following that
process.
During the course of my remarks I will point out a simpler
way. First let us recall that marketing boards are a relatively new
method of dealing with the bargaining power vis-à-vis sellers
and buyers. It dates back to the 1930s when New Zealand,
Australia and the United Kingdom brought in marketing board
legislation. Canada followed shortly thereafter with its first
major marketing board, the wheat marketing board, introduced
by a Conservative government in 1935.
The wheat board still exists. It has only undergone a few
minor amendments and changes in the intervening years.
Numerous provincial boards and agencies exist across the
country with only a handful of agencies operating on a national
basis. Chicken, turkey, eggs, hatching eggs and dairy products
join wheat and barley, and western wheat and barley at that, as
products marketed by national marketing agencies.
I argue this is a very slow progress. Agricultural producers are
being forced to adopt very ancient means as private individuals
in what has become a huge international market. Buyers have
control in dozens of countries, being the principal buyers, and
9166
the bargaining power between the buyers and sellers is not even
close to equal.
Even though some people might argue that the new
information technology permits people on farms to link into the
latest marketing information. Information alone does not
provide those farmers with the ultimate marketing power that
they require, namely, to be able to fill a whole shipload of a
product and to provide hundreds of boxcar loads of the product
to a particular purchaser in the required time, of the required
volumes and grades necessary. Only an agency acting on behalf
of all of the producers can hope to perform that function.
The fact that information is a little faster now than it was in
the 1930s does not address the real problem of marketing, which
is the ability to put together large amounts of product to fit the
needs of the very large corporate buyers that are buying
internationally these days.
(1110 )
In the 1970s Parliament had an opportunity to put a bill before
the country that would permit the various provincial marketing
boards. These have to be put together on a provincial basis
because, as members know, agriculture production is under the
aegis of the provinces in our Constitution.
It is only when the product is marketed across borders that the
federal sphere is infringed on and federal rights are taken into
account. Therefore provincial marketing boards that wish to
market product that is handled by a marketing board in another
province have to apply to the federal jurisdiction for the power
to go beyond their borders.
This is usually granted relatively simply. However it does not
take away the problem that exists for all commodities not
already under a national plan of competing one province against
the other.
I was involved in the early 1970s in putting together a
marketing board for hogs in the province of Saskatchewan. It
was at about the same time that similar boards were put together
in Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. They each followed
the example of Ontario a few years previous to that.
We had worked very hard to come together as those four
western provinces to offer hogs to foreign and domestic buyers
over one desk. We had political agreement. We had agreement
from the farmers involved. Yet when the final signatures were
required on all the multitude of agreements that this required,
the heads of each of the boards found it very difficult to put their
signatures to paper because that would have seen the demise of
at least three of the positions. We do not need four presidents in
order to run one regional marketing board. It fell down at that
level.
We need some federal guidelines and federal guidance if we
are going to be able to achieve the coming together that is
required if producers of the various commodities are going to be
efficient and useful in meeting the market trends that are out
there right now.
The marketing board concept is really not much different for
those who are interested in history of marketing than the power
the state gave four and five hundred years ago to corporations. It
is a power that over time has been granted to corporations
simply on application.
Even up to 30 or 40 years ago to strike a new corporation, the
provisional board of directors had to come to the House of
Commons and the Senate in order for that corporation to be set
in motion and to be created. That has not been the case for many
decades.
Yet in order for farmers to form an organization that would
have similar powers in the marketplace, this ancient institution
still requires that a special bill be prepared and that special
requirements be made. We still have to be very cognizant of the
federal-provincial powers. We have to go through the process of
proposing, as I am, a shell of an agency that would be able to
function nationally that the provincial agencies can link into.
Passing this legislation would not instantly create a national
marketing agency. It would only be an effective national agency
when the provincial marketing boards decide to avail
themselves of the powers that are there in the federal act which
would be passed.
(1115 )
This slow, cumbersome process could have been sped up if in
the early 1970s when the farm products marketing councils were
established, and the national farm products marketing act which
brought those agencies into effect had permitted the usage of
national legislation for all farm products. However, there was
some agitation on the part of mainly Alberta cattlemen
concerning rights to establish an agency that would include
management of supply, which is only a normal thing for any
marketing agency.
Ask General Motors, Ford or Beatrice Foods. Any of the big
players always have a good handle on their supplies. They are
manufacturing the product. They make certain they do not
manufacture or process more than they have sales for. They
make certain they are able to manage the product so it arrives at
the customer's door on the day the customer wants it; not later,
not sooner, right on time. This is the kind of service the
marketing boards have performed and can perform for
producers who are part of a marketing agency.
The problem with the provincial agencies is that they often
are not large enough to meet the kind of bargaining conditions of
the corporations they deal with. Most of the processors and
handlers of potatoes are huge international conglomerates. They
have access to markets all over the world. When dealing with a
9167
little potato board from Prince Edward Island or Manitoba the
farmers very quickly find that they do not have very much clout
when it comes to dictating terms of price and terms and
conditions of how many potatoes will be produced, how they
will be produced and what price the processor will pay for them.
The people who are handling fresh potatoes to supermarket also
have extremely large bargaining clout in that there are very few
supermarket chains across North America that the producers
must face on a day to day basis.
The marketing agency can provide the management of the
product to the final destination on time and at the most
beneficial price to the producer rather than always at the behest
of the various buyers who can very quickly take advantage of a
day when individual producers through their own
unco-ordinated activities may be offering-usually they are
offering-far more product on any given day than the system
needs. Therefore they are always accepting a much less than
optimal price because they are presenting for sale far more
product than they are able to sell and deliver. As far as the buyer
is concerned that surplus of product is always available to them.
They take advantage of that, keeping the price lower than it
would otherwise be.
Management of supply is more possible under marketing
boards. I would note that we have other ways of managing
supply. Notable and somewhat ironic, given their long
opposition to any legislation that would permit supply
management for all general farm products including beef, are
the official cattlemen associations based in Alberta and to a
certain extent in southwestern Saskatchewan. They have always
argued that they are free marketers, that they do not want to have
anything to do with supply management. It is ironic and
somewhat instructive to note that they are probably one industry
that has been very effective at controlling supplies into North
America, particularly the Canada-U.S. markets. They have
managed by other means to put political pressure where it
matters and have limited on a consistent basis the amount of
imports, whether from Ireland and the European economic
community or whether from New Zealand and Australia. By
setting quotas on those imports they are indulging in supply
management.
(1120)
The advantages of the seller versus the buyer are being
eschewed by cattle producers in most areas right now. For some
time there was a very effective marketing agency in
Saskatchewan that was strictly voluntary where producers could
market through the beef marketing commission and that gained
quite a lot of acceptance and approval. However, for political
reasons that was struck down by the government of Grant
Devine a few years ago. Farmers are now back in the business of
negotiating their own prices each day. They find, when they
compare notes, that they are not being treated equitably for the
same day's market.
I found when I began drafting this legislation that the simplest
answer would have been to amend the Natural Products
Marketing Act so that we pull out the sections the cattlemen
insisted on being in there in the early 1970s which would have
had the effect of permitting all fruits, vegetables, tobacco, farm
products, honey, meats, cereals and oilseeds. Every farm
product would have been the simplest solution but I was told that
this would somehow impinge upon the royal prerogative
because a small section of that act permits the government to
finance such new agencies. Private members do not have the
privilege of establishing a law or adding to a law that would
perhaps cost the government some money out of the
consolidated revenue fund.
I have had to resort to setting up what is, I admit, a shell
agency that has no funds. It would simply exist and be funded by
producers as the provincial agencies decide to become part of a
national agency and use this as a forum or beginning again a
debate as to whether producers of potatoes would have some
benefit by using a national marketing agency.
This has been a program that many producers have engaged in
several times in the last couple of decades. In the early 1970s
there was a determined effort to put together a national
marketing agency for potatoes. The legislation was being
worked upon. The plan was being worked upon. A very detailed
proposal was put forward. Somehow it fell apart. Twice since
that time similar efforts have gone forward, only to be stopped at
the political level.
I wish the new group of parliamentarians in the House
now-almost 200 people who have never been here
before-would again think about the issue, look at the
possibilities here and bring agricultural marketing into the 20th
if not the 21st century and bring us up to date with the corporate
sector which for more than 500 years has had the ability to
simply go to government and get immediate acceptance for its
application to allow many people to come together under one
agency and take advantage of all of the benefits that such a
coming together reaps.
By persisting on keeping the old National Products Marketing
Act which was flawed from the beginning on the books would be
something like going back in time and saying corporations can
be established but only to gather and market furs, because in
Canada the Hudson Bay Company was one of the first
corporations to function on our soil even though the idea of a
corporation had existed in Europe some time before.
(1125 )
It is time for us to be brought up to date to permit our farmers
to use all of the tools that their competitors and their opponents
in the market have. I would urge members of Parliament to
9168
consider giving that right to farmers to form national agencies
for all products, but specifically here today for potatoes.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly
appreciate the opportunity to make some comments on Bill
C-266 before the House this morning, presented by the member
for Mackenzie.
The comments I will make are as a result of a discussion with
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food on the matter of this
bill and also as a former potato grower myself for a few years.
Bill C-266 is a well intentioned proposal to promote the
orderly marketing of potatoes in Canada. I do not believe this
bill is needed or wanted by the industry. The potato industry is
one that has made great strides over the last few years. It is
developing workable processes to resolve major issues at a
national level and to take control of its own future.
Last fall I had the opportunity to speak to the potato growers
of Alberta at their annual meeting. I can assure this House that at
the meeting and in a small discussion with the executive of the
potato growers of Alberta there was no one in the general
meeting or the executive of that very vibrant organization who
even mentioned supply management as a goal of their industry.
This is not to say that the idea had never come before the
industry previously. Twice in the past number of years the potato
industry has examined it and the possibility of federal
legislation during the 1980s and earlier in the 1970s. On both
occasions it was unable to come to a workable consensus within
the industry.
This bill would create a Canadian potato marketing
commission that would act, quoting from the bill, as the sole
agent for all imported potatoes and all potatoes produced in
Canada. This commission would also have extensive powers
including the buying, storing and selling potatoes.
When the potato industry was seeking national agencies in the
past its major objectives were to stabilize prices and to remove
surplus so that it could continue to market its product in an
organized fashion; in other words, to maintain traditional
markets at traditional prices. It did not want an agency that
would control its marketing.
Through all the troubles in recent years the industry has
strengthened its infrastructure nationally with the formation of
the potato committee executive of the Canadian horticultural
council in 1992. That committee has begun dealing directly with
issues affecting the industry in Canada. The committee has
taken on a big responsibility.
I am confident that the industry and the provincial
government representatives on the potato committee executive
will continue to deal successfully with future problems and they
will mature even further in their decision making. This maturing
process will lead to a further strenghthening of the potato
industry at a national level and the development of sound,
strategic directions for the industry to follow in its production
and marketing endeavours.
Bill C-266 would restrict production and marketing of
potatoes to producers holding permit books and would prescribe
delivery points and quotas.
Potatoes are a very perishable product. They have to be
marketed in a timely and efficient manner to meet good delivery
standards. The responsibility for good shipping and handling
conditions must remain as much as possible between the
producer and the receiver.
In recent years the industry has had to deal with many issues
and some of them have not been pleasant to deal with. There
have been overproduction, low prices, drought, PVY-n, late
blight and various other issues which have seriously affected the
marketing of potatoes both within Canada and in our export
markets. Despite these difficulties potato production in Canada
keeps reaching new peaks with records being set in various parts
of the country every year. Across Canada this industry is
becoming more and more aggressive, strengthening existing
markets and developing new ones with strong returns to
producers. Our potato industry today is very healthy. It will
continue to be healthy as it competes effectively in open markets
around the world.
(1130)
In addition our government is a promoter of free trade. A
quota system for the marketing of potatoes would only erect
more barriers to trade in Canada and with our trading partners.
I just want to remind everyone again that the potato industry
in Canada is making great strides in increasing production,
increasing revenues and expanding its markets worldwide. The
industry has developed an infrastructure that meets its needs at
the provincial and national levels and is becoming even more
aggressive in finding its own solutions to its own concerns.
The industry, I repeat, has shown no visible support for the
proposal contained in Bill C-266. Until the industry identifies
the need for further national legislation to accomplish its goals I
see no reason to proceed any further with Bill C-266.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
was somewhat intrigued by Bill C-266, the bill before the House
today.
This is the first time we have an opportunity to deal with the
agricultural sector as it affects potato producers. The purpose of
9169
this bill, introduced by the hon. member for Mackenzie, is to
ensure the orderly marketing of potatoes, having due regard to
the interests of producers as well as consumers.
At first, I thought a bill that introduced changes in the
marketing system as it affects producers and consumers was
entirely justified. Since I am not an expert, however, I decided to
get in touch with a number of agencies and potato producers to
find out what they had to say. In fact, I met a dozen potato
producers in Quebec and several in New Brunswick, who were
astonished that a federal member would bother to call them and
even go to see them to find out what they wanted, and who
thanked me for taking the trouble.
I wanted to make sure this bill faithfully reflected the needs of
this particular sector. People actively involved in this
agricultural sector were quick to explain that the changes
proposed in Bill C-266 did not suit them at all.
Before deciding how to change existing procedures, we must
understand the forces at work in the current potato marketing
system. Apparently, there are no national regulations on potato
prices. This means that the market is controlled by
interprovincial marketing decisions. In other words, the
provinces are self regulating.
At this point, perhaps I may recall that four years ago in New
Brunswick, the fall harvest was exceptionally abundant. To
maintain potato prices, the provincial and federal governments
and the New Brunswick association of potato producers agreed
to destroy several tonnes to keep prices as high as possible, since
the crop was well in excess of demand.
This approach makes it difficult to set up a system under
which all provinces would have to conform to the same
standards.
(1135)
The idea of setting up a national mechanism is not new. In the
early 1980s, the provinces were consulted about the possibility
of setting up a mechanism of this sort. From the consultations, it
was obvious that the positions of certain regions were totally
irreconcilable.
The western market, for example, is import based. It is the
complete opposite of the eastern market, which is largely export
driven. Furthermore, it appears that many provinces have a
potato producers association of their own. Since regional
objectives may vary, the roles of these associations may be
diametrically opposed.
Let us take a look at the Fédération des producteurs de
pommes de terre du Québec by way of example. It is a labour
organization and has both a political and a marketing focus. The
Manitoba association, on the other hand, is concerned strictly
with marketing.
Quebec potato producers have had a dual scheme since 1979.
It covers advertising campaigns as well as the control of potato
quality. Moreover, as many producers have their own packing
companies, they look after selling their products themselves.
They have created a customized marketing system for
themselves. What more could you want, Mr. Speaker?
As I see it, the provincial producers are already well
organized. They develop their own markets and their own way of
operating. I do not see any point in centralizing and messing up a
system that works the way the people using it like it. As I said
earlier, I met with several of them and they recommended that I
not support Bill C-266 tabled by the hon. member for
Mackenzie.
Furthermore, a working group was created in 1990-as was
mentioned earlier-to evaluate the various options for
implementing a potato marketing system, to evaluate, for
instance, the advisability of establishing a Canadian potato
board or to examine the possibility of setting up a supply
management system or other options. The group had to interrupt
its work in 1990 and never produced a final report. And even if
they had concluded their work in some way, their findings would
no doubt have been overtaken by market developments.
In view of free trade, previous studies would perhaps be less
relevant today. GATT and NAFTA have changed the rules of the
game. Were it indeed advisable to create a national system as
proposed in the bill, one would first have to consider all the new
aspects of today's market.
If my information is correct, this is not the first time a
measure such as Bill C-266 has been presented in the House.
The aim of the member proposing this bill, namely to assist
potato producers, is most admirable. Bill C-266 shows a desire
to bring together producers and consumers. Research in this area
could be financed, for example, by deductions from producers,
as is the case for wheat and barley under Bill C-50 regarding the
Canadian Wheat Board, which the House of Commons passed
before the holidays.
(1140)
There is, however, a major difference between these two
sectors. Grain producers themselves asked to be able to make
this kind of contribution. In my opinion, there is no need to
respond to needs that potato producers have not expressed. Let
us look at it this way: western grain, barley and wheat producers
had asked the House of Commons to pass this kind of bill; potato
producers did not and have no desire to do so.
Besides, it may seem advantageous to promote a product by
pooling all available resources. However, if the objectives of the
parties are irreconcilable, as is the case with the provinces,
pretending to cover all bases by trying to put producers and
consumers into the same mold can only throw a wrench into the
works.
In closing, I would simply like to inform the hon. member for
MacKenzie that, unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois will not
support his bill since all the farm producers, all the potato
producers from Quebec who were consulted do not see the need
for it and unanimously asked us to oppose the bill, which the
Bloc Quebecois will do.
9170
[English]
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak this morning on Bill C-266 sponsored by the
member for Mackenzie.
I must tell the member for Mackenzie that this bill is really an
untimely gesture in the history of the potato industry. Usually
there is a demand for this type of legislation from producers or
from the provinces. In this case I do not detect any support for a
bill of this sort from producers, from provincial governments, or
from departments of agriculture. It has been some time since
there has been any kind of demand for an orderly marketing
system for potatoes.
I remember back in the 1980s during an election campaign
there was a move by the producers in Prince Edward Island and
eastern Canada to set up an orderly marketing system. At that
time there were some difficulties for a number of years in
marketing potatoes for a fair price or for marketing potatoes for
any price.
An effort was made by Parliament to initiate discussions that
might lead to an orderly marketing system for potatoes. That
effort died rather quickly. The demand for potatoes and the
marketing problem they were experiencing in the late 1970s
disappeared and the enthusiasm the producers had for an eastern
potato marketing board waned pretty quickly. Basically the
effort went nowhere.
In the early 1990s I am told, although I did not realize this
until we looked into the background material for the bill, an
effort was made nationally for an orderly marketing of potatoes.
It also died because of lack of support.
Why is the bill being brought forward at this moment when
the marketing of potatoes has never been better? The demand for
potatoes has never been better and the prices paid to producers
have rarely been higher. If we had twice as many potatoes in
Prince Edward Island as we do now, we would be able to sell
them all.
There is demand from Europe. We are getting calls from
countries that until this year probably never knew Prince
Edward Island existed. They are phoning our exporters looking
for potatoes.
(1145)
This is an unusual year for that kind of demand. Even without
the drought or whatever affected the potato crop in Europe, the
demand for the processing of potatoes is growing steadily year
after year. The demand for table potatoes and for P.E.I. seed
potatoes has rebounded from the PVY-n crisis.
The industry is in a very healthy position. There is no
guarantee it will always be in a healthy position but if there are
any free market farmers in Canada, the eastern Canadian potato
producers have to be in that group. They have very rarely had to
rely on government for any kind of stabilization or bailouts for
their industry. They grew their own potatoes. They marketed
their own potatoes. They exported their own potatoes and
developed their own markets in South America and overseas in
Algeria and the Middle East. They have been doing a
tremendous job. They do not really see how government could
assist them in any way in the selling of their crop.
In the whole situation mentioned earlier by a Bloc member
with respect to free trade, GATT, NAFTA and so on, the potato
industry is probably more ready for these efforts in bringing
down trade barriers than any other commodity group in this
country. It is that those in the potato industry have never been in
favour of trade barriers. They have always had to rely on a free
trade spirit in order to market their crop.
Even with that, since 1980, the last time there was a demand
for this type of legislation, the number of acres of potatoes
grown has come close to doubling. That is in the last 15 years.
They have not only been able to market those potatoes; on a
yearly basis, they have been able to increase their production
and to sell everything they have had.
The only experience they have had with government has been
as a result of the PVY-n crisis and it was thought they would not
be be able to market their potatoes in 1991 and 1992. The
government assisted the growers in destroying thousands and
thousands of pounds of potatoes for a certain price in order to
relieve the market of potatoes in storage.
What happened a few months later was that there was a
demand for the potatoes that were destroyed. They would have
received a lot more money out in the marketplace than they did
out of government. Any time the government has been
associated with the market it tends to distort it. It is better left to
the market system, especially these days. It is a free market
commodity and has been doing quite well.
I am sorry I cannot lend any support to my colleague from the
NDP for this bill. Basically there is no support from either the
potato producers or the governments in eastern Canada.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
this private members' Bill C-266, an act respecting the orderly
marketing of potatoes.
My speech has four main points. First, I will explain what this
bill is about very briefly. Second, I will explain why this bill has
failed in the past and will not be supported again in this House as
we have seen from the speeches so far, in particular from the
governing party. Third, I will outline the Reform Party's posi-
9171
tion on supply management and supply managed products.
Finally, I will put forward some viable alternatives to
government involvement through new supply managed
industries.
The stated purpose of this bill is to ensure the orderly
marketing of potatoes having due regard to the interests of
producers as well as to consumers. It would establish a corporate
body to be known as the Canadian potato marketing
commission.
The commission would be composed of five to nine members
who would not receive pay from government. The commission
would operate in a somewhat similar fashion to that of the
Canadian Wheat Board. It would act as a sole marketing agent
for all imported potatoes and for potatoes produced in Canada.
(1150 )
The commission, using a permit book system as the wheat
board does, would pay producers to sell potatoes to the board.
What we would have is a single desk buyer as we have with the
Canadian Wheat Board.
Payments made to the consolidated revenue fund to offset any
expenses the commission may have must be approved by
Parliament. I was encouraged to see at least in the proposal there
was the recognition that when we come to an expenditure of
taxpayers' money in order to have proper accountability it
should have approval by Parliament and not just by governor in
council, the cabinet or the minister. That is what this bill is
about.
This bill has been attempted before and has failed. The
member for Mackenzie has attempted to pass the same bill. Bill
C-246, an act respecting the orderly marketing of potatoes,
received first reading on May 30, 1989. Bill C-252, an act
respecting the orderly marketing of potatoes, received first
reading June 19, 1991. Now here we go again with Bill C-266,
an act respecting the orderly marketing of potatoes. I wonder if
this member is trying to make an argument in favour of term
limits for politicians so that we get new ideas into this House,
ideas that change with the changing market conditions.
The fact this is the third time in six years the same member
has put forward the same bill certainly indicates one thing: he
holds an ideology; he sticks to his ideology regardless of
whether or not producers agree with that ideology. Hon.
members opposite have presented an overview of the state of the
potato marketing industry and the general lack of support on the
part of farmers and processors for this type of a bill.
An attempt was also made in 1980 to establish a potato
marketing agency for eastern Canada. Public hearings were
held, reports were submitted and the idea failed. The national
potato agency task force presented its report for a program for
the marketing of potatoes in Canada to the minister of
agriculture and the chairman of the National Farm Products
Marketing Council on November 17, 1986 but nothing came of
it.
In February 1988 the National Farm Products Marketing
Council submitted a report on the inquiry into the merits of
establishing a national marketing agency for potatoes. On April
28, 1988 Judge Teitelbaum of the Federal Court of Canada trial
division at the request of a group of potato processors issued an
order quashing the report. The conclusions and
recommendations contained in the report were never
implemented.
In the past there was never enough collective enthusiasm to
implement a potato marketing agency. In the present it is not an
idea whose time has come. In fact it is clearly an idea whose
time has gone.
With the passage of the Uruguay round of GATT, the free trade
agreement and NAFTA, the existing government co-ordinated
marketing agencies have come under fire. In recent news stories
we have heard some of the results of Canada putting tariff levels
at the rate they are in other supply managed industries. There is a
lot of pressure particularly from our largest trading partner, the
United States, to have a rapid reduction in the tariff protection in
the present supply managed industries. I am surprised the hon.
member is proposing to put in place a new supply managed
industry board under this type of situation.
On January 28 the Canadian Wheat Board was under fire
because it requires end user certificates on imported American
wheat. The Americans' response is to impose end user
certificates on Canadian wheat entering the United States. If this
threat were to become a reality the result would indeed cause a
large problem for Canadian grain farmers who do ship Canadian
grain into the United States. It would cause an increase in
paperwork and another level of regulation which is totally
unwanted and not needed by farmers.
(1155 )
The United States has also served notice that it plans to
challenge Canada's new import duties on dairy and poultry
products. I mentioned this a few minutes ago. The levels set
under GATT according to the United States really go against the
spirit and the terms of NAFTA. That is the argument the United
States has been using. Again, the mood just is not there on the
part of the United States and certainly on the part of Canadian
potato farmers for a new supply managed industry, especially
when that industry is potatoes.
In terms of the disputes with the United States, who ends up
being hurt by these disputes? It is not the bureaucrats who are
hurt; it keeps them employed. It is not the politicians who are
hurt; it gives them the spotlight and keeps their names in the
news for a little longer. In the end it is the farmers who lose from
these disputes. We want to do nothing that will encourage
trading disputes.
9172
I believe that having this bill which is being proposed today in
Hansard could be considered an anachronism, an error in time.
My wife and I went to see ``Richard III'' last Friday night in
Edmonton and as you know, Shakespeare is famous for the
anachronisms in his plays, but there is a new anachronism in this
play. ``Richard III'' came out on stage crippled up in a
wheelchair, which of course is a new anachronism that was built
in by the writers of this version of ``Richard III''.
This piece of legislation is very much like using a wheelchair
in a play that took place hundreds of years before wheelchairs
existed, electric wheelchairs in particular. I believe it is totally
out of place.
I want to talk a little bit about Reform's position on supply
management in general. Reform believes that farmers should
definitely have the right to work together collectively. They
should have the right to strengthen any part of their industry or
their business they feel can be strengthened by this co-operative
work.
For example, I believe there is a very strong future for
co-operatives in agriculture. I also believe we will see farmers
with other business people in small communities in particular
forming new co-operatives as a mechanism to work together for
the common advantage of the farmers and the processors
involved. I encourage this type of activity. I believe there is a
future for various other types of joint ventures but not for new
supply managed industries.
The greatest service this government can provide to producers
who are in the supply managed industry right now is to be honest
and open with the farmers. We know the world is moving more
and more to an open and free marketplace. Knowing that, the
greatest service government can provide for farmers is to say:
``We are moving to a system of more competition. We know it is
going to be more difficult even for present supply managed
industries to compete, but at least we are acknowledging it and
we want to help in any way we can without interfering in the
move to an open market system''.
Clearly, this bill is totally out of place and I am very pleased
to see the support from the members opposite.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the
subject of Bill C-266.
As the House knows the government recently concluded a
comprehensive negotiation on a new GATT agreement which
will create a new trade regime under the World Trade
Organization. As a member of the GATT and the World Trade
Organization, as well as being a signatory to the North American
Free Trade Agreement, Canada has created for itself many new
and expanding opportunities and with those, certain
international trade obligations.
Bill C-266 as it is written suggests that a commission would,
as the sole marketing agent, control all imports and all exports
of potatoes. Under NAFTA and the MTN Canada has agreed
not-let me stress not-to introduce any prohibitions or
restrictions on the importation or exportation of goods.
(1200)
If Canada were to change its current policies and thereby
affect current and future access to our market, Canada would be
modifying benefits that our trading partners would expect to
accrue under the provisions of the trade agreements. This could
be subject to challenge by our trading partners.
The Canadian potato and processing industries are major
exporters and have significant interests in free trade and open
markets. I realize the potato industry has been faced with many
issues in recent years that have affected the marketing of
potatoes both domestically and internationally. However, I do
believe the issues would best be addressed in a manner that does
not have negative implications on trade or violates our trade
obligations.
For that reason I am not prepared to support Bill C-266 and I
am sure that although the member opposite has real concern for
that industry he can understand that in changing times we have
to deal with the realities and that we are in a new trading pattern
and these items will be dealt with in an open and free trade
market.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9172
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) moved that Bill C-44, an act to amend the
Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and to make a
consequential amendment to the Customs Act, be read the third
time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I extend a warm word of welcome to all
my colleagues as we resume this very important session of
Canada's Parliament.
As we said in the immigration plan last November 1, the focus
in immigration policy must be nation building and people and
not criminals and their despicable deeds. It is time to get back to
what we do best, building a nation that is strong and free.
However, the actions of a small criminal element that has
infiltrated our immigration system have occupied our time and
the public's attention for far too long. The actions of a few have
9173
hurt the reputations of many. Logically we must respond to the
few so that we may protect the many and uphold our laws. Bill
C-44 accomplishes that twin goal.
There can be no equating the words criminal and immigrant.
Immigrants helped build this country and are the men and
women who have made history and the men and women who will
help us build Canada's tomorrows. Criminals are only the
riff-raff of society who are not even a footnote in the history of
our proud immigration tradition.
Members on all sides of this House are to be congratulated on
the speedy work in getting this legislation, Bill C-44, before the
House of Commons at third reading. A special thanks to my very
able parliamentary secretary, the member of Parliament for
Halifax, as well to the committee members of my caucus who
went well beyond the normal working days on this important
piece of legislation.
The bill comes back with a number of amendments that will
clarify timeframes, technical points and a transition period. This
is very much a case in point of how this government first listens
and then acts. Quite simply, the amendments to the immigration
act that we are dealing with today in Bill C-44 will move us a
significantly long way toward restoring integrity to our system.
(1205 )
The bill is an enforcement tool set. It allows us to fix some
worn equipment without shutting down all the machinery.
[Translation]
I know there are those who would use criminal behaviour by a
few as an excuse for draconian law. For those people, we have
not gone far enough. To them I simply say, this government was
not elected to shake a chainmail fist or wield a big stick.
[English]
Then there are those who say that we have gone too far, that
we have reacted too strongly against the actions of just a few
wrongdoers. To those Canadians let me say that although the
criminal element that has intruded into the immigration process
is tiny, it is at the very same time very destructive.
As a result the government has struck a middle course
between those extremes. A balanced, realistic middle course is
often the wisest course, for it takes us away from the rocks of
extremism and reaction while steering us clear of the dead
waters of those who would do nothing.
This legislation is a central component of our ten-year
immigration strategy. It is not the most important part, but it is
one of the two underpinnings that will make it successful. Fair
access and the rule of law are the two principles embodied in our
plan which was tabled on the floor of the House of Commons last
November 1.
Those who abuse our nation's hospitalities and laws will not
be given the privilege of access. It is simple: play by the rules or
face the consequences. Canadians do not want any more queue
jumping, any abusing of the system or any manipulating of the
system. Most certainly we on the government side will strive to
prevent criminals from taking the places of both legitimate
refugees and legitimate immigrants to Canada.
The tools being provided here through Bill C-44 will allow
law enforcement officials to get the job done. While I am on the
subject of tools and law enforcement, let me pay tribute to the
special police, RCMP and immigration task force that was
recently established. It is making steady progress at removing
foreign criminals from our midst. While the task force does not
have any direct linkages with the legislation before us today, it is
very much part and parcel of our resolve to restore integrity to
the immigration and refugee process. That task force was also a
response to our citizens' demands and needs and that task force
is very much getting the job done. My government colleagues
and I are very appreciative for those professional efforts.
[Translation]
I want to say in a straightforward, non-partisan way, that past
governments, and that is governments in the plural, simply let
too many people in the door without proper legislation in place
to stop criminals.
[English]
Let me recap quickly for our colleagues in the House today the
main points in this legislation.
First, serious criminals deemed to be a danger to the public
will not be allowed to claim refugee status as a means to
delaying their removal from Canada. For instance, we will not
tolerate any longer those cases that we have read about in our
newspapers or watched on our television sets in which a
convicted murderer serving time in Kingston penitentiary now
is able to compel the Immigration and Refugee Board to travel to
that penitentiary to listen to an obviously unworthy refugee
claim.
Second, appeals against removal orders by persons convicted
of series crimes will be decided by the minister or the minister's
designate and not by the immigration appeal division.
[Translation]
Third, senior immigration officers will be allowed to
terminate refugee hearings because of criminality.
[English]
Another common sense application is if once the refugee
process has started and subsequent to that starting information
comes to the fore that the individual has committed a serious
offence, we will now be able to stop that refugee hearing, move
9174
it into an immigration inquiry hearing and proceed with the
evidence provided before that tribunal.
(1210 )
If the information we receive is validated, that individual will
be subject to deportation rather than any refugee hearing. Again,
it is a practical response to some of the cases that over the last
number of years have certainly caused much public attention
and some public grief.
Four, this legislation will also give immigration officers the
authority to seize identity documents from international mail if
it is clear they are meant to be used to circumvent immigration
and other Canadian requirements. As well, senior immigration
officials will also be able to turn formerly deported people away
from our borders if those individuals are attempting to come
back to Canada without proper permission. This will now be
done without having to go through the inquiry procedure that at
present is mandated on those officials.
[Translation]
Fifth, it will ensure that persons with summary convictions,
whether obtained inside Canada or abroad, would be
inadmissible.
[English]
Furthermore, thanks to the co-operative spirit shown in this
House by members opposite in allowing me to propose a new
amendment at report stage, this legislation will prevent the
release on day parole and unescorted temporary absences of
inmates who face deportation following the completion of their
sentences.
It is our firm belief that because these foreign criminals are
not going to be reintegrated into Canadian society, there is no
need to let them work slowly back into our Canadian
communities. Once again, this is a common sense practical step
forward. For this I would also like to thank for their
co-operation Canada's Solicitor General and Canada's Minister
of Justice.
Bill C-44 will also allow us to stop the processing of
citizenship while that same person is undergoing an
immigration inquiry. Once again, this is a practical step forward
in which the right and the left hands will work in conjunction
with each other as opposed to being in a vacuum apart from each
other.
As I mentioned earlier, this government is prone to listen
before it acts. As a result of our listening to the committee work,
there are also a number of changes before the House today. Some
involve the transition while others are designed to prevent
costly and time consuming court challenges based on the scope
of authority the bill gives to senior immigration officials.
Of a more substantive nature is the definition of what
constitutes a serious crime. We propose to remove the right of
appeal to the immigration refugee board on all grounds-I
underline all grounds-for individuals certified to be a danger to
the public. This means that those who have committed a crime
involving violence, weapons, sexual assault or drug offences
that are punishable with a sentence of 10 years or more will no
longer be able to tie up our system.
They would retain their right to seek judicial review in the
federal court. Of course humanitarian issues would be
considered by the minister or the minister's designate when a
decision has been rendered.
Persons not considered such a danger would retain their right
of appeal on all grounds, including the humanitarian grounds, to
the immigration appeal division.
[Translation]
This is good legislation and it will go a long way to removing
the stigma that a few wrongdoers have placed on all immigrants.
There is no welcome mat in this country for thugs and evildoers.
They can stay right where they are.
[English]
We know that Canadians are a tolerant and compassionate
people. These are some of the values that have allowed us to
build the kind of society we are, distinguishing us from other
countries and societies.
(1215)
The public frustration and exacerbation expressed from time
to time are very much aimed at those who have twisted the rules
or those who have broken covenants with Canada. Accordingly
Bill C-44 targets those people.
The problems we faced required the legislative action we are
taking today. Let me be very clear: the porch light is on and the
welcome mat is out for those who are genuine refugees, those
who are escaping brutality and torture in their countries,
individuals who are not only seeking out Canada as some would
have us believe but seeking out other countries of the world.
They are seeking no more or no less than the things we have in
abundance in Canada. The porch light is on and the welcome mat
is out for those who want to help us create jobs and continue to
build this great nation.
Let us get on with it, for there is much nation building to be
done.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
extend my best wishes for the New Year to all my colleagues in
this House.
Today, we are going back to work after a seven-week break.
Before speaking to Bill C-44, I would like to salute and
congratulate my friend and colleague, the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and Leader of
9175
the Official Opposition in the House of Commons, Lucien
Bouchard. Thanks to his courage and determination he was able
to survive a terrible disease and win a very tough fight for his
life. He will soon be back in this House and in the political
arena. I wish to say to him how happy and proud of him we are.
Quebec needs Mr. Bouchard.
I rise to participate in the debate at third reading on Bill C-44,
an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and
to make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act. This
bill was introduced and read the first time in the House of
Commons on June 17, 1994. It passed second reading on
September 27 and was then referred to the Standing Committee
on Citizenship and Immigration.
The committee tabled its report after hearing many
individuals and organizations interested in this bill. Bill C-44
was debated at report stage in this House on December 12, 1994.
According to its authors, the bill has the following objectives:
prevent a person convicted of a crime punishable by a term of
imprisonment of 10 years of more in Canada or abroad from
claiming refugee status; give immigration officers the authority
to seize documents sent by international mail that could be used
for fraudulent purposes; remove from the Immigration Appeal
Division appeals based on grounds of equity, when the minister
believes the appellant to be a danger to the public-from what I
just heard, he will use this power very often-; take away from a
person affected by this the right to appeal, on the grounds that
they represent a security risk.
As I have said time and again, we in the Bloc Quebecois say
that the state and the government have the right and the duty to
protect Canada and Quebec against criminals whatever their
origins.
(1220)
We agree that entry should be denied to immigrants and
refugee claimants who have committed major crimes against
persons in their country of origin and decide to flee to Canada,
given our reputation as host country. While recognizing that
there are problems with the criminal activity of refugees and
immigrants, we suggest that the government already has all the
legal and administrative means to deal with this situation.
For example, under the present legislation, Bill C-86, the
minister has the power to have war criminals and anyone who
has perpetrated a crime against humanity removed. But the
government is taking no action against criminals in this
category. Several Nazis still live in Canada. Léon Mugesera,
said to be a Rwandan criminal by his own community, has not
yet been expelled, in spite of the questions I have put to the
minister in this House.
The law presently states that persons convicted of an offence
outside of Canada are inadmissible to the refugee claim
determination system when there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the offence of which they have been convicted may
constitute an offence punishable under a Canadian Act of
Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or
more and when the Minister of Immigration is satisfied that they
might be a threat to public safety in Canada.
This is good enough for me, but I must point out that the
Canadian Council for Refugees wants this clause that I just read
to be deleted. Needless to say, they object to it being expanded to
include permanent residents.
This bill is an excessive and disproportionate response to the
two murders committed in Toronto in the spring of 1994 by
foreign nationals. It was produced hastily, without any prior
consultations, in spite of the fact that the minister promised
when he took office that national consultations on the
immigration policy would be held, at a cost of over $1 million.
Even the counsels and groups who work with immigrants and
refugees were surprised. This bill is this Liberal government's
response to the drastic and reactionary positions endorsed by the
Reform Party. This bill, and several statements made by the
minister, reflect a shift to the right by the Liberal Party of
Canada.
It is very unfortunate that the government rejected every
amendment moved by the opposition. The Liberal majority had
already rejected the Bloc Quebecois proposals during the clause
by clause study of the bill. Moreover, the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration took, at the report stage, the same
inflexible stance as his Liberal colleagues in the legislative
committee, rejecting over 20 amendments I personally moved
on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois as well as those put forth by my
colleague from Laval East.
One of our amendments, for example, was designed to
exclude from the application of the new legislation landed
immigrants who have resided in Canada for ten years or more, as
is currently the case in Australia and several other countries.
Some of these people have no emotional ties with their country
of origin. As it stands, there are people who have been living in
this country for over 40 years who could now be removed. The
minister and the Liberal majority have rejected this perfectly
valid amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois.
(1225)
Many organizations testified before the Standing Committee
on Citizenship and Immigration, including: the Canadian
council for refugees, which is a very well-respected
organization in that sector; the national immigration law section
of the Canadian bar association; the Canada employment and
immigration union; the United Nations high commissioner for
refugees; the Canadian section of Amnesty International; the
national action
9176
committee on the status of women; the Canadian labour
congress-incidentally, I congratulate CLC officials for the
quality of their submission as well as for their very supportive
position regarding immigrants and refugees; the inter-church
committee for refugees; the Quebec association of immigration
lawyers; the Canadian ethnocultural council; the immigration
and refugee board; the customs and excise union, etc.
None of these organizations supported the bill. The
overwhelming majority of them strongly opposed this
legislation. Some even made suggestions to help the House
ensure that this bill is better designed, and that it is fair and
efficient. Some asked for the outright withdrawal of that
legislation because it is unfair and it violates commitments
made by Canada regarding political asylum.
To that effect, allow me, Mr. Speaker, to quote from an article
written by Nantha Kumar, which appeared in a Montreal
publication called Hour, on December 15, 1994. The author
alludes to a war said to be fought against refugees within the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
[English]
The war is being fought on two fronts. Abroad, plain clothed immigration
officers sit at major international airports, intercepting people they suspect are
heading for Canada to apply for refugee status. At home, a propaganda war is
being waged against claimants in order to convince Canadians that a more hard
line approach is needed.
Montreal immigration lawyer, Richard Kurland, says that he
has discovered ``a department within the immigration
department''. Kurland says the communication strategy is
clearly intended to sell the Canadian public on an enforcement
oriented immigration policy. For example, when a government
sponsored report by Professor James Hathaway criticized the
fairness and legality of some practices at the Immigration and
Refugee Board, it failed to make the front pages of most
newspapers.
What instead made headlines the day the Hathaway report was
released was the first of a series of immigration abuse stories.
``The anti-immigrant and anti-refugee stories at the time were
extraordinary'', adds Kurland.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, says Kurland,
``is not only under serious political pressure from the Reform
Party. He is also under siege by the department within the
department''.
[Translation]
We, Bloc Quebecois members, deplore this regrettable swing
to the right by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Such a move, which signals a dangerous shift towards
intolerance, is made so as to manipulate public opinion and
make Canadians forget that the vast majority of them, including
myself, have come here in successive waves of immigrants,
since the discovery and founding of this country.
I agree that something must be done regarding criminals in
Canada, including those who are not Canadian citizens and who
are seeking refugee status. However, any measure must comply
with the Charter, as well as with the international conventions to
which Canada is a party. I should also add that the minister and
all of us agree that the overwhelming majority of immigrants are
honest and law-abiding people.
(1230)
The question therefore arises whether we really need
legislation to deal with this very small minority. After all, the
government already has a whole arsenal of laws, regulations and
resources to deal with the small number of criminal immigrants.
At the very least, this bill raises some very serious
constitutional questions. For instance, since its decision in the
Singh case in 1985, the Supreme Court has determined that
everyone in Canada, not just every citizen or every permanent
resident but everyone in Canada, is protected by the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. According to the Supreme Court, an
inquiry is necessary in situations that are not clear.
The Supreme Court also says that the potential cost of
conducting an inquiry on certain refugees does not constitute
reasonable grounds for restricting that right, even if the
government says it would be too expensive. According to the
Supreme Court, this would not justify depriving someone of the
right to an inquiry.
We are very critical of Bill C-44. The powers of senior
immigration officers, which are already very extensive, have
been considerably expanded with respect to the exclusion of
claimants of refugee status at the Canadian border or at points of
entry. The bill gives these senior immigration officers the
authority to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person who fails to
appear. Such warrants may be issued in the case of any person
with respect to whom a decision is to be made or an examination
or inquiry is to be held. The warrant may be served by the police
in order to force the person concerned to appear.
I am very concerned about the excessive authority vested in
senior immigration officers. In any democratic society, judges,
and not mere public servants, are authorized to issue arrest
warrants.
Regarding the right to appeal on compassionate grounds, the
original wording of the bill was amended to read that the
minister must issue a statement that a person constitutes a
danger to the public, before he loses his right to appeal, and the
minister has said he intends to make frequent use of this
authority.
The term ``danger to the public'' is very ambiguous. No
definition is given, which opens the way to arbitrary decisions
and abuse. Who will make the very crucial decision to state that
someone is a danger to the public? The minister, public servants,
the RCMP or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service? On
what grounds? Will they go through thousands of files with a
fine tooth comb to find out whether someone constitutes a
9177
danger to the public in Canada? The decisions will be secret.
This is contrary to the practice in our judiciary system, where
hearings are public. Those are just a few of our concerns.
There is another aspect I would like to discuss. The bill does
not weigh the seriousness of the crime and the danger to the host
country, in this case Canada, as provided under the Geneva
Convention on refugees. According to many authors and legal
experts, if a person is threatened, on political grounds, with
certain death, life imprisonment or serious abuse if he returns to
his country of origin, he should be granted refugee status even if
he is guilty of a serious crime.
(1235)
The seizure of international mail by immigration officers just
mentioned by the minister constitutes another very dangerous
provision in a democratic society.
The Refugee Convention distinguishes between crimes of
common law and those of a political nature, a distinction
completely absent from Bill C-44.
According to the manual of the UN Office of the High
Commissioner for Refugees, consideration must first be given
to the nature of and reason for the crime, in other words whether
it was committed for truly political reasons or whether the
motive was monetary or purely personal.
Neither does the bill make a distinction between prosecution
and persecution. According to the manual of the UN Office of
the High Commissioner for Refugees, a person guilty of a
common law offence who is liable to an extreme penalty may be
in a situation that is tantamount to persecution as defined by the
Geneva Convention. In certain countries, prosecution may be a
means of persecuting someone, and the law may be applied in a
discriminatory manner.
The bill refers to a person convicted of an offence that, if
committed in Canada, would carry a term of imprisonment of
ten years or more. It mentions the maximum sentence for the
offence, not the sentence actually handed down. As you know,
the circumstances of a crime may vary from one extreme to
another, justifying a maximum or minimum sentence
accordingly.
It should be pointed out that, in general, Canada's Criminal
Code does not specify minimum sentences for offences. Thus,
an individual convicted of an offence for which a term of
imprisonment of ten years or more may be imposed might not be
sentenced to jail or even fined. He might simply be put on
probation or given a suspended sentence.
Among the most important briefs submitted to the legislative
committee, I would like to cite the very comprehensive
document and testimony of the Inter-Church Committee for
Refugees. This organization is concerned that certain classes of
refugees will be found inadmissible at a point of entry or
elsewhere in Canada, and that they will be deported without an
impartial examination of their need for protection. This
organization, which includes about ten Canadian churches, is
therefore asking that refugee claimants be allowed to present
arguments against their deportation before an impartial and
independent tribunal.
They object to legitimate refugees claiming refugee status at
the border being turned around without even considering their
need for protection. The right of asylum is entrenched not only
in the Geneva Convention but also in the Charter of the
Organization of American States, as well as several other
international instruments.
Notwithstanding the excellent presentations from such
organizations and individuals, who are very knowledgeable on
the subject, the government is rigidly standing its ground,
except for making a few minor changes.
On the other hand, section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms states that no one may be deprived of the right to
liberty and security, except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice. Section one of the Charter says that these
rights may be subject only to reasonable and demonstrably
justified limits.
It should be pointed out that Bill C-44 is a very technical,
difficult, complex and sensitive bill.
(1240)
The Liberal government is showing a blatant lack of
sensitivity towards immigrants and refugees who are victims of
persecution. In so doing, the Liberal government goes back on
promises made in its red book.
Today, the minister stated the same inflexible position as he
did at first and second reading. He paid no attention to the
opinion of the opposition.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration already had the
means, as I said earlier, to deny criminals entry into Canada and
to send them back to their country of origin. Several
administrative measures like the ones mentioned earlier by the
minister have been taken to do so. The minister created working
groups made up of immigration, RCMP and local police officers
in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver in order to arrest and deport
criminals in the process of obtaining immigrant or refugee
status.
This House is also considering Bill C-37, an act to amend the
Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code. This bill also deals
9178
with young people who do not have Canadian citizenship and
have been convicted of criminal offences.
Finally, a memorandum of agreement was signed by the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration and Correctional
Services Canada in order to make deporting foreign criminals
faster and easier. Hundreds of people have been tracked down
and deported from Canada. RCMP officers and others have been
posted in Canadian embassies and at major airports abroad in
order to prevent criminals from entering Canada.
In November 1993, the recently appointed minister stated that
he wanted to reduce political influence in refugee matters. He
told La Presse that he wanted a system with as little political
involvement as possible. Yet, this bill contradicts what he said
in 1993. He wants to politicize even more the immigration and
refugee determination process. He will issue statements to the
effect that someone constitutes a danger to the public and will
also stop appeals. This bill raises questions on the independence
of the IRB and all administrative tribunals.
He also said that he wanted to introduce a more progressive
approach and move away from Tory positions. Indeed, the
minister's approach differs from that of the Conservatives.
However, it is not because his refugee policies are more
progressive, but because they are more reactionary and harsher
than were those of the Conservatives. A Liberal minister is
actually doing something the Conservatives never dared to do.
When the minister took over his portfolio, he immediately
separated the immigration component from the department of
public security, a measure which we welcomed at the time.
However, Bill C-44 now links immigration to crime. Once
again, the minister, like his government, does exactly the
opposite of what he preached during the election campaign.
This bill gives the impression that all criminals in Canada are
immigrants and refugees, which is utterly false and unfair. In
fact, the crime rate among new Canadians is lower than that for
those born in Canada. It should also be pointed out that, in recent
years, the crime rate has been on the decline in Canada, which is
of course a good thing.
Let me say a word on the issue of patronage at the IRB. In
1994, the government appointed, or renewed, the mandate of
over 100 IRB members, including 65 new ones.
(1245)
The IRB was created in 1988 by an act of Parliament.
Although the board is a quasi-judicial tribunal, it has been used,
since the beginning, as a patronage instrument.
The board is the largest administrative tribunal in the country;
it is made up of 210 members appointed by the governor in
council, as well as 40 adjudicators, who are public servants.
Since the beginning of the 35th Parliament, the Bloc
Quebecois has been asking that the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration fulfill its mandate and review the
appointments of IRB members. It must be understood that,
while the IRB is subject to the power of review of tribunals, it is
also subject to the administrative control of Parliament.
Since January 1994, the committee's Liberal majority only
once allowed a review of a dozen or so appointments. Although
very little time was allowed for this exercise-just one
morning-we could see to what extent the Liberals had
reproduced the same kind of patronage system established by
the former Conservative government.
Take the following appointments made by the present
government. These are Liberals and friends of the party,
appointed as members of the IRB with an annual salary of
$75,000: Auguste Choquette, former Liberal member for
Lotbinière, Quebec, from 1963 to 1968, who was even
temporarily disbarred by the Barreau du Québec; Joan Kouri,
former Liberal candidate in Brome-Missisquoi, Quebec, in
1993 and former president of the Liberal Women's Federation;
Philomen Wright, supporter of the hon. member for York West
and current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and
member of the York West Liberal Riding Association in Ontario,
a friend of the minister; Elke Homsi, former assistant to various
Liberal MPPs in Ontario; Sherry Wiebe, director of research for
the Manitoba Liberal Caucus; Inderjit Bal, appointed in 1994,
who had to resign following a review and revelations before the
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, and who
sought the Liberal nomination in the riding of
Bramalae-Gore-Malton, Ontario, in 1993 and organized the
campaign of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Ravi
Naqvi, who unsuccessfully sought the Liberal nomination in
Mississauga West, Ontario; Patricia Davey, wife of a former aid
to Pierre Elliott Trudeau; Ethel Teitelbaum, executive assistant
to the former Liberal Minister of Finance, Donald MacDonald.
Some of these board members had no previous knowledge or
experience of refugee problems, as we realized during meetings
of the Standing Committee on Immigration and Citizenship. The
case of Mr. Michael Schelew, former deputy chairperson of the
board, appointed by the present minister, goes well beyond the
most fundamental limits of decency.
Because of internal wrangling within the board between
Liberal and Conservative factions, Mr. Schelew was suspended
and a legal inquiry was ordered by the minister. Pressured to
resign, he agreed to do so only the day the inquiry was to start
9179
and after he was promised more than $100,000 of public money,
although he had not completed even one year on the job.
The minister never really explained what happened in this
rather embarrassing case for the government. It bought the
silence of this deputy chairperson of the board with a substantial
amount of money, while cutting payments to the unemployed,
welfare recipients and the neediest in our society.
(1250)
Worse, with this outlandish settlement, the minister
prevented the judge from looking into the board's
mismanagement. The Bloc Quebecois has asked for, and will
continue to demand, a public inquiry into the operations of the
IRB which, at the very least, is going through a serious crisis.
The Bloc Quebecois will continue to denounce patronage
appointments by the minister and his government. We will
demand a review of all future appointments by the committee. It
is high time that the minister put into practice the
recommendations contained in Professor Hathaway's report,
that he personally commissioned.
I ask the minister and his government, instead of blindly and
stubbornly defending Bill C-44, to try to counter the rise of
anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment in Canada. We must
promote better understanding among Canadians, regardless of
their origin.
On many occasions, in this House, I have decried the climate
of hostility towards newcomers which is spreading across this
country. I also reminded members that we have to meet our
international humanitarian obligations and provide a safe haven
for victims of political, religious or social persecution.
Unfortunately, immigrants, and especially refugees, are
increasingly being used as scapegoats for the social and
economic problems Canada is facing. In this context, Bill C-44
only serves to reinforce prejudices linking crime to
immigration.
As an immigrant, and the official opposition critic for
immigration and citizenship for over a year, I have noticed that
Canada is becoming increasingly less generous and welcoming
with refugees, in spite of the commitment made by the Liberal
government in the red book to develop a humanitarian refugee
policy and to admit a fair share of them.
I will point out that Canada is only taking in less than 0.25 per
cent of persecuted and displaced people throughout the world.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are more than 100 million of
these people. Therefore, I ask the minister and his government
to promote a more humane and more generous attitude toward
newcomers, especially refugees, instead of defending Bill C-44
which is so full of injustices and will lead to abuses.
In this international year of tolerance, the government should
organize an awareness campaign highlighting the contributions
of immigrants to Canadian society and the benefits of
immigration.
For these reasons, I will vote against the bill.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here we are again back to debating a bill which there really need
not be much debate on. Bill C-44 was a poor piece of legislation
several months ago when we began debate and it remains a bad
piece of legislation today.
When this bill was introduced we examined it carefully and
came to the conclusion that it, not unlike the party and the
minister who proposed it, was all talk and no action, big on
words, short on effect.
Bill C-44 is snake oil. It is being marketed as a cure all, a fix
to the national mess that we call immigration policy.
Last year people died because of poor enforcement of the
immigration policy. People who did not deserve to be residents
of Canada remained residents of Canada. People who should
never have been allowed to enter this country were allowed to
enter.
The Immigration and Refugee Board laughed in the collective
face of Canadians and ignored the needs of thousands of
suffering refugees around the world by jacking up inland
acceptance rates, granting hearings to even the most outrageous
claims, overturning the deportation orders of dangerous, violent
repeat offenders and suckering taxpayers out of a billion dollars
or more all in the name of their brand of compassion.
(1255 )
In response to these and many other outrages that were
splashed across the front pages of papers across the country and
which rightly angered Canadians who felt that our immigration
system was out of control, the minister responded by saying:
``No problem. Don't look at the planes that crash, most of them
don't''. He said we need to pay more attention to the planes that
land, the success stories, and ignore the rest.
We and millions of Canadians did not ignore the planes that
crashed. Every time one of the minister's metaphorical planes
crashed, every time the Immigration and Refugee Board
screwed up, every time the immigration enforcement fell down
on the job and every time the court system was abused by queue
jumpers it hurt Canadians, it hurt immigrants across the country
and it hurt the tens of thousands of genuine refugees who are
overseas and need our help but cannot get it because we have left
it up to the Immigration and Refugee Board to award scarce
places to those who manage to show up, get a legal aid attorney
to plead their case and push the right politically correct buttons
of the IRB.
9180
Sometimes when the minister's metaphorical planes crash it
costs Canadians outrageous amounts of money but sometimes it
costs people their lives.
Suddenly things got a little too hot for the minister of
immigration. He suddenly realized that he had to do something,
anything, and he had to do it fast. He thought he needed to table
something, needed to make it look as though he really made a
change or had taken charge and was really cleaning up his act.
He and his legislative assistants got together and hurriedly
drafted Bill C-44.
Here it is, they told us, the panacea, the cure for the
immigration problems. With C-44 they assured us they were
getting tough and would not tolerate abuses in immigration.
This would stop the tragedies that occurred last year and are just
waiting, mark my words, to happen again.
Bill C-44 is an impressive looking document. It is pages and
pages of thick legal text adding this to the Immigration Act. It
strikes out some parts, redefines some things and reiterates
others.
Bill C-44 is really a whole lot of nothing at all. Is it a cure all
for immigration woes?-not even close. Does it tackle the
serious problems of morale and under staffing in the
immigration department, especially in the area of
enforcement?-no, it does not. Does it take away the incentive
or the means for lawyers and advocates to endlessly tie up the
IRB and our courts with appeal after appeal?-no way.
Does it restore accountability to the immigration decision
making process, a lack of accountability that has allowed the
immigration minister to slither away from foul ups by saying:
``What can I do, it is an independent board'', or allowing the IRB
to say it is accountable only to the courts?-not even close. Does
it secure the front door, our ports of entry?-no.
Does it get to the root of virtually all the problems in
immigration today, the problems of numbers, too many to be
properly handled by the department under any circumstances
with the degree of care and precision that would allow for
careful and thorough screening of all applicants?-no, it does
not.
Here is what C-44 does. It provides an easy out for the
minister and the government who are utterly incapable of
making real choices, exercising real leadership and taking
action, who instead are always looking for the easy way out, the
appearance of action, much ado about nothing, sound and fury
signifying nothing. Bill C-44 is exactly that. It is a great deal of
legislative sound and fury which signifies absolutely nothing to
the average law-abiding Canadian who wants a sane
immigration policy and to immigrants who just want to start a
new life, obey the law and enjoy their new home.
(1300 )
The minister of immigration has often spoken of his lofty
ideals for immigration. He has often presented to Canadians and
this House his vision of what immigration should do for Canada
and what Canada should do for immigrants.
The minister has tried to argue that high immigration levels,
the IRB and other elements of Canada's immigration policy are
good for Canada because they enhance Canada's economy. He
said that immigrants put into the economy more than they take
out. We do not argue that. He has argued that immigration is a
Canadian legacy, that immigration built Canada, it continues to
build Canada and should build Canada in the future. That is
obvious. That is the Reform Party's position on these points, just
as it is the Liberals' position, the Bloc's position and also the
NDP's position. It is even the position of the previous
government.
The minister of immigration is taking no high road when he
talks about the history of immigration and the need for that
continued tradition. However there is a huge difference in
talking about the past, talking about broad universally shared
ideals and putting those ideals and values into practice.
That is where this government and my party part company. We
both agree that immigration is a vital part of the Canadian
heritage. We both agree that immigrants are an asset to the
economy.
It is time to get beyond the ``we are for immigration but you
are not'' rhetoric. We are all for immigration. The Reform Party
and the Liberal Party are for continued immigration. Frankly,
we in the Reform Party think we speak for the Canadian people
when we say that enough is enough of the name calling and mud
slinging that surrounds the immigration debate. That is the sort
of rhetoric the government likes to employ when discussing
immigration.
As offensive as that sort of rhetoric is, the rhetoric contained
in Bill C-44 is even more offensive. It is most offensive because
it looks like legislation that could help. Only insiders, people
who are intimately familiar with the workings of immigration in
Canada, would know why this bill is of little value and why it is
unnecessary.
As I said before, there is no disagreement over the value of
immigration to Canada. The Reform Party says that Canada
could do better when it comes to immigration policy. The
Reform Party says that there are real solid immediate changes
that could be made to Canada's immigration policy that would
benefit not only Canadians but immigrants as well.
When the government thinks that the status quo, a status quo
created by the former Conservative government, is the way to go
with ultra high levels, levels that are more than twice as high as
those in any other country on earth, astronomical levels in this
day and age, levels that are simply too high for our immigration
department to handle, is it any wonder that large numbers of
9181
undesirables are slipping through? Is it any wonder that large
numbers of deportable people are evading arrest, given these
astronomical numbers?
One way we can make a huge dent immediately in stopping
large numbers of undesirables from entering the country and one
way we can reduce the incredible number of deportable
immigrants is simply to bring the total number of immigrants
down to a reasonable sustainable level.
This minister and this government-and I dare them to stand
up and say differently-have not established quotas on the
number of immigrants entering the country. They have not
reduced the numbers. They are simply taking credit for a lower
number of applicants in some categories. It is smoke and
mirrors.
Bill C-44 is the same sort of smoke and mirrors, the same sort
of cynical politics. Take credit for something that is not real
seems to be the motto of this government and this immigration
minister.
Bill C-44 is not real. It too is smoke and mirrors. It too is a
shell game. It too is cynical politics. This minister has tried to
fool the people of Canada into thinking that something is
happening when nothing is happening.
Let us go through this piece of legislation to see what it
purports to do, why it does not do what it purports to do and why
all members of this Parliament, those who want to report to their
constituents with good consciences, will vote against this bill.
As a side bar, I know that not all members have had a chance
to read this bill. Reading all bills is simply not possible for a
member of Parliament. That is why I urge members to listen
carefully as I go through the major clauses of Bill C-44 so that
they will know why voting for this bill serves neither the
interests of their communities nor the country as a whole.
(1305 )
The first major thing this bill purports to do is to empower
customs officers to seize identity documents that are fraudulent
and sent through the mail. That is fantastic. I would love it if all
fraudulent documents sent through the mail could be stopped
and seized. Such a measure if implemented would take the heart
out of the illegal immigrant industry and let me assure members
that there is an industry out there.
The minister has included that clause to give the Canadian
people the impression he intends to stop the flow of illegal
documents, or at least curb it. What could be wrong with that? I
will tell you. Mansel Legacy, the head of the Customs Excise
Union, says that this measure is utterly unenforceable. He
appeared before the standing committee.
Throughout the whole country there are only a handful of
officers with the power and the job description to actually open
and seize these documents. Further, law restricts officers from
opening mail that is under 50 grams. Put a visa or an identity
card in an envelope and weigh it and you will come up with the
same thing I did. It weighs less than 50 grams. Even if someone
were dumb enough to enclose a pound of fake passports in a
single envelope there are only a handful of officers who would
be able to seize them.
The minister wants to give the impression he is taking care of
a serious problem in customs and immigration policy. In fact he
is just introducing a clause that is a lot of talk but is utterly
unenforceable. That is the first piece of evidence that this bill
was introduced to do nothing more than pull the wool over the
eyes of Canadians.
Another part of the bill that has been trumpeted by the
minister as a serious get tough measure has been the limiting of
immigration procedures for serious criminals. Bill C-44
promises to limit the appeals of serious criminals to the
Immigration and Refugee Board. That is the board the minister
so often defends which has developed a reputation for sending
into the streets serious violent criminals and non-residents who
have gone on to kill innocent Canadians. As he puts it, it is a
great Canadian institution. I beg to differ.
On first sight it is a good move. That was certainly my first
reaction until I heard from the various lawyers and others who
appeared before us at the standing committee. I am no legal
expert and obviously the minister is not either. It is important for
both of us to turn to the advice of lawyers when a bill is
discussed in the standing committee.
When the lawyers appeared before the standing committee
they said that this bill would not stop criminal immigrants from
making appeals, it would not even slow them down. Bill C-44
does not stop serious convicted criminals from making appeals;
it only stops them from making one kind of appeal. Bill C-44
would stop the IRB from hearing appeals based on humanitarian
and compassionate considerations only but it would still permit
them to hear appeals on matters of fact and law.
The lawyers who handle immigration and refugee cases and
have the knowledge and a vested interest here have told us that
C-44 will do nothing more than make them change their
paperwork a little. Instead of making an appeal on
compassionate grounds, they will make an appeal on fact and
law. The bottom line is that criminal immigrants stay in the
country. They stay, we pay.
This measure, the second major part of the bill, will not work
but it does sound good. It sounds good and it appeases the
majority of Canadians who want tougher immigration laws
without actually changing anything important. No vested
interest will be offended. As such I have to give this government
9182
credit for its savvy. I have to give it credit for being able to write
a bill that sounds like so much while delivering so little. It is a
bill that appeases the majority without offending the ever so
important minority who have the ear of the minister.
The third major part of this bill would make someone
inadmissible for a claim before the IRB if it is discovered they
have been convicted of a major crime in or outside Canada. That
is great. Superb, as a matter of fact. That is exactly what the
Reform Party has been demanding all along. Let us look a little
closer at what Bill C-44 would really do.
(1310)
Experts appearing before the committee have told us that Bill
C-44 would have the perverse effect for example of allowing
people who are caught with illegal guns in the trunks of their
cars to remain in Canada while those who write bad cheques will
no longer be able to stay or to make that claim. If you ask me,
neither of these people deserve to be heard before the
Immigration and Refugee Board. Clearly this bill uses an
arbitrary measure of criminality to determine who is bad and
who is not.
There is something much more insidious about this section of
the bill. For those who want to do their homework before voting
on this bill, and I encourage all my hon. colleagues to do just
that, this section of the bill is absolutely unnecessary. It is
unnecessary because the minister through his representatives
already has the power to stop refugee hearings for people who
would constitute a danger to Canada.
I have a list of individuals or at least one individual here for
whom the minister has already signed an order to remove him
from the country. He has done so. He can intervene at any time.
The minister would have an opportunity to intervene in any of
those claims that would constitute a violation of the
Immigration Act.
The minister already has the power and it has been legislated
again into Bill C-44. The minister can already intervene and
make ineligible for a refugee hearing people whose presence in
Canada would constitute a danger to the public interest.
Bill C-44 is not necessary legally. It is only necessary
politically. It is necessary because the minister of immigration
does not have the political will. He does not have the guts to
intervene personally to stop refugee hearings for people who do
not deserve status in Canada.
He says that he cannot intervene. That is simply not true. The
minister just does not want to intervene and that is a fact. He
could have intervened on Mendoza or Inthavong. Rather than
sticking his neck out and possibly offending the special
interests, the minister is passing the buck to the IRB. Believe
me, the IRB is the last group of people with whom we want to
entrust the safety of Canadians. Bill C-44 is just a way for the
minister to pass the buck.
As another side bar, compare Bill C-44 with the Reform
Party's refugee determination proposals. In those proposals
there is a recurring theme. That theme is that the minister should
use the power already available to him under the Immigration
Act to toughen up on refugee determination and stop dangerous
and undeserving people from making claims. We have the guts
to do it. I think the majority of government backbenchers would
have the guts, but this minister does not. Think about that before
raising your hand in favour of this bill.
The final major clause of Bill C-44 deals with people
applying for citizenship who are convicted of serious crimes or
who are guilty of serious crimes outside Canada. The bill would
temporarily halt the processing of applications for citizenship
for those who have been found to have criminal backgrounds.
That ignores a very serious question, a question that we have
posed to this minister again and again over the past year. When
exactly are the backgrounds checked and how thoroughly?
According to the minister all backgrounds are checked.
I do not need to tell you about the multiple and frequent cases
of people who have been allowed into Canada. They have been
given status and then because of tips or information on the side
have been found to be serious criminals, even war criminals.
Our immigration department is simply not able to thoroughly
and adequately check the backgrounds of the quarter of a million
immigrants Canada accepts each year. It is just not possible
given the numbers. In order to stop a citizenship application a
background has to be discovered but we have neither the ability
nor the manpower to do it. It will not work.
Even assuming the best case scenario in terms of Bill C-44 if
it is implemented and is used effectively, what then? Many more
deportation orders would be issued. Good news you say. Wrong.
Perversely and as a direct result of the inaction of the current
immigration minister and the previous immigration ministers, it
is bad news. It is bad news because of the sheer number of
deportation warrants that are currently on the books.
(1315)
Estimates, and that is all the immigration department has been
kind enough to give us, suggest that there are up to 40,000
deportation warrants outstanding and unaccountable.
We have heard that in the city of Toronto there could be as
many as 25,000 people who have deportation orders against
them. Are they being rounded up? No. Are those numbers being
substantially reduced? No. Can they be substantially reduced?
Not given the priorities of this minister. The priorities of this
minister are keeping the levels at the highest ever for Canada
and the world, stressing family class immigration over
independent immigration, keeping our inland acceptance rate of
self-proclaimed refugees up to 50 times higher than other
refugee accepting nations at a cost of over a billion dollars per
year to the Canadian taxpayer. These priorities have not allowed
the
9183
direction of attention and resources toward immigration
enforcement.
I told the House there are up to 25,000 outstanding
deportation warrants in Toronto. To round these people up and
escort them out of the country is a group of only 30 people with
few tools, virtually no self-protection equipment and morale
that is lower than that of any other group of public servants I
have ever come across.
Even if Bill C-44 adds a few more people to the deportation
rolls, it will not mean more people actually leaving Canada.
Even dangerous criminals will still be able to appeal their
deportation orders endlessly in the courts and to the IRB, all at
the taxpayers' expense and probably with some success.
Just a few weeks ago a suspected war criminal from Rwanda
was apprehended in Montreal after having successfully made it
through Canada's almost non-existent screening process. He
was allowed permanent resident status in Canada. This is a
person who is accused of playing an instrumental role in
whipping up the racial hatred that resulted in the deaths of
hundreds of thousands and of ethnic cleansing of a sort not seen
since World War II. Has he been deported? No. Is he in a holding
cell? No. Is he in prison? No. He is on the streets, released by an
adjudicator on a $5,000 bond.
Had Bill C-44 already been passed would it have prevented
this sort of outrage? No, it would not have. It does not address it
at all.
Over the recess a foreign criminal by the name of Inthevong
who had been convicted of assault, various minor crimes and
playing a role in a murder, was scheduled for deportation. He
was brought before one of the minister's appointees at the IRB
and was set loose on Canadian streets.
Like most Canadians I take the stupidity of the Immigration
and Refugee Board for granted. Adding insult to injury in this
case is the fact that the minister for immigration, the
representative of the people of Canada, had the power to
intervene and chose not to do it. The minister openly said that he
would not intervene in this case to reverse the decision of the
Immigration and Refugee Board. I find that inexcusable.
Could Bill C-44 have stopped Inthevong's release? No, but
the minister could have. The problem is not a lack of legislation.
The Immigration Act gives the minister of immigration a broad
and unique range of powers already. However all the ministerial
power in the world will not do any good when the minister does
not have the guts to use it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would like to take
a moment to ask members to be a little more aware of the
selection of words that can be used at times on issues that are
sensitive and controversial but nonetheless very important.
I return the floor to the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
(1320 )
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, legislation like Bill C-44 can even
have the effect of giving the minister and the government an out,
an excuse. Canadians have been asking of the minister: ``Why
are you not doing anything?'', to which he can cynically answer
if Bill C-44 passes, ``I am''.
Bill C-44 is an excuse. It is an out. It is a cheap substitute.
This minister does not have the intestinal fortitude to do what
has to be done.
The rationale behind Bill C-44 is contradictory. With Bill
C-44 the minister says that the problem of criminals abusing our
immigration system will be addressed. He says that Bill C-44
will allow for easier deportation. However, just a few short
months ago the minister announced the creation of a task force
of immigration officers and RCMP that would be charged with
seeking out hundreds, if not thousands, of dangerous criminals
that are in Canada illegally.
The minister has been remarkably silent about the success of
the task force. He has not stood up in the House to trumpet the
success of the initiative, an initiative that I said right from the
start would not work.
It has not worked. Why? Because the task force is the
clean-up crew for a mess that has been building for over two
decades. The task force is trying to push undesirables out the
back door at the same time as the front door has been left wide
open, hanging by a hinge, rusting and squeaking in the wind.
Also because once inside this great home that we call Canada
undesirables are given the run of the place, hiding in the closets
of the courts, ducking into the dark passageway of the IRB,
making them untouchable, hidden by the very policy and
regulation that the government has maintained from the
previous government.
That is the crux of the issue. That is why the Reform Party is
opposing the bill. We are not opposing it out of spite. We are not
opposing it because we do not want an initiative of this minister
to pass. We are opposing it because we have more than enough
bills already. We have a massive series of laws on the books that
were ostensibly designed to protect Canadians, to make
immigration work for both Canadians and immigrants. They
have not.
The House has passed a maze of laws that do nothing but
allow those who have bad intentions and good legal counsel to
make a mockery of Canada, to make us an international laughing
stock. Every time one of the new immigration laws was passed a
9184
minister stood before the Canadian people and said: ``See, I am
doing something'', when in fact he or she was doing nothing but
avoiding real action.
That is what is going on here. That is what the current minister
of immigration is doing. That is what the government has done
in so many areas. An overwhelming deficit and high taxation
threaten to relegate this once great country to third world status.
The response to this crisis is that the government wants to raise
taxes and to make some non-offensive cuts to government
spending. Then it says: ``We are doing something'', when in fact
things are getting worse.
Crime threatens the security of our neighbourhoods and the
tranquillity that Canadians have long taken for granted and
considered their birthright. The government says: ``Let us pass a
gun control law. See, we are doing something'', when in fact
nothing is being done about the real problem.
We have an immigration system that is out of control. The
government gives us Bill C-44 and says: ``See, we are doing
something'', when in fact it is doing nothing at all. It is all
smoke and mirrors and more of the same. It is cynical politics
designed to fool the Canadian people into thinking that
something is being done.
There is something that can be done. There is a way to clean
up our immigration mess. The Reform Party has led the way and
has put itself on the line. We have taken the high road by offering
real solutions.
The IRB is a large part of the immigration problem. We have
offered a solution. Disband the IRB. Subsume its functions
under the minister. Take more refugees from abroad. Tighten up
our inland process so that it is more in line with the
determination systems of other countries and is not driven by
special interests. We have offered 13 proposals which, if
enacted, would make the refugee system work better for both
Canadians and refugees. It is a win-win situation.
(1325)
We have told the minister to exercise his powers to stop those
that abuse the system by making appeal after appeal and to stop
refugee hearings that are manifestly unfounded. We have told
the government to cut the total number of immigrants to levels
that are internally proportionate, numbers that the immigration
department can handle, numbers that would still make Canada
the world leader in immigration. We have told the government to
increase the percentage of immigrants who come from the
independent category.
C.D. Howe, as reported in the Globe and Mail, agrees with
this proposal. Raising the number of independent immigrants
would have the effect of making immigration a net positive for
Canada. It would cut the $700 million bill for family
reunification and cut the number of people who would come to
Canada unchecked with questionable backgrounds.
The minister claimed to have done this but anyone able to read
a column of numbers knows that he was not on the mark. The
numbers of family class immigrants under the minister's most
recent targets actually goes up, not down. Smoke and mirrors,
more of the same.
We have offered real solutions, not bogus solutions like Bill
C-44. We have said that the government and the immigration
minister must be accountable. He must do more than just
introduce faulty legislation that gives the impression of action
without addressing any of the real problems or resulting in real
benefit. We have offered solutions and they have been ignored
by the government.
I urge my hon. colleagues, through you, Mr. Speaker, to vote
no on this bill. Members, like the people of Canada, may have
been talked into believing that the bill will solve some of the
problems plaguing immigration policy today. I am here to tell
them, with all sincerity and with partisanship aside, that it will
not. I am here to tell them that the bill is just an excuse for
inaction. It is an excuse for a minister who does not want to
exercise the power already available to him, a minister who
wants to pass the buck.
For those on both sides of the House who want to represent
their constituents, who are truly concerned about making a
difference, making government work and making government
accountable, I urge members to read the bill and discuss it with
people in the know from either side of the ideology fence. Once
they have had their concerns validated from their own trusted
resources I urge them to do the right thing and vote no on this
bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Following the minister's
intervention and that of the two critics, members during the next
five hours will be allowed up to a maximum of 20-minute
interventions subject to a 10-minute question or comment
period.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with honour that I rise in the House today to speak in support of
Bill C-44.
Leaving my prepared text for a minute, I want to say that
many of the concerns brought forward by the Reform Party
relating to enforcement and the resources in the department are
also shared by the minister, all Canadians and myself. We live in
difficult fiscal times and budget constraints are a reality for
many departments. I know that probably the finance minister
was listening with real interest when people said that we should
spend more money in the immigration department. The minister
of immigration would probably support that.
Let me begin by talking a little about my riding. I come from
an area where immigration is an important issue but certainly
not one of the main issues. My riding is on the north shore of
Lake Erie. It has been settled by wave after wave of
immigration, like many parts of this country have been.
Originally it was settled by people from Britain, primarily by
Scots. More recent-
9185
ly it was settled by the Dutch community in the 1950s. We have
recently had Portuguese immigrants.
We have a long tradition of recognizing the importance of
immigration to this country and to our communities. Everybody
is concerned about making sure that Canada has the right type of
immigrants, that we are the ones who are doing the selecting and
not others selecting us. We want to have an appropriate system
in place. If a criminal comes to this country and commits a
crime, we want to have certain mechanisms in place. If they are
a danger to Canadians this mechanism will allow us to get them
out fairly quickly, with reasonable recognition that they have
legal rights. We want to kick out the right people, not the wrong
people.
(1330 )
That is why we want to put in place a proper process. I stand in
support of Bill C-44 because I believe it does that. I am sure
members will think, after listening to my speech and the speech
of my colleague who spoke before me, that one of us could not
have been listening at the immigration committee or one of us is
patently wrong. I will try to point that out as I go along.
The key aspect I like about the bill is that it will remove the
right to appeal to the immigration appeal division of the refugee
board when the minister has made a determination that the
person is a danger to Canadian society and has committed a
crime with a maximum sentence of more than 10 years.
To understand why that is important we need to understand the
process now. Let us say my colleague is a landed immigrant who
commits an assault or a series of assaults. He does his time in
jail. Then he comes out and the department says that it wants to
kick him out. He can appeal to the immigration and appeal
division and ask to stay in Canada simply on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds.
Whether or not we agree with that the system as it stands now
has a three-year wait. That is inexcusable. We have a process in
place that says we want him out of the country because we think
he is dangerous and the criminal can say that on humanitarian
and compassionate grounds he wants to stay. We should have a
mechanism in place that at least decides that question fairly
quickly. A three-year wait is just unacceptable.
Another thing that concerns me about the immigration and
appeal division doing its work is the people on the board who
determine whether someone is a refugee. We would want people
that would give applicants the benefit of the doubt. They should
be fairly liberal in their views and have a good understanding of
circumstances in other countries. I am not sure whether the same
person should be putting the mechanism in place, controlling the
mechanism and deciding whether to deport somebody.
I do not think anyone wants to deport someone. It is difficult
to do and one has to be fairly tough minded to do it. I am not sure
we want the same sort of character making judgments about who
is a refugee. We want to be more liberal in our determination of
refugees and fairly tough minded in our determination of who
should be deported.
The criteria determining when someone will lose their right to
appeal is fairly straightforward. First there is the 10-year rule,
which means if a person commits a crime he has to be sentenced
up to a maximum of 10 years. That mechanism will ensure we
are not using this rule or law for trivial matters. Simple things
like shoplifting or writing a cheque under $1,000 will not get
someone kicked out of the country. That is appropriate. More
serious crimes such as rape, assault and murder will get
someone kicked out of the country.
Another rule being applied is that the minister must make a
determination that the person is a danger to the country. While
some offences, oddly enough like writing a cheque for more than
$1,000, make one eligible for up to 10 years in jail, I do not think
any of us would say: ``We want to deport you for that''. Maybe
some of my colleagues across the way would say that the person
should be deported for that.
Clearly the law is saying that one has to be a dangerous
criminal, a danger to Canadian society, someone who we think
will perhaps assault, rape or murder again. Those are the people
we want to kick out of the country.
Some very difficult questions arise. I know the minister does
not have an answer and Canadians will have to determine the
answer. Let us say we have someone who comes here when they
are six years old. Their parents, for whatever reasons, do not
apply to make them Canadian citizens; they forget or whatever.
These persons go through life not realizing they are not
Canadian citizens. If they commit a serious crime at 25 years of
age, do we kick them out, even though other persons in the same
circumstances simply because their parents went through the
process of making them Canadian citizens when they were
seven, eight, or nine years of age did not get kicked out? They
might have committed the same crime.
Say someone comes here at six months of age. They are from
an Asian country or any country dissimilar to ours. Are we going
to take people who have virtually lived here all their lives,
except for maybe the first six months, and deport them simply
because they have not become Canadian citizens?
(1335 )
Many people in Canada would say that was their tough luck
and if they have committed crimes they should be put out. I am
not sure it is that simple. That is something we have to work out,
because there is no provision in law that if people come to this
country before a certain age they will be able to stay here. The
definition is clearly that if one is a Canadian citizen one stays
9186
and if one is not a Canadian citizen and is a danger to Canadian
society one has to go.
We have touched on the issue of criminality. I noted the Chair
asked us to use language that was sensitive. When we talk about
immigrants and criminals we risk getting into the trap of taking
an identifiable group, foreigners by definition, and blaming
them for things they ought not to be blamed for. There are many
cases in history where people in a community have whipped up
resentment against an identifiable group of outsiders,
oftentimes foreigners, to support a particular political ideology.
When we touch on the issue of immigration and criminals we
risk getting into that game.
By way of a backdrop, I want to point out that the
overwhelming majority of immigrants and refugees are decent,
hard working and law-abiding people. They appeal to Canada
for protection because they need our help. Others come to
contribute to Canada's economic progress while others seek to
be reunited with their families.
However there are exceptions. In recent months there have
been a few highly publicized cases of criminals claiming to be
refugees, and refugee claimants and immigrants breaking our
laws while in Canada. It needs to be understood that these are the
exceptions.
If we look at Canadian jails and survey whether the people in
our jails were born in Canada or elsewhere, we discover that the
immigrant population in our jails is lower than the general
population as a whole. Statistics show that immigrants who
come to the country are hard working. Oftentimes they are more
hard working than the general population as a whole and commit
fewer crimes. That does not mean there is not the odd exception,
and this bill is about dealing with the odd exception. The
government takes these exceptions seriously. The government is
taking a number of steps to ensure the system is not open to
abuse and that Canadian society is protected.
My friend across the way indicated in his remarks that the
minister could kick someone out whenever he wants. The
member has his facts wrong. I know the heckles are about to
start. Let us say a landed immigrant or a permanent
resident-and these words can be used
interchangeably-commits a crime and does a sentence. Let us
say the person is a danger to society. The government can bring
about a process fairly quickly to have him deported. However
the person can ask to have it stayed and appeal to immigration
and Refugee Board on humanitarian grounds. Such persons can
say: ``I am sorry. I throw myself on the mercy of the country''.
Maybe the person has a wife or children here; maybe he has a job
and circumstances have changed. He can bring forth all sorts of
arguments. Unfortunately, as I said, that is a three-year delay. In
law, the minister does not have the right to interfere in that
process. That right to appeal is in the Immigration Act and is in
law and the minister must follow the law.
My colleague across the way has said that the rules in place
now will do the trick. Unfortunately he is wrong. They will not
do the trick, but Bill C-44 will take a step forward in terms of
helping to deport landed immigrants who should be deported.
The government has proposed changes to the immigration law
that will help prevent immigration fraud and abuse by criminals.
Among the most important amendments are changes that
prohibit people convicted of serious crimes from claiming
refugee status. It also has to be determined that they are
dangerous. This applies whether the crime took place in Canada
or anywhere else.
It will remove from the immigration and refugee board the
power to allow serious criminals to be in Canada on
humanitarian and compassionate grounds and to give the
minister or his delegates sole authority to do so. This means we
can move fairly quickly.
My colleague across the way has suggested that they will still
be able to appeal. He has that part right. They will still be able to
appeal to the federal court on issues of law, not on issues of fact
and law. They will be able to appeal to the federal court, but if
they took some time to examine the federal court process they
would find they need to have leave to appeal to the federal court.
It is not a right. Instead of taking three years, which is the case
under the current system, that process will take about 30 days.
They may say that three years or 30 days makes no difference,
but most Canadians will say that a faster process is a better
process.
(1340)
Had they asked that question at the immigration committee
they would have found that this is a much quicker process. If
they do not believe me, I encourage them to check it out.
Because it is done by appeal the federal court can deal with it
by leave. The federal court can deal with it very promptly. They
will not be able to appeal on humanitarian and compassionate
grounds. Appealing on law is a very technical appeal. It is not
something that is easily done. It is not something that can be
done summarily or just on a whim. It has to be based on clear
legal arguments.
It is different from an appeal on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds. I might ask my colleagues across the
way to appreciate the substance of the difference, to appreciate
that it is an important difference, and to give the government
credit for changing the process from three years to 30 days.
How serious is the problem? It is very serious. Right now the
government estimates there is probably about 1,200 people
whom it would like to deport and not give the right of appeal to
the immigration and refugee board on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds. Six hundred of those people are in jail.
9187
Many people in my community want to see the government
get the bill through quickly and bring about a process by which
these people will be deported because they are a danger to
Canadian society.
What else is the act going to do? As my colleagues have
mentioned, it is going to give immigration officers the power to
seize identity documents from the international mail that might
be used by impostors for fraudulent and improper purposes. My
colleagues have made the argument that the staff is
under-resourced. Yes, it is. The police department can say it is
under-resourced, that it does not have enough police to do the
job. Does that mean that the law itself is bad? Does that mean
giving them the power to do it is bad?
If the Reform Party wants to make an argument to spend more
money on our immigration department, it should make it to the
finance committee. It will be part of the budget considerations,
and away we go; it may actually see something happen.
The act will make sure a person can have only one refugee
claim process at a time. This makes common sense. Someone
wanting to abuse the system can put in a refugee claim in
Vancouver and perhaps open a file in Toronto or wherever. Also
the act will make sure that any application for citizenship is put
on hold until all immigration investigations or proceedings are
completed.
I come to another point mentioned by my colleague. A
citizenship and immigration-RCMP task force has been
established in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver to co-ordinate
and ensure the removal of people with serious criminal
convictions who have evaded removal orders. Local police will
assist the task force to which 20 RCMP officers have been
assigned: 12 in Toronto and 4 each in Montreal and Vancouver.
Again they can make the argument that it is not enough. They
come up with a figure of 25,000 removal orders in Toronto. Let
us say my friend sitting beside me is a landed immigrant whom
we want to kick out and he says: ``Fine, I will leave''. We do not
have a mechanism in place or we do not have controls at our
border watching the people leave. It may well be that he leaves,
but unless he tells us that he has left we do not know whether he
has.
To suggest that because there are 25,000 removal orders none
of these people have left simply on their own recognizance is
really playing with the facts. It is trying to whip up hysteria in
Toronto that there is a massive underground of illegal
immigrants and dangerous criminals when the truth of it is not
anywhere close to that. There is a problem. Let us deal with the
problem but let us not inflame it with numbers like 25,000. It is
ridiculous.
(1345 )
I come back to my point that 12 RCMP officers are not
enough. If we give them good law to work with let us see how
they do and we can come back in a year's time and take a look.
In addition, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs is examining the question of how immigration should
respond to young offenders who are not Canadians citizens
convicted of a serious crime. That is a tough one. We are going
to kick someone out who is 12 or 13 years old. Maybe their
parents have not done anything, are permanent residents, landed
and are not Canadian citizens yet. What are we going to do to a
13-year-old who commits a serious crime of assault? I do not
know. I do not know that the minister knows. I do not know that
any of us in this Chamber really knows. At some point we are
going to have to try to exercise the wisdom of Solomon.
The government believes that immigration is a benefit to
Canada and that Canada should maintain its international
reputation for assisting refugees and welcoming immigrants.
However, the government also believes that a good immigration
program must promptly manage to protect Canadians. The
government is committed to move as quickly as possible to
make these changes to ensure the integrity of the Canadian
immigration and refugee system.
In closing, I would point out to Canadians that I think there is
real substance in this bill. Taking away the right to appeal on
humanitarian and compassionate grounds in some very specific
circumstances I think is the right thing to do where someone is
clearly a danger to Canadian society.
When we talk to the immigrant communities they are tired of
being tarnished with the brush of being what some people in the
political spectrum want. They know when immigrants commit
crimes that good, hard working new Canadians are often the
ones who bear the penalty the most. They are the ones who want
to make sure that hard working decent immigrants or new
Canadians are the ones who want fairly tough criteria for
deporting people and that serious criminals are actually
deported promptly without much delay. If the Reform Party
would actually look at the substance of the bill and do its
homework it too would support the bill.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very interested in the member's comments regarding the
front end concerns about the Immigration Act enforcement. It
appears the member never availed himself of the opportunity of
going to a border crossing for instance and watching the process
of refugee claimants coming in from the United States. They
9188
come in with no documents. They have no means of
identification and no support systems per se to assist
immigration officers in determining who they really are.
I am wondering if the member really understands the
importance of determining who these applicants really are who
come through because there is no identification, because it is an
unknown quantity. What does the hon. member have to say
about that when it comes to this background check that he
alludes to and that the minister should not have the power to
remove someone if they are determined to be a danger to
society?
Could the member please describe to me how he would get
around this aspect once the individual is here and has gone
through his claim and his appeals when there is no means of
really determining who the individual is?
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to my colleague's
question but let me say this. The guts of what this bill is about-
Mr. Mayfield: You cannot use that word here.
Mr. Knutson: The pith and substance. I do not want to be too
high falutin because as my colleagues have said they are not
legal experts. I use the vernacular instead of using a term that
might have been used in the Supreme Court of Canada.
The pith and substance of what this bill is about is really
taking an appeal process that has been dragged out to three years
to non-lawyers, non-judges, the Immigration and Refugee
Board, an appeal process on humanitarian and compassionate
grounds and saying in some very narrow circumstances where
someone has committed a serious crime that will get them more
than 10 years in jail maximum sentence and they are considered
a danger to society, taking that appeal process and reducing it to
virtually 30 days, narrowing the terms where they can only
appeal to the federal court. That is the pith and substance of this
bill and that is what the Reform Party should be supporting.
(1350)
My colleague is absolutely right. I have never been to a border
crossing and looked at the refugee determining process and what
happens when someone shows up without documents. My view
is that we should hold them in detention and should not let them
go until we know who they are. I would certainly be happy to sit
down with my colleague and look at the Immigration Act and
look at the system that is in place and try to work something out
that is reasonable. I agree, we should not be letting just anyone
in. If they do not have documentation or cannot prove who they
are then we should be concerned about that.
However, to re-emphasize my point, that is not what this bill
is about. This bill is about people who apply on humanitarian
and compassionate grounds to the refugee board and Canadians
do not want to give them the right to do that. They have
said:``You are a danger to Canadian society and we want you
gone from our land''.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I have an outline here from an
individual who was removed from the country after the minister
issued a security certificate to have him removed. The power is
already there for the minister to do something about it.
In Calgary alone six foreign criminals have been deported.
Their backgrounds include cocaine dealers, pimps, weapons
charges, assault, you name it. The power is there to remove
already. The minister is not exercising his powers to remove.
I would like the hon. member's comments with regard to
section 46 of the act where it states we can remove. Why are we
going through this?
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, we disagree on that one fact. The
member is saying that the appeal to the refugee board does not
stay that proceeding and I say it does. However, I will get a
reference and send it to him.
Clearly this act takes power away from the refugee board and
puts it in the minister's office. If he was not responsible before,
Canadians can now look to him and say that he is the one they are
relying on to deport dangerous criminals who are not Canadian
citizens. That law will narrowly focus it on the minister and on
the government and they can take responsibility for that.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
ask the hon. member why the current law is not being
implemented in its entirety. Why does the minister not use all
the legal and administrative means at his disposal? Does the
current law not allow us to deport war criminals, Nazis or people
who have violated human rights elsewhere?
Why is the minister not taking such action now and why does
he need a new law? Why does he not make more effective use of
the officials, local police and RCMP officers on the working
groups he has created in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver?
Why does he not make more of an effort to motivate officials
who are very disappointed?
As a result of the cutbacks and office closures at the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration, morale is very low.
People are likely to face even more staff cuts in the upcoming
budget. It has been said that 100 jobs will be cut at the IRB
alone, where there are not many jobs to start with. Why not
motivate staff, why not use all the available means and eliminate
the need for a piece of legislation as drastic as Bill C-44?
[English]
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, in another form that is the same
question the Reform Party is asking. It is saying the minister has
the power and that he should just use the current act.
9189
(1355)
I would like to point out that under the current act, under the
current law, if somebody is convicted of a crime after they have
served their time in jail they can apply to the Immigration and
Refugee Board on humanitarian, compassionate grounds to
defeat their deportation from this country. That process now
takes three years. There is a three-year delay. Under this new
law the process will probably be reduced to about thirty days.
There are about 1,200 people the ministry or the department has,
at least on first glance, determined could be dangerous criminals
we want removed. This bill will do it.
With regard to the issue of the immigration department being
understaffed and needing more resources, I will not dispute that
with anyone. I will not dispute it with my colleague. I will not
dispute it with the Reform Party. I am not responsible for that
decision. I would suggest that you make your argument to the
finance department or to the finance minister. I am sure the
minister of immigration, if he were here, would be quite happy
to be getting extra resources for his department.
The last issue is that he used the word draconian. I do not think
the measures are draconian at all. First of all, the person has to
commit a crime that will get them a maximum of ten years in
jail. That raises one threshold. The second threshold or test that
they have to meet is they have to be considered a danger to
society. Clearly we are not going to be throwing out the person
who simply steals a television that is worth more than $1,000.
Clearly we want to go after the people who are committing
assaults or murders or rapes or a whole bunch of other types of
crimes for which Canadians have no appetite to have these
people kept in our country.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, a concern that is on the minds of
many Canadians is the fact that when we do have violent
criminals under deportation orders they are never removed
because of a lack of being able to obtain a travel document.
From this member I would like an explanation as to why or how
Bill C-44 is going to address this concern.
I have a list of probably a dozen very violent criminals, some
of whom have been convicted of murder, who are walking our
streets because travel documents cannot be obtained to get rid of
them. I want this member to explain to me how Bill C-44 is
going to deal with that.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I acknowledge that it
is a legitimate concern and that the hon. member has raised a
legitimate point. The short answer is that I do not know. That is
not what the guts of the bill are about. It is not about sorting out
the technicalities of travel documents.
Let us say we have someone who came over when they were
six years old. They grew up here. They are not a Canadian
citizen. Then they commit a very serious crime. The country we
are going to send them back to does not want them back. It
considers them to be Canadians and is not going to give us the
travel documents to send them back. We have a policy in this
country of simply not putting someone on an airplane, sending
them off to somewhere and simply leaving them there. Then we
get into a game. We send them there, they send them back, we
send them there. Who knows where the person disappears to. We
cannot kick someone out of the country if we are going to make
them stateless.
There is a mechanism that we have to follow. There is a
process. If the country on the other side does not co-operate, I
agree it is a problem. I do not have the answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, about the expression ``danger to the
public in Canada'', the minister will be able to prevent an appeal
by saying that the person constitutes a danger to the public in
Canada. This is very ambiguous and subjective. Who will decide
who constitutes a danger to the public in Canada? Will it be the
minister, his officials, the RCMP, CSIS? Who? This is a very
dangerous concept, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague's
point. It is something we have to be very concerned about. I
would remind him though that it is not the only threshold; it is
not the only test. The first thing the person must have done to get
into the problem is to have committed a crime where they would
have received a maximum of 10 years in jail or more. Then the
department would make its finding that they are a danger to
Canadian society.
I appreciate the member's worries and concerns and we will
have to watch the system as it develops.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
9189
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the month of February marks the occasion of Black
History Month. It offers an opportunity to acknowledge the
important role played by black Canadians and African
Canadians in the development of this great nation.
9190
In my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants the Black Education
Committee of Kings County and the Windsor Plains Recreation
and Development Committee promote and organize meaningful
events all year round.
Special events to mark Black History Month include a career
expo and a black history day. I believe that events such as Black
History Month promote a greater awareness of our proud
multi-heritage background. This in turn fosters stronger
relationships within Canada.
I wish to congratulate those groups in my riding and indeed
across Canada who have worked so hard to make Black History
Month a success. Their efforts have truly made Canada a better
place.
* * *
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
strongly denounce the action of Liberal MPs and of the Minister
of Canadian Heritage, who took advantage of a meeting with the
Chairman of the CBC to discuss coverage of the referendum
campaign.
The Liberal members displayed, to say the least, a lack of
subtlety by linking the financing of the French network of the
CBC to a pro-federalist referendum coverage. In fact, this is
unjustifiable interference in the network's affairs. We wonder
whether the Liberals are implementing the directives of the
current Minister of Foreign Affairs who, back in April 1977,
said this in an interview: ``I do not want the network to adopt a
neutral stance in presenting both sides of the issue. When the
referendum comes, the employees must unequivocally be
pro-Canada in their coverage''.
This is obviously a case of déjà vu.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise today on this first day back to Parliament to pass
on some congratulations that are now long overdue to a
wonderful group of young Canadians. They made all of us very
proud over the holidays.
Shortly after Christmas my riding of Red Deer hosted the
world junior hockey championships which the Canadian juniors
not only won but were the first team in history to do so
undefeated. This team did not have any one star who stood apart
from the rest; they all pulled together and got the job done.
With the championship won, our junior players shared the
pride of having won gold for Canada. Players from all across our
country, east to west, including Quebec juniors like Alexandre
Daigle and Eric Dazé, stood out as a unified team that took the
world on and won.
Our world juniors have shown all Canadians what we can
accomplish when we work together. There are no special stars
needed, just hardworking team players. Nothing can stop
Canadians who pull together and our world juniors proved it.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, recently
the minister of heritage announced plans to introduce legislation
that will amend the Copyright Act.
In his announcement the minister mentioned there would be
reforms that would include some neighbouring rights for
producers and performers for the use of their creations. The
neighbouring rights amendments will have a negative impact on
the private radio broadcasting industry which could result in the
closing of radio stations and job losses.
A government study has been released by the Department of
Canadian Heritage which mentions that higher copyright
payments will seriously hurt most and put some radio stations
out of business. If this government study is correct, I ask the
minister why he continues to implement such legislation.
This Liberal government continues to renege on its election
promise of creating jobs. All this government has done since its
inception is eliminated this country's permanent infrastructure
of long term jobs and replaced it with short term infrastructure
jobs.
(1405 )
I urge the minister to reconsider tabling such legislation that
will have a devastating impact on private radio broadcasters.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
years residents of St. Catharines have questioned the
environmental status of 12 Mile Creek and Martindale Pond.
On January 27 the efforts of three levels of government and
the private sector came together in a detailed five volume report
on Martindale Pond, home of the Royal Canadian Henley
Rowing Regatta.
Congratulations and thanks go to Environment Canada and
Public Works for supporting this important environmental
study. Thanks also to the province, the city of St. Catharines and
to the Canadian Henley Rowing Corporation which were the
federal government's partners.
This project shows what can be achieved when governments
and the private sector work together to meet local environmental
needs.
9191
As a result of this excellent work, St. Catharines has been
chosen as the Canadian bid for the 1999 World Rowing
Championships.
We are ``pulling together to bring the world back to Niagara''
for class A rowing.
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
President Clinton introduced a budget measure that would in
effect charge each and every Canadian $1.50 U.S. or $3.00 per
car to enter the U.S.
The U.S. administration will seize Canadian dollars and use
them to beef up security at the U.S.-Mexico border. Essentially,
it looks to me as though the U.S. government wants to tax
Canadians to solve its security problems at the Mexico border.
These measures are a violation of our agreements which allow
the free movement of goods and people across our borders. This
is an illegitimate tax grab by the U.S. government and an insult
to Canadians who respect reciprocal cross-border freedom for
Canadians and our American neighbours.
This is a further irritant to the already strained Canada-U.S.
relations. It should therefore be struck down by Congress and
taken off the U.S. budgetary table.
* * *
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is real concern in the riding of Leeds-Grenville as I know
there is across the nation about the recent court decision to allow
extreme drunkenness as a defence against serious crime.
Residents from all walks of life are continuing to raise
concern over what appears to be a serious loophole in our legal
system. They are asking the justice minister to begin
immediately to make the necessary revisions in law to prevent
what appears to be a serious miscarriage of justice.
Constituents who have contacted me in this regard did so in
the form of a petition but unfortunately it was lacking in proper
form. Therefore, I am using this procedure as an alternate way of
expressing their concern to the justice minister.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
January 18, the whole world remembered the horrors of the
Second World War. That day marked the fiftieth anniversary of
the liberation of the survivors of the Auschwitz-Birkenau
concentration camp.
It cannot be too emphatically stated that this concentration
camp was used by the Nazis to exterminate over a million
prisoners, more than 90 per cent of whom were Jews. We want to
remind this House that these tragic events are an important part
of our history, and we hope that such atrocities will never occur
again.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to take this opportunity to declare
our solidarity with the families of these victims, and particularly
to the Jewish people who suffered so much during that tragic
episode in the history of mankind.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we live in a tolerant
and compassionate society. It is so compassionate that Denis
Lortie could steal an automatic weapon from the army, terrorize
a provincial legislature, murder three strangers, wound several
others and end up back on the streets in 10 years.
There are however limits to compassion. Under the justice
minister's gun control proposals a farmer who neglects or
refuses to register his single shot .22 could be sentenced to a
year behind bars for inconveniencing the bureaucracy.
The inmates really have taken over the asylum.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to
draw the Prime Minister's attention to the President of the
United States who in a desperate effort to raise funds has
decided to impose $1.50 U.S. head tax on all Canadians visiting
the United States. He is also planning to ask for $3 U.S. for every
vehicle crossing to the United States.
This flies against the tradition of an open border between
Canada and the United States. It flies in the face of the free trade
agreement signed by the United States.
When the Prime Minister meets with Bill Clinton later this
month he should say: ``Take this off the budgetary table.
Canadians simply will not tolerate this poke in the eye with a
sharp stick by the President of the United States''.
* * *
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak of Jeffrey Secter, a constituent of mine who was
murdered last month in the Dominican Republic.
9192
Jeffrey was a remarkable man who gave of himself for the
betterment of the larger community at every turn. He was
founder of the charity, Friday's Child. He was an active
volunteer at Bloorview Children's Hospital taking disabled
children on trips and to events. He was involved with the B'nai
Brith as well, acting as the chair of its community volunteer
services and vice-president of the Toronto Freedom Lodge.
Jeffrey touched many people's lives and will be sorely
missed. He was an example to all Canadians. I am sure all
members of this House will want to join me in sending our
condolences to his family and friends in both Calgary and
Toronto.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
back in 1920 the Professional Institute of the Public Service of
Canada was founded as an organization to protect the interests
of the professional public servants affected by a complete
government reorganization which was going on at that time.
Today as the institute celebrates its 75th anniversary,
members are still fortunate to have the support of their institute
as our government goes through yet another period of major
change.
PIPS members are the biologists who help protect our
wildlife. They are the commerce officers who study Canada's
economic development. They are the veterinarians who ensure
that Canadians get wholesome meat products on our tables.
They are the engineers and architects who make sure that our
roads, bridges and air terminals are safe.
As elected representatives it is important for us to recognize
and appreciate the excellent work these federal public service
employees do to make Canada a better place to live in and to
congratulate PIPS on its 75 years of dedicated service to its
members and to Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
next Monday, February 13, the voters in the riding of
Brome-Missisquoi will choose their next member of
Parliament.
In the information pamphlet that he has had printed and
distributed for his campaign, the Bloc candidate for
Brome-Missisquoi says, and I quote: ``The Bloc Quebecois
must keep its status as the official opposition in order to hold on
to real power in Ottawa. Right now, there is only one seat
between the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party. If we lose
Brome-Missisquoi, we could lose our power in Ottawa''.
By linking his possible defeat to the loss of his party's status
as the official opposition in the House of Commons, the Bloc
candidate is not presenting the facts accurately. Even if the
Liberal Party of Canada wins the two by-elections now under
way in Quebec, and I am sure they will, that will in no way
change the Bloc's status as the official opposition.
Only by electing the Liberal candidate on February 13 will the
voters of Brome-Missisquoi finally acquire real power in
Ottawa.
* * *
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
marked the beginning of the regional consultations on Quebec
sovereignty.
The Bloc Quebecois is proud to be associated with this highly
democratic exercise in which all Quebecers, whatever their
origin, their language or their political affiliation, will have the
opportunity to discuss, ask questions and obtain information
about the draft bill on Quebec sovereignty.
The discussions that will take place throughout Quebec, and
that will include both the elderly and young Quebecers, will
enrich the democratic debate on the sovereignty question and
extend it to all groups and levels of Quebec society.
It is in this context of exchange that we applaud the
courageous and pragmatic decision of the Greek, Italian and
Jewish communities to take part in the process. They deserve
our utmost respect and admiration.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on January 6 Melanie Carpenter was
working alone at a tanning salon in a busy mall in Surrey, B.C. In
the middle of the afternoon it now appears likely that Fernand
Auger entered the business and kidnapped her. Driving near the
town of Yale, Auger pulled into an access road near the Fraser
River where he sexually assaulted Melanie. Then with her hands
tied behind her back he cowardly and brutally stabbed her to
death.
(1415)
Auger solved one problem by killing himself, but many
questions remain unanswered. He was a convicted sex offender
who the Correctional Service of Canada deemed to be a high risk
offender. However, despite this prognosis the law required that
Auger be released.
9193
Why do we have a law that requires the authorities to release
offenders that they know are likely to re-offend? Offenders who
are likely to kill a Melanie Carpenter or a Pamela Cameron.
Over the past four months two young Surrey women have
been murdered, two deaths that were preventable. We must act
now before there is another.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, February is Black History Month. Canadians across
this great country are coming together to celebrate the rich and
spirited heritage of black people.
Blacks have been contributing to Canadian society from as
early as 1603 when Samuel de Champlain sailed up the St.
Lawrence with his interpreter Matthieu Dacosta, a black man
from the Azores who had already established links with the
aboriginal people and knew their languages and customs.
Black soldiers helped defend Upper Canada against invading
Americans in the war of 1812. The first Canadian sailor to
receive the Victoria Cross was Mr. William Hall, a black man.
The first woman to publish a newspaper in Canada, in 1853,
Mary Ann Shadd was a black woman.
Blacks, both French and English worked to build Canada.
They built railroads, they worked on the trains, they were
inventors, farmers and scholars. They were elected
representatives.
I ask all hon. colleagues to join with me, not only to recognize
Black History Month but to develop a stronger understanding of
the experiences and contributions of black Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Kenward,
commander of the Canadian Airborne Regiment at Petawawa
has been awarded the Order of Military Merit for his work as an
outstanding soldier and officer.
This career infantry officer took over command of the
Airborne Regiment in September 1993 and has done an
excellent job in bringing good discipline, the usual high degree
of training and dedication to the regiment.
For his outstanding and upbeat achievements, Colonel
Kenward will receive the Order of Military Merit from the
Governor General of Canada, particularly for his achievements
in bringing the Canadian Airborne Regiment up to first class
standards.
The incidents by a mere handful of the regiment that the mass
media of this country has used to tear an outstanding Canadian
military regiment apart occurred before Colonel Kenward took
command.
We and all present members of the airborne congratulate him
and thank him for his fine leadership and other qualities as an
excellent officer, solider and Canadian.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
year will be a crucial one in the history of Canada, presenting us
with formidable challenges, not just in the economic and social
areas but about the very unity of our country.
Certain things have set Canada apart. The principles of equity
and fairness have translated into programs that reflect our
values as Canadians. Equalization payments to those provinces
and territories that are less privileged established the principles
of regional fairness.
Being a Canadian and the right of citizenship is not based on
where you live and whether you are rich or poor. Yet instead of
maintaining these principles, the federal government is clearly
contemplating destroying the very fabric that binds us together
as a nation by turning over health and social programs to
provinces and territories without national direction and
standards.
I challenge the Prime Minister to show all Canadians that the
federal government will stand in the national interest, not
simply promote regional disparities.
The Speaker: Colleagues, welcome back to the House of
Commons and welcome to 1985.
_____________________________________________
9193
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the social program reform scheduled for last
September has already been postponed once. Now, after more
than a month of consultations, the government is further
postponing this reform it had promised to implement in the
upcoming budget. It is well known that cabinet and the Liberal
caucus are seriously divided on this issue.
(1420)
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. Since the Prime Minister maintains that social
program reform is still on the agenda, can the Minister, who is
unable to sell his reform plan to cabinet, and the Minister of
Finance in
9194
particular, tell us now what the revised timetable for his social
program reform will be?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I must say that the Minister of Human Resources
Development has done a terrific job and that he has the
confidence of all his cabinet colleagues. Never has there been so
much consultation on a fundamental reform that will bring about
changes in Canada.
Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois will promote the status quo.
But these changes are under way, and the committee is expected
to table its report at three o'clock this afternoon. So, it is a bit
much to ask a minister to prepare for such changes before the
committee report has even been tabled. To adopt such a stance in
this House does not show much respect for the democratic
process.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there certainly is no shortage of consultations. But the
minister himself said on television last week that his reform
plans had to be delayed because Canada's financial situation
makes any real reform of social programs impossible. That is
what the minister himself, true to his own way of showing
respect for the democratic process in this House, stated outside
this House.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development
recognize that social program reform has been cast aside not
only because of the budget but mostly because of the Quebec
referendum, as the minister knows that his reform will affect
thousands of Canadians and Quebecers who are among the most
disadvantaged in society?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
engaging in some very unfortunate speculation.
At no time did I say the reforms were postponed. There may
have been a headline writer or two who made that judgment but I
certainly did not say it. We said that we had to have the
committee report that we will have today. We will examine the
recommendations in the report very carefully.
We will begin discussions with the provinces in terms of their
putting forward a proper new blueprint and design. There will be
a budget which we know will establish a new sense of economic
confidence in the integrity of the country. That is the best
platform and basis for undertaking social reform.
We will be following our timetable which is to bring in new
legislation dealing with social issues this fall. It is exactly the
timetable we laid out a year ago and it is a timetable we are still
on.
We would only hope that the Bloc Quebecois and other
members in the House will learn and be willing to participate in
what should be and can be one of the most important initiatives
in the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my third question is for the Minister of Finance, who
will have the final say on social program reform. In that sense,
he is the real human resources minister.
Can the Minister of Finance give us the assurance that his next
budget will not, once again, target the unemployed, with further
cuts in benefits and increasingly restrictive eligibility
requirements for UI, as his first budget did?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Following the last budget, Mr.
Speaker, more than 438,000 jobs were created in Canada. This is
the best performance in a decade. I am quite confident that we
will see the same results after the next budget.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Let me just say quickly that, contrary to what the Minister of
Finance just said, it is not 400,000 jobs, but an annual average of
261,000 jobs, a total which has been verified over and over
again. Rumours are spreading about the upcoming budget.
(1425)
It is even being said that a document from the Department of
Finance proposes that the federal government completely
withdraw from financing some social programs without, of
course, transferring to the provinces equivalent financial
resources allowing them to take over from the federal
government. I remind you that Ottawa has deprived the Quebec
government of more than $12 billion since 1982 by cutting into
transfer programs.
Does the Minister of Finance confirm his intention of
transferring responsibility for some social programs by putting
an end to his financial contribution without full financial
compensation for the provinces, which would effectively
amount to offloading his deficit onto the provinces once again?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only are the
figures I just quoted accurate, but I might add that 82,000 jobs
were created in Quebec in 1994, the best performance since
1988.
Moreover, am I to understand from the question that the hon.
member is in favour of the status quo? We, on the other hand,
stand for change and for reform.
9195
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if we
compare December with December, the figures are accurate, but
the Minister of Finance is supposed to know that the figures we
are referring to represent the annual average, which is 261,000
jobs, including 70,000 in Quebec.
Does the Minister of Finance not realize that such actions on
his part would be totally irresponsible since he would be
reducing transfer payments for education, health and social
assistance, leaving the provinces with the extra burden while
imposing national standards that are more and more restrictive
under the circumstances? Is this what you call flexible
federalism?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite
interesting that the member opposite and I are engaged in a
debate as to whether the job creation record of the government in
its first year of operation is the best record in five years or the
best record in 10 years. But it is the best record we have seen in
one heck of a long time.
The Minister of Human Resources Development made it very
clear when he embarked on the program of social security
reform that we intended to bring it into the nineties, that we
intended to make social security reform a very important part of
the job creation capacity of the country and a very important part
of the overall program of the government.
I support what the minister has done. He has had the courage
to deal with fundamental and far reaching changes. I find it very
difficult that a party opposite is so rooted in the status quo, in the
1940s, that it fails to understand what the Canada of the future
means.
Mr. Speaker: At the beginning of the period I said welcome
to 1985 because in 1985 they had very long questions and very
long answers. But in 1995 I am sure we are going to shorten
both. The hon. member for Beaver River.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are glad to be here in the first period.
Canadians are among the highest taxed people in the world.
Over 50 per cent of our pay cheques go to the tax man in one
form or another. That is more than food, shelter and clothing
combined. That would be more than enough but evidently it is
not enough for this finance minister. He seems ready to add to
our crippling tax load in this month's budget.
Canadians are not going to take it any more. Their message is
no tax increases, period. Will the Prime Minister listen to
Canadians and immediately rule out any tax increase in this
month's budget?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, members of the Reform Party are very desperate. They
set the target there to be in the news because they cannot really
attack the government.
The hon. member should be patient-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): No, they cannot. Now they
say that we will increase the taxes. Even I do not know. The
budget will be later in the month. I will discuss that with the
Minister of Finance.
(1430 )
Again the Reform Party will have to recognize that the
Minister of Finance last year predicted that growth would be 3
per cent. It turned out to be 4.2 per cent. Inflation has been zero.
Unemployment went down from a prediction of 11.1 per cent to
9.6 per cent.
We have a big problem, the debt. In the previous nine years
before we arrived the previous government accumulated $300
billion of its own debt. We have a problem with that. We all
recognize it. We will do what we said we would do in the red
book. We will meet our target of 3 per cent of GDP next year.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
aiming at a target of going $25 billion per year in the hole is
hardly considered noble.
The Prime Minister says to wait until the budget. That is of
little comfort to Canadians. Why should home buyers who have
seen their monthly mortgage rates go up over $200 wait until the
budget? Canadians want this government to act now. They have
wanted it to act for over a year.
The finance minister is not dealing with abstract numbers. He
is dealing with the lives of real people, not just balance sheets.
Will the Prime Minister send a clear signal to Canadians and
tell them that their tax burden will not be increased by his
government in its upcoming budget?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, nobody can say what will be in the budget until it is
tabled in the House of Commons. It will be before the end of the
month. It is going to be another good budget through which this
government will meet its targets.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when it comes to putting our national house in order, leadership
should come from the top. We have seen precious little
leadership from this government.
9196
After 18 months the gold plated MP pension is still in place.
The bureaucracy is still spending wildly on new fax machines,
office renovations and computer software. Over 100 loyal
Liberals have sallied up to the trough to collect their
government patronage positions. The government has the nerve
to ask Canadians to pay more money into taxes.
Wait until the budget is one thing. What about these practical
steps? When will this government start leading by example?
When will the minister reform the MP pensions and put the
brakes on out of control government spending?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one party accuses us of cutting too much, the other one
wants us to cut deeper. I am confident that when the budget is
tabled, the Liberal Party will, as always, find a middle ground
and will not make indiscriminate cuts, nor go to the other
extreme of refusing to control government spending.
We gave a clear idea of where we stand in the last budget and
we will do it again in the upcoming one.
* * *
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
Last Thursday, Quebec's National Assembly passed a
resolution denouncing proposed federal cuts in post-secondary
education and asking the federal government to withdraw from
that sector and give Quebec the tax points equivalent to the level
of Ottawa's current financial contribution to that sector.
Given the differences of opinion of the Minister of Finance
and the Minister of Human Resources Development, can the
Prime Minister tell us if his government will give a favourable
reply to the National Assembly's request?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would be very important
for the hon. member to relay the message he has just delivered to
colleagues in the Government of Quebec. Just before Christmas,
as he will well know, it announced it will be cutting $1.5 billion
from health services, social services and education.
It would seem to me that if any government is going to take its
responsibility, the question should be asked of the provincial
Government of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I remind the
Minister of Human Resources Development that the motion was
unanimously approved; in other words, it was also supported by
the Quebec Liberal Party.
Are we to understand that, by refusing to provide a clear
answer, the federal government persists in wanting to eliminate
cash transfer payments and instead allocate part of these funds
to the Canada Student Loans Program, without any regard for
the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces over education?
(1435)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again they should wait for the budget. To wonder
whether the government will do this or that is to speculate. A
budget will be tabled and the hon. member will have the
opportunity to look at it. I find it unbelievable that, at a time
when it is being rumoured that there will be more room to
maneuver and more freedom of action for the provinces, the
Bloc Quebecois wants to maintain the status quo. That makes me
very happy indeed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
government has had 16 months to do nothing and it did. The
Canadian Manufacturer's Association told the Minister of
Finance that governments do not create jobs, customers do.
This government is talking about increasing taxes to the
customers, taking money out of their pockets. Does the Minister
of Finance not realize that increasing taxes will only kill jobs in
this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very
much the hon. member's question. I know that he is a very
sincere member and he is very sincere in the questions he asks.
One likes to check what other governments have done. It was
very interesting that the Government of Alberta, when the
member asking the question was a member of that cabinet, had a
series of budgets that substantially increased the tax burden on
Albertans.
The question I would like the member to explain to me is what
is the difference between the taxes that were introduced by that
government and the taxes that he is attempting to forestall now?
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Minister of Finance should also recognize that this minister at
9197
that time cut a billion dollars of spending in the public and
placed it back in the treasury of Alberta. That billion dollars is
helping the taxpayer of Alberta today.
I want to tell the Minister of Finance and also the Prime
Minister today that there is a message from Canadians, from the
tax rallies that I have attended in the last week or so. I want to
tell them something about taxes.
If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance increase the
taxes to Canadians, they are going to bring on themselves and
the government of this country what they call the triple-R
whammy. They are going to resist. They are going to react. They
are going to revolt in terms of any kind of tax increases. If that is
not good enough, they are going to reform this country.
Will the Prime Minister stand in his place today and tell
Canadians that there will be no tax increases in 1995?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I know
that the member did not mean his words to come forth as they
did. He is not encouraging Canadians to revolt. I am sure that is
not the case. I would not interpret it in that way. Revolting is not
a word that one would use when applied to the Reform Party.
There is some time between now and when the budget will be
brought down. The Prime Minister stated it very clearly. We
know that Canadians do not want to see themselves burdened
with further taxes. That has been made very clear. The Prime
Minister stated it.
He also knows that until I bring down the budget, I am not
really going to respond to individual questions.
(1440 )
I understand that the Reform Party is desperately trying to get
ahead of the movement that is so far ahead of it. It should not
take the time in this House to ask hypothetical questions that I
cannot respond to until such time as I have brought down the
budget.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The president of the CBC met with the members of the Liberal
caucus, at his request, on Friday to discuss the CBC's budget.
According to the chairman of the Quebec caucus himself, Mr.
Manera discussed the CBC's coverage of the referendum on
sovereignty.
Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the president of
the CBC made a serious error in judgment by discussing the
CBC's coverage of the referendum campaign in camera with the
members of his party, in total disregard of the CBC's
requirement to remain independent and neutral?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the caucus met with the president of the CBC at his
request. He requested the meeting. They asked questions as they
are entitled to do. You can ask me questions in this House. You
can ask the ministers questions. We will pass them on.
We want news coverage to be fair across the country and that
the CBC be allowed, within its mandate, to do what it wants. We
just want it to be fair for everybody and we want all viewpoints
heard and not just one. In fact, we are asking all the broadcasters
in Canada to give everyone an equal opportunity.
Up to this point, provincial government money has been spent
on distributing pamphlets-not the pamphlets of the Liberal
Party-but the pamphlets of the Parti Quebecois and the other
parties. The system is unfair. We want the debate to be fair and
both campaigns to be given exactly the same coverage.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I was not the one who described the Liberal Party's
mail-out as pamphleteering.
Given that Mr. Manera has put himself in a situation which is
to say the least vulnerable and delicate, does the Prime Minister
intend to use harsh measures by asking for his resignation, as the
Premier of Quebec has asked, in the interest of maintaining the
CBC's integrity and autonomy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have full confidence in Mr. Manera; he is an
experienced civil servant with long service at the CBC who
asked, in the interest of defending his organization, to meet with
members to explain the role of the CBC. It is quite normal for
members to have asked him questions regarding the work of the
CBC. I have not spoken to Mr. Manera since he became
president and I do not intend to speak to him either, nor will my
wife.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance keeps saying that he will not
raise taxes, just close loopholes. Canadians see right through
this public relations gimmick.
If a policy hurts like a tax increase, if a policy raises revenue
like a tax increase, it is a tax increase. Canadians do not want
higher taxes under any guise. Will the minister neutralize the
effects of closing tax loopholes by lowering other taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, both of the third
party's critics on financial matters are people I respect a great
deal. I enjoy discussions with them and I enjoy this in Question
Period.
9198
Do they really think it serves the public purpose for them to
consistently stand up in advance of the budget and ask the
government, under our position which is not to respond on what
the budget is, all kinds of questions, knowing that the answers
are not going to be satisfactory and cannot be until such time as
the budget has been presented?
(1445 )
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am responding to a principle enunciated by the
minister in the House several times.
Sweden recently cut spending and raised taxes. The higher
taxes were seen by investors as a lack of government will to
attack the causes of chronic deficits. They punished the Swedish
krona in the exchange markets.
I have a supplementary question. What has the minister
learned from the experience of Sweden?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing is don't
ever be the Swedish finance minister.
We have made it very clear that in the next budget we intend to
deal with the deficit primarily by cutting government spending.
We have said that. The Prime Minister has said that on countless
occasions. I can confirm it to the member opposite. We are going
to deal with the deficit. We have demonstrated that clearly, and
we are going to do it primarily by cutting government spending.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the repeated drops in the value of the Canadian dollar
and hikes in interest rates can be attributed to the government's
inaction and its refusal, for more than one year, to work on
cutting the government machine's overall spending. Financial
circles are becoming even more sceptical because of the
possibility that the government will try to arrest its deficit by
implementing new taxes or a general surtax on income.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that his government's
inaction and complete nonchalance have directly caused interest
rates to rise, in particular mortgage rates? Will he admit that
implementing a general surtax will strangle economic growth
and will only drive interest rates even higher?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Once again, Mr. Speaker, the
opposition is asking hypothetical questions and is inventing
straw men. Why? I do not know.
Allow me to say that at our last meeting, my counterparts
from G-7 countries and IMF officials had only praise for the
progress that Canada has made over the past year. When we hear
the figures that the Prime Minister quoted earlier, when we see
the action taken since the last budget, we can conclude that, for
the first time in a long while, the government not only intends
attaining its goals, but also is credible in this pursuit. The hon.
member should be very proud of our achievements since we
formed the government a year ago.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, of course we have nothing but praise for the fact that
interest rates have increased during the past two months and the
fact that the financial community has lost confidence in a
Minister of Finance who, for the past year and a half, has done
nothing to bring the deficit under control. That is certainly
praiseworthy.
How can the minister reject the official opposition's
recommendations to cut spending and review the tax system?
How can he justify imposing new taxes and asking the middle
class to add to its tax burden, while at the same time giving
Canada's wealthiest taxpayers tax credits of over $2 billion so
they can buy deluxe condominiums in the United States? Now,
that is good management. That is something to be proud of.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have
yet to receive any constructive proposals from the Bloc
Quebecois as to the kind of cuts we should make. The hon.
member says he will give us a list tomorrow. I can hardly wait.
Since the hon. member mentioned interest rates, perhaps he
could explain why, for the past few months, the interest rate
differential between Quebec bonds and other provincial bonds
has been increasing every day.
[English]
The member should explain why it is that the interest rate
differential between Quebec bonds and the other provincial
bonds is getting larger and larger. That is the real question that
ought to be asked in the country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury
Board.
9199
[English]
It was disappointing to find out that the Public Service
Alliance of Canada has refused the government's buyout
package for downsizing.
(1450 )
Could the minister reassure public servants that the
government remains committed to fair treatment of its
employees and will continue to try to reach an agreement with
unions and to minimize any job losses as a result of downsizing?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes, I can give those assurances to the hon. member.
We certainly want to make sure that our employees are treated
in a fair and reasonable fashion, both those who will be leaving
as a result of the downsizing and those who will remain to
provide excellent services to the public of Canada.
May I also point out that I will be meeting further with union
representatives with respect to this matter. I have been doing
that for a number of months in an attempt to reach a mutually
acceptable agreement. I am quite willing to continue to have a
dialogue with them.
We are however running out of time. Soon we must make
decisions about this matter with respect to the forthcoming
budget.
In terms of minimizing any job losses, we have reviewed the
programs and services of the federal government. We are not out
to cut employees per se, but as a result of reduction of programs
and services there will be downsizing necessary.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
apparently the human resources development minister has
finally come to realize that we have no more money for
increased spending on social programs. We are mortgaged and
taxed to the max.
Why can the minister not understand that social programs can
be reformed without spending more money?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I draw the hon. member's
attention to the opening statement we made about a year ago in
the House. Right from the very beginning we said that one of the
most important reasons for undertaking social reform was to
make existing programs work better, to get better value for our
money, to make the money go further, and to target it where it
would do the most good.
That is exactly the purpose we intend to follow. That purpose
is entrain, on schedule. We will continue to put together the
kinds of proposals we hope to receive this afternoon from the
House of Commons committee that has spent a lot of its valuable
time listening to Canadians. Once we have that report we can
then get on with the job.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
just last week the minister was quoted as saying that the
government would have to deal with its budgetary problems
before it would be able to get on with the reforms.
When will the minister show some leadership and start real
reform of Canada's social security programs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member we
believe that it is possible, to use an old metaphor, to walk and
chew gum at the same time. Unlike the Reform Party that seems
to be focused on only one issue, this party is able to take a
number of issues and deal with them simultaneously.
We have said very clearly that a precondition, a necessary
condition for social reform, is having a stable and effective
fiscal system in the country. It is not a sufficient cost. It is a
necessary cost.
We have to put the two of them together: good reform in the
budget to bring about fiscal stability and then good reform of our
programs to get people back to work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Obviously put out by the Leader of the Official Opposition's
request for a meeting with U.S. president Clinton during his
official visit to Ottawa on February 23 and 24, the Prime
Minister objected to such a meeting. Yesterday, his Minister of
Foreign Affairs set the record straight and stated that the
government would not object to a meeting between the
American president and the leader of the official opposition.
Could the Prime Minister indicate on what grounds he
objected to this meeting on Friday? Could he also explain since
when a Canadian Prime Minister dictates whom an American
president may or may not meet?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was asked that question. I thought it was about a letter
sent to me but it was a letter to President Clinton.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
9200
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): No, it was not mine. I did not
receive a letter. I made enquiries.
I was sent a copy of a letter, but the request was made to
President Clinton, who will answer it himself. I cannot speak for
President Clinton.
(1455)
I would like to point out to the hon. member that I am just back
from a trip to six countries, where I never met the leaders of the
opposition. I only met the ministers. And I did not object. The
point is, this is not a general custom, and when I was leader of
the opposition, there were some presidents who came here
whom I did not meet, and in fact, in December when President
Zedillo came, he did not meet the Leader of the Opposition.
In any case, President Clinton, who received the letter, will
respond, and we will see what his answer is. It is not up to me to
answer that question.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, now
that he no longer objects publicly to a meeting between Mr.
Clinton and the Leader of the Official Opposition, will the Prime
Minister promise he will not use pressure tactics or indulge in
any behind-the-scenes manoeuvring to try to discourage the
U.S. president from meeting the Leader of the Official
Opposition?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the normal course of events, President Clinton's
letter should come from Washington, not from Ottawa.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Liberals on the Standing Committee of Finance recommended
that the government implement a 2-cent per litre tax increase on
gasoline as a way of dealing with the deficit. The Minister of
Finance has stated that Canadians are up to their eyeballs in
debt, but they are also up to their eyeballs in taxes. The tax on
gasoline has risen by 466 per cent in the last 10 years.
Could the Minister of Finance tell the House how increasing
the tax burden would not further drown Canadians in a sea of
ever increasing taxation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will
have to wait for the budget.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the same minister.
Consumption taxes account for 52 per cent of the average
consumer price for gasoline in Canada, compared to 37 per cent
in the United States, our largest competitor and trading partner.
Could the minister explain how siphoning another $500
million out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers would enhance
Canada's competitiveness, its ability to stimulate the economy
and its ability to create jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nothing has
changed in the last 30 seconds nor in the last 15 minutes nor in
the last hour. The member will have to wait for the budget.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
We all know that GST credits are supposed to be paid only to
low income Canadians. It has been reported that they are also
being paid to those with incomes above $100,000.
Is this true? If so, what is the minister doing to stop it?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question
which allows me to correct and clarify some misunderstandings
on this subject.
The GST credit is for low income Canadians. For example, a
Canadian family of four with a family income of $38,000 would
be above the limit for any GST credit. Eligibility is based on
family income and this reflects the situation of these low income
Canadians.
I should add, however, that it is net income that creates the
entitlement to the GST credit. There may be cases of people with
high nominal incomes but low net incomes who can in fact
obtain benefit from the system through the GST credit. We are
doing our best to tighten up the system.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
to the Prime Minister. In another of his surprising
pronouncements, last Friday in Toronto, the Prime Minister said
that there are public servants who are paid to sit around and do
nothing. He was immediately contradicted by the President of
the Treasury Board.
Given that he was contradicted by his own minister, does the
Prime Minister maintain that there are federal public servants
who are paid to sit around and do nothing? If so, how many are
there, and if not, was he referring to those three National
9201
Defence generals who chartered an Airbus to go and play golf in
Florida at taxpayer's expenses? After Operation William Tell,
are we having an Operation Lazyboy?
(1500)
The Speaker: This is a long question.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am informed that there are some. I could find out how
many, although the President of the Treasury Board
acknowledged not knowing any personally. I do not know any
either, but I am told there are some. I got this information from
the Privy Council. If I was misinformed, I will apologize, but I
was told again, afterwards, that there were some.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. This
weekend negotiations over the workforce adjustment directive
failed and public servants, including those who live in
Ottawa-Vanier, want to know what the government is doing
about it.
Is this government afraid to finalize its position because of
the byelection in Ottawa-Vanier? Why will the government not
tell public servants now whether it is going to legislate changes
to the workforce adjustment directive?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think the hon. member should be worrying
about Ottawa-Vanier at all. I do not think it is in the cards for
him to worry about it.
Long before there was to be a byelection we were talking with
the unions with respect to the matter of workforce adjustment
because of the number of people involved in downsizing as a
result of the program review process. We will continue with
those discussions. I hope to have further discussion to try to
bring some resolution to the matter because the workforce
adjustment directive is in the union agreement.
As I said earlier in response to the previous question, we
intend to treat our employees fairly and reasonably in dealing
with this matter.
* * *
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. His government has now
brought Canadians through a major social policy consultation.
We will soon have a budget in the House of Commons that
promises major cuts to social policy.
The minister of human resources today said that they are
targeting for more efficiency. My question to the Prime Minister
is quite simple. What are the targets and priorities pursued by
his government in the area of social policy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. leader of the Conservative Party would read
the red book he would know what our priorities are in terms of
social policy.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, N.D.P): Mr. Speaker, would the
Minister of Finance simply say that what we read in the press
today is not true, that in spite of the fact that we all appreciate
there are a whole host of loopholes for the wealthiest in Canada,
now we find out that the minister is going to provide one more
loophole outside the parameters of the budget? Canadians who
sell off assets in excess of $600,000 in the U.S. are going to pay
U.S. tax but this minister now is contemplating giving them a
tax credit to make up for that.
Will the minister stand in his place and say this will not be a
tax loophole that he will be introducing, although it is part of the
protocol being negotiated? While he is on his feet, will he tell us
what the Prime Minister is going to tell President Clinton to do
about that head tax at the U.S. border?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the most
recent measure does is protect the Canadian tax base on the one
hand. It also makes sure that Canadians who own property
abroad are not further discriminated against as a result of their
Canadian citizenship compared with Americans.
What has happened is a very good measure that protects not
only the Canadian tax base but Canadians. I am sure the member
would agree that is worthwhile.
In terms of what the Prime Minister should tell President
Clinton, it is really an absurd idea that the Americans at the time
of NAFTA and the current times of exchange of trade would put
on some kind of crossing border tax. It is simply absurd. It is an
idea to which this government takes great exception.
I know that I speak for the minister of trade, although I also
would say that it is sometimes very difficult to speak for the
minister of trade.
9202
(1505)
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Leonid Kravchuk,
member of Parliament and former President of Ukraine.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out
of the leaking to the media of the report of the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development on changes to
social programs.
I submit that the privileges of members of this House have
been breached by the premature release to the media of this
report due to be tabled today. It is a question of privilege
because it is a violation of the proper order of proceedings that
reports from committees should be presented first in the House
of Commons so as to ensure equal opportunity to access by all
members of Parliament and all Canadians. Until such
presentation in this House, reports should be confidential.
To accentuate the breach that has taken place, as an associate
member of the committee I was denied access to the report while
it was freely available to the press.
I would ask that you consider what appropriate action might
be taken to deal with what is surely a gross contempt of the rules
and procedures of this House.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for the question of
privilege. Of course I will look into it and report to this House if
necessary.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on December 13 a vote was taken on Bill C-226.
Although I stood to be recorded as voting for the bill, I was
inadvertently omitted from the list. May I have the record
corrected?
The Speaker: My hon. colleague, it would be difficult to go
back and change a vote that has already occurred. It would set a
precedent that would be very difficult for us to manage in the
House.
I am sure the hon. member will have his views put on the
record. They stand there now. This is not really a point of order
but his point has been made.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member was present in the House and he voted
on a measure.
Through inadvertence his vote was not recorded. It was not
his inadvertence, it was the inadvertence of the Table. It seems
to me that the only appropriate way of dealing with this matter
perhaps by unanimous consent is to record the hon. member as
voting in favour of the bill that was before this House.
The Speaker: I would take the suggestion of the hon. member
for York South-Weston. Notwithstanding the fact that it is
rather a different approach, if there were unanimous consent by
the House I would agree to letting the vote be recorded.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before giving
unanimous consent, are we to understand that this would create a
precedent and that it will now be possible to ask for a vote to be
reviewed after three, four or five days or even a week?
The Speaker: Dear colleague, with unanimous consent in the
House, we can change just about anything we want. I hope this
will not become an everyday occurrence. That is why I asked for
unanimous consent. If there is unanimous consent, the vote can
be changed; if not, it will stay the same.
(1510 )
[English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Perhaps the Speaker would allow the whips from all three
parties to confer on this issue and we will come back to the
House tomorrow with our recommendation and that would
perhaps save the time of the House and solve the problem more
rapidly.
The Speaker: If the three whips would get together we will
come back to the point tomorrow.
_____________________________________________
9202
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
215 petitions.
9203
[Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both
official languages, the seventh report of the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development entitled
Security, Opportunities and Fairness: Canadians Renewing
their Social Programs.
[English]
Pursuant to the order of reference of February 8, 1994 your
committee has completed its study of the modernization and
restructuring of Canada's social security system.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, we
in the Bloc Quebecois wish to thank the Canadians and
Quebecers and all the groups who came to testify before the
committee in difficult circumstances. We thank them for their
welcome.
I must add, however, that the Minister of Human Resources
Development did not publish most technical discussion papers
in time, something which we and the groups who appeared
before the committee find unfortunate.
I also wish to commend the work done by all committee
members and say that the report was produced and the
consultations held in difficult conditions. In closing, I want to
add that the good will that was in evidence at the beginning
made it all the more painful to conclude that it was impossible to
come up with a common report.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the second
report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
[English]
This report relates to Bill C-47, an act to amend the
Department of External Affairs Act and to make related
amendments to other acts. The committee considered this bill
and presents this report with amendments which it recommends
to this House.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to
comment on the report of the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to inform the hon.
member that members of the official opposition are the only
ones who would normally respond to the report. In order for the
Reform Party to do so we will need the unanimous consent of the
House?
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
(1515)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present today the fifty-sixth report
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
relating to the list of committee members.
With leave of the House, I intend to move concurrence in the
56th report later this day.
[English]
I move that the 56th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I think you will also find
unanimous consent for the motion standing in my name on the
Order Paper under motions for concurrence in the 53rd report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
presented on Friday, December 9, 1994.
I move that the motion be passed and that the report be
concurred in. I think you will find there is disposition on the part
of the House to adopt that motion, of which notice has been
given today, without debate or amendment.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have a couple of petitions. The first petition is on the issue of
abortion.
The petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human
beings to unborn human beings. I concur in that petition.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
also concur with a petition where the petitioners pray that
Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal
Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced
vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law that
would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or
active or passive euthanasia.
9204
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
also have a very voluminous petition of 107 pages with 1,207
signatures. The petitioners are drawing to the attention of the
House the Canadian Mineral Industry Federation's proposal of a
10-point plan of action to keep mining in Canada. Again, I
concur very vigorously with it.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
additionally, I have received a petition of 11 pages with 144
signatures.
I note it is from a very small area in my constituency where
they are very deeply concerned about the restrictive firearm
controls that are being proposed by the government. Again, I
concur with it.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am also very encouraged to present one last petition which
arrived on my desk. It was an absolute surprise to me. It consists
of 66 pages with over 1,400 signatures.
The petitioners ask for a national, binding referendum by all
Canadians on the issue of capital punishment. That is the
position of the Reform Party and it is certainly my position. I
concur completely with this petition.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and present a petition. The
petitioners, who are from several communities in
Newfoundland and Labrador, have signed their names by the
hundreds on the issue of Canada's mining industry, noting that it
is the mainstay of employment in over 150 communities. It
notes that Canada's investment climate is forcing its mineral
industry to look for new opportunities elsewhere.
(1520 )
The petitioners call on Parliament to take action that will
grow employment in this sector, promote exploration and
rebuild Canada's mineral reserves.
I have great pleasure in supporting this petition.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today, as I will every day until April 11, 1995 to
present petitions. This date is set for the scheduled parole
hearing of Robert Paul Thompson seeking his early release.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and their families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is an
honour for me to present a petition made possible through the
efforts of Bill C-55 and especially Mr. Doug Collins, Mr. Nick
Carter and Daniel Earl and signed by residents of the great city
of Kamloops.
Motivated by the Melanie Carpenter tragedy the petitioners
call for changes to Canada's justice system, including assurance
that those who are violent and sexual offenders are jailed for
sufficient terms and if necessary for life to ensure that safety and
security return to our streets and to our neighbourhoods.
This is the first of many petitions to come. To this date well
over 3,000 signatures have already been gathered in just the last
few days urging for changes to our criminal justice system.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to present three different petitions from people in my
riding and elsewhere dealing with discrimination and sexual
orientation.
The petitioners urge among other things to bring forward the
Canadian Human Rights Act amendments that would prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
On that issue I am very much in agreement and I think it is
time that we have this enacted in our legislation.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today to the
House of Commons.
In the first one, 558 constituents from
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt have signed the following:
``We the undersigned residents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt draw the attention of this
House to the following: that the finance minister has indicated
that he might change the rules regarding RRSPs and pensions
and tax the holdings or income of these plans. Therefore we
request that Parliament oppose any attempt to alter our ability to
provide for secure retirement by way of taxation of assets or
income of RRSPs and pension plans''.
The message is clear, Madam Speaker. Do not touch our
RRSPs or our pension plans.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by 86 petitioners
from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. I point out that to date
9205
1,271 people in my riding have signed this petition which asks
the House of Commons assembled to oppose further legislation
for firearms acquisition and possession and to provide for strict
guidelines and mandatory sentencing for use or possession of a
firearm in the commission of a violent crime.
I concur with both of these petitions.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to
present three petitions on behalf of constituents of Shawville,
Quebec dealing with social issues.
In the first two, petitioners pray that Parliament not amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality
including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, in the third and final petition the petitioners
pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the
unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, as
part of my parliamentary duties I rise today to present four
petitions to the House.
The first is on behalf of Mr. Michael Dobbin and T.S.
Symington who along with 82 other Calgarians call on
Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect
individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The second petition is on behalf of Mr. Robert McNutt who
along with 36 other Canadians calls on Parliament to prohibit
discrimination the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all
necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex
relationships in federal law.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): The third petition,
Madam Speaker, represents the opposing view on sexual
orientation as 55 Albertans call on Parliament to oppose any
legislation that would directly or indirectly redefine the family.
(1525 )
The fourth and final petition also relates to the subject of
families, as 34 Calgary and area residents call on the
government to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a child care
expense deduction to all families and not just those using
outside receipted child care.
I will continue to present all petitions that are sent to me by
constituents of Calgary Centre regardless of my personal or
political views on the subject.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a
petition with 16,300 signatures.
This petition was collected by a constituent, Mr. Bernard
Castet, whose son was murdered by two young offenders. The
petition asks for amendments to the Young Offenders Act stating
anyone committing a crime of violence will be tried in adult
court if he or she is 14 years of age or older.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition is much smaller. It calls on
Parliament to not enact any further firearms legislation.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have three petitions to table today. The first two
pertain to the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation.
The petitioners call on Parliament to put an end to
discriminatory treatment in Canada of gay and lesbian citizens
and their familial relationships by amending federal legislation
that currently allows unequal treatment, including an
amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I have explained to the petitioners my disagreement with
sections of their petition, but I feel it is their right to have me
table it in the House on their behalf.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the third petition is a little more complicated. I will not
go through the whole petition itself.
The petitioners claim it is clear that in the languages of
Parliament and Canada there is evidence that the unborn human
foetus from fertilization onward has recognition as an
individual and also is included in ``everyone''; whereas the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the
Parliament and Government of Canada and article VII
guarantees to everyone the right to life and security of the
person and article XV(1) states that every individual is equal
before and under the law and has the right to equal protection
and equal benefit of the law.
The petitioners call on Parliament to urge the government to
recognize the unborn foetus from fertilization onward as an
entity separate from the mother and to prepare a response to this
petition which identifies the formal parliamentary process
which selected the response of Petition No. 3510130, which I
tabled last year, as the sole basis for the government's position
9206
and provide dismissive argument for each issue raised in this
petition.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present three petitions signed by
almost 300 people from several communities in my
Cariboo-Chilcotin constituency.
My constituents are convinced that existing gun controls are
sufficient. Therefore they call on Parliament to support laws that
will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in
the commission of a crime, support new Criminal Code firearms
control provisions which recognize and protect the right of
law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, and
support legislation that will repeal or modify existing gun
control laws that have not improved public safety or have
proven not to be cost effective or proven to be overly complex so
as to be ineffective or inefficient.
These petitions are presented with my concurrence.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I have two petitions, representing the views
of over 163 Erie constituents which I wish to present to the
House today.
The first petition calls on the government to enforce the
existing provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted
suicide. It also asks that no further changes be made in the law
that would sanction the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or
passive euthanasia.
(1530 )
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the second
petition is on the issue of same sex benefits.
The petitioners request the government not to consider any
amendments to the human rights act or the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the phrase ``sexual orientation''.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, N.D.P):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed
by hundreds of residents of my constituency of
Burnaby-Kingsway.
They point out that the current provisions of the Criminal
Code deny people who are suffering from terminal or
irreversible and debilitating illness the right to choose freely
and voluntarily to end their lives with the assistance of a
physician. Therefore they call upon Parliament to amend the
Criminal Code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with
dignity by allowing people with terminal or irreversible and
debilitating illness the right to the assistance of a physician in
ending their lives at a time of their choice, subject to strict
safeguards to prevent abuse and to ensure that the decision is
free, informed, competent and voluntary.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have three petitions to table.
In the first the petitioners request that Parliament recognize
that those who commit murder should never be released from
prison. To that end, we ask that capital punishment be reinstated
for those offenders.
The petition bears over 2,200 names.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners, residents of
communities in Alberta, in memory of Ryan and in support of
Stu and Marg Garrioch and their family request that Parliament
recognize that crimes of violence are serious and out of control,
putting our society at risk.
They ask that the House amend the Young Offenders Act to
give society the protection it deserves. There are over 2,500
signatures.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the third petition bears 1,655 signatures and requests
that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence are serious
and out of control, putting all of society at risk and that life
should be life with no parole for violent offenders convicted of
first degree murder and a minimum of 25 years without parole
for those convicted of second degree murder.
I concur with the contents of each petition.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have two petitions that have been duly certified by the
clerk of petitions.
The first petition is to the House of Commons assembled and
requests Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously and that in addition, Parliament make no
changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or any activity designed to terminate human
life.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners are asking
Parliament to ensure not to amend the human rights code, the
human rights act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way
that would indicate societal approval of same sex relationships
or homosexuality.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am proud to
present four petitions dealing with the issue of euthanasia,
9207
assisted suicide from the people of the three towns of Prince
George, Vanderhoof and Burns Lake in the great riding of Prince
George-Bulkley Valley.
The petitioners humbly pray that Parliament not repeal or
amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and not
allow the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of September 30
to disallow assisted suicide, euthanasia.
I am pleased to say that I concur in every respect with these
four petitions.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have several petitions to present today.
In the first one the petitioners request that Parliament not
change any legislation that would indicate societal approval of
same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending
the human rights code. They will be pleased that the minister has
agreed to delay the introduction of that legislation.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition requests that Parliament ensure that
the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada
prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that
Parliament make no changes in the law that would sanction or
allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, in the third petition the petitioners pray that Parliament
act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by
amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
(1535 )
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
have a petition from residents of my constituency who point out
that a very vocal minority of citizens are requesting Parliament
to institute a dual marketing system for wheat and barley for
export.
The petitioners humbly request that Parliament continue the
wheat board monopoly powers for marketing wheat and barley
and that it extend them to include all grains and oilseeds.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos.
76, 88 and 108.
[Text]
Question No. 76-Mr. Peric:
Regarding the decision to proceed with construction of the Kitchener prison
for women, (a) how much money has been spent to date on the prison project,
(b) how were those funds allocated, (c) was consideration given to relocating
the prison to the Maple Grove road site? If yes, why was the site found to be
unsuitable, (d) has any consideration been given to the recent offer by the
warden of the Oxford Regional Centre in which a portion of that prison was
offered to Correctional Service Canada, as an alternative to building the prison
for women in Kitchener? If not, why not and (e) what would the anticipated cost
of relocating the prison to an alternate site be and what types of expenditures
would be included in that cost?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): In so far
as Correctional Service Canada is concerned, the answer is as
follows:
(a) Money spent to date: Approximately $3.11 million has
been spent to date.
(b) Allocation of funds: $1.61 million for acquisition of site,
including legal fees; $1.5 million for two environmental studies,
architectural design drawings, salary and operating cost for the
Kitchener federally sentenced women office to house the
warden, the deputy warden and support staff.
(c) In November 1993 the Maple Grove site was given
consideration as a possible site for the prison. However, the
location was found to be unsuitable for the following reasons:
(1) There are only two possible locations at the Maple Grove
site which are sufficiently level to permit construction of the
new women's prison. Neither is large enough to build on.
(2) Making the site larger to accommodate the needs of a
women's prison would entail removing an esker. This would
require provincial environmental approval and such a process
would be both costly and time consuming. Meeting the
anticipated environmental concerns would significantly
increase the cost of the prison. Also, an agreement would have to
be negotiated with the province of Ontario concerning the role
of Correctional Service Canada in sharing the costs arising from
this process.
(3) There would be significant additional costs of bringing
storm and sanitary sewers to the Maple Grove site.
9208
(4) The minimum travel time required for services such as
ambulance, police and fire to reach the location in the event of
an emergency is exceeded because it is not close enough to these
services.
(5) The Maple Grove site is not within a maximum 15-minute
walk to available public transit services.
(6) Alternative sites would only have been considered if the
Solicitor General had decided to reopen the site selection
process. This is not the case.
On June 6, 1994, the Solicitor General issued a news release
announcing the decision to proceed with the site already
purchased on Homer Watson Boulevard and describing the
reasons not to reopen the site selection process. This decision
was based on an extensive review of all aspects of the Kitchener
project and confirmed that the site on Homer Watson Boulevard
was the best of the 21 sites originally proposed by the city of
Kitchener. The review did not include consideration of sites not
on the original list.
(d) The Oxford Regional Centre does not have design features
that are consistent with the principles established by the task
force on federally sentenced women, such as a home-like
atmosphere with small cottage units to promote independent
living in small groups, building structures that have natural light
and good air ventilation, a size that would allow an interactive
atmosphere, and non-intrusive security measures, in order to
reflect the low risk to the community presented by most
inmates. For these reasons further consideration was not given
to the Oxford Regional Centre.
(e) The cost of relocating the facility to another site is
estimated at $5.2 million, which consists of an estimated $2.8
million to acquire a new serviced property, conduct
environmental studies and modify the architectural drawings to
the new site. The remaining $2.4 million represents the cost of
operating the prison for women in Kingston, Ontario, for an
additional year. As for federally sentenced women, the
construction of the other facilities is planned to be completed in
late fall 1995.
Question No. 88-Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast):
For 1992 and 1993 what were the car leases for the CBC, who had a lease,
what were the make, model, year and detailed costs of each lease?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): For the years 1992 and 1993 the CBC's total number of
car leases, which includes leases starting or ending within the
two-year period, was 78 and 64 respectively.
All those leases were for general use vehicles for the purpose
of corporate business, except for the following which were
assigned to specific individuals and were leased under the name
of the CBC: (1) 1989 Buick Lesabre at $560 per month; lease
expired April 23, 1992; (2) 1988 Buick Lesabre at $450 per
month; lease expired June 30, 1992; and (3) 1993 Buick Lesabre
at $529 per month; lease expires May 4, 1996.
Question No. 108-Mr. Forseth:
How much money was spent in 1992-93 for ad hoc private lawyers to do
local federal prosecutions in place of local provincial crown counsel?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
The Department of Justice does not hire private lawyers either
on a standing or ad hoc basis to replace local provincial crown
counsel. Agents of the Attorney General provide legal services
that would otherwise be provided by Department of Justice
lawyers but cannot be provided because of geographic location
or workload pressures.
In those circumstances where it has been necessary to hire
standing or ad hoc crown agents to conduct federal prosecutions,
the prosecutions have been pursuant to such legislation as the
Narcotic Control Act, the Food and Drug Act, the Income Tax
Act, the Competition Act and the Fisheries Act. In 1992-93, the
federal government paid crown agents $21.3 million for
criminal prosecution work. As well, other work performed by
crown agents on behalf of the federal government totalled $18.7
million. This means that the total cost of crown agent work for
1992-93 was $40 million.
As a result of these very significant costs, the Department of
Justice began to look at alternate approaches in its provision of
criminal prosecution services. One approach involves pilot
projects that, where economically feasible, would replace crown
agents currently performing prosecution responsibilities with
respect to the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drug Act
with in-house Department of Justice counsel. The first such
project is currently under way in Toronto with two other sites
under consideration. It is expected that these pilot projects will
realize savings ranging from 15 to 20 per cent and serve as part
of the department's commitment to the cost effective provision
of government services to the public.
[English]
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos.
99, 103, and 114.
[Text]
*Question No. 99-Mr. Godin:
What results were produced by the $3,404,136 invested in the Kahnawake
Reserve from 1989 to 1993 under the national native alcohol and drug abuse
program?
9209
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): The
amount injected into the national native drug and alcohol abuse
program (NNDAADAP) for the Kahnawake community
between 1989 and 1993 is $3,095,853.27. This breaks down as
follows: 1989-90 $489,800.60; 1990-91 $560,601.60; 1991-92
$662,860.50; 1992-93 $681,331.07; and 1993-94 $701,259.50.
These amounts were provided to the Kahnawake community
through contribution agreements, but they were not necessarily
used exclusively for the Kahnawake aboriginal population.
Shakotiia'takehnhas Community Services is the organization
mandated by the Kahnawake Band Council to co-ordinate the
following programs: (1) social services (2) NNAADAP program
(3) community health representatives program and (4)
NNAADAP resource centre program
It acts as an administrator for regional NNAADAP activities
for the entire aboriginal population of Quebec, submitting
financial reports to Health Canada.
The key NNAADAP activities at Kahnawake are as follows:
Prevention: Various strategies (control, influence, education)
have been used to prevent or minimize the use of the substances
involved. The team in place has been involved with
consciousness raising and education activities, as well as those
offering alternatives to substance abuse. All these address the
population of Kahnawake in general; some have specific target
groups.
Activity reports are submitted to us regularly to justify the
funding.
NNAADAP Resource Centre (Film Library): The resource
centre is administered by Shakotiia'takehnhas Community
Services. Its purpose is the acquisition and distribution to
aboriginal communities and other organizations affiliated with
NNAADAP of films, videos and other material free of charge.
Principal activities are: material loans and handling, searches
for pertinent and user adapted material, and support to workers
in preparing promotional and educational activities in both
official languages. The centre is not exclusively for the
population of Kahnawake but rather for all aboriginal
communities throughout Quebec.
Rehabilitation: An aboriginal centre has been set up to
provide rehabilitation services to Quebec's Mohawk
population: the Onen:To'Kon Centre. While mainly serving the
Kahnawake and Kanesatake Mohawk, it also provides services
to other English speaking nations in Quebec, as therapy cycles
are available.
Administration of the various NNAADAP activities:
Shakotiia'takehnhas Community Services acts as the
administrator, co-ordination and reimbursement of costs, for
certain regional activities, at the request of Health Canada.
Note: these activities are for the entire aboriginal population of
Quebec.
Results: The results of these activities have been a new
attitude toward drugs and alcohol within the aboriginal
population. Alcohol-free social activities are now more
popular. There has also been a markedly increased interest in
National Drug Awareness Week; the last time, related activities
went on for a month. It is also worthy of note that the
Onen:To'Kon Treatment Centre has treated more than 1,312
persons for alcohol and drug abuse on an in-patient or
out-patient basis.
*Question No. 103-Mr. Caron:
As of November 1, 1994, how much money has the federal government
invested and how much will it invest under the Economic and Regional
Development Agreement (ERDA) and, more specifically in relation to the
project to upgrade the highway linking the municipalities of Alma and La Baie,
Quebec (highway project 70/170)?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): The
70/170 highway project is part of the Canada-Quebec subsidiary
agreement on transportation development signed in 1985 within
the framework of the Economic and Regional Development
Agreement (ERDA).
The transportation agreement, administered by Transport
Canada on the federal side, expired on October 31, 1993, but
commitments for registered projects were met with current
funds under the agreement for an additional 12 months up to
October 31, 1994.
The project concerned was registered when the agreement
was signed. A $25 million portion was to have been financed in
equal parts under the agreement between the Canadian and the
Quebec governments, $12.5 million each.
The total amount allocated under the agreement from the
early stages up to October 31, 1994 was $21,529,600, of which
$10,764,800 came from the federal government. Since no
additional funding could be allocated after October 31, this sum
was for all intents and purposes the federal government's total
maximum contribution to this project.
Each government's $1,735,000 shortfall relative to the $12.5
million initially promised was primarily attributable to delays
during the course of the project.
The 70/170 project was not able to follow the originally
planned schedule. Although the first section between La Baie
and Jonquière was completed on schedule, construction was
slowed down significantly in 1991 and 1992 because of
environmental studies, cancellation of the Jonquière bypass
road and budget restrictions in the Quebec department of
transport. Later, construction resumed on the Jonquière-Alma
section, a four-lane divided highway. The first 3.8-kilometre
segment beginning three kilometres north of Jonquière is
currently nearing completion. Expropriation for the remainder
of the segment leading to the outskirts of Alma has also been
completed.
9210
It should be noted that funds which could not be committed to
the highway 70/170 project were reallocated to another highway
project under the agreement in order to ensure that these funds
were spent. The Quebec government is expected to carry this
project to completion subject to availability of funds.
*Question No. 114-Mr. Hanger:
What was the printing cost of the photo bookmarks that were included in the
1995 immigration plan document package?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): The minister's compliments card, which
was included in the 1995 immigration plan document package,
was intended to be generic in nature and useful for distribution
with various Citizenship and Immigration Canada documents.
Accordingly, 30,000 were ordered for a total cost of $2,083.48
or less than 7 cents each.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, due to the number and length
of responses, I ask that they be printed in Hansard as if read.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): I have a point
of order, Madam Speaker, concerning Question No. 93, which
was tabled on October 19, 1994, that is to say 110 days ago.
Normally, such questions are to be answered within 45 days. I
would like an explanation as to the reasons for this delay, a delay
that we consider unreasonable.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could finish what I
was saying before dealing with the point of order raised by the
hon. member.
[English]
I indicated that these questions would be answered as if read.
That was agreed and those are now acceptable.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would ask that Question No. 94 be made an Order for
Return. If it is, then the return would be tabled immediately.
Then I will deal with the request.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House that Question No. 94 be deemed to have been made an
Order for Return?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 94-Mr. Atlhouse:
Regarding the Net Income Stabilization Account (NISA) payments, (a) how
many individuals participated in NISA over each of the last 4 years, (b) what has
been the cost of purchasing and installing computing and processing equipment
since the program began in 1991 to the present and are there any plans for future
major improvements, (c) what is the waiting time from date of receipt of
application until date cheque is issued, (d) in 1993 and 1994, how many
applications fell into the category requiring 1 month for processing, 2 months,
etc. up to 10 months or more and what are the chief reasons for the delays?
(Return tabled.)
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, Question No. 93 standing in
the name of the hon. member for Québec-Est relates to contracts
for services, supplies and leasing awarded by the Department of
Public Works and Government Services since October 25, 1993,
in all federal constituencies in Quebec, and to the list of
government properties located in these same constituencies.
As you can imagine, the list is long. The government has been
working on a response ever since the question was received. I
understand that it is almost ready and I will table it in this House
as soon as possible. I hope that the hon. member can wait that
long because there are many items to put down on that list.
The government owns many properties, as he knows, and he
also knows that the department in question has a great many
contracts in the province of Quebec and that, with 75
constituencies, the list will be very long. I hope that he can wait
for all the information to be compiled in response to his
question. I will be tabling that response in this House shortly.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The questions as
enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9210
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1540)
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion, that Bill
C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship
Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs
Act, be read the third time and passed.
9211
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to participate in the debate, at third reading, on Bill
C-44, which amends the Immigration Act, the Citizenship Act
and the Customs Act.
Before getting to the crux of the matter, I want to make a few
comments to help us during this debate or at least to make us
think of the importance of the decisions which we will be
making when we vote on this bill.
In Part I of the Immigration Act outlining the Canadian
immigration policy, sections (i) and (j) mention the need to
``maintain and protect the health, safety and good order of
Canadian society'', and also ``promote international order and
justice by denying the use of Canadian territory to persons who
are likely to engage in criminal activity''.
We agree with these principles and objectives because they
reflect the large consensus on which are based our legal and
justice systems. But there are also concerns which are directly
related to Bill C-44 and which are equally important to
understand the issue being debated.
During the recent consultations held by the minister regarding
immigration, someone said that ``intolerance was the fastest
growing industry in Canada''. Hysteria, racism and fear result
from intolerance and generally lead people to confuse reality
with perception. Reality is what exists in fact, while perception
is the representation of something based on an impression.
This is why, for some time now, Canadians have been under
the impression that criminal immigrants abound in our country.
Given such an impression, it is easy to jump to the conclusion
that immigrants are responsible for most crimes.
We must firmly oppose the spreading of adulterated and
erroneous information on immigration, since it adversely
affects the relation of confidence which should exist between a
host country and its immigrants.
Last year, a study conducted by the Department of Citizenship
and Immigration revealed that there is no link between ethnic
origin and the propensity to commit crimes. Contrary to what
some people would have us believe, persons born abroad and
now living in Canada are under-represented in the prison
population, as Derrick Thomas, senior researcher in the
department has confirmed. While new arrivals represent 20.2
per cent of Canada's population, they represent only 11.9 per
cent of the population in prison or on parole. Moreover, contrary
to certain popular beliefs, visible minorities are not inordinately
represented in statistics on crime.
In view of the many questions people have and the concerns
they express, it is worth pointing out that the crime rate dropped
by 5 per cent in 1993. According to the Canadian Centre for
Justice Statistics, the crime rate reported by police departments
dropped for the second consecutive year in 1993. The 5 per cent
decrease is the biggest in a single year since the practice of
gathering statistics on crime began in 1962.
This confirms the statement I made earlier about reality and
perceptions. While the public feels that crime has increased
generally, this is not actually the case. The same thing may be
said for the relationship people try to establish between
immigration and criminality.
It is certainly not my intention to downplay the seriousness of
criminal activities. They exist, and we are aware of them. I know
people experience real fear about their safety. Surveys have
shown this. Nevertheless, we have to look at the facts.
We should also look for and decry the source of public
misconceptions. This House must not reflect the sensationalism
of supermarket tabloids or the media, which give too much
attention to individual cases making them appear to be the norm
in Canada.
(1545)
It is unbelievable that, having first singled out young people
as being the source of all evil, we are now pointing to
immigrants as being the scourge of humanity. Should we not
regard socio-economic conditions as the fundamental basis of
crime and not immigration? And are not the difficulties in the
areas of finances, adjustment, training and employment
experienced by immigrant families, and young people in
particular, the true causes of crime rather than immigration
itself? Do you agree?
An hon. member: Yes, it is true.
Mrs. Gagnon: Beyond the fears weighing on our minds, we
have the following reservations about specific provisions of Bill
C-44. The most important of these is the clearly expressed
desire to eliminate the right to appeal allowed immigrants and
refugees accused of crimes punishable by a prison term of ten
years or more. This seems to run counter to the fundamental
principles which should exist in a just society. The Charter of
Rights and Freedoms should apply for us all as regards a fair and
impartial procedure.
Another element of the bill which concerns us is that of
sentencing. The bill considers only the nominal act, that is, the
maximum penalty for the type of crime committed, without
regard for the sentence actually imposed. We all know that, even
though a crime is punishable by a 10-year prison term, in
practice, judges use principles of sentencing to set terms. For
example, someone who breaks into a private residence can be
given a life sentence. According to the bill, the accomplice of
someone who issues fraudulent credit cards could be deported to
his or her country of origin.
In general, defendants are given much lighter sentences than
the maximum. In certain cases, the sentence does not even
include a prison term or a fine, the defendant is only given a
suspended sentence or is put on probation. Persons given only
very light sentences could see themselves, under the bill before
9212
us, forced to leave the country. This provision of the bill could
constitute, in our opinion, a violation of the Geneva Convention.
The manual of the United Nations High Commission for
Refugees states that, depending on the nature of the crime
presumed to have been committed, all of the pertinent factors,
including extenuating circumstances, must be taken into
consideration. In our opinion, bill C-44 should take these
considerations into account.
Another aspect that is ignored in the bill is the distinction
between political crimes and common law crimes. It seems
imprudent to deport persons convicted for political reasons to
their country of origin without taking into account the risks they
will face there. This kind of regulation is clearly lacking in
flexibility and humanity. Would it not be better to take a closer
look at the anticipated risks as compared to the seriousness of
the crimes committed?
Other important issues are of concern to me, and I ask myself
what will happen to permanent residents who have been living in
Canada for several years. In some cases, they arrived in this
country when they were quite small. Today, they are adults, they
work here, are part of the same family and have only vague
memories of their country of origin. They have no more
relatives and often no more friends over there. Since these
people are now Quebecers and Canadians, is returning them to
their country of origin the answer?
Other aspects of the bill also deserve closer scrutiny. The bill
proposes to authorize immigration officers to seize and open any
parcel or document if they suspect it may be used for fraudulent
purposes. Is this not a violation of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms? One of the principles of our judiciary system is the
presumption of innocence, but these provisions on seizing mail
reverse the burden of proof. On what grounds will seizures be
made and how can the criminal nature of the contents be
identified? That is something to think about.
(1550)
The bill also provides that certain decisions that were
formerly made by the Immigration and Refugee Board will,
from now on, be made by the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration and its officials. The minister and his officials are
being given new powers to appeal decisions made by an
adjudicator in the course of an inquiry, but on the other hand, the
commission is being deprived of its power to review cases on
humanitarian grounds. Does this mean the administrative
process is being politicized? Is this an attack on the
independence of the IRB? Would it not be better to improve the
way the IRB operates?
I would also like to mention the findings of a study by the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration which were
released last summer. According to the study, 1,888 foreign
criminals who were to be deported were still at large. Is there a
way to find these people and try and prevent others from doing
the same thing in the future, without necessarily making it
harder to enter the country and running the risk of creating
situations that are just as embarrassing as the one I just
described? Is the problem of foreign criminals at large specific?
In other words, are there more foreigners at large than
Canadians or Quebecers that were born here? How many
Canadians and Quebecers are now wanted by the police? Do they
represent a percentage of Canadians that is significantly smaller
than the percentage of immigrants in the same situation? We
think the government should provide all the facts on the subject
in order to better inform the public and set the record straight on
the number of foreign criminals at large. In that way we would
stop the witch hunt for immigrants and refugee claimants.
I would like to say again that the Bloc Quebecois is aware of
the problems associated with foreign criminals presently in
Canada. We also know that crime causes turmoil and terror in
our communities. We will support the government in its
attempts to arrive at an enduring and fair solution to this
problem. We agree wholeheartedly that immigrants and refugee
claimants cannot use the legislation or reputation of Canada or
Quebec to escape their country of origin if they have committed
serious offences.
We will not be distracted by unfounded observations which,
as we have emphasized, do not reflect reality. The Canadian
government seems at this time to be toughening its stance in
order to appeal to certain voters. Consider for instance the
Young Offenders Act passed during the last session or the
increasing hesitation of Liberal caucus members in respect of
gun control, or even motion M-157, tabled by the Liberal
member for Scarborough-Rouge River, which aims to restrict
immigration during periods of recession.
And while we are on the subject, I would also like to point out
that Bill C-44, like many other government initiatives, does not
reflect the situation in Quebec. In fact, public opinion in Quebec
differs greatly from that in the rest of Canada in regards to the
link between crime and immigration. As the Globe and Mail
reminded us last week, Quebecers did not let the few bad cases
recently experienced in Canada-which we deplore-influence
their attitude and behaviour. This may be another aspect of
Quebec's distinctiveness.
Immigrants make a fundamental and undeniable contribution
to Quebec and Canadian society's collective wealth. A law
designed to prevent criminals from enjoying the right of
admission to and asylum in Canada should not be misused. The
goals set are not always consistent with the measures put
forward to achieve them.
That, unfortunately, seems to be the problem with Bill C-44
as it now stands.
(1555)
Unfortunately, the government caved in to public pressure
from certain groups and ignored our recommendations.
9213
The minister unjustifiably rejected our recommendations. Let
us take only one example, as time is running out. Let us consider
the minimum two-year limit that we propose as a guideline.
The minister replied that this proposal was not credible because
the duration of the sentence handed down varies according to
geographical and other arbitrary factors. He would rather keep
the theoretical ten-year limit, when the courts use
well-established rules to determine sentencing. These rules take
into account the mitigating circumstances surrounding the
crime. The minister thinks he is better able to determine an
individual's fate than the courts. Instead of relying on the court,
he prefers to decide himself whether or not he should use his
power for humanitarian reasons. That coming from the same
person who said barely a year ago that there should be less
political involvement in the immigration system. It is easy to
see that he is already under some pressure. What will happen
when he and his colleagues are continuously subjected to strong
public pressure?
For all the reasons I mentioned in my speech, the opposition
cannot support this bill.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
want to congratulate my hon. colleague on her excellent speech.
Several of the problems that Bill C-44 touches on could be dealt
with administratively. In this regard, I would like to draw the
attention of the House to the malfunction of the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration through a number of examples.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain information
from immigration officials for a number of reasons: there has
been enormous personnel cuts in the department and there are
more to come. This has caused a lot of motivation problems
within the department.
In the Montreal area, for any information, you have to dial
496-1010. Everyone knows this number: the lawyers, anyone
who works with immigrants and refugees. The mere mention of
this telephone number can provoke an allergic reaction, because
there are six stages involved and it takes several minutes to get a
final answer. If you ask to speak to an official, you are told:
``Sorry, the line is busy.''
That is no good for us members of Parliament, as a large part
of our work consists in resolving immigration problems. Last
year, the department put out guidelines saying: ``If you want
information, send us a fax.'' But it received so many faxes that
we never got an answer. Now, they are telling us: ``Phone
instead.'' But it is even worse than last year. It is incredibly
difficult for government services users because they never get to
talk to a department official. In some instances, they come from
abroad and do not know the language spoken here, let alone how
our telephone system works, a completely dehumanized system.
You have a machine answering calls, instead of people. It is
becoming increasingly difficult for us, members of Parliament,
to fulfill our role as representatives of the public, particularly as
regards immigration. When we write to the minister, it takes two
to three months to receive an acknowledgement, and another
month or two to get a substantive answer. Yet, these are not
minor issues: sometimes, what is at stake is the life of refugees
who want to bring to Canada family members who are abroad.
(1600)
The minister should take action to solve these administrative
problems within the Department of Immigration, because these
problems will become more serious once Bill C-44 is passed.
The decision-making process regarding immigration issues is
becoming increasingly politicized. The minister and his senior
officials will make the decisions.
We, members of Parliament, will constantly have to contact
the minister. We will not get answers within reasonable delays
and this will generate a lot of frustration for the users of that
service. I ask the minister to take the necessary steps to correct
the problem as quickly as possible.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a
comment.
I listened with great interest to the excellent presentation
made by the hon. member for Québec. I liked the way she
described the public's perception of the crime rate in Canada.
I agree that for some time people have been saying, especially
certain opposition members, and even members of the general
public, that more and more young people are involved in crime.
This is just not true. In fact, according to statistics compiled by
the Solicitor General and other departments, there has been no
increase in youth crime, contrary to public opinion. Indeed,
according to a Maclean Hunter poll, nearly 60 per cent of
Canadians thought, and this of course includes Quebecers, that
crime was on the increase.
I would also like to say that with respect to immigration, there
is a general consensus in this country on the importance of
recognizing not only the work done by the department but also
by new immigrants to this country. We must not forget that
during the eighties, nearly 90,000 immigrants came to Canada
each year. As you know, Canada is known as a host country that
is generous and tolerant. In fact, more and more people in other
countries are interested in becoming citizens of the country with
the best reputation in the world.
We now receive nearly 300,000 immigrants annually. Our
strength is immigration, attracting people from other countries
to come here and settle and become full fledged Canadians and
contribute to the economic prosperity of the country.
9214
But to say that the process has become very politicized-I do
not think that is part of our culture. I do not think that in this
country, we necessarily make political decisions on who will or
will not be allowed into the country. We have certain
procedures, we have a well established public service and
programs to promote immigration by investors. People cannot
say Canada is not a host country, is not a country where you can
have a good life. If we only admit 300,000 annually, I am
convinced-
An hon. member: Two hundred thousand.
Mr. Gagnon: It does not really matter, but I would like to
know how many applications we get from all the Canadian
consulates or embassies throughout the world.
Mrs. Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a brief
comment because this is not really a question. I agree with the
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine when he says
that crime has not increased; on the contrary, as I mentioned in
my text, it decreased by 5 per cent in 1993, and we are very
happy about that.
However, I would like to go back to the comment made by my
colleague for Bourassa, who says that we should have been more
efficient in this bill and provided corrective action of an
administrative nature. It is inconceivable that all the services
should have been concentrated in Végréville.
In my riding, people are demanding services. They have
expectations. They complain about public services that are very
impersonal and becoming more and more inhuman, especially
for an immigrant or someone who wants to come to Canada. It
seems to me that the relationship that should exist between the
people from the host country and those who want to come here
has been removed.
(1605)
I think that this contact has been removed and I too would
have liked to see some corrective action in the bill. I will not go
back to all the clauses in the bill, but I believe that some of them
are contrary to the principle of equity and fairness towards the
immigrant population and permanent residents. I think that
leaving in the bill the concept of discredit, that is that
immigrants are more criminals than native born Quebecers and
Canadians is to harm these cultural communities that have
chosen to live in Canada.
My colleague for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine said
that Canada and Quebec are indeed societies that welcome
immigrants and are in favour of immigration, but this bill, in my
opinion, will contribute instead to an increase of racism towards
these cultural communities. We read in the newspapers that a
black or a Haitian has committed a crime, but when it comes to a
Quebecer or a Canadian, they just say an individual. We should
be extremely careful on this issue and I will not repeat my
speech, but I think that many clauses in the bill are not flexible
and compassionate enough, and I will conclude my remarks on
that.
[English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to speak once again in support of Bill C-44.
I believe the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration clearly
highlighted the bill's intention and the changes proposed as a
result of the amendments that were passed by the committee.
As I have said in the past, Bill C-44 will provide us with the
tools to deal effectively with people who abuse the system.
Moreover it is part of the government's strategy to introduce an
immigration plan that is fair, sustainable and responds to the
needs of Canadians.
The minister of immigration said last August: ``A good
immigration policy is one that ensures the balance between
equity and tolerance on the one hand and law enforcement on the
other hand''. Unlike members of the opposition, we have
listened and continue to listen to what Canadians and Quebecers
want in their immigration policy.
The legislation is long overdue. The bill we are dealing with
today is necessary if we are to restore integrity to a system that
has been damaged by the infiltration of a small but destructive
criminal element.
My experience has shown me that for the most part
immigrants who come to Canada wish to become full members
of Canadian society. Canada is a great and generous country as
all of us in the Chamber agree. Our doors have always been open
to people fleeing economic hardship, persecution, war, civil
strife, and to people who seek a better future for their children
and themselves.
Immigrants, people like my parents, became Canadian
citizens and participated actively in all segments of our society.
Canada's history is full of such stories. The Chamber is full of
stories of immigrants who through hard work and perseverance
have made the country what it is today: one of the best countries
in the world in which to live.
[Translation]
Canadians will not tolerate those who take advantage of their
generosity, violate their laws or try to use the immigration and
refugee determination process for criminal purposes. They must
know that the government will not tolerate abuse. With Bill
C-44, the government has taken all necessary measures to
prevent abuse and protect the Canadian public against criminals.
9215
[English]
As the minister mentioned earlier, the amendments we are
considering today respond to various criticisms that the bill was
vague and open to misinterpretation.
(1610 )
Furthermore the amendments we are examining today will
improve the enforcement package we have put forward. They
are not draconian measures as the opposition would like us to
believe. They are a fair, efficient and common sense approach to
the problems criminals pose to our immigration system.
The opposition parties continue to be opposed to our
legislation, yet both have admitted they agree in principle that
changes have to be made. The Bloc Quebecois thinks we have
gone too far with our proposal and the Reform Party thinks we
have not gone far enough. I think we are on the right track.
We are here to represent all Canadians. We have listened to
Canadians from across Canada and put forward what we feel is
the best solution.
The main points of the legislation are as follows. First,
serious criminals deemed to be a danger to the public will not be
allowed to claim refugee status as a means to delay their
removal from Canada. Appeals against removal orders by
persons convicted of serious crimes will be decided by the
minister or his designate and not by the immigration appeal
division. Senior immigration officers will be allowed to
terminate refugee hearings because of criminality. Further, the
legislation will give immigration officers the authority to seize
identity documents from international mail if it is clear they are
meant to be used to circumvent immigration requirements.
The legislation will also ensure that persons with summary
convictions whether obtained inside Canada or abroad will be
inadmissible. Bill C-44 will allow us to stop the processing of
citizenship when a person is under inquiry.
Concerns have been raised over the definition of a serious
criminal. Some are concerned that rightful refugees will be
turned away. This will not be the case. One of the amendments
we are considering today clarifies the definition of criminality.
This is the essence of much of what Bill C-44 says.
It is important to note the two conditions. To be ineligible for
refugee status an individual must be convicted of a crime
punishable by 10 years or more in prison and must be deemed a
serious threat to public safety by the minister. Both those
conditions have to be met. Those considered a danger to the
public would lose their right of appeal to the IRB on
humanitarian grounds, law and issues of fact. They would retain
the right to seek judicial review in the federal court and
humanitarian issues would be considered by the minister when
he or she makes a decision.
Contrary to what a lot of opposition members said, this
responds to a lot of the concerns brought forward by the various
organizations that presented their briefs before the immigration
committee, for instance the Canadian Bar Association and other
groups. We listened, took note and made those changes in Bill
C-44. This is a government that listens to Canadians and, as we
have proven in various other areas of legislation, takes their
concerns seriously when the time comes to bring forth
legislation.
Unfortunately the two opposition parties continue to voice the
concerns of only parts of Canada. It is easy to put forward the
ideas of just one region of Canada. It is, however, much more
difficult to find the middle ground that will try to satisfy all
Canadians. I believe we have done that with Bill C-44.
The Reform Party continues to call for an inquiry into the
practices of the Immigration and Refugee Board and most
recently proposed a total ban of the board. We recognize that
Canadians are tired of abuse and we have moved quickly to
respond to these concerns. Bill C-44 addresses a number of
concerns of the Immigration and Refugee Board to allow for
flexibility, a respect of humanitarian and compassionate
grounds, and the need to prevent abuse of the refugee system.
The government recognizes changes have to be made in order
to make the system work better. We are streamlining the system,
making sure that other points such as enforcement are stronger.
[Translation]
Our government is committed to maintaining a truly effective
immigration policy, preventing illegal immigration and
ensuring effective border control. These new provisions are fair
and reasonable. Furthermore, contrary to what was said on the
other side of the House, they are consistent with the
crime-related provisions of the Geneva convention on refugees.
It is a matter of justice, of democracy.
The measures proposed in Bill C-44 are not excessive and do
not ignore the needs of immigrants.
(1615)
Madam Speaker, allow me to add that the immigrants
themselves admit that the system is being abused. Those who
took part in the public consultations and testified before the
Minister of Immigration asked us to amend the legislation as it
now stands. I reiterate that our goal is not to penalize
immigrants but to eliminate existing cases of abuse in the
system.
9216
[English]
Bill C-44 is about crime. There are a small number of
criminals who abuse Canada's good nature and compassion. We
must protect the integrity of the system against these few, and I
repeat these few.
Hon. members of the Bloc have said that we are tainting all
immigrants by bringing forth this legislation. I do not believe
that this is so. In fact, we are presenting the true picture of what
immigrants have brought to this country. We are assuring that
the few criminal elements that do exist in any system are dealt
with quickly and efficiently and thereby, in my opinion,
assuring that the good name of all immigrants is protected under
the Canadian system.
[Translation]
Again, Bill C-44 will help us restore integrity and instill
renewed confidence in the Canadian people.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, this member will recall that she sat in on a meeting with
a group of Vietnamese people who expressed concerns about the
undesirable elements among them. The gist of that meeting was
that they indicated they wanted certain individuals removed
from their midst.
I have the names of several of those individuals who have
been causing problems in their community. Unfortunately half
the Liberal members got up and walked out of the meeting when
this group of Vietnamese concerned citizens wanted some
deterrent and strong action on the part of the government.
An adjudicator just released several of these individuals into
the community. Some have been charged with sexual assault
with a weapon, B and E with a weapon. One was a gang member.
Another one shot a kid in the face with a gun in Vancouver. One
was just released from the Fraser Regional Institute. There is
robbery, assault, trafficking in heroine and the list goes on and
on. These individuals walk freely in the community. Why does
Bill C-44 not deal with these very violent criminals?
Mrs. Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, first I would like to
correct something the hon. member said. I remember sitting in
on the meeting with the Vietnamese community and I did not
walk out. Neither did the rest of the members but that is not the
point of the hon. member's question.
As far as the cases that he has brought up, I am not personally
aware of those cases. I do not know if they are real or fabricated.
A lot of times the terms of what is brought forth by members of
the opposition is sensationalization. That is exactly the type of
thing that gives a bad name to all immigrants, including myself
if I may say so since I am a child of immigrants to Canada.
What we have to keep in mind is that Bill C-44 is one way we
can as a government effectively, efficiently and quickly take
care of the criminal elements in our society.
Bill C-44 does address some of the problems that have been
raised by the hon. member.
An hon. member: What about the other one?
Mrs. Bakopanos: That was before Bill C-44. That is not after
Bill C-44. We have not adopted it yet, have we?
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
often hear government members say that Canada is the best
country in the world. I am not disputing it, I am simply urging
more caution. There are 1,500,000 Canadians who are
unemployed and four million living under the poverty line.
(1620)
We are struggling with enormous problems. Unemployment is
high in Montreal. In the riding of the hon. member for
Saint-Denis alone, 20 per cent of the population is either on UI
or on welfare.
Each year, 80,000 persons leave Canada. Why? When we
travelled to Cyprus together-a very pleasant trip-many
Canadian Cypriots told us they had returned to their country
because of the problems we are having here. I think we should be
more careful.
As for Bill C-44 not violating the Geneva Convention on
refugees, the Canadian Council has testified that certain clauses
are in violation of the Geneva Convention. Not one of the major
organizations that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration has heard supported this bill. Every organization
and individual who testified before the committee criticized it,
some going as far as asking for its withdrawal. The Canadian
Bar Association, a most respectable organization, criticized the
substance of the bill. When I asked the Canadian Ethnocultural
Council if any cultural community organization in Canada
supported this bill, the answer was ``no''.
So, I wonder if the hon. member for Saint-Denis could tell me
why no organization supports Bill C-44.
Mrs. Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, I do not think that all of
them have said that we had to get rid of the whole legislation.
[English]
I think a lot of them said they would like to see certain
clarifications and certain amendments made to the legislation.
We have listened to their concerns.
We have in fact brought forward some of those amendments. I
stated one: In order to be ineligible for refugee status an
individual would have to be convicted of a crime punishable by
10 years or more in prison. It must be deemed a serious threat to
public safety. I think that was brought up because in Bill C-44
we did not stress that it was 10 years or more in prison.
9217
We did listen to the representations of the various
organizations and did take their concerns into account when we
prepared the legislation. To say that they told us to do away with
the legislation is not the truth. In fact, a lot of people felt there
were valid reasons for bringing forth this legislation.
I do not want to repeat what I have already said in my speech.
The minister has held public consultations across this land. He
has listened to the Canadian people. The Canadian people have
told him that they want to see criminals deported as quickly as
possible. This legislation does respond to the general sentiment
across this country, including Quebec, that criminals who
commit crimes in Canada which are punishable by
imprisonment for 10 years or more will be dealt with quickly
and will be deported to their country of origin.
I do not think that anyone who came before the committee can
dispute that fact.
Mr. Hanger: Madam Speaker, just a point of clarification
from this member in reference to the search of mail coming
through customs.
I ask the member what the government is going to do about the
shortage of manpower in the area of customs in order to
adequately search for the illegal documents. I am very much
aware, as is the member, that there is a serious shortage of
manpower to do this job. As the customs union representative
pointed out the legislation would be moot. It would be of no
value whatsoever.
What is your government going to do?
Mrs. Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, I think the minister has
answered that question often enough. He has been asked that
question numerous times by the hon. member.
(1625 )
I think what we have said is that we are going to work closely
with the Minister of Justice and the minister of public security to
ensure that there is seizure of the mail. That question has been
answered numerous times.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, there are a number of deficiencies in this bill,
deficiencies that were drawn to the attention of the government
by witnesses who came and spoke eloquently at the standing
committee hearings. These deficiencies were not dealt with and
I would like to just deal with those now at some length if I may.
In 1991 The Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future released its
final report on the state of our country. It was one of the most
wide ranging and I might add, one of the most expensive
committees in Canadian history. It spent over $23 million to get
the pulse of the citizens of this country. However, it amounted to
little more than a very expensive blood pressure check. Thanks
to chairman Keith Spicer we were told what we knew all along:
that people get angry when they are ignored by their
governments.
The Reform Party grew out of this frustration and the fact that
52 of us now sit in the House of Commons is proof that this
frustration is still alive and well.
Among its findings, the citizens' forum found Canadians have
had enough of this partisan political system that the Liberals
enforce and encourage with a passion. According to the report:
``One of the strongest messages the forum received from
participants was that they have lost their faith in both the
political process and their political leaders. They do not feel that
their governments, especially at the federal level, reflect the
will of the people and they do not feel that citizens have the
means at the moment to correct this''.
It adds later: ``They would like major decisions affecting
them to be made in a responsible manner and in a manner that is
responsive to both the expressed views and the general
well-being of citizens''.
Two years later the Liberals promised in their much touted red
book to restore respect for government. They said that in the
House of Commons a Liberal government would give MPs a
greater role in drafting legislation through the House of
Commons committees.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration, I was looking forward to playing a constructive
role in drafting legislation that reflected the needs and the
aspirations of Canadians. It was my hope that a new spirit of
co-operation would come from this government, a spirit I am
always willing to help and encourage.
To me, Bill C-44 was to be a test of this Liberal commitment.
Would the Liberals be willing to co-operate with the Reform
Party of Canada in making Bill C-44 work? Would they be
willing to listen to Canadians on the pros and cons of this bill?
Would they be willing to make changes to the bill to account for
its flaws and shortcomings? I am sad to say on all accounts they
most emphatically were not.
From the very start of the hearings Reform MPs have been
faced by Liberal members who have shown neither an interest in
working with us in the manner the red book promised nor the
respect their peers expect and deserve. After promising to take
the high road in dealing with the opposition, the Liberals have
suddenly taken a liking to slinging mud at anyone on the
opposition benches.
The Reform Party members of the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration and the Bloc Quebecois members I
might add have tolerated constant interruptions when
questioning witnesses, sarcastic comments in the middle of
statements, an atmosphere of unfounded animosity and
confrontation at levels never before seen in Canadian politics. I
wonder, is this what this new style of government is all about?
9218
I am more upset though with how undemocratic the entire
committee process has become. In black and white, the Liberals
promised to give the Commons committees more leeway as
well as the power to be more than just lap-dogs of the ministers.
Committees are supposed to be the eyes and ears of the House,
ensuring that average Canadians are heard on important issues.
(1630)
Over the past several months the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration heard from numerous witnesses
who came at taxpayers' expense to share their concerns about
Bill C-44 and to offer their suggestions about how it can be
made more effective.
The standing committee heard from a wide range of groups
and individuals: lawyers, refugee advocates, police officers,
labour groups and international organizations. Not one of these
groups had kind words for the government on this bill. Yet
clearly the Liberals have turned their backs on Canadians and
followed the beck and call of the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
For the record, and to jog the memories of the Liberal
members sitting opposite, let me state what some of these
groups had to say on this piece of legislation.
Amnesty International believes:
Measures contained in Bill C-44 potentially violate rights guaranteed by the
charter and in international treaties concerning refugees and the prevention of
torture.
The Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association, after
outlining 14 series concerns, concluded: ``Bill C-44 must be
withdrawn''.
The Canadian Bar Association is concerned that ``the express
goals of saving money and reducing delay are not likely to be
advanced by the provisions of Bill C-44''.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in
Canada believed that Bill C-44 violated sections 30, 58 and
1(f)(b) of the Geneva convention.
The Canadian Labour Congress stated:
We believe C-44 in fact violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There are numerous other warnings from groups all across the
political spectrum. I wonder what my Liberal colleagues across
the way remember of these concerns.
In summary, these and other groups accused the government
of breaking sections 11, 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, as well as numerous international conventions
dealing with refugee treatment, torture, execution, war zones
and disappearances.
The bill would not stand up five minutes against a charter
challenge and would be condemned by the international
community if passed. It is hard to believe that the government
would refuse to deal with these serious concerns or even at least
acknowledge that they exist.
On the issue of enforcement, the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and I had a rather heated discussion when he
appeared before the standing committee. I asked him bluntly:
``Can you enforce Bill C-44? Yes or no?'' His response was:
``Yes, we can''. That was a strong pledge in my opinion, but
fortunately for the minister he is not the one who will be
enforcing the bill. What about the people who will be enforcing
the bill? What did they have to say?
According to the Canada Employment and Immigration
union, ``Additional staff is needed to process applications and
help integrate new entrants in a timely fashion''. They do not
have the staff needed to fulfil their current duties, let alone any
new duties.
The customs union said:
What benefit can be derived by the amendments proposed by Bill C-44, if we
currently do not have the resources or the capacity to enforce even the existing
legislation?
Finally, Canadian Police Association President Neal Jessop
said:
It reminds me of putting a band aid on the Hindenburg. The problems are not
going to go away.
What else is there to say? Whom should I believe? The
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, a politician with little
or no background in policing issues, who claims that Bill C-44
can be enforced? Or, shall I believe the people on the front lines
who admit that they cannot enforce the laws now and that Bill
C-44 will not make enforcement a more realistic possibility in
the future? Whom should I believe?
The hon. member for Calgary Northeast, Bloc Quebecois
members on the committee and I have pointed out each and
every one of these flaws to the committee. We have brought
them to the attention of the Liberals through questions,
statements and finally a motion last December calling for an
inquiry into these concerns.
(1635)
Liberal members struck down the motion. When asked why,
the Liberal member for Elgin-Norfolk responded: ``We don't
need to tell you''.
The member for Bourassa cautioned the Liberals that they
were being disrespectful of their fellow MPs. I was shocked at
the response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration. She responded: ``If the shoe fits,
wear it''.
Is this the new form of government the Liberals promised? Is
this how the Liberals listen to Canadians? Is this how our
country is going to be governed for the next three years?
9219
I say for the record that the committee hearings into Bill C-44
have been an absolute and total farce. They have wasted my time
as a member of Parliament, time that could have been much
better used perhaps in dealing with constituency concerns. They
have wasted the time of witnesses who have travelled hundreds
of miles in some cases to share their concerns with us, only to
find they were shut out in the final analysis. Finally, they have
wasted taxpayers' dollars on a series of consultations that the
government obviously did not take seriously.
The Liberal government has not addressed the serious
concerns over the legality and the enforceability of Bill C-44. In
the process it has made a mockery of the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration. The Canadian people want
meaningful legislation. They want to deal firmly with criminals
who take advantage of our country's goodwill. They do not want
laws that will be struck down by the courts and ridiculed by the
international community. Most important, they do not want laws
that cannot be enforced.
Until these specific concerns are addressed by the
government, until the Liberals prove they are willing to
seriously listen to the Canadian people, until they deal with the
unconstitutionality of the bill, and until they give our
enforcement officers the resources they need to make the bill
work, I and the rest of the Reform caucus intend to oppose Bill
C-44.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
delighted to follow my colleague on the parliamentary
committee, the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, because I
heard something in his speech that appears to be a departure
from normal Reform policy.
As you are well aware, Madam Speaker, and as other members
of the House who were here in the previous Parliament are
aware, I have a very deep and abiding affection for the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. I feel it is one of the great gifts that the
legacy of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau left to the people of
Canada.
An hon. member: You can't say his name.
Ms. Clancy: The hon. member opposite might want to check
parliamentary procedure. The Right Hon. Prime Minister
Trudeau is no longer a member of the House. Ergo it is
permissible to name him without breaking the rules of
Parliament.
It was a pleasure to hear the hon. member for
Cariboo-Chilcotin cite with regard to Bill C-44 that it would
not withstand a charter challenge and I forget whether he said for
three seconds or three minutes. I would like to know specifically
from the hon. member what that charter challenge would be.
Under which section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
would he put it and could he possibly outline an argument?
Mr. Mayfield: Madam Speaker, I was in discussion with a
constituent of another constituency, not my own. The concern
there was that following the policies of the right hon. member
who has been mentioned we hardly live in a country any longer.
``We are a large plot of geography'', he said, ``in which a lot of
different people try to make a living without any common
history, without any common destiny or without any means of
coming together''.
With regard to the member's question, if she would like to
review the transcript of the committee meetings the information
is all there.
(1640)
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, it is fairly rare that I am
accused of being obscure in my comments. As a matter of fact
most people tend to think that I can perhaps be outspoken at
times. I will be as succinct and as quick as possible. I already
talked with my colleague next to me from the province of
Saskatchewan who is a member of the bar. I found that he had the
same concerns as I do with regard to the comments of the hon.
member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.
I repeat. The hon. member said in his speech that the bill
would not survive a charter challenge. I cannot remember
whether he said three seconds or three minutes but he did say it. I
know my colleague in the Chamber from London, another
member of the bar of Ontario, would agree with me that there are
sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that can come in
conflict with federal legislation.
If one is to make a statement that says a bill before the House
would not survive a charter challenge, as we would say in the
land of my birth, Nova Scotia, ``put your money where your
mouth is and tell us how it will not survive a charter challenge''.
What section does it offend? What is his argument that states it
would leave us in a constitutional quandary?
Mr. Mayfield: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to quote the
sections of my speech once again for the hon. member's benefit.
If the hon member has her pencil out, she can take notes.
I quote Amnesty International that said there were measures
contained in the bill that potentially violate rights guaranteed in
the charter.
I also quote the Canadian Labour Congress that says:
We believe C-44 in fact violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
9220
There are other groups that accused the government of
breaking sections 7, 11 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, as well as numerous international conventions
dealing with refugee treatment, torture, execution and war
zones.
I do not have to quote the sections because they have already
been quoted by people who know more about the law than I do,
and the hon. member too, I might add.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
delighted to take part in third reading debate on Bill C-44.
I am sure the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin who spoke
before me will probably stay for some of my speech. I was very
interested to hear the comments of the hon. member. I am still
waiting to hear which sections of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms are violated, but I was particularly interested to hear
him talk about the way people feel about politicians.
I was particularly interested in the comments of the hon.
member for Medicine Hat who made a comment about
politicians. I would really like to tell the member for Medicine
Hat that like it or lump it the day he got elected he became a
politician.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): A representative.
Ms. Clancy: We are all representatives, Madam Speaker,
through you to that gentleman.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Some better than others.
Ms. Clancy: I represent the people of Halifax and I have been
re-elected.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): You won't be next time.
That seat is gone.
Ms. Clancy: Wait and see.
At any rate, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin talked about
this and I would like to say it is interesting that he used that
against a government with a Prime Minister who enjoys an
unprecedented rate of approval and popularity. I merely bring it
up as an anomaly, clearly in the way the members opposite seem
to deal with the realities of politics.
(1645)
What I really want to talk about here today is again the
question of a phrase that is often used in this House and is
perhaps ill understood. The phrase I want to talk about is due
process. I want to make it very clear that I ascribe to my Reform
colleagues across the way the best of intentions when it comes to
areas of criminal law and the protection of Canadian citizens,
the protection of victims and the incredible need to ensure the
very important concept of safety in our streets and in our homes.
I want to make very clear to my colleagues across the way that
the questions of safety for Canadians are very important.
The hon. member is whistling. I will talk to him later. I will
finish my thought first.
At any rate, the whole question of due process is one that can
be very frustrating, as we all know. Situations arise and the way
the law works can often be mystifying, lengthy, unsatisfactory.
To many people it creates a solution that on the face of it at the
very least is unjust or appears to be unjust. It is a difficult
concept to come to grips with.
If you look at the concept of due process and the development
of English law under which our criminal law has developed you
will know that it is a process that has been developing for well
over 1,000 years. The courts in England developed it prior to the
Magna Carta and the bill of rights and they worked along
through these various times and ages, through the politics of
monarchs to the politics of Parliament, until now when we have
arrived at the last decade of the 20th century and they still are
colossally imperfect.
I do not think anyone who deals with the criminal justice
system in any of those countries that follow the English system
of common law would disagree with that. They are colossally
imperfect. While they are colossally imperfect, they tend to be
better than anything else. The difficulty is that if you lift the
rights for some you lift the rights for all.
I have a constituent with whom I discuss these matters quite
frequently and we tend to disagree a lot. This constituent is very
concerned with questions of public safety, as am I. He feels that
our courts are too lax, give too much credence to the rights of the
accused, and on and on.
Not too long ago he told me about his son who in his early
twenties was pulled over because his car resembled a car that
had been used in the commission of an offence. He was very
upset that his son was stopped and put in the position of possibly
being a suspect in a criminal offence. As it turned out for his son
it came to nothing because his son was completely innocent in
this case and went on his way. It was a frightening experience for
the young man and a disturbing experience for the father.
I listened to that and I took it under advisement. A couple of
weeks later when he called me and talked again about the
accused having too many rights and the accused being allowed
this and that, I reminded him of his concern about his son who
had been stopped, who was completely innocent.
(1650 )
I reminded him that those safeguards that protected his son
have to protect the guilty and the innocent alike or they will not
work at all. We have to believe in the presumption of innocence
and we have to practise the presumption of innocence. We have
to practise fairness in the courts. We have to practise the
independence of the judiciary and the independence of
quasi-ju-
9221
dicial bodies. There are lots of times that the decisions that are
mounted are irritating and frustrating and downright wrong.
There is an old story in a book about judges that was published
some years ago. A particularly narrow minded member of the
judiciary was giving a barrister a very difficult time. Finally he
said: ``I can only advise you to take your petition to the Lord'',
to which the barrister responded: ``Thank you very much, my
Lord, but I will take it to the appeal court and probably will do a
lot better''.
At any rate, the point is that the freedom and the balance of the
law sometimes tip too far one way or the other. What we attempt
to do through legislation, what we attempt to do through the
administration of justice in this country is to keep the balance as
fair as possible. It does not always work.
When I was in law school a professor who is now teaching at
the University of Victoria used to talk about something called
the universal theory of rough justice which is not terribly
satisfactory. His theory as a professor was that 80 per cent of the
time justice gets done.
I can remember as first year law students we were horrified at
this because that meant 20 per cent of the time justice did not get
done. He explained to us that by and large it was a pretty good
average. To this day that still frightens and horrifies me, that in
20 per cent of cases justice does not get done.
In the 20 years that I have been involved either as a lawyer or a
legislator I have yet to see another system that works better.
That is not to say that we do not constantly strive to refine the
system that we have, but we do not refine that system by taking
away rights. We refine that system by ensuring its fairness and
its balance. We refine that system by refining the basic theory of
due process and justice.
With regard to Bill C-44, we have listened over the past year
or more to a variety of people telling us where we needed
refinements, particularly with regard to the criminal justice
system and immigrants, and we listened.
My hon. colleague from across the way made the statement
that we did not listen to the people who came to us at the
committee. I would like to say with the greatest of respect to that
member, we did listen. We brought in 11 amendments that
reflected the majority of concerns of the people who came
before us.
One of the things that I have learned in six years in this House,
and I think it may be the most important lesson one can learn as a
legislator, is again the lesson of balance. We cannot go too far
one way or the other way. That probably reflects my own
political philosophy. It reflects the political philosophy of the
party of which I am proud to be a member. It reflects the
political philosophy and the response of the vast majority of
Canadians.
To quote the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, those of us
in the Liberal Party were the party of the radical middle, the
party of the extreme centre. To paraphrase a poet, William
Butler Yeats, the Irish poet, the centre cannot hold.
(1655 )
In Canadian politics and in the affairs of Canadians,
particularly those matters that relate to the criminal justice
system, to maintain fairness and to ensure justice the centre
must hold. It is our responsibility on this side of the House to
hold that centre.
I want to say a few words in particular about immigration in
Canada. I want to say that it bears repeating over and over that
every single one of us in this House, every citizen of this country
is of immigrant stock. Even both our colleagues who come from
the north and several other colleagues from Manitoba, those of
our colleagues who belong to Canada's founding peoples, the
aboriginals, will admit that their ancestors first came here
across the land bridge from Asia 5,000 years ago. Everybody in
this country came from somewhere else.
We are a nation of immigrants. If it were not for the Scots, the
Irish, the English, the French, the Germans, the Italians, the
Ukrainians, the Poles and on and on, all of the different groups
that came here and chose Canada, we would be a poorer country.
We would be a weaker country. We would be a less tolerant and
less fair country.
The vertical mosaic that is Canada is an amazing experiment,
a terrific example to the rest of the world. The response to the
vertical mosaic from other countries is the response that the
United Nations told us, that this is the best country in the world
in which to live. Obviously that forms part of the reason for
people choosing to come here, but it is also something that we
must hold on to as legislators as we pass laws that will affect the
citizens of this country, the people we are here to represent.
I have been very fortunate in the year and a month that I have
been parliamentary secretary in immigration and citizenship to
travel all over this country. I was in the riding of Calgary
Northeast on Friday with the hon. member opposite, the
immigration critic. I was there for a symposium on immigrant
youth. There were 350 I believe-and my hon. colleague will
correct me if I am wrong-places at this conference. They were
all filled and there were 100 on the waiting list to meet and talk
about the problems and concerns of young people who come to
this country from other places.
At the opening ceremonies that the hon. member and I
attended there were about 100 people, most of whom
represented service organizations, NGOs, government levels, et
cetera, all there because of their concern for immigrant youth to
ensure that they settle into this country, to ensure that their
needs are met. These things are increasingly important because
we hear over and over again when so and so came 100 years ago
we did not have settlement groups. No we did not. Of course we
9222
also did not have small pox vaccinations and medicare. I hope
we have improved to some degree on both of those things.
I note, Madam Speaker, that you are cutting me off in full
flight. I have two minutes to go, so I had better wind up and talk
a little bit about the specifics of Bill C-44.
(1700)
The specifics of Bill C-44 are the response to a need. This
morning the minister talked about the problems we dealt with,
the rank insanity, if you will, of convicted criminals calling the
immigration board to prisons to hear their stories on whether
they should be granted status in Canada. Those problems will be
dealt with by Bill C-44. Those problems will not be solved
completely by the bill, but again we move forward to deal with
each difficulty in the area as we see fit.
Bill C-44 is a strong and open response by the government to
the problems evinced to us by the major players and
stakeholders. We will deal with the bill and if further
developments are necessary in the legislation, so too will we
deal with those.
I support the bill and I adjure my colleagues on the other side
to do the same thing.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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 Québec-social program reform; the hon.
member for Frontenac-international trade.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I, like
several lawyers who participated in the committee hearings,
believe that this bill violates certain provisions of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and of the Geneva Convention. I
hope that, once it becomes law, it will be immediately
challenged before the courts.
I am thinking in particular of the provision which allows for
the seizure of international mail by immigration officials. This
is a reversal of the burden of proof. The presumption of
innocence is protected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, but not in this legislation. The mere fact of importing
or exporting identification documents or papers is an offence.
Consequently, a person must prove that he or she has not
committed an offence, which is contrary to the basic rules of
law.
The parliamentary secretary then tells us that this is an
excellent bill. Why is it then that all the organizations and all her
colleague lawyers, including the president of the Canadian
council for refugees, David Matas, who is also a lawyer and a
former Liberal Party candidate, told the committee that this was
a bad piece of legislation and that it violated the Charter and the
Geneva Convention for refugees?
Indeed, the Canadian bar association, the Barreau du Québec,
the Canadian ethnocultural council, as well as highly respected
members of the legal profession in Canada criticized this bill,
from a legal standpoint. I agree with the comment made by the
hon. member who spoke before me to the effect that the Liberal
majority did not co-operate. The Liberal members did not read
all the briefs and they did not listen to all the testimonies made
before the committee. More importantly, they did not listen to
the opposition.
We submitted amendments that have ben implemented in
other countries. We said that it was necessary to protect those
who are here, the permanent residents who have been in Canada
for at least ten years. These people already belong to our society;
they have very little in the way of emotional links with their
country of origin; they no longer have any family left over there.
Why not make an exception for the people who have been living
in Canada for a long time, for 40 to 50 years, and who, for many
reasons, have not become Canadian citizens? They still are
permanent residents.
(1705)
We also said that we have to protect the younger people who
are living here, in Canada, with their parents but who are not
Canadian citizens. They are the products of our society. If they
commit an offence, they have to pay for it here. Why should we
deport them? They no longer have any family over there, their
family is here, and our society is responsible for their education.
So, why were the amendments put forward by the opposition,
by the Bloc Quebecois, rejected? I refer to amendments
designed to include in this bill provisions found in other
jurisdictions like Australia, which is as open to immigrants as
Canada. Even in a country like France, not recognized for its
open immigration policy, the immigration act is more caring
than this bill introduced by the minister.
[English]
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the
questions of the hon. member for Bourassa.
First, with regard to his contention that we are in conflict with
the Geneva convention I can only say that I believe the hon.
member was there, as I was, when the United Nations High
Commission for Refugees' representatives came to the
committee, were questioned on that and did not agree with him.
The government does not think it is in contravention of the
Geneva rules and neither does the UN. Beyond that I am not
quite sure where we should go. Perhaps the hon. member thinks
we should run to the position of the Bloc. I can only say that I am
not now nor have I ever been nor do I intend to be a member of
the Bloc Quebecois.
9223
With regard to co-operation on amendments, particularly on
the amendment that the hon. member mentioned-I am going to
try to say this as clearly and as succinctly as possible because
this is something that a number of members on the other side in
both parties do not seem to understand-the reason is that we are
on opposite sides. We have different beliefs and different ways
of achieving our ends.
We are on the government side. We have a majority.
Frequently we are going to disagree with the Bloc on a number
of issues, particularly those issues that go to the heart of what it
is to be Canadian. We disagree as well most vociferously with
the third party on practically everything.
Consequently I am not quite certain what the members of the
opposition expect here. That is the point. They are the
opposition. We are not supposed to agree.
I am quite happy to think that both parties are serving Her
Majesty in the best way possible by being a loyal opposition and
disagreeing with what we say. If we agreed, I would be worried.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I know that the parliamentary secretary likes to talk
about flying as does the minister. He certainly has alluded many
times to the planes that fly and land and the ones that crash. I
believe the parliamentary secretary is still flying and she has not
come down to earth yet to learn what is happening. She needs to
put her feet on firmer ground.
The parliamentary secretary attended various meetings and
listened to all kinds of experts dealing with Bill C-44. Several
flaws have been pointed out in the removal provisions by these
experts.
These flaws are in the existing legislation as well as Bill
C-44. It is not going to change anything.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell me if the government is
going to keep confined those violent criminals until travel
documents to remove them are obtained rather than releasing
individuals into society. I have the name of one here. Mr.
Gregory George Jordan has been charged with second degree
murder. He is an Australian with a deportation order against
him. He is walking around on day parole. What is the
parliamentary secretary going to do about individuals like that?
Is she going to keep them confined until removal orders are
present to remove them?
(1710)
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, sometimes one feels as if one is
a voice howling in the wilderness. The hon. member knows, or at
least he should know after a year and some time in the House and
after a year and some time as the critic for immigration, that
commenting on individual cases is neither proper nor
appropriate. He knows I am not going to comment on a specific
case.
What I am going to do is refer the hon. member yet again to
the provisions of the bill that deal with the question of serious
criminals, that deal with their removal. I remind the hon.
member that a bill that is not yet passed can hardly be enforced.
Let us get the bill passed so the kinds of criminals he is talking
about can be dealt with expeditiously.
If we had the support of the third party on this bill, if they
were so concerned with the whole question of criminality and
the speedy removal of serious criminals, then perhaps they
would support this bill instead of haranguing on issues that are
not really on point.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, in a sense it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to
address Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the
Citizenship Act. This bill is not all bad but it surely is not all
good. If I had to summarize, it is just not good enough.
When the government first announced its intention to amend
these two controversial pieces of legislation it was my hope to
be able to offer support. However, since the bill is little more
than smoke and mirrors I have to speak in opposition to it.
The bill offers very little of substance and provides only a
false impression of security to the millions of Canadians who
are concerned about our lax immigration process. It offers no
significant changes, contrary to the words September 19, 1994
by the immigration minister. During his speech at second
reading the minister said: ``Enforcement is a priority of my
department''.
Yet in this bill we see no provision for extra enforcement
officers. There are also no specific measures for strengthening
the enforcement process. In fact, during his speech the minister
admitted: ``There has been slow enforcement'' yet I repeat there
are no provisions to increase enforcement.
He also said: ``When it comes to enforcement of immigration
issues we have to do a better job''. I fully agree with the
minister's statement and therefore have to ask why this bill has
side stepped the issue of enforcement?
The minister also talked of the integrity of the immigration
system saying: ``If we do not deal swiftly and crisply with both
the perception and the reality of abuses to our immigration and
refugee system, the integrity of the entire system is in
jeopardy''. The minister was correct in his assessment, yet by
offering up this innocuous legislation he will create a false sense
of security that will do more harm than good to the integrity of
the process he is worried about.
9224
While the minister talked a good talk during his speech his
actions have failed to match his words. He says he wants to get
tough on immigrant criminals. However, in Toronto the minister
recently cut the number of investigation and enforcement
officers back from 36 to 30. Only 30 officers to track down the
approximately 24,000 deportables suspected of living in and
around the greater metro Toronto area. The minister also cut
overtime staff in the Vancouver region. This is what the minister
calls making enforcement a priority?
(1715)
The minister might argue these cuts were made to save money,
but that is a red herring. If he wants to save money he should stop
appointing his friends to the high paying jobs at the IRB. When
those friends are found to be abusing the power of their positions
he should not be permitting them to receive golden handshakes.
Need I remind this House of the Michael Schelew affair? If the
minister wants to restore integrity he should disband the
Immigration and Refugee Board instead of giving it more
power.
Under this bill the IRB is given the power to stop a refugee
claim if a serious criminal background is discovered. Sounds
good. The minister heralds this part of the bill as a great
improvement. However, what the minister does not say is that he
already has that power under section 69(1) of the current
Immigration Act.
The problem is the minister is afraid to use that power. In
bestowing that authority on the IRB the minister is abdicating
his own authority. He is the man ultimately accountable to
Canadians, yet by abandoning this power it is obvious he is
unwilling to be accountable.
In fairness, in reviewing the bill I have to acknowledge that
the government has made an effort to make the appeal process
slightly tougher. However, it is only a small step in the right
direction and it simply does not go far enough.
There are also other measures contained in this bill where I
must say the government is on the right track, but in typical
Liberal fashion these are only half measures. For example, the
minister has seen the wisdom of limiting the power of the
immigration appeal division to stay the removal of or allow
appeals by serious criminals on humanitarian or compassionate
grounds. Again this is only a half measure.
It is also a positive step to fully legitimize the act of allowing
customs officers to seize mail suspected of containing
fraudulent identity documents. However, at the committee
hearing on this bill Mansel Legacy, the head of the Customs
Excise Union, said there are so few mail checkpoints and
inspection personnel that this measure is not enough in itself and
will accomplish very little.
Many may say the examples I have cited here in opposition to
this bill are just further proof of the Reform Party's desire to
shut Canada's borders to immigrants. I would like to remind this
House that almost without exception witnesses before the
standing committee condemned this bill as inadequate.
Just for the sake of clarity I want to reiterate a few of the
salient points of immigration policy that the Reform Party
advocates.
First the Reform Party supports an immigration policy that
has as its focus Canada's economic needs and we welcome
genuine refugees. The Reform Party remains convinced that
immigration has been and can be again a positive source of
economic growth, cultural diversity and social renewal.
The Reform Party opposes any immigration policy based on
race or creed. We do support an immigration policy that would
be essentially economic in nature. Immigrants should possess
the human capital necessary to adjust quickly and independently
to the needs of Canadian society and the job market.
(1720)
The Reform Party supports restricting sponsorship privileges
to members of immediate families, that is, wives or husbands,
minor dependent children and age dependent parents. All others
should apply for entry through the normal selective process.
The Reform Party supports a policy accepting the settlement
of genuine refugees who find their way to Canada. A genuine
refugee is one who has a well-founded fear of persecution and
qualifies under the strict requirements of the United Nations
convention.
By the same token, we support a policy of immediate
deportation of bogus refugees. If the government opposite
would like to read from this it is all contained in the Reform's
blue book, good reading as opposed to the red one.
During his speech the minister also talked about his broad
consultative approach in all of this. However, a leading Toronto
immigration advocate labelled that same process a sham. Well I
will not do that, but I will say that on a couple of occasions I
invited the minister to come to my riding of
Nanaimo-Cowichan to hear what immigrants there think needs
to be done to address current problems. It is unfortunate, I know
the minister is busy, but he has been unable to find the time to
accept those invitations for true grassroots consultation.
In Nanaimo we are experiencing the type of problem the
minister talked about in his speech at second reading, namely a
few immigrant criminals casting a shadow over the reputation of
many. In fact, a confidential police report obtained by my office
states: ``The hub of Asian organized crime for the world will be
situated in Vancouver and Vancouver Island by the turn of the
decade''. Unfortunately I see very little in this bill to stop this
ominous prediction from becoming a reality.
9225
People of Nanaimo, immigrant and non-immigrant alike, are
concerned about this fact. That is why I wanted the minister to
hear directly from these people. Since that has not been
possible, at least not so far, I would like to tell the minister and
this House just what a group of Nanaimo immigrants feel must
be done to correct the current immigration process.
First, a direct quote from one of the Vietnamese participants
at a meeting I held in Nanaimo in this last year: ``The
government screwed up by allowing many immigrants into
Canada without properly checking their backgrounds''. Again,
there is nothing in Bill C-44 that leads me to believe this
situation will be addressed.
Second, the same Vietnamese Canadian participants said:
``Those immigrants selling drugs have no fear of the law''. That
is because most of these immigrants know that even if they are
ordered deported, it may be years before they are actually kicked
out of the country, that is if they are ever tracked down by a
grossly understaffed and overworked enforcement service.
(1725 )
Third, quoting again from this group of Vietnamese
participants: ``The government must get serious about
toughening its immigration laws''. These are immigrants telling
the government what they believe should be done.
Legitimate law-abiding immigrants in Nanaimo do not fear
the kind of tough measures Reform has advocated. In fact, they
would welcome the kinds of proposals Reform has talked about
knowing that our policies would only be detrimental to those
who do not or will not abide by Canadian laws.
In short, Nanaimo's immigrant population wants to be a
productive part of Canadian society and we want them to be.
They want to contribute toward building a better and safer
Canada. However they agree that this cannot be done without a
strict immigration policy of zero tolerance toward immigrant
criminals. This bill does not have the teeth required to
implement such a policy.
It is with the views of immigrants within my riding in mind
that I appeal to this government here today to abandon this
nebulous piece of legislation in favour of meaningful and
significant changes.
Those changes should include provisions for extra
enforcement officers, a zero tolerance policy for immigrants
convicted of serious crimes either in Canada or prior to their
arrival, the addition of health provisions such as mandatory HIV
testing, and a policy to refuse admittance or expedite
deportation of those suspected of war crimes or crimes against
humanity.
In his 1994 annual report the Auditor General also suggested
changes to the way in which immigration responsibilities are
carried out by different government departments. The Auditor
General has concerns about the lack of reporting either by the
immigration department or the other departments that have
some responsibility in this area. If the minister is looking for
ways to save money, which he should be, he should consider
making the necessary reporting changes advocated by the
Auditor General a part of this legislation.
There are many more areas where this bill falls short. The
minister has shown some courage in taking these first steps but
he has also demonstrated a lack of understanding as to what
Canadians want in a sound immigration policy. Either that or he
simply lacks the intestinal fortitude required to make the needed
changes.
The minister is fond of telling this House that the buck stops
with him. In the sense that the buck is a dollar, I urge the
minister to withdraw this two-bit piece of legislation and come
back to this House with the entire dollar's worth of change
needed to address the serious inadequacies in the current
immigration process.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I was following the speech given by the hon.
member. He always refers to new Canadians other than his own
race as immigrants. I want to know, the people he was talking to,
the Vietnamese Canadians, are they still immigrants or are they
Canadian citizens who have the right to express themselves?
Just because they look different, we should not call them
immigrants for the rest of their lives.
He quoted the figure of 24,000 deportees and mentioned that
we have only 20 investigators. I am sure he knows that of the
24,000, not all of them are criminals. Some of these people are
missing papers or documentation. One cannot call 24,000
refugees waiting for papers to be in order as criminals and ask
them to be investigated.
Can he clarify those two points for me? I would appreciate it.
(1730 )
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, to respond to the first point, of
course concerning people who are landed immigrants, we
should stop calling them immigrants after a while. The group I
was referring to was a mix. Some were immigrants without
status, others have status.
We are all immigrants after all, as the hon. parliamentary
secretary stated just a while ago. In this case there was specific
reference to a Vietnamese community. Am I to go into the
political correctness realm to try to skate around the fact that
they are identifiable? It was a group to whom I spoke,
identifiably with a Vietnamese background, whether they are
immigrants or not. Let us not skate around things. Let us call
them as they are.
Mr. Assadourian: Call them Canadians.
9226
Mr. Ringma: All right, fine, then this group of Vietnamese
Canadians. I can speak to a group of French Canadians, Dutch
Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians. There is nothing wrong with
identifying their background I hope because we should all be
proud of where we came from.
I cannot clarify the hon. member's question on the 24,000.
The phrase I used on that-I would have to go back to it-was a
suspected group that are at large. This comes from a source. The
public domain says this is what it probably is. If we do not have
the inspectors, the people to back it up, let us increase it. Let us
spend more money there where it is needed.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, N.D.P): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the hon. member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan pointing out how he and his party feel that
there has to be more staffing in the immigration department. It
seems that is a necessity.
I have also been listening to his party for the last year and a
quarter complaining that the government must cut some $40
billion from the deficit and they keep saying it should be done
almost immediately. That will mean reducing about 25 per cent
of the services that the government now looks after which
presumably will mean a 25 per cent cut in the personnel who
have been delivering those services.
If the hon. member is going to be adding to the immigration
department, what departments is he going to be proposing to do
away with and where can he get rid of 25 per cent of the current
crop of civil servants and still add to some departments? He will
have to do away with whole departments and perhaps do away
with the military to perform these new services that he is now
advocating. Where can he take these kinds of cuts and still get
rid of about a quarter and still add to his chosen ministry?
Mr. Ringma: The answer to that question, Madam Speaker, is
very simple. We take the cuts out of the fat bureaucracy and put
them into the sharp end. The Department of National Defence
was mentioned as an example. It is taking 3,000 out of its
headquarters in Ottawa to bolster the front lines where it needs
them in support of the UN.
I say the department of immigration should do the same thing,
take it out of the bureaucracy here in Ottawa and put it into the
front lines where it is needed.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, if I
understand correctly, my hon. colleague agrees in the case of a
genuine refugee. I would like to ask him a question.
After an individual has been allowed to enter the country as a
refugee and has been given refugee status, there is a fee of $500
per adult and $100 per child for permanent residency. A lot of
genuine refugees are impoverished when they come here. They
have no money and sometimes have to turn to churches or to
agencies that help immigrants and refugees find the $500.
(1735)
We looked into the matter and found that genuine refugees do
not have to pay anything for permanent residency in the United
States. What does my colleague think about this problem?
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, genuine refugees need not
fear. If they fit the definitions set by the United Nations, we have
to accept them, we have to pay their expenses, etc. But the
number of genuine refugees is undoubtedly much smaller than
what the immigration department currently claims. If they truly
are refugees, we accept them and give them financial assistance.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I go back to my second question about 24,000
deportees. I would appreciate if in the near future the hon.
member would look into the numbers and report to this House
the exact number of criminals. He says there are 24,000. Maybe
he can tell this House how many criminal deportees he is
referring to.
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, I would be more than pleased
to try to pin down the exact numbers and report back to this
House.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I suppose I could start by wishing everyone a happy
1995. I wish everyone prosperity.
In this House sometimes we educate others, sometimes we get
educated from discussions such as this. I welcome this
opportunity to discuss Bill C-44 today in this House.
I was watching television on January 16 which happens to be
Martin Luther King's birthday in the United States. In one of his
speeches he said that a first class nation deserves first class
citizens. This bill calls for Canada being a first class nation,
which it has been called for the last two years by the United
Nations. This is a first class bill for first class citizens,
especially those who are new arrivals in this country. They know
they are going to start a new life with their family in this new
country which they have adopted.
I was following the comments of both of the opposition
parties, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party. Obviously the
Bloc Quebecois is telling us that we are not going far enough. I
know its point of view because it sits with us on the Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The Reform Party
spokesman said that it does not go far enough. We are confused
as to how far to go to satisfy the Bloc or how far to go to satisfy
the Reform Party. That is why as good Liberals we always
support the middle ground because the middle ground is where
9227
the average Canadian's mentality rests. That is where average
Canadians want us to be.
When we talk about immigration we always refer to negative
things, the cup is always half empty. Let us look at the positive
side of immigration.
Earlier I asked my colleague if he could give us the number
for the 24,000 deportees which he mentioned. He could not give
me a number. I would think the number is not more than 625. For
625 criminal refugees it is fair not to raise the figure to 24,000. It
gives the impression that immigrants are all criminals, that they
all have criminal records or that they intend to commit a crime
when they adopt Canada as their new homeland.
This bill makes six basic points. Earlier the Reform Party
spokesman said that this is a good bill but does not go far
enough. As was mentioned earlier, the job of the opposition is to
oppose. That is what it is paid for. We on this side are paid to put
forward programs, which we are doing. The six points that were
mentioned by the hon. member go far enough.
(1740 )
We should not take the approach that we are going to build a
cement wall like the Berlin wall against refugees coming in,
saying that anybody coming in from a certain part of the world is
a criminal or intends to commit a crime in this country. That is
not the way we do business in Canada. That is not the way we do
business in western society.
I am sure the member agrees with me that we cannot put
police officers with machine guns at every step of the way who
will say: ``You look different than I do, so you had better stay out
because you look like a criminal to me''. We cannot do that.
The hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois says that he hopes
after this bill is passed that someone will challenge this bill in
the courts. I hope they will because we want to do the best we
can. We want to make sure that we become first class citizens in
this first class country.
That is the responsibility we have and we take it very
seriously. I hope they will share that responsibility with us and
support the bill. If there are improvements or suggestions to be
made, we should do that as we go along. The system allows that
to be done. For the time being we should support this bill
because it is the best we can do under the circumstances.
Before we arrived at this bill we had one year of consultations.
I know the Bloc Quebecois says that consultations were not good
enough because of a, b, c or d. The Reform Party says they were
not good enough because x, y or z and because 29 million people
did not have a chance to come forward to speak.
In my riding I organized two or three meetings to talk about
immigration. People spoke up. Some said yes and some said no.
Some said it was good policy and others said it was bad policy.
I sent out questionnaires and 1,100 people responded. I passed
those questionnaires on to the minister. I am happy to say that
most of the concerns presented to me by my constituents are
addressed in this bill.
I am very happy to support this bill. I will do whatever I can to
support this bill because it is important. We must have it because
we have to go forward and be forward looking. We cannot be
negative on everything new planned by this government.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have heard several times today from Liberal members
about hitting the middle road when it comes to immigration, that
they would like to pick the so-called balance and policy and
compare the message of the Bloc with the message Reform
delivers.
I do not think the hon. member across realizes that we are
talking about apples and oranges when we compare messages
the Bloc sends and what Reform has been saying for some time
now. The Bloc already has an agreement on immigration levels
and on the way it handles immigration policy which differs
dramatically from the rest of the country. The levels that the
Bloc has are probably more realistic than the levels set by this
government for the rest of the country.
I am going to ask this hon. member what he has in his mind
when he wants to tell the people of this country that they have
struck a balance. I would suggest to this member that there is no
balance struck by the Liberal government when it comes to
immigration policy, that it is floundering. If a comparison is to
be made between the Bloc and the Reform the member should
abandon the comparison.
I would like to hear more comments from the member
regarding the so-called balance he is talking about between the
Reform and the Bloc.
Mr. Assadourian: Madam Speaker, I would be more than
happy to address the hon. member's concern.
A few months ago when I put forward Bill C-229 about
limiting political parties from becoming federal parties when
they do not have 50 per cent of provincial representation. I noted
at that time the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party both voted
against my bill. They shared that regional concern.
The other point I want to make is that both of them have
national headquarters for their parties outside of Ottawa. I want
to remind them that Ottawa is the nation's capital. The way I see
it you cannot be a federal party in this country and have your
headquarters in some other region of the country. Members
work in Ottawa so their headquarters should be here.
9228
Concerning immigration policy levels, the Globe and Mail
said the minister did not go far enough because he has to have
255,000 new immigrants. We have dropped to 190,000. This
person complained that we dropped too much. This is a
conservative newspaper that speaks often on behalf of the
Reform Party.
(1745 )
It says we have to increase the number to make it 255,000. It
says here that each immigrant coming in will add to the national
budget a $10,000 surplus. How much more of a balance do we
want?
Mr. Hanger: Go to the immigration department and find out.
Mr. Assadourian: Why do we not go together? Maybe you
can apply to re-enter Canada so you will know what Canada is
all about.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, on
several occasions, my hon. colleague mentioned the Bloc
Quebecois. I am proud to be the citizenship and immigration
critic of my party.
During the past year, as a member of the House and of the
standing committee, I noticed that the positions of the
organizations and individuals who appeared before the
committee have been closer to that of the Bloc Quebecois than to
the Liberal Party's. Of course, they do not even come close to
the Reform Party's position.
We found that we shared identical views on many issues
regarding immigration and the plight of refugees. This is
because we come from a province, the province of Quebec,
which is generous with immigrants and refugees, takes care of
them, welcomes them and helps them settle by providing French
language instruction and assistance to find work and housing.
We have our own immigration department. We are the first
province in Canada to have its own immigration department and
a well defined immigration policy, and to have signed
agreements with the federal government, giving us self
government in many areas.
We are proud of the fact that Quebec has a progressive,
generous, and open policy. Quebec is the province where there
are the fewest problems with immigrants and refugees. We have
not seen in Quebec events such as those in Toronto. We do not
see in Quebec papers the kind of over-reactions we sometimes
see in the English press with respect to refugees and immigrants.
I am very proud to be from Quebec. We do not need and never
will have headquarters in Ottawa. Our headquarters are in
Quebec, where we are from, where we work; we are only trying
to make Canadian immigration policy a little more humane.
This is the contribution of the Bloc Quebecois to the House of
Commons.
[English]
Mr. Assadourian: Madam Speaker, he cannot have it both
ways. First he complains we do not listen, then he says that all
the witnesses spoke very highly about the Bloc Quebecois.
Which one is true? Did they speak very highly about your policy
or our policy? We listen. If he does not like the decisions we
make, I am sorry. He does not want to stay in Canada anyway, so
what is the point? He wants to go.
Also he says he is proud that he came to Quebec. He should
know if Canada was not here he would not have any Quebec
anyway. He should stand up and thank Canada for allowing him
to come here and also thank the people in the province of Quebec
for asking him to serve Canadians in the province of Quebec in
this Chamber.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have just a couple of questions for the hon. member.
First, I have a general comment. I do not know where the hon.
member spent the Christmas break. I assume in his riding. If he
spent his time in the riding perhaps he would realize that the
world does not revolve around Ottawa, but the world actually
does go on outside of this place.
The idea that a party must have its headquarters in Ottawa,
must lick the boots of the special interest groups in Ottawa, must
spend its time catering to Ottawa, looking after Ottawa, making
its friends comfortable in Ottawa is typical, I may add, of the
Liberal Party.
(1750 )
However, since they brought it up and not myself, I would like
to take issue with a couple of comments that the member made
that if immigrants sometimes look different they are persecuted.
Obviously when that happens or if that happens then Canadians
should be outraged that people are persecuted based on their
looks, their race or their gender. It should not be tolerated and
has no place in Canadian society.
However, the point that the member does not seem to want to
admit is not that people may look different, it is that they
commit serious illegal acts while they are not Canadian citizens.
While they are refugees and commit serious acts what should
happen to them?
I guess my question for the member is this. If someone who is
claiming refugee status is charged with a serious crime should
they be held in detention pending a deportation order or should
they be released back into the general population?
Mr. Assadourian: Madam Speaker, I am appalled that some
members take the matter so lightly. They make the accusation
that 24,000 new Canadian immigrants or refugees who are
waiting to be processed are criminals and that 30 people are not
enough to investigate them. Now they turn around and try to
defend themselves which is indefensible.
9229
The other point that the member made earlier was that one did
not have to be in Ottawa to know in which direction the
government is going. He is very right. He is 100 per cent perfect.
During the Christmas recess I was in my riding and I knew it far
ahead of the hon. member. The reason I mentioned that they do
not know what is going on in Ottawa and the rest of the country
is because during the campaign in my riding on Victoria Park
Avenue, the Reform Party candidate had a four by eight sign
which read: ``We will run the country the way we run the
campaign'' and they ran the campaign without Quebec, just
remember that.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, how apropos that I have the floor after that rather inane
comment by the member opposite because of course the sign
reads: ``We will run Canada as we will run our campaign, which
is debt free''. The Liberal Party is still paying off its debts from
the election because of course it cannot even run an election.
The Reform Party has a tidy surplus which we will use to win a
majority in the next election.
It is a pleasure to address Canada's immigration policy within
the context of Bill C-44 this afternoon. I find myself a bit of the
horns of a dilemma with respect to this bill. On the one hand it
does represent a rather feeble attempt to toughen up the
immigration system. Since Canadians want and need changes in
the immigration system the bill at least recognizes that change is
required. Therefore in one sense this bill is better than nothing.
Unfortunately it is not a whole lot better than nothing. It
places some restrictions on the rights of refugee claimants who
would abuse our system. It contains provisions allowing
immigration authorities to seize fraudulent immigration
documents from the mail. Any non-citizen convicted of a crime
in Canada carrying a sentence over 10 years long would be
deported. Although with our justice system one pretty well has
to murder someone to receive a 10 year sentence. Those
immigrants who are found to have been convicted of a crime in
another country that would carry a sentence of more than 10
years here would be automatically barred from entering Canada.
These are welcome provisions and I generally support this
tentative first step toward creating an immigration policy
acceptable to Canadians. However, when we look at the
government's overall priorities as they are seen in terms of its
actions, not just its words, it places the bill in a different light.
We will see that as a whole this bill is timid. It is weak and it is
ineffective.
Edmund Burke said: ``The concessions of the weak are the
concessions of fear''. His proverb is two centuries old but it
rings true today. If there are two dominant characteristics of the
Liberal government they are weakness and fear. The Liberals
fear going out on a limb. They fear acting aggressively in the
public interest. They fear confronting wrong in order to
accomplish justice for all Canadians. Fear causes the
government to act with timidity and weakness.
(1755)
This fear drives the strength out of the government's
legislation and it saps the morale of government officials,
officials who are supposed to be zealous in the protection of
Canadian citizens but who are today demoralized and
discouraged because they are not properly supported by the
government.
I am not without feelings of goodwill toward bona fide
refugees. The people who testified before the standing
committee dealing with the bill have expressed their
reservations about the fact that it reduces the rates of refugee
claimants. They are very concerned that every refugee have
access to fair consideration of his or her claim and they do not
want people deported into countries where they will be tortured
and imprisoned because of their political views and other
obvious injustices.
I appreciate the sensitivities of groups like Amnesty
International and the Mennonite Central Committee came to
testify. The fact that we have tender consciences in how we treat
refugees reflects well on our nation. This is a wonderful thing, a
thing to be thankful for in Canada. I stand with them in their
desire for fairness in their hope that Canada will remain an
international sanctuary for people who are truly oppressed.
However there is a question of balance today, a question of the
genuine concerns of the Canadian people balanced against the
convenience of some of the phoney refugees who use our system
as a cloak to hide their criminal intentions.
Today Canadians are the ones being oppressed by some
so-called refugees. The balance must be swung in favour of
protection of our own citizens. It appears to me that the
presumption of innocence in Canadian law has come to mean the
determination of innocence without investigation.
It has become the practice of our immigration system to
assume that all refugees are nice people, that all refugees are
good for society. They ignore the fact that some of them have
long criminal records. The government appears to ignore the
outrageous crimes some of them commit on our soil.
One of those crimes was the senseless murder of Todd Baylis,
a constable in Toronto who was gunned down last year. An
immigrant who had been ordered deported in 1991 stands
accused of the crime. The department simply failed to deport
him earlier, which I am sure provides little comfort to the Baylis
family. Would the people at Amnesty International agree that
this person should have been deported four years ago? I think
they would.
9230
I will cite one more outrageous case. There are many more. A
Vietnamese man is serving an eight-year sentence in Kingston
for murder. He stabbed a man to death in a Toronto bar in 1991.
His case was heard while he was in prison in Kingston serving
his sentence and all his legal fees were paid by the Canadian
taxpayers.
That man was granted refugee status. In a few more years he
will be free and soon he will be a Canadian citizen. I doubt that
the Mennonite Central Committee would approve of this
situation.
Our system is becoming unbalanced. The focus of this
imbalance is the Immigration Refugee Board, a quasi-judicial
body set up to hear the cases of refugee claimants and hear
appeals of deportation orders.
A few weeks ago the Reform Party critic for immigration
advanced a discussion paper that said that the IRB is out of touch
and is virtually untouchable. The IRB is ridiculously lax. In
some regions of Canada, the IRB accepts more than 90 per cent
of the claimants that come before it.
In making a determination about a refugee claim, IRB
officials are not even allowed to use an adversarial approach as
in a regular judicial hearing. They take the burden of proof on
themselves to disprove a refugees claim and even take pains to
avoid using a tone of voice that would suggest that the onus of
providing proof of legitimacy rests with the claimant and not the
board.
Officers of the IRB are discouraged from checking into the
personal history of a suspicious claimant or even cross checking
to verify their stories. It is incredible.
As I stated earlier, this is a question of balance. Where the
safety of Canadians is at stake, any error should be on the side of
caution, not caution in favour of the refugee claimant who is
already known to be a dangerous criminal but the balance must
lean in favour of the victims, the Canadian people.
Bill C-44 intends to change the appeal process for refugees
convicted of serious crimes. It will take away the right of appeal
on humanitarian grounds from the Immigration Refugee Board
and give it to departmental officials. Why is the minister doing
this? This action really amounts to an accusation against the
IRB. The bill in fact shows that the IRB cannot protect the
public.
(1800)
The Liberals act in weakness and respond in frailty. First they
appoint their friends, friends who are usually non-objective
refugee advocates, to the board. Then they allow their ridiculous
decisions to stand. When the public outcry becomes so great that
someone must do something, the Liberals grudgingly take
action. They certainly do not want to disturb their leftist friends
at the IRB. No, the Liberals will just give their work to the
department.
The government refuses to attack the problem at its roots. The
problem lies in the decisions of the Immigration and Refugee
Board. Rather than taking the board in hand and taking it to task,
the Liberals take the easy way out and pass legislation that
changes the board's authority.
The bill is a vote of non-confidence in the IRB. It is an
admission that there is rot in the system and the rot should not be
ignored. It should be cut out. Bill C-44 will not be able to patch
up this problem; it will only fester and grow worse.
We would know exactly what to do with the Immigration and
Refugee Board. Reformers would dismantle it and replace it
with immigration department officials who have a mandate to
protect Canadian citizens. These competent public servants
would be able to do a much better job of determining refugee
claims at much less expense than 235 left wing political hacks
making $85,000 a year.
In short, we would toughen up our system to protect
Canadians born in Canada as well as Canadians who have been
welcomed as immigrants to our land. Canadians born in Canada
and newer immigrants who are Canadians by choice realize that
some refugees come to Canada not to escape persecution but to
escape prosecution.
In Vancouver near my own riding there was a recent headline
in the Vancouver Sun quoting the Vancouver chief of police
saying that one of the greatest problems facing the police in that
city were despicable Asian gangs that extort money through
violence and intimidation from other innocent recent Asian
immigrants. These gang members act with virtual impunity
because of loose laws and a silly bleeding heart Liberal
government lacking both the will and the courage to protect
innocent people.
That brings me to another issue. Immigrants call my office
and tell me they are ashamed and disgusted by the illegal actions
of a few and because of the government's inaction in this regard
every immigrant is tarred with the dirty brush of the criminal.
That is not fair to the vast majority of immigrants and refugees
in the country. The government is undermining its own policy by
allowing criminals to roam free. It is not fair.
Allow me to suggest a recommendation of the Canadian
Police Association that we would do well to think about. At
present we have two parallel systems of justice in Canada: one
for refugees and one for everyone else through the criminal
courts. The police association says we should allow criminal
courts to determine whether or not refugees are criminals and
then to decide if they should be deported, so that there is one
system for everyone in Canada: the equality of treatment idea.
This would take the burden away from the department and the
minister and give it to judges who work daily with criminal law.
9231
However the Liberal government will no doubt leave its friends
in the Immigration and Refugee Board undisturbed.
Bill C-44 is like sewing a new patch of cloth on a ragged old
pair of jeans. When we wash them the new patch shrinks and
tears away, and in the end the hole is bigger than it was to begin
with. The bill will do nothing more than tear new holes in the
fabric of our old flawed immigration system.
Why? Because it mandates more work and more powers for
officers without providing the resources to get the job done. The
bill barks but it has no bite. It is nothing more than window
dressing. It is good theatre with a parade of fine characters, but
when the curtain comes down and we go back to real life nothing
will get done, nothing will change.
Canada does not need more patchwork legislation. It needs a
completely new wardrobe. Nothing less than a complete refit of
our immigration system will do the job, and I might add that
Canada will probably also need a new tailor to finish the job.
Decades of Liberal neglect have whittled protection to the bone.
(1805)
You may not be aware, Madam Speaker, of an amazing fact.
These figures are give or take a thousand so I will not argue with
the figures in totality. There are currently 24,000 outstanding
deportation orders in the city of Toronto. How many
enforcement officers are there to deal with this problem? There
are 35 officers to locate and deport 24,000 people. This is just
one indication of the priority the Liberals place on the protection
of ordinary Canadians.
Even when the immigration department just trying to do its
job issues deportation orders to these people, the Liberal
government does not have the will to remove them. Canada's
refugee determination system is in a shambles. It is worse than
shameful. The electorate will one day act as police, judge and
jury because of it. The people will try the Liberals, convict them
and stick them in the political slammer for a generation.
The minister with great fanfare set up a task force last July to
crack down on illegal immigrants.
An hon. member: Rhetoric.
Mr. Strahl: Oh, no. He means it. This so-called task force is
made up of twenty RCMP officers, four assigned to Montreal,
four to Vancouver and only twelve to metro Toronto where there
are 24,000 outstanding deportation orders. Immigration officers
are so overwhelmed by the sheer numbers that they are unable to
execute a removal order unless the individual voluntarily turns
up. What a mockery of our system.
When the task force was struck the words of the sergeant in
charge were pitiful. He said right away to the press that he was
not going to go knocking on doors and arresting people. What
was he supposed to be doing then? This is symbolic of the
government's attitude toward 24,000 illegal acts gone
unchecked, 24,000 people flouting Canadian law and laughing
behind the backs of a lax justice and immigration system.
Listen to what the Canadian Police Association said just
before Christmas during the committee hearings on the bill. I
quote:
How anyone in this world when you have a police service of 16,000
members-that's the RCMP-could call 20 persons spread in the three major
cities across Canada a task force is really inconceivable to me. That phrase is
seriously abused-I'm not trying to be facetious, but (C-44) reminds me
somewhat of putting a band aid on the Hindenburg.
Ms. Clancy: I think I have heard this line before.
Mr. Strahl: The Canadian Police Association said that band
aid solutions would not work any more. Our system is
hemorrhaging and nothing less than radical surgery will restore
it to health.
There is the question of balance and there is the issue of
protection. I want to address one final issue upon which this
entire discussion turns. That is the issue of priority. The
Department of Citizenship and Immigration and all the costs
associated with settlements and so on approach $3 billion each
year. It costs $1 billion alone to process refugees. They teach
English, settle immigrants and do a host of other good things.
They also enforce the provisions of the Immigration Act.
However the priority placed on enforcement is the real
barometer of the government's real concern for these law and
order issues. The government can talk all it wants about
protection, but all this is just talk unless the government puts its
money where its mouth is. Only $50 million each year is spent
on enforcing the act, and that is compared to total expenditures
of $3 billion.
If my math is correct-and I think it is because I checked it on
this side of the House and not with the finance minister-that
amounts to 1.6 per cent of total expenditures. Less than 2 per
cent of the money we spend on immigration is spent on
protection and for that matter protecting recent immigrants as
well. How much is spent on salaries alone at the Immigration
and Refugee Board? I am sure you could guess, Madam Speaker.
In salaries alone the IRB costs the Canadian taxpayers $58
million each year. It is an outrageous abuse of taxpayers' money
and an indication that the government places less priority on
protecting innocent Canadians than on pleasing its fat political
friends at the Immigration and Refugee Board.
(1810)
Reformers do not suggest that the government spend more
money on immigration. Far from it. Reducing immigration
flows as we have suggested would reduce expenditures and free
up some of the taxpayers' funds to be placed where the priority
should be, on the protection of Canadians. Changing the priority
9232
from an Ottawa based bureaucracy to a front line bureaucracy
would save additional millions.
While the government announced a reduction in immigration
rates last year, as a York University professor argued today in
the Globe and Mail: ``Mr. Marchi imposed only a symbolic
reduction. He has buckled to the pressure of ethnic lobbies''.
Bill C-44 is just talk and it will remain empty talk until the
government gets busy and makes real and not just symbolic
changes to the immigration system.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
overwhelmed at the extremely low level of knowledge with
regard to the entire working of the immigration department
shown by my charming and well meaning colleague across the
way.
I would like to ask an absolute plethora of questions.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Have you ever been at a
hearing?
Ms. Clancy: Many times I have been before the refugee
board. I have appeared before it many times. Heaven knows I
never thought I would find myself in the position-
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): What is the question?
Ms. Clancy: This time is for questions or comments. I can do
either, and this is a comment.
I never ever believed that I would be in the position of
defending Edmund Burke. It is a very difficult position for a
Liberal to be in, to be defending Edmund Burke. I can only say
that I studied Edmund Burke. Through his works I knew
Edmund Burke. I would almost say in the sense one can be a
friend of a literary person who lived 200 years before one that
Edmund Burke was a friend of mine. To the hon. member for
Fraser Valley East, through you, Madam Speaker, he is no
Edmund Burke.
At any rate, the number of 24,000 deportees has been batted
around ad nauseam in the House. I just wonder if the hon.
member across the way has a scintilla of an idea as to how many
of those 24,000 have criminal records. The answer is very few,
but I am sure the hon. member does not wish to be distracted by
fact.
May I also say that one should be careful in the realm of
comment, with the greatest of respect to members on the other
side, when talking about people who have not yet been tried in
our criminal justice system, about guilt or innocence. The word
alleged is a good word to throw around here. I am sure my
colleague, the hon. member for Rosedale, who is on leave from
the faculty of the University of Toronto Law School, would be
happy to agree with me on that score. It is extremely unwise as
legislators to throw around words about guilt or innocence
before someone has been tried. If that were the case this
legislature would not need to exist.
My colleague from Fraser Valley East said that he does not
want us to spend any more money. That is admirable. As I
understand it that is the Reform theory. Yet he thinks that we
should be hiring all kinds of people to rush out and find these
24,000 people. Yes, they are under deportation. Yes, they should
be out of the country. But, again, the vast majority of them are
not criminals.
Does the hon. member understand how small a number of
immigrants and refugees actually has criminal records,
particularly when compared with born Canadians who have
criminal records? Does the hon. member know the difference
between immigrants and refugees? He tosses the two words
around as if they were interchangeable. As my hon. colleague
from Bourassa would agree with me, they are not the same. They
are quite different.
I am glad my whip is here. He may have to bring me water
because I may faint from the criminal level of lack of knowledge
that has been evidenced here by people standing and declaiming
about things they know absolutely nothing about.
(1815 )
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Rhetoric is what you got.
Ms. Clancy: Can you spell it? Probably not.
At any rate I want to say that if the hon. member can answer
these questions, I would like to hear an answer instead of the
nonsense that has been put forth about immigrants and refugees
in this country from this member.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, it was interesting after the
verbal tirade and pontifications of the hon. member that she
went on at some length to talk about the need for a proper trial
and so on that she says that I have a criminal lack of knowledge.
I guess she has tried and convicted me already. Maybe there is
no point in answering.
When it comes to the exact number of people of the 24,000
that I mentioned earlier who have criminal records, I would not
know. Say there is 10 per cent, say there are 2,500 cases serious
enough for deportation. Certainly in one city the size of Toronto
I would be alarmed at 2,500 people having criminal records
causing them to be deported. That is cause for serious concern.
The rest of course are also ordered to be deported and according
to the government's own figures and facts no fewer need to be
deported. It says that it is the one that has given the deportation
orders. It is just that it does not carry them out.
There is a sad part about this. There was a case a little while
ago. Someone wanted to bring in a 14-year old girl from Fiji on
a student visa and this is the gong show they had to go through.
9233
They have to get the student visa which is the last step in the
whole process. However that is what they are trying to get.
These people put forward a net worth statement and had to
prove they had an ongoing job, that they could support this
student while here. They did that.
Next they had to give a floor plan of their house showing they
had a room for this girl when she got here. That was kind of
insulting but they got the floor plan for their house and faxed it
off to try to arrange for this student visa.
Then they had to arrange for legal guardianship so that they
could say they would be her legal guardian while she was in
Canada on this student visa. They arranged for that.
Next they would have to get permission from the school
board. They arranged for written permission from the school
board for the girl to attend.
Then they received a fax saying that was not enough. They
now have to have a transcript of the court decision that gave
them legal guardianship. It was not enough that they had the
paper. They now had to jump through another hoop and show the
transcript.
All this is safe. This is what someone is trying to do to legally
bring someone in on a student visa.
Ms. Clancy: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Strahl: There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong
with that is these people are Canadians by choice. They are
relatively recent immigrants. All of their friends ask them:
``Why do you bother? That is the legal way to do it. Why bother?
Nobody does that when they want to get someone over. You just
go through the refugee system and bring them in''.
This girl should be here. I put a letter of endorsement on this
girl's application. They reason she cannot come to Canada to get
four years of senior secondary education is that the system is so
screwed up that it is better to come through a bogus refugee
system than it is through the legal means. That is what is wrong
with this system.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it certainly is my pleasure to continue this
debate in the House today regarding Bill C-44, an act to amend
the Immigration and Citizenship Act.
Amendments have taken place in part because of public
opinion, because of a need to address some abuses of our
immigration system by criminals. Although the incidence of
abuse is minimal, this bill will reduce the possibility for abuse.
(1820)
I would like to spend some time on that process and on the
statement I made regarding the use of public opinion. In this
House public opinion emerges, is debated and is transformed
into rules and regulations governing the behaviour and actions
of the people, institutions, companies and so forth in this
country. It is a very time consuming and costly process in a
democratic society. If it were a dictatorial society decisions
could be made instantaneously depending upon the whims and
fancies of the dictator.
So far all the rhetoric we have received from the Reform Party
clearly indicates they have the absolute solutions to all the
major problems that exist in the field of immigrants and
refugees. It is a very strong and dictatorial approach to problem
solving.
Today the member for Calgary Northeast made two
statements that all those who are in this House and those who
made deliberations in the past have laughed in the faces of
Canadians. He clearly indicated that Canada is an international
laughing stock. The deliberations in this House of Commons
both past and present at no time have deserved that type of abuse
from the member for Calgary Northeast.
I feel very strongly that the member should apologize not only
to all the present members of the House of Commons but also to
those of the past hundred years who devoted their time and
energy to solving the problems in our society. Above all he
should openly apologize to the people in the riding he represents
because the House of Commons is not laughing in their faces.
They are not laughing in the faces of all Canadians. They are
demanding an apology from the member for the type of ridicule
imposed upon members of Parliament who represented his
riding in years gone by and who devoted their time and energy to
make this a much better country. That is the kind of dedication
we would like to see in this Chamber. That is what a member of
Parliament of honour and nobility would portray in this House
as he tries to enhance the lives of all Canadians.
Yes, we do have problems in this country, but we will continue
to search in a very positive and sincere manner for solutions to
these problems. Problems emerge as people provide us with
their opinions. Through studies and the multitude of strategies
that we use in our communities the information flows and we
have to make a list of priorities and deal with them using the
resources we have, whether they be human or financial. The
time factor is very important here in what should be dealt with
immediately and what should be dealt with in the future. Long
range and short range planning are critical as far as the
deliberations of the members of the House of Commons are
concerned.
One problem we have that has been mentioned by members
across is the problem of selection, the problem of screening
prior to a refugee or an immigrant being accepted into this
country. What actually takes place beyond the shores of this
country when an individual puts in a claim to be accepted as a
refugee or an immigrant?
9234
Contrary to what has already been presented by members of
the Reform Party, for the viewing public as well as for members
of the House of Commons I would like to clearly stipulate the
process all potential immigrants and refugees must go through.
(1825 )
All immigrants to Canada are screened in depth by officers for
security and criminal concerns. Visitors are checked against
Canadian indices and followed up if there are previous adverse
records. Visitor applicants from high risk countries which may
pose security or criminal concerns are subject to additional
screening in Ottawa. There is a mandatory delay before which a
visa may be issued.
Contrary to what has already been presented by the Reform
Party I would like to point out to all listeners that immigrant
applicants abroad are requested for criminal purposes to
produce a police clearance where such is available and reliable.
In certain cases a secondary verification of this document takes
place. The RCMP also provides support in verifying criminal
record information in related matters.
Another point is these officers in selected countries abroad
also receive and gather information on selected individuals who
are suspected of war crimes or crimes against humanity. This
information is used to prevent admission of such undesirables.
I have just given a portion of the strategies used in order to
glean and to screen the applicants who wish to come to this
country.
Most of the people who came to this country in the past and
are here now are very good Canadians. They have chosen very
wisely. They have chosen to come to the best country in the
world. The vast majority of them turn out to be the very best
citizens we have. They are extremely hard workers, dedicated
and conscientious, constantly supporting the family unit,
constantly honouring and abiding by those values that
Canadians in general adhere to and support. They are not an
army of criminals. They are not an army of potential thieves.
They are not an army of potential deceivers.
We have to be very careful how we address this problem and
how we accept the data that is being presented by those
opponents to the immigration acts, not only on Bill C-44 which
is being presented, but on all those acts that have been presented
and passed in this House of Commons in generations gone by.
In support of what I have been saying, I would like to quote
from the Toronto Star of November 6, 1994 where in a flippant
manner an individual from the Reform Party has misquoted and
used numbers and figures to serve a certain purpose. The
purpose is suspect, the purpose is questionable. It states:
``Reform MP Jim Silye has insisted that RCMP documents
prove a total of 1,935 people were accepted as refugees without
any prior screening. Only later did police discover they had
criminal records''.
However all indications from the RCMP, the documentation
from immigration officials are that the statement is 100 per cent
totally inaccurate. However it could have an impact in tainting
the perceptions and tainting the opinions and attitudes of the
people who had first heard it.
What we did find out is that the number was used when that
number of people were being processed and had been
fingerprinted. We have to be very careful how we use figures
that appear in the documents and in public.
In my riding individuals approached me and were very
concerned about the criminal element. The criminal element has
been receiving a tremendous amount of attention in the media in
the past few months. Every time a society, no matter whether it
be Canadian or any other society in the world, goes through
some negative process, a decline in productivity, in employment
and so forth, in other words there is a recession or a depression,
we will find without fail that immigration policies will be
constantly attacked.
(1830 )
Every time it happened in our society there was a scapegoat
that took a tremendous amount of abuse and a great deal of
unhappiness was generated in certain communities because
people did not take the time to understand and be
compassionate. They listened to the kind of rhetoric that we are
getting from the Reform Party that does nothing but incite fear
in the minds of individuals wondering what is going on and what
the Canadian government is doing and so forth. They are
frightened. They are afraid for their jobs and so forth.
I could go on a great deal continuing with this debate but
unfortunately time is running out.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member has 10
minutes left on his time when we resume debate on Bill C-44.
_____________________________________________
9234
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
asked for an opportunity to comment on and criticize the answer
given by the Minister of Human Resources Development in
response to my question on December 6, 1994. I asked the
minister how he could claim that his reform was supported by 96
per cent of the population.
9235
This is called putting a spin on the figures. It is a very good
example of the old saying that you can make figures and
statistics say anything at all. The minister has turned this into a
fine art. I carefully examined the results of the poll the minister
used to support his statement, and I was very surprised when I
found that the poll's originator, the Angus Reid group, reached
conclusions that were sometimes the exact opposite of what the
minister said.
Before I give you some examples, I would like to make it clear
that in the interests of authenticity, I will quote the results of the
poll as written. This way, people can hardly accuse me of the
kind of behaviour I did not appreciate in the minister.
As my first example, I will quote question 4 which reads as
follows: The federal government is proposing measures to
reform social programs in Canada. Do you think it is a good or a
bad idea?'' On December 5, the minister claimed that ``96 per
cent of Canadians believe major changes have to be made
in''-and here is the difference-``social policy''.
I take this opportunity to remind you that the minister then
accused me of misunderstanding. According to the minister's
statement, we could expect 96 per cent of the people to answer
yes to question 4. Surprise, surprise. Only 70 per cent of
respondents thought it was a good idea. People thought social
reform was a good idea but a comprehensive reform is a
different story.
Can someone tell me where the missing 26 per cent are
hiding? Not among the 13 per cent who are undecided or the 17
per cent who are opposed. I might add that the question to which
70 per cent replied yes referred to a reform and not a
comprehensive reform, as the minister claimed.
Another flagrant example of inconsistency with the facts
concerns Quebec's support for the federal initiative. The
minister said that ``when the survey is broken down by region, as
many people in Quebec support the social reform proposals of
the government as in the rest of Canada''. This statement differs
substantially from the authors' findings. Let me quote them on
two issues. On page 7, they say that Ontario respondents were
the most likely to say that programs should be completely
revamped (64 per cent), while Quebec respondents were the
least likely to give the same answer (44 per cent).
(1835)
I note a 20 per cent difference between the two provinces. Is
that what the minister calls equality?
My second quote is the following. On page 11, we read,
concerning the proposed scheme for seasonal workers, that
respondents from Quebec are much less favourable to these
options; for example, 39 per cent of Quebec respondents agree
with the amount of benefits paid being reduced beyond a certain
number of applications, as opposed to an overall average
support of 52 per cent, a 13 per cent difference.
One last comment. It is not by overstating the importance of
an alleged popular support that we will convince the people of
the merits of these proposals. It would be much wiser to stick to
reality and, this way, preserve our credibility. This comment is
valid today and it will still be when the reform proposal is back
on the agenda, as we now know that political considerations
have prevailed over the need for reform.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this government has consulted extensively with
Canadians in an unprecedented number of ways on whether and
how Canada's social safety net should be improved.
These consultations as well as a number of independent polls
show a clear consensus across all regions on the need for reform.
Canadians want change and they want it now. In one poll 96 per
cent of Canadians believe that some change must be made to
social programs. In another poll after being questioned on all
key proposals almost two-thirds of Canadians felt the
government is moving in the right direction.
Support for the directions of reform has increased to 50 per
cent in Quebec and has also increased in Atlantic Canada.
During our consultations with Canadians over 600
organizations, including women's organizations, appeared
before the committee. Over 100,000 Canadians participated in
other consultations including town hall meetings, seminars and
completing workbooks. Women's groups held a separate
consultation process, as did aboriginal groups. We welcomed
their contributions to the debate.
With respect to the hon. member's concerns regarding
proposals to modify the unemployment insurance program, it
should be pointed out that while income testing is one option
being considered, 70 per cent of women who claim UI are not
frequent UI claimants and would therefore not be affected by
this proposal.
It should also be noted this government has taken concrete
measures to address the concerns of female UI recipients.
Recent changes to the UI program through Bill C-17 included a
new 60 per cent dependency benefit rate for low income earners.
To date nearly 78 per cent of claimants under this rate are
women.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker,
on December 15, I asked the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food to tell us why the Canadian government let the
United States unilaterally change the classification of products
with a high sugar content. I should point out that, because of that
decision, Quebec and Canada stand to lose 2,400 jobs.
9236
The minister replied that Canada was opposed to the position
taken by the United States and had made representations to the
U.S. department of agriculture.
For those who work in the sugar industry and who are trying to
keep their job, these platitudes mean absolutely nothing. Since
these changes occurred before the signing of GATT, the federal
government should have taken action then. It should not have
waited until it was too late and then use its commitments to
GATT as an excuse.
The minister also told us at the time that the Minister for
International Trade was in touch with his U.S. counterpart to
make the Canadian position abundantly clear, which was very
reassuring at the time. It is nice to talk, but it is even better to
act.
Along with such evasive answers, the minister also promised
that the best interests of Canadians and Quebecers would be
protected swiftly and efficiently.
It would appear that the lion has shrunken to a pussycat when
confronted by the American giant, since it seems that the
restrictive measures taken by the Americans have been in place
since January 1.
(1840)
It is increasingly clear that Canada is the lightweight in these
bilateral negotiations. The sugar issue will follow the red wheat
and durum wheat issues on the list of good examples of the
federal government's spinelessness.
The federal government accuses us left and right of criticizing
without making any suggestions. When I raised this issue last
December, I strongly suggested that the minister submit the
issue to the GATT panel. At that time, he replied that the
Government of Canada would take all of the steps necessary to
protect Canada and Quebec from measures taken by the
Americans of which he disapproved. Since the government who
is supposed to be protecting us is scared of its own shadow, we
Quebecers have to defend ourselves, and there is not much time.
Worse yet, we learned today in a Canadian Press report that
the United States intends to challenge Canadian tariffs on dairy
product, egg and poultry imports.
Since we have lost the fight with regard to durum wheat,
sugar, ice cream and yogurt, I fear for our producers and our
processors. In one corner, the Minister of International Trade, a
cocky little scrapper, and in the other corner, the American trade
representative, Mickey Kantor, who knocks out our minister,
our defender, our leader in the fight for our economic rights.
The sugar industry has already lost 2,400 jobs and will lose
several thousand more. That is exactly what the Liberals wrote
in the red book: jobs, jobs, jobs. They were right in the sense
that-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry but your time
has expired.
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to respond to the hon. member's comments tonight.
I want to point out to the hon. member that the minister of
agriculture and the Minister for International Trade have had
numerous discussions with their U.S. counterparts during the
Uruguay round of GATT and after that in order to try to resolve
the issue of Canadian access to the U.S. market for sugar and
sugar containing products.
During those discussions the Canadian approach to the issue
that remained outstanding was to seek a solution which would,
at the very least, preserve existing levels of trade in sugar and
sugar containing products. The minister made his concerns very
clear when in December he said we regret that the U.S. has
rejected this approach and implemented draconian measures.
The minister of agriculture clearly expressed our
government's disappointment with the U.S. and continued to
seek a delay in the implementation of the U.S. measures against
Canadian exports. He went on to say that the U.S. decision is one
that has been and he could see would be inequitable and
shortsighted on their part.
The U.S. has proceeded with the reclassification of certain
sugar containing products so as to make the access of those
products to the U.S. more difficult or impossible. The effects of
these changes has been to reduce Canadian access to the U.S. for
sugar containing products and the market there for us.
Officials are continuing to work with the industry and
industry officials to develop a reliable estimate of the impact.
We certainly have seen a worst case scenario and that has been
quantified. However, these are not based on fact but mainly on
hypothesis.
As to the government's reaction, the minister will continue to
consult with the industry and the provinces as to possible action,
look at reviewing legal options and of course our preferred
approach is a negotiated solution because we consider the best
way to resolve these issues is to deal with each one on its own
merits without trading off the different sectors against each
other.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.45 p.m.)