TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monday, September 19, 1994
Bill C-209. Motion for second reading 5785
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 5789
Bill C-44. Motion for second reading 5792
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 5808
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 5808
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5811
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 5813
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5814
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5814
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5814
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 5815
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 5815
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5815
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5816
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5816
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5817
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5817
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5818
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 5818
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 5819
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 5819
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5820
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5820
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 5821
Bill C-46. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5822
Bill C-47. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5822
Bill C-48. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5822
Bill C-49. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5822
Bill C-50. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5822
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 5823
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 5823
Motion for concurrence in 28th report 5828
Bill C-44. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 5829
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 5829
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 5830
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 5831
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 5835
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 5846
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 5851
5785
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, September 19, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that in accordance
with the representation made by the government under the
provisions of Standing Order 55(1) I have caused to be
published a special order paper giving notice of introduction of
government bills. I now lay the relevant document upon the
table.
[Translation]
My dear colleagues, I have the honour to lay on the table a
copy of the reprint of the Standing Orders of the House of
Commons, dated September 1994, which includes all
amendments to the Standing Orders since the beginning of the
session.
_____________________________________________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon) moved that Bill C-209,
an act to provide for full employment in Canada, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, today I rise in this Parliament to
speak to what I believe is one of the biggest issues facing each
one of us here and one of the greatest responsibilities, jobs and
job creation.
We are still in double digit unemployment. There are still far
too many people unemployed. It is time this government took
direct action and accountability for unemployment levels.
Bill C-209, an act to provide for full employment in Canada,
will ensure that the government is as accountable for job
creation as it is for deficit reduction.
A full employment strategy means that all of the federal
government's activities, managing interest rates and the dollar,
dealing with trading partners, investing in new businesses and
innovation, helping workers retrain, and every other aspect of
federal economic and social policy are guided by the objective
of achieving full employment.
Full employment does not mean an unemployment rate of
zero per cent. Economists estimate that it is generally
considered between 3 and 4 per cent. It does mean that there is
no permanent structural unemployment and that it is a set of
precepts by which other policies should be guided. Full
employment also does not mean that the government guarantees
everyone a job. It means that the number of jobs available in
public and private sectors is very close to the number of people
active in the workforce.
The objectives of a full employment policy have been proven
over and over again in other countries to work very well in
concert with proper labour market policies.
A full employment economic strategy will build social justice
with unemployment and underemployment reduced. The
devastation of poverty and a lack of choices and opportunities
are tragedies that characterize our present economic system, one
that is clearly in failure.
[Translation]
I would like to explain, first of all, that this bill requires the
minister to prepare a draft plan for the achievement of full
employment in Canada and lay it before Parliament.
(1105)
The draft plan would then be reviewed by a standing
committee of the House of Commons. The minister would
consider the report and recommendations of the committee in
the preparation of a final plan. The plan would be reviewed
annually against the targets for achieving full employment, and
the report on any adjustments necessary to meet the targets of
the plan would be prepared within six months of the end of the
year and laid before Parliament.
I have quite a few recommendations on how this objective
should be achieved-in fact, there are 22-but I will just
describe a few. For instance, an environmental awareness
program that would promote the goal of sustainable
development through new environmental technologies, sewage
treatment facilities and energy efficiency programs.
It is therefore necessary to have an investment policy that
includes the right to review and regulate foreign investment in
Canada, a national investment fund that operates at arms-length
from the government and an elimination of corporations' rights
to deduct interest expenses from taxable income.
5786
A national policy on education that includes a national
council on education which would examine all issues relevant
to education.
An important ingredient of this plan is strengthened support
to existing social programs such as health care and the creation
of new social programs such as a national child care program.
It is also necessary to have comprehensive adjustment
measures for workers such as the establishment of a mandatory
job vacancy registry and job matching system through Canada
Employment Centres and the establishment of adjustment
committees for employees in positions where significant
lay-offs are anticipated, to facilitate counselling, re-training
and employment services for workers who are or may be laid off.
It is necessary as well to provide for examination of the
impact of all federal fiscal policies on employment, including
the mandate of the Bank of Canada.
These examples are all in the bill, and I think it is very
important for a committee to consider the ways in which this
part of the bill can be implemented.
[English]
One of the most important aspects of this bill is it will ensure
that the government reports unemployment targets to the House
of Commons as it now does with deficit reduction targets. By
law the plan would be reviewed annually against targets for
achieving full employment with adjustments required to
meeting the targets of the plan to be reviewed within six months
of the end of the year.
The point of this bill is that the government must be as
accountable for the reduction of unemployment as it is for the
reduction of the debt and the deficit.
There is a clear linkage between the policies of the
government and the ability of our economy not to have a jobless
recovery but to have a real recovery with jobs. Canadians who
are now underemployed or unemployed would have work.
When I speak of labour market policies there are a number
that must be taken into account. For example, in recent statistics
we see the largest increase in the number of jobs has been in part
time jobs. Many people may wish to work part time but others
work part time because they have no option. There must be
policies in place to ensure that part time workers receive
benefits and that they receive full recognition for part time
work. Saskatchewan has brought in benefits for part time
workers. The federal government and other provinces should
follow that model.
(1110)
Other adequate labour market policies are absolutely
necessary. I would like to mention some of the
recommendations which have come out of the labour movement.
In particular, the Canadian Labour Congress addressed the issue
not only of job creation but of the need to ensure that the existing
work is more equitably spread. Many people work many hours
of overtime while others rest without employment at all.
I would like to mention some of the recommendations of the
Canadian Labour Congress. It specifically addresses the issue of
how we attain full employment and the labour market policies
which the government can put in place to facilitate that.
For example, there is the reduction of standard weekly hours
to less than 40 hours per week. In the past there was a huge battle
about limiting work hours. There is a requirement for employers
to keep a log of all hours worked and more stringent limits on
overtime, both weekly and annually.
We know many employers would rather pay overtime than to
create a new job and take on a new employee because there is
less book work and less hassle for the employer. We have to
facilitate making it possible for the employer to do that. In some
recent collective agreements, for example in automative
manufacturing, a whole new shift with a number of new
employees has been employed and other employees have
reduced their overtime.
The government should take the initiative in looking at those
kinds of issues. Clearly in doing this we have to look at not
simply reducing pay to workers. When looking at the work week
and reductions in overtime and the accompanying labour market
policies we must also ensure that benefits and other recompense
are respected. Many kinds of these ideas are there. They can be
acted upon by a government that really wants to deal with the
issue and not simply speak about it.
I would like to speak briefly about the Minister of Human
Resources Development's ongoing social policy review. It
relates very closely to this plan for full employment. The goal of
the review should be to make social programs more efficient but
also more equitable. Accordingly the Minister of Human
Resources Development in the context of his social policy
review must consider adopting a comprehensive policy of full
employment.
Lower unemployment means a lower deficit. The two are
inextricably linked. That is the purpose of this bill: to say that
the government of the day must give equal emphasis to reducing
unemployment as to reducing the deficit because they are
inextricably linked.
We do not need to cripple our social programs and
marginalize the unemployed to reduce the deficit. That is like
chopping up the furniture to heat the home. Let us start dealing
with the fundamental structural problems of the bad economic
policies we have seen pursued in this country.
Let us also get rid of the myth that unemployment is free. It is
impossible to reduce a budget deficit when there is widespread
unemployment. Official direct costs of unemployment to
government were $47.5 billion in 1993.
5787
(1115 )
The Canadian Council for Policy Alternatives estimates the
direct costs of unemployment at $109 billion for 1993 if we
include unemployment insurance costs, lost salaries, additional
UI premiums paid by employed workers, lost profits and lost tax
revenues. Unemployment is not free: it is not free financially, it
is not free in human terms, it is not free to communities and to
families.
If every unemployed worker had a job tomorrow, the federal
government would collect some $5.5 billion more in taxes. It
would spend at least $16 billion less in income support. High
unemployment is a human tragedy, the federal government's
most wasteful expense and its biggest unnecessary tax loss.
Official unemployment is now at 10.3 per cent. Youth
unemployment is at 16.4 per cent. More than one worker in four
is now forced to draw unemployment insurance benefits at some
time in the year and one in three exhaust these benefits before
finding other jobs.
Most recent statistics indicate that 42 per cent of workers are
employed part time. Many of those are only employed
seasonally. Only 20 per cent of working women hold full time,
permanent jobs that pay more than $30,000 per year. Taken as a
whole, only 31 per cent of all workers have full time, year round
jobs that pay more than $30,000 a year.
The 25-year trend of increased participation of women in the
labour force has been reversed, especially for young women.
More women have been pushed into part time jobs and
outnumber men in these positions by almost three to one.
The current government has continued to pursue the policies
of the past, in particular, those introduced by the former
Conservative government. These policies do not come to grips
with permanent, structural unemployment.
In this bill, I outline a number of ways that might be
considered. There are many others: the labour market policies
that I spoke to earlier; the kind of recommendations of labour
bodies and other groups to working toward this objective.
A clear commitment to full employment and to a strategy of
full employment; building partnerships, setting goals and
meeting them, putting tools in the hands of working people,
protecting our environmental capital and understanding and
rising to the challenges posed by the world economy; these
should be the cornerstone of an economic policy.
This bill would be one step toward that cornerstone. I urge the
support of this House.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Madam
Speaker, it is a privilege for me to take part in the debate on this
extremely important issue. I would also like to take this
opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for her work over a
number of years. I think she has a well earned reputation of
striving to better the lives of working Canadians.
I paid attention to her comments. As a government, since the
October 25 election, we have worked extremely hard in the past
11 months to bring positive change to the lives of Canadians.
No one in the House has a monopoly on the concerns of the
number one priority in this country, which is job creation. That
priority of jobs, of achieving employment growth, of ensuring
meaningful, well paying jobs for all Canadians, is something
that all of us, regardless of which side of the House we sit on,
should be concentrating on.
No hon. member, no one party in this House has exclusive
interest in improving our economy. The government has truly
created an environment where job creation can take place. We
are committed to reducing unemployment and opening up the
labour force to those individuals who want to participate in it.
(1120)
The government has taken and is taking steps at this very
moment to ensure that Canadian workers from coast to coast to
coast have an opportunity to participate in rewarding and lasting
employment. From the very beginning of its term in office it has
been implementing a well laid out plan to promote economic
growth and establish long term, rewarding jobs for Canadians. It
has to be done in an orderly step by step fashion.
We started rebuilding at the foundation. We have launched an
infrastructure program in co-operation with the provinces that
is addressing local needs. This infrastructure program is
successful because it focuses on the local needs of the
community. It speaks to the issue of effective partnerships, a
model for all governments to follow.
The $6 billion national program showed to Canadians that
different levels of government, when they are focusing on the
big picture which is to provide opportunity, to restore hope and
improve the quality of life for Canadians, can work.
Government can be a force for positive change and by
facilitating the process of change and the process of building
communities we can return to Canadians the feeling that
something is getting done for their communities and for future
generations.
We are, through the infrastructure program, investing in our
future. We are building our roads. We are building better
communities. We are investing in those things that Canadians
have called for and most of all-I underline this point-we are
doing it in partnership.
5788
For example, we are working hand in hand with the
Government of Saskatchewan to upgrade the province's rural
roads over the next two years. This federal-provincial
partnership will invest $30 million and will create more than
500 full time jobs. That is not all.
The spinoff from this project will result in hundreds of
additional jobs for Saskatchewan. Residents in the construction,
technical and professional trades will have opportunities to
work instead of sitting in the unemployment lines.
Those of us who represent the province of Ontario will
understand the hurt and pain the residents have gone through in
the recessionary years when their so-called Canadian dream
slipped away. They question the future and what kind of future
their children will have. We have established an infrastructure
program in co-operation with the province of Ontario known as
the Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Works. We estimate it will
create approximately 37,000 direct and indirect jobs.
(1125)
These are facts and figures. They speak to the commitment the
government has toward bringing back jobs, creating economic
growth and, more important, giving back confidence to the
people of Canada, confidence that was shaken during our
recession.
I can talk about other projects in the regions of York or
Waterloo where investments have been made so that we can once
again regain the strength required at the local and community
levels to drive the economy and give confidence to the people so
that we can push forward.
These are fine examples of how partnerships can work, how
we can foster a strong and productive partnership together. The
government expects to create approximately 90,000 jobs for
Canadians both on site in construction and off site in providing
supply and services. Beyond that several thousand of more jobs
will be created indirectly from the program's impact.
That is not all. One starts by building the foundation. We
addressed infrastructure. We then moved forward to strategic
initiatives with the provinces. There again the theme is of
partnership and regional concerns, bringing about the type of
co-operation that is required if we are going to introduce a new
way to govern.
We have allocated $800 million strategic initiative funds for
the next four years. This investment will enable us to build a
Canada that is consciously job oriented and reflects a
prosperous, enterprising society.
The minister has already announced a number of projects
under the strategic initiative programs. They include job link
with the province of Ontario, a $50 million investment to help
thousands of welfare recipients get employed. Is this not what
governments should be doing, providing opportunities to people
that historically have been trapped by the same system that
should be helping them?
We will be operating in 10 to 12 communities and job link is
transforming existing programs into one co-ordinated system to
help people move away from welfare into work. We want to get
people off the welfare rolls and on to the payrolls of this nation.
This is what people are asking for.
We were all campaigning for the October 25 election. Every
door we knocked on people were saying: ``Give us hope. Give us
a job so that we can look to the future with confidence''. This
example of job link with the province of Ontario speaks to that.
It speaks to the understanding of a fundamental principle that
government's role is to provide opportunities for people and the
individual's role is to make the most out of those opportunities.
If I may review, the government is moving into a social
security review that will once again give to many Canadians the
tools required so that they can compete locally, nationally and
globally. We are working very hard to make sure that the dream
of a job is realized from coast to coast to coast.
(1130)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Madam Speaker, I would
like to mention, although this will be underlined further this
afternoon, that we are sitting today for the first time minus one
of our colleagues.
I was very pleased to start off the session with a debate on full
employment. However, the debate taking place in the context of
this particular bill, my pleasure turned to displeasure, to bitter
disappointment as regards the nature of the provisions put
forward by the New Democratic Party.
A full employment policy, as anyone who has looked into the
subject would know and as far as I am concerned, includes
basically two main components: so-called macroeconomic
policies concerning employment and policies at the regional and
local level which, because of the ownership of the local and
regional players, allow maximum job-creation benefits to be
derived from national policy, whatever the nation, at the
regional level as well as from a more local and regional policy.
I would like to mention in passing, as time is short-but I
hope we can come back to it later on-that Diane Bellemare and
Lise Poulin-Simon, two university professors have looked into
these matters extensively since the 80s in Quebec. They have
worked so hard in fact that they influenced not only the central
labour bodies, which they criticized in a way, but also
management, which was also criticized, and governments to
such a
5789
point that in Quebec, we now have some essential tools such as
the following.
I will not address macro-economic policy, as it is Ottawa's
responsibility. And in Ottawa, contrary to the government
member's claims, concern for employment is not obvious to say
the least. An infrastructure program was introduced. Fine, but
we must also consider all that was not, and we will come back to
this repeatedly over the course of the session. In spite of all the
idle talk and the campaign promises, this government cannot be
said to be concerned with employment.
At the other level however-and it may be fitting to mention
this here-the second component I referred to earlier is
basically an involvement policy. Such a policy can, especially in
Quebec but in other provinces also, as we will see, be developed
at the local or provincial level.
Let me read you two sentences. On what basis do Mrs.
Bellemare and Poulin contend that micro-economic
employment policy should come under provincial jurisdiction?
First, provincial governments are at a definite advantage for
political considerations when it comes to implementing such a
policy.
(1135)
In fact, the constitutional division of powers-and as far as I
know the Constitution has not been changed, but, of course, it is
convenient to forget this-gives the provinces considerable
jurisdiction with respect to work and labour relations, education
and training, and development of resources. And I would point
out that it is Diane Bellemare and Lise Poulin-Simon who are
saying this, not the Bloc.
Secondly, there are cultural, linguistic and ideological
considerations-to which, it seems to me, the sponsor of this
bill could have been sensitive-which put the provincial
governments in a better position than the federal government to
implement a micro-economic employment policy effectively.
It seems to me that what we are seeing here is the complete
failure of the federal policy to achieve what one would expect of
a full employment policy, that is economic, financial and
budgetary policies at the macro-economic level from the
government of the country. And having failed in that, it now
wants to become involved directly and with all the necessary
control over what is, in this Constitution-but I will say
more-the very nature of a full employment policy, something
which should be left to the provinces and to the regional and
local levels.
I would add that the current globalization of markets, which
has not waited for the FTA or NAFTA, is forcing all countries to
give the best of themselves to achieve an employment policy. In
fact, it is at the level of the people, businesses, unions, groups in
each of the municipalities, in collaboration with the level of
government most closely concerned and with the closest access
to the constitutional powers that the project and the
implementation can be carried out.
That is where it becomes easier when we know that we in
Canada have not even been able during all these years to agree
on manpower training, which is absolutely essential, and when
the NDP bill does not refer in any way to what the provinces do
better. That is true in any country. Why do at the federal level
what would be done better at the regional and community level?
Why? Because of a lack of confidence in the ability of our
communities, our regions and, in the case of the Canadian
Constitution, our provinces?
There is plenty of goodwill and good intentions that I share. I,
however, think that the means used are totally inadequate and
cannot work in Canada under the current Constitution. But there
is more than that. In Canada-and I think this will last for a long
time given Canada's current geography-it is impossible for a
full employment policy to be ``controlled, implemented and
developed from Ottawa". The federal government must have
employment-conscious fiscal, budgetary and financial policies,
but it must let the provinces, the regions and the municipalities
do what they do better, and give them the means to do so. At the
present time, the means derive from the spending powers
controlled by Ottawa.
(1140)
I would like us to re-examine this issue, but I am clearly very
disappointed.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, before I get into the main body of my
remarks I would like to deal specifically with a couple of points
that the member for Mercier made in her remarks.
She talked about this motion not dealing enough with the
macroeconomic factors in this equation of creating an
environment for full employment and focused very much on the
fact that all of these jurisdictions such as training and education
be the exclusive jurisdiction of the province.
I would like to remind the member for Mercier that trying to
get the macroeconomic factors in the equation right is very
tough to accomplish when there are members in this House
whose constant barrage dealing with the dismantling of this
country affects our markets in terms of the way foreigners invest
in this country, which ultimately affects the rate of our dollar,
which causes great stress on our deficit and debt reduction
programs.
If the member for Mercier is truly committed to getting the
macroeconomic side of this equation in place, then I would ask
the member to review the impact her party and its dialogue are
having on that part of the equation.
5790
To the hon. member who raised this motion, I agree that it is
the most important issue facing this House of Commons today. I
wish we could have this debate going non-stop around the clock
until we grind this issue down and get a number of concrete and
doable ideas on the table. I, like the hon. member, believe that
this is the priority for all of us.
We on this side of the House are trying to work in some
concrete ways in addressing this problem. I think it is important
for Canadians to understand that, because it is easy to create the
perception in the public's eye that not a heck of a lot happens in
Ottawa and in this House of Commons.
We stated during the last election that the greatest hope for
putting Canadians back to work rests with the small and medium
sized business community. Not only on this side but all members
have been working very hard in the industry committee on a
study called access to capital for small business which
essentially will challenge the banks to become more
accountable in their actions toward small business.
That report hopefully will be tabled in this House in the not
too distant future for all of us to debate. Members from all
parties worked on that report, not just for the last six months but
during the summer. It is in its final edit stages. Canadians should
know that commitment of challenging the banks, that report
which we said in the last budget we would undertake, is very
close to becoming a public document for all of us to debate. I
think that is important.
I would also like to remind Canadians that my colleague from
Parry Sound-Muskoka worked all last spring with many other
colleagues and they travelled every region of Ontario on an
access to capital report. That report is in fact finished. It
contains some fabulous recommendations. It is available to all
Canadians. They just have to write to the office of the member
for Muskoka-Parry Sound who has said repeatedly that he
would be more than happy to send it out.
(1145)
In specific terms, small business needs capital if it is going to
put people back to work. That is something concrete that we are
working on.
There is something else happening. I do not want for a second
to suggest to the member for Yukon that what I am saying is
enough. I do not think we are doing enough. I think we should be
more accountable. It is important to show that we are doing
some specific things.
There is another thing we are working on in a very specific
way. There is a joint Industry Canada-Finance Canada study on
how to reduce the paper burden for small business. This is
another reason why a lot of entrepreneurs have a feeling of
frustration and are holding back. That study, which is being
worked on, is something we must address in concrete terms.
Another issue that Canadians want us to take on this fall
especially as we head toward the next budget is the whole issue
of tax reform. We have a system of taxation in this country that
is inefficient, complex, and obviously not fair. I support many of
the recommendations of the member for Yukon. She has talked
about many of these issues over the last number of years. I
believe that we have now reached a point in this House and in the
country where Canadians are going to be pressing us harder than
ever to deal with the whole issue of taxation.
I believe taxation is an integral part of putting Canadians back
to work. The harder you work, the more you make and the more
you tend to want to invest or spend. The current tax system is a
disincentive to investment and a disincentive to spending. In
fact many of our best and brightest, our real achievers, are
leaving our country. If they are not parking themselves offshore,
they are parking their investment dollars offshore. Putting
Canadians back to work and dealing with the very concrete and
real numbers that the member for Yukon talked about in terms of
deficit and debt costs cannot be done without dealing with the
entire tax regime that exists in this country. That will be another
one of our very important challenges.
Mr. Riis: Let's get going on it.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Members are saying
let's get going. It is the first day back from the summer recess
and we are going. We have a tremendous turnout of interested
members this morning. It is Monday morning and we are going
at it. I am not asking you to be patient. In fact, I hope you keep
pressing harder than ever. I think members are raising a very
important point. This is the sense of urgency.
I was working on a project this summer in the Toronto
waterfront corridor. According to provincial studies-
Mr. Riis: A casino.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Yes, a casino was
included as one factor in the equation. It was only 2 per cent of
it. Last week some municipal politicians were saying that we are
too aggressive in our actions in trying to get this project going. I
do not know how you can be too aggressive in trying to put
people to work, especially when you come from a city where
there are close to 400,000 out of work.
That deals with my final point. We as members of Parliament
have to understand the sense of urgency that Canadians feel. It is
something that we really must address.
(1150 )
I know that in the private sector when times are tough you
work two shifts a day. Sometimes you work six or seven days a
week. Not only in this government but at all levels of
government we should possibly consider setting up a public
service
5791
arrangement where they work two shifts a day, seven days a
week, not unlike the way members of Parliament work.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak today on this bill. I join the hon. member for
Yukon in her sincere desire that no Canadian ever have to suffer
the anxiety and the stress of being unable to find a good job with
a good income sufficient to provide for themselves and their
family. I commend her for her compassion and for wishing to
devise a way to relieve this and other difficulties faced by all too
many of our citizens.
Unfortunately the measure she is proposing in the bill before
this House today simply cannot achieve this ideal. It would be
wonderful if people through their elected representatives could
by putting the right words on paper eliminate difficulties and
uncertainty in the economic, political and social spheres of our
society. In my view it does not work that way. That view is based
on observations of government actions both past and present,
some in our own country.
Creating a state bureaucracy which will somehow create jobs
for everyone is certainly not a new idea. The well known slogan
of the old Soviet Union was: ``From each according to his
ability, to each according to his need''. What that led to was
summarized in the typical black humour of the Polish workers
who used to say: ``We pretend to work and the government
pretends to pay us''.
To suggest to Canadians that governments owe them jobs or
are even capable of providing them with jobs in every case
would be a cruel deception. This is particularly true for this
government, already over half a trillion dollars in debt and
spending $41 billion and rising every single year just on interest
on that debt.
The tax burden on working Canadians simply to sustain the
present level of spending is already a crushing load. Where will
the money come from to create the ministry of plenty envisioned
in this bill? Governments have no money of their own. They
must work with money taken from citizens. Even if they
recovered some revenue in the form of taxes this proposal would
still require an enormous additional expenditure in terms of the
bureaucratic handling fee that would be made necessary by this
new initiative.
If government programs, spending, borrowing for more
programs and increasing tax grabs to fund it all could give
people jobs, there would be enough programs and spending in
Canada to give every single citizen three jobs. It has not worked
out that way.
Since big government, big government programs and
interference in the economy are what have brought us to today's
fiscal mess I am frankly amazed that anyone would be
advocating more of the same today.
Allow me to outline some of the obvious flaws in this bill.
Clause 3 of this legislative proposal calls for governments to
give priority to the undertaking of sufficient measures to
achieve full employment in Canada and establish programs that
ensure that employment opportunities are available to all adult
Canadians who seek work.
These suggestions are vague and they are optimistic. The
shortage of specifics with intent to achieve idealistic goals
seems to infer that the government should spend tax dollars to
create employment without creating wealth or economic growth
to support it.
It seems to me that we have tried these measures before in
countless forms throughout our history without creating any
possibility for long term employment. The most recent example
is this government's initiative to assist unemployed Canadian
youth. These programs amount to a redistribution of tax dollars
to our young people in exchange for performing routine tasks. It
does nothing to give them long term jobs and skills.
The premier of Ontario tried to spend his way out of
recessionary times during his first year in office. We know the
results there. This type of mentality has already plunged Canada
to the brink of fiscal collapse. Investor confidence has weakened
and with it has come a loss of jobs and a shaky economy.
High interest rates are another result of this type of
government policy. The vicious spiral of government spending
leads to a high level of taxation which in turn contributes to
inflation which stifles entrepreneurship.
(1155 )
The best way to create employment and thus achieve this
bill's objectives is to eliminate government waste, remove
barriers and regulations that hinder commerce, cut spending and
reduce taxes. In this environment there would be a streamlined
bureaucracy serving the real needs of Canadian entrepreneurs.
Canadians would have more money left in their pockets to start
and build businesses and there would be enough profit left to
make their work and risk worthwhile. Only when individuals are
prepared to risk their own capital can we expect to have a strong
and vibrant economy.
Studies have shown and indeed the hon. member opposite just
mentioned that an enormous percentage of real long term jobs
are created by a healthy small business sector.
We need to get government off the backs of people and keep
governments' demands from obstructing their dreams and work.
There is no need to further encumber the people of Canada with
yet another government department and still more regulations to
stimulate employment.
This bill also calls for a draft plan that will include an
estimate of the number of jobs expected to be created in Canada
as a result of the plan and a timetable for its implementation and
5792
for the achievement of full employment. This suggestion poses
some very serious questions.
First, experience has amply demonstrated that governments
by their nature cannot be trusted to forecast the economic
capacity of a free market. Their attempts to do so have only led
to some type of a planned economy. I am sure we are all aware of
the outcome of such strategies as practised in other countries.
The omniscient role for government as advocated by this
proposal would be best replaced by enhancing the resources of
the private sector which has the most at stake. Other countries
have recognized that economic decision making must be centred
not on periodic pronouncements and decrees from a distant
bureaucracy. This type of top-down policy would only cost
Canadians jobs by stifling initiatives and creating obstacles.
There is a need for government policies that promote
competition and choice. This would foster a market culture
predicated on efficiency and ingenuity. These in turn will
generate more activity in the marketplace which will create
more jobs. It would be of great benefit if government was more
user friendly and more accessible. Canadians want more
personal responsibility and less imposed government
dependency.
This bill's plan unfortunately seeks the opposite. Every able
and willing Canadian should be able to find suitable
employment but that can only happen when the nation's wealth
is left in the hands of entrepreneurs, investors and business
people rather than taken from them to be spent by bureaucrats,
politicians and grant recipients.
Clause 6 of this bill itemizes 22 regulatory protectionist or
expenditure related measures which the sponsors hope will
ensure full employment. Most disturbing of all is the
consideration of the establishment of a department of full
employment that would include a mandate to achieve full
employment. It is almost incredible that as our fiscal crisis
looms larger, ideas involving yet another increase in
government spending and thus an increased tax burden are still
being promoted.
Still others of these measures would close doors to Canadian
drugs and restrict our markets to imports. To tie this all together,
an intricate web of new agencies would also be created to carry
out the policies.
What fascinates me is that there is no mention of where the
funds would come from to realize these goals. This is one of the
best examples of a recipe for disaster. We must instead
strengthen co-operation between business, government and
labour to ensure sustainable environmental development, the
development of training programs which will meet the real
demands of industry and work for tax relief and reform.
The Reform Party supports a general program of expenditure
reduction, not increase, leading to a lower level of taxation, a
lower cost of doing business and a lower cost of living. We need
to get the deficit and debt under firm control while reforming the
tax system in order to create a level playing field which would
allow private initiatives to stimulate the economy.
To this end we will work toward a simple, visible and flat
taxation system. I was glad to hear the member opposite support
that in the speech before me. Investment consumer confidence
in a market economy are directly related to the cost of
participation. Canadians should be allowed to spend their hard
earned dollars as they see fit, not in funding endless government
programs.
(1200 )
In conclusion, Bill C-209 reads like another attempt at a
planned economy which historically has never achieved its
objectives. This legislative proposal does not allow society to
harness the initiative of individuals. It creates structure and
dependency, trade, profit-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped
from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
5792
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
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, a warm welcome to my colleagues
on all sides of the House as we get back to school, as it were,
today.
Whether our ancestors landed by boat in Montreal or touched
down at Vancouver International Airport, we are for the most
part a nation of immigrants. Of course there were people here
before the boats and the planes arrived, but since the beginning
Canada has been the rainbow for those looking for a new way of
life, indeed a new lease on life, and Canada has not let them
down for Canada has been a rainbow for those new hopes, of
those new aspirations and of those new dreams.
We must admit there is a bit of rust on that rainbow for a
criminal element has infiltrated an immigration system that was
built on hard work, hope, faith and justice. The actions of a small
group of people are causing Canadians to question the very
limits and the very merits of a system that has done much to
build our nation as we know it. In short, the deeds of a few have
cast a shadow over the reputations of many.
Immigration has provided the very lifeblood of our country. It
was the immigrants that carved our forests, worked in our
factories, raised our skyscrapers in our cities and provided our
5793
jobs. They did it yesterday. They do it today and we are
confident they will continue to do it tomorrow.
[Translation]
The amendments to the Immigration Act that we are dealing
with today in Bill C-44 are designed to help get the undesirables
out of the system and put some of the gleam back in the rainbow.
Abuse of the system by a few has been cause for alarm. While
the numbers of those causing the problem are small, the damage
they have done is large.
We have read the reports, heard the stories, seen the pictures
or maybe even attended a funeral. A criminal minority has used
the immigration system to its own advantage. There has been
slow enforcement and some of us have watched with growing
anger while a justice and immigration appeals system was used
as a stalling tactic to delay departure orders.
[English]
The problem of immigration enforcement is not unique to
Canada. It did not start with this government or even the
previous one. Instead it is a worldwide problem. To the south our
neighbour has ongoing and very well documented enforcement
problems. When Cuban jails opened, for instance, Florida was
inundated. Barbed wire and armed men guard the Rio Grande.
Africa has witnessed war, pestilence and famine resulting in the
vast migration of peoples. Only a tiny portion of that
tremendous movement of people comes to our shore, but it is
significant nonetheless.
(1205)
Last year almost 110 million people in Canada came through
primary inspection points at our points of entry. In 1993-94
immigration officials examined over 3 million in detail, handled
more than 100,000 immigration applications, conducted over
30,000 investigations and removed at the end some 9,000 people
from Canada. In 1993 at the same time we also admitted some
81,000 skilled and/or business workers, some 24,000 refugees
and reunited 134,000 people with their families.
We cannot and should not dismiss what is happening as a
global phenomenon or excuse it as inevitable when large
numbers of people overwhelm a system. When even a small
number slip through with false papers, lies or simple
misdirection they can cause tremendous pain and suffering, not
to mention a backlash on the entire immigrant and refugee
community.
It is a Canadian problem that demands a Canadian answer.
Now is the time to face the issue and to provide Canadians with
the answers.
We have before us today an accountability session in a
legislative form for both the government and members of
Parliament on all sides of the House. A number of MPs, as they
should, here today pride themselves on listening to their
constituents. I hope they have been listening hard because I too
have been doing a lot of listening. I know Canadians expect their
members of Parliament, all members of Parliament regardless
of their political affiliation, to move swiftly with this bill and
get it right.
I hear immigrants and refugees telling us and the government
to stop that tiny minority of criminals from reflecting badly on
everybody else. I hear police chiefs and police officers telling us
and the government to change the law to ensure that it is the
innocent that are protected, and not the other way around.
I hear, as does my government, people from all across Canada
telling us to prevent foreign criminals from infiltrating our
country disguised as legitimate immigrants or legitimate
refugees.
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 process is in jeopardy. When drug
dealers or other thugs slip through the cracks of the enforcement
or screening net they discredit a program that has made Canada
the envy of the world.
[Translation]
So it is up to us to fix it. We do not have to take the system
apart. We do not have to stop having one of the most progressive
immigration and refugee policies in the world. We simply have
to fix the system and make it tougher for criminals to claim they
are refugees and to prevent thugs from using red tape or
muddled intra-government communications to extend their stay
in Canada.
When it comes to enforcement of immigration issues, we have
to do a better job. The public expects better, the public deserves
better, and the public will get better enforcement of immigration
issues.
[English]
In a moment we can discuss how better enforcement
procedures have already started to take place, but the
amendments to the Immigration Act before the House are legal
arrows for an enforcement quiver. The amendments help protect
the true refugee and the average law-abiding immigrant should
has no fear of Bill C-44. However the felon that has mistaken
Canadian hospitality for a chance to loot the bill will find the
doors to our country swing both ways. By strengthening the
integrity of the system we will go a very long way toward
restoring public trust and take ourselves further down the road
toward building a better and a safer Canada. When the House
approves these amendments I believe we will see a significant
improvement in our enforcement procedures and the speed in
which we can remove foreign criminals from our soil.
5794
(1210)
The bill before us presents amendments in more than a dozen
areas. I would like simply to touch on a number of them that are
more significant in terms of their impact on the current system.
Among those are amendments that would stop serious criminals
from claiming refugee status simply to delay their removal from
Canada.
The legislation will put an end to the ridiculous spectacle, for
instance, of an immigration and refugee board having to troop
off to Kingston penitentiary to listen to a convicted murderer
claiming refugee status. Average Canadians, average members
of Parliament, know that is an abuse. However under current
legislation the IRB is mandated and has no option but to respond
to such a claim for refugee status.
I submit, as does my government, our refugee laws were not
put in place to promote that kind of a claim. Rather, those laws
are there to protect the legitimate fears of persecution for which
Canada has won a Nansen medal, the only country and the only
people on the globe to receive that distinction.
At the same time Bill C-44 will permit us to remove the most
serious and dangerous criminal from a refugee process that may
have already been commenced. If the system found either a
serious act of criminality abroad or in Canada and the process
had started the system was incapable of doing anything about it.
Under Bill C-44 the amendments would provide that where
warranted the system would be able to remove an individual
from the refugee process and place the individual before an
immigration inquiry to deal with the act of serious criminality.
I believe this is a common sense change. The system is not
designed to protect the serious criminal. Nor should it be built
on incapability of reacting to information once it is discovered
by our officials. The time and energy spent dealing with serious
criminals slows down the response of the IRB to real problems
facing real refugees. That is why we have chosen to act.
When approved the bill will take away the power of the
immigration appeal division to allow major criminals to remain
in Canada on so-called humanitarian or compassionate grounds.
I underline this is not a restriction of rights; it is more a matter of
accountability. I also underline this is not an overreaction to a
few isolated incidents. Instead it is a reality of the world in
which we live. We should never forget the goal is to ensure that
the interests of Canadians are protected.
The public across the country wants some balance of the
scales of justice in a certain sense, in a common sense and in a
fair and equitable way.
(1215 )
People want a sense of protection offered to those who seek it.
At the same time, when someone contravenes that tolerance and
crosses over the letter of the law, then there is a public that
expects some kind of balance and some kind of accountability
rather than a system that is indifferent to it, rendering a public
that is frustrated, cynical and indifferent.
The minister and the government and indeed Parliament must
deal with the consequences of any decision to allow a serious
criminal to stay in Canada for either humanitarian or
compassionate reasons. I believe it is both appropriate and
reasonable that the minister and senior officials of the
department make that decision.
The immigration appeal division will continue to have
jurisdiction for all individuals on questions of law and fact.
What we are trying to address is the accountability that the
Canadian public demands of us and of its systems. As the law
stands now, there is nothing to stop the citizenship process even
though a person may be subjected to an immigration enquiry.
If citizenship is obtained the person cannot be deported. Once
again we have tried to reflect the feeling of the public that
clearly this is not in the best interest of the system. The right
hand must know what the left hand is doing in government. Why
should a citizenship process continue to move blindly on
without due recognition for an immigration enquiry which may
or may not be serious?
This bill automatically stops the citizenship process until the
immigration inquiry resolves the matter for which that enquiry
was caused. The bottom line once again is the protection of our
interest and the safety of our country and Canadians.
[Translation]
Other changes mean that two summary convictions-in
Canada or elsewhere-will make anyone ineligible to be an
immigrant to Canada.
Madam Speaker, let me stress that we are talking about crimes
as measured by Canadian legal standards and not political
persecution for what some foreign regimes might attempt to
disguise as a crime.
[English]
Bill C-44 would also give immigration officers the authority
to seize documents from international mail such as passports,
driver's licences and credit cards which could and are being
used to circumvent immigration requirements or forge
documents. This amendment does not apply to domestic mail
and is limited to packages weighing more than 30 grams.
There is absolutely no question that the mails are being used
to forward identity documents. We would expect the volume to
5795
drop as soon as these amendments are passed. Last year in
Toronto, for instance, about 70 packages containing status or
identity documents were being located every week. In Montreal
the volume was approximately 10 packages. In Vancouver
officials found roughly 25.
This flows from a common sense application. Some months
ago there was a Globe and Mail article that discovered officials
from the Department of Justice telling officials from customs
and immigration that they were in violation of the law for
basically defending our borders through the interdiction of
certain mail and fraudulent documentation.
We have moved to bring the law up to speed in order to render
the system more accountable to its citizens. The amendments
will also allow arrest warrants to be issued for no shows at
immigration hearings and will provide an immediate loss of
permanent resident status with all removal orders and not some
of them.
It will also eliminate the possibility for any one person to have
more than one refugee claim processed at the same time.
(1220 )
Why should that be any different? We have a good system and
people should have one kick at that good system rather than
taxing the system and taking away a place for another legitimate
individual.
The legislation will also authorize the minister or his officials
to approve or reject requests for rehabilitation rather than
having the matters go to a full cabinet. In plain language this
cuts down the rubber stamp aspect of rehabilitation and treats
each individual on their proper merits. This will be far more cost
effective, cut back the time needed to make a decision and
prevent the issue and the individual from getting buried in a
much larger cabinet agenda.
As I mentioned at the outset, there are other elements of bill
C-44 that are very positive, valuable and worth supporting. I
hope we will have an opportunity to discuss these issues not only
in debate form in the House of Commons but with careful
scrutiny in committee following second reading.
There are also other elements to limiting abuse within our
immigration and refugee network that do not fall under any act
or legislation. In this regard I believe it is important for all of us
to remember that C-44 should not be seen in isolation but
instead should be seen as a part of a more comprehensive
package of initiatives to try to come to grips with the minority of
those who wish to abuse the right of the many. Some of the fixes
simply mean bolstering internal procedures and changing
priorities.
Enforcement of immigration issues have been tightened and
toughened in recent months. As always we remain cognizant of
the rights of the individuals of due process upon which our
society is firmly founded.
Our government has already started to streamline its own
administrative system. Immigration has speeded and
strengthened its liaison with the correctional services of Canada
so that foreign offenders will have fewer opportunities to stay in
Canada after they have served their time in jail or prison. Once
again common sense dictates. Why was it not in place years
before now, that somehow immigration Canada was more in
sync with corrections Canada so that when those individuals
were released from our provincial or federal facilities they could
be deported?
Why is it that those individuals serving time in our
penitentiaries who ultimately will be deported or served
deportation orders enjoy day parole? That is an issue I have
raised with the Solicitor General and with my colleague, the
Minister of Justice. Again it flows from common sense. If there
are individuals who are deportable upon completion of time in
prison, why is day parole instituted for those individuals as
well? They are not easing into the community. They are easing
out of Canada. Therefore I question why day parole should be
applied to those individuals.
My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has also made a
commitment that the parliamentary committee when reviewing
the Young Offenders Act as part of that mandate will also look at
how the Young Offenders Act will apply to those young
individuals within our country facing deportation. Again, this
not a knee-jerk reaction but a studied reaction in this case
together with the other issues that certainly will draw the
attention of that committee.
Enforcement is a priority of my department. It is not an
obsession of my department, it is a priority; a priority that is
roughly 10 per cent of our budget which translates roughly into
$56 million for the year 1994-95.
Our system for blocking the entry of criminals has been for
the most part been vigilant and effective. Last spring a special
operations unit was set up, targeting members of organized
crime groups and geared to improving our ability to prevent
them from entering Canada.
(1225 )
For this purpose we have focused on Asian gangs, the triads,
and the yakuza, as well as gangs from Russia and the Caribbean.
I am sure members are also aware of the special joint task
force involving immigration officials, members of local and
regional police forces, as well as provincial and RCMP forces.
They have operational units in Toronto, Montreal and
Vancouver, and their prime directive is to remove foreign
criminals from our midst.
I believe that the concept of the joint force is the right
approach, not because this minister or this government has
deemed it so on July 7, but because in leading up to that decision
we discussed the whole concept of the joint force with those who
5796
knew best, the police officers and police chiefs whose mandate
it is to serve and protect us and our communities.
I hope we have the patience for this force to be allowed to do
its job and as I mentioned in Montreal last month to the police
chiefs association there are two things that can endanger this
type of joint force. One is jurisdictional squabbling which has
not been the case, and I take my hat off to the four different
forces that have converged in the joint forces. The second aspect
is the whole thirst or appetite for what I would refer to as number
crunching or bean counting. At the end of the day the mandate of
this force is to get the job done, but also not to ask these
professionals things that are also irresponsible of some of those
who ask it of them in order to say how many did you get today,
how many did you get this week, did you get them all last week.
The mandate is a very difficult one for these individuals but
they are professionals and they will get the job done. In the
United States the joint force concept has run into problems for
those two reasons. It is my hope, not for the short term but for
the long term, that we allow this force to work and not only work
in terms of removing the individuals that we all believe ought to
be removed but also to render us through the experience and the
information that they will get in how enforcement is best done
and by whom.
If the professionals come back and tell this Parliament that
enforcement is more of a policing discipline and not an
immigration one, then so be it. Let us answer the riddle once and
for all but let us allow those professionals to do the job they are
capable of doing.
There may be other improvements that we can usher in to the
system and one such recommendation for instance coming from
some of the police chiefs is to permit judges to not recommend
deportations at the time of giving sentence but to order
deportations at the time of sentencing so that the system is
leaner, so that the issues of that individual are all dealt with at
the right time, and that there is full due process for the
individual's counsel and lawyer to react to that judge's ordering
of a deportation rather than recommending and then having it go
back to immigration and before an immigration appeal division
and so on.
That will necessitate not a change in my act but a change in the
Criminal Code. As parliamentarians we should be interested in
this issue and prepared also to look at making the relevant
amendments if we think those amendments will work and if we
think those amendments are fair.
[Translation]
There have been difficulties with some removals from Canada
to some countries because of problems obtaining foreign travel
documentation. Senior officials are dealing with this problem
and it will be resolved soon.
The immigration department is continuing to step up its
international efforts to prevent undesirables from entering the
country and is working closely with the RCMP and a number of
foreign control authorities and in partnership with airlines.
(1230 )
[English]
Having acknowledged the problem and having attempted to
define the scope of the problem, there is certainly something
else to be said. If we do not deal with these issues now in the
light of day, there are those who would appeal to the darker side
of our character and use the excuse of public safety to cloak a
negative and hurtful agenda aimed at shutting off all
immigration. I say and my government says that we cannot
allow this any more than we can allow criminals to wipe their
feet on our welcome mat.
It is important that every one of us in this Chamber work
toward exploding the myths surrounding our immigration and
refugee process.
[Translation]
Yes, there are problems and I have just acknowledged what
some of them are. But to those who claim that immigrants are
bilking our welfare system, we have to say that this simply is not
so.
Statistics show that native-born Canadians are more likely to
use the social assistance safety net than are immigrants.
[English]
For those who fear we are in the icy grip of an immigration
crime wave, we have to tell them and those individuals among us
that this too is far from reality.
A recent research paper prepared for a law conference at
Carleton University in our capital said bluntly that immigrants
were under represented in the criminal population. Researchers
found that the so-called immigrant crime appeared primarily to
be less serious crime. Social scientists say that a likely
explanation for this so-called under representation among the
criminal element is due in some part to the screening process
that takes place before the immigrant arrives on our shores.
I also know equally that it is difficult and sometimes
impossible to compare the dull, dry figures from a research
paper with the heartache and anger that comes with the story at
the top of our supper time news. As parliamentarians we must
stress again and again that there is a lot more to immigration
than a news story about a thief in the corner store, as important
as that is, to the safety of all our neighbourhoods and
communities.
Look over your back fence. What do you see? The chances are
you see a neighbour who is an immigrant or is a son or daughter
of an immigrant. I see the crime stories in my clipping service
every day at 6.30 in the morning but I do not hear quite so often
stories about people like Kim Loan Hua. Who is Kim? She is an
immigrant. She came here penniless in 1979 as part of the
5797
100,000 Vietnamese boat people Canada received. She was one
of those. She has now opened four restaurants in Toronto and
employs over 20 people. Kim was a refugee and is now a
Canadian entrepreneur.
What about Shan Chandrasekar? He came from India. He
overstayed. He obtained permission years ago to be able to stay
legally in Canada and in the process founded a television
network to serve the Canadian-Asian community.
What does that say? It says that for every criminal named in
the press with an immigrant tag we can give 10,000 cases of
immigrants and recent Canadians who are anything but a
problem for or a drain on the country and who despise the antics
of troublemakers and the lawlessness of hooligans as much as
anyone in this Chamber.
(1235 )
Are we courageous enough to say so? How about the guy who
coaches your kid's little league? Some of our Nobel prize
winners have been immigrants. Our novelists, opera stars,
painters, politicians, teachers and even some of our best
journalists were not born in this country.
When we hear the word immigrant we should not
automatically think crime. We also should not automatically
think superstar either. Instead we should think of a neighbour, of
a colleague, of a husband or a wife.
When I met with the Canadian association of chiefs of police
last month, I told them I expected speedy passage of this
legislation. I reiterated that this morning because we must act
decisively and expeditiously. The law must be changed quickly
in light of the public concern for the well-being of our
immigration refugee system.
I am convinced that this legislation will go a long way in
protecting those so close to us from the stigma of criminality
brought on by a tiny minority who have slipped through the
cracks. Madam Speaker and colleagues, let us get on with it and
seal up those cracks.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Madam Speaker, this is my
first speech in the House today, after the summer recess. Before
speaking to Bill C-44, however, I would like to congratulate the
Parti Quebecois on its splendid victory on September 12, and
also the new Premier of Quebec, Mr. Jacques Parizeau, a man
with the stature of a true statesman.
I also want to congratulate the 77 members elected for the
Parti québécois, the 47 members of the Quebec Liberal Party
and Mr. Mario Dumont, leader of Action Démocratique. Some,
like myself, belong to the ethnic community.
I will now speak in this debate on second reading of Bill C-44,
which proposes to amend the Immigration Act, the Citizenship
Act and the Customs Act. These amendments, according to the
authors of the bill, concern 14 specific points. For instance,
some changes will have the effect of stopping a person convicted
of a major crime-that is, punishable by a maximum prison term
of 10 years-in Canada or outside Canada, from claiming
refugee status to delay his removal from Canada. Immigration
officers will have the power to seize from international mail
documents that could be used for fraudulent purposes. In the
case of serious criminals, the Immigration Appeal Division will
no longer have the power to allow appeals on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds.
Grounds for appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division
will from now on be limited to questions of law and fact. A
person for whose arrest a warrant has been signed by the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor
General of Canada, because he represents a threat to public
safety, will lose the right to appeal.
(1240)
Processing of an application for citizenship may be
suspended, pending the outcome of immigration proceedings. A
person convicted of two summary conviction offences-a minor
offence punishable by a prison term of not more than six
months-whether the offences were committed in Canada or
outside Canada, may be prevented from immigrating to Canada.
The minister, instead of the Governor in Council, will have the
authority to approve requests for admission on the basis of
rehabilitation, and the minister may delegate this authority to
employees of the department. The obligation to conduct a new
inquiry in the case of a person who has been ordered to leave
Canada has been removed, so that a person loses permanent
resident status as soon as he is ordered deported.
We in the Bloc québécois agree with the general, underlying
principles of Bill C-44, that is to say, the government has the
right and a duty to protect Canada and all Canadians against
criminals. We agree with preventing immigrants and claimants
from taking advantage of Canada's reputation as a host country
to leave their country of origin where they have committed
serious crimes.
We must eliminate or at least reduce the ways in which
immigrant refugee claimants who have been convicted of
serious crimes can stay in Canada legally.
We agree with restricting the admissibility of convicted
criminals. We must ensure that serious criminals who manage to
escape removal are deported as soon as possible. In 1993,
Immigration Canada deported 1,200 criminals; between January
1 and May 31, 1994, 600 criminals were deported. This effort
5798
must be pursued for the safety of the people of Quebec and
Canada.
We have many more questions and concerns regarding Bill
C-44. This bill is an excessive response to certain problems and
situations that have arisen over the past few months in Canada.
It is the Liberal government's response to the strict, right-wing
stand the Reform Party has taken concerning immigrants and
refugees.
The minister's speech today only confirms this shift to the
right the minister and the Liberal Party have made. I have read
the speech he had made as the Official Opposition Critic for
Immigration. He was much more of a humanist back then. I
endorsed his ideas and objectives in those days, but not any
more.
The Bloc Quebecois has condemned and still condemns the
murder of a young woman in a Toronto restaurant and that of a
Toronto police officer. The unfortunate fact about these two
murders is that they were committed by immigrants subject to a
deportation order. The media gave far too much notoriety to
these incidents.
On July 7, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
launched a blitz to deport out of Canada some 600 criminal
immigrants. To this effect, he set up a special task force of
immigration officers and members of the RCMP and the local
police, to identify, trace and hasten the expulsion of foreign
criminals from Canada.
Based on information from La Presse, this special task force
has found, after going over the various cases, that only 90 of the
600 immigrants with serious criminal records were in Quebec.
(1245)
It also found that half, or 45, of them were already in jail.
Seven of the 45 still at large had left Canada of their own free
will. Of the 38 cases remaining, 5 have been resolved; three
criminals had been arrested and deported, and the other two had
been summoned before an immigration officer. As of July 19, in
Quebec, there were only 33 cases pending and as we speak, I
trust these too have been settled.
The special task force was manned by 4 RCMP officers in
both Montreal and Vancouver and by 12 officers in Toronto. In
addition to creating this group, the Standing Committee on
Justice is reviewing the question of how young offenders who
are not Canadian citizens and who have been convicted of
crimes should be treated. Finally, a memorandum of
understanding was signed between the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration and Correctional Service Canada
for expediting the deportation of foreign criminals.
Again, we urge the government to take the measures required
to prevent abuses and protect Canadians and Quebecers against
criminals, but we cannot endorse Bill C-44 as it now stands.
In our opinion, some provisions of this bill violate the Geneva
Convention on Refugees as well as the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, it restricts without
justification the mandate of the Immigration and Refugee
Board.
Unlike the Geneva convention, this bill does not distinguish
between refugee claimants who have committed political crimes
in their native countries and those convicted of non-political
crimes. In determining refugee status, the first thing to be
considered should be the nature and purpose of the offence, in
particular whether it was committed for political or other
reasons.
On the other hand, there should be a certain balance between
the seriousness of the crime and the danger to Canadian society.
The Geneva convention, confirmed by Federal Court
jurisprudence, states that this element of comparison must be
considered.
Professor James Hathaway writes that the seriousness of the
crime must also be weighed against the possibility that the life
or safety of a person sent back to his or her native country may
be at risk. The bill does not address this aspect of the issue.
The purpose of the bill is to prevent people convicted of
serious offences for which a term of imprisonment of ten years
or more may be imposed from claiming refugee status. This
means that the actual seriousness of the offence will not be taken
into account, which we think is unfair and arbitrary.
In our opinion, the actual sentence imposed and not the
maximum sentence should be considered. Every offence can be
committed in a great variety of circumstances, some of which
call for the maximum sentence while others only call for the
minimum sentence. Our Criminal Code does not specify a
minimum sentence for most offences. Therefore, a person could
be convicted of a crime for which a term of imprisonment of ten
years or more may be imposed without being jailed or fined.
(1250)
He would only be given a suspended sentence or put on
probation. Despite all that, the minister can issue a certificate
declaring that person to be a public danger, which I think is
unfair and arbitrary.
This situation could violate the Geneva convention. Indeed,
the manual of the High Commissioner for Refugees says that in
evaluating the nature of the crime allegedly committed, all
relevant factors, including extenuating circumstances, must be
considered. Do not forget that we are talking about refugees
5799
here, human beings for whom being deported to their country
could be very dangerous in some cases and even fatal.
Under the bill, many decisions that were made by the IRB will
now be made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
and his officials. Despite all the criticisms we have of the IRB
and the mistakes it has made, I prefer that tribunal to be fully in
charge of determining refugee status. It is a quasi-judicial
specialized tribunal, whose duty it is to hear the parties. The
minister's decision is purely administrative and often politically
motivated. Thus, many decisions will be based solely on foreign
policy considerations and the state of relations between Canada
and the refugee claimant's country of origin. We think that Bill
C-44 is a government attack on the IRB's independence.
Obviously the minister did not like some of this
administrative tribunal's decisions. So what does he do? He
removes a large part of its jurisdiction. This is a blatant
contradiction of the Davis-Waldman report, which the minister
said reduced the need for him to intervene in the refugee
determination process. Bill C-44 does the opposite and
considerably increases the minister's involvement in this field.
It prevents not only refugees but also permanent residents who
committed crimes outside Canada from going to the IRB. This
bill must be denounced, for it attacks one of the fundamental
principles of our legal system, namely the right of appeal. It
takes away the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeals
Division for humanitarian considerations following a
deportation order based on the commission in Canada or abroad
of a crime punishable by ten or more years in prison.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all. Basic
rights to a fair and impartial procedure should also apply to
foreigners. I agree with the position expressed by the Canadian
Council for Refugees that refugees and permanent residents
must be able to apply to the appeal division of the IRB.
This bill is also contrary to the right of family reunification.
In some cases, a person will be deported even though his whole
family stays in Canada. It is really regrettable that this
fundamental aspect of Canada's immigration policy, which is
part of the program of the Liberal Party of Canada, is being
attacked in this International Year of the Family. This might
violate conventions signed by Canada, such as the convention
against torture, the principles of the United Nations on arbitrary
arrest and detention, the Geneva convention on human rights in
wartime, the declaration on disappearance and missing persons,
etc.
(1255)
In that context, the bill might also violate sections 7 and 12 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. I also oppose the
provision which provides the right to search international mail
and authorizes immigration officers to seize identification
papers and other documents sent by international mail or other
means, in an attempt to circumvent the Immigration Act. This
could lead to abuse. It is to be noted that immigration officers
already have the authority to search those seeking to be admitted
to Canada, as well as their baggage.
The bill also authorizes immigration officers to request a
warrant for the arrest of any person who does not appear at the
meeting to which he was summoned. The police will arrest that
person and his name will be filed at the Canadian Police
Information Centre. Under normal circumstances, police will
arrest a person only under the authority of a warrant delivered by
a judge. We know that a person will often not show up because
he moved and did not get the notification to appear. On
September 13, I attended the National Conference on
Immigration, in Ottawa. Working group no. 7, which was set up
by the minister during the consultation process, looked at
control and law enforcement, which are the issues dealt with in
Bill C-44. Why did the minister not hold consultations before
tabling this legislation?
I am asking that this bill be referred for review by the
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Lawyers
specializing in immigration law, as well as the organizations
working in the field of immigration and with refugees, including
the Canadian Council for Refugees, should have the opportunity
to be heard by the committee. I am also very interested in
hearing from the IRB. For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois
will oppose this bill at second reading.
I want to take this opportunity to raise other issues related to
immigration and refugees. In Quebec, the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration closed four regional offices in July
to concentrate all its services in a single centre located in
Montreal. This decision must be strongly criticized and this is
what we are doing today. We must oppose these closures which
have resulted in lost jobs, in Quebec as well as in the rest of
Canada. There is another problem I would like to mention,
namely the new rates recently imposed by the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration. Many people who were granted
refugee status by the IRB are unable to pay $500 per adult and
$100 per child to secure permanent residence in Canada. I made
representations to the minister and his department in the hope of
finding a solution to this problem but so far with little success.
How can you demand immediate payment in the amount of
$1,400 from a newly arrived family in a state of total despair and
often without any money whatsoever?
If I may digress for a moment, I would like to salute the
employees of Ogilvie Mills Ltd, especially those of ethnic
origin, who have been on strike since June 6 last. Located in
Montreal, this mill manufactures Five Roses flour.
5800
(1300)
Today, they are protesting on the Hill and I will meet with
them later on. I take this opportunity not only to express my
solidarity to them but also to ask the Minister of Human
Resources Development to table a bill amending the federal
Labour Code by including an anti-scab provision. Such a
provision already exists in the Quebec Labour Code and is very
successful.
[English]
As you well know, Madam Speaker, I came to Quebec in 1974
following a military coup which took place in Chile on
September 11, 1973. My wife, my two children, then five and
three years old, myself and thousands of other Chileans were
very well received by the people of Quebec who were
profoundly generous. We worked and continue to work hard to
ensure a better life for our children and our grandchildren and to
make our contribution to the progress of this society.
However, today I am profoundly sad because of this
anti-immigrant sentiment in Canada and because of this
anti-refugee sentiment in Canada.
[Translation]
It is appearing in Canada as in rich nations all over the world.
The contribution of immigrants to all sectors of the economic,
social, cultural and even political life of this country is
immeasurable.
I am proud to have been elected, last October, to the House of
Commons by a majority of francophones in Montreal-Nord,
with the support of the labour movement and various
ethno-cultural communities, twenty years after coming to this
country. I am even prouder of the fact that my leader asked me to
be our party critic for citizenship and immigration.
I believe that this bill, even though it contains certain positive
elements, will be perceived as linking immigration and criminal
activities and will therefore exacerbate xenophobia and racism
in Canada. Statistics clearly show that new immigrants are more
law-abiding and that their crime rate is lower than that of
Canadians by birth. This bears repeating.
I ask the minister to immediately launch a comprehensive
awareness and information campaign to apprise all Canadians of
the facts regarding immigration including the benefits that flow
from it, as well as the huge contribution immigrants have always
made to this country.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Madam
Speaker, I would like to begin my evaluation of Bill C-44 by
saying it is a small step in the right direction.
For several years Canadians have been saying they have a
deep concern about Canada's immigration system. These
concerns have included the fact that many Canadians consider
immigration levels to be too high. Other concerns are the skill
and education levels of immigrants entering Canada and the
effectiveness of the immigration department in enforcing
government policy.
(1305)
If the Liberal government wants Canadians to place faith in
the system and the elected officials who administer it then the
government has a moral obligation to look at these concerns and
to act in the interests of all Canadians.
One of the chief concerns of Canadians in this area is the
relationship between immigration and crime. In the past year
there have been several high profile cases in which immigrants
to Canada were involved in criminal activity which could have
been avoided had proper action been taken. The result was an
increased focus on the relationship between immigration and the
criminal justice system.
Confidential government documents leaked to the media
revealed: ``There is a sense that the immigration program is out
of control''. This is the public perception of Canadians who feel
and again I quote: ``Immigrants need to be better selected''.
Very clearly Canadians want to see changes in the way the
immigration system in Canada operates.
Perhaps not very surprising, this is the view that has been put
forward by my Reform colleagues and I for some time. I believe
this is because our party has a policy of first of all understanding
the wishes and desires of grassroots Canadians. This means our
party pays very close attention to what our constituents are
telling us. They have been telling us for a long time now that
they are losing faith in the immigration system because they
believe it is being poorly administered and poorly enforced.
I am pleased to see that the Liberal government is finally
listening to the common sense solutions that the Reform Party
has been putting forward on this issue for some time. As I
mentioned before, I see the bill as a step in the right direction.
But our party has chosen not to lend support to this bill for two
main reasons.
The first is that the legislation is not properly structured to
keep immigrants with criminal backgrounds from entering into
Canada's refugee system. The second is the fear that the Liberal
government will use the passage of this legislation as an excuse
to take no further action on the concerns the Canadian public has
about the immigration process.
This bill does take a step in the right direction. One of the
elements of the bill which my party is in support of is that it
empowers the senior immigration officers who are the first
contact applicants have with the immigration system. The bill
would allow these officers upon discovery of a criminal back-
5801
ground to stop the processing of an individual's application to
enter into the immigration or refugee process.
This will serve a number of purposes. It will save Canadian
taxpayers money because they will not have to pay for the
processing of cases which would be appropriately rejected in
any case. It will save immigration officials time which can be
better spent processing the claims of applicants without a
criminal background. More time spent studying these routine
applications means fraudulent claims are less likely to be
approved, giving the immigration department more credibility
in the eyes of Canadians. Finally, the measure makes the
common sense move of protecting the Canadian public from
foreign born criminals who want to come to our country. All of
these are excellent goals.
Unfortunately, this legislation does not go far enough to
ensure they are achieved. The problem is that immigration
officers are still not being given the tools to do their job.
Officers now have the power to refuse to process applications if
they discover a criminal background. At the same time, they are
not being given the power to do background checks on those
applicants. In fact it was recently revealed by a member of the
Canada employment and immigration union that refugee
claimants are not given security screenings before facing the
refugee board. The proposed legislation gives the immigration
officers necessary new powers but does not grant them the
means to exercise them. An illustration of the problem was a
news report by the Canadian Press published September 12. The
report stated that there are very severe guidelines which restrict
immigration officials as to what they may ask refugee
claimants. The report also stated that this could mean people
who should not get into Canada may be slipping past the
immigration and refugee board.
(1310)
Here are a few examples of those guidelines. Officials cannot
request information from the immigration department about a
refugee aside from identity papers and passports. This means
officers cannot check statements made at a hearing against the
claims made when the refugee first entered Canada. Officers
cannot investigate claims through sources such as the police.
Only board officials can now use public record sources.
Officers may not press reluctant claimants for answers on
particular issues because that could be perceived as being
adversarial.
The effect of this bill is to grant powers to officers without
giving them means to exercise these powers. It would be like
giving a highway patrolman the power to arrest speeders without
allowing him to use radar to detect those speeders.
This leads us to the second major reason why the Reform
Party is opposing this bill. That reason is enforcement.
One of the intentions of this bill is to detect problems early in
a system so that deportation orders can be issued to those who do
not qualify. However, as we have seen over the past year, there
have been serious problems with those deportation orders.
Several high profile cases have demonstrated that the issuing
of deportation orders does not ensure removal. The numbers
indicate that of 25,000 deportation orders last year, only 8,200
were verifiably carried out. Despite the fact that 1,200 criminals
were deported last year, 3,000 more deportable criminals
disappeared and have not been found.
Immigration enforcement officers are so overwhelmed by the
sheer numbers of deportables that they are unable to execute a
removal order unless the individual voluntarily turns up.
In Toronto there are 30 enforcement officers charged with the
execution of deportation orders or investigation of legal
residency of 40,000 cases. More deportation orders will likely
only increase the backlog rather than actually clear many more
people out of the country.
The greatest benefit of this legislation is that it would prevent
some criminals from getting into the immigration and refugee
system, but should the aim of the government not be a bit higher
than this? A few simple changes could put some real teeth in this
legislation.
To begin with, how about granting more power to individual
immigration officers? This would mean giving them the power
to do background checks and giving them greater access to data
banks. This could save Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars as
well.
If I understand correctly the intentions of the legislation
before us today, the government is interested in adding an
element of common sense to the process. This legislation is
saying Canadians do not want immigrants or refugees with
criminal backgrounds to come into this country.
Why do we not give the immigration officers the means to
find this out before their cases come before the immigration
refugee board? It would save all involved time and prevent
costly hearings which would only result in the dismissal of the
application in any case.
Another measure which would give this legislation teeth
would be the beefing up of the enforcement of deportation
orders. I am aware that in response to public pressure the
minister did appoint extra staff to deal with this problem. Is this
handful of extra officers really having an effect? The
government needs to devote even further resources to staff and
to the enforcement of deportation orders. Warrants should be
issued so that the whole police network can enforce these
immigration laws.
5802
(1315)
When 3,000 deportable criminals disappear into Canadian
society in just one year, the potential for harm to the general
public is tremendous. Justice cannot be served when the law
cannot be enforced. If the deportation orders issued cannot be
carried out then the immigration system has very little
credibility in the eyes of the Canadian public.
These are the two main reasons other Reform MPs and I
cannot bring ourselves to support this bill. But do not get us
wrong. We think the intentions of the bill are dead on the mark.
We are very pleased the government is listening to Reform Party
members and putting some of our ideas into effect. We have
been listening to the Canadian people on this issue and we are
pleased the government is finally starting to do the same thing.
To be quite frank, my colleagues and I did consider giving
qualified support to these measures. Our party believes the
parliamentary system does not necessarily require opposition
parties to always be adversarial. However, after scrutinizing the
legislation we came to the conclusion that we could not in good
conscience support the bill. We cannot give our support to
legislation without teeth. If we fail to oppose this bill the
government could claim to have dealt with the issue and simply
moved on to other business. But the truth is that the Liberals
have not dealt effectively with this bill. Their failure to do this
could have terrible ramifications for the people whose interests
we are elected to represent.
This bill is definitely well intentioned but it does not go far
enough. The Canadian public expects elected officials to deliver
a lot more than good intentions.
I believe I speak for the majority of Canadians when I say
there are a number of problems with the current government's
approach to immigration. The shortcomings of this particular
legislation are just a small part of the larger problem. Quite
frankly, public support for immigration policy in this country is
at an all time low. Canadians have little faith in the current
system and want to see changes made. This means that
governments must stop serving special interests and instead
make decisions in the interests of the country as a whole.
There are four main areas of immigration policy which the
government must reform if it is to win back the trust of the
Canadian people. These four areas are: enforcement; the growth
of the so-called immigration industry; economic self-interest in
selecting applicants; and the unacceptably high immigration
levels.
I raised the topic of enforcement earlier in reference to
deportation orders, but the issue goes much farther than that.
When it comes to immigration there are many areas where the
government has a policy to protect the needs and the interests of
Canadians but simply does not follow through on enforcing this
policy. An example is the breakdown of sponsorships.
Sponsorship is one of the cornerstones of the government's
current immigration policy. It consists of an individual in this
country supporting an immigrant and vouching that the
immigrant will not become a burden on the Canadian social
safety net. Sponsorship is an excellent idea. It remains a key
component in the success of many newcomers coming to
Canada. Unfortunately, sponsorship is just one component of
our immigration policy in which an enforcement component is
almost entirely lacking.
Mainstream media organizations such as the Toronto Star
have been reporting on breakdowns in sponsorships for some
time now but nothing has been done. What generally happens is
that unable to find work, recent immigrants turn to Canada's
social safety net rather than to the person who agreed to sponsor
them. What are the ramifications of this? To my knowledge,
very little is done to counteract this avoidance of responsibility.
The end result is negative for all involved.
(1320 )
For the Canadian taxpayer the promise of a productive
contributing citizen is broken. It is replaced with yet another
individual who will require the expenditure of already scarce
government resources.
For provinces and municipalities, it is yet another form of
offloading from the federal government. Provinces and
municipalities bear the brunt of providing services such as
social assistance. When an immigrant sponsorship breaks down,
the responsibility falls to the province. It is forced to take
responsibility for a situation it had no hand in creating.
The breakdown in immigrant sponsorship is especially an
insult to the majority of immigrants who come to Canada, work
hard to contribute to this country and remain true to their
promise not to become a burden on Canada's social safety net.
As is often the case, wrongdoing on the part of some members of
a group results in the perception that the entire group is guilty.
That is why the federal government must make the
enforcement of immigrant sponsorships a priority. It would
greatly raise the credibility of the immigration system in the
eyes of the Canadian public. It would also honour the efforts of
those sponsored immigrants who work to maintain their
sponsorships and remove an unwelcome burden from all
taxpayers, both those who came to Canada and those who were
born here.
Another area in which a lack of enforcement calls into
question the credibility of the immigration system is business
class immigrants. These are immigrants who have lived in this
country because they have capital to invest and have promised to
create new enterprises. This is another case where the
government policy has the correct priority.
This country needs the influx of capital and the enterprising
spirit brought by business class immigrants. The problem is
there is not a very stringent enforcement of these regulations.
Promises of investment and new jobs do Canada very little good
5803
unless they are acted upon. It is once again the case that
immigrants are asked to keep a pledge but face very little
reprisal if that pledge is not kept. Again the credibility of the
system is called into question and the reputation of honest
business class immigrants is sullied by those who fail to fulfil
their pledges.
It is understandable that immigration bureaucrats would not
invest the time to look into these areas of immigration policy.
After all, it would simply create more work for the agency's
already overburdened enforcement arm.
These are the words of one federal audit: ``Poorly run sector
of the immigration department is what is ultimately responsible
for carrying out government policy''. The August 1993 study of
the enforcement branch obtained under the Access to
Information Act portrayed the branch as racked by inadequate
management systems, poor communications and inadequate
safety for its officers.
One of the key criticisms in this report was the procedures that
stood in the way of officers getting easy access to
unemployment insurance, citizenship and social services
records. The report said that allowing immigration officers
access to this information would facilitate enforcement
activities and increase effectiveness. This is exactly what I was
speaking about earlier. Immigration officers need to be able to
access information on immigrants and potential immigrants and
refugees in order to make the system work. This issue is almost
entirely overlooked in the legislation we are debating now. It is
one of the major reasons we could not bring ourselves to support
it.
One of the demands the Canadian public is making of the
immigration system is that it be effective. In order to be
effective the department must be able to enforce the policies it
operates by. Failure to enforce these policies means a loss in
credibility which is why so many Canadians are cynical about
the immigration process.
(1325)
If the minister of immigration would like Canadians to once
again have faith in this department, he must take steps to
strengthen enforcement. This is not being done by the current
legislation.
If the government is going to re-establish the faith of
Canadians in this country's immigration system, the second area
it must make a priority in reforming is ending the support for the
burgeoning immigration industry. I am talking about the
bureaucrats, the lawyers, the academics and the social engineers
who rely on a high immigration rate to either further their own
careers or justify their own jobs.
The people I am referring to here are not necessarily bad
people. Often times they feel they are doing what is best for all
involved. Unfortunately, however, they have ended up creating a
system funded by taxpayers in which the primary benefits go to
those who collect salaries and not to the immigration needs for
the Canadian public as a whole. I am referring for example to
immigration lawyers who are paid to try the cases of the huge
backlog of refugees.
The amount of money spent on these lawyers and on the
commissions they appear before is astronomical. The cost of the
Immigration and Refugee Board alone is $250 million a year.
Think about that: one-quarter of a billion dollars for a system
which deems only 15 per cent of refugees inadmissible to this
country. To contrast this the Canadian government gives only
$30 million a year to the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, the organization responsible for caring for many of
the 20 million refugees who currently exist on this planet.
I ask members of this House which would be a more utilitarian
use of this money: paying lawyers to spend countless hours
preparing appeals of board decisions or providing fresh water
and medicine to war ravaged refugees in Africa?
I recognize there is a need for due process in the admission of
immigrants and refugees to this country but I maintain there has
to be a better way. This bill takes an important first step by
stripping the appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee
Board of its ability to overturn deportation orders on
humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I suspect this will
have little effect on the $250 million spent every year on
hearings and appeals.
I spoke to several constituents this summer who expressed
their anger over the amount they correctly assumed this
department must cost the Canadian taxpayer. Their common
sense solution was to find a way to speed up the process to better
serve the interests of genuine refugee claimants and immigrants
and the Canadian public as a whole. The people I spoke with are
not angry with immigrants. They are angry at the immigration
system.
The annual expense of this immigration industry to Canadian
taxpayers has never been properly calculated but we can safely
assume it is tremendous. It involves a myriad of expenses. What
is the cost to the provinces of immigrants who use social
housing? What is the cost of English as a second language
programs in different school districts? Getting this type of
information is difficult because the provincial and federal
governments rarely share this data.
What must be understood is that all of these expenses are the
result of federal immigration policy. Therefore it is the
responsibility of this House to consider these costs when making
its decisions.
5804
I must again stress that the increasing anger of Canadians over
immigration policy is not with the immigrants themselves. It is
anger with the system that administers this policy in a way
which is not in the best interests of Canadians as a whole.
A big part of the problem is that Canadians see a large and
rapidly increasing sum of money being spent on immigration
programs at a time when funds are being cut back for health care
and education. They are asking if this money is being spent
unnecessarily. They have every right to ask without being called
racist or small minded. I say this because proponents of the
current approach to government policy often refuse to enter into
a debate about these issues, preferring instead to attempt to sully
the reputation of those who raise the issues in the first place.
(1330)
Does Canada really need the immigration industry we have
built up over the years? About 15 years ago Canada, along with
other countries in the western world, was asked to respond to the
plight of Vietnamese boat people. These were genuine refugees
who because of their political situation were forced out of their
homes.
Canadians opened their doors wide to these people but in a
very different way than we do today. Community groups and
churches took it upon themselves to sponsor individual refugees
and families. They made sure they had a place to stay, taught
them English and French, and helped them integrate into the
fabric of society. These immigrants in turn laboured to quickly
adapt to their new home, learning English and French and
furthering themselves through education and hard work.
Today instead of community groups and churches we have
subsidized housing and government sponsored language
training. Instead of inviting immigrants and refugees into our
social circles we stick them in downtown high rises and housing
projects and ask why these groups have so much trouble
adapting to the Canadian way of life.
The only explanation is the growth of the immigration
industry. It is a well intentioned and highly paid group of
individuals whose own self-interests are reflected in the
decisions they make for everyone. Proper enforcement of
immigration policy and curtailing the growing immigration
industry could go a long way toward re-establishing the faith of
Canadians in our immigration system.
A third and equally important consideration is ensuring the
admission of immigrants to Canada is done with the best
economic interests of the country in mind. Current statistics
vary on how many immigrants come to Canada based on their
ability to contribute to the country economically.
In his column in the July 14 Globe and Mail Michael Valpy
said: ``Immigration policy used to be selective. Now only 15 per
cent of it is selective. The rest is determined by family
reunification and a policy of refugee acceptance that is the most
liberal in the world''.
The Canada immigration facts and issues publication put out
by Citizenship and Immigration Canada noted: ``About 15 per
cent of immigrants are evaluated for their potential economic
benefit to Canada''. The same publication noted that over half of
all immigrants, 55 per cent, were admitted either as family class
immigrants or refugees.
Quite frankly the government is giving too little priority to
admitting immigrants to Canada based on their potential
economic benefit to our country. This is especially disturbing
because, as the government has often pointed out, we are now a
part of a global economy and this is changing the nature of our
economy at home.
There is currently little demand for an abundant supply of
unskilled labour. Education is now the key to the success of
individuals. There is little opportunity for employment and
advancement for anyone with less than a high school diploma.
A good example of this point can be seen in my riding of
Cariboo-Chilcotin, specifically in my hometown of Williams
Lake. When I was growing up jobs were relatively abundant in
the area as there were many mills, ranches and mines. A capacity
for hard physical labour was often just as important as any type
of education one might have.
Today the area is much different. Employment is hard to come
by if one does not have a proper education. The jobs once
performed by a large payroll of semi-skilled labourers have now
been replaced with machines and technology. On the positive
side this has meant an increase in well paying jobs for highly
skilled workers such as engineers, agriculturalists and
technicians, and a better quality of life for those employed in
these industries.
In the past immigrants were drawn to Williams Lake because
of the economic opportunities provided by resource based
industries. However over the years less and less of these
opportunities have been available.
(1335 )
The lesson to be learned from this experience as a parent and
relevant to the debate we are having today on the topic of change
to the Immigration Act is that the government must place more
of a priority on attracting immigrants to Canada that have the
necessary skills and education. I would suggest this be
accomplished by reducing the number of individuals admitted to
Canada as family class immigrants.
A confidential report prepared for the immigration minister
and leaked to the media suggests this very idea. It has
recommended family class immigration be redefined to grant
automatic acceptance only to spouses and children sponsored by
Canadians or landed immigrants. I would suggest the shortfall
made by reducing this category be replaced by immigrants that
5805
have the economic skills and education to make a greater
contribution to this nation.
We should also remember that family reunification here often
means family disunification in the immigrant's native country. I
am sure, Madam Speaker, you and other members of the House
are familiar with the Statistics Canada report entitled Canada's
changing immigrant population. The report noted how
immigrants compared in many respects to native born
Canadians. It found that a higher percentage of immigrants, 19
per cent, than native born Canadians, 13 per cent, had less than a
grade nine education.
With the requirements of the Canadian economy changing to
demand a stronger educational background in workers the
government must place more of a priority on admitting people to
this country that will be employable and competitive in our
markets.
Proponents of unbridled immigration would probably argue
against this policy. They would suggest tight restrictions on the
sponsorship of family class immigrants are unduly cruel and
uncaring. I am sure they would also suggest that emphasis on
attracting immigrants to this country based on their potential
economic contribution would be crassly materialistic and
greedy.
I would say to these people that they are out of touch with
current economic realities. Canada needs skilled workers if it is
to remain competitive. By the same token what it does not need
is further pressure placed on the social safety nets which are
stretched to the breaking point at this time in any event.
Grassroots Canadians have been telling the Reform Party for a
long time that they would like to see more emphasis placed on
admitting to the country individuals with job skills and
education and less emphasis placed on admitting individuals
with little to offer. If the minister hopes to restore the faith of
Canadians in the immigration system, responding to these
desires would go a long way toward doing this.
Finally, I believe reducing current immigration levels would
go a long way toward re-establishing the faith of Canadians in
immigration policy and in the immigration system.
Before I begin making my argument for a reduction in
immigration levels I must point out that it has been the policy of
the Reform Party for some time to pursue lower immigration
levels than are the current Canadian norm. Our party policy,
which is based on the wishes and desires of our members, states
that current immigration levels should be reduced to
approximately 150,000 people per year.
Despite our opponents' attempts to label us as anti-immigrant
we are in fact pro-immigrant. We simply believe current
immigration levels are high and are not based on providing
social or economic benefits to this country. It is clearly the
desire of a majority of Canadians to see immigration to the
country lowered from current levels.
In March a survey commissioned by the federal government
found that an unprecedented clear majority of Canadians, in the
words of the Globe and Mail columnist, Michael Valpy, thought
immigration levels were too high. As the same columnist noted,
other research found the decision to set high levels was based on
increasingly unrealistic economic expectations of immigrants.
It is very clear the majority of Canadians would like to see
lower immigration levels. By refusing to lower the
government's current level of 250,000 people per year the
federal government and the immigration minister are quite
clearly denying the will of the people.
I believe it is because of our emphasis on consulting our
constituents that Reform became the first party in the House to
pursue a policy of lower immigration levels. The government is
beginning to see the wisdom of this approach. It is my sincere
wish that the Liberal government and the minister of
immigration soon alter their own policy.
(1340)
Senior advisors working in the immigration department have
recently recommended that immigration levels be reduced by 20
per cent to 200,000. This information was contained in an
18-page confidential report prepared for the minister of
immigration. It notes that as a result of public consultations
there was a sense the immigration program is out of control and
urges that immigrants be better selected. Now that the minister
has completed his tax funded study of public opinion on the
issue of immigration I hope he will act on the knowledge he
gained in the process.
The minister and the Liberal Party have a distinct
disadvantage in this regard. Unlike Reform they do not believe
in voting with or in some cases representing the interests and
opinions of their constituents. The Reform Party has a distinct
advantage in this area. We truly believe in listening to our
members and constituents and voting with their interests despite
our personal stance. This means during times the Liberal caucus
met to discuss how they felt Canadians should be governed the
Reform Party was out asking those same Canadians how they
wanted to be governed. This meant very early on the Reform
Party knew very clearly what actions Canadian people wanted to
be taken.
I do not understand why the immigration minister and the
Liberal government remain so irrationally committed to
maintaining high levels of immigration. Canada continues to
have the highest immigration level in the industrialized world.
The result of this is that Canada has the highest growth rate in
the west and ex-Soviet block at 1.4 per cent a year. That is a
higher growth rate than Argentina, China, Thailand, Korea, Sri
Lanka and Uruguay. This growing population requires an
increased quantity of government provided services every year
at a time when
5806
governments at every level are finding it difficult to raise
sufficient revenues.
One of the best ways to judge what should be our current
immigration level is to look at the immigration levels in
countries similar to our own. A good example would be the
United States. Americans have long prided themselves on being
a country which welcomes immigrants with open arms by
saying: ``Give us your poor, your tired, your hungry''. Another
common phrase used in describing the immigrant experience is
the melting pot. This terms implies tremendous ability on the
part of Americans to welcome and assimilate newcomers from
different countries.
The Canadian public has spoken loudly and clearly in its
desire for lower immigration levels. I hope the minister
recognizes that Canadians will continue to display a notable
lack of faith in the government's immigration policy until those
numbers coming into Canada are reduced.
I am going to move a motion at the end of my speech, but I
conclude by noting that in all decisions it makes regarding
immigration, and indeed in all decisions it makes regarding any
government business, the government must take into
consideration the economic implications of its actions.
We are a country of immigrants. Canada was founded and was
settled for the most part by peoples from every nation on earth.
The result has been growth and creation of a very spectacular
country with a tremendous amount of history and
accomplishment and an even greater potential ahead of it.
However, our party would find it necessary to go much further.
Consequently we find ourselves unable to lend unqualified
support for the bill. Despite a number of appealing features it
ultimately lacks the substance necessary to meet the needs and
desires of the Canadian public.
(1345 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Would you put the
motion to the House please?
Mr. Mayfield: Madam Speaker, I move:
That all the words after the word ``That'' be deleted and the following
substituted therefor:
-this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-44, an act to amend
the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act, and to make a consequential
amendment to the Customs Act because of its failure to bar, prior to a refugee
hearing and an application for permanent residence, those who have been
convicted of a crime that would carry a sentence in Canada of 10 years or more
and those individuals who fall under the category of persons listed in section
19(1) and (2) of the Immigration Act.
We cannot abandon our public-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. I will take this
under advisement.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): Madam Speaker, my remarks today will focus on the
important measures that are before us from the perspective of a
person who immigrated to this country more than 30 years ago.
I came here from the Caribbean island of Grenada. I was a
teacher in Grenada looking for an opportunity for further
education and self-development. In Grenada one goes overseas.
Overseas means having money to do so.
The Canada domestic worker program offered me the
opportunity to work for one year with a Canadian family in
return for landed immigrant status and life in Canada.
I came with great anticipation and with high hopes. I looked
forward to my responsibilities as a domestic because I saw them
as a stepping stone to something better. I saw my initial job as an
opportunity to support myself through honest work.
I resumed my career as a teacher while earning a bachelor of
arts degree and master of education from the University of
Toronto. I became an elementary school principal and went on to
chair the Metro Toronto Housing Authority, serving over
100,000 people in the metropolitan Toronto area. Now I have the
responsibility of serving the great constituency of
Etobicoke-Lakeshore and working on behalf of the men,
women and children who come to Canada to share identical
dreams.
I relate my experience as an immigrant because I want to
place the provisions of Bill C-44 in their proper context. I want
to make it very clear to everyone who is concerned about
immigrants that the vast majority of people who come here are
just like I am, with credentials, hard working and committed to a
future in Canada.
They may not come from Grenada. They may not look the
same as me. They may have a different accent and they may
cherish different customs. Most of us share identical dreams.
We dream of making a better life for ourselves. We dream of
building a better future for our families. We dream of crafting
more challenging prospects for our children and we aspire to
serve our communities.
We want to contribute to the betterment of our
neighbourhoods. We want to create conditions where our loved
ones can thrive and prosper and last, but hardly least, we want to
rid our streets of crime and violence.
All of us have heard countless stories of successful
immigrants to Canada. Even before Confederation was a gleam
in the eye of Sir John A. Macdonald waves of newcomers swept
into this land. Many were willing to do the most menial labour
under
5807
incredible conditions in order to scrape a living and to survive.
Others were escaping persecution and seeking freedom. All
were intent on building a new nation.
(1350)
The examples abound. History has recorded the extraordinary
contribution of immigrants from many backgrounds, races and
cultures who have built this country. From the Montreal harbour
to the Toronto skyline, from the building of the railways to the
development of our prairie wheat fields, immigrants' labour
helped to build Canada.
Where are today's success stories? Are there no such success
stories today? Are we now bereft of immigrants improving and
enriching Canada?
What I find distressing in this discussion is the lack of
recognition of the continuing contribution of newcomers to this
country. What I find disturbing is the emphasis that is placed on
the negative, destructive aspects of the modern immigration
experience. What I find unacceptable is the distorted impression
that this lack of recognition and negative depiction of
immigrants sometimes leaves in the minds of the Canadian
public. Think about it.
Where can we read of present day success stories? Where can
we learn of the accomplishments and contributions of recent
immigrants? Where can we find out about the achievements of
newcomers? Not on the front pages of our newspapers. It is not
standard news on the radio and it certainly is not the ordinary
fare of television newscasts.
If positive information ever appears it is on the back pages. It
is a late radio filler, it is an afterthought buried deep in a
television program on a low rating day. Apparently good news
about immigrants is not a good enough sell. It is simply not
marketable news, and because they are not glamorous, another
more sensational picture of the immigrant experience receives
the lion's share of the media spotlight.
It is the minuscule minority of immigrants who operate as
petty hoods that grabs the media attention and dominate the
headlines. It is the small number of immigrants who enter the
criminal world that captures the radio news clips. It is the tiny
band of fraud artists who come here under false pretences that
catches the attention of television reporters. A distorted public
picture of modern immigrants is the unfortunate result.
The real story, the whole story, is either too big or too boring
for the tabloid headlines. The real story is really about hard
working immigrants, entrepreneurs providing jobs and benefits
to this country, immigrant students winning scholarships, or it is
about immigrant scientists pioneering innovative techniques to
alleviate pain and suffering. It is the negative story that most
often dominates public reports and it is this information that
confounds the public's understanding of immigration and its
impact on Canada today. It is the kind of story we hear from
across the way.
I doubt very much that any of us can persuade the media away
from the idea that bad news should dominate good news at every
turn, or even now and then. What we can do is change what is
out there about immigration to report, and that is where Bill
C-44 comes into play.
Bill C-44 promises to play a pivotal role in diminishing
opportunities for the minority of criminals who immigrate to
Canada to steal, to deal, to intimidate, to extort, or even to injure
and kill. Quite simply, Bill C-44 makes it easier for us to
remove unwanted elements that none of us, whether we be
descendants of immigrants, old immigrants or relatively new
immigrants, want here in the first place.
I would suggest that the changes incorporated in Bill C-44
will not solve the problems of crime in Canadian society but it
will help us accomplish our goal of preserving public
confidence in Canada's immigration program. More than that,
the measures in this bill will also help us rid our country of those
people who have little interest in contributing to our society in a
positive way.
(1355)
All our statistics show that newcomers are, if anything, more
law-abiding than Canadians born here, even though the scanty
minority of exceptions loom lopsidedly large in the public eye
and in the media. As the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration explained to the Canadian association of police
chiefs in Montreal this past August, his department has been
directed to use three means of strengthening our enforcement
activities; legislative changes, administrative reforms and
closer co-operation with other law enforcement agencies to
locate people who would abuse our generosity.
At the same time, I was particularly pleased to see the
minister declare that the Immigration Act will continue to serve
as the foundation of our system. This act was amended with
utmost care. It was altered only after it was determined that the
amendments would both protect the public and promote
continued public confidence in our progressive immigration
policies at the same time.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. parliamentary secretary but I have an announcement to
make. She will have 10 minutes left at the end of Question
Period.
The amendment presented by the hon. member for
Cariboo-Chilcotin is acceptable.
5808
5808
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, as part of the
annual meeting of the Canadian Association for HIV Research
this summer, AIDS Action Now, a Toronto based AIDS
advocacy group, organized a demonstration highlighting
promising new AIDS research opportunities which are, in its
opinion, funded inadequately.
At that demonstration I was presented a petition with over 300
signatures. Technicalities preclude the tabling of this petition,
however the message it contains should be made public. It calls
on the government to ``increase funding for AIDS research so
that Canadian scientists can contribute to understanding the
disease, improving treatments and finding a cure''.
It also requests the government to ``make clear a commitment
to long term, sustained funding of AIDS research at least
proportionate to the HIV population base and Canada's relative
wealth''.
While members of the House know that the government has
allocated significant funding for the national AIDS strategy, we
must always strive to do more. We cannot forget that for too
many Canadians it is a matter of life and death.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr.
Speaker, on September 13 we heard the sad news of the death of
Randy Connors. Mr. Connors was one of many Canadian victims
who contracted the AIDS virus following a blood transfusion.
(1400)
In fact, according to a recent study published by the
Department of Health, nearly 1,500 Canadians, including 400
Quebecers, have been infected by contaminated blood. This
kind of negligence on the part of those responsible for Canada's
blood supply system must never happen again. Already too
many people have suffered as a result of a mistake that will cost
them their lives.
[English]
The Bloc Quebecois MPs would therefore like to join in a
tribute to the courage and determination of Mr. Conners who
never ceased to defend the rights of the victims of the
contaminated blood scandal.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, since the
budget in February there has been growing concern in Calgary
regarding the cost of the government's plan to transfer the Lord
Strathcona's Horse and the First Service Battalion from CFB
Calgary to CFB Edmonton.
Initial government estimates placed costs at $23 million.
However, the government has now admitted revised costs of an
additional $21 million for construction and renovation. Another
$30 million is likely needed to clean up existing ranges. The cost
for defaulting on leases will probably be around $16 million and
of course there are other costs.
Recently released documents indicate that DND's primary
rationale for this is to compensate Edmonton for the loss of three
AIRCOM squadrons.
I call on the minister to obtain an independent cost assessment
in light of all new information and to hold this decision in
abeyance until that time. A failure to re-evaluate this decision
can only be interpreted as contempt for the intelligence and the
money of taxpayers.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, this month Sikhs around the world are celebrating the
390th anniversary of the installation of the holy book
Sri Guru
Granth Sahib Ji. This historic event was undertaken by the fifth
guru Arjan Dev Ji.
The compilation and subsequent installation of the holy book
has ever since served as the fountain of spiritual wisdom and has
helped foster good will and harmony among all people.
I am sure that all members of the House of Commons wish to
join me in congratulating the Sikh community.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East): Mr. Speaker, as
of this morning our neighbours to the south can receive two new
Canadian programming services, each owned and operated
jointly by the CBC and Power Broadcasting. Newsworld
International will focus on top international news, presenting a
uniquely Canadian view of major world events while the second
channel, TRIO, a family oriented television service, will
provide the best of Canadian programming to its U.S. audience.
[Translation]
These two channels will be distributed in the United States via
cable and Direct TV, a new satellite service for direct
broadcasting, offering consumers programming that will
include films, sports broadcasts and special events.
5809
[English]
Exports to this new market will build on Canada's traditional
programming strength and supplement the revenues of Canada's
national public broadcaster.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
one week after she had been held by airport security officials
under Peru's special emergency decrees, Mrs. Lisette
Barsallo-Ward, a well respected Vancouver teacher, was able to
return safely to her family in Canada. Her speedy release
represented a classical exercise in quiet diplomacy by our
foreign ministry in Ottawa and our diplomats in Lima in the best
tradition of the Canadian foreign service.
We extend our congratulations to all of them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, not long ago some statistics were published on the
painful impact of the 1993 unemployment insurance reform on
Quebec workers.
The newspaper Le Soleil reported that more than 22,000
Quebecers had been excluded from the unemployment insurance
system since the reform came into effect. In addition to the
restrictive measures of the Conservatives, we now have those
introduced by the Liberals, which will affect, and are already
affecting, tens of thousands of Quebecers and Canadians.
I want to ask the Minister of Human Resources Development,
who is now preparing a thorough overhaul of the social safety
net, to look behind the figures at all the people who are severely
affected by the measures being taken here in Ottawa. Perhaps he
will find the compassion which has been clearly lacking since he
took over the department and launched the reform of the social
safety net.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, this
morning at 7.44 a.m. our debt was $531,045,850,207.24. With
every passing day the federal debt in this country grows by more
than $100 million.
Canadians are alarmed. They are concerned not only for
themselves and their futures but for their children and their
grandchildren. But what of the government? How concerned is
it? Not very apparently when it defines success as going in the
hole another $100 billion over the next three years. Even if it
achieves that goal, it has failed the people.
I say to the government that it has an obligation to preserve
and enhance opportunity, not to spend it away. I say to the
government that it has an obligation to do what is right, not what
is easy.
In the time that I have taken to deliver this statement I point
out that our debt has gone up $80,000.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to start by extending my sincere congratulations to Daniel
Johnson on his outstanding campaign. His message, sincerity
and convictions were such that he was able to win a splendid
moral victory. However, this is only the beginning, and I am sure
that he is the man we need to win the battle.
I also want to extend my sincere congratulations to Mr.
Parizeau. I commend him for repeating his promise of a
referendum within the next ten months, and I hope he will keep
his word. In fact, I hope the referendum is held as soon as
possible and that the question is clear and unambiguous. And
when Quebecers have said no, once and for all, to the separatist
option, I hope Mr. Parizeau and his followers will give up on the
idea and forget about it, because, Mr. Premier Designate,
democracy means accepting the choice freely expressed by the
majority.
* * *
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur): Mr.
Speaker, from August 12 to August 20, Acadians from around
the world gathered in New Brunswick for the first World
Congress of Acadians.
It goes without saying that this event had a tremendous
success. There were lots of activities including shows, family
reunions and conferences. I wish to congratulate the organizing
committee of Retrouvailles 94 as well as the conference
organizing committee for a job well done. I would also like to
thank our Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, who
paid a visit to the Acadian Congress. His presence was highly
appreciated and it demonstrates his commitment to the Acadian
community.
5810
[English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, it is a well
known fact that lead is dangerous to human health because it is a
poisonous substance. We have made some progress by
eliminating lead from gasoline and paints but many other uses of
lead continue, thus causing a threat to human health.
In Canada lead is spread into the environment when a hunter
shoots or an angler loses a fishing weight. When ingested by
wildlife, lead is the cause of a slow and agonizing death. In the
United States the use of lead shot for waterfowl was banned in
1991. In Denmark and in the Netherlands the government
banned lead in shots for all game and fishing weights.
In Canada we have a long way to go in ensuring that lead does
not enter the environment as in the case of imported children's
crayons which will be the subject of another intervention soon.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, on
September 12 Quebecers elected 77 members of the sovereignist
party to the Quebec National Assembly. The new government
has therefore received the mandate to prepare a referendum on
the sovereignty of Quebec. I would like to congratulate the
leader of the Parti Quebecois, Mr. Jacques Parizeau, the elected
members of his party and the others, as well as all the good
candidates who failed in their bid to be elected. All have
expressed their desire and willingness to serve Quebec.
Whatever the Prime Minister may think, it is clear that
Quebecers are not satisfied with this wonderful country that
Canada is supposed to be.
(1410 )
Determined and persistent, they know that they are a distinct
people and a distinct society. Quebecers demand full control of
their social, cultural, political and economic development. With
the coming referendum, Quebecers will finally have the
opportunity to choose between the status quo and sovereignty.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, so the
government is taking over Reform's turf, at least according to
Rosemary Speirs of the
Toronto Star. I would like to take this
opportunity to challenge the Liberals on this mock takeover of
our turf.
Indeed, during the past year the Reform Party has been
effective in setting the national agenda. I ask, why is the
government focusing constantly on deficit reduction, criminal
justice and immigration? It is because Reform members have
brought these issues to the forefront time and time again.
Because of this debate Canadians are aware of the ineffective
status quo system and are demanding changes.
On closer scrutiny, these well informed Canadians will soon
realize that these cosmetic changes have not changed the system
fundamentally. The Reform Party would be delighted to see its
policies being implemented. But please take the entire package,
not just the label.
The Liberals cannot claim to have taken over Reform's turf.
In fact this is no more than astro turf, a poor substitute for the
real thing.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker,
the Fundy region of my Carleton-Charlotte constituency
endured great hardship in recent weeks. Not only was the wharf
located at St. Andrews, New Brunswick devastated by fire on
August 31, but the Labour Day weekend brought great winds and
waves, destroying numerous herring weirs along the Fundy
coast. Both of these tragedies will have disastrous effects on the
economy of the region.
The town of St. Andrews depends greatly on the tourism
industry, the traditional fishery and aquaculture industry.
Needless to say the loss of the wharf will damage these
industries to a great degree.
Likewise, the weir fishermen along the Fundy coast rely on
their weirs to maintain the flow of herring to processors. The
destruction of these weirs will shorten their season, throwing
many out of work and bringing tremendous reconstruction costs
to the weir owner-operators.
I am optimistic that several departments, both federal and
provincial, will pool their resources to help the people who
suffer from these natural tragedies.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
draw the attention of the House to a once great nation that is
slowly dying in a sea of words, warring factions not unlike two
great elk locked in mortal combat. When finished both are too
spent to ward off the ever present wolves. The wolves are the
growing jaws of debt, money borrowed not to support
investment but rather to support unearned lifestyles.
I would like to talk about strictly provincial debt, nothing to
do with the federal government. The highest is in Quebec where
they owe $9,498 for every man, woman and child. Over 40 per
cent of this is owed to foreigners. Other provinces are not far
behind.
5811
As we clash among ourselves, an artery here and an artery
there becomes dismembered. These slashes are the ever
spiralling interest rates which are borne from uncertainty.
For every Mary Smith and Jacques Tremblay, let us get on
with the wolves at the door.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I would
like today to join in congratulations as many of the media have
done on the election of a Social Democratic government in
Sweden.
The Globe and Mail says: ``After three years of Conservative
government characterized by rising inflation, 14 per cent
unemployment and an enormous public debt'' voters swung
back to the left and elected the Social Democratic Party of
Sweden.
Despite the many proclamations that the left is dead, this
election is evidence that there is not only one way to go. There is
an alternative to the destructive policies of the right.
The left is alive and well in Canada and abroad. There are
more than 60 Social Democratic governments worldwide and in
Europe Sweden joins Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Ireland,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain and Hungary which already
have Social Democratic governments. Just this summer Sri
Lanka and Japan also became governed by Social Democrats.
* * *
(1415)
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): Mr. Speaker, rail service
between Saint John and Sherbrooke, Quebec, both passenger
and freight, is well used and important to both the people and the
economy of Saint John.
The citizens of Saint John and most of the province of New
Brunswick came together and fought for the preservation and
need for rail passenger service in the early 1980s. We were told
by the government of the day that we could retain our passenger
service but we must use it or lose it. It has been used. Ridership
has steadily increased and there is a three-month waiting list for
reservations on VIA.
As Saint John is a port and an industrial city, it is also
imperative that efficient and affordable freight service be
maintained to both the port and the businesses of Saint John.
While I understand that negotiations are under way between
CP and the private sector for a portion of the line, I urge the
Minister of Transport to take steps to see that the remainder of
the line from Brownville Junction to Sherbrooke remains
operational.
* * *
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Parliamentarians both past
and present from all parties, and certainly you as well, Mr.
Speaker, were deeply saddened last Wednesday at the sudden
death of our very dear friend, Bill Bussiere.
For 25 years Bill was an integral part of the weekly
parliamentary prayer breakfast group and was instrumental in
organizing the annual National Prayer Breakfast which most of
us attended.
[Translation]
The importance that Bill attached to our spiritual needs can be
measured by the respect and admiration we had for him.
[English]
On behalf of this House I extend our deepest sympathy to his
wife Sandra and his three daughters Lori, Wanda and Linda.
Bill's presence and friendship will be missed but his memory
will stay with us.
Perhaps in final recognition of Bill's strong personal
commitment I can humbly say for all of us, well done thy good
and faithful servant.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Honourable members, we lost one of our
colleagues during the summer, a member of this House.
[English]
We will break for just a bit as we will hear tributes to Mr.
Péloquin, un de nos députés.
[Translation]
We will then extend Question Period beyond three o'clock by
the number of minutes we will have spent in doing so.
* * *
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we were all saddened and dismayed to learn of the accidental
death of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. He was not in
this House very long, but he made many friends here.
He was a hard worker. He always turned his attention to the
needy. On behalf of my party and the government, I would like
to offer his son and his family our sincerest condolences. I
would also like to take the opportunity to remind the public of
what a member's life is like. The member is at least the third of
my colleagues who has died in an automobile accident. After
5812
working for long hours weeks at a time, they died in car
accidents on the way home. I am thinking of Mr. Fortin from
Lotbinière and Mr. Lonsdale, a member from northern Ontario.
In their criticisms, people too often forget that members of
Parliament sometimes have impossible hours. They work here,
have to return to their riding and come back to Ottawa. They take
enormous risks. They are always criticized. Unfortunately, Mr.
Péloquin died tragically. On behalf of my party and the
government, I would like to offer his colleagues and his family
my most sincere sympathy.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I would first like to thank the Prime Minister for his
deeply felt words about our friend, Mr. Péloquin, and members
like him who died in similar circumstances.
Gaston Péloquin, the member for Brome-Missisquoi, was
our friend and his tragic death has greatly saddened his family,
his constituents and his colleagues. He leaves behind his 16-year
old son Pascal and his close friends, Denise and Gilles Duval, to
whom he has entrusted his son. During his professional career,
in education, in politics and in social life, Mr. Péloquin was
always concerned for the most disadvantaged, those who are
excluded and left behind. That is what motivated him to work for
Haitian children.
(1420)
He was respected by all for his commitment to his
constituents and his deep convictions for Quebec's full
development. Everyone recognizes the work he did to serve his
fellow citizens in the Eastern Townships and the determination
he brought to the task.
Mr. Péloquin was very human and modest, very giving of
himself. The most important value for him was volunteerism.
His great availability, his commitment of time and energy to his
constituents, made him very well liked and many mourned his
passing. He was very sorry about the difficulties facing the
families of laid-off Hyundai workers in his riding. His concern
and the comfort he gave them show his compassion.
Quebec and Canada have just lost an honest, warm-hearted
parliamentarian for whom it was difficult to accept the fate and
suffering of others. Members will understand that because of his
Haitian experience, he was particularly affected by the painful
situation in that country. Shortly before he died, he was
devastated to recognize on television someone he had known
who had been killed by the military junta.
Mr. Pélonquin's career was one of service for the good of his
fellow citizens. First as a teacher, then as a school principal,
missionary and member of Parliament, he was involved in many
organizations. A committed believer, he dedicated himself to
many religious and parish activities. His faith in young people
and concern for their future were very important to him.
Allow me to repeat the message which he always wanted to
give to his fellow citizens, a message of tolerance, of openness,
of respect for what democracy in Quebec and Canada will
decide. On behalf of the members of the Bloc Quebecois, I
extend our sincerest condolences to all those who are affected by
this tragedy. Like them, we feel the emptiness left by the passing
of Gaston Péloquin.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
fellow colleagues, I was deeply saddened to learn of the tragic
death of our friend and colleague, the hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi.
[English]
In the first days of the new Parliament Mr. Péloquin and I
developed a friendship that transcended our political
differences. We agreed to maintain our friendship throughout
the travails that lay ahead of us in Parliament. We both looked
forward to enriching our own lives by learning more and sharing
experiences with each other.
Gaston was a gentle man, a person of character and resolve.
He wanted to do right and on occasion was genuinely perplexed
when his motives were questioned from a purely political
perspective.
Like many of us, Mr. Péloquin was a new member and we all
did not get a chance to know him as a person. Had we had the
opportunity to know Gaston, we would have learned of his life's
work as a teacher, we would have known that he wrote a
children's book and that he adopted a young Haitian orphan,
Pascal, his son.
[Translation]
Perhaps the untimely death of our colleague will cause us all
to give some thought to the bonds that unite rather than divide
us, to think first of each other as individuals with hopes, dreams
and aspirations, than as politicians.
[English]
On behalf of the entire Reform caucus, I wish to express to
Gaston's son, Pascal, our sincere condolences. Nothing we do or
say now will lighten the burden of grief you bear today, but may
you find peace in the certain knowledge that your father, Gaston,
rests with those who are a force of good in this life.
[Translation]
Canada, Québec and Parliament are poorer for his passing but
were enriched by his presence.
(1425)
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
join the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition
and my colleague from the Reform Party in expressing, in my
own name and on behalf of our Party, our sorrow at the passing
of Mr. Gaston Péloquin.
5813
Previous speakers have already noted some of his
achievements. I must admit that I did not get to know Mr.
Péloquin very well. In fact, I believe the first time we ever met
was on the floor of the House and we did barely more than
exchange greetings.
Nonetheless, I have realized like everyone else, as we set
aside our partisanship under the present circumstances, to what
extent his life brought a ray of hope. Like my colleagues, I was
greatly impressed by his contribution in the field of education,
by his colleagues' tributes which, incidentally, were very
touching, and also by his personal commitment. At this time
when coincidentally we are witnessing extremely important
events taking place in Haiti with regard to the stakes of
democracy, Mr. Péloquin, by the way he lived his life, reminds
us that there are among us individuals who are prepared to take
very concrete action. As a matter of fact, the wish was expressed
that in his memory donations be made to charities for Haitian
children. I realized then how much of a difference his life will
have made for these people.
As Mr. Péloquin's riding was next to mine, I had the
opportunity to hear personal accounts of those he rubbed
shoulders with and I can tell you today that these people had
only good things to say about him, his work and his great
sincerity.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, it is with
deep sadness that I rise today in this House to pay tribute to a
colleague and a friend whose loss affects us all. The accidental
death of our colleague Gaston Péloquin is a terrible blow to his
son, his family, his friends, his constituents and to us all. Quebec
and Canada have lost a member of Parliament who was honest
and very dedicated to the cause in which he believed above all.
Gaston Péloquin, who was elected to this House in October 1993
as the member for Brome-Missisquoi, did his job with loyalty.
He defended his constituents' interests with his usual
determination and paid special attention to the needs of the
poorest. We all recognized his legendary availability to these
people. His approach to politics never raised any doubt about the
sincerity of his personal convictions.
He always believed in Quebec and was never afraid to
denounce the injustices suffered by Quebecers. I knew Gaston
Péloquin personally for many years. He was a warm and
endearing person, as I realized while touring the Eastern
Townships during the 1993 election campaign. We spent several
days travelling through five ridings. Gaston was the leader of
the group informally set up in the motor home of his friend Jean
Bégin. He took pleasure in doing his job well.
(1430)
I shared an apartment in Hull with Gaston for 10 months
during the last parliamentary session. We had many
opportunities to confide in each other. His always lively
comments and well-expressed ideas showed him to be
extremely sensitive. The closing of the Hyundai plant was a
striking case in point. I saw all the efforts that he made in this
matter so that families would not lose their livelihood. He was
very sorry for these workers when this plant closed, but he had
done all he could. As a former teacher of English as a second
language who maintained a lifelong interest in education, he
very often talked to me about the school he headed for two years
in Haiti. He shared the Haitian people's problems and human
misery, and he was very proud to bring back from that country
his son Pascal who is now 16 years old and had become his main
reason for living.
Gaston Péloquin leaves a big void that will be hard to fill not
only in the House of Commons but also in the riding of
Brome-Missisquoi. On behalf of Bloc members and the great
region of the Eastern Townships, I offer our heartfelt
condolences to his son Pascal, his family and his friends. We
share with them the sorrow of losing a loved one. Goodbye,
Gaston.
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount): Mr.
Speaker, it is in my role as chairman of the industry committee
that I had the opportunity to work with Gaston Péloquin during
the winter and spring of 1994. As you know, Mr. Speaker, more
often than not committees conduct their work in a non-partisan
fashion. We are removed from the media and the atmosphere is
very different from the one during question period, for example.
Mr. Péloquin participated in all our proceedings on the
financing of small and medium-sized businesses. He was
assiduous and his comments were always serious and well
thought-out. He was interested in every aspect of our review,
whether it was the relationship between banks and small
businesses, the mandate of the Federal Business Development
Bank, or the role of the Superintendent of Financial institutions.
Before entering politics, as was mentioned earlier this
afternoon, Mr. Péloquin made a career in teaching. He was a
single parent with an adopted child, Pascal, who is now 16 years
old. I attended Mr. Péloquin's funeral in Cowansville and was
able to see how much he was loved by his colleagues from the
education sector because of his dedication, his generosity and
his sense of humour.
Again, I want to express my sympathy to his son Pascal, to the
other members of his family and to his friends, including the
members of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): On behalf
of all my colleagues from the New Democratic Party, I want to
express my sincere condolences to the friends and relatives of
Gaston Péloquin, and particularly to his adopted son Pascal.
I had the opportunity to talk to Gaston on several occasions
and I found him to be a man of compassion and integrity who
was very concerned by the plight of the poor and the vulnerable
in our society. Even in his maiden speech in this House he
referred to social programs and, in particular, to the rights of
handicapped people. A strong believer in an independent Que-
5814
bec for many years, he was also very devoted to the well-being
of his constituents of Brome-Missisquoi.
This is a terrible loss for them, for us his parliamentary
colleagues, and especially for his family. We will all miss him.
The Speaker: As I said earlier today, we have lost one of our
number. I think we should remember we have only one life to
live and if we can do something for someone, for our neighbour,
we should always do it as soon as possible.
[English]
Colleagues, it being 2.35 p.m., Question Period will go until
3.20 today.
_____________________________________________
5814
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, after nine years under a Liberal government, last
Monday Quebec elected a Parti Québécois government, whose
main objective is to achieve the sovereignty of Quebec. The
federal government should realize this instead of hiding its head
in the sand, as was obvious from the speech made yesterday in
Quebec City by the Prime Minister before the Canadian
Chamber of Commerce.
My question is this: Does the Prime Minister really think his
offer to co-operate with the new government in Quebec is a
credible one, when at the same time, his stubborn insistence on a
centralist approach in the proposed overhaul of the social safety
net is causing a major confrontation, not only with Quebec but
with other provinces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
would make better sense to wait until the minister's plan is
tabled in the House, instead of using the kind of epithets we have
heard from the hon. member. We have had an election in
Quebec, and the people wanted a change of government. But I
know what people want. They want governments to work
together to create jobs and bring about economic recovery, to
ensure that the most vulnerable members of our society are
protected. That is the purpose of our proposal, and I hope the
Government of Quebec, like the other governments that have
indicated they want to co-operate, will be prepared to
co-operate in the best interests of all Canadians.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, would the Prime Minister agree that the best way to
ensure genuine co-operation-the kind he has so fulsomely
extended to the new government of Quebec-is to start by
respecting the jurisdiction and responsibilities of Quebec,
instead of trying to encroach further in this area through his
minister's program for social reform which is a blatant attack
on Quebec's constitutional positions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
have not seen the final version. I wish the Leader of the
Opposition would show it to me. I have not seen it. In other
words, he does not know what he is talking about. He should
wait and see what is in the document.
[English]
Once the document is ready it will be available to everybody.
It will be a discussion paper. I have discussed that with the
premiers. They know we have a problem in this field and it is
something which needs to be modernized and adapted to
changing times. I am surprised the Leader of the Opposition
wants to keep the status quo.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, one of the benefits of politics is that you lose your
naïvety, and when you stop being naïve, you understand the
ulterior motives of a government that, in fact, is no longer trying
to hide its determination to use this overhaul of the social safety
net to save money and divert resources away from the pittance
the needy are receiving now. They even admitted that the basic
objective was to save money so that the Minister of Finance can
balance his accounts, which are a disaster.
I want to ask the Prime Minister very sincerely, based on a
concern for co-operation, as he himself said, whether we should
take him seriously when he tells Quebecers that he wants to
co-operate with the new government on job creation, and I want
to ask him whether he realizes that he should first promise to
transfer to Quebec full jurisdiction over manpower training,
which would save a lot of wear and tear on the neediest members
of our society. Is the government's real position not that this is
just one of Quebec's whims?
(1440)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the way government and federalism works, the central
government is allowed to take money from people who are well
off, including people who work in fields where there are jobs,
and use it to help those who do not have that opportunity and
who need training.
In our country, unemployment levels vary, and we take money
from the people who work to give it to people who do not work.
This has no connection with language but is directly connected
to the need to help people who are unemployed to get more
training so that they can have the dignity of work. That is the
purpose of this reform, and we will discuss with the provinces
how it should be managed, but we must not create a situation
where the federal government is completely out of the picture
and the principle of redistribution of wealth is eliminated in this
5815
country. That would have a very adverse effect on the poorer
provinces and regions of this country.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, serious
allegations have been made during the summer putting in
question the integrity of the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service, better known as CSIS.
CSIS has allegedly used an informant to set up a Canadian
racist group. The same informant is also alleged to have
infiltrated the entourage of the Reform Party leader.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Given the seriousness
of the situation, does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable
for CSIS to infiltrate a democratically formed political party,
collect information on the CBC and the Canadian Jewish
Congress, and contribute to the foundation of a Canadian racist
group?
Does the Prime Minister consider that this is right?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is talking about what so far simply are
allegations, some of which have been categorically denied by
the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
All of these allegations are being looked into by the Security
Intelligence Review Committee which is an independent body
created by this Parliament and operates at arm's length both
from the government and from CSIS. I think we should wait to
see its report. In the light of that report we will be prepared to
take any necessary action on the basis of these allegations, if and
when they are proven.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, would the
Solicitor General not agree that the best way, in fact the only
way, to shed all the light on CSIS's alleged actions would be to
set up a royal commission with real powers so that we can find
out exactly what CSIS did?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
first I want to observe that we are dealing with allegations about
things that may have happened before this government took
office.
The second point I want to make is that the Security
Intelligence Review Committee in my view is something like a
permanent royal commission with a permanent mandate to
review the activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service. The Security Intelligence Review Committee is set up
by order in council. It has full authority to question people, to
examine documents, to do all the things a royal commission
would do but focused on the activities, alleged or otherwise, of
the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
In my view this Parliament in creating the Security
Intelligence Review Committee has in effect responded to what
the hon. member is talking about. We have the equivalent of a
royal commission looking into the allegations in question.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister responded to the first question by the Leader
of the Opposition which affects the national unity issue by
saying things he has said 100 times before.
(1445)
Given the circumstances, surely a better and more vigorous
response would have been for the Prime Minister to declare his
intention to make Canada as attractive as possible to all
Canadians by balancing the budget, by offering tax relief, and by
changing social programs to make them both affordable and
more decentralized. These are the hallmarks of good
government, not the half measures that are being introduced in
the House.
What new and bolder steps is the Prime Minister going to take
in the cause of national unity to balance the budget, cut taxes and
fix our social safety net?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
first I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Reform Party
on his promotion to the front row.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I am very glad the member
for Calgary West had the humility to change seats with the
member for Calgary Southwest.
The member is right. The best way to keep the unity of the
country is to have a good economy. That is exactly what we are
working on at this time. When he looks at the results he will see
that 265,000 new jobs were created since we have been in
government and we have known a 6.4 per cent growth in the last
quarter.
If we were to follow the Reform Party economic recipe we
would immediately create a huge recession in Canada. If we
were to take $40 billion out of the economy in one shot there
would be twice as many unemployed as at this time. We do not
want to go to the right wing doctrinaire solution or to the left
wing doctrinaire solution. We will go the proper Liberal way, the
balanced way.
5816
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister's reply will not strengthen support for the
federal system because the standards of his government are too
low and his timetable is too long.
Producing a social program discussion paper is not good
enough when the public wants action. Fixing our deficit target at
3 per cent of GDP is not good enough when our national debt is
at 71 per cent of GDP. National unity will not be achieved unless
the Prime Minister sets higher standards for his ministers and a
shorter timetable.
Will the Prime Minister commit to raising his government's
standards with respect to social reform and fiscal reform and
accelerating his timetable for bringing in those reforms?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we were very prudent when we ran in the last election. We put
everything in writing in the red book. So far it is working very
well and we do not intend to change our goals.
Three per cent of GDP for the level of deficit in relation to
GDP is a very ambitious goal. It is the one selected by all
countries in Europe as the normal goal for European countries
and none of them at the moment has achieved that.
We will achieve it. As we said and as promised, at the end of
the third year of our mandate we will be at 3 per cent of GDP. It is
written in the red book; it will be done.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a fear that history is repeating itself. Members that have
been around the House and have observed it for a long time
know governments that get elected, have a mandate and do not
use it to make fundamental changes in the first year, ones that
squander their political mandate on half measures, never end up
getting the job done.
(1450)
Why does the Prime Minister not use his political capital to
make major fiscal and social reforms now instead of frittering it
away on political half measures?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have to consult with the provinces in order to achieve reform.
The son of a former premier who, I might say in passing,
accepted a seat in the Senate says that we should not consult with
the provinces. What kind of country does he want Canada to be?
We will have to consult with the provinces. We will do that.
There will be measures in the House and reform will be
achieved, but we prefer to do it with the collaboration of the
provinces. The minister has spent a lot of time with ministers so
far. The document will be tabled in the first week of October.
We will have other discussions with the public through the
House of Commons. Legislation will come next year and you
will be satisfied.
The Speaker: I know it has been a long summer but you have
forgotten me again.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, last week the chairman of the Security Intelligence
Review Committee, Jacques Courtois, appeared before the
Sub-Committee on National Security. When committee
members asked Mr. Courtois about the allegations relating to
the infiltration of the Reform Party, he refused to answer, saying
that at CSIS he had learned to never say yes or no. That is a fine
example of the transparency awaiting the parliamentary
sub-committee responsible for shedding light on these
allegations.
My question is for the Solicitor General of Canada. Does he
consider as acceptable Mr. Courtois's deliberate refusal to
answer the parliamentary sub-committee's questions relating to
the allegations involving CSIS?
[English]
The Speaker: As a general rule the questions asked in
committee are the work of the committee. Perhaps, if the
question could be rephrased to make it a more general question
directed to the Solicitor General, it would be acceptable.
The question relates directly to the work of the committee and
I would rule it out of order. I would ask the hon. member to
rephrase the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I will rephrase my question: Can the Solicitor General
of Canada assure this House that this matter will be clarified
once and for all and that the review committee will give clear
and precise answers to the questions we asked during committee
meetings?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
under the rules of the House I am not in a position to comment on
proceedings in a committee before the committee has reported.
However I want to say that under the law adopted by
Parliament the Security Intelligence Review Committee has
been set up as a body independent of CSIS, independent of the
government, and I think independent of parliamentary
committees. Its duties are spelled out in the act passed by
Parliament.
5817
We should not jump to conclusions about the way the Security
Intelligence Review Committee is going to do its work. It has
promised to have a report by the month of October. We should
pass judgment on its work only after we have seen it and had a
chance to assess it.
I for one want to deal fully with the findings of the report so
that if there is anything demonstrated by way of problems we
can take corrective action even though the matters in question
arose before we took office.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Supplementary question. I would ask the hon.
member to formulate his question so that it concerns the
department and its activities instead of the committees.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is obviously on the same wavelength as
Jacques Courtois as he does not answer yes or no, even in this
House. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister. By
answering this way, does the minister not lend a little support to
CSIS's way of operating and prevent the Sub-Committee on
National Security from doing its job in this matter?
(1455)
The Speaker: If the minister wants to answer the question, he
can do so but he does not have to.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
want to assist the hon. member by giving him a categorical and
clear answer. Yes, I will carry out the responsibility imposed on
me by the CSIS act as passed by Parliament. I have no authority
however to direct the chairman of the Security Intelligence
Review Committee about the way he and his committee do their
work. I am sure they are very conscious of the responsibility
they have undertaken in accepting appointments to the
committee. I am sure they are capable of following the
proceedings of the House.
In light of that I look forward to their report so that we can
deal with whatever they conclude in a way that serves the best
interest of the country.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
in his last budget the Minister of Finance announced that
Canada's debt would increase by 20 per cent or $97 billion over
the next three years. He has planned to do that. Such an increase
is the highest in the history of Canada for any three-year period.
Now the news is that even this target will not be met and that
the debt at the end of three years will be $10 billion to $16
billion above the $97 billion already planned.
What will the Minister of Finance and his government do
about this frightening problem of a runaway deficit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, before answering I should like to
congratulate my colleague on having been named one of the two
co-critics. If it takes two I am a critic on ten. In all sincerity I
should like to congratulate him on his appointment.
Certainly I congratulate him on the fact that he has moved to
the front benches. I must say I find it amazing, knowing this
particular member, that he has moved a little closer to the centre
of the political spectrum.
The answer to the question is that the assumption upon which
it is based is simply not well founded. The accumulation of past
deficits and the fact of compound interest, as the member knows
full well, have led to the tremendous increase in debt. Indeed
had the party opposite, heaven forbid, been in office we would
have had this compound interest effecting this tremendous
increase in the debt. I hope the member understands that.
In any event the member asked what the government was
going to do. Let me simply cite the Prime Minister yesterday.
We are going to hit our targets.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, a
spokesperson for the Ministry of Finance recently announced
that the ministry was planning the taxation of RRSPs in order to
hit those targets.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether this is true
or whether the people of Canada who are already overtaxed can
expect him to cut spending instead?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, no spokesman for the
Department of Finance made that statement.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We learned with
relief yesterday that an agreement had been reached between
Washington and the military junta in Haiti that allowed the
peaceful landing of a multinational force to restore democracy
in the country and thus enable the democratically elected
president, Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide, to return.
(1500)
Here is my question: Was the minister informed of the terms
of the agreement between Washington and the military junta
and, if so, can he tell this House what they are and when
President Aristide is to return to Haiti?
5818
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Canadian government, I would like to
say how happy we are at the turn events took, at the lack of
bloodshed that could have resulted in the death of many
Haitians.
There is no doubt that we must pay tribute to the efforts of the
American special envoys who have managed, at the very last
second, to convince the military to abdicate. It seems obvious to
me that this last-minute agreement that averted the military
action called for under United Nations resolution 940 provides
that the military will not only have to hand over power, but also
allow members of the multinational force that should land in
Haiti within hours to gain control of the situation and bring
about the speedy return of president Aristide.
One major factor to take into account is that under Governors
Island arrangements, one legislative measure must be passed to
provide for the general pardon of the military and another one to
provide for the division of powers between the military and the
police. In our view, it would be important that the proposed
legislation called for in the original Governors Island agreement
be implemented as soon as possible by the Haitian Parliament.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, does the
Canadian government intend to contribute actively to the forces
that will be put together to garantee the safety of civilian
populations upon the return of President Aristide and, if so, what
will this contribution consist of?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting President Aristide last
week, at which time I reiterated that the Government of Canada
was firmly committed to providing him with support whenever
he requests it, to help rebuild his country at the democratic,
social and economic level. We are confident that, as soon as he is
back in Haiti, president Aristide will ask for support,
large-scale participation, from Canada. I can assure you that we
will be ready to respond to his request and will do so most
positively.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, my question is also
for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Last week the minister committed personnel and money, lots
of money, toward the rebuilding of Haiti. I believe the Canadian
people need to know more about that plan. They need to know
what the costs are going to be, what our commitment is going to
be, and how long we are going to be there.
Also as parliamentarians we need to know if we are going to
be discussing this in detail in the House.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that Canada supports
the UN resolutions with regard to Haiti. Indeed, we support the
Governors Island agreement which calls for the sending of
Canadian police forces to Haiti to train the Haitian police forces.
This is a well known commitment by Canada. We are anxious
and eager to fulfil this commitment. We will be following
through as soon as the circumstances allow our police to go
there.
(1505)
Second, we have approved the UN resolutions, which will
allow-in the second phase of the implementation of resolution
940 of the United Nations-the involvement of military
personnel under the auspices of the United Nations. This has not
yet been realized. When this second phase takes place, we will
then respond.
The Speaker: In the interest of brevity, we would ask all
members to have very brief questions and very brief answers.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, in the red book it
says that we can be assured we will not be U.S. camp followers.
Yet the minister makes a trip to Washington on Thursday and
comes back with our plan.
Can the minister assure us that we will now take the lead and
work with the OAS and the UN in a leadership role regarding the
solution to the Haiti problem?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I am very intrigued by the question of the hon. member
because I thought I heard his leader on television a few days ago
expressing a different point of view. I want to assure the House
that Canada has an independent position which we have clearly
expressed inside and outside the House with regard to Haiti.
We believe we can play a more independent, separate role
than others because of the privileged position we have with the
Haitian population. Certainly under the auspices of the UN, we
could give leadership in playing a very constructive role.
I hope that in the near future the House will allow us to have a
debate on the matter in order to permit members of both sides of
the House to express their views in this regard.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): My question is for the
Minister of Health. In a press conference held last Monday, the
Minister of Health tried to reassure the Canadian people
following investigations conducted by the United States Drug
and Food Administration, which revealed several deficiencies
in the operation of the Red Cross blood centre in Toronto.
5819
Although she has had the facts for a while now, why did the
minister wait until the telecast to inform Canadians about the
serious control problems at the Red Cross centre in Toronto?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for her question. First of
all, let me reassure Canadians by saying that the inspections
carried out by the FDA were the result of a change in its own
policies and were not brought about by problems in the way the
blood supply is handled in Canada. It is a question of
harmonizing various policies, since the regulations differ. We
are working with the FDA and will continue to do so in order to
achieve harmonization. Our blood system in Canada is as safe as
any in the world.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us exactly when she
took action to inform other centres of the serious deficiencies
identified in Toronto?
(1510)
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
will repeat my answer once more.
The inspections that were carried out were the result of a
change in the policies of the FDA. They were not brought about
by any problems directly affecting our blood system here. Our
blood system remains one of the safest in the world and we
continue to do everything possible to improve it.
* * *
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox
and Addington): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Justice.
For many people autumn means the arrival of the game
hunting season. These people are concerned that the proposed
gun control legislation will include provisions such as central
storage, seizure of hunting weapons and possible expensive
registration laws. A lot of misinformation is out there.
Does the minister have any words for these many hunters to
calm their worries?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
address the issue.
In the weeks since the House adjourned in June I have spent
time crossing Canada, visiting every province but one-and I
will soon be there-to meet with Canadians and to discuss
directly with them the issue of firearms and their regulation. I
have met with dozens of groups, with hunters and anglers, with
wildlife federations, with shooting clubs, with target shooters
and with a variety of others who have an interest in firearms.
Among other things, I have tried to reassure them that the
government is keenly aware that hunting is not only a long
tradition but it is an important economic activity for many
regions of Canada and that the proposals we will bring forward
later this year will reflect not only the need for a safe society and
a strong criminal justice system, but will also respect the
legitimate interests of hunters, farmers and those who use
firearms for subsistence.
The proposals we are now preparing will reflect the legitimate
interests to which the hon. member referred.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, last
week a confidential document was released by the minister of
immigration's department outlining plans to cut the number of
immigrants coming into Canada, to restrict family class
immigration, to require security bonds from sponsors of
relatives and eliminate automatic citizenship for the children of
refugees.
We would like to acknowledge that the minister has
recognized the merits of our party's initiatives and we would
like to ask him when these very good ideas will be put into place.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the government, pursuant to its red
book commitment, began an unprecedented-
Some hon. members: Come on.
Mr. Marchi: There are lots of good ideas in that little red
book, by the way.
We had an unprecedented eight-month consultative process
which was rich with ideas, rich with the participation of
Canadians from all walks of life and all regions. That is one
important strand that certainly will impact on the ultimate
decision that our government and this House will make in the
levels announcement that must be made by law before
November 1.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, poll
after poll shows overwhelmingly that the majority of Canadians
agree with the minister's department that immigration is out of
control. Another document from the minister's department
released earlier this summer actually agrees with that position.
When will the minister stop holding out as one of the last lone
defenders of a policy that a vast majority of Canadians and even
his own officials see as being out of touch?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly better than being out
of mind.
That report was one of many where various departments in
their policy directives certainly reflect on the things that were
5820
said during that consultative process. It would be very
unfortunate if we were to simply draw wild conclusions from
every single document coming from any department.
(1515)
Canadians are looking for and deserve improvements in how
immigration is being managed and we have begun to deliver on
that. In fact this morning we discussed Bill C-44. I hope the
Reform Party sees fit to support that bill because it is an
improvement in how we conduct and manage the program. We
will continue to do this in the best interests of our country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. According to Statistics
Canada, the unemployment rate rose by 0.7 per cent in Quebec
last month and now stands at 12.2 per cent. In spite of a slight
economic recovery, given the increase in population, Quebec
still needs 210,000 jobs to reach its pre-recession level of
employment.
Could the Minister of Finance, who recently claimed to be
waging a world economic war, modestly try to create jobs by
taking concrete recovery measures instead of pursuing his
policy of laissez-faire?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, since we took office, we
have not only expressed a desire but also a capacity to improve
the employment situation in Quebec. In fact, as we have seen in
the last quarter, this is why economic growth has been
strengthened since the election. During the last quarter, the rate
of real growth in Canada was 6.4 per cent, the highest among the
G-7 countries. I want to tell the hon. member that, in Quebec
alone, we have created 77,000 jobs since we took office. This is
a record over such a period of time.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, does the
Minister of Finance realize that, at this pace, it will take at least
three years just to reach the pre-recession level of employment,
given the increase in population? Under the circumstances, is
the minister prepared to give a boost to job creation by
immediately reducing UI contributions, since there is a surplus,
as the official opposition has been requesting since the minister
himself raised these contributions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the first initiative taken
by the Minister of Human Resources Development was to
announce that UI contributions would not only be frozen but
reduced.
Clearly, we recognize that this situation, created by the
previous government, is a very serious impediment to job
creation. Consequently, we will correct the problem.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, last week we
learned that the Treasury Board internal investigation focusing
on Canada Communication Group found that departmental
managers throughout the government had illegally stashed $61
million in bank accounts to be spent at their whim without the
purview of Parliament.
Can the President of the Treasury Board tell the Canadian
taxpayers why all these ministers in the front row sit idly by
while their departments blatantly break the law and stash that
money in bank accounts without approval?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
we do not sit idly by even if it is in matters that were undertaken
during the last government. We get to the bottom of them. This
is a serious issue. I want to have this matter thoroughly
investigated and in fact that is under way. I made an
announcement to that effect earlier today.
The internal auditors in the various departments and of course
the internal auditors in the Department of Public Works and
Government Services are looking further at the matter of
Canada Communication Group. We will get to the bottom of this
and will take the appropriate corrective action. We will report
further to this Parliament.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to
hear that the President of the Treasury Board will not stand idly
by. However, the Auditor General pointed this problem out to
him in 1992.
(1520 )
If he feels this is serious, why would Treasury Board try to
sweep this matter under the carpet rather than calling in the
RCMP?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker, I
suppose if at the time the Auditor General had called the mayor
of Toronto then maybe I would know about it today.
The deputy comptroller general in our department has issued
very clear guidelines to various departments that Treasury
Board rules and regulations must be followed. The deputy
minister, the secretary of the Treasury Board, has also similarly
sent a letter to various deputy ministers and has asked for a
report within 30 days. When I receive those reports corrective
action will be taken and I will be reporting further to this House.
5821
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In the last eight months this government has taken
extraordinary conservation measures to halt the destruction of
fish stocks on both coasts. These measures include shutting
down entire commercial fisheries, standing up to the Americans
on the west coast Pacific salmon treaty, and even convincing the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization to have a moratorium
on straddling stocks on the nose and tail of the Grand Bank.
Since NAFO is meeting again this week in my riding of
Dartmouth to decide on next year's fishing plans, will the
minister stay true to his course? What position will he be taking
to the table to ensure that those stocks which are still perilously
close to extinction are going to be protected?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, given that this important international multilateral
meeting is being held in the member's constituency there is no
question the resolve of the Government of Canada will be under
his scrutiny as chairman of the fisheries committee. Therefore
we will take a position of integrity and new ethics in
conservation to the table. We will stand fast for strong rules to
protect Canada's fish stocks to seek a reduction in Greenland
halibut harvesting off our waters.
I thank the member for his continued strong and enthusiastic
interest.
* * *
The Speaker: Order. I have notice of a question of privilege
and a request for an emergency debate and I am going to do that
in just a moment.
First I would like to take just a moment on behalf of the House
to pay tribute to a man who was not a member of Parliament but
who served this Parliament for the last 25 years in a very special
way. I refer of course to Mr. William Bussiere. He died on
Tuesday of a heart attack.
All members should know that over the years he served the
spiritual needs of hundreds of members of Parliament. For all of
his friends here today and all who have known him over the
years this Parliament owes a great debt of thanks and gratitude.
In your names I would like to send our most sincere good
wishes to his wife Sandra and his children Linda, Lori and
Wanda, always keeping in mind that his service to us was a
service to Canada. He will be very much missed by
parliamentarians who served here over the last 25 years and
parliamentarians here right now.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, I came
back yesterday from a trip to Denmark where I attended a
meeting of the InterParliamentary Union. While I was away
from Quebec, I was told that a Reform Party member had
wrongly claimed to the media that my wife's expenses had been
paid for by Canadian taxpayers.
(1525)
I want to formally inform the House that my wife met all her
travelling expenses, including those for transportation and
accommodation in Copenhagen.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, earlier
I asked the minister of immigration a question about his
department and whether or not his own officials see his policies
as out of touch. When he responded in kind the comments I
believe he said were: ``It is better than being out of your mind''.
I would like clarification as to whether that was intended as an
insult.
The Speaker: Order. I did not hear the comments. I am sure
that on our return in our exuberance sometimes we use words
that should not be used. I will look into the matter and if need be
I will report to the House.
_____________________________________________
5821
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 31
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 110(2) I have the honour to table in
both official languages copies of certificates of nomination
from the Minister of Canadian Heritage in respect of two part
5822
time members of the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission which certificates should be
deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to table in both official languages a number of order
in council appointments that were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the report of the Canadian section of the
International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians
regarding the meeting of the Co-operation and Development
Commission which took place in Bangui, in the Central African
Republic, from April 22 to 29, 1994.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of
Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
[Translation]
* * *
Hon. David Anderson (on behalf of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-47, an act to amend
the Department of External Affairs Act and to make related
amendments to other Acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Natural
Resources) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-48, an act to
establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend
related acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-49, an act to
amend the Department of Agriculture Act and to amend or
repeal certain other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-50, an act to
introduce a bill entitled an act to amend the Canadian Wheat
Board Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, these
petitioners want all forms of abuse and violence controlled and
if at all possible to cease. They request the government to ensure
that the CRTC regulate forms of abuse and violence on radio and
television.
They point out that parents often feel that their efforts to raise
and educate their children are denigrated by what happens on
those particular media.
[Translation]
What they want is just to make sure that such violence and
abuses stop.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 it is my honour to present a petition
5823
relating to the Young Offenders Act on behalf of a large number
of constituents of my riding of Mississauga South.
On May 15, 1994 Mr. Brian Baylen, a resident of my riding,
was robbed and viciously murdered by two youths age 15 and
16. To more effectively deal with such serious youth crimes the
petitioners call for amendments to the Young Offenders Act.
They specifically ask for stiffer maximum penalties for violent
crimes, a redefinition of the term young person so that persons
who commit criminal offences when they are 16 years or older
do not receive benefit of the act, and allow youths under age 16
to be tried in adult court if the crown deems it appropriate to do
so.
(1535)
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I am
very happy to present this petition from people in my
constituency of Fraser Valley West. They request that
Parliament not amend the Human Rights Code, the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present to the
House a petition signed by many of my constituents in
Regina-Lumsden.
They believe that the Senate is an unelected, unaccountable
institution which has become a home for recipients of patronage
and which has discarded any notion of working for the best
interests of Canadian taxpayers. They also believe that the cost
of the Senate, which is $54 million a year, and the travel costs
related thereto are exorbitant.
They call for this House to abolish the Senate.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):
It is my honour to rise pursuant to article 31 of the Standing
Orders to present a petition on behalf of numerous constituents
who urge Parliament to ensure that the present provisions in the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicides be
enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no change in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding and abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I too have the honour to present a petition which is
signed by hundreds of Canadian citizens from Kingston,
Ontario, from Quebec, Nova Scotia and my own constituency
which calls 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. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36 it is my honour to present the following petition from
residents of the east end Saskatchewan district in my
constituency.
Whereas except in police states there is no evidence that the
incidence of criminal or suicidal misuse of firearms within any
given socioeconomic environment is impeded by restrictive
legislation, whereas law-abiding Canadian citizens are already
overburdened by unnecessary and ineffective gun control
legislation, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners,
humbly pray and call upon Parliament to desist from passing
additional restrictive legislation with respect to firearms or
ammunition and to direct its attention to the apprehension and
adequate punishment of those who criminally misuse firearms
or other deadly weapons.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 and on behalf of residents of the riding of
Bruce-Grey I would like to table three petitions, two having to
do with the rights of the unborn.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): My third petition
concerns amendments to the Human Rights Act.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Mr. Speaker, under
Standing Order 36 it is my privilege to present a petition which
deals with sexual orientation. My constituents have signed this
petition praying that the Parliament of Canada not amend the
Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any
way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships.
(1540 )
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I consider it my duty as representative of
the constituents of Simcoe North to present the following
petitions. Four hundred and fifty-four petitioners from my
riding request that Parliament take measures to protect the
rights of the unborn child and another 392 petitioners ask that
euthanasia not be made legal.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have two duly executed and
signed
5824
petitions representing the views of some of my constituents
which I would like to present to the House.
The first petition calls on the government to enforce the
existing provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted
suicide. It also asks that no changes be made to those provisions
which would sanction or allow assisted suicide.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, calls on the government to maintain the
status quo with regard to same sex relationships.
On behalf of those concerned constituents, I am pleased to
table these petitions in the House.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 and duly certified by the Clerk of
Petitions I wish to table two petitions signed by constituents of
Lambton-Middlesex.
In the first the petitioners call upon Parliament to act
immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by
amending the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): In the second
petition, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners request that Parliament
retain the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada
prohibiting assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of constituents in Calgary North I would like to present a
petition to this House requesting that Parliament not amend any
legislation to sanction same sex relationships or to make the
undefined sexual orientation prohibited grounds for
discrimination.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 5, 8, 20, 31,
32, 52, 58, 59, 60 and 65.
[Text]
Question No. 5-Mr. Grubel:
What was the size of both public and private infrastructure spending from the
years ending 1989 until 1993, for Canada as a whole, and by provinces, and how
many workers are employed per million dollars worth of infrastructure
spending, both directly and indirectly?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Public and
private infrastructure spending for Canada and each province
for the years 1989 to 1993 inclusive has been obtained from
Statistics Canada. The current dollar amounts by province are
set out in Table 1.
There are no survey measures of the direct and indirect
employment impacts. However, rough estimates have been
derived using Statistics Canada's input-output model: The
overall Canada-wide calculated estimate is 14 jobs per million
dollars of spending on infrastructure.
![](/web/20061117181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0928x06_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0928x06_r1.gif)
Question No. 8-Mr. Solomon:
Does the government plan to implement the recommendation on page 90 of
the Report of the Auditor General of Canada, 1993, under the section
``Observations on Tax Revenue, Departments of Finance and National
Revenue'', to clarify the regulation on the resource allowance income tax
provision?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Litigation on the interpretation of the resource
allowance provision concluded only when the Supreme Court of
Canada denied the government leave to appeal in July 1992. On
July 23, 1992 draft regulations were released by the Department
of Finance that clarified the issues dealt with in the litigation.
These regulations were released in draft form in order to permit
consultations with industry and with other government
departments.
Once promulgated, these regulations will be effective from
July 23, 1992, the date of their release. Further draft regulations
5825
stopping abuse of the resource allowance through the use of
partnerships were released on March 18, 1993. Consultations on
both sets of draft regulations have been held with industry,
Revenue Canada and the Department of Justice. Every effort
will be made to have these draft regulations finalized and
promulgated in the near future.
Question No. 20-Mr. Johnston:
With regard to the Participaction program, (a) how long has it been in
operation, (b) what are its components, (c) what is its annual budget and its annual
advertising budget?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): a) Initiated by
the Government of Canada, Participaction started 22 years ago,
in September, 1971, as a non-profit organization.
b) This information should be requested directly from
Participaction.
c) Participaction is an autonomous non-profit organization.
Questions regarding its budget should be requested directly
from the organization.
Health Canada contributed $650,000 to Participaction for the
1993-94 fiscal year for its annual public services
announcements campaign which comprised its total advertising
activities.
Support from Health Canada is for: the production and
delivery of physical activity messages to the 3,327 media outlets
across Canada; educational products such as videos,
newsletters, posters and leader resource packages; the
management of participation events such as Canada's Fitweek
involving over 5,000 community events and over two million
Canadians.
Question No. 31-Mr. Wappel:
For the years 1983 and 1993 (or the nearest year for which statistics are
available), how many deaths in Canada, including as per cent of total deaths,
were caused by the following: cancer; heart disease/stroke; diabetes; AIDS and
AIDS-related complications; any others accounting for 10% or more of total
deaths?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health):
![](/web/20061117181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0927x05_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0927x05_r1.gif)
Question No. 32-Mr. Wappel:
For the years 1983 and 1993 (or the nearest year for which statistics are
available), how much money did the government contribute, in real dollars and
as a percentage of total contributions, to research and/or education for each of
the following: (a) cancer, (b) heart disease/stroke, (c) diabetes, (d) AIDS and
AIDS-related complications (e) any others accounting for 10% or more of total
deaths?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): The following
tables describe the level of funding by the government to the
four specified diseases. Please be advised that there are no other
diseases that represent 10 per cent or more of total deaths. The
data are split into the three directorates that are involved. 1983
and 1993 figures are not available for all the diseases in all the
directorates. In the situation that a year's values are not
available, the closest available year's figures are given.
![](/web/20061117181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0927x04_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0927x04_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0926x03_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0926x03_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0926x03_r2.gif)
![](/web/20061117181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0926x03_r3.gif)
Question No. 52-Mr. Harper:
For the last five years, (a) how many Canadian Forces members have filed an
application for a redress of grievance, (b) what is the mean length of time to
process a redress from date of filing to final resolution, and (c) what percentage of
redresses are decided in favour of the applicant?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): a) No
statistical records are kept of grievances at levels subordinate to
National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ). In the last five years,
however, grievances received at NDHQ for consideration by the
chief of the defence staff, minister or governor in council were
as follows:
1989-259
1990-341
1991-361
1992-424
1993-366
1994-108 (to end April)
b) The length of time between the original submission and the
final decision varies from several days to several years
depending upon the level at which a reply satisfactory to the
griever is given. Therefore, the mean time for grievances cannot
be determined since no statistics are kept on those grievances
that do not reach NDHQ.
c) It is not known what percentage of all grievances are
decided, in whole or in part, in favour of the applicant, since
such statistics are not kept for grievances not recieved at NDHQ.
Of those received at NDHQ, the aurterly percentage granted in
favour of the applicant, in whole or in part, during the last five
years, was as follows:
![](/web/20061117181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0926x02_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0926x02_r1.gif)
Question No. 58-Mr. Simmons:
With respect to the Auditor General's finding in his 1993 report that the $200
million senior strategy ``was renewed in 1993 without reliable, complete and
timely information on the results of the first five years of spending'', (a) what
specific action is the Department of Health taking to clarify objectives and
activities, and to ensure that renewal funds are expended appropriately and
effectively, (b) how does the department ensure that recipients of funds for
programs under the seniors strategy comply with the terms and conditions of the
arrangements, and (c) what proportion of the total costs of each arrangement is
administrative?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): (a) The key
elements of the $170* million seniors strategy have now been
combined under a single administration in Health Canada to
improve co-ordination among the components and ensure more
effective management of the overall strategy. All elements of
the strategy establish annual priorities in consultation with other
federal programs and with stakeholders to ensure the most
effective use of the funds. All elements of the seniors strategy
will be evaluated by the end of the strategy to determine their
effectiveness in meeting their intended objectives.
(b) There are two elements of the seniors strategy which
provide contribution funding. These are the seniors community
programs (new horizons, seniors independence program and
ventures) and the seniors independence research program.
These programs all have clearly defined objectives, program
criteria and comprehensive review processes. All funded
projects are governed by an agreement between the project
sponsor and Health Canada which contains details of financial
obligations, record keeping, reports on progress and
achievements and related matters. Projects are monitored
throughout their lifecycle by Health Canada staff by various
means including onsite visits and completion of progress
reports. At the end of funding all projects must complete a basic
evaluation and financial accounting report.
(c) Based on the allocation as originally approved in the
seniors stategy, the proportion of administrative costs to
program costs is 13 per cent for the seniors community
programs and 18 per cent for the seniors independence research
program. The estimated administrative costs for the seniors
community programs and for the seniors independence research
program are based on the approved strategy funds and predate
the merger of the seniors directorate.
* Treasury Board approved a $170 million, five-year seniors
strategy in April 1993. There was a small A-base for certain
components (new horizons program and the national advisory
council on aging). This A-base is estimated at slightly less than
$51 million over the five-year period. These two amounts total
$221 million.
Question No. 59-Mr. Lavigne:
With respect to the program to replace the 5/4 tonne vehicles built by General
Motors for the Department of National Defence, (a) what is the cost of the new
vehicle acquisition program, (b) what are the results of the tests carried out on
these vehicles (i) by National Defence personnel and (ii) by civilian contractors,
and (c) what is the value of the contracts awarded to civilian contractors to carry
out these tests?
5827
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): The light
support vehicle wheeled (LSVW) is the replacement for the 1
1/4 ton trucks built by General Motors. The LSVW is being
produced by Western Star Trucks Inc. (WSTI) with a contract
cost of $224.3M.
The LSVW has undergone one of the most comprehensive and
thorough test programs ever undertaken by the Department of
National Defence (DND) with a wheeled support vehicle
system. Throughout this testing, as problems were identified,
WSTI developed solutions and fully validated those solutions to
DND's satisfaction. Because of these problems, the LSVW was
judged to have failed the initial reliability, availability
maintainability and durability (RAMD) tests conducted by DND
in Canada. To validate the final modifications, WSTI was
obligated to conduct a second set of RAMD tests at its expense
at a test site fully acceptable to DND.
To avoid delays in fielding the LSVW, it was necessary to
change the test site to the Nevada automotive test centre (NATC)
because snow conditions in Petawawa masked the test track
terrain, in effect reducing its severity. The testing carried out at
the NATC was more severe than that encountered in Canada.
Furthermore, to thoroughly prove the modifications, operation
was skewed so that the largest percentage of testing was over
severe cross-country. The terrain at the NATC is rugged and
temperatures varied considerably. The NATC is a top-notch test
facility with a worldwide reputation which has tested some
1,000 systems for the U.S. Department of Defense and major
vehicle manufacturers. It is noteworthy that the LSVW has
undergone more testing over more varied and more demanding
conditions than any other wheeled army vehicle. This testing
was continuously supervised by three to four Canadian forces
engineers and technicians.
RAMD has done its intended job of identifying problem to
permit the Canadian army and the manufacturer to fully debug
the equipment prior to final production. As a result of this
second test by NATC, all modifications were proven out and the
vehicle was found to be fully acceptable.
The contract to NATC was paid for and managed by WSTI.
Question No. 60-Mr. Axworthy:
How much money has the government, through every department, agency and
body, provided the Royal Canadian Legion and each of its branches in the form of
grants, contributions, loans or other means since January 1, 1985?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to leader of
the Government in the House of Commons and Soliciter
General of Canada): I am informed as follows:
![](/web/20061117181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0921201_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117181133im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0921201_r1.gif)
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
In 1991/92, the policy and co-ordination activity made a
$25,000 contribution to the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch
143, Erickson, Manitoba. The contribution was provided under
the conditions of the transportation of disabled persons program
(accessible vehicle acquisition program).
In so far as the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned:
Since January 1, 1985, Veterans Affairs has paid an annual
grant of $9,000 to the Royal Canadian Legion for expenses
incurred by the service bureau of the Legion. The service bureau
is an organization instituted by the Legion for the purpose of
preparing claim submissions to the Canadian pension
commission, the Department of Veterans Affairs and other
agencies on behalf of veterans and their dependants.
Question No. 65-Mr. de Savoye:
Has the government allocated an amount of money to the anti-smoking
campaign and, if so (a) what is the amount; and (b) what proportion of that
amount will be devoted to (i) research; (ii) television publicity; (iii) radio
publicity; (iv) publicity posters; (v) the hiring of new peace officers; (vi) a
market study; (vii) prevention and education programs; and (vii) other aspects?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor
General of Canada): On February 8, 1994 the Government of
Canada announced the most comprehensive anti-smoking
campaign in Canadian history.
In the meantime the Department of Health has undertaken an
extensive consultation process with the provinces, territories
and the health community concerning the design and
implementation of many of the elements of our overall strategy.
5828
The Department of Health expects to present its proposals in
the near future. Once the most effective and targeted strategy is
finalized, funding for the various components will be allocated.
Also, resources for 349 additional RCMP officers to perform
anti-smuggling duties were approved as part of the
government's action plan to combat smuggling. This means that
there are now to be approximately 700 RCMP officers doing
anti-smuggling work, doubling the number of officiers working
in the area previously.
[English]
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, if
Questions Nos. 26, 39 and 55 could be made Orders for Returns,
these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions
Nos. 26, 39 and 55 be deemed to have been made Orders for
Returns?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 26-Mrs. Hayes:
For 1993, what was the total amount of funds received by individuals and
groups from the Department of Multiculturalism, who were these individuals
and how much did each receive?
(Return tabled.)
Question No. 39-Mr. Mayfield:
What is the name and location of each National Park and, for each park and
for each of the last four years, (a) how many people did they employ, (b) how
much did they cost to operate, (c) what revenues did they generate, (d) how
many people visited them?
(Return tabled.)
Question No. 55-Mr. Strahl:
During the last fiscal year, how many consultants did the Canadian
International Development Agency employ, what are the names of the
individuals and their companies, where are they from, what project did each
consultant work on, and how much was each consultant paid?
(Return tabled.)
[English]
The Speaker: The questions as enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary have been answered.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like
to ask the parliamentary secretary to explain to this House why
questions No. 33 and No. 38, listed in my name on the Order
Paper, have not been answered within the 45 day period
prescribed by Standing Orders? I do not know the meaning of the
word ``stand'' but if it means that I will not get an answer, I
object. Question No. 33 dates back to April 14, and question No.
38 to April 21.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am told that the answer to
question No. 33 will be ready to table in the House tomorrow. I
hope to be able to do it and thereby help the hon. member fulfil
her duties.
As to question No. 38, I understand the answer is being
prepared and should be available shortly.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would give unanimous
consent to revert to motions so that I could move concurrence in
Motion No. 1 standing in my name on the Order Paper, being
concurrence in the 28th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs dealing with the allocation of
committee rooms.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to
motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons) moved that the
28th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs presented to the House on Friday, June 10, 1994 be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1545 )
The Speaker: Before we go to orders of the day, I have a
request pursuant to Standing Order 52 for an emergency debate
on the mismanagement of the west coast fisheries, particularly
in the light of recent news that 1.3 million salmon cannot be
accounted for by the federal Department of Fisheries and
Oceans.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, you have
indicated my intention to rise under Standing Order 52
regarding the alarm that exists now on the west coast with the
alleged disappearance of 1.3 million salmon.
When fishermen see 1.3 million salmon disappear from their
plans, it is fair to say a crisis is pending, if not already existing,
on the west coast. Keeping in mind what happened on the east
5829
coast, I suggest this is a matter requiring urgent consideration
by the Parliament of Canada.
I ask for your leave to move the adjournment of the House on
Tuesday, September 20, particularly in light of the fact that the
minister is not present, being responsible for other duties at this
moment, for the purpose of debating this very urgent matter.
The Speaker: I concur this is an important matter, especially
to the hon. member because of the proximity of this to his riding
on the west coast. I would like to thank him for his application.
However, in my view the application does not meet with the
requirements of the standing order at this time.
_____________________________________________
5829
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
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 second and referred to a committee; and the
amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: I give the floor to the hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. I believe she has
10 minutes left.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, Canada's immigration program has
contributed to a sense of Canadian identity and prosperity for
more than 125 years.
Our challenge, as we consider Bill C-44, is to preserve public
support for our immigration system, support that is essential if
we hope to maintain the humanitarian traditions that have
earned Canada respect around the world.
We must appreciate that the trust of Canadians is undermined
whenever abuse, fraud, criminality raise their ugly heads. Quite
naturally, failure to satisfactorily address the minority of cases
of fraud and abuse will erode public confidence. It will inhibit a
serious and reasoned discussion of immigration. If this happens,
our future as a generous, open nation is in jeopardy.
That is why the provisions found in Bill C-44 are so
important. When Canadians are confident that the provisions of
our immigration program are enforced effectively, fairly and
without prejudice or favour, they will continue to support a
progressive approach to immigration.
Today there are only four countries around the world that
receive immigrants in significant numbers. The four countries
are Canada, Australia, the United States, and Israel, which is a
special case. By almost any measurement, Canada ranks near the
top in receiving immigrants and accepting people fleeing
persecution. A major reason we have been able to respond with
such generosity to migration needs and international crises is
because we have carefully maintained public support for our
broad objectives.
(1550)
Canadians have demanded with reason that their immigration
and refugee systems be not only fair and effective but also well
managed. Once assured, Canadians have generously supported
Canada's commitment to meet our international obligations
even in the present unsettled economic times.
That is why the measures in Bill C-44 are so important. This
bill pragmatically balances principles of fairness and tolerance
with the principle of respect for the rule of law. It is an astute and
sensible response to a situation that demands action. It closes
the loopholes that unscrupulous people have exploited and gives
our enforcement authority the tools to remove the lawbreakers
who would abuse our system and our society.
In closing I would like to emphasize that Bill C-44 is not
about revenge or punishment. Instead it is about preservation,
preservation of the tolerance for diversity. The government is
dedicated to the integration and preservation of ethnic cultures
in Canadian society. We have continued to see this great country
as richer because of the contributions immigrants have made
and continue to make in Canadian society.
We will continue to promote and preserve ethnic cultures in a
united and tolerant Canada. Bill C-44 will play a critical part in
the preservation of the ideals that we hold dear.
In speaking in support of Bill C-44, I urge all members to
consider the importance of the measures within the bill.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I have
several questions for my colleague. In particular I have several
quotes that I picked up from her speech.
In this day and age when we talk about immigration we
sometimes get confused about what the intent of the issue is.
Many sources in the Reform Party have said that we are not
adverse to immigration, albeit we think there should be lower
levels. That is a good issue for debate at any time in any country.
However, in many cases we are talking about the
problems-and I will speak a little later on this-that we are
having with refugee boards and so on. I hear the hon. member
say we are dealing with petty hoods. The Liberal party has this
tendency to downplay what are the problems with the criminal
element in the refugee system that are getting through the
bureaucracy and coming into Canada. These are not petty hoods
we are talking about. These are hard core criminals in some
cases.
5830
When this party talks about how to deal with these individuals
we are told things like: ``Well, it's only a few. It's only a
minority''. We have to look at the Canadian victim, the
Canadian citizen.
I would like the member to comment on how many criminal
element refugees we get in this country. What makes it a
majority? What makes it a significant number? When is the
government going to start dealing with that problem? There are
a lot of victims in the wake of some of these individuals. The
government has to look at this. I would like a comment on what
constitutes something serious.
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, maybe the member should be
presenting the kind of statistics that he is asking for on the
nature of the crime, the nature of violence and other acts
committed by immigrants in our various communities.
(1555 )
The member also seems to be confused about the issues. On
the one hand he says that we should do this, that we support this.
On the other hand, he seems to be arguing against himself. It is
important to note that what we see on the front pages of our
newspapers on a daily basis is that the criminal acts committed
by people who come into the system and people who abuse the
system are not massive numbers of individuals.
The intent of Bill C-44 is really to ensure that the loopholes
that allow those individuals in and the process by which we get
the individuals quickly away from our shores, are the issues that
are important for this discussion. There are so many other things
that the member should want to deal with but chooses to make
the connection between refugees and criminality or immigrants
and criminality. To continue to put the two together all the time
seems to me to be doing a disservice to Canadians who are
contributing members of this society.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's remarks.
Being a fellow Toronto member, I realize how much she has
been seized with this issue. We spend about 70 per cent of our
time dealing with matters relating to immigration. It is very
important that we get this bill right.
The minister in his remarks this morning said that a criminal
element has infiltrated the department of immigration and that
we were going to clean up that criminal element and make some
constructive amendments to this act.
What I am concerned about is the following. What happens to
the legitimate claimant who might, as he or she is going through
this process, run into one of those types who the minister
described as the criminal element and that person feels that he or
she gets unfair treatment? What will we do during this debate to
make sure that there is also an accountability within the
officialdom in the department of immigration?
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me in reading the
bill that the intent is really to take away the discretionary powers
that are presently in the system.
When there are clear rules, when there are clear guidelines,
when there are administrative processes that ensure that an
individual acts in a specific fashion, those measures take away
discretionary powers and what could be considered ways of
dealing with individuals in a fashion that could be called unfair.
It is important to say that the situation we see in urban
Canada, the situations that the hon. member refers to in terms of
Toronto, the situations in which we could use, as the member
across the way objected to, the terminology that they are really
an element of a minority group of people whose activities are
considered nothing more than hoodlum, whose activities could
be considered nothing more than destructive not only to
themselves but also to their community and society in general.
It is important that in looking at Bill C-44 we ensure that we
support this so that fairness is in the system, the rules are clear,
the procedures are laid out and there are members of the
department and those who deal with the criminal element know
precisely how to act.
(1600)
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore
on her speech. I have some concerns and I was wondering if the
hon. member could briefly answer a few of them for me.
We all know that Canada is the envy of the world. The bill
deals with serious criminals. It tells them specifically that they
cannot come to Canada which I think is a move in the right
direction.
If we are the envy of the world and if we have the ability
within our immigration system to choose the best people to
come to our country, ones who are willing to abide by the laws of
Canada, why would we say we will not allow people in if they
have committed a crime that would warrant a sentence of 10
years or more in Canada? Why are we allowing any criminals
into the country? It seems ludicrous.
I heard the minister mention the word accountability several
times in his speech. This is not accountability. This is not what
Canadian people from coast to coast to coast are asking for.
They want law-abiding people to come and live in our country
without this ridiculous nonsense of 10 years.
Ms. Augustine: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to say that we
allow criminals to come into the country and not to differentiate
between conventional refugees is how the discussion gets into
the emotional arena.
5831
Immigrants go through police checks and all kinds of
processes before they are even allowed to complete
documentation. To roll everything together and to say that we
are doing what we are asking for or what the member is asking
for is to make certain kinds of judgments. We are the envy of the
world, the number one country in which anyone would choose to
live. We find it is an avenue most individuals outside our
borders would like to enter.
It is also important to note that at this point in time we are not
just an open system where anyone who wishes may come here.
Too often we hear being tossed about across the way that the
system is such that anyone may come here. There are guidelines.
There are rules. There are things within the system. We need to
be able to differentiate between refugees, people who are
fleeing, people who are coming to our shores as a result of
international agreements, and people who are coming here as a
result of family reunification, support systems, applications and
other things. We roll so many things together that the discussion
becomes almost confusing.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired for questions or
comments.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, like my
colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I will attempt, at this
second reading stage, to highlight some questions that Bill C-44
raises. But before doing so, I would like to discuss the
philosophy underlying the legislative amendments that we are
debating today.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced in
June that he intended to make considerable amendments to the
Immigration Act in order to, and I quote: ``take all measures
necessary to prevent abuses and to protect the Canadian public
against criminals''.
We are very pleased with that. Nobody, and least of all the
members from the Official opposition, would blame a
government for trying to protect its citizens. So, the ministerial
position is that immigrants and people claiming refugee status
cannot use Canadian laws or Canada's reputation as a
welcoming country to escape their own country when they have
committed serious crimes or to commit new crimes here. We
agree with that measure.
(1605)
We also recognize the importance of a quick and efficient
enforcement of deportation measures if we are to prevent
criminals from committing other crimes. Thus, there is in this
House a rare and remarkable unanimity on the objective, that is
the protection of Canadian citizens. However, as nothing is ever
perfect, we will reserve our judgment for now on the means
chosen by the government for reaching that goal. Many issues
are not quite clear to us yet. For example, we wonder about the
seriousness of criminality and the link between crime and the
immigration process. We also question the motivation behind
government's actions. Finally, we would like to see the
proposed means analyzed thoroughly.
First of all, let me reassure my colleagues of the House and
tell them that I share their indignation towards the crimes
committed daily in Canada and in Quebec. All our efforts should
be directed to abolishing, or at least reducing crime.
On the other hand, I do not feel it would be appropriate to take
into account the public response to criminal acts, and
particularly violent crimes, in order to adopt repressive and
unjustified legislation. The question is of interest and deserves
our attention.
Every day, in this House and outside, we hear detailed
descriptions of crimes. We also hear about people denouncing
the increasing criminality in our society. And then, some people
make a connection between criminality and the immigration
process. What is the reality?
Even if people have the feeling that the crime rate is
increasing, such is not the case. It has been demonstrated in a
study on victimization published by Statistics Canada. That
document states that the possibility of being a victim of
aggression or theft was the same in 1993 as in 1989. Moreover,
another study from the same agency called Statistics on
Criminality in Canada, 1993 concludes that for the second year
in a row, the crime rate established by police organizations went
down in 1993. In fact, the 5 per cent reduction from one year to
the next was the largest since we began collecting statistics on
crime, in 1962.
The author of the study, who is the senior analyst for the
policing program, explains that the very violent crime rate is
slightly lower whereas a slight increase in less violent crimes
was noted as well as a reduction of about 6 per cent in property
crimes.
Therefore, we can see, in spite of popular belief, that there
was no increase in the crime rate. As I said, I do not want to
trivialize criminal acts, but simply set the record straight. I
think, however, that we would be justified to ask ourselves why
people feel that way. We can perhaps find the answer in the
importance given by the media or the politicians to some
individual cases.
Let us go back now to the subject of the debate, that is
criminality among the immigrant population. An Angus Reid
opinion poll published in June examined the perceived
relationship between ethnic origin and crime rate. The results
were interesting.
First, the pollster noticed a significant difference between the
western and eastern parts of Canada. In Manitoba and
Saskatchewan, 58 per cent of those polled saw a relation
between a person's ethnic origin and criminal activities. This
proportion dropped to 36 per cent in the Atlantic provinces. So
there is a considerable geographic difference.
5832
Another difference was perceived in the way men and women
see the issue. While 56 per cent of men associated ethnic origin
with criminal activity, only 45 per cent of women agreed. The
division is almost the same between seniors and people under
35, that is 55 per cent compared to 46 per cent.
While the perceived association is well established, could it
be mistaken? Such is the conclusion of Mr. Derrick Thomas,
senior researcher for the Citizenship and Immigration
Department.
(1610)
Last year, Mr. Thomas published the results of research he had
done on the relationship between ethnic origin and a tendency
towards criminality. He found no proof that such a relationship
exists. On the contrary, immigrants, who last year represented
20.2 per cent of Canadians, accounted for only 11.9 per cent of
people in detention or on parole. This is a significant difference,
and compels us to reject any attempt to link immigration to
crime.
At this time, it is proper to remind the House that the minister
of that same organization is the very one who wants to impose
new standards with the express objective of preventing abuses
of the system by immigrants.
Another point also deserves some consideration: the
immigrants' level of education. Experts generally agree that
socioeconomic conditions can sometimes be criminality
factors. So, the poor with a low level of education are more
likely to increase the crime figures. Yet, according to Statistics
Canada, more immigrants have university degrees than
individuals born in Canada-3 per cent more. Moreover,
immigrants who arrived between 1981 and 1991 had more
schooling than immigrants who arrived before 1981.
From all these figures, we can draw the following
conclusions: first, there is no real link with the perception that
the crime rate is increasing in Canada. Second, there is no link
between immigration and crime; on the contrary, immigrants
commit fewer crimes than people born in Canada. Finally, if we
are to believe that the more people are educated the less they
commit crime, immigrants will be less and less represented in
crime statistics.
As was already said, we wonder about the underlying motives
for these legislative amendments. Is the government trying to
put to rest the fears of the public? We know these fears are real.
Indeed, according to the Angus Reid poll mentioned earlier, 82
per cent of the respondents believe our justice system is not
strict enough. English Canadians rated crime as their second
biggest concern, immediately following unemployment and job
creation. In Quebec, however, crime rated much lower and only
came after economic revival, education and social services.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to mention how Quebec society is
distinct, even in this area. This high percentage shows how
much the public fears for its own security. The government took
note of it and has introduced, since its coming to power, several
pieces of legislation to strengthen the rules concerning
criminals.
Fine. However, we have to ask ourselves if this is the most
efficient way to curb crime. Since socio economic conditions
are an important factor, we are entitled to wonder if real
measures to create jobs would not be more appropriate. We are
entitled to wonder if the direction taken by this government is
not more political than functional. Why, indeed, is nothing done
to ensure that young people can find jobs when they get out of
school? Why is nothing done to provide poor families with
decent housing? Why is nothing done to really ensure women
are safe in our society?
The issue of women is very important here. Women whose
security is often threatened know that the threat does not come
from immigrants or young people. But the government is
attacking these two categories of people. There is a problem
here and it raises some questions.
We are also questioning the measures proposed to meet the
objectives of protecting the public and preventing abuse. Bill
C-44 focuses on four main subjects: crime among refugee
claimants, the contraband of immigration documents, the right
of appeal and the processing of claims coming from
rehabilitated persons. For each of the problems identified,
measures are proposed whose final purpose is to screen out
persons who committed serious crimes or who try to abuse the
system.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, we agree that the laws
must be respected. However, the means proposed by the minister
to promote that need a closer look.
(1615 )
We think that some of these need to be seriously re-examined
to see if the government is not trying to kill a fly with a sledge
hammer. First of all, it wants to limit access to our refugee status
determination process so that a person who has been convicted
of a serious crime in another country will not be able to apply for
refugee status.
At first glance, this restriction seems logical. Nobody wants
Canada to become a haven for criminals. But it raises some
questions. Some experts in immigration law have expressed
concern over this restriction, particularly in light of the Geneva
Convention on Refugees.
We think that the bill will need to be seriously examined in
order to ensure that Canada respects the spirit and the letter of
the Geneva convention. Other questions have been raised
concerning the right to appeal the Immigration and Refugee
Board's decisions.
5833
Another provision that could be a problem is the one
concerning documents. Immigration officers will now be able to
seize and open all documents and objects suspected of being
used for fraud, and this will be possible anywhere in Canada.
The first question that comes to mind immediately is the
possibility of a violation under the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
How will this new provision be received by the courts? How
will they receive the reversal of the burden of proof in clause 18?
We know that the courts have a tendency to resist legislative
provisions in which a person is presumed guilty. Will the
Minister not have any other solutions to reduce trafficking in
immigration documents?
How do we justify seizing items without even trying to define
their nature in any way? Those are, briefly put, the questions and
concerns raised by Bill C-44. We do know that the Standing
Committee on Citizenship and Immigrations will take them up
one by one in order to improve this piece of legislation.
However, by way of conclusion, I would like to remind this
House that all these legislative amendments seem to draw their
first motivation from isolated cases such as that of Mr. Gayle, of
Toronto. The objective pursued by the Minister is to ensure that
criminals are not welcomed into Canada. Foreign criminals will
be turned away and immigrants and refugees who commit
serious crimes in Canada will be deported.
But we will have to deal with more contentious cases like
those where a person has been living in Canada since childhood.
Will we expel to his or her country of origin a person who does
not have that country's citizenship? Surely not. How can we
seriously think that a person who came to Canada at the age of
three and is now an adult still has links with his or her country of
origin? How will the courts apply such a policy?
We agree that the security of Canadian citizens must be
protected. However, we believe that we have first of all to
determine what is the source of this threat to security. We then
have to determine what are the most efficient and the most
respectful means to be adopted in order to protect citizens and to
welcome people in need, a category to which bona fide refugees
undoubtedly belong.
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont): Mr. Speaker and dear
colleagues, the bill before us is an ideal opportunity to show
Canadians that we take their interests to heart and that we abide
by our electoral commitments.
I want to speak here not only to members of our government,
but also and more particularly to members of the opposition.
Since this bill was introduced, practically not a week has gone
by without the media mentioning the immigration issue one way
or another. Headlines are not heartening, because our system is
not judged on its achievements but on its failures. That is
unfortunate, because our system has its successes and plenty of
them. For each case of fraud or crime that makes the headlines,
thousands of cases of successful integration go unreported.
(1620)
Most of the refugees and immigrants who live with us are so
well integrated that nobody notices them. I do not need to give
any examples. Just look around you.
The owner of your favourite restaurant, your daughter's
computer instructor, your cousin's husband or your dentist, for
example, may well be immigrants, but you probably do not
notice it any more. Canadian society is often compared to a
cultural mosaic, and I think this is confirmed in our everyday
life. When you meet all these people, ask them what they think
today of the cheaters and criminals who make the headlines.
When a person has left his country to start a new life, when he
has started from nothing to build a future for himself, when he
has finally succeeded in carving a place for himself in society, it
must be insulting, to say the least, to be associated with someone
who has committed criminal acts and who, in so doing, shows
that he has no respect whatsoever for the country which
welcomed him.
This explains why this bill is so important and so dear to our
government. Of course, we must ensure that no one flouts our
laws and our immigration system. But, more importantly
maybe, we must protect the reputation of all decent people,
those same people whom we represent, whatever our political
affiliation.
Some will say that our bill goes too far, that it could be
detrimental to refugees and immigrants acting in good faith.
Others will say that it is too little too late, that it will not stop
criminals from entering into Canada and staying here. Our
government expects such criticism. However, as a responsible
government, we had above all to avoid going to extremes, and I
sincerely believe that we have succeeded in doing so.
Of course, the law must be merciless for cheaters and
criminals, but it must not penalize those who are most in need of
our help. The measures we are debating today are aimed at a
very small minority of individuals. If we had the slightest doubt
that they could be harmful to people acting in good faith, we
would not go ahead with this bill, that goes without saying.
On the contrary, what could be most harmful to them is not the
measures we are debating today, but the actions of a few
criminals. Unfortunately, one instance is enough to tarnish the
reputation of all refugees as far as some Canadians are
concerned. One instance is enough to lead other criminals to
think Canada is wide open.
5834
We do not want to give the impression that immigrants and
refugees are a threat to the security of our country. That is not
true, and that is why now, as my hon. colleague said before,
immigration is not the responsibility of a department of public
security but a Department of Citizenship and Immigration. We
want to show that we can be open when warranted but
uncompromising when necessary.
We are prepared to open our doors to those who really need
our help, not to just anyone. First of all, we must prevent
criminals from claiming refugee status or appealing decisions
by the IRB.
The system for recognition of refugee status was not put in
place to delay deportation measures. We know what is going on
out there, and we have no time or money to waste on criminals.
We also want to use this bill to deal with the problem of
multiple claims for refugee status.
(1625)
Anyone can make a mistake, and some claimants may assume
that if they move, they have to submit a second claim. That we
can understand. However, some people think they can confuse
the authorities and delay their removal by submitting two or
more claims. We must also be able to seize certain documents
which those who cheat the system send by international mail.
Immigration officers need additional tools to be able to do their
job satisfactorily, and we, as a responsible government, intend
to give them those tools. Customs officers must be able to search
the mail and seize any forged documents they find.
We must also prevent criminals from taking advantage of
legal loopholes. For instance, immigration officers can arrest a
person who violates the Immigration Act, but in some cases,
they cannot issue a warrant so the RCMP can arrest that person.
In this area, we need all the help we can get. If cheaters set up
networks, we must have the tools to deal with them.
Finally, we believe that the minister is still the best judge of
whether dangerous criminals should be admitted to Canada on
so-called humanitarian grounds. This makes sense, since in the
final instances, the minister has to live with the consequences of
his decision to quash a removal order which concerns a criminal.
Under the bill, this authority will rest with the minister in the
best interest of all Canadians. We believe that these new
provisions are fair and equitable. To those who find that this bill
does not go far enough, I say: tell us, tell Canadians who else
should be included in this new legislation.
I know a few who would undoubtedly have a list as long as
your arm of people to send back for reasons which I would call
arbitrary. This is not the purpose of the government. As I said
before, we are not extremists. This bill deals not with the
number but with the kind of people to be deported.
We are going after people who defraud our social services and
criminals who truly pose a threat to our security and that of our
police forces whose job it is to protect us. The processing of
citizenship applications is suspended pending the outcome of
the immigration inquiry. People who have nothing to hide will
have nothing to fear. Their application will not be turned down,
its processing will only de delayed. People subject to an
exclusion order, who had already been accepted as permanent
residents, will lose that status. Up to now, this applied only to
people being deported. It will no longer be true under the new
bill.
To those who say that our bill goes too far, I say: Canadians
are good-hearted but not weak-hearted. We would do a
disservice to everyone, including bona fide refugees, by letting
things drag on forever. No matter which side of the House we are
on, each one of us represents Canadians who expect us to act
now and in their best interest. They also expect us to take the
necessary steps to enforce our laws. They are quite willing to
open their doors to the victims of the various disasters which
devastate our world, but not to criminals. They also expect that
the efforts and resources that we spend to welcome refugees
benefit those who need them most. The days of time and money
being consumed by a handful of wrongdoers are gone forever.
Canadians expect us to implement a trust-worthy immigration
policy. To this end, we must show them that we know the
difference between wright and wrong. In fact, we must show
them that our government is a responsible one.
(1630)
Our government has decided that it needed the means to
respond to the expectations of Canadians. Bill C-44, presently
before the House, is the one from which we expect the most. The
measures we propose are aimed at providing specific solutions
to specific problems.
This is not a bill prepared in a hurry, without any distinction
between the majority of true refugees and immigrants, and a
minority of abusers and criminals. Why go to such lengths for
ten, twenty or a hundred unscrupulous individuals? Simply
because one is enough to end the life of a person, ruin the lives of
his or her family, upset their friends and relatives, and harm a
whole cultural community. This is the objective of some of the
measures in the bill.
The shock wave is being felt from one end of the country to
the other, it reaches the ordinary citizens, as well as their elected
representatives and their police forces. Who is to blame:
society, you and me, our police? No, the culprits are the ten,
twenty, or hundred individuals that we should expel without
delay. If we do not do it, Mr. Speaker, ten, twenty or a hundred
more will come in.
5835
As you know, our government is convinced of the value of
immigration for Canada. We believe that Canada should
preserve its reputation of openness towards refugees, but we
also believe that our policy towards immigrants and refugees
should be strictly controlled in order to protect all Canadians.
I will conclude by comparing these abusers and criminals to
the weeds that very often, not to say always, invade our gardens.
They very quickly encroach on the space reserved for the
vegetables we intended to grow and, when the time to harvest
comes and the weeds have taken over, we wonder whether we
should not have kept the lawn. Let us not deprive ourselves of
the fruit we could harvest. Let us pull out the weeds that are
trying to take root and let us make sure that we have the tools
necessary to take care of our gardens. This is the way to build a
better Canada.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the speech of my colleague from Outremont and I
think that many people of immigrant origin will be very
surprised at the tone of this speech, which seems to be
anti-immigration. He tells us that ten or a hundred people cheat.
Do you think it is worth passing a very controversial bill to solve
five or ten cases that could have been solved administratively,
without the need for a very controversial bill which is criticized
by immigration lawyers, by the Canadian Council for Refugees
and by the churches?
You mentioned mail from abroad. Customs officers will be
able to examine such mail. Immigration officers will be able to
seize such mail. Who will say, ``We will open this letter and not
that one''? Do you not think that there will be abuses?
Throughout the world, the mail is inviolable. How could you go
so far as to allow ordinary officials who are not judges and not
trained in law to seize mail? Can you answer me?
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, listen, we are in Canada, in a
society that is called free and democratic and we are also, first
and foremost, in a society of law. I think that the bill before this
House reflects the intentions of a responsible government.
As you know, some people in society demand the most
extreme things on one side or the other. Of course, in this case,
some people would not have wanted us to legislate and others
would have wanted us to pass draconian legislation.
(1635)
This Liberal government has chosen a middle way, a solution
that we call reasonable. I am surprised that my colleague seems
to be shocked by this reasonable solution or seems to find the
measures that we are taking extreme. On the contrary, the
measures we are taking are meant above all to protect as well
those who apply to Canada as a land of refuge so that they can
join the great Canadian family.
As I said in my speech, often a single instance of
misbehaviour or a single criminal act is enough to tarnish or ruin
the reputation of a whole community. As the member for
Outremont, I must say that many new Canadians live in the
western part of my riding and I am particularly proud of them;
they have integrated very well into Canada and they are well
integrated in Quebec and in their community; they live
peacefully. From being with them, I know how fragile the
reputation of these communities is, unfortunately.
I am glad-and I am pleased-to join the minister of
immigration in promoting this bill by which people who really
need Canada's help as a welcoming country, a land of refuge,
will be able to find a fair and equitable society that can receive
them well, a country of refuge that can screen out what I would
call undesirables at its borders.
I do not fear abuses, far from it. I am still a little surprised that
my colleague from Bourassa said that we are letting ordinary
officials decide. I want to tell you, Mr. Nunez, that since my
election on October 25, I have had the opportunity to frequent
what we call public servants and I can tell you that in many cases
they are extremely competent people who see things much better
than you or I do. I am glad to give them a little more power,
provided that it is not used arbitrarily, and the Minister of
Immigration has been very careful about that.
The Deputy Speaker: Let the hon. member for Outremont be
reminded that hon. members are not to be referred to by name
but rather by the name of their riding. I know that this is our first
day of sitting, and that he will give due consideration to this
matter in future.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, it is
indeed a pleasure to speak on this bill today. This subject has
been of interest to me over the last several months. Today I am
going to speak about a particular case I have been involved with,
a fellow by the name of José Salinas Mendoza and when I am
through I think everyone will be quite appalled at what goes on
in this country. Prior to talking about Mr. Mendoza, I should
comment on some of the previous statements I have heard today.
Once again I am hearing comments that this is a very small
minority of the intake into this country and of course it is. This
Liberal government has taken in 250,000 to 280,000 immigrants
a year. While we disagree with that high a number, we do not
disagree with the basic fundamentals of immigration in our
society. It seems every time we raise this kind of issue the
government comes up with statistics and demographics to show
it is such a small minority so why bother with it.
It reminds me of a discussion I had with a parole board
member not too long ago. I actually called for the resignations of
several parole board members after they let an individual out on
the streets when he was supposed to be incarcerated for six
5836
years. He was released after about 16 months and then
proceeded to bludgeon somebody to death in our community.
On calling for these resignations I received a phone call from
an individual whose response was that in that region there was
an 83 per cent success rate. I told him that was commendable but
the facts were that I deal with the failure rate. The victims come
to my office. There are victims all over this country. I wish we
could get off the discussion of the success rate and the rest of it
is a minor issue because that is not the case.
Today the minister said we have a good system. We do not
have a good system. It has flaws in it. So fix it.
(1640)
Today the minister said that we have a tiny minority, a handful
of criminals. The problem is that we have a serious, serious
problem with that tiny minority of individuals who are
disrupting law-abiding Canadian citizens. The minister said he
is listening to his constituents. I think he is listening to the
Reform Party because we are going to push and push and push
again until it is changed.
Today the minister asked why this system was not in place
before now. We should ask the Liberal government. It brought it
in. Wake up over there.
We also have to ask where this legislation deals with the
independence of the immigration adjudicators and how we deal
with the independence of the refugee board. As I go through the
José Salinas Mendoza case they are going to find they are too
independent for their own good and they are going to have to be
held accountable. It is the same as parole boards.
When we talk about the deportation of individuals, where
does the legislation address the fact that people like Charles
Dennis Martin were deported and escorted out of Canada nine
times? Does the legislation address that? There are a lot more of
them. This is only one and again he was in my community.
What about cases that are currently under way? Is this
retroactive? There are many people in this system who are going
through time and time again, hearing after hearing. We will
cover that again in a moment.
While it is nice to talk about immigration and its positive
influence on Canada I want to talk about the negative influence.
One of those negative influences is José Salinas Mendoza who
arrived in Canada from El Salvador in 1988. From February 22,
1989 until November 1992 he had 12 serious criminal
convictions in this country including assault, resisting arrest,
sexual assault, and on and on the list goes.
On September 23, 1993 a 19-year old young lady in my riding
was raped. This young lady was convinced to have the charges
stayed on the condition that Mr. Mendoza be deported and he
was. He was escorted out of Canada. End of story?-not quite.
On April 18, 1994, just a few short months later, Mr. Mendoza
was back at the Douglas border crossing just outside Vancouver.
He announced himself as a refugee into Canada this time
around. The immigration officials processed his application and
the story starts again.
Unfortunately the young lady in my neighbourhood virtually
bumped into this fellow in a grocery store shortly afterward. She
had not even been given the courtesy by immigration officials or
anybody else of being notified that he was back in Canada after
being deported. Why is he even back in Canada after being
deported? Why do we not say: ``Get out. We have already
deported you once''? Maybe it is going to be like Charles Dennis
Martin who was escorted out nine times.
Mr. Mendoza was arrested. His first hearing was on May 13
this year. He was told to report for another hearing on June 17.
(1645 )
By the way, all taxpayers should know that the people at the
hearings are immigration adjudicators, an interpreter for Mr.
Mendoza, a lawyer who I believe is paid by legal aid, a refugee
hearing officer at refugee hearings and, at the request of the
criminal, an individual from the United Nations as an observer.
They are all paid with taxpayers' dollars.
Two days after his arrival and two days after this young lady
saw him again in a grocery store, the RCMP advised her that he
is back in the country. A friend of mine asked me to help. On
June 17 I attended an immigration hearing at which Mr.
Mendoza from El Salvador was considered a danger to the
public. He was incarcerated pending a refugee hearing on
August 18. This is a fellow who had already been booted out of
the country. However, his lawyer appealed that decision to have
him incarcerated as a danger to the public and brought in a new
immigration adjudicator who seven days later let him out on the
street.
What do we have now? We are into our third hearing on this
fellow after he has been ordered deported. He is allowed to roam
our streets. He has 12 prior convictions and an outstanding
charge of sexual assault or rape.
On June 22 of this year he appeared in Matsqui court on
relayed sexual assault charges. He was not ordered into custody.
On June 24, I say again, he was released. On June 17 the hon.
minister of immigration came out on his white horse to
Vancouver and said: ``I'll intervene in this. We'll take charge''.
We have not seen hide nor hair of him since. This is a question he
will be asked here this month.
On July 5 we did a little research on this fellow. We found that
a person involved in last year's election campaign of the failed
Liberal candidate of North Vancouver who donated money to the
Liberal Party was appointed by the minister of immigration to
the refugee board. This individual is a past lawyer for José
Mendoza.
5837
What is happening here? Who gets appointed to refugee
boards? Who gets appointed as immigration adjudicators?
Liberal political hacks are the people who get appointed. What
are their qualifications? Are the qualifications that we give
money or we help the party? What are the qualifications? Is it
who you know or how good you are at it? It happens all the time.
Look at the last three senators, senators until age 75. It is who
you know in the Liberal Party, is it not?
Let's move along. We had amendments to the Immigration
Act in direct response to the issues that Reform has been
bringing out. The presentation of the Liberal Party is: ``Listen,
don't worry too too much about this small issue over here. We
have to think about the big picture of immigration. You have to
think about both issues, the good people and the bad people''.
August 18 was the date for the refugee hearing for Mr.
Mendoza.
(1650 )
I found out that an application is going forth to have it closed
to the public. I filed an application to have it open to the public.
Instead of having a refugee hearing on August 18, we have a
hearing to determine whether the public should be allowed in the
hearing. Now we are getting ridiculous. We are already into the
third hearing and this will be the fourth for this fellow.
The meeting again had eight people involved in it who were
paid by the taxpayer. Before I was allowed into this hearing, I
had to sign a document that said that I would not tell anything
about what was going on on the inside. I signed it to get in. Once
I signed the document, I got some documents back. One was a
complaint from Mr. Mendoza and his lawyer that I had some
information on him that I should not. It was a complaint to the
privacy commissioner. Now I am under investigation by the
very person who should not be in the country in the first place.
I checked with the privacy commissioner's office and was
told yes, I would be investigated. I said: ``Yes, maybe I will but
you will do it in public, not behind closed doors''. Then I
checked with the refugee board and said this. ``I got these
documents after I signed the gag order. Can I show this to
people? Can I show them what the charges are?'' ``No, you
cannot''. No, I cannot. I am not allowed to defend myself but he
can. Why should I not be able to?
Mr. Hart: You are just an MP.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I am just an MP.
I had our immigration critic come to the refugee hearing but
he was not allowed in. He was told to get out. When I got into the
meeting at nine o'clock in the morning a summons was tabled to
make me a witness to that hearing and future hearings.
I found out that if I was a witness I could not attend the whole
hearing. Therefore they got me out. I said that I needed some
counsel. I was given 20 minutes in Vancouver to get it. This is a
federally constituted refugee board. I went outside and gave our
critic 25 cents and he was then my counsel inside. They were
now stuck with the two of us in there and we were not moving
out of there.
These hearings went on three times and there is another one
coming up. We thought we would have one hearing to determine
whether the next hearing could be in public but we found that we
had three separate hearings. One, the minister of immigration
filed an appeal on the decision that one of the second
immigration adjudicators allowed this fellow out on the streets.
That is going to occur September 28.
There is another one on November 3. That is a criminal court
case for the sexual assault of the young lady. It is a separate one.
On November 14 our Reform critic and myself will still be
battling to get the public involved in the exercise.
The members on the other side sanctimoniously talk about
how good the system is working, how well it is working. These
people are a very small minority. Is this accurate? The members
over there had better wake up.
Mr. Nault: Ask the question. I don't understand a damn thing
you are saying.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The comment I get from a
Liberal member over here is he does not understand a damn
thing I am saying. He is absolutely right. He does not understand
what I am saying. The system is not working. Get it through your
heads. This is an industry that is feeding on itself.
(1655)
I do hope I have some questions because I am looking forward
to a little debate on this with this weak minded Liberal group
here. Let us go back to the basics. Let us go back to the
fundamentals.
This individual has had far too many taxpayers' dollars for the
good of the Canadian taxpayer. He does not deserve it. For
anyone with 12 criminal charges who has been deported from
this country to walk back in and have a young lady hiding and
cringing is wrong. It is wrong to be spending dollar after dollar
after dollar on this kind of exercise. We are sick and tired of it
and we are not going to take that any more.
The Deputy Speaker: Before questions or comments it is my
duty, colleagues, to read this notice before five o'clock.
5838
Pursuant to Standing Order 38 I must advise the House that
the question that will be on the adjournment debate this evening
is the following: the hon. member for Winnipeg
Transcona-transportation subsidies.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I must say I
had trouble following the arguments of the member for Fraser
Valley West as to why he would not support Bill C-44 which
attempts to deal with some of the abuses that occur.
What we heard today from the member for Fraser Valley West
is typical of the Reform Party. It is typical because all of last
year we heard how there was a tremendous crisis and that the
crime rate was going up dramatically. We heard it every day here
in the House of Commons from the members of the Reform
Party only to find out that crime has actually gone down.
This is typical. They want to take the worst possible scenario
and bring it forward in this House. I think it is totally
irresponsible. It is playing on the fears of Canadians. Why do
they not talk about the contributions of immigrants to this
community? Why do they not talk about the immigrants in this
House who are contributing, as many of them are? Why does he
not talk about them? Instead they want to take the worst possible
examples, and this is the worst kind of politics of fear that you
can have.
Ms. Clancy: Shame.
Mr. Dhaliwal: They should be more responsible in ensuring
that we get the true picture of the reality instead of painting
distorted pictures about immigrants who contribute
tremendously to Canadian society.
The minister by bringing forward Bill C-44 is acting
responsibly to ensure that where individuals are abusing the
system they are dealt with in a constructive way, and I applaud
the minister for bringing this forward.
Instead of hearing constructive suggestions from the member
opposite he wants to give the most extreme examples, not to
highlight the reality of it but to distort what the reality of the
situation is. Knowing the riding that he comes from, I would
think he would act in a much more responsible way, as expected
by his constituents.
If he is truly interested in contributing, he will support Bill
C-44, go along with the government side and get this bill
through as quickly as possible so we can deal with abuses that
exist. We have to recognize that that is a very small number
when you look at the total number of immigrants that come into
this country, immigrants who contribute and work very hard. In
his own riding they are contributing to the farming community
which is very dominant. The faster we can get this through the
better so that we can deal with some of his concerns. I am sure he
will see that through.
(1700)
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, it is
discouraging when we get comments like those. I made a point
of prefacing my remarks today by saying that we agree
immigration is healthy. We agree with it.
I come from a community with a lot of immigrants. However I
was talking about what we do not agree with. It is necessary to
bring to the attention of this group here the problems involved in
the refugee process. Yes, the bill goes some way toward that but
there are still problems. I laid them out. I know the hon. member
does not understand but that is what gets Liberals elected
nowadays. They do not understand things.
Let us not cloak the issue of serious criminal immigrants in
the country under the positive aspects of immigration. There are
some serious concerns and they are in virtually every riding. I
can assure the House that José Salinas Mendoza is not the only
one in my community. In the wake of these it is not only one
criminal immigrant. I have already said this guy has 12 criminal
convictions. There is a string of victims. There are all kinds of
them.
There is not much sense in talking further to the people over
there. They have a majority government. They will put through
what they want to put through. They will leave out the tough
aspects as they did on the Young Offenders Act. There has not
really been any toughness in anything they have legislated
including the budget.
I tell them to go to it. We will see them in the next election.
Then we will talk some real turkey on who is doing better, them
or us.
Mr. Discepola: Is it 10 per cent?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I have to address this point
about 10 per cent in the polls. I do not know who draws the polls,
but I can assure them that if they take a little walk where I come
from they will not even be on the map. They will not even be on
the list of who is in a poll. They should not tell me about how
they are doing. They are not doing so well in a lot of aspects.
These laws they are trying to write here are weak. They are
poorly motivated.
Ms. Clancy: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Did the hon. member use the word laws
or was it another word that is unparliamentary? If it was the
second I would be grateful if he would withdraw it. Was it laws?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, what was I
supposed to have said?
The Deputy Speaker: It was a four-letter word beginning
with l.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I thought I said laws.
5839
The Deputy Speaker: I thought the hon. member was using
the word laws. Am I correct in that?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Yes, that is right.
The Deputy Speaker: Very well. The word of an hon.
member is always taken.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I am
proud to be able to speak today in support of the legislation to
amend the Immigration Act.
Let me start by saying that it is interesting to hear the
comments of the opposition. On the one side we are becoming
heartless by going too far and on the other side we are not doing
enough although at least we are listening. The bill is a balance
struck between the two, dictated by common sense and the
comments of concerned Canadians, and will cure situations like
the one presented by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.
In its very essence this is what Canadian democracy is all
about. It is fairness and protection for all including the
immigrant and the refugee. It is about swift justice for criminals
that threaten our system. The legislation is about balance,
fairness and justice. The bill will help deal with those few
hoodlums with guns and knives that want to subvert our
immigration and refugee policy.
(1705)
Nowhere in the legislation will we find that the government
has heeded the voices of reaction that would have us bar our
doors and shutter our windows to the world because of the
misconceptions of some and violence of a few.
Make no mistakes. We do not listen to those voices and we
will not listen because we know our immigration and refugee
policy has been just and sound. We know from what others
around the globe tell us that Canadian policies are often seen as a
beacon of hope in a world of gloom and doom. Bill C-44 is
meant to keep that light shining.
[Translation]
When I first came to Canada as an immigrant, I found a free
society in which each member was respected and immigrants
considered as pillars of society. Canada is a huge country where
more people die than are born. This means that the
responsibility rests with the immigrants to provide Canada with
the numbers required to ensure the efficiency of our society. In
return, these immigrants must be guaranteed a dignified life and
a future for their children, with the assurance that crime is not
the norm but the exception in this country.
Our immigration policy is envied world-wide and has ensured
Canada a dynamic and courageous immigration, one which has
played a major role in building our country.
[English]
We are committed to maintaining a progressive immigration
policy. We have seen the benefits it has brought this country.
Immigrants create jobs. They do not take them. Immigrants are
not likely to depend on welfare or to commit crime. We know
that to be a fact. Statistics prove it time and time again.
We can also see other facts. Criminals have slipped through.
Crimes have been committed. Compared to the thousands or
indeed millions that come to Canada every year, those that
commit crimes are in the minority. However the fact that they
are small in number does not diminish the horror of some of
these crimes.
[Translation]
As soon as this bill was introduced in the House of Commons,
we started receiving comments from members, journalists,
immigrants, refugees, citizens. We received letters, faxes,
telephone calls. This goes to show how much interest was
generated by this matter of great importance to everyone. This
interest made it necessary to introduce changes to give a sense of
security to our citizens.
[English]
The legislation is designed to root out criminals that have
subverted our immigration system and broken our laws. There
can be no equivocating on the issue because it quickly boils
down to respect for Canadian law and protection for truly needy
refugees and honest immigrants.
The minuscule number of criminals that have crept into the
immigration system like thieves in the night do not make
minuscule headlines when they go bad. It is those dreadful
deeds. We have all seen the pictures and we heard our colleague.
They start an erosion of trust in an immigration system that has
served the country well.
If people feel they cannot trust a system they will not support
it. If people feel a system is open to abuse or misuse they will
turn their back on it. The government equates immigration with
nation building. Immigrants built the country. They built our
railways. They worked in our factories and broke sod for farms.
Because nation building is a process that never stops we need
an immigration policy that is both progressive and effective.
That in itself is a good reason for fighting to maintain public
trust in the integrity of the system.
[Translation]
We must get rid of the criminal element. We must do so
intelligently and without undermining the underlying principles
of our immigration policy. As we know, all hon. members
believe in the principles of confidence, honesty and justice, and
I know that all of them wish the law to be changed to regain
public confidence.
5840
On examination, we see that the proposed changes cannot be
rejected. Some would want more drastic changes, but this would
be against the philosophy of our government as well as that of a
majority of Canadians.
[English]
Can anybody really fault a proposal that would prevent
serious criminals from claiming to be refugees to delay their
deportation? I think not. We have a system to help refugees, not
serious criminals.
(1710)
How about a proposal that allows us to seize documentation
from the mails that would be used to defraud our immigration
regulations? I cannot find fault with that and I do not think too
many people would either.
The bill smoothes out a number of glitches and bumps in old
legislation that gave criminals a place to hide. For example,
immigration officials currently have the authority to arrest
someone who violates immigration laws, but they cannot issue a
warrant for other agencies such as the RCMP to arrest that
person.
Under our present system the immigration appeal division of
the IRB can overturn removal orders against serious criminals
on humanitarian grounds. However the minister alone must deal
with the consequences of these decisions. The minister alone is
the one entrusted with ensuring the interests of Canadians are
protected. Therefore the minister should have the authority to
make the decision.
[Translation]
The criminal element is not acceptable and premeditated
crime must be punished for our protection and for the sake of
justice. For too long, Canada has been a haven for the criminal
element which often misused our country's all too flexible laws.
That is why liaison was established with the Correctional
Service of Canada to help rid us of criminals immediately after
their have served their sentence.
[English]
There have been management changes at the immigration
appeals division which should improve efficiency and
effectiveness in decision making. We are also making sure that
IRB gets the information it needs involving war criminals,
patterns of fraud or multiple identities.
The legislation before the House does not deal with removals
and some might see that as a flaw. I would caution those who
think that way to remember that we have targeted foreign
criminals for a quick exit through a joint police-immigration
enforcement effort.
Members are well aware of the special joint task force
involving police from a number of forces and immigration
officials. This task force is targeting serious criminals for
removal and operational units are working as we speak in
Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto.
[Translation]
I would also like to ask those calling for more drastic changes
to reflect on the fact that our immigration policy has served us
well and should not be abolished. Of course, when we have
economic problems, we try to find causes for these problems.
We do not think about the fact that the economic crisis is a global
problem. We respond right away by calling for an end to all
immigration. We must, of course, solve existing problems as
quickly as possible but this does not mean that we must close off
our borders. Canada is the only country in the world with vast
empty spaces and even if we closed off our borders, we could not
stop immigration. We can only limit it and strengthen the laws
controlling it.
[English]
It is interesting to note that in the research paper presented at a
Carleton University law conference last year-and the same
research was mentioned earlier by the minister-researchers
noted that under our system immigrants are granted legal status
and have access to the legal system. Illegal immigrants on the
other hand become accomplices or victims of gangs because
they cannot appeal to legitimate authorities.
The research paper also noted: ``Tougher immigration laws
might well drive more people into the arms of smugglers and the
gangs''. Of course we do need to be tough on abuse and those
who manipulate our system and the intent of our laws. We must
send a clear message that those who violate our laws will have to
pay a price.
We are not a government that will punish the innocent just to
get at the guilty. We have no intention of making people who
really deserve Canada's protection pay for the actions of a small
criminal element. We will not tar all refugees as criminals
because we know they are not. We are not people who have the
intention of labelling immigrants and refugees as security risks.
One of our first actions as a government was to take
immigration out of a department christened, and unjustly so, by
our predecessors as the department of public security and put it
in a department called citizenship and immigration where it
rightly belongs. We will fight with our every breath to prevent
the word immigrant from becoming a synonym of the word
criminal.
[Translation]
Look at the members of this House. As you can see, there are
very few native people. All the others are new arrivals. They are
immigrants themselves. They are the sons and daughters of
immigrants. They are the descendants of recent immigrants and,
as you know, this diversity represents the reality and the wealth
of our country.
5841
(1715)
By proposing these amendments, the minister tried to
eliminate current abuses in the system. He also wanted to
indicate to the criminal element taking the place of real refugees
and immigrants that crime is not acceptable.
This government's commitment to progressive immigration
is reinforced by this bill. We think we can have both a
progressive policy and an aggressive strategy supporting the
integrity and credibility of our policy.
[English]
This bill addresses real problems with real solutions. The key
to success is balance. As we have done for generations, we can
continue to welcome immigrants and refugees to help continue
building our nation. As soon as this legislation is proclaimed we
can tell those few who exploit Canada's generosity that in the
land of the maple leaf they have nowhere to hide.
I urge my colleagues in all parties to recognize the importance
of this legislation and give it speedy passage.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member for Vancouver East will probably be interested in
having the House know, she and I occasionally share time
together on a radio commentary show on CBC out of Vancouver.
I have grown to respect her and her qualities as I have with many
people not only in this House but in Canada. They have come to
Canada and made this country great. They have contributed to
this country. I stand very firmly behind the people who have
done exactly that. They come to Canada to make it the great
country that it is.
Would the hon. member not agree there are some people in
Canada, again a small minority I am sure, who might want to
equate immigrant to criminal or refugee to criminal. The
member spoke of confidence. I wonder if she would agree that
by having more precise laws, by having a better law than the one
we are currently debating, by having a law that has more teeth
which would do away with the abject abuses that our member
from Fraser Valley West was talking about, would accomplish
exactly what she and I want to achieve, that is, to be able to say
truly that people coming to Canada are coming to build Canada,
make it stronger and a better place for all of us to live.
Mrs. Terrana: Mr. Speaker, I feel that this law has the teeth
that are required. We cannot put together a state that has too
strong a police force and are in control of everything.
What we have now are laws that cannot be implemented in the
right manner because we do not have the system. The
immigration law in Canada is very generous. I have been in
other countries and by comparison Canada has an extremely
generous law. It is so generous that we have people who come
and fall through the cracks.
Every democracy has its pitfalls of course because democracy
is difficult. It can be uncomfortable at times but it is a system
that works. We have to have the element of freedom that we have
to give to the people who come to our shores.
At the same time we have to have control because people who
come and say that they are immigrants should be checked right
away. If they are not immigrants as they say, they should be sent
away. If there are any problems with their past, they have to be
sent away again.
When I came to Canada in 1966, I was asked certain things:
``Is anyone in your family insane? Are you insane? No, then you
can go to Canada. Did you commit any fraud? Have you ever
been to jail? Has a member of your family ever been to jail? No,
then you can go''. At the time, we were coming for six months.
At times it is really difficult to understand what the system
has become and that is why I have faith in this bill. It can do the
trick without becoming too stringent and too severe. That is not
our style. That is not Canada.
(1720)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, I listened very
carefully to the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver
and found it to be somewhat ambiguous and contradictory.
On the one hand she welcomes immigrants in a very
compassionate way, but on the other hand she fully shows why
this bill is unacceptable for several reasons. In my opinion, this
legislation goes against the traditional policies of the Liberal
Party. I remember that the Liberals were opposed to the
sometimes excessively right-wing policies of Mr. Valcourt,
Mrs. McDougall and other former ministers. Why play these
little games today? You do not agree that there is a real problem
in Canada, but I see it. There has been some abuse and there are a
number of criminals. This is not an exaggeration; it is not a
right-wing answer, but there is currently an economic crisis in
Canada and this is the worst possible time to legislate on
immigration. Why not wait until the public opinion is not so
sensitive to this issue? Then we will be able to be more rational
about the whole issue.
Mrs. Terrana: Mr. Speaker, if everyone was honest we could
do it. Let me just give you an example. If your son was killed by
someone who came to Canada as a refugee, that person would be
a refugee but also a criminal and I think you would have a
different opinion. I have seen too many tragedies and I continue
to see tragedies. The problem is not with immigrants. I myself
am an immigrant and I have a lot of respect for immigrants. I
know what it means to be an immigrant. If someone is honest
and comes to Canada as a refugee, then there is no problem. That
person can certainly come here. However, if a person is not
honest our society must have a system to keep that person from
5842
coming in, otherwise there could be serious problems and even
tragedies. We witnessed such a case in British Columbia.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Briefly please, the hon. whip for the
Reform Party.
Mr. Abbott: That is caucus co-ordinator.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask the hon. member a question about the levels of immigration.
Currently the Liberal government targets 250,000.
It has been shown throughout the year that this stretches and
puts strain on the bureaucracy and a lot of the various
classifications. Because of that there has been a lot of abuse by
the criminal element, a lot of abuse under family dependency
programs, a lot of abuse of the immigration business program.
The department cannot catch them. We may appear to be
attacking and criticizing and I agree we should stress the fact
that our immigration program is a good one. However, we
should look at the numbers.
Does the hon. member feel there is any merit in either putting
a freeze on the immigration program for a while or reducing the
numbers from 250,000 to 200,000 so that each and every one of
these good programs we have can be controlled? In theory they
are all great. But in actual practice there are some elements that
are being incorporated into the program where the immigrants
themselves are getting a bad reputation and it is not fair.
Like the member I am a first generation immigrant. I like to
see immigrants come to this country, be happy to come here and
be treated with respect. Because we are on this program of high
numbers for whatever reason, the integrity of our immigration
policy needs to be restored for the protection not only of
Canadians but the very immigrants themselves. Does she not
feel there is merit in addressing the numbers of immigrants that
are being allowed into this country and reducing them even by
50,000 or 60,000 people?
Mrs. Terrana: Mr. Speaker, briefly I would offer
congratulations to both members for being promoted.
The minister is going through this series of consultations and
it is clear that there is some concern about numbers. The
numbers are being looked at. Again as I said in my speech it is
marvellous to have immigrants, but we also have to give them a
future and we have to give a future to their children.
(1725 )
We are trying to get our house in order and through
consultation we will know what the numbers will be. At this
point I do not have any idea. It would be a real shot in the dark.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour to rise on this first day of our return to
Parliament in what I feel will be a very historic session. We in
the Reform Party will be here to make sure the government
keeps the train on the tracks during this period.
Over the summer I had the opportunity to hold a series of town
hall meetings in my riding. After those meetings it became quite
evident that immigration is a priority in my riding. I know that
members throughout the House have heard concerns from their
constituents as well about immigration. I am certainly glad to
see that Bill C-44 is moving toward fixing the problem.
Unfortunately it has not gone far enough.
In addressing Bill C-44 I feel it is vital to stress the
importance of immigration. It is one of the cornerstones of
Canadian society. Cultural diversity has and will continue to be
beneficial to our nation. Immigration provides us with an
increased global awareness and has been integral to the
development of Canada. We must take a constructive approach
and work together to solve the many immigration problems, not
just criticize, which unfortunately is all too easy.
We are considering a bill which the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration has proposed, apparently to correct the all too
numerous shortcomings and failures in our immigration system
left by decades of ill-conceived, misguided Liberal
immigration policy.
The bill would never have seen the light of day if Reform
members had not presented the minister almost daily with an
ongoing litany of outrage and complaints by the Canadian
public.
We have an immigration system that is clearly almost as out
of control as the $600 billion debt. The government has finally
conceded that Canadians in every part of the country are fed up
with an inadequate and confusing immigration policy that has
allowed thousands upon thousands of unworthy immigrants into
this magnificent land, a policy that has blatantly ignored the
interests of the people.
What are the priorities for accepting immigrants into Canada?
First, family reunification is a policy that has been so badly
abused that it accepts people with no thought of whether they
will be beneficial members of our society. The reunification of
families should be a consideration, one of many in assessing an
application, but not the main priority. Immigration quotas call
for the largest single group of immigrants, some 111,000 or 45
per cent of the total, to be admitted from this class.
In addition, 11 per cent of immigrants or about 28,000 people
will be refugees. In far too many cases these are people who just
show up on our doorstep. We have no choice, due to our laws, but
to grant these people a hearing, a process which can take up to
three years. During this time of overburdened taxpayers, who
foots the bill? The taxpayer foots the bill.
5843
Way down at the bottom of the priority list is what the
immigration bureaucrats call the economic class, in other words
the fortunate few who have the financial resources to purchase
their way into the country. Who says Canada is not for sale?
Whatever happened to the hard working, self-supporting
immigrants who built this country, people who were admitted
because they deserved to be here? Whatever became of the
people who had the skills the country needed, who had dreams of
freedom and self-sufficiency, who had the initiative and
courage to make their own way in a brave new land? That
Canada of 127 years ago depended on a sturdy, skilled, hard
working immigrant to develop and prosper and to populate our
empty lands. That they were successful is apparent in the
prosperous, safe, free country in which we live today. Many here
in this House have descended from these early immigrants. My
grandfather was from Scotland, my grandmother was Irish and
my wife's parents are from Italy. They came to Canada and they
contributed. They raised children. They were and are
law-abiding Canadians.
(1730)
Today our needs have changed. Our economy no longer needs
pioneers but rather computer experts, investment bankers,
electronic engineers, experienced business people and traders,
technicians, skilled trades people and educators. One thing has
not changed. We need people who are ready to take the risk of
moving to a new land, ready to seize opportunities, to move and
develop some still empty spaces. We do not need those who have
come to exploit or drain our social services, and we certainly do
not need criminals.
Since that Liberal heyday of the seventies when Trudeau and
his obedient officials opened the floodgates to immigration,
based not on the needs of the country, not on selectivity or high
standards, but on some seemingly intangible set of feel good
principles, Canada has been on a backward slide. The Canadian
public demands a tougher approach as to who we admit into this
country, but this government shows no real intention of doing
this or of listening to Canadians.
I have received letters in my office and I know each and every
member in this House has received letters from constituents
complaining about the immigration system. I would like to read
a brief excerpt from a letter received the other day from a
gentleman in Summerland, British Columbia. He writes:
Our current immigration system is overlooking our social services,
education, health services and policing. We believe we should be good to those
we allow in, but we should not be seen as easy marks by any immigrants. There
are so many deserving people who want to come to Canada and be good citizens.
Why should we have the patience with those who are not willing to obey our
laws? If we are tough but fair, we will do far more good overall.
It is noteworthy that Bill C-44 deals specifically with
provisions which decide not whether criminals will be admitted
as immigrants, but which ones. I put it to you that no criminals,
none, should be admitted to Canada, period, not as an
immigrant, not as a refugee, not even as a visitor-none.
A report drafted by senior advisers in the immigration
department for the minister says that many Canadians think the
immigration program is out of control and that major changes
reflecting public opinion are needed. There is a sense the
immigration program needs fixing. It urges that immigrants
need to be better selected.
I further submit that all immigrants to this country must
respect the laws and contribute their fair share. Any slip, any
criminal conviction, should be grounds for deportation.
It is a privilege for people to be allowed to come to Canada to
live, a privilege much sought after by many from other countries
all over the world, even by people from developed nations.
Canada and its immigration policy have become the laughing
stock of the world. It is no secret it is far too easy for criminals to
come here. We are not even checking to ensure the people we do
admit are not criminals. As a result, the people of Canada have
been subjected to increasingly violent crimes. The bitter irony is
that even when these criminals are apprehended and dealt with
by our courts and even when deportation orders are issued, our
immigration officers are impotent to deal with them, to send
them out of the country, to ensure they never darken this land
again. Oh, no, they simply file an appeal of the deportation order
and disappear into the woodwork.
All of us have seen the devastating and deadly effects of this
inept system. Now the minister with this sadly flawed
legislation hopes to lull Canadians into believing this
government actually intends to do something. Canadians will be
fooled no longer.
(1735)
The minister is proposing that we actually allow criminals
into Canada simply because the crimes they committed would
not earn a maximum sentence of 10 years in this country.
Clearly, this is sending the wrong message. A criminal is a
criminal. Those who commit small crimes can be inclined to
commit more heinous ones. In what way does Canada or the
people of Canada benefit from having criminals here? The only
immigration policy that will work is one that allows people into
this country solely on merit.
In a letter to me dated August 29 the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration states: ``Protecting Canadian society from
criminals is a top priority for me and my officials''. Having the
minister guard our gates against criminals is like having a fox
guarding the hen-house.
5844
Canadians are far from gullible and will not tolerate this Dr.
Jekyll and Mr. Hyde approach. Canadians of all stripes are
demanding that the law get tough with criminals. That will
prove to be an impossible task if we continue to import law
breakers. We should bar all criminals. I will repeat that. We
should bar all criminals, without exception. Canadians do not
want an invasion of criminals. Canadians do not need terrorists
hiding here and plotting violence in other parts of the world.
Canadians do not need street gangs or the additional stress on
our already struggling social programs.
Canada is also nearly bankrupt so how can we afford to admit
these people? Before any immigrant steps onto Canadian soil,
before they leave their native land, have their criminal record
checked with all the resources at our disposal. I have been told
that immigration officers are prohibited from checking criminal
records through Interpol. Why?
Immigration officials have told me it would bottleneck the
application process to check whether refugees have a criminal
record. Then let it be bottlenecked. I say it is far better than
having even one Canadian murdered or having violence erupt in
the streets or making our own citizens live in fear in their own
homes, their streets or their playgrounds.
What about immigrants who commit crimes while in Canada?
Again, our Liberal created policies and laws have forgotten the
sole reason for their existence. It is not to concern themselves
with the welfare of the criminal and his or her family. Our laws
were made to protect Canadians. The criminal should have
thought of the hardship he would cause his family before he
broke our laws.
If found guilty of a criminal act in Canada, anyone who is not
a Canadian citizen should be put on the first plane out of the
country. It would be simple enough to carry this out directly
from the courtroom to deportation. Let the offender have the
right to appeal. Everyone should have the right to appeal, but let
it be from some other country, perhaps his country of origin, not
in Canada and not for the taxpayers to pay the final bill.
In my peaceful riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt
we have a particularly repugnant fellow, a landed immigrant
who feels no particular need to respect this country's laws. He
scorns our courts. He laughs at our law enforcement officers.
This man eluded a murder charge on a technicality in our courts.
Currently he is being tried for a string of burglaries, a crime he
has served time for previously. He has a record as long as your
arm, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps as long as all of our arms and a
deep and abiding contempt for the citizens of our land. He has
been ordered deported by immigration officials but he has
exercised his right of appeal.
(1740 )
This man is a criminal. He has had a second chance and then
some. Where is the compassion and the consideration for the
innocent people who are his victims? Logic dictates that there is
not even the remotest chance of his rehabilitation, yet we keep
him here at the taxpayers' expense.
This individual is a burden on this country and will continue
to be so. Why should Canadian taxpayers have to spend some
$40,000 a year to keep this foreign national in our prisons? This
person should be on the next plane back to his homeland where I
understand the law takes a sterner view of this type of criminal
conduct. Why are we not sending him home? Let us do it. Send
him home.
This unacceptable situation is the end result of the current
laws, laws that originated to a large measure with a Liberal
government. The proposals before us are more of the same. It
appears on the surface to be a step in the right direction. We are
tired of hearing that. It is like the old saying: You cannot get
there from here. The government knows this proposal will be
almost impossible to enforce. It will be spun around and
distorted by lawyers and judges and the immigration
bureaucracy will find a way to thwart it. After all, this is the way
the government deals with these matters with Canadians.
Canadians from coast to coast to coast have called loud and
clear for tougher measures. This bill does not address the ills
and dangerous inadequacies of immigration. It does not have a
clear mandate for the Immigration and Refugee Board which
increasingly acts as a law unto itself. It does not solve the
problem of a department that cannot enforce its own deportation
orders. It does not even have reliable knowledge of how many
deported criminals and undesirables remain in this country. It is
a typical Liberal answer to a problem: doing too little far too
late.
This government, the minister and his colleagues, have
exhausted the patience of the people of this country. Canadians
are raising a hue and cry. Not only the people of the west but all
Canadians demand that the minister do his job.
We Reformers have presented our proposed amendment to
this bill and urge all members of the House to support it. This
Reform amendment is what Canadians are telling us to do. It is
time to start listening and not just pretend to listen. The ministry
is out of control. The immigration department is out of control
and Canadians will not pay the price for the minister's
mismanagement.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very closely to the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. That is one of the most
beautiful areas in British Columbia which I often have an
opportunity to visit. I try to get there every
5845
summer. The lake and the fruit trees make it a very beautiful area
indeed.
I commend the member. He has made some important
comments about immigration being very important for Canada
and how immigration is very important for the economic
development of this country.
He also talked about the pioneers. I can share some of his
feelings because my own grandfather came here in about 1906.
Luckily there was not a Reform government then. Otherwise he
might have been deported because he did not have the skills or
education. He was an uneducated man but he wanted to start a
new life. He came to Vancouver, British Columbia after
travelling extensively throughout the world. He obviously was a
very smart man. He picked the right place to stay. I share in some
of the comments of the hon. member as well.
(1745)
I would like to say that in immigration there is a balanced
approach. One of the areas the member talked about is family
reunification. I think it should be known that when you look at
the total immigration to this country, the percentage of family
reunification has come down. It is actually reduced from what it
was in the 1980s.
The members in the Reform Party have often brought up the
situation of family reunification. It is about families coming
together. I am very surprised that the Reform Party, with its
stand on the family and how important it is to have a strong
family situation, would be against bringing families together. I
am really surprised considering how often the Reform members
speak out about how important the family unit is, how important
the support system is. Now I hear that they do not think that
family unification should be looked at.
In fact, instead of bringing families together, instead of
bringing the mothers and fathers together, they want to keep
them apart. They do not want to bring them here. They want to
set up barriers for them. This is quite surprising considering
their stand on having strong families and how important that is
in terms of reducing crime and support. I am very surprised.
In the area of refugees, Canadians are compassionate. I
remember the refugees from Uganda. I know many of my people
who were refugees from Uganda. They have contributed
substantially to this economy. I can name lists of people who are
now judges or now chair of major companies and so on who
came here as refugees.
We did it as humanitarians but they have contributed
substantially to our economy. If the hon. member wants to get a
list of the many people who have come and who have
contributed, particularly those refugees from Uganda, I would
be happy to provide that.
The immigration policy has a balance. It says we want to bring
families together. I am sure that the Reform people want to keep
families together. About 45 per cent of all immigrants to this
country are into family reunification in order to bring families
together.
Then of course there is the economic class. There are
entrepreneurs who want to start businesses here and want to
develop our economy. We want to give them an opportunity to
help create jobs. I am sure that the hon. member will say it is
important to create jobs. It is important to make sure that
Canada is working. It is important that Canada be competitive
with the rest of the world. We do need entrepreneurs.
There is another matter I want to raise because the member on
the other side has talked about it extensively. That is the crime
factor.
I have a case in my riding, and I would like the member to
respond to this, where a gentleman was deported because he
assaulted someone. This gentleman has a wife and two children
in Canada but he cannot come back. Imagine what they are going
through because he assaulted someone.
I would like the member to tell us whether we should keep that
person out of the country forever, away from his wife and two
children. Should we say because this person assaulted someone
he should never be allowed to come to this country to join his
wife and two children? I would like the hon. member to address
that and indicate how we should respond to that wife and those
two children.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
questions. They are very interesting.
I am not a judge nor a jury but I can comment. Maybe the
person who committed those crimes should have thought very
carefully about the consequences for his wife and children
before he considered the crimes. I think it is reasonable to ask
that we be responsible for those types of things.
If he is after reunification with his family maybe that is an
item for his country of origin to deal with and not a particular
problem for Canada in this case.
With regard to family reunification which the hon. member
briefly touched on, I would say that the Reform Party does very
much stand for the principles of the family.
(1750)
We do not have a problem entirely with family reunification,
but I think it has gone a little bit too far. We are talking about
family reunification for adopted children and children of
adopted children. It goes on and on with cousins. Where does it
end?
Family reunification in the close knit family is fine, but the
laws in this country take it a little bit too far in my opinion.
5846
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if he
has actually read this bill. I ask that question because during his
remarks today he seemed to be talking about the fact that we
were going to continue the flaw in the existing act that talks
about criminals having access to our refugee determination
system.
The minister stood in this House earlier today and highlighted
that provision in the act that is being amended. I want to quote
for the member. That is very important because the member is
leaving a perception in the minds of Canadians that we are not
dealing with this. ``No immigrant and except as provided in
subsection (3), no visitor shall be granted admission if the
immigrant or visitor is a member of any of the following classes:
have been convicted in Canada under any act of Parliament of a
summary conviction offence, other than an offence designated
as a contravention under the Contraventions Act, and there are
reasonable grounds to believe have been convicted outside
Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada would
constitute a summary conviction offence under any act of
Parliament.''
That is a specific amendment to the act. It is a very big
improvement. I know the constituents in my community applaud
that kind of amendment. I cannot understand why the Reform
Party would stand up in the House today and suggest to
Canadians that we are not amending that portion of the act.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I have read through this particular
piece of mumbo-jumbo. It is a fact that in this bill we are saying
that we will take criminals as long as they have not committed a
crime that has a sentence of 10 years or more. That is what this
bill is doing.
Why would we do that? Why would Canadians in their right
minds say: ``We know criminals are bad and we will not accept
you if you have murdered somebody. We will not accept you if
you have done a few other things that would have a sentence of
10 years or more in Canada; but if it is less than 10 years, if you
have just broken into houses-''
An hon. member: Twice and you are out.
Mr. Hart: They can do it twice in Canada? I see. Clearly, this
is not what Canadians have been asking for. Why are we
admitting people with criminal records at all? They should not
be allowed in the country.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to take part in this important debate on Bill C-44, an
act to amend the Immigration Act. The proposed changes will
expand the government's authority to deny serious criminals
access to the refugee determination system and will simplify the
procedure for excluding from Canada persons who have
previously been deported.
At the same time, the bill in its balanced approach to solving a
serious problem of criminals, though few in number, assures
Canadians that Canada will continue to welcome legitimate and
law abiding immigrants as full partners in the Canada of today
and the future.
Indeed this bill means a great deal to me. My wife and I came
to Canada as immigrants 26 years ago. Our four sons were all
born in Winnipeg. We have all been very proud to call this
country our home.
(1755)
There are a number of other honourable colleagues in this
House who chose Canada as their home and I would like to urge
them in particular to take part in this debate because it is
important to bring experience as well as compassion and
intellect to our discussions of Bill C-44.
Firsthand experience is one of life's great teachers and we
who have been through the immigration experience know of the
urgent need to protect the integrity of the system that we have.
I want to relay to members the sense of unease I have felt of
late when discussions turned to the topic of immigration policy.
Recently, when listening to open line shows, talking to people
on the streets or opening the morning mail I have detected an
anti-immigrant sentiment in some of the comments.
It is not difficult to see where this comes from. There have
been too many stories about criminal acts committed by
immigrants. There have been too many tales of people who
laugh at our laws or use the system to their own advantage. The
anger is directed at those who have abused or who would abuse
our system and our generosity. But sometimes that anger spills
over and it hurts everybody, all of us.
We know there are a number of abusers, the criminals in our
midst, although we do not know the exact number. By all
estimates the number is small compared to the large numbers of
honest, law-abiding immigrants in this country. But we also
know that in our society acts of violence or crime are relayed
over the airwaves far faster and further than acts of kindness and
greatness. In other words, the actions of a few criminals can
reflect badly on the good work of the many.
Of course this is wrong, of course this is unfair and of course it
should not happen. But it does. In Winnipeg, my city,
immigrants are angry when they hear stories about the few who
thumb their noses at the laws of the land. We need to make sure
people do not abuse our immigration and refugee system or
break our laws. We need to stop the abuse and we need to root
out the few who are making life difficult for the many.
When cheaters abuse the generosity of Canadians or when
thieves or murders try to pretend they are refugees, we and this
government should say to them: ``Enough is enough''.
5847
The reality is that they are not only stealing from the Canadian
taxpayer. They are also stealing from would-be immigrants and
refugees who really need our help. There is a limit to the
resources and energy that can be expended on immigration and
refugee matters and when some of those resources and energy
are squandered on felons and cheaters, it clearly takes away
from those who truly need our help.
Bill C-44 will ensure that the immigration and refugee system
provides the best possible protection for those who really need
it. I know there will be people all across Canada in the
immigrant community and elsewhere applauding this fair and
balanced legislation. In fact, if this government had not moved
now to fix the system, there was a very real possibility that
citizens' trust in it would dissolve.
We need to have the support of all Canadians so we can
maintain a sensitive and fair immigration policy. After all this
policy has been key to the success of our country. There is a lot
in this legislation to recommend to my colleagues across the
floor. The fact that the bill will prevent serious criminals from
claiming refugee status or from appealing a decision to the
Immigration and Refugee Board as a way to stall their removal
from Canada is very important.
(1800 )
I must stress that we are talking about serious criminals. We
are talking about people who have been convicted of a crime
either in Canada or abroad that would be punishable in Canada
by a minimum of 10 years in prison, or of anybody the minister
believes poses a serious threat to the public and to the security of
the nation.
Bill C-44 also gives immigration officers the legal authority
to seize documents sent through the international mail that
could be used to forge identity papers or circumvent our
immigration laws. Customs officers already search
international mail and already bring such documents to the
attention of immigration officials. However under the current
law the immigration officials cannot do anything about these
documents. The legislation will fix that problem once and for
all.
All of us in the Chamber know that when loopholes exist there
is always going to be somebody who will try to take advantage
of those loopholes. That is another reason why the bill is
necessary. It removes those loopholes. For example,
immigration officials currently have the authority to arrest
anyone who fails to appear before a senior immigration officer
as required, but they cannot issue a warrant authorizing other
agencies such as the RCMP to arrest that person. The legislation
when passed will allow warrants to be issued so police across
Canada can help to find suspects wanted for violating our laws.
This strategy for ending abuse of the system outlined by the
minister earlier today impressed me with its fair and balanced
approach. Admittedly some critics have complained the
amendments do not go far enough. On the other hand there are
complaints that the government is too tough and too harsh.
When we hear those two extremes I think it is safe to say that we
have struck a delicate balance. We can be tough and make it very
clear to those who would abuse our laws that they will not be
tolerated in Canada. At the same time we are being extremely
careful not to destroy the very system we are trying to protect.
As we look for criminals we must make certain that we do not
punish the innocent. This is like giving antibiotics to a patient
with a serious bacterial infection or administering
chemotherapy and radiation to a patient with cancer. We just
give the dosage sufficient to cure the infection, control the
spread of cancer or cure it if feasible, and not too much
treatment so as to endanger the life of the patient himself or
herself.
The minister has made it abundantly clear that the people who
deserve Canada's protection, those who are fleeing war, famine
or persecution, will not have to pay for the wrongs of a few. We
must continue to remember that for the most part the people
immigrating to Canada today are the nation builders of
tomorrow.
I am very proud to say that immigrants have added a lot to the
Canadian way of life. They built the railroads and tilled the great
prairie farms. Today some of our most prolific artists and
performers, distinguished educators, politicians, public
servants, inventors, manufacturers and scientists are
immigrants. We should never lose sight of their invaluable
achievements. We should never let the crimes of a few paint a
false portrait of all immigrants.
Most Canadians recognize the positive side to immigration.
Many Canadian families can trace their roots back to an
immigrant who landed here to start a new life. These positive
facts are well documented and understood. Therefore it is very
important that public faith and trust in the immigration and
refugee process be reaffirmed. If people turn their backs on what
we have built, if they lose confidence in the system that we had,
it could take generations to gain it back.
(1805)
I believe this timely legislation will go a long way to
reaffirming that faith and trust. The bill will permit those who
arrive and strengthen the social, cultural, political and economic
fabric of our nation to continue to wear their immigrant status
with justifiable pride.
In conclusion I urge members to give passage to the
legislation without delay.
5848
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, I do not
understand the government's, the Liberal Party's strategy of
letting Liberal members of ethnic origin defend a bill that is
considered to be anti-immigrant by an important part of the
population.
I must tell you that Canada's crime rate has gone down in
recent years and that the crime rate among immigrants is lower
than that among Canadians who were born in this country. I
repeat, the crime rate among immigrants is lower than that
among Canadians who were born in this country.
This bill could be declared unconstitutional in several
respects because, in my opinion, some of its provisions violate
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the
Geneva Convention on Refugees. How can the hon. member
justify these drastic provisions?
[English]
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the bill is a very balanced one.
It has been so balanced to ensure that it withstands the challenge
under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and sees to it that it
fulfils our obligation under the Geneva convention. I can assure
the member who is still worried that the bill will stand those
tests.
I was taken aback when the member tried to insinuate-and I
hope he did not mean it but he said it-that the government has a
strategy to get ethnic Canadians to debate the issue. Irrespective
of origin Canadians are Canadians by any definition. I must tell
the member as a matter of fact that I was not sent by my
government to debate the bill. I spontaneously volunteered to
debate the bill even before the parliamentary recess.
To impute that motive is unconscionable in the Chamber and
to impute that ethnicity is to be taken into consideration to me is
the highest order of parliamentary obscenity. I hope the hon.
member did not mean what he said and I am prepared to accept
an apology.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I applaud very
much the comments and responses of the hon. member for
Winnipeg North.
I stand on a point of clarification. I believe there has been
some misunderstanding on the benches opposite with regard to
the question of indictable offences and summary conviction
offences under the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the member addressing a question or
comment to the member who just spoke?
Ms. Clancy: No, Mr. Speaker. I was addressing a comment to
the House to clarify a point. We are looking at two different
things here. We are looking at apples and oranges, the apples
being those people who applied for landed status as immigrants.
In the particular case with regard to criminal convictions, if they
are summary conviction offences there are those that are
punishable by a minimum of six months. If they are indictable
there are those that are punishable by five years. Mr. Speaker,
you would probably know this better than I would, but I think
five years is the low end of the scale for indictable offences.
(1810)
The question with regard to those crimes punishable by 10
years relates only to those within the refugee stream. That is tied
to a United Nations convention to which we are a signatory. I
hope that helps. Indictable offences per se run the gamut. It is
not a 10-year thing. It does not relate to landed immigrant
status. It relates to the refugee process and it is part of the UN
convention.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask the hon. member who just gave his presentation the same
question I asked the previous member.
There is evidence in the past year that current levels of
immigration are putting a stress and strain on the bureaucracy
and all the good programs that Canada has which people love to
apply and come to Canada for as the hon. member indicated his
family did.
Does he not think there is some merit, any merit at all, in
looking at the system and our levels of immigration which are
currently at 250,000 people? In our opinion it is at least 50,000
too high. It is unmanageable. We need to control it a bit better. It
would preserve the integrity of our immigration system. It
would restore confidence in the minister of immigration and I
am sure the hon. member would dearly love to see his reputation
stay at a good level.
Most important, it would also help and protect immigrants
who come here to give their best to this country. Immigrants
send their children to school, but because of high numbers and
the reputations that some of the bad apples bring to the system
they go to school and are discriminated against. They are called
names. They come home and they cry.
This is not what we brought them to Canada for. This is not
what they applied to Canada for. Those are the things we have to
try to improve within the system. That is what we are trying to
get across here.
We are not against immigration. We are for immigration but
we are for numbers at a speed and at a level that we can control
things. We cannot control a car going around a 90-degree corner
at 150 miles an hour. They should reduce the numbers to control
it better.
Does the member who just gave his speech see any merit in
looking at the numbers and reducing them for better control?
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. I am pleased to note that he welcomes immigrants to
the country.
5849
With respect to numbers the question was put to the Canadian
electorate no less than in October 1993. The Canadian electorate
made a decision by putting the Liberals into government that the
level was a reasonable one.
When we look at the problem we have to look at the two sides
of the equation. If we do not have enough resources to manage
the 250,000 one possibility is to reduce the number. However I
would suggest there is another better alternative and that is to
increase the resources to absorb our commitment to the
Canadian people.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to be involved in a debate that has engaged people's
thinking as much as this one has. It is a very healthy sign that we
are looking at the merits and the particulars of what we are
trying to do here.
The motion before us opposes Bill C-44 on the grounds that it
does not prevent the screening out of applicants for refugee
status or for permanent landing when those applicants have
criminal histories or may be the perpetrators of violence.
(1815)
This is as opposed to true refugees who are so often and often
have been the innocent victims of violence.
Those on the opposite side of this House who have risen to
speak on this motion and to Bill C-44 have argued that Bill C-44
does permit the screening out of undesirables. They argue that
Bill C-44 does have teeth and that we are misguided in our
attacks on this bill.
It is easy to understand why they would argue that the bill
does go far enough, but this bill would not clean things up. This
bill does not strike at the heart of the problem and does not deal
with the real workings of the refugee determination system in
Canada. One could say that it is a refusal to face facts about just
how badly our immigration and refugee systems have gone
wrong. We hear a lot of defence of the system across the way.
There is no excuse for this refusal and no excuse for the
inability or the unwillingness of this government to face those
facts. The shortcomings of the immigration system and our
refugee determination system have been given wide publicity
since the Reform Party began pointing them out.
The media has widely reported our exposing of deportation
backlogs that cannot possibly be dealt with by the existing
enforcement resources in Canada. It has been reported that
refugees who are members of genocidal regimes who have
caused death and despair in their native countries are now
happily residing, often at taxpayer's expense, in Canada. They
have reported, after we exposed them, refugee admittance
guidelines that actually invite undesirables to make a refugee
claim in Canada.
The government knows about these scandals. It is feeling the
heat from these scandals. The people of Canada are better
informed than ever about what is really happening in the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration and polls are
reflecting their anger and dissolution.
In response to that outrage and concern, government hastily
put together a package of response that it claims will take care of
the problem. It claims that this package of reforms will stop
riff-raff from calling Canada home by preventing refugee
claims being made in prisons and will stop the immigration
appeals division from overturning deportations, something that
the IAD has become all too notorious for.
These so-called reforms are nothing more than long overdue
common sense. However, they fall so far short of the mark of
affecting any real fundamental and significant change to a
system that so desperately needs it that we cannot support the
bill.
I urge support not only by my colleagues in Her Majesty's
Loyal Opposition but also by the members opposite for a motion
to stop this bill and force, finally, real reconsideration of the
way Canada handles its immigration and refugee systems.
The minister wants us to believe that Bill C-44 is a cure for
the massive haemorrhage in Canada's immigration and refugee
systems. Bill C-44 offers nothing more than a few band-aids
and for that reason it must be rejected. For that reason we cannot
allow the people of Canada to be duped into thinking that they
are getting real reform here, that things will actually be better
after this bill passes. They will not.
Nothing significant is going to change and I will tell members
why. The first element of this legislation, the element touted by
the minister as being the most significant change, is one that
would prevent criminals in Canada from making refugee claims
in order to delay their removal from Canada. That is a good idea.
I cannot understand why it was not done long ago.
The idea of immigration and refugee board members going
into a prison to hear refugee claims is patently absurd. The
government would have us believe that this is somehow going to
prevent criminals from making refugee claims when it will not.
We know how many criminals apply for refugee status from
Canadian prisons or while they are on parole. That is easy
enough to keep tabs on.
We have no idea whatsoever of how many criminals who have
committed their crimes abroad seek refugee status and are
successful each year. We have no idea.
(1820 )
It is easy enough to prevent someone who is already residing
in Canada, especially in a Canadian jail, from making a last
ditch attempt to remain in the country. It is not quite as easy to
prevent those who have criminal backgrounds from entering the
country in the first place, not that it is impossible. Other
countries have extensive refugee background checks before they
hear a refugee claim and make a determination. Why do we not?
5850
We do not because the immigration and refugee board and its
supporters tell us that we are not allowed to, that it would be a
violation of our commitment to the United Nations convention
on the status of refugees. Of course that is sheer nonsense but it
is a popular tune that continues to be sung again and again.
It has been revealed to us by people intimately associated with
the refugee process that this year the IRB has been giving orders
to refugee hearing officers forbidding them to do background
checks of any kind whatsoever prior to doing a refugee claim.
They have issued orders preventing refugee hearing officers
from using Interpol or even getting in touch with the RCMP or
CSIS to investigate those refugee claimants of whom there is
serious suspicion of criminal activity, guerrilla or terrorist
backgrounds, or even genocide. As hard as it is to believe that is
the fact.
Bill C-44 appears to be a bill that will take care of the
problems when it does not even address them. What good does it
do to make changes to rules governing the hearing of a refugee
claim preventing those who have committed crimes in Canada
from making claims when we welcome those who have
committed crimes, even crimes against humanity, from other
countries?
It is true that we are welcoming these sorts of people. In fact
the IRB is going one step further. Not only are guerrillas from
Latin America, double agents from Bolivia, and high ranking
members of brutal totalitarian regimes allowed to make a
refugee claim in Canada, once they do make that claim they are
fast tracked through the system.
The Reform Party proved that this summer. We provided the
documents written by a member of the minister's own
department circulated by the immigration and refugee board and
forced upon refugee hearing officers that spell out that those
who fit the categories just mentioned do not even need to go
before a full three member refugee panel. They get expedited.
So far this year over 3,500 refugee claimants have been
expedited in this manner.
How many of those claimants were criminals, terrorists,
guerrillas or war criminals is not known. We may never know
because the IRB with the full blessing of this government and
the current minister has stripped its refugee hearing officers of
the power to do even the most basic background checks. That is
absurd and outrageous but it is happening.
While it may be a good first step to prevent hearing officers
from hearing refugee claims in prisons it is far more imperative
that the entire system, the entire process of refugee hearings and
determinations be changed.
The Canadian interest is not being represented in this process
and that is why it has gone so dreadfully wrong.
The second major element of this legislation deals with the
prevention of the IAD, the immigration appeals division, from
overturning deportation orders based on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds.
That too is common sense but raises a troubling question. I am
sure I do not need to inform this House that the IAD is a branch
of the IRB, the immigration and refugee board, and that this
board is populated by the same appointees as the IRB. The same
people who are mandating that guerrillas, double agents, et
cetera, be welcomed to Canada are also refusing to enforce the
deportation orders of those we happen to catch up with.
The same people who want to fling the doors of Canada wide
open have been refusing to enforce the laws of Canada for those
who make it into the country. Now Bill C-44 comes along and it
would take the power to overturn some deportation orders, not
all just some, away from these appointees.
(1825)
Instead of slightly curtailing the power of these people to
allow violent offenders to stay in the country, we need to
re-examine the very role of the IRB. Do we need such a board of
political appointees accountable to no one? Who are they
working for? Whose interests are they serving? What are the
priorities of the government when it comes to immigration?
The government has two choices right now. The first choice is
to align itself with the appointed members of the IRB, the
members of the immigration industry and the refugee advocates
who say that we need to keep the IRB the way it is, that we do not
need major reform in the system and that the interest of
Canadians must be, and I stress they have actually said they
must be secondary to the interests of immigrants and refugees.
The interests of Canadians come second.
The government could align itself with the overwhelming
majority of Canadians who feel that immigration policy and
even refugee policy should first and foremost work in the
interests of Canada. Immigration and refugee policy while being
compassionate, balanced and legal must clearly be seen to
protect the interests, the security, the health and the safety of
Canadians. That is the reform we really need and it is time the
government looked after its duty to Canadians.
Bill C-44 does not reflect the willingness of the government
to truly protect the interests of Canadians. Bill C-44 is
stop-gap. It is a band-aid and it almost entirely maintains the
status quo. The status quo does not deserve to be maintained.
Canadians deserve better. Thus we cannot support a weak and
ineffectual bill like this.
5851
Let me make one last appeal to my colleagues opposite. I
know that the Reform Party is not the only party that has been
hearing the cries of Canadians for immigration reform. I know
that the Reform Party is not alone in receiving hundreds and
hundreds of letters and calls from across the country, but
especially from Ontario, which decry immigration policy and
demand change. They have been hearing those calls too. Do the
people, largely the constituents of your ridings not deserve
better than window dressing? Do they not deserve better than
stop-gap measures? They want real change. They want a better
system that protects Canadians. Let us give them that.
Let us vote against Bill C-44, start over and change the way
that Canada does business when it comes to immigrants and
refugees. Let us give Canadians a system that really works not
just for immigrants and refugee claimants but for Canadians too.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say to the
member that I thought her remarks were substantive and
constructive. I listened to her attentively. The member gave me
some insight I had not been exposed to before.
I am a member from Ontario, from downtown Toronto and we
hear the concerns expressed about the immigration policy. Our
minister is also from Toronto. Does she not think it would be
more constructive in advancing this debate if some of those
ideas that she talked about today are addressed in committee
where the minister has said he would listen to some amendments
being proposed rather than to try to kill the bill even before-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, after a bill is drafted it is very
difficult to get it substantially changed in committee. I believe
and the hon. member opposite would know as well as I do,
perhaps better because he has been in the House longer, that it is
very rare for a bill to be substantially changed when it deals with
a whole system, a whole process of dealing with a government
department.
I really think it would be better to look at this from square one
rather than trying to tinker with a bill that has already been
drafted.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. It is now 6.30 p.m.
_____________________________________________
5851
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, on
June 7, 1994, I asked a question of the Minister of Transport
having to do with transportation subsidies. At that time I
expressed my concern to the minister about a speech he had
given and which I had subsequently read. I felt the minister had
given undue attention to the way in which the rail sector in our
transportation system was subsidized.
Having gone through the speech, I noticed he was making a
general argument about the subsidization of our transportation
argument, but every time he gave an example it was from the rail
sector.
I rose at that time to complain about this singling out of the
rail sector, asking the minister to make sure that whatever he did
or whatever he planned for our transportation system-it is still
unclear at this point exactly what he does have in mind-that he
not operate on the basis of this bias that he had revealed in this
speech with respect to the rail sector.
Not surprisingly, of course, as ministers are wont to do, he got
up and assured me that he would take everything into account. I
still have that concern. It is something I want to follow up today.
Subsequent to that question, the minister has said a great deal
about other elements of our transportation system, particularly
with respect to airports and the commercialization plans that he
has for the air sector as well as other transport sectors.
A lot of Canadians see through this. They see behind the word
commercialization basically the same consequences and the
same agenda as what the previous government used to call
privatization.
There may be some fine difference between
commercialization and privatization, but I am sure it is a
difference that will be lost on the people who either lose their
jobs or whose wages are reduced and whose standard of living is
consequently reduced when the jobs they used to have go from
the public sector to the private sector and they no longer receive
the same benefit that they received before.
As with so much of this privatization, commercialization,
deregulation, free trade, et cetera, a lot of this is simply an
agenda for reducing the incomes and the standard of living as a
consequence of a great many Canadians who over the years have
come to be paid decently in the public sector and for that matter
in the private sector.
What is happening now in so many ways is that these well paid
working Canadians are on the hit list. They are the working
middle class whose wages are being targeted for reduction. I
would like to say that when the minister takes into account the
relationship between the various transportation sectors, he
ought to take into account the views of my constituents.
5852
He wrote me a letter at the end of June saying that he wanted
to know what my constituents feel. I can tell him what my
constituents feel. They feel that the minister should take
whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we have a healthy
rail sector in this country.
When he does that and when he is doing that, he should take
into account the way the trucking industry is subsidized, not just
through the financing of public highways, but by the people who
work in the trucking industry. One of the characteristics of the
trucking industry and one of the reasons why it has been able to
be so competitive with railways-using that awful word
competitive which hides a great many injustices-is that its
average hourly wage is so much lower.
Why is it more? It is a result of deregulation. Anyone with the
capital to finance a few trucks has the ability to set up a trucking
business and to operate almost free of governmental constraints
and regulations. There is this downward pressure on wages.
Therefore many people who used to expect to make a decent
living in trucking or for that matter in a great many other
industries no longer have that expectation.
One of the ways in which various transportation modes are
being subsidized, but particularly in this case, trucking, is
through the wages of the people who work there. I can say on
behalf of the people who work in the rail sector in my riding,
whether they work for VIA, CPR or CNR, they do not want to
subsidize the rail sector by reducing their wages but that is
exactly what is being asked of them now.
I hear it in the minister's voice when he says: ``Well we don't
want to go ahead with the VIA cuts but it depends on the labour
negotiations''. The minister is deliberately trying to set up the
employees of VIA and other railway employees as the
scapegoats for whatever cuts he is already planning to make. I
urge him not to scapegoat those employees. They are trying to
hang on not just to a way of life but to a way of life for all
Canadians, that is to say a way of life in which working
Canadians are able to be well paid.
The agenda which this government is following is the same as
the last government's. It is an agenda which means that the
middle class will disappear. The wages people were paid on the
railway and in other organized industries will disappear. We will
have a fragmented society. A few people at the top, the minority,
will make a lot of money while more and more people at the
bottom will make less and less all the time as a result of
so-called competition, deregulation, globalization and all of the
other things I have come to despise since I came to this place.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you to the hon. member who
knows he got a little more than the four minutes one is supposed
to get. We ought to give the same extension to the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, first let me say nothing could be
further from the truth that our agenda is that of the previous
government. There is a lot of difference between
commercialization and privatization, but that is for another day.
This government does not intend to attack workers or force on
anyone a loss of income or lower standard of living. It is about
building a national, integrated, efficient, affordable
transportation system taking all modes into account. As I said,
that is for another day.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona raised the issue of
transportation subsidies. He expressed some concerns that the
rail industry would be unfairly affected by a review of subsidies.
I am glad to have the opportunity to address his concerns and
assure him and the House of Commons that any review of
transportation subsidies will be balanced and will ensure that all
modes are treated fairly.
Transportation subsidies currently affect every mode. As an
example of subsidies received by modes other than rail, almost
80 per cent of freight subsidies in Atlantic Canada are received
by motor carriers. Further, as mentioned by the Minister of
Transport in his speech in Thunder Bay on June 3, the federal
government subsidizes ferry services by approximately $160
million and ports and harbours by $100 million each and every
year.
I understand the hon. member's concerns about hidden
subsidies. Indirect subsidies account for almost $700 million
spent by the Department of Transport. One example of such a
service is the provision of navigational aids provided by the
coast guard.
In the coming months the government intends to review all
options for dealing with inefficient subsidies. Transport Canada
is in the midst of exploring possibilities for commercialization
of many activities that could be better achieved by other means.
The exercise will not be targeted at specific modes but rather
will attempt to eliminate existing distortions.
I can assure the hon. member that the Minister of Transport is
clearly aware of the situation in the rail industry and that the rail
sector will not be singled out. The objective is to provide
Canadians with an efficient, integrated, affordable
transportation system where the costs now imposed on
taxpayers are borne as equitably as possible by the users.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the
motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted.
The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.39 p.m.)