37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 021
CONTENTS
Monday, February 26, 2001
1100
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Immigration
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1105
| The Speaker |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-244. Second reading
|
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1125
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1130
1135
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1140
1145
| Mr. John Herron |
1150
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1155
1200
1205
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1210
| STANDING ORDERS
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1215
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
1300
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
1330
1335
| Amendment
|
1340
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1345
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| SAMUEL DE CHAMPLAIN
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1400
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| CURLING
|
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| CURLING
|
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Andy Savoy |
1405
| QUEBEC ATHLETES
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH
|
| Mr. Ovid Jackson |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| GALA DES JUTRA
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1410
| GALA DES JUTRA
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| CANADA LANDS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| BIG SISTERS' MONTH
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| GUN CONTROL
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1415
| CURLING
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1420
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1425
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1435
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1440
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
|
| Ms. Anita Neville |
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1445
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1450
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| NATIONAL FILM BOARD
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| THE SENATE
|
| Ms. Lynne Yelich |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Lynne Yelich |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
1455
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| LAKE SAINT-PIERRE
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. John Godfrey |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1500
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| CROWN LIABILITY AND PROCEEDINGS ACT
|
| Bill C-277. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-278. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| VIA RAIL COMMERCIALIZATION ACT
|
| Bill C-279. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| CANADA HEALTH ACT
|
| Bill C-280. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1510
| CANADA EVIDENCE ACT
|
| Bill C-281. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| HOMEOWNERS' FREEDOM FROM DOUBLE TAXATION ACT
|
| Bill C-282. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| ENERGY PRICE COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-283. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-284. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1515
| PETITIONS
|
| Children's Rights
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Addiction
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Child Poverty
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Divorce Act
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-11. Second reading
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1520
1525
1530
1535
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1540
1545
1550
1555
1600
1605
1610
1615
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1645
1650
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1655
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1700
1705
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1710
| Mr. John Herron |
1715
1720
1725
1730
| GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NO. 2
|
| Notice of Closure Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| IMMIGRATION ACT
|
| Bill C-11. Second reading
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1735
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1740
1745
1750
1755
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1800
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1805
1810
1815
1820
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1825
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1830
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Health
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1835
| Natural Resources
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1840
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1845
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 021
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 26, 2001
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1100
[Translation]
PRIVILEGE
IMMIGRATION
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House last
Friday due to a death in my family.
However, during Friday's sitting, I was the victim of false and
vicious attacks by certain members of the opposition. My
privileges as a member were breached, and, today, I would like
to set the facts straight clearly here in the House.
These members based their remarks on an article in Montreal's La
Presse, which was full of errors and insinuations. Paying no
attention to the categorical denial I had issued Friday morning,
certain opposition members not only repeated the falsehoods in
the article, but went even further. Let us review the facts.
Last May, a woman of Italian origin, unknown both to me and to
my staff, contacted my riding office with an enquiry about her
immigration file.
This action surprised no one, since I am the only Italian
speaking MP in Montreal, hundreds of people in greater Montreal
automatically contact my riding office concerning their
immigration files or other matters of concern to them.
The Government of Quebec had approved the woman's investor
immigrant application, and she wanted to know the status of the
federal portion of her file.
My assistant therefore followed the usual procedure and sent a
fax to client services at Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
I would point out that the fax was not sent to a specific
person, but to a service of the department.
The message's single paragraph read “Simply to find out the
status of the residence file”. How much more clearly could a
person indicate that this document was merely a simple request
for information without any form of support or reference?
1105
The memo continues with the following three questions “have the
audits come in?”—and I stress the question mark—, “And what
about the medical results?”—again with a question mark. The third
question was “Do you think the visas will be issued shortly?”
Here, again, there is a question mark.
That memo does not exert any kind of pressure whatsoever and
there is not the least bit of involvement in the decision. That
document was signed by my riding assistant.
The note is clear and to the point. It is similar in every
respect to the more than 40,000 such notes sent each year to
Citizenship and Immigration Canada by the members of this House.
In fact, I intend, with leave from the House, to table a copy of
that note at the end of my speech.
One wonders what motivates journalists, who obviously had a copy
of that note, but chose to write that I had personally sent a
letter, which was not the case, and insinuate, in a very
underhanded way, that I exerted pressure in that case.
The issue will be settled at another level, since I asked my
lawyers to order La Presse and the journalists involved to
withdraw these comments as soon as possible.
It is not the first time that I have been the target of such
underhanded attacks. Each time, an investigation was held and I
was cleared of all allegations.
In our work as members of parliament we cannot check in advance
the background of all those who call on our staff to follow up
on a federal issue. This means that we are all vulnerable. This
is why my staff follows very strict procedures to serve the
public diligently and effectively, without engaging in
favouritism or discrimination.
Still, given the behaviour of some opposition members and
journalists, it is easy to say, as a well known radio
commentator pointed out this morning, “If my name were Lapierre
or Arcand, this sort of thing would not happen”.
Obviously, I have no intention of leaving my ministerial
responsibilities, because, with regard to this issue, my staff
simply did its work and I am completely blameless.
In fact, I hope that opposition colleagues will withdraw their
allegations and apologize.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The hon. member has offered to table a document. I
wonder if he would also be willing to table all other documents
relating to this matter.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, this is the only
document I have and, as I said, I am ready to table it.
The Speaker: The document has been tabled. The
minister has given his statement as a question of privilege and
has raised a grievance. I believe the matter has now been dealt
with. The Chair will leave it at that.
It being 11.10 a.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) moved that
Bill C-244, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of
mechanics' tool expenses) be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am truly delighted to be able to rise
to debate this bill once again. I first introduced it in the
House in 1997, four years ago. It has been debated on at least
five days since then and I have spoken on it myself four or five
times.
In spite of that we have had no action from the government, but
I am quite confident that we will have after today's debate. I
believe it will go to committee at some time in the near future
and some action will be taken.
However, it will certainly require the continued efforts of
mechanics, technicians and others across the country to ensure
that this happens. It is not something we can take for granted.
1110
Since I introduced my bill four years ago and in fact in the two
months immediately following that, I received over 7,000 letters
from technicians and from people who owned businesses that did
mechanical repairs on vehicles and so on, from right across the
country, from British Columbia to Newfoundland. The support for
that bill was widespread indeed. Since the member from the Bloc
introduced the same bill just before the last election, we have
received over 70,000 postcards from right across the country. The
support for the bill is undeniable. I will talk about that
later.
The issue of the bill is that technicians and mechanics who, as
a condition of employment, are required to purchase tools and to
maintain a line of tools are not allowed to deduct for tax
purposes the cost of these tools. That is the issue.
It seems completely inconsistent when we have other groups of
people such as artists and others who are allowed to deduct from
their incomes the cost of the equipment they purchase to carry
out their occupations. It is also inconsistent when we see that
business people are allowed to claim these expenses as the cost
of doing business, whether they run the corner garage, a large
machinery dealership or a farm implement dealership. They are of
course allowed to claim all the costs of doing business and that
includes the cost of tools.
I guess the problem arises from the disappearance of tools. As
a farmer, I have done a lot of mechanical work and I have seen a
lot of tools disappear. That was okay until my kids were old
enough so that I could kind of point the finger of blame at them;
every time a tool disappeared I could say my kids walked away
with it, that it was not my own carelessness. The problem is
that with the kinds of conditions we work in, tools do disappear,
and if the tools are owned by the business owner, they probably
disappear a little more often, because someone is not quite
careful enough to collect them after finishing a motor job or
something else.
In some cases no doubt they are stolen, but in most cases it is
just a matter of carelessness. Sometimes they are left on a
vehicle and when it is taken out for a test drive or when farm
equipment is taken out to be tested or used again, the tools are
gone. It adds up to thousands of dollars. It is a serious cost.
For that reason, we have seen right across the country a common
requirement of employment that mechanics purchase their own
tools. That is a condition of employment, so there is the
problem. Business people do what makes sense, because they know
that technicians and mechanics will be a little more vigilant
when they are dealing with their own tools and when they have to
purchase out of their own pockets any tools lost. Yet in spite
of that, technicians and mechanics are just not allowed to claim
the cost for tax purposes.
That is the issue here and it is a serious one. Because of this
there is a shortage of mechanics and technicians right across the
country right now, with no indication that the shortage will be
reduced in any way. It is a serious problem.
What I want to do with the rest of my presentation today is to
demonstrate that there is broad support for this change and to
explain how it is an issue of tax fairness and how the finance
committee of the House, on different occasions, has indicated
that this is a change which should be made because it is an issue
of tax fairness.
I then want to close by talking a bit about the process to date
with the bill in the House, to explain to Canadians and to
technicians that it has been a long process, too long, I would
argue.
I want to carry on by talking about the support. I have already
referred to over 7,000 letters that I personally received from
technicians on this issue, and the 70,000 postcards. I know that
every member of parliament in the House has received letters and
phone calls from technicians about this piece of legislation. I
doubt that there is one who has not.
1115
When the bill was introduced by the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans and made
votable in the last parliament, it was widely supported by
members of every political party in the House, including the
governing party. There is support for the piece of legislation
in every way imaginable. There is no need to belabour the point.
The bill is about tax fairness. It is about giving mechanics
what is already available to certain other groups in society and
what is already available to the business people who hire
mechanics, if they choose to purchase tools for their use.
Clearly it is a matter of fairness.
I would like to quote from the December 1997 House of Commons
finance committee prebudget report which stated:
The Committee believes that all Canadian employees should be
allowed to deduct from their income the cost of large mandatory
employment expenses. Special provisions in the Income Tax Act
already apply to artists, chainsaw operators and musicians. To
deny this tax treatment to apprentices and technicians in the
automotive industry is not only unfair, it also imposes an
impediment to employment, especially for the young who might
choose to work as apprentices. Revising the tax treatment of
such expenses would remove the impediment that exists under the
present tax rules.
The finance committee was very clear, and it was repeated later
by the finance committee. The finance committee is controlled by
a majority of members from the governing side. They recognize
that this change should happen. I do not understand where the
resistance is coming from.
It is funny that the government only seems to act on a situation
of tax fairness when it means more revenue and when it means that
it can raise the taxes of a particular group in society. In this
case we are talking about lowering the tax load of technicians
and mechanics. Under those circumstances the government really
does not seem that keen to act at all. Sad as it is, that is the
situation.
I normally would quote from some of the people who have written
to me on this issue, but I want to leave some time to explain
what has happened with this piece of legislation in the House to
date. It is worth pointing out.
I first brought the bill forward in 1997. A couple of weeks ago
I found out that in 1992 a Liberal member when in opposition
brought forth a similar bill except that it had no specifics
attached to it. It was a general statement indicating that
mechanics or technicians should be allowed to deduct the cost of
purchasing tools. It had been put before the House in 1992. I
introduced it and debated it in the House in 1997. I debated it
when the Bloc MP had his name drawn and his bill was chosen. Only
the dollar value was changed somewhat in his piece of
legislation.
He indicated that tools which cost $225 or less should be fully
written off in the particular year for tax purposes and tools
above $225 should be claimed through capital cost allowance. The
figures were changed slightly, but that bill was debated a couple
of months before the last election and passed by the House. This
shows there is support for the legislation in the House. I do
not think we should have to argue the point anymore.
Here we are again with the bill before the House. This time it
is Bill C-244. The figures I have used in the bill are the same
ones I used when I first introduced and debated the bill in 1997.
Tools under $200 could be fully claimed in that year and tools
valued at $200 or more could be claimed through capital cost
allowance. Insurance and so on could be claimed as business
expenses. That is completely consistent with what happens with
farmers and other small businesses. My bill is completely
consistent with the Income Tax Act.
1120
I have chosen this bill on two occasions when my name has been
drawn. I do not understand why it has not been made votable.
Yet when the Bloc member introduced substantially the same bill,
in fact it was identical except the number was slightly changed,
it was made votable on two occasions. I cannot understand that.
Now is the time to deal with the piece of legislation. I know
my time is up, but I should like to close my presentation by
asking for unanimous consent of the House to refer the bill to
the finance committee.
Then we could deal with the issue in committee. It would not be
held up any longer. Finally we could end the government's
balking on the issue. We could have it put before the committee
to amend it or draft its own legislation so that it could be
carried forward on behalf of technicians and mechanics across the
country, and indeed on behalf of all of us who depend upon them
to keep us going, whether it is by air, by car or by rail.
We should act on it quickly so that they will be treated fairly
under the tax laws. I ask for unanimous consent for Bill C-244
to be referred to committee so that there will be no more
hesitation on this issue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent to send the bill directly to the finance committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Lakeland for his tenacity on this
bill. Of course another bill, which is almost exactly the same,
has been deemed votable and will be coming to the committee.
This private member's bill proposes changes to the Income Tax
Act to help mechanics defray the cost of providing their own
tools when it is a condition of employment. The changes would
allow mechanics to deduct the cost of buying, renting, insuring
or maintaining their tools.
An income tax deduction would be available for tools costing
less than $200. This amount may be adjusted according to
inflation. For larger amounts, the tool costs would be subject
to capital cost allowances and these allowances would be set by
regulation.
[Translation]
Canadian employers normally provide workers with the tools and
other resources they need to do their jobs. Even so, all
Canadian workers bear some job related costs. Whether these are
the costs of getting to and from work, the costs of uniforms or
other work clothes, the costs of eating away from home, or the
costs of keeping up with trade journals. These costs are
something that all Canadians incur when they take a job.
[English]
These normal work related expenditures are recognized in the tax
system through the basic personal amount. The government
increased this amount substantially since the elimination of the
deficit.
I am pleased to remind members that the 1998 and 1999 budgets
increased the basic personal amount by $675. Budget 2000 went
even further with measures to ensure that the tax free amount
would be more than $1,500 higher in 2004 than in 1997. More tax
free income helps low income workers offset normal employment
expenses.
The bill before the House aims to recognize that employed
mechanics face exceptional work related costs. The Government of
Canada understands that the costs can sometimes be a significant
burden, particularly at the start of a career.
Last summer, for example, a Nova Scotia newspaper reported the
case of a young apprentice mechanic. He was earning $18,000 a
year working in a garage service station. He had invested some
$10,000 in his tools. On top of that he said he had to pay
insurance costs, another $100 per $1,000 of tools. For him that
was another $1,000 per year. I think all members would
appreciate that is a large amount for one making only $18,000 a
year.
I expect this young man also had other bills to pay like
groceries, heat, rent, et cetera. Clearly the costs that this
young man incurred were worth it to him. The tools he purchased
will serve him for years to come.
1125
Surely these costs were a big financial burden as well. Upfront
costs should not be a barrier to an individual's ability to enter
an occupation which at least in the longer term could provide a
living income.
[Translation]
In short, the government understands the difficult issue
that this bill is trying to address. We can support the
principle that underlies. it, but I must nevertheless point out
that this specific bill in many ways does not adequately address
the issue.
[English]
Allow me to explain. The bill would allow mechanics to deduct
even small expenditures related to their tools. As I said
earlier, most Canadian workers have specific job related costs
that they need to cover out of pocket. What about carpenters,
for example, or computer operators?
I remind members that the tax system provides some recognition
with to the basic personal amount. Instead of just covering the
exceptional tool expenses that a mechanic might incur, the bill
would give mechanics preferential tax treatment on normal work
related expenditures. It would simply be unfair to other tax
paying Canadian workers. If tax relief is provided for specific
groups, it should be limited to extraordinarily high
expenditures.
The bill also opens the door to other inequities. For example,
it does not adequately ensure that tax relief is provided only
for items genuinely required as a condition of employment.
Employers should have to certify that the expenditures are a
condition of employment. Further, the principle of fairness
would dictate that the tax benefit should be adjusted when tools
purchased for work are subsequently used for other purposes or
when tools are sold, for example. There is no provision in the
private member's bill to ensure that this takes place.
[Translation]
Finally, I would briefly note that this bill creates unnecessary
administrative complexities. Instead of using the existing
regime for capital expenditures, the current capital cost
allowance regime, this bill would set up a parallel system for
employed mechanics. This is not warranted since the existing
capital cost allowances would achieve essentially the same
results as the private member's bill.
[English]
The very substantial employment expenses incurred by some
employed mechanics are certainly a concern. There is merit in
the idea behind the private member's bill. The lack of tax
recognition for exceptionally high work related expenses should
not be a barrier that prevents people from participating in the
economy.
I trust as well members agree that the bill would create
inequities and unfairness in the tax system. That is why much
more work and thinking is needed to develop a workable solution
to this important matter.
As the government examines the issue it intends to work with
representatives of the automotive industry, particularly with
respect to the challenges faced by apprentices, to find a way to
address the shortcomings in the private member's bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to speak to Bill C-244 introduced by the Canadian Alliance
member for Lakeland, particularly in view of the fact that a
member of the Bloc examined this issue for a long time and had
previously introduced almost exactly the same bill.
We will have another opportunity in this 37th parliament to
consider the Bloc Quebecois bill introduced by the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré, since his bill deals with the
same subject, except that the Canadian Alliance deduction is set
at $200 compared to $250 for the Bloc. But the real difference
is the fact that the bill introduced by the Bloc Quebecois
member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans will be
votable.
The House will be allowed to vote on this tax deduction which is
a rather important issue for the low and medium wage workers.
These people are not rolling in money.
1130
Actually, I might even look a bit surprised after what I have
just heard from the government, since as a result of the work of
the Bloc member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, members have
already voted on a similar bill to grant a $250 tax deduction
when buying tools, insurance or anything else pertaining to this
kind of work.
Except maybe for a few members on the front benches, the
Liberals had for the most part voted in favour of the bill. If I
remember well, I think the House voted for the bill 180 to 11.
An hon. member: Even some ministers voted for it.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: As one of my colleagues points out, some
of the Liberal ministers even voted for that bill.
I call on the member to read the notes again and look at what
the government has done, since that is very important for those
workers. He said that this would create inequities. For my part,
I say that the system as it exists now is already creating
inequities for them. We should check again.
I call on the member to look at what has been done, not only
during the 36th parliament but also during the 35th, the 34th
and the 33rd parliaments. Liberal members, who at that time were
sitting in the opposition, brought in a bill almost identical to
the one we are discussing today and to the one we will be
discussing another day, the bill presented by the Bloc
Quebecois.
It is a bill that is approved unanimously in the various
parties, since the Liberals had introduced a similar bill when
they were sitting in the opposition. The Canadian Alliance is
introducing a similar bill, the NDP has already introduced one
and so has the Progressive Conservative Party. I find it strange
that as soon as a party moves across to the other side, it
forgets legislation it had introduced previously.
In all honesty, I call on the member to reread the speeches the
Liberals made on this issue. He will see that there are indeed
inequities for these workers and that we have to deal with these
inequities, something that ultimately could be done quite
easily.
We do not need a royal commission to study whether mechanics
should be allowed a $250 credit. We do not need to study the
issue for years, for that has already been done.
This issue has been on the table for at least 15 years in the
House of Commons, but a party, once it is in office, never
thinks about these workers who are doing an extremely important
job in a society such as ours, a consumer society.
Who in the House does not have a vehicle? Who in this House
does not use a vehicle for work? It is very important to have
good mechanics. It is extremely important to have mechanics who
are at the cutting edge of the whole mechanics industry. Today,
auto parts are quite different from what they were 20 years ago.
Tools bought by mechanics are not screwdrivers from the dollar
store. They are very expensive equipment.
I am convinced that, during the last election campaign, the
government member listened carefully to all these technicians
who told him that these tools are now costing a fortune.
Yes, these people have a passion for mechanics. Yes, they do
this job because they love it and because it is gratifying in
many cases.
We must also think about the next generation. When a young
person gets out of school and has to buy $5,000, $10,000 or
$15,000 worth of tools—it could be as much as $20,000 to $25,000,
depending on the specialty—because he needs these tools to get a
job, he should at least be allowed to deduct a certain amount.
What I have heard this morning from the government members is
that they do not understand or do not want to understand.
1135
I understand. At one time, the Liberals were ready to help big
sports clubs, and sports millionaires. For these people, they
could afford millions. Luckily enough, the opposition could stop
them and bring them back to their senses, but they were quite
ready to help the sports millionaires.
When it comes to mechanics and ordinary workers, it is
another story. These people who earn their living honestly are
not millionaires. Their working conditions are sometimes quite
difficult. I would not like to be a mechanic right now, making
oil changes and repairing cars that have been riding on our
roads in Quebec and Canada. In the summertime, their working
environment can be very hot.
Everybody knows the working conditions of mechanics. These
workers are very useful to the economy in Quebec and Canada. The
government should be a little more sensitive to their needs, and
more consistent in its approach.
Earlier, the hon. member said that this would create a degree of
unfairness in the system. But the system is already unfair. How
can you explain that to mechanics? During the last campaign, I
had to discuss this issue with them. How can you explain to them
that they cannot have a deduction, when their boss, who demands
that they have their own tools to work, can claim depreciation
for his own tools, just because he has a company. It is hard to
explain.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The hon. member does not like to hear
the truth. It is always unpleasant to hear things you do not
want to hear.
How do you explain that a mechanic cannot deduct the cost of his
tools while a forest worker can deduct the cost of his
chainsaws? Forest workers can claim deductions for their tools.
Musicians can also deduct the cost of some of their instruments.
I am not saying they should not do so, it is normal for them to
do so because they use their instruments to earn their living
just like a mechanic uses his tools to make a living. Without
tools, he cannot work. If he does not work, he does not earn any
money; if he does not work, he does not pay any taxes.
How do you explain the situation to mechanics? I tried during
the last election campaign, but I could not do it.
I only promised them that, at the very first opportunity, the
member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Îles-d'Orléans would
reintroduce a bill so that finally the government and the House
of Commons would be able to vote on these very important tax
deductions.
Fortunately for us, the highly competent member of the Bloc
Quebecois promptly introduced this bill. He argued his case and
the House will vote on the bill. Until then, I hope government
members will listen to our concerns, show some compassion and
vote in favour of this bill, as a vast majority of members did
in the 36th parliament, so that mechanics in Quebec and in
Canada will be able to deduct the cost of part of the insurance
coverage and the tools they need to practice their trade.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too
begin by thanking the member for Lakeland for allowing us the
opportunity to debate this important issue once again.
As previous speakers have pointed out, it is an issue of great
interest right across the country, and certainly in the House,
proven by the fact that every political party currently sitting
in the House has introduced this issue. Even the Liberal Party,
when it was in opposition, saw fit to try to get some relief for
ordinary working people when it came to the high cost of tools
needed to do their jobs and earn their livings.
I differ with the hon. parliamentary secretary. This is an
issue of tax fairness. This would not exacerbate any unfairness
in the tax system. It would give some relief and recognition.
Working people also deserve the ability to ply their trade and
not be hampered by the unbelievably high cost of a working
person's tools.
1140
The bill specifically cites mechanics. There is good reason for
this because there are probably the most glaring examples of
difficulties in this area. An apprentice mechanic has to put
together a tool kit costing anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000
worth of expensive tools. A mechanic's job gets more complex and
technical with diagnostic equipment. It is no longer tuning up
an old six cylinder in-line six with a simple set of tools. It
is very complex and very technical. We do not recognize that.
The real frustration for me is the government's unwillingness to
recognize working people in this way. This fuels the whole blue
collar stigma that blue collar work and trades are not valued by
the government. Therefore, it is even more difficult to attract
and retain young people in the industry. There is evidence of
that.
I am a journeyman carpenter and the average age of a carpenter
today is 49 years old. We cannot attract young people to the
trade. In part it is because of this overwhelming feeling that
their jobs are not valuable. Only the high-tech jobs appear
sexy. People feel they should be going into the B.A. program
even if their skill set would point them in the direction of
being a skilled trades person.
The root of the problem of who gets to deduct their expenses can
be found in the definition of the independent contractor. What
is a truly independent contractor as opposed to an employee? If
a mechanic hangs out his or her shingle as an independent
entrepreneur, the person can deduct everything from the space
rented, to the tools purchased, to the depreciation on those
tools and even the truck he or she drives. All those things are
tax write-offs because he or she is now a small business person.
The industry has taken advantage of this. Mechanics are
different from the average hourly paid employee in most shops.
They are actually paid by piece work. They are not paid by the
hour anymore, they are paid per job. If it takes 2.1 hours of
labour to do a head job on a Honda Civic, that is what they get
paid whether they take three hours or one and a half hours to do
it. In that sense they differ from the traditional relationship
of employer and employee. They are independent to some degree.
This is not recognized in the tax system which is one of the
basic problems. Other workers in the country also suffer from
the same ambiguity in the definition of what an independent
contractor is.
I remind the House of the plight of the rural route mail
couriers who find themselves in the same situation. They are
actually wholly dependent on one source for their income but they
are not categorized as employees. As such, the rural route mail
couriers get it from both ends. These individuals are dependent,
not independent, but they do not get any of the advantages of
being employees.
This basic tax unfairness helps to fuel the whole skill shortage
problem faced in all of the skill trades. This is because we do
not recognize how very difficult it is for apprentice mechanics
to rack up what is really a small business loan, up to $20,000,
just so they can start plying their trade.
We might say that most trades people make more money than the
average industrial worker and that higher wage offsets the
additional costs they must go through to be able to practise
their trade. That really is not true. If a survey was done on
what a mechanic makes, the amount would be anywhere from $15.00
to $21.00 per hour. There are people working in pulp mills with
none of the risk factor or the additional costs of buying their
own tools who make more than that. The compensation package is
not offsetting the additional expenses they have in setting up
shop.
One of the most galling things in hearing the Liberal government
refusing to entertain this very modest tax relief idea is that it
just spent $100 billion in tax relief in its last announcement.
The government plans to give tax relief right across the country
in the figure of $100 billion, some of which is to corporations.
The corporate tax rate will go down from 17% to 16%, which is a
huge benefit to the corporate sector. Capital gains taxes will
be reduced for high income earners. Do not tell me there are
some high income earners here who applaud that. There are a lot
of mechanics who do not find any comfort in that whatsoever.
Do not tell me that the bureaucrats who put together the tax
relief package were not aware that this was a pressing national
issue. They were reminded every year in the House of Commons by
every political party that this was pressing.
1145
The member for Lakeland pointed out that he had some 70,000
pieces of correspondence, not just from employees but from
employers in the industry, who are very concerned that their
inability to attract young people into the industry is affected
by the lack of recognition that skilled trade gets from this
government.
Hearing the Liberal Party talk about apprenticeship in the
Speech from the Throne and then failing to recognize one of the
most pressing problems that apprentices face today by failing to
introduce any tax relief for working people when it had the
opportunity to do so, tells me that it is really just lip
service. The Liberals are not really seized of the issue of
those blue collar trades, the apprenticeship industries. They
are more concerned with the high tech field or providing tax
relief to corporations so that something will trickle down to
ordinary working people.
This is an issue which has been raised to virtually every member
of parliament in the House. I doubt there is a person here that
has not had some communication from a mechanic, a carpenter or an
industrial electrician who has to shell out a great deal of money
just to ply their trade, so they can get up in the morning, go to
work and do what they are trained to do. They do not get any of
the recognition that even a small businessman or an entrepreneur
might get if they went into business on their own.
There is another issue of tax fairness or tax unfairness that
working people face. As a journeyman carpenter, many times I had
to cross the country looking for work. I had to go where the
work was. I had to throw my tools into the back of my pickup and
then drive from B.C. to Thunder Bay to look for a job. None of
that can be written off. If I was going to a job and was
actually hired at the other end with the proof that I had a job,
I could write off my moving expenses. If I showed enough
initiative to look for work and kept travelling until I found a
job, none of that can be written off. This is another example of
how we are overlooking a whole sector of the population who make
their living by their skills, who have to go where the work is
and who are not being recognized by the government.
The final piece of evidence that I would offer to show that the
government does not really care about apprenticeship, the skilled
trades or even the industries that employ skilled trades people,
is the EI treatment of apprentices. When I went to trade school,
after I had left my job to go to the community college component
of my schooling, EI kicked in immediately. There was no
interruption. I have income maintenance to survive that six week
period.
That was one of the changes made in 1996. Now when apprentices
leave their job to go to a community college they have a two week
waiting period as if they were unemployed. They not unemployed.
They are just doing the learning component of their
apprenticeship. The government has been reminded of that
oversight time and time again. Now it has put forward amendments
to the EI bill and it has chosen not to address the issue that
faces apprentices, the one single issue that has been brought to
its attention by the building trades council.
My compliments to the member from Lakeland for letting us have
the opportunity to debate this again. It is a shame the Liberal
government does not see fit to meet the needs of industry by
addressing this pressing concern.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
standing in today on behalf of our finance critic, the hon.
member from Kings—Hants, who has spoken on previous occasions in
the House in support of this particular initiative.
I compliment the member for Lakeland for bringing this issue
forth and joining almost a chorus of parliamentarians who have
been in support of this particular initiative.
Upon the first look at a deduction of this sort, there is
something that I and I know the Progressive Conservative Party
categorically believes in, and that is that the our tax code is
far too complicated on a broad based perspective.
Having said that, I am very reticent to say that we will have
the broad based tax relief that this country requires in order to
maintain our capacity to be competitive. I do not think we will
see that from this government in the near future, in any way,
shape or form. The minimum that we owe the mechanics and the
people in this particular sector is to accept the recommendations
that were brought forth by the member for Lakeland and by other
members of parliament in the House.
1150
There are at least 115,000 mechanics working and paying taxes in
Canada, mechanics who make a very significant contribution to our
economy but who have to make a very significant initial cost to
enter this particular trade. I know a lot of Canadians would be
alarmed or shocked to know that in order to even gain entry into
this particular field a Canadian has to spend from $15,000 to as
much as $40,000 in order to acquire the necessary tools to
participate in these particular trades.
The member from the New Democrats who spoke just a few moments
ago pointed out that we have a massive demographic shift taking
place in a lot of the trades, whether it is in carpentry,
mechanics, welding or other trades. They are not attracting the
numbers of young people that they should. One of the reasons
right now is that the startup costs are quite prohibitive for
them to be able to make this particular investment.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, I
would support the initiative from the member for Lakeland. This
initiative was brought forth by the finance committee, not just
once in 1996 but on a second occasion in 1997. Although an
argument can be made that this does complicate the tax code, it
would also bring forth meaningful tax relief to individuals who
are in those particular trades, which is a necessary component of
our labour sector.
We support this initiative as we would all broad based tax
relief. The Government of Canada still does not understand that
currently we have the second highest personal income taxes among
all G7 nations as a percentage of our economy. It should
recognize the fact that our trading partners are making massive
leaps. It should be providing Canadians with the broad based tax
relief that we need to maintain our position in the world. It
believes that its initiatives with respect to tax reductions that
were made in the mini budget this past September were initiatives
that addressed this concern.
While the rest of the countries in the OECD are taking massive
steps in terms of tax reduction, the Government of Canada, the
Liberal Party of Canada, is taking baby steps. The result is
that Canada is falling farther behind and losing its place as a
competitive nation.
We need to ensure that we provide the broad based tax relief
that we categorically need. We know that the Government of
Canada is not providing that particular tool to our economy as it
should be doing. We know we are probably heading into an
economic slowdown of some nature, the magnitude of which is still
to be determined.
I also take this opportunity to challenge the government. If we
are on the eve of any form a slowdown, we need to send the right
signal to the investment community that Canada is a place in
which to grow, to profit and to invest. I also want say to the
Minister of Finance that not only should he be supporting the
member for Lakeland's position on this particular initiative but
it is almost unprecedented for the Government of Canada not to be
tabling a true budget on schedule as it is supposed to do.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to support this private member's bill. It is an
issue that has come up in my riding over and over again. There
are a number of people in my riding who actually work in machine
shops, car dealerships and other places where this issue of
deductibility of the cost of their tools is a very real item.
1155
It has been mentioned here today that this issue has been before
the House on a number of occasions. I will not digress long, but
I will take the risk for 30 seconds or so to say that this is an
issue that underlines the ineffectiveness of parliament.
This is an issue that has come up over and over again in the
seven years that I have been here and it has been spoken in
favour of by members from all parties. Even the Liberals spoke
in favour of the bill when they were in opposition. The issue
deals with basic fairness to a sector of Canadians who right now
are being unfairly treated by the Income Tax Act. However, for
some reason when the people on this side get to the other side,
as happened in 1993, I do not know what happens. Is there a
machine half way across the aisle that performs a frontal
lobotomy on these people so that when they get over there they
can no longer think for themselves nor speak for themselves?
I do not want to offend them so I will not go that way. I just
want to appeal to them. We are backbench members and this is
private members' business. The issue will be up before the House
again and again until it is finally corrected. Perhaps these
members now on the other side could be in the forefront of
leadership, on behalf of mechanics in Canada who are being
unfairly treated, and perhaps vote in favour of the bill when it
comes to a vote.
My hon. colleague from Lakeland brought the issue before the
House shortly after the 1993 election. At that time I remember
speaking to people in my riding. A number of my constituents
work at Petersen Pontiac Buick, a major dealership in Sherwood
Park. I do not think they are related to the hon. member
opposite who perks up at the sound of his name. It is certainly
a good dealership. The mechanics who work at Petersen Pontiac
are required to have their own tools.
At issue here is that it is just good business sense for each
mechanic to have his or her own tools because when one owns one's
own tools one pays closer attention to one's security.
I have done my own mechanical work for many years. On Saturday
I always like to get underneath my car and get my hands dirty
changing the oil and doing some other work. It has happened to
me, as meticulous as I am, that I have occasionally lost one of
the tools I was working with and I had to replace it. I am not a
professional mechanic so I go out with after tax dollars and
replace it. However, the mechanic who is making his living with
these tools has no choice as to whether or not to replace it. He
or she must buy a replacement with after tax dollars.
There is another important issue here. We have to recognize the
importance to our country of this sector. We are so dependent
upon mechanical devices, such as automobiles, buses and trucks,
for our transportation, not only for getting ourselves from place
to place but also for the goods and services that we produce in
Canada. If it were not for mechanics and a very healthy number
of people in that trade we would be in trouble. We need to have
an adequate supply of personnel. Frankly, I believe they are
being discouraged from entering this profession because of the
immense high cost involved.
When most mechanics graduate from their training at the
apprentice level, and even as they are being trained, they have
to acquire these tools and pay for them with after tax dollars,
which is grossly unfair. Every other profession is permitted to
deduct the cost of their equipment from the bottom line. A
mechanic working as an employee is not permitted to do that.
1200
The parliamentary secretary has said that the government is
concerned about this because it will open up the floodgates and
make the tax code very complicated. Well it is complicated
already.
I do not think this little amendment will make anyone unhappy
but it will make a lot of mechanics very happy. Members on the
other side claim this is a matter of fairness and that therefore
they will deny it to mechanics because they are denying it to
other groups. We all know there are some groups that have these
deductibilities. For example, musicians and artists make their
living from their trades. They use tools. In a way we could
call a violin a tool of the trade. That is deductible and it
should be.
I do not understand by what reasoning one can then conclude that
a mechanic who is required to have tools should spend his after
tax dollars.
I will give a math lesson. We have a tendency when we talk
about taxation to talk about the percentage rates. It is well
known that in most provinces the marginal tax rate is around 50%
if we add federal and provincial taxes together. Since that is
taxable, and with the present tax agreements between the
provinces and the federal government, any tax incurred federally
is automatically also a provincial tax.
From the consumer's point of view and from the mechanic's point
of view they now have a bill to pay which, if they earn some
money to buy a product, they will spend 50% of what they earn on
taxes. I will give a numeric example of what that means. Let
us say the individual needs to buy $1,000 worth of tools. The
person must earn $2,000 in order to pay for them because after
the marginal tax rate of 50% he or she is left with $1,000.
Our mistake is that we measure that as a percentage of the money
earned. When we pay the GST it is a percentage of the product we
are buying. If we look at this as a percentage of the product
the mechanic is buying, it is a taxation rate of 100%. To buy
$1,000 worth of tools the mechanic had to pay $1,000 worth of
taxes, which is a 100% tax rate. It is very discriminatory. I
urge all members to vote in favour of this motion when it comes
again to the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Pursuant to Standing
Order 95(2) the mover of the motion, the hon. member for
Lakeland, has five minutes to reply.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by
thanking not only my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance but also
the members of all other political parties for giving resounding
support for the legislation, with the exception of the governing
party.
I listened to the parliamentary secretary, puppet to the finance
minister. It is interesting that almost all members of the
governing party voted in favour of the legislation just before
the election. There were 11 ministers, if I am not mistaken, who
voted against it. Some ministers supported the bill before the
election. Of course now it is a different ball game.
That is how the governing party views democracy. It is wrong
and improper. It is undemocratic and unacceptable.
The parliamentary secretary to the finance minister stood up
today and gave a speech, probably prepared by the finance
minister—and a sad speech it was—arguing against the bill on
the grounds that a personal exemption was already in place to
cover those things. He said that the bill would create inequity
in the Income Tax Act. He also said that it would allow
mechanics to deduct even small costs. He went on to say that
tools may be used for non-work purposes. In other words, he was
saying that mechanics would cheat and claim tools that were being
used for personal use.
1205
I will respond to some of the things the parliamentary secretary
has stated. Regarding his statement on personal exemptions, a
personal exemption is not there to cover things like this.
Employees who do not have to buy anything as a condition of
employment, which is most employees, get the personal exemption.
Every employee gets the personal exemption. It is a nonsensical
argument, and I cannot believe that the parliamentary secretary
came up with it.
The Canadian Alliance has been campaigning on increasing
personal exemptions some $3,000 more than the government and
$4,000 more in the case of spousal exemption. The government has
been very weak on that, but it has nothing to do with the issue.
It is an important issue, something the Canadian Alliance feels
is important, to increase personal exemptions, but the government
is not doing that at any meaningful rate. It has nothing at all
to do with the issue, so I cannot understand the parliamentary
secretary.
He went on to say that the bill would create inequity. I would
like the parliamentary secretary to think about that comment.
When mechanics or technicians choose to work on their own they
can claim all the costs. They can claim the cost of the tools
they buy and any other costs related to the business. However,
if they work as an employee, maybe in the same shop, even if it
is a condition of employment that they purchase their own tools
they are not allowed to deduct the cost. How is the bill leading
to more inequity? It is leading to equity and fairness under
the tax act. That was another absolutely ill conceived answer.
The parliamentary secretary argued against allowing mechanics to
deduct small costs. What is wrong with that? Mechanics use a
lot of things that as individual items do not cost a lot, but
they add up to thousands and thousands of dollars. That is
exactly what the bill is intended to deal with. What is wrong
with that?
He went on to say that tools may be used for non-work issues.
That is the case in every area of the tax act. If someone is
prone to cheating, and I guess the parliamentary secretary
believes that perhaps all taxpayers are cheats and we should
watch against that, of course they could be used for personal
use. However, most technicians are honest, hard working people
and they should be respected for that. It is disgusting for the
parliamentary secretary to indicate otherwise. I think that is
completely unacceptable.
What will happen with the bill in the House? Before the
election almost all government members, along with all members of
the opposition, voted in favour of the same bill. However now
the parliamentary secretary is saying something entirely
different.
I wonder if backbench members of the governing party will vote
against the bill this time, now that the election is over. I
really wonder. I cannot believe they would do that, but they did
vote against their red book promise, a promise taken from the red
book and put forward as a motion from the official opposition.
They voted against that, so who knows what they will do? They
may well vote against the bill. That would be very unfortunate.
What about tax fairness for technicians and mechanics who as a
condition of employment must buy their own tools? They have to
pay for $15,000 to $70,000 worth of tools with before tax
dollars. It is unfair. This is an issue of fairness. Let the
government bring the issue forward as soon as possible.
I ask now for unanimous consent of the House to make the bill
votable.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the bill be
votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not
been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the
order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1210
[English]
STANDING ORDERS
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That section (5) of Standing Order 76 and section (5) of Standing
Order 76.1 be amended by adding at the conclusion of the notes
thereto the following:
For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a
motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or
vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to
prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage and, in
exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided
by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United
Kingdom.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
speak to the motion before us.
[Translation]
The purpose of this motion is straightforward. It is to
reconfirm the authority of the Speaker to select motions for
debate and, of course, for voting, at the report stage in the
manner that was intended when our present legislative procedures
were adopted some 32 years ago.
In my discussions with other House leaders, we have canvassed a
wide variety of options that might be followed in the interest
of making the report stage a more effective part of the
legislative process.
These included possible changes to the committee stage and to
the time allocation rules, as well as changes to report stage
rules.
But it became clear to me that such an approach more properly
should be considered in the context of House of Commons
modernization and that, today, we should simply confine
ourselves to restating, as it were, the authority which the
Speaker has always possessed or exercised in the 32 years we
have had this procedure.
This left us today with a single issue, but a very confined one,
that had become a problem for the House in recent years and I
was convinced by some of my honourable friends opposite that I
should confine my initiative to addressing that single point,
which is what I am going to do.
[English]
In recent years successive Speakers have felt progressively less
and less justified in exercising their authority, with the
consequence that the report stage has been rendered vulnerable to
unsatisfactory and, shall I say, clearly unintended uses.
[Translation]
In December, 1999, the House was obliged to spend 42 consecutive
hours voting on 469 report stage motions, most of which were
concocted for the sole purpose of delaying the House. Changing
commas to semicolons, and attempting to obstruct the
parliamentary process has nothing at all to do with democracy.
That is not democracy; it is the opposite. And all members know
it.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That is what democracy is.
Hon. Don Boudria: The one doing the heckling ought to know. In
March, 2000, there was a similar exercise. The House had to
vote for 36 consecutive hours on 411 motions.
Worse, in December, 2000, the House faced the prospect of having
to deal with 3,133 motions, which would, in theory, have taken
more than two weeks of non-stop sittings to be voted upon.
What a member decided to do in September, 2000, was to latch
onto a sort of personal veto over the 300 other members of the
House, since it is, of course, all but impossible to vote on
3,133 motions, unless we were to sit for months on end solely to
deal with report stage of one bill.
We can no more claim that democracy is improved by such an
action than we can claim that heckling in the House today
contributes in any useful way to democracy.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Well, no, this is a dictatorship.
Hon. Don Boudria: It is clear that the Standing Orders were
never intended to pave the way for such shenanigans. And we all
know it.
1215
What is more, I and a parliamentarian from another party visited
Great Britain's parliament, on whose procedures we modelled this
standing order 32 years ago. There, I saw how this legislative
procedure worked. It was plain that it was never intended to
obstruct the parliamentary process.
[English]
In December 1968, the report stage procedures were adopted by
the House. I am being reminded by members that perhaps what we
have done here is more important than from where we got the rule,
which was in the U.K. Okay, then, let us limit ourselves to what
was done here when we adopted the rule in December 1968. The
then chairman of the House procedure committee, which is what it
was called then, proposed these rules. He said when he put them
into place—these are his words, not mine—that his “description
of the legislative process substantially applies to the
proceedings of the United Kingdom parliament”.
In other words, when the rule was put in place in 1968, the
chair of the procedure committee recognized that he went to the
U.K., received the rule there and applied it to the Canadian
parliament.
In the same debate, the acknowledged master parliamentary
philosopher of the time and another member of the Special
Committee on Procedures of the House—and I am sure my hon.
friend from Winnipeg will want to speak of this—the late Stanley
Knowles spoke about how this rule should apply. He said:
Generally speaking, however, the whole tenure of our
recommendations has been to try to eliminate duplication of
debate and to facilitate the possibility of the nation's business
getting before parliament and being dealt with.
The Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Trudeau, said with respect to
report stage:
The new power to be given to the Speaker to permit him to marshal
proposed amendments and to select those that best permit the
House to express its views will help to focus and to improve
debate.
If adopted, this will be one of the first instances in which the
House has made use of the Speaker's new status in order to
improve its own procedures.
Those were the words of Prime Minister Trudeau when we put that
rule in place in 1968.
I have just enumerated three sources: one, the chair of the
committee that put that rule in place; two, an opposition member
and very eloquent spokesman, the late Stanley Knowles; and of
course, the former Prime Minister, the late Right Hon. Pierre
Elliott Trudeau.
It is clear to me that the framers of the report stage rules
want this to be very clear. Here I draw attention to the words
of former Speaker Marcel Lambert, a former Conservative member of
parliament as well, who said:
Your Honour will have the task of marshalling these amendments
and frankly, with the greatest respect, I do not envy you your
task.
That is what Marcel Lambert, a former Speaker himself prior to
that time, said. I believe he was Speaker around 1962, during
the Diefenbaker years.
What Mr. Lambert was saying was that you, Mr. Speaker, will have
a hard job of selecting through these amendments, ensuring that
only the proper ones will be votable and so on. That was what a
Conservative member of parliament said.
Thus we see that at the time the report stage procedures were
adopted in Canada, it was clearly anticipated that the Speaker
would exercise the very broad powers of selection that are
exercised in the United Kingdom.
Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice discusses the power
of selection on page 466 of its twentieth edition. Here is what
it says:
Selection is made by the Chair in such a way as to bring out the
salient points of criticism, to prevent repetition and
overlapping, and, where several amendments deal with the same
point, to choose the more effective and better drafted.
1220
It is the same point.
Experience has shown that, in most cases, the discretion
conferred on the Chair to select the amendments which may be
moved is the best method of securing reasonable opportunities for
all varieties of opinion.
That is what was said by Erskine May. The book is on our table
in front of us as a reference manual, so I am not exactly
inventing new parliamentary law here. It was clearly the
intention of the designers of the Canadian report stage that
detailed legislative work would be done in committee, that the
great majority of amendments would be disposed of in committee
and that the report stage would be confined to amendments that
could not have been moved in committee or that enabled the House
to address major points of criticism.
As Marleau and Montpetit, or M and M, as we sometimes refer to
it now, indicates at page 663, the designers of this process
intended that all members, not just those on the committee,
should have the opportunity to propose suitable amendments, but
the intent was not for this stage to become a repetition of
committee stage. That is not Erskine May this time. This is
our book, Marleau and Montpetit.
Over time, Speakers ceased to exercise that authority—I will
not be challenging how Speakers have administered it, as these
things happen—with each successive Speaker being less assertive
than his or her predecessor. As a consequence, the report stage
of bills took on what I would call an exaggerated place in the
process at the expense of other stages.
In 1985 the reform of the House of Commons special committee,
the McGrath committee—there is one member of that committee
serving in the House and he will probably speak later—urged that
the Speaker exercise the power to select, but the only practical
consequence was that amendments that had been defeated in
committee were routinely not selected at report stage. The
member was a prominent member of that committee, as I have said,
and is very much a prominent member of the House today and a very
respected member as well.
As a consequence, the practice arose whereby members
simply did not propose their amendments in committee at all,
reserving them instead for report stage. This is only one of the
problems. This further diminished the committee stage and
exacerbated the already inflated role of report stage.
It gets worse. It was not long before the usual operations of
report stage began to be employed for purposes for which they
were never intended, rendering the process not merely one that is
exceedingly unpleasant for members but also one that brings the
House into what I will call public disrepute. I do not think
Canadians watching us vote 24 hours a day 3 days in a row on
changing commas to semicolons can be impressed by our collective
behaviour.
We have seen before that when someone in the House stumbles upon
a dysfunctional method of asserting political disagreement, it
may start as the nuclear weapon of the parliamentary arsenal: we
use it the first time because it is the greatest and most
important issue ever to have hit the legislature, but in not too
long a period of time it becomes the sine qua non of
parliamentary opposition. In other words, we use it the first
time because it is earth shattering, the second time we use it
because it is very important, and the third time we have to use
it, otherwise we are not serious at all. This is a little bit
like the bell ringing incident.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Just like time allocation.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly talk about
time allocation at some other point, because in fact if we go
back to the U.K. House, every bill is time allocated to one day,
as we know, and yes, there is discretion for the Speaker to add
an hour at the end of the day if the debate has not been long
enough.
As I said earlier, in my discussions with other House leaders it
has become clear that there is a broad range of issues with
regard to the legislative process. I want to engage my
colleagues and other parties toward all of that.
1225
It is not what we are doing today. Today we are only repairing
something that is broken in the rule in order to make parliament
function.
We had a case during debate on the Young Offenders Act in the
last parliament where there were hundreds of amendments only to
change the implementation date of the bill. Remembering what we
said, what the authors of the particular parliamentary reform 32
years ago wanted this procedure to do, clearly no one had in mind
that we would have 3,133 amendments to a bill. No one ever had
in mind that it was to be used for repetitive report stage
amendments to change an implementation date. Certainly no one
ever designed this system to permit one MP to have a veto over
the legislative process.
If that were what the authors had in mind, why would they have
done it? Why would they, in their wisdom in 1968, have brought
in a procedure so that every member who did not like a bill and
was creative enough to produce sufficient numbers of amendments
could stop parliament from dealing with the legislation? Let us
get serious. Nobody ever wanted the procedure to do that.
Perhaps there are other things that can be done to report stage.
Perhaps there are other improvements or changes. If so, they
should be done at another time because that would constitute a
form of parliamentary reform I would like to discuss with other
parties, but that is a different issue and that is why this
motion does not do that.
I must say I would have liked it to have done other things at
the same time. I have had conversations with others. I will not
describe the nature of each one of those because I never divulge
the content of a House leaders' meeting. I will not, not here or
anywhere else. Sometimes to my peril I have not made public what
has happened with other House leaders, but I think it is the only
reason we are able to do anything around here, so I will not do
that right now either.
[Translation]
In the months and even days to come, I would like to speak with
my counterparts in the other political parties with a view to
introducing a system of modernizing parliamentary rules which
would include reciprocity, and ultimately result in an improved
parliament for Canadians. I think that that is what we all
want.
That is a discussion for another time, not for today.
[English]
Meanwhile there is one rule that is not working and it is this
one. The difficulties with that procedure not only threaten the
ability of all members to do their work in a reasonable fashion,
but it tends to bring the House into disrepute. I would be
remiss in my duties in the House if I did not propose this
correction, and I am.
[Translation]
In making this proposal, I am not attempting to change the rules
of the House. I am merely reaffirming the authority of the
Chair as it was expected to be exercised by the framers of the
rules 32 years ago. That is all I am doing today. I am merely
reaffirming the views of the chairman of the committee that
preferred those rules. I am referring to Gordon Blair.
I am merely reaffirming the views of great parliamentarians like
Stanley Knowles and Marcel Lambert, a former Speaker of the
House. I am merely reaffirming the views of the McGrath
committee.
I am merely reaffirming my faith in the judgement and fairness
of the Speaker of the House of Commons. I urge all my
colleagues to pass this motion so that parliament can do its
job, nothing more and nothing less.
1230
That is all I am asking today. As for the remainder, we will
have a good discussion among the leaders, possibly among all
members as well, about substantially changing the rules. But
that is not for today.
Today, we must get parliament working again and leave more
substantial changes for another time. So, to action. It is the
duty of every member of the House.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
frequently when we rise in debate we begin our speech by saying
“I am pleased to be able to stand and speak to this debate”. I
have the extraordinary honour today of being the leadoff speaker
for the opposition on this government motion. Pursuant to
Standing Order 43, I am going to jolly well take my time doing it
before the government prevents us from speaking at all on
anything at any time.
The House leader seems to pride himself on the fact that we are
patterned after the United Kingdom parliament. He gets a little
smile on his face when he says “Over there, every bill is time
allocated”. He seems so happy about that. I am very concerned
about it.
I became a member of parliament in 1993. I have been around
here for approximately seven years. In that time I have given
some serious thought to what this place is. I have often said
that I wish I would have learned French when I was young. I
lived far away from French speaking people and I was so
interested in science and math that I took those options and did
not learn French.
However, one of the words in French that I know is parlez-vous;
parle. It has something to do with speaking, does it not? It
has something to do with debates. If parliament is not the place
of debate then what is it? What then is our purpose for being
here if we do not have adequate opportunity to debate issues?
I am quite aware of the fact that the motion today has nothing
to do directly with debate. It is dealing with the question of
whether or not members of the opposition, or any other members,
can propose amendments. Backbenchers really do not have that
much freedom to propose amendments, although I suppose legally
according to the standing orders they could. What is really
being proposed is a limitation on members of parliament, who are
not in the front inner core over there, to put forward amendments
at report stage.
I want to interrupt the flow of my speech for just a second. I
am aware that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of
Canadians watching this debate. It is Monday morning. Out west
right now it is approximately 10.30 a.m. There are a lot of
people who said they were going to leave their jobs for a while,
watch CPAC and this important debate. The whole future of our
parliamentary system hangs on this debate. I believe they are
glued and riveted to their television sets right now.
I want to interrupt the talk about the proposed motion to
describe very briefly how things work around here. People out
there ought to know that we have three readings of bills. The
first reading is usually the introduction of the bill. It seemed
strange to me, when I first came here in 1993, that there was no
vote on the first reading of the bill.
The Speaker gets up and asks if the minister is present. The
minister usually does not even rise. The Speaker will read the
motion or the bill then the Clerk will stand and acknowledge it.
Then it will be said that bill is deemed to have passed, or words
to that effect. I see the House leader is having major problems
with what I am saying.
1235
The bill has gone through the first reading stage, which is the
stage deemed accepted without a vote. I thought that was strange
but I can see why. The introduction of a bill only needs to be
deemed to have been accepted by the House. I can see why neither
the government nor probably the other members would want to come
into the House to simply vote for something that says that the
bill will be introduced.
However, the government introduces a bill and it is put on the
order paper. The bill comes up for second reading on a
subsequent day as given by the government House leader. Second
reading of the bill is a discussion on the principles of the
bill. It is a relatively short discussion as the normal rules of
debate limit that time. Most of us give 10 minute speeches at
that level. After second reading there is a vote and the bill is
referred to a committee.
I have enjoyed my committee work. I have had some frustrations
there but committee work is very enjoyable and useful. Committee
work has a lot of potential for being a really important and
pivotal part of the democratic process, the process of producing
bills and motions.
At committee stage, the committee does a number of things. It
usually gives an opportunity for people at large, whether they
are a group, members of an association or individuals, to appear
before the committee. Depending upon the importance, magnitude
or how far reaching the bill is, the number of witnesses may be
relatively small or may be quite large.
For example, I was a member of the finance committee in the last
parliament when it was considering Bill C-38, a bill which
unfortunately died on the order paper. Bill C-38 would have
amended the way banking structures would operate. The committee
heard information from many interesting and informed guests.
To summarize the stages of a bill, there is first reading and
introduction and then second reading. After debate at second
reading, the bill is voted on, agreed to and then referred to
committee for members to consider at committee stage. Before the
bill is returned by the committee to the House, the committee
looks at all the suggestions and presentations made by different
people. Committee members, utilizing not only their own skills
but the skills of other staff and experts, may come up with
amendments to the bill or to the motion. There may be an
amendment that says that we will change a section, delete a
section or add something. Those are amendments that come from
committee.
When the committee reports the bill back to the House it simply
means that the committee has finished its process. The bill
comes back to the House for debate and for a vote on the
amendments. It is called the report stage of the bill. At this
stage we look at the amendments that the committee brought
forward. This is where the system falls down.
I believe the motion before us today is trying to kill a gnat
with a sledgehammer. Because the committee stage does not work
the Liberals want to bring into the House rules and regulations
that would prevent backbench members and opposition members from
having an opportunity to adequately put forward their motions or
amendments to a bill or a motion.
If this particular motion is passed, and using the clout of the
parliamentary majority that the government has I believe it will
pass, I predict that the motion will be subject to time
allocation. I will talk more about that a little later on.
1240
The motion will prevent members of parliament from getting their
issues on to the floor of the House. There is a rule right now,
and the government House leader made allusion to the fact that
there is a standing order which prevents members in the House
from moving amendments that were already dealt with at committee
stage.
If a committee brings back a report with proposed amendments
that were defeated in committee, they cannot be brought in again
in this place. A certain argument can be made for that since
they were already presumably dealt with in committee. On the
other hand, any amendments approved by the committee will be
included in the report of the bill back to the House for the
House to deal with them.
It has been my observation in the seven years that I have been
here that pretty well every amendment passed in committee is
passed there because the parliamentary secretary who sits on the
committee brings in the information from the minister and the
minions which says that they want the amendment. Very often they
are government proposed amendments and of course they pass.
However if an opposition member puts in an amendment it is almost
certain to fail since the committee has more Liberals on it right
now, because the Liberals are in government, than it has other
opposition members combined.
As a result the only amendments brought in are those which have
the approval of the minister. His tentacles reach into the
committee and basically control what happens there. The Liberals
present in the House may be howling in protest, but that is my
observation. That is what I have seen.
I remember proposing some amendments after my first election in
1993. I do not even remember now what the bill was, but I
remember that I proposed some good amendments very early on. They
were so good that some government members on that committee told
me privately they were good ideas and even went so far as to say
that they supported them.
A week or two later, after we heard from some more witnesses in
committee, we came to clause by clause consideration. For the
benefit of those thousands of people watching CPAC today, clause
by clause consideration is when the chairman of the committee
simply goes through the bill and asks whether the clauses should
pass. Sometimes he speaks much more quickly than I was speaking
now, but I am trying to give a little consideration to the
interpreters who are working so hard for me this morning.
We go through the clauses very quickly. If we have an amendment
for which we have given notice, we must be right on the bit when
the chairman asks whether a clause should pass. Right then we
must jump up and say that we have an amendment. Even if we have
given notice of it, if we do not move it right at that instant it
will not be dealt with and the clause will have passed unamended.
That is how that works in committee. The last thing is whether
the title should pass.
After that has been dealt with, the chairman asks if the bill
should be reported to the House. There are also usually enough
members in the committee to cause that to pass. Then it is
brought back here, and that is what we are dealing with now. The
bill or motion is reported back to the House, having gone through
introduction, second reading, and study and clause by clause
consideration at committee stage. Then the bill is back here for
report stage.
As I said earlier, any amendments which have been dealt with in
committee, in order to avoid duplication, are not permitted to be
brought up here. Any amendments that have not been brought up in
committee can be brought up by any member of the opposition or
any backbencher on the government side. The government can also
introduce amendments at report stage in the House which have not
been dealt with in committee.
That would deal with last minute technical changes or things of
which it becomes aware.
1245
Then we vote on each of the amendments. This is where the
problem comes in. This is where the government just has
convolutions of hopelessness. If we have a lot of amendments and
if we on this side of the House force a standing vote on it, as
opposed to just a voice vote which is called on division, then
the government members could be literally forced to stand for
hours, one at a time, voting against our amendments to prevent
any amendments from going through.
Again, if I can give my observation, over all the years that I
have been here now, there have been maybe three or four
amendments put forward by opposition members that have passed in
the House. I remember I had one. It was the first one in the
35th parliament.
Mr. John Bryden: There were two.
Mr. Ken Epp: My hon. friend over on the other side is
indicating that there were two. I do not remember. It was long
time ago and a lot of water has gone under the bridge betwixt
then and now. However, there have been very few. Most of them
are just routinely rejected.
I would like to go back to the fundamentals of this. The
fundamental is that committee stage does not work. That is the
problem as I see it. If we would have a truly independent
committee, one that was not controlled by the minister, his
office, his parliamentary secretary and the minions, if we had
true freedom to express ourselves and to vote freely on proposed
amendments, very often we could improve legislation. It would be
better for the country, the nation as a whole and for our
citizens. It would increase the respect that Canadians have for
the House of Commons, if we could actually do that without being
coerced.
I would like to finish my little digression and say how this
bill now finishes. After we have dealt with it in the House at
report stage, it then goes to third and final reading. As we
know, that also then includes debates. When the debate is
finished, we vote on it. If there are sufficient numbers
demanding it, there can be a demand for a standing vote, in which
case we once again all come into the House. As we stand
individually to express our yeas or nays, the clerk responds by
stating our names from memory, which is quite a remarkable feat,
and we then go on record as to whether we are in favour of the
bill.
After it is passed here, it goes to the Senate and goes through
a similar process there. If the Senate amends it, it comes back
here. If the Senate does not amend it, it gets royal assent and
goes on from there.
It just happens that what the government House leader is doing
today is throwing a monkey wrench into the process by claiming
that he wants this place to be like the house of commons in Great
Britain. Of course he is very selective. He is being very
careful to make sure that he just picks those parts which will
promote his and the government's agenda but he does not pick the
other parts.
For example, in Great Britain, it is not at all uncommon for
opposition members to be the chairs of committees. What do we
have here? We have the government coming to a committee. It has
been predetermined who is going to be the chairman. The one day
we will get a full contingent of the members of the government
side in the committee is when they want to out vote anybody else.
Then we have this absurd way of electing the chairman of the
committee. The whole issue is that usually when there is an
election there is a list of candidates. When I ran for election
as a member of parliament, there were four or five candidates
each time and people had to choose from among these different
candidates. There were actually more than six
candidates on the ballot in 1993.
There were some fringe parties there as well. There are some who
want to call us the fringe party. That obviously is not true
since we are the only party other than the Liberals that went up
in popular vote in the 2000 election.
1250
We do not elect the chairman by having a list and a ballot so we
can check who we want. We do this in the House of Commons. We do
this for our elections in the ridings. There is only one name
permitted on the ballot. The name on the ballot is the first
person who yells out his or here nomination after the clerk has
taken the chair at the organization of the committee. One of the
government members will immediately say that he or she nominates
this person or that person to be the chairman. That is it. The
motion does not have to be seconded. There is a vote on it. All
the members who are in favour say “yes” and all who are opposed
say “no”. There is no list of candidates. There is no secret
ballot.
We went through this recently in the finance committee. I made
a very strong argument for a secret ballot in order to free up
the members on both sides of the table to vote freely without
fear of recrimination. Incredibly, on command, the government
members refused the request for a secret ballot.
Why do we not have these members go to their constituencies at
election time, stand up on a platform and have the people yell
who they want to vote for? Every vote should be public. Why do
they insist on it? What is so scary about a secret ballot? It
is incredible that these members, who love to talk about
parliamentary reform to make this place more meaningful, cannot
see that a secret ballot is important and that there should be a
list of candidates.
In the particular case of the finance committee, I said I would
vote for the person who won. I cannot say his name and I do not
know the name of his riding. The person who became the chairman
of the finance committee had my support. For the most part he
has been fair, good to work with and has a good way of running
the committee. Sometimes he goes a little fast but most of the
time he is okay. I would have supported him. I had no problem
with that. I do not think that is a place where we should have
overt partisanship.
The backbenchers are not prepared to free themselves up in
committee in order to express themselves without fear of
recrimination. Even though they had the opportunity, they
refused a secret ballot. It is interesting that the request for
a secret ballot on whether or not to vote for the chairman by
secret ballot was refused. That would require unanimous consent
and it was denied.
I am talking about the broad picture of why the motion is here
today. It is here because committees do not work. The motion
would be totally unnecessary if the government of the day, or the
Conservatives for nine years prior to that, had done its job.
Since the Liberals have been in power we have had two elections
in seven years. Running a $200 million election every three and
a half years is a total lack of respect for taxpayer dollars.
That is an aside.
We have a government that in the past seven years has just not
been open to amendments. We would like to see some glimmer of
hope that some of the amendments would be given careful
consideration, not simply given time to talk about it.
This issue has arisen because opposition parties have used
report stage in the House to demand standing votes on a number of
motions to amend which are, not only in the words of the
government House leader but also in motion before us, deemed
frivolous.
1255
The motion states in part:
Why do opposition members do this? I think back about a year
ago, when we were dealing with the now famous Nisga'a treaty.
There was a lot of fuss made about it. The government House
leader and some of the other members of the Conservative Party
and the NDP said it was a waste of time. I agree with them. We
started on a Monday night and we finished Thursday morning. We
stood up and sat down for many hours.
That type of thing does not stand well in building respect for
this place. If all we are going to do is hit that on the head
with a mallet to make that go away and not deal with the root
cause is like a surgeon. Instead of removing a wart on the hand,
he takes an axe and cuts off the hand at the wrist. He has
removed the wart all right but it is overkill in a gross degree.
That is what this motion is. It does not deal with the root
cause of why we in the opposition would come up with such a large
list of amendments.
I remember when we were dealing with Nisga'a. I explained it to
the people back home this way. I said that it was an important
agreement and that it affected the well being of natives
basically in perpetuity from that point onward. It also affected
the non-native neighbours in perpetuity from that time onward
because, among other things, it involved changes to the
constitution. It involved permanent changes on how we would deal
with these issues.
It is wrong to do things like that without giving adequate time
not only for this place to debate it, but also for us to have a
wider debate with Canadian citizens.
There is an old saying which states that democracy only works
when the governed agree to be governed. It is called the consent
of the governed. That is so true. I often speak to students in
schools and explain to them how in this country we have a system
of government completely different from governments that have
existed in history. Instead of having a king with absolute
power, his soldiers and other people who did his will and imposed
it on the people, we have the potential for having a true circle
of responsibility and accountability where members of parliament
are elected by the people.
Members come here reflecting the will and the wishes of the
people. They make rules that govern our society. The people, by
virtue of the fact that they consented to this motion or bill
through their parliamentarian, agree to be governed by that rule.
What happens if we break the circle of accountability? What
happens if along the line we impose a dictator, someone who has
absolute authority? The circle of accountability is broken and
no longer can we expect Canadian citizens to willingly consent to
be governed when they are being dictated to by somebody who is
out of the circle of accountability. It has to be the people,
the parliament, the people.
People are responsible for obeying the laws of the country which
are put together by parliament. However, parliament is
accountable and responsible to the people who send us here. If
we lose that circle, the system is flawed and it will fail.
I am sure one of the reasons there is now such a lack of respect
for this place is that in total this place does not reflect the
will of the people.
1300
I will now answer the question of why members of the opposition
are bringing forward these amendments. As I was saying, I
explained the issue to my constituents right after we had that
long vote. I said that it was so important to Canadians that it
demanded the time of parliament. For us to give notice to the
government that this is so important that in one way or another
we will use one week of parliament's time, that notion is a valid
notion.
My first choice by far, rather than voting for three days or
three and a half days, would have been to debate the issue here
in the House of Commons. We did not have adequate debate. The
record of the government shows that over and over it has invoked
time allocation to limit debate after the debate has just started
or, in some instances, even before it has started.
There are a number of occasions on record where the government
has moved time allocation on this and all subsequent stages
before we were even at the subsequent stages. In other words, we
are not supposed to talk about it; we are just supposed to do it.
The government is the bully in the schoolyard, the dictator. It
is out of the circle of accountability and responsibility, and
that does not serve democracy well.
I feel obliged to go back into the records because there was a
very fine speech given in the House almost three years ago.
Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Never one by you.
Mr. Ken Epp: The member says that it was not by me. I
will concede that it was not by me. It was by one much greater
than me. It was the previous leader of the official opposition
who spoke on an issue very similar to what we are speaking to
today.
Even though the speech is already in the Hansard of the
day, I want to give portions of it today. I will read it back
into the record because it was a very interesting story given by
the leader of the opposition at the time, the member for Calgary
Southwest. This is basically what he said:
Once upon a time there was a king named Jean I, who presided over
a castle surrounded by a moat with a drawbridge. The inhabitants
of his castle were divided into two classes: lords and ladies who
occupied the front benches of the royal throne room on state
occasions and the peasants who occupied the backbenches.
One day a group of peasants, or backbenchers as they were
called, went out to toil in the fields. As they crossed the moat
and started down the road they passed a cave from which emerged a
great dragon breathing fire and smoke. The fire consumed 50 of
the backbenchers and sent the rest scurrying back into the
castle.
When King Jean was told of this terrible tragedy he resolved to
investigate it himself. To help him he took along two of his
most trusted knights. They included Lord Bob, the keeper of the
royal whip, and Lord Boudriavere who had once been a bus boy in
the castle cafeteria but had risen to high rank through his
faithful service to King Jean.
As they surveyed the scene of the tragedy they observed three
things. They saw the 50 fried backbenchers and said that was too
bad. They saw the dragon lying dead from overexertion. They
also noticed that the dragon's fire had ignited a seam of coal in
the cave from which smoke continued to billow.
Lord Bob, who was a straightforward fellow, and had been a sword
fight referee in another life, said the obvious “The dragon is
dead. This is good news. Let's go tell the backbenchers”. But
Lord Boudriavere, who had once been a bus boy in the castle
cafeteria and had risen to high rank through faithful service to
the king, said “Not so fast”. Turning to King John he said “I
see an opportunity here to maintain and increase our control over
the peasants. Let us imply, indirectly of course, that the fiery
dragon still lives. We can point to the smoke belching from the
cave as evidence of this. Let us tell the backbenchers that
henceforth they can only go out of the castle with royal
permission and under the supervision of myself and Lord Bob, for
the safety and protection, of course, of themselves and the
castle”.
King Jean thought this was a splendid idea and thus the myth of
the fiery dragon was established. It was used to coerce and
control the backbenchers of the kingdom until King Jean was
defeated in battle by a knight from the west which is another
story I will tell on some other occasion.
There is a myth in the House that lurking out there somewhere is
the fiery dragon of the confidence convention, the erroneous
belief studiously cultivated by the government that if a
government bill or motion is defeated, or an opposition bill,
motion or amendment is passed, this obliges the government to
resign. This myth is used to coerce government members,
especially backbenchers, to vote for government bills and motions
with which they and their constituents disagree and to vote
against opposition bills, motions and amendments with which they
substantially agree.
The reality is that the fiery dragon of the confidence
convention in its traditional form is dead. The sooner the House
officially recognizes that fact, the better for all. It is true
that there was a time when the rules supported the traditional
confidence convention but that is not the current situation.
1305
The Leader of the Opposition then quoted from Beauchesne's sixth
edition, which outlined our existing practice:
The determination of the issue of confidence in the government is
not a question of procedure or order, and does not involve the
interpretive responsibilities of the Speaker.
I will stop reading from his speech, but he goes on to point out
that the use of confidence is totally a tool of the government
and that it is not for the Speaker of the House to determine.
I need to talk about this because it is very important to the
motion today. We are being told that because the government
controls the committees no amendments can be dealt with
rationally, reasonably and honestly there.
As opposition members we have all had the experience of deciding
not to bring up an amendment in committee because we know that
the government will defeat it and no one will even know about it.
We decide rationally to bring it in at report stage so that at
least we can get a bit of debate on it and make our point to the
people of Canada, who usually pay more attention to this place
than they do to committees in the House.
This is what the Leader of the Opposition was talking about when
he spoke about the dragon of confidence. He was referring to the
fact that if government members should somehow vote for a bill or
a motion or an amendment that came from the opposition side, it
would necessitate calling an election. That has been one of the
huge frustrations to me over the years in this place. We can be
voting on anything, whereas what we are really voting on every
time is whether there will be an election. It does not matter
what the issue is.
Backbenchers on the government side, currently the Liberals but
whatever party is in power, have their hands tied. They cannot
vote against a bad motion or for a good motion if one or the
other of them has come from the wrong side of the House. That is
a huge handicap to our effectiveness in parliament.
Let me relate to members that in my previous life, among other
things, I was involved in a lot of voluntary work. For seven
years I was the chairman of a school board.
We had about 15 or 20 members on the school board. It was a very
interesting and democratic place. Most of the people on the
board were parents of the children in our school. They were
there to represent the wishes of their children and also the
well-being of the school. As the chairman for seven years it
gave me the opportunity to serve the people of my community.
1310
I have been thinking about this in retrospect now that I have
been here for seven years. I spent seven years on the school
board and I have spent seven years here in parliament.
In the seven years I was on the school board I have no idea how
many motions were defeated. Maybe a parent, a teacher or a
student would come up with an idea and one of the board members
would pick up on it and take it to the board. To adhere to
Roberts Rules of Order, I had a little rule that we would
not discuss things until there was a motion. If someone was
willing to make a motion and someone was willing to second it we
would start debating it.
Let us say a motion was made and we would start debating it. One
or two members would speak in favour of it because on the surface
it sounded like a good idea. Then one of the people on the board
would wonder what would happen if we passed it. He would begin
thinking about the law of unintended consequences and, even
though our intentions may have been good, that something
detrimental could happen.
Another member may think of another reason the motion should not
be adopted. In about 10 or 15 minutes of debate on the issue our
board would clearly develop a consensus that the motion would be
good for our school, our students, our staff, our parents and
maybe the community.
What happens? Well, I am the chairman. When the debate is
finished and everyone has had their say, I would call for a vote.
Only one person would vote for the motion: the guy who made it,
because he somehow feels obliged to. The other 14 or 15 members
vote against it.
We have effectively done exactly what parliamentarians are
supposed to do. They are supposed to pass good laws and to
prevent bad laws from being passed. Here was a motion that was
bad, and in our wisdom we were able to detect that and defeat it.
Did I, as chairman of the board, ask the board members not to
vote against the motion because one of our guys made it and if we
defeat it we will have to resign and call for the election of a
new school board? It would be the height of stupidity if a
school board acted like that.
When there is a motion we debate the motion. When the vote is
called we vote on the motion. If the motion is good we pass it
and go to the next item of business. If the motion is bad, dumb
or stupid we defeat it. We congratulate ourselves for having
defeated a motion that should never have been brought in and we
go on to the next order of business.
What do we do in this place? There is a motion in front of the
House to amend a bill. A lot of members think the amendment will
improve it. We have motions that sometimes stand alone as very
good motions but they come from this side of the House.
Are members on the other side free to vote for it because it is
a good idea? Are they free to vote for it because I and some of
my members were able to articulate a solid argument in favour of
the idea? No. The Prime Minister tells them that this is a
confidence motion. There is the dragon. He tells them that if
they vote for it and the government falls, an election will
have to be called.
While those of us on this side are proposing a motion that would
be good for Canada and for its people, the other side is voting
on whether we should have an election.
1315
No wonder it is totally dysfunctional. No wonder government
members must now bring in a mallet to beat down the gnat. They
cannot get it into their heads that the changes were necessary
considerably previous to the issue that is before the House
today.
It is not whether the House does not work in report stage. It
is because we are not able to deal honestly, openly and
forthrightly with amendments in committee with free votes. That
is really the question.
It has been a distress to me to have to deal with issues like
this one over the last seven years, but I am not the only one. I
have observed that other members have had the same frustrations
and difficulties.
For example, our House leader, who recently gave a very
important speech about invoking closure, made an appeal to the
Speaker not to allow time allocation because sufficient time had
not been given. In that particular case the issue was not
allowed. The vote went forward and it proceeded anyway.
My colleagues and I and other members of the opposition,
including the Liberals when they were in opposition, have had
frustrations over the years with the problems that arise from a
dysfunctional parliament.
I would like to quote some important comments on the topic of
closure. That is really what we are talking about here. We are
talking about the way we deal with parliamentary debates. When
the Liberals were in opposition and closure was proposed, it was
one Lloyd Axworthy, whose name we can now say since he is no
longer a member of the House, who said “It displays the utter
disdain with which this government treats the Canadian people”.
That is how he spoke about not being able to debate.
My whole thesis today is that the motion is necessary because we
are not permitted to debate or to have free votes in committee.
We are not permitted to debate and to have free votes in the
House to get the best rules. What do we do then if there is a
detrimental and negative bill or a motion before the House?
A small group of people make the decisions. They do not even
hear the arguments. They are busy in their offices while we are
discussing these bills and motions. They just blindly and
bullheadedly push forward and say that it will go through the way
it was first devised, no ifs, ands or buts. They say that if we
do not vote for it they will have to call an election. It is
total control and total lack of respect for parliament.
The person who is now the government House leader said in 1992
that he was shocked. He said it was just terrible. He said
“Shame on those Tories across the way”. That is when the now
government House leader was sitting on this side in opposition.
He was speaking to members of the Tory government on the other
side. They were trying to talk about a major piece of
legislation and they would not let them talk about it.
I have a couple of other quotes which are available in
Hansard. I have a quotation from a person whose name I
will not mention. How do I identify this person? I will be
brutal. He is the present Speaker of the House. We all remember
him fondly. When our present Speaker was a member on the
government's side he had a way of giving some really great
oratorical diatribes against the party on this side.
Those of us who have been here since 1993 remember when he used
to read from the little green book of quotations or something
like that. He had so much fun with that. We are very glad that
he has now progressed to a high degree of impartiality and has
taken on the job of the Speaker as an impartial judge of how
things are done here.
1320
Here are some of his quotes. I quote him simply because he is
an honourable, respectable member, who spoke of the limitations
of the freedoms of members of parliament to adequately debate
when he was on this side. He said:
What we have here is an absolute scandal in terms of the
government's unwillingness to listen to the representatives of
the people in the House. Never before has the government been so
reluctant to engage in public debate.
That is the point exactly. We chose to have four days of stand
up votes because we said to the government that this issue was so
important that one way or another we would be spending a week of
parliament on it. It should have been more but we would be
spending at least a week.
If the government did not comply and allow us to talk, we would
be doing this. The advance notice was given. It was the
government leader who made the decision for us to stand up on
four days of standing and sitting down. Then he has the audacity
to stand on the other side and say we are wasting time. The same
time could have been used for debates if he would have permitted
it but he chose not to do so. No wonder we are where we are.
I also need to say something else about the debate. The debate
is not only about parliament, the place of speaking and the place
of many words. I guess I am guilty of many words today. Actually
I do not think I am guilty of anything. I am merely
participating in that rare occasion when I am not limited to 10,
20 or 40 minutes and can actually speak my mind. Today I am
doing that.
I will go back to my earlier statement about the consent of the
government. It is important when we deal with issues that are
important to the country like the Nisga'a agreement and others
that we give time in the House to debate them. Then we could
give time to our parliamentarians to go back to their ridings to
discuss the issues with the people we represent.
It is unconscionable that we should rush head long into some of
these agreements, treaties and other matters without bringing the
people together. We do not achieve unity or harmony by simply
taking these people who presumably are feuding and bumping their
heads together. No, we get them talking to each other and
compromising. We get them to talk and work out the problems.
When I think of some of the issues that have been brought to the
House of Commons through our people out in the field via our
members of parliament, it is really too bad that we do not have
the opportunity to debate those issues, to persuade our fellow
parliamentarians and to allow them the opportunity to respond to
a rational argument rather than just an emotional response
because we are on the wrong side or a response of blind obedience
to a party system which is no longer a workable model in modern
society.
It is time that we start to look at what it means to have a
representative in parliament. If members of parliament come here
and have their hands totally tied and duct tape over their
mouths, what is the point of sending them here? We could save
money. Let us have a king over there that rules the land and
forget about having a parliament.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: We already do.
Mr. Ken Epp: We already do. The Prime Minister was in
China. I do not know what Liberal members think about it, but I
was incensed when it was reported that he said he would like to
have stone statues in parliament because they could stand up and
vote. He could set the statues in place of the chairs and they
would be standing all the time. He thinks that would be a good
thing.
If I were a Liberal member of parliament and my leader said that
I probably would not criticize him publicly, but I would take him
aside and ask him if that was really the way he felt about me. If
that is the way he feels I would wonder why I joined his party,
why I ran under this platform and label, and why I even came
here. According to his philosophy of parliament I would be
totally useless.
That is how I would respond, and I would talk to him privately
about that.
1325
I suggest that the government's approach to legislating is a
disgrace. It cuts back the time the House is available to sit
and then it applies closure to cut off the debate.
I do not know if anyone in the House has noticed, but the
government has very seldom invoked closure. Instead, it uses the
clause in the standing orders called time allocation.
I suppose that in the House just as the Canadian flag is a prop
so too are the standing orders. I have to keep them hidden but I
have the standing orders on time allocation and closure. Mr.
Speaker, you are very familiar with them, but perhaps some of the
thousands of listeners out there in CPAC world are not. I will
give a very brief description on the difference between closure
and time allocation and why the government has chosen time
allocation over and above closure about 99% of the time. I think
we may have had a couple of closures, but it has almost always
been time allocation.
The difference between time allocation and closure is simply
that under closure, the motion is that the House do not adjourn
until the debate collapses. That is basically it. We have in
the House 301 members of parliament. Under closure,
theoretically, members could stand up one after the other and
keep on talking and we could debate. Instead of standing up and
voting during all hours of the night, to the next morning, to the
next noon, to the next evening and right through the night, we
could actually be debating at those times. That is what closure
is as I understand it.
What is time allocation? Time allocation says that no more than
one sitting day be allocated, and that is it.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. My understanding is that we are only debating this until
2 o'clock. I wonder whether the member who is so against closure
is imposing his own kind of closure on members of other parties
by going on so long.
The Deputy Speaker: Respectfully, the intervention by the
member for Winnipeg—Transcona is not a point of order and
certainly the member for Elk Island has unlimited time as the
rules are today.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that and I think we
should debate this longer. I do not think we should quit at 2
o'clock today. It is up to the government to bring this back and
then everybody will have their say?
This is such an important issue that I think I am well within my
means to debate. It is the first time in my whole career that I
have been able to speak without a time limit. I do not mean to
take it out on my other colleagues, especially those on this side
of the House but also on the other side. If any of them want to
speak, I would urge them to make sure that the House leader
brings this issue to the House again. Let us debate it. Let us
have the procedure and house affairs committee debate these
things and get down to the root of the cause and not deal with
how we can handle the hammer here.
It is very important for us to deal with these issues in a
rational way. Instead of the government allowing debates and
free votes in committee and debates and free votes here, which
would solve the problem, it is saying that it will not permit us
to bring in amendments that it thinks are frivolous. In other
words, if the only purpose of it is to try to draw the attention
of the public to the issue, then that is not a proper use of
parliament.
I happen to disagree with the government. If we had not done
what we did on the Nisga'a agreement there would not have been as
many people informed about the issues as there are now. It did
serve a purpose, albeit a secondary purpose, because the primary
purpose was totally derailed by the government House leader and a
government that would not listen to our reasoned debates.
1330
We hear occasionally from the other side that we on this side
are obstructionists. I know the words have been applied to Bloc
members. They are called obstructionists when they want to
discuss the Young Offenders Act. We have been labelled that way
too.
I want the people listening to know and I want all members here
to know that we are a responsible official opposition. We oppose
things which we believe need opposing. We stand in favour of
things which we think should be supported. I am not sure about
this, but I think the present official opposition is unique in
that it has voted for more government bills and motions than
other oppositions before us.
We have supported around 50% of government measures. I am
talking, for example, about Bill C-8, the new bank bill.
Primarily we support it. There are some small areas where we
wish there would be some amendments, but we are not an opposition
that is here merely for the sake of being in opposition. We want
to be and we are a constructive opposition pointing out to the
government where motions need correction and offering positive
solutions for correction.
If there were a free vote over there and we failed to persuade
them intellectually or by debate or parley, and they voted
against it, I would say that I guess we lost that battle. However
if I am able to persuade them and they say to me individually
that they are persuaded but then vote against it, I am
frustrated. I feel the purpose of parliament is being thwarted
by that kind of basic philosophy of the way parliament works.
I have a lot to say. I do not feel like ending. I know that I
have spoken about an hour now. Whereas some other members would
have to stop for a lunch break, since I have a reasonable bank
account on which to draw I do not really need to do that. It is
only 1.30 p.m. so I think I will just say a few more things which
are on my mind.
I want to point out something of greatest importance. How do I
say this without it coming back to me? I do not like to use the
word arrogant because when we call someone arrogant somehow just
saying it reflects back on us. I do not mean it as a pejorative
term. I use the word arrogant to describe government members in
the sense that they are isolating themselves from the people and
discounting the necessity of being responsible to the people who
sent them here. They do not believe in the basic elements of
democracy and of representative government. That is the whole
reason for this.
If I could very frankly summarize what I have been trying to say
in the last little while, I would put it this way: A mallet is
being used to kill a microscopic gnat because we are not willing
to look at the source of the gnat. The source is that the
government will not permit true, open, free debate and votes,
especially in committee.
Committees should have the freedom to work through a bill or a
motion and to improve it on behalf of Canadians. If by debate I
can persuade my fellow members, I am incensed that the system
here prevents them from supporting it with their vote. I really
am. That needs to be corrected. That is the nub of the issue.
Furthermore, the government has used time allocation in the
House over 70 times now. It is a record breaker. The government
uses it routinely. As I said earlier, it brings in time
allocation before a stage of a bill has even been introduced. It
announces time allocation in advance so it can do it on the first
day.
I use the word arrogance in an intellectual meaning, not a
pejorative meaning, when it ignores the rights of
parliamentarians to debate the issues.
1335
The Liberal minister of public works agrees with the principle
of the amendment. He recommended in the 81st report of the House
management committee in 1993 a change to the standing orders. I
am talking about our present minister of public works.
He supported the motion recommending that time allocation and
closure motions could be moved unless it appeared to the Speaker
that such motions were an abuse of the standing orders of the
House or an infringement of the rights of the minority.
If we look at the actual amendment which was read into the
record earlier, and much to the joy of my colleagues I will not
read it again, basically it says that if we use a means that is
available to make our voices heard when the government in its
arrogance will not hear, then the Speaker, according to the
government House leader, will have the ability to disallow the
amendments.
It is the position of the Chair of this place to ensure that
parliamentarians have the opportunity to represent their
constituents in vote and in debate. The task of the Speaker is
being changed by the motion. That will bring the Speaker into
the realm of the government side to control the debate further
than it is now.
In 1993 the minister of public works supported the motion, with
this provision: “unless it shall appear to the Chair that such
motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement
of the rights of the minority”. It is the job of the Speaker to
ensure that members of the opposition have their full rights in
this place to represent their constituents and like-minded
constituents across the country who perhaps do not have a member
of the opposition in parliament.
We get thousands of letters from people across the country who
write to the official opposition because the government is doing
things that they believe are wrong. They want us to draw
attention to those things and to correct them. We represent
those people as well.
If the government invokes time allocation on the legislation and
we are forced to stop speaking to it, the people of the country
will be ill served by this motion. I appeal to all Liberal
members sitting in their places, real or imaginary, to think
carefully when they vote. Undoubtedly they will be told by the
Prime Minister and his minions that it is a confidence vote. He
will tell them that an election will be required if it is not
passed. I assure those members that is garbage. It is not true.
Let them think the issue through. Let them vote with their
conscience. Let them vote with their heads. Let them vote
freely. Let them throw off the shackles that have prevented them
from being effective parliamentarians ever since they were
elected. We ask them to vote against the motion.
In closing, I am going on the assumption that the bill will be
rammed through by the majority government. In my attempt to
improve it so that it is less unpalatable and less offensive, I
propose the following amendment:
“and for even greater clarity, the Speaker may select for debate
all motions, regardless of their nature, if in his or her opinion
the rights of the minority have been infringed upon in any way.
1340
The Deputy Speaker: Debate is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would not
like to be in your shoes at this moment, but even more so after
the government motion is adopted by the House, because this
motion will presumably be adopted quite swiftly given the large
number of members the government can count on. This is the whole
problem.
I listened to the government leader, who said that we are going
to import from the British parliament an interesting feature for
the conduct of our debates. To begin with, I would like to
explain that, unless we want this parliament to end up looking
like a circus, we cannot picked out rules here and there in
other parliaments and other standing orders.
We must understand that the standing orders governing the
debates of the House of Commons, be it here or in another
parliament, are a set of rules which, taken individually,
probably do not make much sense, but if taken as a whole
complete one another. They allow us to preserve what has to be
preserved in a parliamentary system, namely a fair distribution
of powers and the capacity to influence the decisions brought to
the attention of the House.
I have personally warned the government leader about the danger
of upsetting a balance which is already too fragile in this
parliament. I warned him about the danger of weakening even more
the power relationship between opposition members and government
members.
Unless we absolutely want to bring Canadians to the conclusion
that it is no longer useful to elect members to parliament,
unless this is our goal, we must not upset the balance between
parliamentarians. Most of all, we must not change the rules a
piece at a time, thinking that small changes here and there will
have no consequence.
The parliamentary rules and the functioning of this House are
like a huge block set or a house of cards. It works. It may even
be pleasant to look at in some ways; it can be artistic.
Changing a single piece in the middle of the structure can only
result in the collapse of the whole structure. Such are the
rules of the House of Commons.
Yes, this sounds simple, very simple. The government House
leader's motion states:
For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a
motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or
vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to
prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage and, in
exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided
by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United
Kingdom.
1345
Anyone who reads that or who is listening to us today must
wonder who could be against the Speaker having the right to
exclude repetitive, frivolous and vexatious motions.
A second question comes to mind. This would give a great deal of
power to the Speaker of the House, whose responsibility is to
ensure that all members, particularly those who do not benefit
from the protection of the governing party, get to express
themselves, to express the opinion of their constituents and to
influence the debates that we have in this House.
What is a frivolous amendment, in the opinion of the Speaker of
the House of Commons? Can we say today that all the Speakers,
Deputy Speakers and all those who occupy the chair will use the
same arguments to say that an amendment is frivolous? How many
amendments among the 200 that were moved by the government on
its young offenders bill will be judged frivolous? Can we say
instead that it is the government that is frivolous because it
did not present a well thought out bill in the House, a bill
that respects the rules and the will of the people?
If by moving 200 amendments we are accused of trying to hold
up debate, of using delaying tactics, I want to say today, and
the people must know this, that the Government of Canada is its
own worst enemy. It is using its own delaying tactics.
The reason it does so is this: the government is targeting only
amendments moved by the opposition. It is clear that in today's
motion, the government House leader has not thought for one
minute that that the Chair would rule that 25, 50, or 75
amendments, among the 200 it moved to amend its own bill, were
frivolous amendments.
I am sure that the government House leader would have an
absolute fit if the Chair said that a government amendment was
frivolous and used only as a delaying tactic. It is only the
amendments moved by the members of the opposition that are at
issue here, therefore.
Are we about to acknowledge that only the Liberals in this House
can come up with well thought out motions? Is everything coming
out of the Alliance, the Bloc, the NDP or the Conservatives
frivolous or of a nature that would serve merely to filibuster?
Bloc members stand up to defend the youth justice system in
force in Quebec, because that system has been yielding
incredible and outstanding results, well above those in the rest
of Canada. Is the Bloc frivolous?
Everyone in Quebec, whether they are Liberal, Bloc or
Conservative, agrees that the system is in jeopardy. Is it
frivolous for the Bloc to defend that system? Is it frivolous to
bring forward amendments to a bill that was flawed right from
the beginning and completely out of touch with reality.
1350
Time has proven us right, because the work of the Bloc
Quebecois, especially the amendments brought forward by my hon.
colleague from Berthier—Montcalm, got the government to
reconsider and bring more than 200 changes to its bill.
This is exactly what they want to avoid. The government does not
want to relive that situation. The opinion of the opposition is
no longer significant. It is frivolous. Our debates are
frivolous. My colleague from the government has unfortunately
said more than once that the time we use in parliament to debate
such frivolous issues in his view and to vote for hours on end on
all kinds of amendments costs $27,000 an hour.
I have a suggestion to make.
If he really wants to save money, he should eliminate the other
House, which costs $50 million a year. That would be a start.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: We could use the money for more useful
things such as giving the right to speak to those who represent
the public, who were democratically elected on the strength of
political platforms and who have something to say. As far as
the $27,000 an hour argument is concerned, I suggest that the
leader of the government first abolish the other House where
nobody is elected and where members only represent themselves or
the government.
Time allocation motions were first introduced in the House of
Commons in 1971. At that time, the government said that they
would only be used exceptionally, on occasion, that they would
simplify the procedure, allow the government to govern and keep
the opposition from stopping government initiatives
thoughtlessly. Although rarely, there would be times when the
government would resort to time allocation motions.
Unfortunately, things have evolved and the leader is an expert
in this regard.
From 1984 to 1993, under the Tory government, there were 49 time
allocation motions in the House, and a total of 519 bills.
These are the real statistics; I did not invent them, they are
the figures of the House of commons. These 49 gag orders were
all vehemently condemned and the opposition of the day gave some
solid arguments against them, but that opposition is now our
government and now it resorts to gag orders. Therefore, under
the Tories, we had 49 gag orders for a total of 519 bills; that
means 9.4%. During the Tory regime, over a seven-year period,
9.4% of bills ended with a gag order.
Yet this government presented over 60 closure motions in the
case of some 350 bills introduced in the House, a ratio of
17.4%.
The Conservatives in the previous government were criticized for
being undemocratic, because 9.4% of parliamentary initiatives
ended through closure. The figure for the current government of
17.4% is nearly double that. It is a cause for some concern
when the government to all intents and purposes doubles the
number of closure motions in order to settle bills and debates
in the House and when this same government today wants to
prevent the opposition from introducing amendments or at least
to give the Speaker the right to decide whether an amendment is
valid or not.
Mr. Speaker, I contend that this government is trying to
transfer to you the responsibility that is ours here, namely
that of voting on and deciding at some point whether what has
been submitted to parliament is valid or not, must be selected
or rejected, especially in the context of the passage of a bill.
1355
We will never agree to let the Speaker of the House assume the
power given its members by their electors to express their
points of view, exercise their judgement and decide whether an
amendment or a bill should be approved or rejected.
We will never agree to let the Speaker of the House of Commons
be invested with such power by the government, not because the
Speaker wants this power, but because the government in its
laxity wants to divest itself of its responsibilities by giving
the Chair the duty and obligation to impose closure on the
members of the opposition, on amendments and on debates in this
House.
Earlier, when the debate was going on, my colleague told me that
in today's parliament our debates are merely a way of passing
time until it is time to pass a bill. This is a far cry from
what parliament was at the beginning. We are passing time until
the bill is passed. It is indeed how things now work.
This is far from those great debates when openness and human
intelligence prevailed in this House, when the government would
listen to the opposition, including third parties, express its
views as to how things could be done. This is far from the days
when people truly believed that they were mandating members to
represent them here and work in their best interests.
Now, all too often, government orders are initiated by teams of
public servants who are out of touch with reality and they are
sponsored by ministers who lack independent thought. Bills are
introduced in this House, but the government does not want
openness.
The Minister of Justice should have shown some openness toward
the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, who proposed very
significant and interesting amendments to improve this bill, a
bill drafted behind closed doors by the minister's officials.
But no. As is the case with all the debates, the Minister of
Justice listened to us, but it was difficult for her to do so.
It was already taking too long.
Even though the debates are just a way of using up the time
while waiting for the government to pass its bills, it has
become too much to bear. It is hard for the minister to have to
listen day after day to opposition members using strong
arguments and logic to show that her bill is not a good one.
It is extremely difficult, but the government has reached the
point where it does not even want to assume its responsibility
to listen to the representatives of those who did not elect a
Liberal candidate, but a candidate from the Bloc Quebecois, the
Canadian Alliance, the NDP or the Progressive Conservative
Party.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
SAMUEL DE CHAMPLAIN
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, courage,
leadership, tenacity, devotion—all great qualities found in
Samuel de Champlain, who became the famous explorer and founder
of colonies we know today.
Samuel de Champlain was a man of many talents.
Historian Samuel Eliot Morison notes that Champlain was an
artist, an illustrator, an engineer, a military inventor, a
cartographer and a gifted writer, whose book, Les voyages en
Nouvelle-France, is a rich documentary source of Canadian
history.
In addition, Champlain left us wonderful descriptions of the
life of the aboriginal peoples he met, of nature and of the
landscapes of New France.
1400
I like to think that we as a people have inherited his
determination, his courage and his conquering spirit.
Together, we have built a country that is the focus of
admiration and whose quality of life is one of the world's best.
All of this is thanks to our will, our fighting and inventive
spirit and our dynamism, attributes mirroring those of the
people who colonized our country.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in an outrageous decision the Ontario Court of
Appeal has further entrenched race based rights in our country.
This time the recipients of racially privileged hunting and
fishing are the Metis of Ontario. This court ruling has opened
the door to exploitation of natural resources and further
extortion of concessions from Canadians on the basis of race.
Meanwhile, the Government of Canada continues to sink billions
of taxpayer money into Indian and Metis programs that have
developed a track record for corruption and incompetence.
Cruises, kickbacks, nepotism and administrative largesse are
taking their toll on the generosity of taxpaying Canadians.
Sanctimonious posturing by the Liberal government cannot hide
this fact. The Indian Act is an abject failure and the court's
racialist approach is making a mockery of the equality of all
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the member for the great region of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, I
say we must all act together to bring out the presence and the
action of the Government of Canada in regions whose resources
are having difficulty adapting in the context of the new
economy.
The rules of existing programs should be relaxed, and we should
ensure they are used. Also, a program to provide financial
assistance for thin capitalization mines should be set up for
the juniors.
* * *
[English]
CURLING
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what a
finish this weekend at the Canadian Curling Championships, the
Scott Tournament of Hearts, and what a comeback by Team Nova
Scotia, led by skip Colleen Jones, her teammates Kim Kelly,
Mary-Anne Waye and Nancy Delahunt, who came from behind from a
5-2 deficit to win in an extra end at the national championships
in Sudbury.
Colleen Jones and her Halifax foursome from the Mayflower
Curling Curb will represent Canada in Lausanne, Switzerland, next
month at the world championships.
On behalf of all Nova Scotians and all parliamentarians, who I
know join me, I congratulate the team on its success and wish it
great success at the world championships.
* * *
CURLING
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 20th
anniversary of the Scott Tournament of Hearts, held this past
weekend in Sudbury, showcased the finest curlers in Canada and
brought together 20 years of past champions to watch the
incredible final game.
We saw the creation of the Sandra Schmirler Foundation in memory
of our 1998 Olympic gold medal winner. As well, Hearts of
Fire, the new Scott Tournament of Hearts song written by
Sudbury composer Tom Hewlett, is being heard today across Canada.
The Scott Tournament of Hearts is a world class event, with
women competing from every province and territory. I want all
Canadians to know how truly proud Sudburians are of the
participants and of the organizers of this year's event.
I congratulate the 2001 champions, the Colleen Jones rink from
Nova Scotia, and I thank Sudbury for hosting such a fine event.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, once again I wish to draw attention to the injustice of
our conditional sentencing laws.
Conditional sentencing for violent offenders has been raised in
this place many times in the past. The latest example of this
fallacy concerns 20 year old Veronique Lauzon, who was recently
sentenced to serve 21 months in the community.
Just what did she do to warrant such favourable treatment? She
was convicted of armed robbery, escaping lawful custody, stealing
a car and dangerous driving causing injury, injury to the police
officer who she dragged for several blocks with the stolen car.
Her lawyer said that Lauzon had been traumatized by the
unexpected and sudden death of her father. While I empathize, I
would suggest that there are many Canadians every day who are
traumatized by the sudden loss of a loved one and who do not
resort to serious violent crime in order to cope. Such an excuse
is an insult.
Since the government seems to have little intention of
protecting our communities from dangerous and violent criminals,
will it at least stand up for our police who risk life and limb
daily in attempting to control the crime in our streets?
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
McCain Foods is going to China. Announced on the heels of a
highly successful team Canada 2001 trade mission, the New
Brunswick based conglomerate recently announced plans to build a
$90 million potato processing plant in the northeastern region of
China.
1405
McCain Foods began production with one small plant in
Florenceville in 1957. Today the company is the largest producer
of French fries in the world, with more than 50 plants in 13
countries on 5 different continents.
As an exporting nation, every day of the week Canada does $2.2
billion worth of business with the rest of the world. This
government's strong commitment to improving international trade
is facilitating market access for Canadian companies such as
McCain Foods.
I congratulate not only all the successful participants on this
year's trade mission but also the government on its hard work on
and commitment to creating jobs for Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ATHLETES
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec
athletes have recently won major victories that deserve to be
mentioned. Geneviève Jeanson is a cyclist who won two races in
Mesa, Arizona.
Stéphane Rochon won the gold medal for parallel moguls at a
World Cup freestyle event, while Pierre-Alexandre Rousseau took
silver in the moguls.
Let us also congratulate the winners at the 20th edition of
Quebec's Gala du mérite sportif.
Weightlifter Maryse Turcotte was named female athlete of the
year, while volleyball player Sébastien Ruette was named male
athlete of the year. Biathlete Judith Chaput was named discovery
of the year among female athletes, while champion kayaker
Nicolas Beaudoin won the award on the men's side.
Figure skaters Jamie Sale and David Pelletier won their second
victory in two weeks. The first one was in Salt Lake City and
the second one in Japan.
The Bloc Quebecois congratulates these athletes for working so
hard and being such good ambassadors for Quebec.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Al Bye, past warden of Grey
county, for his fantastic presentation this weekend in Ottawa
which won us the International Plowing Match in the year 2004.
The International Plowing Match brings together rural and urban
people and farmers, who show our country that they are the
custodians of the land and that they provide great food at a
fantastic price.
In my riding there are: in Owen Sound, the Summer Folk Music
Festival; in Durham, the Wood Show; in Flesherton, the Split Rail
Festival; and in Meaford, the Apple Harvest Festival.
I invite all my colleagues to come to my riding of
Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound in 2004. Members have ample time to save
up and to bring their money and their families and have a great
time.
* * *
TRADE
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadian elk and deer producers have
built an exciting industry of valuable breeding stock and the
promising velvet antler market.
Antler has been renowned for centuries in Asian countries for
providing many general health benefits and is gaining a positive
reputation in North America as a beneficial nutraceutical.
Korea and New Zealand are the largest markets for Canadian
velvet antlers, but recently both countries announced a ban on
antler imports due to the occurrence of chronic wasting disease
on the prairies.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is confident it has the
disease under control and will eradicate it. However, if this
trade ban continues, the industry here will be devastated.
Today I ask the ministers of agriculture, foreign affairs and
international trade to immediately begin a dialogue with Korea
and New Zealand that will see this ban on Canadian elk antlers
lifted as soon as possible.
* * *
[Translation]
GALA DES JUTRA
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the third
edition of the Gala des Jutra was held yesterday.
The gala was an opportunity to salute the efforts made in the
past year by those who work in Quebec's film industry. The
evening was an energetic and lively affair and a reflection of
our movie industry.
I am taking this opportunity to congratulate the organizers of
the event and all the winners, particularly Denis Villeneuve and
Marie-Josée Croze for the movie Maelström, which won eight awards
out of eight nominations. Mr. Villeneuve has already won
numerous international awards. Such a success will long be
remembered.
There can be no doubt that Quebec is full of talent.
We must continue to support such events, because they provide a
golden opportunity for exposure to our performers and to those
who will follow in their footsteps.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is time for the government to account for the
mismanagement of the first nations and Inuit health branch of
Health Canada.
It is time for an external review, an independent inquiry into
the administration of that department. Not to do so would be to
damage efforts to resolve serious health problems in aboriginal
communities and would do irreparable harm to the goal of first
nations and Inuit control of their health programs.
1410
Throughout all the developments pertaining to the Virginia
Fontaine Addictions Foundation at Sagkeeng, the Anishinaabe
Mino-Ayaawin in Winnipeg and now the reported deficits for the
non-insured benefits program, the government has shirked its
responsibilities for the problems that are emerging and has tried
to create the perception of wrongdoing anywhere but in its own
department.
The roots of the problem lie within the government. The facts
tell a story of chaos, mismanagement, lack of accountability and
disregard of numerous recommendations made by the auditor
general. It is a failure of accountability and good management
practices by the government and a failure to support the first
nations as they have taken on transfer agreements.
Time is running out. It is time for the government to act now,
to recognize that—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
* * *
[Translation]
GALA DES JUTRA
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Théâtre Saint-Denis was the scene for a
celebration of the cinema in Quebec. It was also an opportunity
to get to know our cinema better, and an invitation to aspiring
filmmakers.
The 3rd Jutra awards ceremony, a gala event ably hosted by Élyse
Guilbault and Yves Jacques, gave us a glimpse of the latest fine
offerings in this field of endeavour in Quebec.
Tribute was paid to master filmmaker Gilles Carle for the
excellence of his work.
Emotions ran high as the prolific Mr. Carle—who has 47 films to
his credit—was warmly applauded.
Maelström, Hochelaga, La vie après l'amour, La beauté de
Pandore, La Bouteille, Le petit ciel, Full Blast, The Art of
War, La moitié gauche du frigo, Stardom, Possible Worlds, Les
muses orphelines and more bore testimony to the original talent
of Quebec's artistic colony and the ability of our creators to
take our vision and make it universal.
The public is right to support the films Quebec has to offer.
* * *
[English]
CANADA LANDS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate Canada Lands Company for recently winning
the Grand SAM Award, the most prestigious award in the Canadian
land development industry which honours the best of professional
marketing, advertising, promotion, sales merchandising and sales
presentation.
Canada Lands winning project, Garrison Woods, is a unique urban
village seven minutes from Calgary's city centre on the former
Canadian Forces Base Calgary. It is an integrated community
where people can live, work, play and be educated. It celebrates
and reflects Calgary's military roots and heritage. Most
important, Calgarians planned it in the spirit of creating a very
special community during a three year consultation process.
Canada Lands Company, on behalf of Canadians, carries out its
mandate on a self-funding basis, encouraging innovative property
development and environmental responsibility. In this way the
Canada Lands award winning team is making contributions to the
economic vitality of communities all across Canada.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
today the Minister of Finance is meeting his provincial
counterparts in Halifax. The main issue on the agenda is
equalization.
Newfoundland and the other Atlantic provinces want changes. They
want to make sure that the clawback arrangement is changed so
that the federal government does not continue to claw back 75% to
90% of the resource revenues that the provinces take in.
We do not want to be the Cinderella of Canada. We do not need
to be the Cinderella of Canada. We have found the glass slipper.
All we want is the chance to wear it.
* * *
[Translation]
BIG SISTERS' MONTH
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make special mention of Big Sisters' Month and the organization
for which it is named, which provides many services to our
community.
The mission of Big Sisters is to offer girls quality
relationships with responsible adult volunteers in order to
assist them with their psychosocial development.
I wish to pay special tribute to the commitment of thousands of
these volunteers, who give of their time, their talent and their
resources, for a Big Sister is above all a friend who wants to
share a few hours of her time each week with a girl from a
single parent home.
A big thank you to all these individuals, who are helping to
improve the quality of life of so many young people in Quebec
and in Canada.
* * *
[English]
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, insiders tell us the RCMP's budget
for the Canadian firearms registry has been cut by 40%. Twenty
verifiers already have been laid off. Scenarios of up to 100%
layoffs have been discussed with staff and union officials.
Meanwhile, the staff has been directed to triple output.
In the past two years the RCMP has issued only 550,000 firearms
registration certificates and the current backlog is over
180,000.
1415
There are between seven million and twenty million firearms left
to register in the next two years. The registrar says that there
is a 90% error rate in the applications received and that it will
take until 2010 to register all the legally owned firearms in
Canada.
Why is the solicitor general cutting the registry's budget and
laying off staff? I wish it was because the Liberals were
rethinking the billion dollars they will waste on this futile
exercise and spending it on fighting real crime. Unfortunately
the layoffs probably have more to do with the justice minister's
privatization plans than common sense.
* * *
CURLING
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, hearty
congratulations to three time champion, Colleen Jones, and her
Mayflower curling teammates, Nancy, Mary-Anne and Kim, on their
Scott Tournament of Hearts Championship.
This hat trick for Colleen Jones places her in the extraordinary
company of Sandra Schmirler, Connie Laliberte and Vera Pezer. As
the then MLA for Halifax Chebucto, home to the Mayflower Curling
Club, I had the thrill of welcoming Colleen home after her first
national win in 1982.
I regret I am unable to be in Halifax for the homecoming
celebration this week, but it gives me great joy to rise in the
House today to congratulate Colleen and her fabulous team and to
wish them similar success in the upcoming World Curling
Championship in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Sandra Schmirler's legacy lives on through Colleen's athletic
successes and those whom she inspires.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we hope to hear directly today from
the Minister of Public Works and Government Services because we
want to ask the question again related to the fact that the
government issued a visa to Gaetano Amodeo.
Mr. Amodeo is an alleged hit man and he is on Interpol's most
wanted list. Why would the government allow safe haven to one of
the world's most dangerous criminals?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the member opposite is wrong
and he should know that visitors to Canada from western Europe do
not require a visitor's visa to enter Canada.
As soon as it came to our attention that this individual was
wanted, within three weeks he was behind bars and he is now
awaiting a deportation hearing.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a lot more here
than just visiting. It is very clear that Mr. Amodeo's wife
approached the public works minister to get assistance with the
visa application in spite of the fact she is not a constituent of
his. The issue could not have been language because in Mrs.
Amodeo's constituency, which is different from that of the public
works minister, those particular services are offered in Italian
by that member of parliament.
What was it and why was it that Mrs. Amodeo felt she could get
some special treatment from the minister rather than from her own
member of parliament?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the Leader of the Opposition
is wrong. I can say to him that my department received last year
over 40,000 inquiries, requests for information from all members
of the House.
He should also know that before anyone is granted permanent
residence status in Canada, if he or she applies to the province
of Quebec as an independent immigrant, under the Canada-Quebec
accord Quebec must issue a selection document. That was done in
this case. The processing time was the average processing time
for visa posts around the world. There was nothing that was done
in this case that was untoward or inappropriate.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the situation is not usual, because the
letter is not usual. This is not the letter of an MP asking
about the status of a file with Immigration Canada on behalf of
a citizen of the riding. The letter clearly requests that a
visa be, and I quote, “issued shortly”.
Does the minister acknowledge having acted in this matter not as
an MP but as an activist?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I tabled in the House this morning
the memo my riding assistant sent, and I quote it.
1420
I can table it again for the Leader of the Opposition. “Simply
to discover what stage the permanent residence file has reached
with the federal government, I know that the CSQ is valid until
June 2000 and that the visitor's visa is valid until 2001. Have
the audits come in? And what about the medical results? Do you
think the visas will be issued shortly?”
There you have it, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the difficult position
the minister is in and I think we want to be responsible in
pursuing it. However, it does seem odd that this case ended up
with the member who is not the member of parliament for the wife
of this alleged mob figure. It does seem odd that the
application was fast tracked after the letter was written.
Could the minister inform us if he knew this woman or her
husband, the Amodeos, in any way prior to this memo being written
to Immigration Canada?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not know the
lady. I did not know the gentleman. My office did not know her
before she came to the office.
I only found out about this case as there was a note in my
office the day prior to the day La Presse issued the
article. That means Thursday afternoon, because the journalist
called my office. Otherwise I was not even aware that the file
existed.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the whole matter has arisen because
someone who is on Interpol's 500 most wanted list turns out to
have been in our country since 1998. Apparently the minister of
immigration knew nothing about this. Canadians are a little
worried about how these crime figures could be given safe haven
in our country and apparently our officials are ignorant of their
whereabouts.
I ask the minister to explain to Canadians why on earth this
could have happened. How could this person be in our country
unknown to the minister?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should know that
individuals from western Europe, from France, from the U.K., from
Germany and from Italy do not require a visitor's visa in order
to enter Canada. That has been a fact for a long time.
However, in this case, as soon as it was brought to my
department's attention that this individual was wanted, within
three weeks he was apprehended; he was detained; and he is
awaiting a deportation hearing. That is what needed to be done
and that is exactly what we did.
* * *
[Translation]
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Natural Resources is in Washington right now to
discuss the establishment of a North American energy pact with
the Americans.
Since there has never been any discussion of such negotiations
here in the House of Commons, will the Prime Minister tell us
what position his minister will be defending during these
discussions with U.S. representatives?
Mr. Benoît Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada and the United States have
long had very amicable trade relations.
Today, the minister is going to ensure—and we have been very
clear about this—that in any negotiation or agreement with any
country, Canada's sovereignty and needs will always be paramount
and defended as such.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that
is very clear as an answer.
As we know, however, natural resources come under provincial
jurisdiction.
Will the Prime Minister, or the parliamentary secretary in this
case, tell us whether the provinces were consulted with respect
to the negotiations the minister is undertaking with the United
States on the issue of natural resources?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister's visit is not for the purpose of entering into
negotiations. Its purpose is for him to meet the new minister,
former Senator Abraham. The first step is an exchange of views.
If, in due course, negotiations ensue, we will follow the normal
procedures for informing the provinces.
1425
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, talks on an
agreement dealing specifically with the various forms of energy
should normally include discussions on oil and natural gas.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister
assure us that drinking water will be excluded from any talks on
a possible energy agreement?
Mr. Benoît Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister just
said, there are no formal negotiations at this point. However, I
can assure the House and the hon. member that in all the trade
agreements that we have signed with foreign countries, we have
always protected the needs of Canadians, whether it is water or
any other resource, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the Prime
Minister tell us if these energy issues will be discussed by one
of the sectorial negotiating groups on the free trade area of
the Americas? If so, is the trip made by the two Canadian
ministers to Washington in preparation for the negotiations on
the free trade area of the Americas as regards energy issues?
Mr. Benoît Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the United States have a
new administration. It is normal for ministers from our
government to pay a visit to their American counterparts to get
acquainted with the issues and discuss things in general terms.
The opposition will be informed when formal talks take place.
Again, whether it is ministers or the government as a whole, we
will always protect the rights and the needs of Canadians first
and foremost.
* * *
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the public has
a fundamental right to speak out and to demonstrate peaceably.
The attitude of governments to the summit of the Americas is of
some concern. There will be barricades, absurd rules, control
points and so on. Obviously, order and security must be
maintained during the summit of the Americas.
We want assurance that peaceful demonstrations will be protected
in Quebec City. Will the government give this assurance?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the summit of the Americas,
which will be held in Quebec City in April 2001, will be an
opportunity for all of us Canadians to reaffirm our commitment
within the Americas and to increase opportunities available to
Canadians in all sectors.
In the context of the preparations for this summit, just last
Friday, the Minister for International Trade and the Secretary
of State for Latin America and Africa met with members of civil
society.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let me
repeat that Canadians want assurances that the rights of peaceful
protesters will not be quashed at the Quebec summit, assurances
that excessive force will not be used, including unlawful
detainment, strip searches and pepper spray.
The RCMP is involved in the preparation of security at the
summit, rightly so. Will the government assure the public that
an appropriate balance will be struck between the responsibility
to maintain order and security and the right of citizens to
peaceful, meaningful protest throughout the summit?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer to that question is yes. However, I should
remind her that when Prime Minister Tony Blair of England was
here with regard to this meeting he said:
However sincere the protests, they cannot be allowed to stand in
the way of rational argument. We should start to make this case
with force and determination.
That is the message from Prime Minister Blair of the Labour
Party of Britain to members of the NDP in Canada. They should
listen carefully to that common sense point of view.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. He will know that
the Business Development Bank of Canada Act came into force on
July 13, 1995. It requires the designated minister to review the
provisions and operations of the act in consultation with the
Minister of Finance within five years.
According to the law, that review should have started last July,
seven months ago. A report has to be submitted to parliament no
later than this July.
1430
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether the
Minister of Industry has started the review? Will he tell us
when the review will be brought to parliament in accordance with
the law? If the minister has not started the review, will the
Deputy Prime Minister tell us why he has not followed the law and
started the review?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have all the information that he is seeking,
but I am confident that the relevant ministers will meet the
requirements of the law.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
let me try something else.
Before the president of the Business Development Bank was
stripped of his power respecting loans, he had recommended that
the bank consider calling the loan of the Auberge Grand-Mère,
which at that time was a loan in default.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House—and I am sure it
has been discussed in cabinet—did the Prime Minister know of
that recommendation by Mr. Beaudoin to call the loan before the
president's powers were changed? Did the Prime Minister know in
advance of the action by the board of the intention of the board
to strip the president of his normal authority respecting loans?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will get the hon. member a detailed answer to his
question, but does he know that Mr. Beaudoin is the subject of a
counterclaim in the pending court case, because the auditor
general found that Mr. Beaudoin inflated his pension by some half
a million dollars?
Why is the hon. member basing his questions on something as
contentious as the comments of Mr. Beaudoin?
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, speaking of the Business Development Bank, on April
21, 1997, Yvon Duhaime wrote the Prime Minister begging for help
with the Business Development Bank loan, one which it had
recommended against.
We have obtained documents today that show that on May 6, 1997,
the HRD said that funding was assured from the Business
Development Bank. That is lightning speed. That is just a
matter of days. It had already been recommended that this loan
not be complied with.
The question is, how did it happen that through the maze of
bureaucracy this loan found its way through and was assured in a
matter of days at lightning speed?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not accept the premise of my hon. friend's question
that the loan went through with lightning speed.
I have been informed, however, that this loan was approved and
participated in by the local caisse populaire and the Fonds des
travailleurs du Quebec, both bodies not connected with the
federal government nor with the Prime Minister, and their
judgment was that the loan was a valid commercial transaction.
She ought to take that into account before raising the kinds of
empty questions she does whenever she has a chance.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the actual document. It says:
[Translation]
[English]
That seems pretty clear that the funding is assured.
We know that it was during an election time and the Prime
Minister was in the political fight of his life. He was not only
trying to retain his seat during that time, he was trying to
retain the financial shares that he had in the neighbouring golf
course of the Auberge Grand-Mère.
The question is very simple. Why was the Prime Minister
interfering with the business of a crown corporation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member, who I commend for her French, did not
make clear what she was quoting from. She should do so.
The ethics counsellor found that the Prime Minister was not
interfering with the work of a crown corporation. He was doing
no more than what members on all sides of the House do, making
enquiries and making representations on behalf of a constituent.
If the hon. member thinks that is wrong, then I think she ought
to make a fresh start on learning her duties as a member of
parliament.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government
has always maintained that the end of the softwood lumber
agreement would signal the return to full free trade.
On Thursday, the Minister for International Trade left us
somewhat confused by saying in this House that he anticipated
transitional measures.
I would ask the Prime Minister if the government can confirm
that Canada's position remains a return to free trade, pure and
simple, and that no other solution may be considered?
1435
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a
very complex issue. The views of all regions in Canada will be
considered.
As my colleague knows, the Minister for International Trade is
in Washington today meeting with trade representative Mr.
Zoellick and commerce secretary Mr. Evans.
The minister and I have repeated several times that the long
term goal for Canada is free trade in softwood lumber.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the parliamentary secretary what he means by long term
goal, but I will wait to do so.
I would like to know whether we are to understand from the
government's position that, before negotiations even begin, the
government will be stepping back from the position and the
consensus held across Canada in the softwood industry.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what
my colleague means by a stepping back. There is wide
consultation underway now with people in the softwood lumber
industry right across Canada. This has been the subject of
discussions on a number of occasions with the provincial
ministers of trade and with the Minister for International Trade.
Today it is the subject of international discussion. The long
term goal remains the same: free trade in softwood lumber.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to restate the facts for
a minute.
On April 21 Yvon Duhaime asked the Prime Minister to use his
influence to help obtain a Business Development Bank loan for a
hotel in which they both had an interest. Less than two weeks
later the money was assured.
What did the Prime Minister or his office do so that those funds
were assured within the two week period of time?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was said in the House over
and over again by the ethics counsellor and the RCMP that there
was no conflict. This party just simply does not get it.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, quite simply, something
happened in those two weeks. That loan had been refused by the
Business Development Bank and two weeks later, after the Prime
Minister's influence was used, the loan was granted.
I would like to ask again: What exactly did the Prime Minister
or his office do to secure those funds within a two week period
of time?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's question falls flat on the ground
because it is based on alleging influence by the Prime Minister.
It has been confirmed over and over that the Prime Minister did
not use, “undue” influence, and I think that should be taken
into account. She ought to make a fresh start of these questions
and start with some facts.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for several
months now, the Government of Quebec has been asking for the
Premier of Quebec to be allowed to address the heads of state at
the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City next April 20 to 22.
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether his government still
intends to deny Quebec's premier the right to address the heads
of government at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is the host country
for the Summit of the Americas and I think that it is wonderful
that we are able to welcome 33 other countries.
I believe Mr. Bouchard mentioned this wish to the Prime Minister
during the trip to China. But, right now, the rules of the game
are being discussed with Mr. Lortie, who is the Prime Minister's
personal representative, and the folks in Quebec City.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the Prime
Minister confirm to the House whether or not, during Team
Canada's last visit to China, he or his chief of staff, Jean
Pelletier, responded to Premier Bouchard's request by telling him
that there was absolutely no question of the Premier of Quebec
addressing the heads of state at any time during the Summit of
the Americas?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will simply remind the
House that it is Canada which is welcoming 33 other countries to
the Summit of the Americas. The meeting will be attended by
heads of state from the all the Americas. The rules of the game
are that the Prime Minister of the host country, the Prime
Minister of Canada, hosts the prime ministers of other
countries, and that is how it works.
* * *
1440
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister told the
House today that citizens from a number of European countries do
not need visas to come in or out of Canada. I am a little
puzzled about this since Mr. Amodeo was in Canada on a tourist
visa and his wife was in Canada on a visitor's visa. Clearly
they did have visas.
I would like the minister to explain that and also tell the
House whether people can come in and out of our country without
any monitoring, any checking or any kind of process at all. Are
our borders wide open?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the member knows so
little. That might account for the fact that her question is so
uninformed. In fact, there are some countries in the world where
visitors visas are required and where security checks are done
before those visas are issued.
However it is commonly known that for Americans, western
Europeans and many countries in the world there is no requirement
for a visitor's visa before someone enters Canada. Similarly, we
have no exit controls. The member should know that.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is nice of the minister to be so
condescending, but of course the purpose of question period is to
get this information out.
I have another question for the minister. Is Italy one of the
European countries from which its citizens can come in and out of
Canada at will? I would also like to ask the minister if there
is no one from her department at the border running any kind of
check at all on people coming in and out of our country?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said in my first answer, and it is
important for the member to know and to understand, most of
western Europe, including France, Germany, Italy and most of the
other western European countries, although I will not take the
time to name them all, their citizens can enter Canada without a
visitor's visa.
Immigration officers at the port of entry make their judgment
when people presents themselves. They then stamp their passport
and give them the right to enter Canada.
I have one more thing to say to the member. The inquiry that
was made by all members of this House numbered 40,000—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
* * *
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
President of the Treasury Board.
In his recent report, the auditor general stated that the
government has made significant progress in improving financial
management in government. Could the President of the Treasury
Board explain what other steps the government is taking to build
on these achievements?
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the President of the
Treasury Board recently announced improved internal evaluation
procedures throughout government. This will strengthen the
fiduciary capacity of our government.
We know that Canadians work hard for their money. That is why
the government is committed to making sure that expenditures
within government are undertaken efficiently and wisely. These
reports will be made available to the public, which will allow
the public to judge and show that the government is transparent
in the way that it spends money.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, with every day that passes there is serious evidence of
mismanagement and chaos in the first nations and Inuit health
branch in the Department of Health.
Recommendation after recommendation by the auditor general for
proper accounting and good management practice by the federal
government have been ignored. The result is the possibility of
creating enormous damage on the ability of first nations and
Inuit people to deliver health care services as they want to and
need to.
My question is for the acting Minister of Health. Will he
review the problems within the department and support an
independent external investigation of this branch of government?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we know, health records
administration for aboriginal people in remote areas is an
extremely complex issue.
Some newspaper articles allude to deficits. I should point out
that these were authorized deficits and that such deficits may
be authorized for a number of reasons, both in this case and in
other provinces.
When issues are raised, which the Health Canada official did,
investigations are instigated and efforts are made to recover
the money that may have been improperly spent.
* * *
1445
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
big city mayors caucus is meeting today to draw attention to
pressing urban issues like transit and the lack of affordable
housing.
I also know that Vancouver Mayor Phillip Owen is here to seek
federal support for his excellent report on a four pillar
approach to the terrible drug problems in Vancouver. The
Vancouver agreement is an important first step but much more
needs to be done.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
indicate if the government has the courage to go further by
acting on Mayor Owen's recommendation, including the
implementation of clinical trials for heroin assisted treatment?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the opposition member
that the Department of Health is monitoring this situation very
closely. It feels that, as a partner, it can help resolve these
issues, in co-operation with provincial and local authorities in
British Columbia.
Health Canada provides all the advice, services and insight
required to enable local authorities to fulfil their
responsibilities regarding this serious problem.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, CP): Mr. Speaker, a few
hours after the United States lifted its ban on Brazilian beef
imports, Canada decided to do the same.
Could the Minister of Agriculture tell the House if, at that
time, he had received all the answers to the infamous
questionnaire that triggered this quasi trade war between Brazil
and Canada?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the team of technical officials had
agreed on a response to the risk management assessment. That was
agreed to by all three countries. The conditions that were
announced were agreed to by all three countries.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, CP): Mr. Speaker, I have
a very simple question for the minister.
We are hearing all sorts of things about what triggered this
trade dispute between Canada and Brazil. During the three weeks
spent in Brazil, did anyone ask the Brazilians why they omitted
or refused to complete the questionnaire that the Government of
Canada needed? Is there an answer to that question?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it became evident to everyone on January
30, in particular, that Brazil said it had brought 4,100 head of
cattle in from countries in the European Union where there is now
known to be BSE. During the risk assessment that number rose
with the investigation to 6,000 head of cattle.
The conditions that were put on for the lifting of the ban
clearly stated that none of the product from those cattle would
come to Canada. One of our main concerns was to protect the
health and safety of Canadians.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, according to news reports there are at least 14 RCMP
criminal investigations into recipients of ACOA funding. That is
three more cases than last year. The original 11 were said to be
worth almost $4 million in taxpayer money.
Could the minister update the House on how many ACOA fraud cases
are now actively being investigated by the RCMP? How many
taxpayer dollars do they represent?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me point out that ACOA is
not under investigation but the recipients. It is important to
note that ACOA upon getting information referred these cases to
the RCMP. That is the kind of work ACOA does.
Let me point out that 61,000 jobs were created in Atlantic
Canada as a result of programs which the Alliance Party, as it
said during the election, would have eliminated.
1450
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the 14 fraud cases being investigated and a default rate
by ACOA of 20% are simply not acceptable.
ACOA is not the only way the Liberal government wastes taxpayer
money. It does that all over the country, not just at ACOA.
According to the public accounts the three regional development
agencies have written off over $300 million since 1995. Now the
Liberals want to give ACOA another $300 million for the Atlantic
innovation fund.
How could Canadians believe that ACOA would manage this fund any
better than it has in the past?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I overheard the member for
Medicine Hat who said we should just eliminate it. Their
complaints is a sign of their weakness, not their strength.
We will continue to support Atlantic provinces. We will create
thousands of jobs there. Unemployment has gone down by 3%. These
are good programs, but they do not want to talk about the 88%
success rate. All they want to talk about is the 12% we are
trying to straighten out.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, some fifteen young filmmakers in Montreal have prepared
a work of protest entitled “the last heritage minutes”.
This short video is strongly critical of the NFB's lack of
interest in supporting personal documentaries.
Does the minister agree that, by imposing cuts of 25% on the
NFB, she herself presided over the decisions that have limited
the NFB's ability to support personal documentaries?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I support the principle that, when decisions are made,
they must be made at the National Film Board.
No politician must ever meddle in these decisions.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is directly responsible.
By deciding to cut she forced the NFB to cut without actually
intervening and saying “Do it”. She told them. There are
limits nevertheless.
What does the minister intend to do to better support the NFB
and to develop new creative talent in the area of film, by
giving them funding, among other things?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we may be proud of the fact that over the past five
years, we have increased the Canadian Heritage budget in many
areas, just about the opposite of what is currently happening in
Quebec.
This explains the MAL movement in Quebec: “Ça fait mal chez
Mme Maltais”.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last week Senator Eric Berntson lost his final appeal
and promised to resign his seat in the other place. What about
his replacement?
If the Prime Minister can appreciate the value in allowing
Canadians to hold their representatives accountable, will the
Prime Minister allow the people of Saskatchewan to elect their
next senator?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the obligation of the Prime Minister is to follow the
Constitution of Canada. When there was a vote in the House for
an elected Senate the Reform Party, now the Alliance Party, voted
against it. The hon. member should remind her constituents of
that and be reminded of it herself. This is a point that should
be borne in mind.
Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, however, it is not required to open the constitution or
launch rounds of backroom discussions to reform the institution
of parliament.
British Columbia and Alberta already have laws in place to elect
senators. Saskatchewan would gladly welcome the same opportunity
to elect its representatives. Would the Prime Minister commit
today to allowing Canadians to elect their own senators?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why does the hon. member say that it is democratic for
someone to be elected until age 75 with no right of recall? That
is not my idea or most Canadians' idea of democracy. I think she
ought to go back to the drawing board.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for Minister of Transport. The minister will know
that there is a tremendous amount of local interest in having VIA
Rail establish a new station in the western part of Ottawa.
Meetings have occurred between VIA Rail and OC Transpo to examine
the feasibility of this project on a site in south Nepean.
Could the minister tell the House the status of this project,
what he thinks of it, and whether or not it is something that can
be done in the near future?
1455
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is an excellent project the hon. member has pursued
for over 10 years, first as a councillor in Nepean and now as the
member for Nepean—Carleton. He should be commended for his
tireless efforts on behalf of his constituents and on behalf of
the travelling public by rail.
The arrangements are now being worked out between VIA and OC
Transpo to establish a train station at Barrhaven. I hope this
can be announced in the near future. I have also asked VIA to
look at the feasibility of starting its Montreal trains at a new
station in Barrhaven.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, under pressure from the Competition
Bureau, Air Canada agreed yesterday to reinstate its previous air
fares on three routes. However, a complaint launched by CanJet
two weeks ago included two additional routes, one of which is its
prime Toronto to Halifax corridor.
Even one week of predatory seat sales is devastating to an
emerging airline, let alone two or more. Why is the government
willing to sit idly by while Air Canada crushes its competition?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I might remind the hon. member that his party joined
with all parties in the House to support Bill C-26 in the last
parliament to establish rules dealing with predatory behaviour
and predatory pricing.
The Competition Act was amended. It is working. I am sure the
commissioner of competition will be looking at each and every
case very closely.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a small consolation to the
competition, in this case CanJet. In September 1999 CanJet filed
an abuse of dominance complaint with the Competition Bureau, a
complaint that has yet to be heard some six months later and
could result in permanent protection.
On the one hand, Air Canada wants protection from the big, bad
American Airlines. On the other hand, Mr. Milton does not think
that smaller domestic airlines that are just getting started need
protection from him and his announced discount carrier. Will
minister allow Mr. Milton to have it both ways?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I remind the hon. member that the Competition Bureau
operates at arm's length from the government. The Competition
Act was amended last June. His party worked with everybody in
support of those amendments.
Let the Competition Bureau do its job and ensure that the air
environment, which is improving in terms of competition,
continues and all small companies have a chance to compete head
on with Air Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
LAKE SAINT-PIERRE
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Lake Saint-Pierre
is extremely rich in flora and fauna. For several years now,
this body of water has been being polluted by the Canadian army,
which has fired more than 300,000 shells since the 1950s.
In 1982, a man died after coming across a shell. We also know that
children play with them. These shells are a danger to
commercial and recreational fishers.
The Minister of National Defence is now looking at the
possibility of cleaning up this body of water.
Will he tell us what measures he intends to take to ensure that
the public has safe access to Lake Saint-Pierre?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since the early 1990s we have cut test firings in
the area. We have put up a stop butt rather than firing directly
into the lake. We now fire into an embankment so that we are
preventing further pollution to the lake.
Meanwhile, a very detailed examination is being done to see what
needs to be carried out in terms of cleaning up the pollution
that existed prior to that, which was caused by the munitions
that were fired into the water. We have changed the practice. We
are determined to clean up the lake.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
members are aware, heart disease and stroke are a leading cause
of death and disability in Canada. As February is heart and
stroke month, it is appropriate to ask the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Health to tell the House what new
initiatives the government has undertaken to research these
diseases.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Don Valley
West for asking this very important and very relevant question.
It gives me an opportunity to announce the Canadian government's
decision to provide $24.4 million in funding for research into
heart disease. This is in addition to $9.2 million already
announced a while ago in Alberta for stroke research.
This funding is evidence of the Government of Canada's commitment to
leading edge research in Canada in this very important field.
* * *
1500
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has just said that
Mr. Amodeo's presence in Canada was justified because, according
to her, he had been accepted in Quebec's immigrant investor
program.
Should we not be worried by the minister's answer when we know
that, under this program, security checks are not Quebec's
responsibility?
Are we to understand that she thought otherwise and that she was
relying on Quebec to do her work for her?
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. The process for
applying for landed immigrant status is that if someone wants to
apply to Quebec then he or she must receive a selection
certificate called a CSQ from the province of Quebec.
The federal government maintains the statutory requirements,
which include medical and security checks, but no one is granted
permanent resident status in the province of Quebec unless he or
she has received a CSQ. That is the Canada-Quebec accord. That
is the way it works.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I think the minister just confirmed
that her department is responsible for the security checks, so I
would ask her how someone on Interpol's 500 most wanted list got
a visitor's visa to Canada in 1998 and is still in the country.
How did he get that visitor's visa when she is supposed to be
doing security checks?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question of the member opposite is
uninformed. I would also point out to her that the reason it is
uninformed is that when individuals from certain countries,
including western Europe, Italy, France and others, arrive at our
ports of entry their passports are stamped. That is their visa.
They do not have to apply for it in advance. They do not have to
satisfy anyone except the port of entry official as to their
reason for being in Canada.
That is different from permanent resident status. I would say
to the member opposite—
The Speaker: I am afraid we have run out of time. That
will conclude question period for today.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[English]
CROWN LIABILITY AND PROCEEDINGS ACT
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-277, an act to amend the
Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure and optimism that I
am reintroducing this bill today. Its purpose is to ensure that
a person serving time in prison will not be able to sue the
federal government or its employees under any federal legislation
in respect of a claim arising while that person is under
sentence.
If enacted, the bill will put an end to the practice of
prisoners engaging in frivolous lawsuits against the federal
government and to their abuse of the legal system.
I urge all members in the House to give serious consideration to
the bill and to support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-278, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (prohibited sexual acts).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to reintroduce
this private member's bill. It seeks to raise the age of sexual
consent from age 14 to age 16. It would thus make it a criminal
offence for an adult to engage in sex with children 16 and under.
The bill was first introduced in 1996 and was reintroduced in
1997 and again in 1999.
I rise again in the House and must unfortunately appeal to the
better nature of every member of parliament. The widespread
concern over child pornography and child prostitution in the
country makes it even more urgent for enactment of the
legislation to protect the young and the vulnerable in our
society from the predators among us.
For the sake of our children, I appeal to members of the House
to give serious consideration to the bill and to lend their
support accordingly.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
VIA RAIL COMMERCIALIZATION ACT
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-279, an act
respecting the commercialization of VIA Rail Canada Inc.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am reintroducing this bill which I had
introduced in the previous parliament. It deals with several
problems with VIA Rail, the biggest one being the use of taxpayer
money.
VIA Rail has a subsidy of $500,000 a day 365 days of the year
and had a recent injection of $400 million in taxpayer money to
keep it going.
It competes with the private sector. The private sector is able
to operate this company. Why should taxpayer money continue?
The bill will see an end to that taxpayer subsidy and put it in
the hands of the private sector, which will run it without cost
to the taxpayers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA HEALTH ACT
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-280, an act to
amend the Canada Health Act (conditions for contributions).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is also the reintroduction of a
previous private member's bill in regard to our very dedicated
emergency response workers in this country, who attend to
accidents and deal with all kinds of emergency situations. On
occasion they can be exposed to infectious diseases.
There is no official notification protocol for those people to
be notified of the potential harm to themselves, their
co-workers, their families and other community members. This
bill puts into place a notification protocol system whereby those
people will be notified while the confidentiality of the patients
themselves will still be protected.
1510
We owe it to the people who put their lives on the line for us
to ensure that their lives are looked after as well.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA EVIDENCE ACT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-281, an act to amend the Canada
Evidence Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this bill
which will do away with the confusion that comes now that the
year 2000 is gone. What does the date 02:04:03 mean? Is it
April 3, 2002? Is it March 4, 2002? Is it February 4, 2003? Is
it April 2, 2003? The list goes on. There are six permutations.
My bill would cause people in Canada to begin thinking logically
according to our international standard and give dates by the
year, month and day. It would not be a requirement. It would
amend the evidence act simply to say that if there is a date in
dispute and there is no clear indication otherwise, then the
year, month and day protocol would apply.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
HOMEOWNERS' FREEDOM FROM DOUBLE TAXATION ACT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-282, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(deduction of property taxes paid in respect of a principal
residence).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the description of the bill is succinct
indeed. It would provide that people who own homes could deduct
from their taxable income the amount of money used to pay their
property taxes. The impact and my theme in this bill would be
that Canadians would not have to pay taxes on money they earn for
the sole purpose of paying taxes.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ENERGY PRICE COMMISSION ACT
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-283, an act to establish the Energy Price
Commission.
She said: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure most members who are
sitting here today are quite aware, Canadians throughout the
country in every province and territory are deeply upset and
actually quite disgusted with the ongoing increase in fuel
prices. They feel there must be some government intervention to
ensure that no gouging or unfair practices are taking place.
I think that the energy price commission would give the
government the opportunity to ensure that it does have some say
if companies are pursuing increased costs just for the sake of
greed, not necessity.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Code (offences
by corporations, directors and officers).
She said: Mr. Speaker, prior to the last election and just
prior to the summer break, the House and all parliamentarians
supported the move for the government to introduce legislation to
address the issue of corporate manslaughter.
Very few Canadians are not aware of the situation that took
place in Westray a number of years ago in which 26 miners were
killed when there was no question whatsoever that it was through
the negligence and disregard of their managers, corporation and
workplace inspectors as well as governments in general to ensure
that there was a safe workplace. Safe practices were not
followed.
Justice Richard at that time said that the government needed to
bring forth legislation to hold those corporations accountable
for criminal negligence. He also said that the corporations and
corporation management should be charged and held accountable in
a criminal court of law.
The bill would do what the government has neglected to do. The
Liberals made a promise before the election and assured us that
this would happen, but the minister has given no indication that
she intends to address this issue now. Therefore, this private
member's bill will once again give parliamentarians the option of
voting on the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1515
PETITIONS
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure to introduce three petitions today.
The first petition seeks and calls upon parliament to repeal
section 43 of the criminal code which is a very antiquated
section that has been determined as a legal approval of violence
against children. It is very contrary to our children's
fundamental rights to security of the person as outlined by our
charter of rights and freedoms and the UN convention on the
rights of the child.
ADDICTION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition was signed by a number of petitioners who are
very concerned about the high cost on individuals and communities
of not being able to find adequate treatment and responses for
those in our society who face addiction.
The petition calls on all members of government to work together
to provide what we call treatment on demand to ensure that there
are adequate resources for those who are faced with this terrible
situation.
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition was signed by people in Canada who are very
concerned about growing child poverty in our country, and the
fact that parliament has not been able to fulfil its obligation
put forward by Mr. Ed Broadbent in 1989 that the House of Commons
should end child poverty by the year 2000. The situation is
worsening. The petitioners call on parliament to provide the
resources and attention to eliminate child poverty in Canada.
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have the pleasure of presenting a petition on an issue that is
important to all of us. We all recognize that in this era of
divorce there can be custody battles for children with respect to
the parents. However, we sometimes lose touch with the fact that
this also affects grandparents.
I have a petition to present which asks the government to amend
the Divorce Act to allow access for grandparents to their
grandchildren when there are divorce proceedings. This is a very
serious issue and I hope the government will take it as such.
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition signed by a
number of constituents and other residents of Winnipeg, Manitoba
who are very concerned about the state of our health care system.
They have signed a petition calling on the government to make
health care a priority and to take the necessary actions to
preserve our public health care system.
The petitioners believe that the federal Liberals actually
opened the door to two tier American style health care in Canada.
They would like to see the government redress that situation and
take meaningful steps to stop the slide toward privatization and
for profit hospitals and clinics in Canada today.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to
Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are
displaced, persecuted or in danger, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present Bill C-11, the
immigration and refugee protection act to the House for second
reading. When the business of the House came to a close because
of the election call, the progress of Bill C-31, the previous
immigration and refugee protection act that I introduced in the
House last spring, was of course brought to a halt.
This time however has given me the opportunity to review in
detail the many discussions that ensued and the many submissions
which were received subsequent to the introduction of the
previous bill.
1520
In particular, the time has given me the opportunity to consider
carefully what Canadians were saying about the bill, both in its
broad orientation as well as in specific detail. I can say I was
pleased to note that Canadians were generally quite supportive of
the previous bill known as Bill C-31.
They also expressed a few concerns. I am happy to say that I
have addressed many of those concerns and the issues that were
expressed. In Bill C-11 we have addressed what I believe were
the most serious of those concerns. I have incorporated a number
of recent proposals and I will describe those momentarily. I
want to be clear that Bill C-11 maintains the core principles and
the provisions of the previous bill.
This is important legislation, legislation which will be of
great benefit to the country. The reason why is quite simple. By
saying “no” more quickly to those who would abuse our rules, we
will be able to say “yes” more often to those immigrants and
refugees who Canada will need to grow and prosper in the years
ahead.
This new legislation flows from four years of consultation. We
had consultation with our constitutional partners in immigration
matters, the provinces and the territories and with others
interested in immigration matters. Those consultations have been
both substantive as well as extensive.
The provinces have been quick to point out that we will only be
able to increase our overall immigration levels, as the
government is committed to, if we are prepared to improve our
ability to absorb and to integrate those increased numbers. I
understand and I accept this completely.
We have also consulted wisely, widely and substantially with
many non-governmental groups and others involved in the business
of settlement services for immigrants and refugees. I have met
with Canadians, with permanent residents, with those who have
been here for generations and with those who are newcomers. We
have consulted as well with business leaders about the need for
skilled workers. We have worked out innovative new ways to see
that highly skilled workers on the move around the world will
identify Canada as their destination of choice, our communities,
our culture and our society.
Our economy has benefited enormously from immigration in the
past. The evidence is seen all around us. We must continue to
welcome new arrivals so that Canada will continue to grow and
prosper and continue to be recognized in the years ahead as the
best place in the world in which to live.
Of course we know that Canada is increasingly being challenged
by other countries that are competing for the world's best and
brightest who are seeking opportunities abroad. This competition
will only grow more intense in the years ahead as more countries
desire the benefits of immigration and experience the demographic
changes that I believe and I know most western countries are
facing.
The new century will belong to those who are best able to
develop and expand their collective human capital. The knowledge
based economy has become a reality. If Canada is to compete and
succeed, we must continue to attract skilled workers from across
the globe, to share their knowledge and their skills and to build
bridges with the rest of the world. This means attracting not
just skilled and hardworking individuals, it means reuniting them
with their families as quickly as possible and welcoming them
into the Canadian family. It means honouring our proud
humanitarian tradition which begins with our commitment to
provide safe haven to those in genuine need of our protection.
In the recent Speech from the Throne the government committed to
modernizing and streamlining Canada's immigration and refugee
protection systems. With Bill C-11, we are doing it. The bill
simplifies the current Immigration Act. It enhances the safety
and security of Canadians and of Canada's borders. It
strengthens our ability to attract the immigrants we need and
reaffirms our traditional openness to newcomers.
In short, it provides us with all that we need to fulfill our
dual mandate, which is to close the back door to those who would
abuse our generosity and not obey our rules, so that we can open
the front door wider to the immigrants and refugees like those
who came before them, who came here to build this wonderful
country.
1525
The bill will enable us to meet the challenges and take
advantage of the enormous opportunities that the new century
holds for this country.
Bill C-11 remains a tough bill. However, I want to emphasize
that it is tough on criminal abuse of our immigration and refugee
protection systems. The bill creates severe new penalties for
people smugglers and for those caught trafficking in humans.
These are deplorable activities. There will be fines of up to $1
million and sentences of up to life in prison for persons
convicted of smuggling and trafficking in humans. It will also
allow our courts to order the forfeiture of money and other
property seized from traffickers.
The bill clarifies our existing grounds for detention and our
criteria for inadmissibility to Canada. It provides immigration
enforcement officers with the tools they need to see that serious
criminals, threats to national security, violators of human
rights, participants in organized crime and members of terrorist
organizations are barred entry to Canada.
Bill C-11 will introduce front end security screening of all
refugee claimants, fewer appeals for serious criminals and
suspension of refugee claims for those charged with crimes until
the courts have rendered a decision. This is what Canadians want
and this is what we have delivered.
Bill C-11 will also streamline the refugee determination
process. Referrals to the immigration and refugee board will
take place within three working days of a claim. By
consolidating several current steps and protection criteria into
a single decision at the IRB and, moreover, by combining
increased use of single member panels at the board with an
internal paper appeal on merit, we will see faster but fairer
decisions on refugee claims.
Combining grounds for protection at our IRB, Bill C-11 will
maintain due process and a fair hearing for refugee claimants,
while offering fewer opportunities for protracted judicial review
at the federal court. Once again, this is a good example of
streamlining.
I should note that Bill C-11 does not expand on the existing
grounds for protection. It simply consolidates several current
protection criteria and corresponding protection decisions into a
single step. Grounds for protection will remain the same as they
are at present in keeping with Canada's international human
rights obligations.
Bill C-11 also takes steps to address the frustrating revolving
door syndrome that has become associated with repeat claims.
Failed claimants removed from Canada after receiving a fair
hearing and due process, should they return to Canada to make a
repeat claim, will no longer return to the immigration and
refugee board. Instead, if they return to Canada seeking
protection after six months, they will be given a pre-removal
risk assessment to determine whether circumstances relevant to
their previous claim have changed. Before six months, they are
entitled to seek refugee protection only at our missions outside
of Canada.
Bill C-11 will also strengthen the integrity of our immigration
system. It will tighten up sponsorship provisions to see that
those who sponsor new immigrants are both able and willing to
meet their financial obligations. They will be required to keep
their promises.
Bill C-11 will improve our ability to recover the costs of
social assistance in the cases of sponsorship default. In
regulations to accompany Bill C-11, we will deny sponsorship to
those in default of spousal or child support payments, those on
social assistance and those convicted of spousal or child abuse.
Bill C-11 will also establish a new class of inadmissibility for
those who commit fraud or misrepresentation on immigration
applications. It will create a new offence for those caught
helping anyone to gain status in Canada through fraud or
misrepresentation.
1530
New arrivals would be required to demonstrate reasonable
attachment to our country in order to maintain permanent
residence status. Bill C-11 would require physical presence in
Canada for at least two of every five years for new immigrants to
maintain their permanent residence status.
These changes are very important for one very simple reason. It
is about respect. In my many discussions with individuals and
organizations across Canada, I can assure members that this point
has been made abundantly clear. Canadians want a system that is
based on respect, both respect for our laws and our traditional
openness to newcomers. Bill C-11 would do just that.
I spoke of the steps to close the back door, but equally Bill
C-11 would allow us to open the front door wider. We would
improve our ability to attract skilled workers and speed up
family reunification. In regulations authorized by Bill C-11, we
would modernize our selection system for skilled workers.
Independent immigrants would be selected for their adaptability,
level of education and training, language skills, experience and
general level of employability.
In today's rapidly evolving labour markets we need people who
are best able to adapt to new occupations as the needs of the
labour market shift over time. These are people who would thrive
and contribute to our prosperity in the economy of this new
century.
Bill C-11 would also provide easier access for highly skilled
temporary foreign workers so that Canadian businesses can stay
competitive and seize every opportunity for expansion. Many
skilled workers who come to Canada on a temporary basis are
subsequently offered permanent positions.
The regulations to Bill C-11 would allow these workers to apply
for landing from within Canada under certain conditions, just as
it would allow foreign students who have graduated and worked in
Canada also to apply for landing from within Canada.
Bill C-11 also recognizes that family reunification has always
been a cornerstone of Canada's immigration policy. Canadians
know that new arrivals establish themselves more quickly and much
better when they have the support of their extended families.
Bill C-11 and its supporting regulations would allow spouses,
partners and dependent children to apply for landing from within
Canada provided that they are already here legally and that they
made appropriate admissibility provisions.
I started my remarks by making references to the improvements I
made in the bill to address some of the concerns that had been
raised in relation to Bill C-31. I will say a few words about
the changes.
One key concern that I heard was that the previous bill had to
do with the idea of framework legislation. I understand the
concern but I consider it all the same. Framework legislation
remains essential to the efficient administration of the
immigration program, particularly in the context of changing
global environment in which it operates and would continue to
operate. Framework legislation allows us the flexibility to make
changes through regulation when sudden, unforeseen circumstances
require. However I made a commitment to see that all key
principles and policies are set out explicitly in the act rather
than in regulations.
Bill C-11 enshrines in the act the principles of equality,
freedom from discrimination and the equality of English and
French as official languages of Canada. It also makes explicit
the provision that parents are members of the family class. There
is, moreover, an explicit provision now in the act that sponsors
spouses, partners, dependent children and refugees resettled from
abroad, along with their dependents, would not be denied
admission on grounds that they would create an excessive demand
on our medical system.
Bill C-11 also affirms in legislation the principle that
children should only be detained as a last resort. It provides a
clear definition of permanent resident to distinguish the rights
of permanent residents from those of other foreign nationals.
1535
Oral hearings have been reinstated for those facing loss of
permanent resident status, and provisions have been clarified for
allowing new evidence to be presented at those appeals.
Bill C-11 would also facilitate the return of permanent
residents with expired permanent resident cards if they have been
outside Canada for less than one year.
We have built in a higher threshold for examination within
Canada related to inadmissibility and immigration officers would
now require a warrant to arrest a permanent resident on any
immigration matter.
Before denying access to the refugee determination system to
persons convicted of serious criminal offences outside of Canada,
the bill requires a ministerial danger opinion. This provision
is a safeguard to protect those who may have been convicted of
politically trumped up charges.
The bill makes explicit our policy that people refused refugee
resettlement overseas by a Canadian visa officer would
nonetheless be able to apply for refugee status from within
Canada.
Finally, I am happy to say that the United Nations high
commissioner for refugees will be allowed to observe IRB hearings
and participate as an intervener in cases before the refugee
appeal division. I believe these improvements both strengthen
the bill's integrity and protects the rights of individuals
before the immigration and refugee protection systems.
Bill C-11 gives us a balanced approach to immigration and
refugee protection policy.
Since the initial passage of the current Immigration Act in
1976, I know we all agree that the world has changed
dramatically. More than ever before, people are on the move for
trade, tourism, investment and education in order to develop
their skills, to share their knowledge, to pursue their dreams,
to find safety and to reunite with family.
Canada has been the enormous beneficiary of this global movement
of people.
The swift passage of Bill C-11 into law would allow us to
modernize our immigration and refugee protection systems. It
would allow us to meet the challenges and take advantage of the
opportunities that lie ahead.
Let me assure the House that regulations in support of Bill C-11
will be developed in as an open and consultative manner as this
bill has been developed. It will give members of the House, key
immigration stakeholders and individual Canadians ample
opportunity to share their views.
Issues of immigration and refugee protection are very important
to the country. They take us to many of our core values that we
as Canadians share. An open and transparent regulatory process
would ensure that Canadians support the rules that are put in
place.
Let me also assure the House that Bill C-11 recognizes that
immigration is an area of jurisdiction that the federal
government shares with the provinces and territories. Bill C-11
would commit the Government of Canada to continue consulting and
working with our partners, the provinces and territories, in
these matters.
The government is fully committed to the social union framework
agreement and recognizes that immigration does impact on areas of
provincial jurisdiction, such as health care, education and
social services.
However, immigration also brings enormous social, cultural and
economic benefits to Canada, its provinces and cities, benefits
that must be weighed against the short term costs. Indeed, it is
one of the reasons that so many of our provinces are currently
looking to attract more immigrants. They know as we all do that
immigrants and refugees built this country.
Under the new provisions of Bill C-11, immigrants and refugees
would continue to help build the country in the future. I am
proud to move adoption and second reading of Bill C-11.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in the second reading of Bill
C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of
refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in
danger. The bill is really the reintroduction of Bill C-31 which
died on the order paper with the call of the last election.
1540
As this is my first lengthy speech in the 37th parliament, I
thank the constituents of Dauphin—Swan River for returning me to
the House. Congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your election
to the chair and belated congratulations to all members of the
House. I welcome my two deputy critics who will assist me in
this portfolio, the new member for Blackstrap and the member for
Surrey Central.
I will outline to our viewers how I intend to use up the next 40
minutes in debating Bill C-11. I will touch on the Canadian
Alliance immigration policy, discuss why immigration is
everybody's business, examine the current problems that are daily
encountered, review the harsh words of the auditor general, and
look at what needs to be done to improve the system.
Before I begin I want to tell the House how privileged I am to
be able to stand in the House in 2001 to debate the subject of
immigration. Not only am I proud to represent the Canadian
Alliance Party. I am proud to say that I am an immigrant to this
country.
My grandfather was a Chinese railway worker who arrived here in
the late 1800s. My father came in 1922, a year before the
implementation of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which incidentally
happened right here in the House of Commons. The Chinese
Exclusion Act refused the entry of Chinese immigrants for the
next 24 years. The act was repealed in 1947.
I immigrated to Canada in 1955 as a seven year old. I do not
believe for one minute that my grandfather would ever have
envisioned that some day his grandson in the future would be
standing in the House of Commons debating immigration
legislation. I am doubly honoured to rise in the House today.
It is most unfortunate that a minister of the crown during the
last federal election made some disparaging remarks about the
Canadian Alliance. It was possible that these remarks were made
in the heat of battle. We all do that from time to time.
Unfortunately these remarks still irritate over three million
Canadians who voted for the Canadian Alliance Party. I hope I am
correct in saying that the minister did not mean what she said. I
only wish the minister would do the right thing to resolve this
issue.
The Canadian Alliance Party is pro-immigration. I will read our
policy statements on immigration from the past election. Canadian
Alliance promised to welcome new Canadians and at the same time
keep out the criminals. Canada is a nation of immigrants. We
have always been enriched by new arrivals to our shores. A
Canadian Alliance government would maintain the current level of
immigration. We would make it easier for immigrants who possess
advanced skills and training to enter Canada, and we would make
the family reunification process truly responsive.
Canadians are also angered by policies which have let dangerous
criminals into our country and unscrupulous human smugglers who
bring in illegal migrants, jumping the queue and hurting the
integrity of the system. The Canadian Alliance immigration
policy would accommodate legitimate immigrants and their families
who seek to contribute to Canada, while locking it tight to those
who would abuse the system.
Immigration is the story of Canada. Immigrants have been coming
to Canada since Cartier and Champlain. Canada was built on the
backs of the immigrants who came here from around the world. We
are fortunate that after the 1900s, Canada adopted a somewhat
open door policy to immigration.
Yes, as a country we have had our bleak moments, starting with
the aboriginals, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Jews, the
Ukrainians and the blacks. Despite all these bleak moments in
history, we have fared quite well. Certainly over the last 50
years Canada has become an example to the world. Our diversity
is a strength and not a weakness. We have shown the world that
people from around the world can live and work together under one
tent.
We should always see ourselves as Canadians first before our
country of origin. Otherwise we will become a patchwork of
ethnic communities, which will weaken our resolve as a nation. I
agree with the author John Boyko who in his book entitled Last
Steps to Freedom wrote:
In my opinion this is basically the weak link in Canada's
multicultural initiative.
I applaud the member for Kitchener—Waterloo for his principal
stand during the 36th parliament in his advocacy for those of us
who are Canadians by choice in the citizenship act debate. There
is no doubt the House will hear more from the hon. member for
Kitchener—Waterloo when we debate Canadian citizenship in the
future.
Canada needs to attract the cream of the crop around the world.
In today's global economy, all countries are competing for
skilled labour.
1545
Canada's only option for population growth is through
immigration. Smart immigration policies will create the
opportunities for the country to create wealth. We need to keep
better track of the different groups to determine how they are
doing in the country, both in the short and long term.
The Canadian Alliance believes there needs to be a balance
between access to Canada and security of our country from the
world's criminals and terrorists.
We need to emphasize integration into Canadian society for both
immigrants and refugees. The act mentions integration but does
not specify how it is to be carried out. Canada has had many
integration initiatives, both long term and administered by the
government. They all have some level of success and failure.
However, with a larger number of both refugees and immigrants we
need to look at a consistent approach to helping immigrants
integrate into Canadian society. We know that most refugees have
many needs including language. A clear plan of action should be
in place to ensure that refugees receive basic needs, language
training, education and skill training so they can become
integrated into all aspects of Canadian life.
There is a desire by the populace to see that new Canadians are
distributed throughout the country so that they do not all end up
in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. All parts of Canada need
population growth. The federal government must come up with a
new integration program in consultation with the municipalities
and provinces.
The parliamentary secretary, the member for Gatineau, and I
along with other members had lunch with a Danish delegation to
talk about immigration issues. It was interesting that the
Danish government had put in place new legislation called the
integration act.
The Danish integration policy is based upon the fact that
immigrants and refugees on the whole, and especially the newly
arrived, have a disadvantage in linguistic and vocational fields
which prevent them from participating in society on an equal
footing with the rest of the population.
The Danish policy was necessary, while respecting the principle
of non-discrimination, to implement special integration measures
which aimed to ensure that immigrants and refugees would be able
to participate fully in education, the labour market and all
other areas of society.
The integration act shifted responsibility for integration
measures for the newly arrived from the federal level to the
municipal level, which it felt had the best capacity for
implementing a comprehensive and co-ordinated set of integration
measures concerning housing, community information, education,
vocational training and an introduction to the labour market.
That makes a lot of sense. In Canada it is unfortunate that
after the first year of arrival most immigrants somehow end up in
big cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. It will be
interesting to see the results of the Danish initiative.
The Canadian Alliance Party believes Canada needs to do its part
in taking in refugees. We understand that refugees are not
immigrants. Immigrants choose to move to another country.
Refugees are forced to flee, often leaving family and belongings
behind.
Eighty per cent of the world's refugees are women and children.
In refugee determination, Canada should enforce section F(b) of
article one of the United Nations convention relating to the
status of refugees, which states that refugee status should not
apply to those who have committed a serious non-political crime
outside the country of refuge prior to his or her admission to
that country. Canada cannot afford to take in another country's
criminals regardless of whether they are an immigrant or a
refugee.
The government calls the new Bill C-11 a framework document. I
agree that all it has is the frame. It is short on content. This
type of enabling legislation leaves a lot to be desired.
Unfortunately the regulations are authorized by order in council
and sometimes have little resemblance to the legislation.
Enabling legislation like Bill C-11 leaves too much authority in
the hands of the minister.
Let us take a reality check on immigration happenings in Canada.
As the House knows, I was appointed the Canadian Alliance chief
critic for citizenship and immigration last August. Since that
time there has been no shortage of immigration stories.
Most Canadians would agree that our immigration system needs a
serious overhaul. Will the new Bill C-11 do the job at this
stage? I do not think so. These stories occur almost daily and
show the shortcomings of our immigration system.
Let us look at some of the problems that have occurred over the
last year. Last August the supreme court ruled on the human
smuggling trial in British Columbia. The trial should have sent
a wake-up call to the federal government that it must revamp the
immigration system. The federal government continues to tout its
tough federal legislation, but after the verdict there is no
doubt that Canada will remain a number one target for human
traffickers.
In Bill C-11 there is a $1 million penalty, but the problem is
catching the culprits.
Enforcement is the key problem. All the legislation in the world
will not help if there are no resources to see things through.
The staff must be commended for the job they do in spite of
waning resources. It takes a long time to process those coming
ashore, and quick action is needed to determine whether the
immigrants are bona fide.
1550
Foreign nationals without status should not be under the
protection of the Canadian charter. The new immigration act will
broaden the definition of who can become a refugee in Canada,
which goes well beyond the United Nations' definition of a
refugee. If they are criminals they should not be accepted by
Canada as refugees. That is within the convention.
While most other western nations are working to tighten their
laws, Canada will remain the easiest target in the developed
world. We must not forget who is paying the bill: the poor
taxpayer.
The government has learned very little since boatloads of
illegal migrants from China made their way to Canada's shore last
year. The auditor general's report of April 2000 noted serious
deficiencies in the management and delivery of the Canadian
immigration program. Such deficiencies led the auditor general
to conclude that the program's integrity was at risk and to
question whether the department could handle applications and
ensure compliance under the act.
Last August 28, the media reported corruption allegations at
Canada's high commission in Hong Kong amid reports that
immigration officials accepted gifts while working in Hong Kong.
There were also reports that the RCMP official who blew the
whistle on the scandal may be fired. That should have been
reason enough to call for a third party probe.
In September the department had to deal with health problems
associated with testing. Following the report of a malaria
outbreak in Quebec, the government should have beefed up standard
health testing for refugees and overseas applicants.
The auditor general called 10 years ago for serious upgrades of
health standards. Medical staff to conduct such crucial tests
has been reduced and the results are outbreaks like the one we
heard about in Quebec.
In the April 2000 report from the auditor general, several
deficiencies within Canada's immigration program were brought
forward. Questions were raised about the standard health tests
used by the immigration department and the number of physicians
involved in checking for infectious disease. Some 240 refugees
who came to Canada from central Africa in August were exposed to
the malaria virus. Several of them started turning up in
hospitals after joining host families when they arrived.
Again in September the minister stated that she would act on
Health Canada's recommendation to test immigrants for HIV and
reject applicants who tested positive.
The threat of AIDS is nothing new. The government has failed to
protect the health of all Canadians by not acting sooner. In
1994 the hon. member for Calgary Northeast raised a motion in the
House calling for AIDS testing and the government voted it down.
Is that the kind of leadership Canadians can trust in the 21st
century?
Five years ago there were 44 physicians to check for infectious
disease. Today there are something like 22 and they are expected
to process over 200,000 claims. The government has failed to
address the work overload thrust upon immigration department
physicians.
By November Canada had become the home of Mr. Lai Changxing,
arrested for allegedly having smuggled billions into China. It
was discovered that he had been residing fraudulently in Canada
for the past 15 months.
Mr. Lai is a prime example of what is wrong with our immigration
system. A wanted criminal from China simply walked into Canada
without the benefit of a background check and in doing so
compromised the safety of the people of this country. If he is a
proven criminal beyond a reasonable doubt, then he should be
deported to his home country which is eager to welcome him home.
The supreme court decision on deportation has really thrown a
monkey wrench into the case. A wanted criminal of Mr. Lai's
stature should never have been allowed into Canada. The court's
decision served only to send a message that if people break the
law they can hide here. That is why Canada is the most
attractive destination for the criminals of the world. Under the
current system people can claim to be refugees and immigration
Canada will allow them to remain in the country regardless of
their criminal record.
Are we about to create a new category called a criminal refugee?
My colleague, the hon. member for Provencher, the former
attorney general of Manitoba and our Canadian Alliance justice
critic, expressed strong disapproval at the Supreme Court of
Canada ruling in Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay.
1555
The member for Provencher said it would create a haven for any
violent criminal, Canadian or otherwise, who would come to Canada
to escape the death penalty in the United States or any other
country. He also stated that after this precedent setting
decision Canada would become a sanctuary for murderers and other
violent criminals, putting the safety of law-abiding citizens at
risk.
I agree with the member for Provencher. I believe the decision
rendered by the supreme court, if it was to have been made,
should have been made in the House. There is no doubt the
decision has tied the hands of both the immigration minister and
the immigration legislation.
In December the people of Hamilton received a scare when it was
reported that some 1,200 people had been exposed to a deadly
strain of drug resistant TB carried by a new immigrant. That is
another example of the quality of screening that takes place
before entry into Canada. Again, the first priority of the
government should be to protect the lives of its citizens.
Even after the Hamilton scare I wonder if immigration has fixed
the problems relating to health testing standards. The auditor
general in his April 2000 report made recommendations to improve
co-operation between the immigration and health departments, to
make adequate resources available to enforce the testing process,
and to have a clear definition of what tests should be
administered before entry into Canada is allowed.
The auditor general has been telling the immigration department
there were serious risks and flaws in the system as far back as
1990. I believe very few improvements have been made since then.
It is time the auditor general's advice was taken seriously. We
need a defined list of diseases to be tested for, both here and
abroad, and resources need to be made available to employ
adequate numbers of physicians.
At the very least there must be a very clear and definitive
minimum standard of health requirements for entry into Canada, a
set of diagnostic procedures for each test administered and an
accountable process to monitor immigrants admitted into Canada
while undergoing treatment.
Other questions that need to be addressed regarding the health
screen process followed by Immigration Canada in granting
entrance to immigrants and refugees are: How is it kept up to
date? Are there minimum standards? How are they enforced? Is
there a process for follow up?
The auditor general made further recommendations for
improvement, and here they are. The first one was to ensure in
establishing a regular review system that the current list of
prohibited diseases keeps pace with world health issues.
The second was to establish, review and ensure a minimum
standard of health requirements for entrance into Canada that is
strictly enforced.
The third was to establish minimum qualifications and
requirements for physicians completing or interpreting test
results that would certify an applicant's admissibility.
The fourth was to establish a minimum of diagnostic procedures
that must be completed before entry is granted, i.e. TB skin
tests, chest x-rays and blood tests.
The last was to establish standards and guidelines for follow up
of those who are allowed entrance while undergoing treatment.
In April 2000 the auditor general also said:
We are also very concerned about the lack of rigour and
consistency in the overall management of medical assessment
activities, including the procedures for supervising the
designated local physicians who perform medical examinations of
prospective immigrants abroad.
I ask members of the House what is more important in immigration
than health standards. Perhaps it is time to incorporate these
core principles into the act.
Last week federal statistics were released which show the number
of deported individuals is up and that there are about 15,000
missing individuals with warrants. Of the 8,640 deportees in the
last year 2,000 were violent criminals who required a personal
escort by Canadian officials as they posed a threat to the
public. The missing 15,000 are believed to have gone underground
and into hiding.
That should come as no surprise to anyone who follows the news.
Rarely a day goes by without an article on immigration. Canadians
should know that we do not keep exit data. We do not know how
many foreign nationals are here at any given time. Even if they
came into the country on a visa, we do not know if they left the
country when their visa ran out. Why would Canadians therefore
be surprised at the high number of individuals with warrants?
Canada is the number one destination for criminals to hide out
from the law. We should not be surprised that with the recent
supreme court ruling on deportation the numbers being deported
will dwindle.
1600
It looks like Canada will become the destination of choice for
the world's criminals. Even Toronto police chief Julian Fantino
agrees. He said “You commit your crime in one place, you run
from consequences and accountability and where do you go? You go
to a place like Canada”.
In Bill C-11, the government borrowed from private member's
bill, Bill C-333, an act to amend the Immigration Act and
criminal code, refugee or immigration applicants convicted of an
offence on indictment. This was tabled in the 35th parliament by
the member for Vancouver North.
I liked the tough talk from the minister last week in the media
about deporting criminals. Unfortunately, it is tougher walking
the talk, especially now that we are living in a post-supreme
court period.
As recent as last Friday the Montreal Gazette reported
that a suspected Italian Mafia hit man moved freely across the
Canadian and U.S. border while courts in Europe were charging him
with murder. Immigration Canada alleged that the man knew about
the charges but failed to mention them while renewing his visa, a
violation of Canada's Immigration Act.
According to the papers it appears that Canadian security and
Interpol did not compare notes on this dangerous criminal. What
will happen at this deportation hearing if this man claims harm
and fears for his life if deported? The examples are endless.
They all show the same thing. Our immigration system needs a
major overhaul beyond the creation of a new act.
Even the lawyers in the country are not happy with the current
immigration system. I will quote from the August-September 2000
issue of the National, a publication of the Canadian Bar
Association. In fact, the minister of immigration is in that
very publication. This was what some of the members had to say
when asked what was wrong with Canada's immigration system.
The first quote is from Allen Ruben of Fredericton, New
Brunswick. He said “The 1994 budget cuts at the immigration
department sliced away one-third of its human and financial
resources, leading to processing delays of up to three years in
the entry of urgently needed foreign workers”.
The second quote is from Isabelle Dongier of Montreal. She said
“The immigration rules are so complicated and hard to understand
that they are very irregularly applied and interpreted. If you
present a case at the border you can sit there with five
different officers and have five different interpretations of the
same situation”.
The last quote is from Michael Greene of Calgary. He said
“There is hardly any regulation for unscrupulous immigration
consultants, some of them disbarred lawyers who prey on
ill-informed and vulnerable immigrants. It is astounding that a
government department would take so little care of the people it
deals with, especially when they know they are dealing with
people who are particularly ignorant of our laws and customs”.
Even the lawyers are frustrated with our immigration system. The
most reliable scrutineer of the government of the day, as we all
know, is the office of the Auditor General of Canada. Much of
what was said 10 years ago by the auditor general on the
immigration file was repeated in his April 2000 report.
For the record, I will read the auditor general's news release
dated in Ottawa on April 11, 2000. It was titled, “Immigration
services abroad are in trouble and need urgent attention”,
chapter 3. It said:
In his Report tabled today in Parliament, the Auditor General of
Canada, Denis Desautels, notes serious deficiencies in the
management and delivery of the economic component of the Canadian
Immigration Program, whose aim is to recruit skilled workers and
business immigrants. Immigration offices abroad are overtasked,
controls to protect health and safety of Canadians are deficient,
and the Department is vulnerable to fraud and abuse. In
addition, the Department is open to criticism of the quality and
consistency of its decisions.
“Immigrants provide a steady flow of talent and new skills to
our labour force. The deficiencies we noted in our audit
seriously limit Canada's ability to get the economic and social
benefits that immigration affords and seriously weakens the level
of protection for Canadians intended in the Immigration Act”,
said Denis Desautels. He added that it is highly questionable
whether the Department has the capacity it needs to meet the
annual immigration levels set by the government.
1605
We know that immigration levels have been set for the past two
years at between 200,000 and 225,000. In 1999 approximately
190,000 immigrants were admitted to Canada; 56% were economic
immigrants, skilled workers, entrepreneurs, investors and
self-employed workers.
Among the findings of the report were the following. First,
selected criteria and process were not conducive to a rigorous
selection of immigrants who were highly qualified and able to
contribute to our economy. Second, applicants could wait up to
three years for a decision. That is intolerable. Third, there
were significant weaknesses in medical assessment of prospective
immigrants. The same routine tests have been required for the
last 40 years, despite the emergence of new diseases. Canadians
should be concerned about their health. Fourth, some immigrants
were admitted to Canada without reasonable assurance that they
had not committed crimes abroad. Fifth, there were inadequate
controls over revenue, visa forms and computer systems in offices
abroad.
The auditor general urged the department and the government to
take immediate action to address both policy and administrative
issues. The statement of Mr. Desautels from April 2000 went on
to say:
“It is disappointing to note that several of the problems we
raise today are similar to those reported in 1990”, said Denis
Desautels. “Employees responsible for processing applications
in offices abroad are deeply concerned about the present state of
affairs and I share their concerns”.
As hon. members can see, our immigration system is in dire need
of a major overhaul. The question is how will the new act fix
the old problems that go as far back as 1990? How accountable
will the minister be in getting these problems rectified. The
buck does stop at the minister's desk.
The old saying goes that it is always easier to criticize. In
other words, what would the Canadian Alliance do to fix the
problems? Let me, on behalf of the Canadian Alliance, present
some solutions. Let me begin by saying that we will make the
system work. The current system of immigration is workable. It
is just very badly mismanaged and underfunded.
The department works with at least three other federal
departments; health, foreign affairs and human resources. Better
co-operation and communication among all these other parties
would be a good first step in correcting what is wrong with the
department.
Staff at all levels need to be better educated as to their role.
The roles need to be standardized across the board. Those with
the most experience in security, for example, should probably
handle security matters. If the RCMP and CSIS are on board to
help at all immigration offices around the world, then their
expertise in determining security risks should be utilized. If
the RCMP and CSIS are not using their expertise in determining
security risks, then it is high time they were.
It is long overdue for an overhaul of the Immigration and
Refugee Board system, beginning by making this system more
transparent, less partisan and more credible. Members of the IRB
should be hired on merit, not politics.
The department needs to undergo a full financial audit to
determine areas of overlap and waste. There is currently not
enough staff to handle the workload. The latest budget cuts have
reduced the medical staff both in Canada and overseas
assignments. It is interesting that the auditor general made
these same complaints 10 years ago. There must be put in place
an evaluation process to determine whether the system is working
as a unit. There is no doubt that better co-ordination needs to
take place between overseas offices as well as those in Canada.
The definition of what a bona fide refugee is must be clear. We
need to follow the UN convention to which we are a signatory. As
is currently happening, almost anyone entering Canada can claim
refugee status. By the time they are processed and heard, many
years have passed. Most Canadians agree that refugees should not
be detained for long periods of time and that the determination
process must be compressed.
Canadians want an immigration system that protects their borders
from the criminals and terrorists of the world. Our security
system needs to be addressed. Proper training in criminal
background checks and risk assessments should be mandatory for
all these officers.
As I have illustrated throughout this debate, there are numerous
problems with the issue of security. The question which is
always raised is how did these undesirables get here in the first
place?
Our research shows that there is very little communication or
information sharing, sometimes none between the RCMP, CSIS and
other international security agencies such as Interpol. A recent
Montreal case is a good example.
1610
Another problem we learned is what information is shared is
sometimes undisclosed in a court during an appeal on an
application. Therefore, visa officers are reluctant to decline
applications on the basis of inadmissibility for security
reasons. It is very difficult to prove the standards of
inadmissibility. Further, there is no deterrent against
applicants repeatedly submitting false applications, therefore
increasing their chances of getting through the system. There
needs to be sharing of information between RCMP, CSIS and visa
officers.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in its
report entitled, “Refugee Protection and Border Security:
Striking a Balance”, recommended that the Government of Canada
increase resources for Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the
Canadian Security and Intelligence Service and the RCMP so that
they would be able to meet the challenges posed by traffickers in
people and ensure the safety and security of Canada and its
people. Perhaps it is time Canada stationed members of both the
RCMP and CSIS permanently at our overseas locations.
We believe that once an applicant has been found to have
willingly turned in a false application, which is a breach of the
act, that person should not be allowed to reapply for entry into
Canada. If we take our security seriously, the penalty for lying
needs to be equally harsh. The minister should have the
authority to deport an individual or decline the entry of an
individual based on criminal, violent or terrorist acts without
question or appeal.
The whole system of processing refugees must be addressed. We
need to process refugees expediently. It is inhumane to detain
or lock up refugees for long lengths of time, as was the case on
the west coast where foreign nationals who claimed refugee status
were locked up for over a year.
We would make the process work smoother if we adhered to the
definition as written by the United Nations, that a refugee
arrives, not by choice for economic gain but is here due to
persecution based on race, religion, ethnic origin or political
opinion. I must say that 95% of the refugee claims are credible.
It is the 5% that we are concerned about and many of them are
criminals who we do not need.
One way of dealing with these criminals who claim refugee status
is that we should not be giving them full charter status until
they have been declared bona fide refugees. Canadians wonder how
foreign nationals can have full charter protection when they are
foreign nationals before being declared bona fide refugees.
Penalties for those abusing the refugee claimant system should
be steep and serve as a deterrent for all future would be
fraudulent claims.
There is another point I would like to raise. Perhaps it is
time that Canada should keep exit data so that we know who is in
the country. Otherwise Canada is a pretty easy place to hide
once inside its borders. Maybe it is time to photograph all
those entering across our borders.
The minister must be more accountable for the operation of her
department. Canadians are tired of hearing immigration problems
almost daily on the news. They are asking the question, who is
minding the store. There is a consensus that the immigration
system in the country needs a major overhaul. Bill C-11 is only
one step to help rectify the problems. It is long overdue that
the government of the day to introduce new legislation since this
current act is of 1976 vintage. The bill needs changes like all
bills at second reading.
I close by saying that immigration is everybody's business. I
would say that most Canadians can relate personally to
immigration, if not in their immediate family, then certainly in
the heritage of their parents, grandparents or
great-grandparents. We all know that immigration will play a
major role in the future of the country.
The Canadian Alliance will take a constructive approach to Bill
C-11 at committee. We will continue to hold the government
accountable for its lack of action. We will put forth amendments
to strengthen the bill. We will listen to Canadians as they come
forth with their ideas for improvement. Immigration is
everybody's business. All Canadians need to be aware that a new
immigration bill is in the making. Persons wanting a copy of the
bill should contact their member of parliament.
I invite our viewers and all Canadians to communicate with their
members of parliament, or with me as chief opposition critic,
concerns and changes that they would like to see in this draft
piece of legislation called Bill C-11.
1615
The standing committee will be travelling across the country,
probably in the spring, to listen to Canadians. Perhaps anyone
who cannot attend these hearings would like to send in a written
presentation to the clerk of the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration, and anyone who would like to appear
before the standing committee could please contact their member
of parliament, myself or the clerk of the standing committee.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
the citizenship and immigration critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I
am pleased to rise at second reading of Bill C-11, an act
respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee
protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in
danger.
This bill, introduced for first reading on February 21, is
almost identical to Bill C-31, which was introduced in March
2000, in the previous parliament.
I will come back later on to the differences between Bill C-31
and Bill C-11 now before the House.
The current immigration act came into effect in 1976 and has
been amended about thirty times since then. It is therefore
important to undertake an indepth review of the legislation in
order to meet the needs of immigrants and refugees in the 21st
century.
In early February, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
tabled in the House of Commons her department's projections for
the levels of immigration to Canada in 2001 and 2002.
A brief review of the figures for the last 20 years shows that
150,000 applications for immigration were approved in 1980. In
the next five years, the number of landed immigrants dropped. In
1985, there were less than 100,000 immigrants. Starting in 1986,
the number increased, until it reached an all time high in 1992,
with well over 200,000 immigrants. In the following years, the
number decreased to fewer than 175,000 people.
According to the department's estimates, Canada will receive
200,000 to 225,000 immigrants and refugees in 2001, nearly 18%
of whom will settle in Quebec. For 2002, the estimates are
increased by some 10,000.
Canada and Quebec are welcoming nations. The bill before us
should be aimed at establishing a fair and equitable framework
to meet the needs of newcomers as humanely as possible, whether
they are immigrants or refugees, in accordance with
international conventions and with the values that are important
to both Canadians and Quebecers.
With free trade, with the break up of political structures, like
in Eastern Europe for example, with serious conflicts raging in
Asia, Africa and Europe and with the globalization of
communications, more and more people will be tempted if not
forced to embark on the adventure of trying to starting a new
life in a new country.
This new legislation should open the door so they can contribute
to the enrichment of the community of which they will become
part. Their skills, their experience and their personal
qualities are all essential to the development of both Canada
and Quebec as nations.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of the bill. However,
we will have to look at this bill more closely in committee
because certain aspects of it need to be changed.
As was the case with its predecessor, Bill C-31, the main thrust
of Bill C-11 is harshness towards illegal immigrants. Indeed, a
large part of the bill puts the emphasis on closing the door to
illegal immigrants, strengthening the measures designed to fight
fraud, false statements and abuse, prohibiting criminals and
those who present a security risk from entering Canada, and
imposing harsher penalties.
At first glance, this bill, as drafted, seems to suggest that
Canada has been invaded by all kinds of criminals and that the
door is too wide open.
The Bloc Quebecois does not share that view, which can only
serve to reinforce prejudice against refugees and immigrants.
With this bill, the minister is seeking among other things to
respond to a strong current of public opinion in the United
States which feels that Canada has become a kind of Club Med for
terrorists.
1620
Among the measures aimed at discouraging illegal border
crossings, the bill includes the imposition of heavy penalties,
namely fines of up to $1 million and a life sentence for human
traffickers and smugglers.
Revision of the act, as well as cracking down on illegals, is
also intended—and this is good news—to lighten the load on a
system that does not allow Canada to achieve its annual
objective of 300,000 newcomers.
At this time, there are more than 400,000 people within Canada
and elsewhere who are awaiting word on whether they will be able
to settle in Canada. Canada is a popular destination.
So, there is a problem with delays and I am sure that many
members of this House could provide examples in their own
ridings.
Speeding up the refugee determination process is one of the most
positive measures contained in this bill. Indeed, the minister
has indicated that, from now on, it will take 72 hours instead
of 3 months—this is nothing short of extraordinary—for a refugee
claim to be filed with the Immigration and Refugee Board, which
will have to bring down its decision within six to nine months.
The minister also pointed out that her bill would significantly
streamline refugee claim processing in order to reduce the
maximum time frame from five to two years.
New measures will also be put in place to modernize the
procedure for selecting skilled immigrant workers and temporary
workers.
It must be said that these measures will never apply in Quebec,
since under the Canada-Quebec agreement of 1991, Quebec selects
its own economic immigrants.
Refugee selection and family reunification remain under federal
jurisdiction. It is time, however, the law explicitly
recognized Quebec's jurisdiction. In this regard, section 10 of
the current law is very weak.
As a signatory to international human rights documents, Canada
has obligations as well with respect to the rights of non
citizens. The new bill must take the standards established in
these texts into account. Unfortunately, and although it refers
to them, the bill does not incorporate the relevant texts.
There are three international conventions. The first, the 1959
convention relating to the status of refugees, provides that the
mandate of the high commissioner for refugees to protect
refugees falls as well to the countries signing the convention,
including Canada.
The basic instrument, indeed the cornerstone of the
international refugee protection system, is respect for the
principle of non return recognized by the countries and
enshrined in article 33, which provides that “No Contracting
State shall expel or return, refouler, a refugee in any manner
whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or
freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or
political opinion”.
The bill currently before the House should also include sexual
orientation, specifically, as grounds.
Subclause 97(1)(a) of the bill refers to the convention against
torture and provides for the protection of persons threatened
with torture, as defined in article 1 of the convention.
However, the bill does not fully respect article 3 of the
convention, which prohibits the return of any individual to face
torture. In fact, the present bill does not prohibit returning
people deemed inadmissible for reasons of serious criminality
and security.
1625
Article 3 of the convention on the rights of the child requires
governments to give the child's best interest primary
consideration in all actions that concern him or her. Bill C-11
proposes that the best interest of the child be taken into
account.
This bill provides for the automatic detention of any person
entering Canada as part of an organized operation. The previous
bill gave no special status to refugee status claimants who were
minors. Under Bill C-11, a minor child shall be detained only as
a measure of last resort.
I have many more quotes concerning the rights of children that I
would love to read to the House, but since I have several pages
left in my speech, I will not do it. However, I would be more
than glad to provide them to any member interested.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recently published
a report on the Canadian refugee determination system. Bill C-11
before us today addresses two of the report's recommendations by
linking the appeal on the merits for refugee status claimants to
the pre-removal risk assessment part of the decision taken by the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.
However, there are many other recommendations which the bill
completely fails to address and which aggravate the existing
situation. For instance, the report recommends that the decision
as to admissibility should be the responsibility of the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.
The bill widens the categories of people whose claims will be
deemed inadmissible and who will therefore never have an
opportunity to be heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The Bloc Quebecois is particularly concerned by the fact that
the bill provides for the automatic detention of any person who
arrives in Canada in the context of an operation organized by
traffickers.
The Bloc criticized Bill C-31 because it did not grant any
special status to refugee claimants who are minors, in spite of
the fact that the UNHCR recently pointed out to Immigration
Canada that it was contrary to the international rules governing
the detention of young refugees, except in certain cases and for
very short periods of time.
The minister seems to have heard the message since Bill C-11
provides for the detention of young refugees only as a last
resort. However, the notion of “last resort” has yet to be
defined.
In addition to illegal immigration, the bill mentions three
main reasons for detention, namely the risk that the person will
flee the country, the fact that the person may be a threat to
public security, or cases where it is not possible to establish
the person's identity. These three reasons are already included
in the current act. However, in several respects, the bill
broadens the scope of the provisions on detention.
The bill gives new powers to immigration officers to detain
individuals at points of entry for purposes of “administrative
expediency”. The officers may also detain people when they have
reasonable grounds to suspect that they are inadmissible on
grounds of security or on grounds of human rights violations.
One might wonder whether this addition of new grounds for
detention based on expediency and suspicion is not a cause for
concern. It seems to us that the grounds of danger to the
public and the risk of failure to appear already cover all the
situations in which detention is necessary.
The bill also broadens the provisions with respect to detention
on grounds of identity. Any requirement to provide proof of
identity poses a serious obstacle for many refugees.
In fact, these people are often forced to flee without their
papers because their identity is precisely what exposes them to
persecution.
At the present time, detentions for lack of identification can
only take place at entry points. With this bill, a person will
now be able to be detained within the framework of any procedure
covered by the law if he or she does not establish identity.
1630
This means, for instance, that refugee claimants could be
detained if they do not establish their identity at the hearing
to determine refugee status.
In Bill C-11, what are presently two distinct decisions, refugee
status determination and review of the risk of removal, will be
a single decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board.
For every claim for refugee protection, and every application
for examination of risk of removal, the board will decide
whether the claimant is a convention refugee, whether the
claimant is a person in need of protection, that is to say a
person who would be subject to a danger of torture in their
country of origin and, finally, whether the claimant is a member
of a class of persons whose need for protection is recognized
through regulations.
It should be noted that the exception clauses in the convention
on refugees apply to refugees in the meaning of the convention,
and to persons in need of protection. These exceptions are
aimed at criminals, those who have committed serious common law
crimes in another country and anyone convicted of actions
contrary to the goals and principles of the United Nations.
The centralization of decision making within the Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada will no doubt make for a more effective
and rapid process.
Reference to the convention against torture is new and
significant. We should note, however, that the definition of
protected person contained in the bill is not absolutely
consistent with the provisions of the convention against
torture, which, unlike the convention on the status of refugees,
contains no exclusion clause. Article 3 of the convention
against torture prohibits the return of any person who may be
subject to torture, regardless of what the person may have done
in the past or may do in the future.
According to the bill and consistent with the situation
currently, only claims for refugee status approved by
citizenship and immigration may be heard.
However, the bill provides that an examination of an applicant's
criminal records potentially leading to an inadmissible claim
will now be conducted on entry into the country and no longer at
the end of the process, once the claimant has been given refugee
status. The bill also expands the categories of persons whose
claims are deemed unacceptable, which means they will not be
referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for a
hearing.
At the moment, the claims are inadmissible only for reasons of
criminality and if the minister issues a certificate of public
danger. Now, claims will be considered inadmissible if the
claimant has been found guilty in Canada of a crime punishable
by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years and for
which a sentence of at least two years was imposed.
A claimant will also be ruled ineligible if he has been
convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in
Canada, would constitute an offence under an act of parliament
that may be punished by a maximum term of imprisonment of at
least 10 years.
It is important to point out that automatically excluding
persons convicted of offences outside Canada poses a threat to
refugees. Too often, the criminal justice system is used as a
means of persecution. It is not unusual for victims of
persecution to be sentenced on the basis of false accusations
manufactured in order to convict them of crimes they did not
commit.
Under the bill, applications for protection will be heard by the
refugee protection division. Applicants will have a hearing
before a single board member, whereas at present a panel of two
hears the case.
Appeals against a decision by the refugee protection division
may be submitted to the new refugee appeal division by the
applicant or the minister. This division will not hold a
hearing, but will base its decision on written submissions. We
also deplore that this bill does not include any change to the
appointment process of board members.
1635
Over the past several years, the Bloc Quebecois has repeatedly
criticized the Liberals for making political appointments to the
Immigration and Refugee Board. We believe it is essential that
any change in the asylum claim process should seek to guarantee
the integrity of the refugee status determination system.
In order to achieve that, it is critical to establish a
transparent process to appoint and replace IRB members, so as to
ensure full impartiality and selection based on the candidates'
qualifications and professional experience, and not, as is often
the case now, on their political affiliation.
Since the bill provides that the decisions will be made by a
single member, it becomes even more important and in fact
essential that all the decision makers have the highest
qualifications.
The introduction of appeals on the merits addresses one of the
fundamental weaknesses of the present refugee determination
system. The absence of an appeal mechanism was very recently
criticized by the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights in
its report on the Canadian refugee determination system. It
should be noted, however, that the proposed appeal provides only
limited protection to refugee claimants because it is based on
written submissions only.
A large percentage of claims are ruled ineligible on grounds of
credibility. It will therefore be extremely difficult to
challenge such rulings of non-credibility in writing.
Furthermore, written submissions also raise the problem of
claimants without representation, which is often the case
because of the inadequacy of legal aid.
The bill provides no guarantee of the independence of the
refugee appeal division or of the greater expertise of its
members with respect to refugee determination. If an appeal is
to adequately correct the errors of the first level, the appeal
division must obviously be a distinct and higher level.
In fact, it seems hard to guarantee the impartiality or
appearance of impartiality of the process when the members of
the appeal division are called upon to judge decisions made by
their own colleagues in the section of first instance. Such a
structure, in which members of the division are required to
review themselves, does not imply a critical eye and cannot
therefore in our opinion present the necessary guarantees of
independence.
The Bloc Quebecois regrets the harsh tone used by the government
in presenting this bill and in the related public announcements.
The government's approach seems designed to reassure the
Canadian right and strengthen prejudice against refugees and
immigrants.
It is thus encouraging division and fanning the flames of
xenophobia and racism in society.
In recent years the Bloc Quebecois has said on several
occasions that Canada's refugee determination system should have
two essential features: it must be quick and fair to a person
who is legitimately seeking asylum and it must deter those who
overburden the system with unjustified claims.
This slowness in processing claims results in unacceptable human
tragedies and puts people and families in extremely difficult
situations.
For example, the average time to process a claim at the IRB's
Montreal office is 10 months. Moreover, at the end of December
1999, there were over 7,000 asylum seekers in Montreal alone who
were waiting for a hearing. That is one third of all cases in
Canada.
We also believe that the new bill on immigration does not
reflect explicitly enough the actual scope of all the powers
gained by Quebec in this area. According to Quebec's former
minister of public relations and immigration, Robert Perreault:
The act will have to include firm commitments in this regard.
Provisions will have to be added to the current bill to ensure,
among other things, the respect of Quebec's powers regarding the
selection of immigrant workers or the maintaining of a distinct
program for immigrant investors.
The bill will therefore have to contain a specific provision to
this effect. In addition to the issue of Quebec's jurisdiction,
it is important to mention that, although the bill proposes
amendments with respect to refugee claims, nowhere does Ottawa
undertake to assume the costs resulting from its handling of
those claims.
1640
In fact, if the federal government believes in the
effectiveness of the measures proposed in its bill, it should be
able to undertake to assume these costs, and to do so until
those affected have been granted refugee status, have been
granted permanent residence, or have left the country.
Last year, in February, it will be recalled, Quebec joined with
Ontario and British Columbia in criticizing the federal
government's handing of the movement of asylum seekers, calling
for major changes, and demanding that the federal government,
which is responsible for the entire refugee determination
process, assume all the costs of providing services to these
individuals, including social assistance, legal aid, education
and so forth.
I would remind members that, right now, it is costing Quebec
over $100 million annually to look after people waiting for a
ruling from the federal government's Immigration and Refugee
Board.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is greatly concerned by the
fact that many crucial points are relegated to the regulations
rather than being part of the bill itself. This means that the
government is basically excluding these rules from the scrutiny
of the House. This also opens the door to many changes, at the
whim of the government, or because of public pressure or
discontent with a court decision.
At second reading stage, the Bloc is supporting the principle of
this bill. However, a lot remains to be done.
We sincerely hope that, instead of just rubberstamping the
legislation, the Liberal government will consider improvements
to it, at committee stage, in order to meet the needs of those
who have chosen to settle here to build a better life for
themselves.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg
Centre who has served as the NDP critic for immigration and
citizenship over the past year. He has played a very important
role in providing insight into the forerunner of the bill. He
will continue to play a role in ensuring that we get the best
possible legislation out of this process.
I am very proud to be here today as the new NDP critic for
immigration and citizenship. I have much to learn as we begin
this process. I am sure the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and other colleagues in the House will understand if
I make any errors of fact, or if I have not clearly understood
all of the issues at hand. I trust that there will be
understanding and patience as we work on it together.
I want to indicate what drives me and what perspective I bring
to this debate. It is a perspective that I share very much with
the member for Winnipeg Centre partly, because of the kinds of
constituencies we represent. It is fair to say, if we look at
the ridings of Winnipeg Centre and Winnipeg North Centre, that
together we represent two of the probably most diverse areas in
the country with a very high number of ethnocultural groups
represented in our communities.
Winnipeg North Centre has an incredible diversity of
ethnocultural groups. It is an area with very strong
multicultural roots that has always welcomed immigrants from
every continent. Historically it experienced a large influx of
people of Ukrainian, Polish, Jewish and German heritage. More
recently immigrants have come in large numbers from the
Philippines, India, Portugal and from many Asian, Latin American,
African and Eastern European countries.
My constituency is home to many ethnocultural groups, many
multicultural organizations, and many services involved in the
preservation and the celebration of our rich and diverse
heritage.
1645
Together, those kinds of contributions, that kind of makeup,
make for a very active, very vibrant community working to ensure
an understanding of the differences among us and a respect for
one another. There are many churches, synagogues, temples,
gurdwaras, service groups and volunteer associations, all devoted
to immigrant settlement, refugee sponsorship and anti-racism
programs. I very much value the contributions of those
organizations to my community and I value what they have taught
me in terms of understanding the broad parameters of policies
pertaining to citizenship and immigration.
In the course of this debate and the committee meetings to
follow, I hope I will be able to reflect and represent the values
of my constituents, which I believe are the values of Canadians
everywhere. Having listened carefully to the critic for the
Alliance, who was very careful in his choice of words around the
policy issue, I would dare to say that if there is one thing that
unites us in the House today it is that we all very much believe
in the value of multiculturalism in the country today. We all
want to continue the tradition that Canada has established for
itself around the world in terms of being a country that is open
to new citizens and that operates on the basis of humanitarian
principles, offering refuge for people seeking asylum, for people
in need and for people wanting to be reunited with family.
I also bring to this debate a personal conviction from my own
background. Many of us in the Chamber today have a makeup of
many ethnocultural backgrounds, each and every one of us. In my
own case, I am proud to say that my mother is Dutch, married to a
Ukrainian Canadian, and that I am married to an Amish Mennonite.
I say that because for me it is part of who I am and part of what
I bring to this debate and what I hope to transmit to other
members in the Chamber. It is something I value and cherish.
I raise this also because I get concerned when I hear members of
the media or even members of the House suggesting that we have to
be watchful and mindful of all the different pockets of
ethnocultural groups in the country today because that can lead
to a patchwork of groups across the country and take away from
the goal of national unity.
I look at it from another perspective. I think this is where my
colleague, the critic from the Alliance, and I will have to
disagree. I tend to believe that the richness of my background
and of so many other Canadians in terms of ethnocultural
diversity is a positive, an added benefit, something to be
celebrated, not worried about. In fact I feel I am doubly
endowed as a Canadian with the kind of background I have.
Rather than worrying about pockets of ethnocultural groups, I
think we need to reflect on the value of diversity. We then need
to work to ensure that our policies encourage the celebration of
that diversity so that we, as a nation, gain strength from it and
are able to meet challenges we would not otherwise be able to
meet.
I say all of that because my biggest worry about Bill C-11 is
the same worry that my colleague for Winnipeg Centre raised with
respect to Bill C-31, that is, it seems to be more preoccupied
with keeping people out of the country and protecting Canada from
the world as opposed to reuniting families here in this country
and ensuring that we respect our humanitarian traditions.
I know some changes have been made by the minister. I know she
has made some improvements to the bill based on suggestions by
members of the House and representations from various groups, but
there is an overriding concern that we all share, at least those
of us in the NDP caucus, about the tone and tenor of the bill and
its focus on protecting Canada from the world as opposed to
reuniting families in Canada today.
Sometimes that happens, in fact, when members in the House, as
has happened quite regularly with the Alliance, tend to focus on
the exceptions to the rule, on those few examples where a
criminal element has entered our society or where people may have
brought a disease into this country, as opposed to looking at the
benefits from the thousands and thousands of immigrants and
refugees who have helped to make this country what it is today.
1650
Because of that focus and that kind of dominant thrust the
minister is facing daily from the Alliance and other extreme
elements in our society today, I worry that we will in fact lose
sight of the important humanitarian role Canada has played on the
world stage and of the extent to which those who have received
sanctuary have contributed to our country's economic, social and
cultural development.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe I have only two minutes left to
give some opening remarks on the bill. I do want to say that
there are a number of concerns which have to be addressed in the
process surrounding the bill. I hope the committee process for
receiving the bill will in fact be open to the many organizations
and groups that have great knowledge and enormous interest and
expertise in this area.
The NDP will be looking for some answers on issues not addressed
by the bill. For example, there is the whole question of
visitors' visas, an issue we deal with on a daily basis in our
constituency offices. There is the issue of the ongoing head
tax. Although the government has lifted it in regard to
refugees, it still is an ongoing concern in terms of it being a
barrier to people who want to come to Canada and settle here.
We will be raising concerns about the live-in caregiver program.
We will be raising concerns about the adherence of this country
to the Geneva convention around refugees in ensuring that our
country provides the appropriate travel documentation for and
acceptance of refugees here in Canada.
We will be raising concerns about the family class issue,
acknowledging that the minister has moved parents into this
group. This is a concern we have raised before and we appreciate
the change. However, given the need in this country for a
significant increase in immigrants, we still wonder why this
government is not looking at a broader definition of family class
and why we are not taking more steps to reduce the barriers to
immigrants and refugees, to ensure that in fact this country is
respectful of our past and is prepared to celebrate the diversity
that makes it so strong.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to refute the assertions of the NDP member,
who said that the Canadian Alliance focuses its point of view on
the criminal element and that this element is a small number. I
would say to the hon. member that 15,000 people out on warrants
is not a small number, far from it.
In fact, the Canadian Alliance Party takes a very balanced view.
We have a pro-immigration platform and we agree with the auditor
general that the health of Canadians is very important and needs
to be protected. This is why the screening process has to
improve.
As well, Canadians do not want migrants coming to our shores
claiming refugee status to be locked up for a year or more.
Number one, it is unfair to the individual. Number two, it is
taxing on the Canadian taxpayer.
I will close by asking the hon. member if she does not agree
with the auditor general's report of August 2000 pointing out
these shortcomings.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I will start by
saying that I was certainly not singling out the Alliance or the
member for Dauphin—Swan River in terms of these broad
pronouncements that are being advanced to the minister and are
therefore having an influence on her policies.
I was suggesting, in fact, that in terms of the issues raised by
the Alliance in the House and in terms of many media reports
about the exceptions to the rule, we end up with a situation in
which this government feels it necessary to emphasize the
protection and enforcement elements of the bill as opposed to
ensuring that our policies, programs and practices are conducive
to people who want to come to Canada, so that they are able to
settle here without financial and other barriers.
1655
My point is that if we do not deal with that kind of negative
message and this continual focus on enforcement, we fuel, by a
process that just flows from that, the flames of racism and
xenophobia. I think that is the last thing we want to do.
Instead, through this bill and this process we want to educate
and inform Canadians about the need for immigration, about how we
have to get the numbers up in terms of the demographics of the
country, and about how much we value our past immigration and
refugee policies.
There is no question that we all share concerns about the
auditor general's report. We all want to make sure we have the
best practices in place to deal with any bad apples in the
system, but we cannot let that be the dominant theme. We cannot
let that fuel any sense of intolerance and racism in the country
today.
We have to work together to send the minister and the government
a clear message that what they ought to do is use this moment in
our history as an opportunity to expound upon the virtues of
immigration and to ensure that we do everything possible to
reduce barriers and encourage settlement of people who want to
live here, who want to reunite with their families and who want
to make a contribution to this country.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, Health; the hon. member for St.
John's West, Natural Resources; and the hon. member for Edmonton
Centre-East, National Defence.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to start by complimenting the member for Winnipeg
North Centre for an excellent first speech in her new critic area
as the NDP caucus critic for citizenship and immigration.
She very accurately laid out some of the concerns we in the NDP
have about Bill C-11, not just about content but, as she said, in
tone and about the overall impression we are sending by a bill
that is overwhelmingly preoccupied with enforcement.
In fact, we have been critical for years. The Liberal
government seems to be yielding to the voices of those who are
against immigration, period. It is yielding by putting a
disproportionate allocation of energy and resources to keeping
people out of the country or to catching people who may have been
sneaking into the country rather than promoting Canada as a
destination for more immigration.
It is the clear point of view of the NDP caucus that we welcome
immigration. We recognize immigration as an engine for economic
growth. In fact, in areas like the ridings of Winnipeg Centre
and Winnipeg North Centre we feel we are not getting our fair
share of new Canadians. By ratio and proportion, Manitoba should
in fact be getting 8,000 to 10,000 new immigrants per year as our
share of the overall number of people who come to Canada. We are
actually getting less than one half of that.
Certainly in our ridings and in our world view we welcome more
new Canadians. We would hope that the government would use the
introduction of a new immigration bill to send that message to
the world: that Canada has an open door policy and we welcome
new immigrants and the contributions they can make.
We are critical as well of the tone of the bill, which seems to
concentrate on welcoming people with specific skills to fill
specific skills shortages. In other words, it is immigration
driven by the labour market. This illustrates a fundamental
shift in policy over the years. This never used to be the case.
We would invite immigrants to come to our country and, regardless
of their skills or literacy levels, they could begin to make a
contribution the very day they got here by being active consumers
and purchasing goods. Then they could make the contribution they
were able to make as they grew with our economy.
Today it is amazing how many entrepreneurs, business people and
people who have made enormous contributions started from those
humble roots. I believe that by being too selective not only are
we limiting the overall numbers of people we are welcoming, but
we may be missing a lot of awfully good talent. I am fond of
reminding the people from the Canadian Alliance that Einstein was
a refugee. A lot of skilled and qualified people are. Our own
Governor General was a refugee. Members of my staff were
refugees. No one asked them what their post-secondary education
was before they were welcomed here.
They started making a contribution when they arrived on these
shores.
1700
We were hoping that Bill C-11 would be fundamentally different
from the previous Bill C-31. We did hear a number of quality
presentations at the committee stage where shortcomings of Bill
C-31 were cited. The minister took note and we thought that we
had pretty broad agreement, at least on some of the issues.
To be fair, one of the things that we would have moved as an
amendment was incorporated into the new bill, that is,
considering parents as part of the family class. Family
unification is one of the three legs of immigration policy in
this country. We certainly welcome that change within the bill
and not just within the regulations.
There are other things that we do not see addressed. We pointed
out repeatedly the aspects of the bill that would bar entry to
any person who had been convicted of a serious crime. By
definition, a serious crime is one that is punishable by 10 years
in prison or if a person serves two years or more of a penalty of
up to 10 years. A person who has been convicted of a crime like
that in their country of origin would never be allowed entry into
this country. We pointed out the anomaly, in that somebody like
Nelson Mandela would have been barred from entering this country
as a refugee.
We have to recognize that some people who have been branded
criminals in their own country are political dissidents who are
standing up for the rights and principles that we would be proud
to have in our own country. We should be recognizing the fact
that many of the migrants in today's world are decent people who
were forced into activities that may be considered criminal in
that country. There is no denying that Nelson Mandela was part
of an armed insurrection to overthrow a despotic state. That is
just one example.
The increased penalties and the absolute zero tolerance rule for
anybody who is engaging in any kind of trafficking of human
beings can also be unfair. Canada is proud of its history with
the underground railroad. What was that if not the trafficking
and smuggling of people from persecution into freedom? The
people who hid Anne Frank in their attic would have been guilty
of taking part in the illegal trafficking and movement of people.
We have to recognize that there are political situations in the
world today where desperate people are taking desperate measures
to seek asylum and freedom. We do not see the protection in the
bill where we recognize the realities of many places in the
world.
We believe that Bill C-11 should have taken steps to change the
previous Bill C-31 and to modify other aspects. It was pointed
out by a number of people who made presentations to the committee
that risk assessments should be conducted by CIC officials rather
than the Immigration and Refugee Board. We fail to see that
recommendation incorporated into Bill C-11 even though we thought
there was broad consensus that it would be an improvement.
We also point out that Bill C-11 should have responded to the
numerous presentations that we heard which would spell out
specifically that we do adhere to the United Nations convention
against torture and that under no circumstances would we ever
send anyone back to a situation where they would face torture.
When challenged at the committee stage, where officials came and
made representations, as to whether they could point out a single
other country in the world, which is signatory to the UN
convention against torture, that even contemplates the idea of
sending people back to where they may face torture, they were
unable to answer. They said that they could not think of a
single example where that was the case. Again, we were hoping
that Bill C-11 would have reflected that at least.
1705
Another amendment we would have made dealt with the UN
convention on the rights of the child. As was pointed out in the
speech by the member from the Bloc Quebecois, we fall short of
the language called for in the UN convention. It says that the
rights of the child must be the primary consideration for any
decisions made on the future of the child. We say that the UN
convention on the rights of the child must be of principal
consideration. Not being a lawyer I do not know how that would
hold up when we compare the absolute primary consideration versus
a principal consideration. I think it is far weaker. I do not
know why we would hesitate to use the strongest of language in
that laudable concept.
I want to share the concerns voiced by the member for Winnipeg
North Centre. We do not want to pander to the xenophobia that we
saw in this country, where it raised its ugly head just 18 months
ago when the Chinese boat people landed on the shores of British
Columbia. At that time we saw the Canadian Alliance members
stand up and call for Canada to not follow through with the
supreme court's decision on the rights of a refugee, which was
that when they placed a foot in Canada, they should be given a
hearing.
Members of the Canadian Alliance held a press conference saying
that the refugees should be put on a boat and sent back to where
they came from. They said that we should not waste money on jail
time or feeding these people while they waited for their hearing.
They wanted to put them on that leaky tub and did not care if it
sank. That was the kind of hysteria we saw whipped up by
irresponsible people in the Reform Party or Alliance Party, and
that is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was making
reference to.
We do not want policy shaped by xenophobic hysteria whipped up
by people who are simply against immigration period.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House listening very
carefully to the critics from the opposition parties. I will
start by saying that while I do not agree with everything that
was said, I do appreciate the thoughtfulness of the presentations
and I am looking forward to answering their questions and to
being at committee for a full review.
The predecessor to Bill C-11, Bill C-31, was referred to
committee last June but it did not have the kind of full public
debate and hearing at committee, as members know, because of the
election call. We had the opportunity, over the course of the
summer and the fall, to give careful consideration to briefs
received by the department and by my office.
I believe Bill C-11, which is before the House today, responds
at great length to many of the issues and concerns that were
raised regarding the original immigration and refugee protection
legislation.
Having listened to my very thoughtful critics, I believe there
are a number of areas, which they have addressed, that are
actually addressed in the bill, or which could and would be
addressed by the regulatory package that would accompany the
bill.
For those people who are unaware of parliamentary procedure, it
is important to know that the formal regulation making process
does not begin until after the bill is enacted. However, I have
made a commitment, as I did with the previous legislation, that
we would have a discussion paper at the committee so that we
could start to discuss what the regulations would look like and
how they would inform the debate and the policies enshrined in
this framework legislation which is so important.
I thank my critics for their thoughtful comments. I look
forward to debate at committee. I wanted to take this
opportunity during questions and comments to say how much I
appreciate everything that they have had to say and look forward
to further discussion at committee.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's
remarks and the fact that she did stay to listen to all of the
critics speak about Bill C-11.
As we were dealing with Bill C-31, the predecessor to Bill C-11,
we were often told that the issues we raised would be dealt with
in the regulations and that we should not be concerned because we
would probably get satisfaction on our issues. We never did get
a chance to get to that stage with Bill C-31. In a sense we were
being asked to buy a pig in a poke because we had no real
assurance or any guarantee that the issue would be dealt with.
1710
If what the minister says is accurate, and I have no reason to
believe it is not, would she table the draft regulations now at
this early stage of Bill C-11 so that we might have a more
informed review of them rather than what happened to us with Bill
C-31?
Mr. Inky Mark:
Mr. Speaker, I find it astounding that the member for Winnipeg
Centre would spend his time attacking another member of the
opposition and continue to call the official opposition Reform.
The official name of this party is the united alternative.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Inky Mark: The Canadian Alliance Party. My mistake,
Mr. Speaker.
The point I raise is that as a member of this side of the House
I would suggest it would be more productive if he would spend his
time criticizing the actions of the government. That is why we
are called the opposition.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the reason I called the
official opposition the Reform Party is that at the time the
Chinese boat people landed on the shores of British Columbia and
at the time all those press conferences were held calling for
these people to be sent back where they came from without even a
basic hearing, the CA was in fact called the Reform Party. I
know the name of the party. I have the name clear in my mind but
I am not sure the member does.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this
afternoon's debate.
I, like the critic for the NDP, have just taken on the
responsibilities for our party for cartage of the immigration
file. I must say that there is indeed a large learning curve
which I have been rather proactive at trying to acquire over the
last little while.
Before I begin my remarks I want to compliment the minister on
the tenor of the approach she has taken so far with respect to
this particular debate in seeking input and listening to the
different perspectives from all members of the House.
The Conservative Party and the government will concur in a vast
majority of the bill, but it is also our job in opposition to
point out where the bill goes in the wrong direction, where it
needs improvement and, in some cases, where sections of the bill
may not be as warranted as they could be.
The tenor of the minister has been quite co-operative but I wish
to send a signal that my colleague from the NDP touched on as
well. I caution the minister and people within her department
not to get drawn in or eclipsed by the debate surrounding
immigration.
I was quite concerned when I read the very first press release
out on the bill. It states that the Minister for Citizenship and
Immigration tabled the immigration and refugee protection act in
the House of Commons today reaffirming her commitment to be tough
on criminals first, while strengthening efforts to attract
skilled immigrants.
I do not believe that to be the tenor of the minister on this
particular issue but immigration in this country is a Canadian
necessity. It is something to which we should extend our hands
in welcome. We need to have more confidence in and respect for
human diversity so that we do not get sucked into the debate of
always having to add the word criminal in a paragraph related to
immigration. I would like to flag that particular aspect.
The object of the bill is to provide an efficient framework for
immigration while at the same time ensuring that Canada, being
the society that we are, remains a safe haven for refugees who
are escaping persecution for a myriad of reasons. That is our
job, our human responsibility, as a responsible society.
1715
Today I am going to talk about areas in which the bill
progressively steps ahead with measures that are great additions
to the country's immigration and refugee protection policy. I
would also like to discuss some problems that are not part of the
bill which should be included. They are problems of status quo
which the bill does not necessarily resolve.
I would like to touch on the refugee issue. I refer to the
Singh decision of 1985. We as a society established for the
first time that we needed to have immigration and refugee board
so individuals could make oral presentations that could have an
effect on their lives. It was a step in the right direction.
Before that decision, I am sad to say that we made those
determinations based quite often on files and paper. At the end
of the day when it comes to refugees, we are actually dealing
with people. That is what this particular aspect is about.
We know that immigration is a demographic necessity for Canada.
We must continue to improve the framework which administers this
very important aspect of our society. The importance of Bill
C-11 has exponentially increased due to such things as the fact
that as Canadians we are human resource hungry.
Baby boomers are very well aware of the fact that not too long
from now that they will begin to retire en masse. We are going
to need to attract many individuals in order to address that
demographic shift in our economy so that our society and our
country can continue to grow in a manner that is necessary.
The key foundation of Canada's program is that it is colour
blind. We have access points across the world to enable
immigration and refugee protection. That is the noble goal of
this egalitarian policy but the administrative reality is quite
different.
I would like to point this fact out to the minister. Of all the
offices that Canada has abroad, there are very few in regions
where we take in most of our immigrants and refugees. They are
in countries such as Africa, India, the Philippines, China and
even Hong Kong. There are offices in big cities like Manila,
Bangkok, Beijing, Shanghai and New Delhi. There are offices in
African cities like Nairobi or Pretoria, despite the fact that
there are over 30 countries in Africa.
How can we expect thousands of people to make their way across
borders to a few places where Canada actually has an office? We
cannot simply state that we have a colour blind system, if we do
not make access to the system much more universal. Canada needs
more offices and access points for immigrants, now. The minister
needs those resources in order to do just that.
Not only do we have few offices in areas swamped with immigrants
and refugees but those that do exist are swamped. The auditor
general in his April 2000 report said:
We found that immigration offices abroad are overtasked. They
have much difficulty in coping with the volumes of work and
responsibilities assigned to them. Immigration levels set by the
government not met and applicants are waiting longer and longer
for the applications to be finalized.
I can point out another red book promise. The other day we
voted down a red book promise but I will try to keep this on the
straight and narrow for this particular debate. This red book
promise states:
A new Liberal government will move Canada's immigration levels
closer to 1% of the population each year and ensure that
sufficient resources are available to help families settle
properly in Canada.
I hope the minister appreciates the favour I am doing for her in
this speech. The political heat that she is taking at this
moment is clearly an indication that the minister does not have
the financial resources abroad or domestically in order for her
to carry out her mandate, as required and as outlined by the
Liberal Party of Canada.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is always very
willing to help the Liberal Party and show it the way as we did
with free trade and other initiatives in that regard.
1720
Latest figures show that around 225,000 immigrants or refugees
landed in the year 2000, with expectations of a slight increase
for the upcoming year.
The auditor general also pointed out one deficiency which should
be highlighted. The audit revealed:
—significant weaknesses in the management of medical assessments
or prospective immigrants. Since our last audit in 1990, the
Department of Health Canada have been unable to take a position
on whether changes to standards for medical examinations are
required to determine if an applicant poses a danger to public
health and safety, or could place excessive demand on health care
systems.
During the context of debate, we are going to have to address
this particular issue in terms of what tests, what diseases and
what maladies should or should not be tested for. It is
imperative that we bring this forth and look at this in the
context of the year 2001. The fact is we are really using a
framework that is essentially a quarter of a century old.
I raise this particular issue because I know the government is
going to be somewhat uncomfortable with the fact. The
Progressive Conservative Party and a number of opposition parties
find it very draconian that the government still has its $975
entrance feel. I hate the term, but like it or not, this is
still a head tax on new Canadians. If this $975 were an
administrative fee, it would be in a stand alone account. It
would be utilized as a servicing account to provide for language
training and other things which new Canadians need assistance
with. If money goes into general revenues and is not set aside,
by definition it is a head tax.
Another aspect which I would like to speak about is the issue of
credentials. However, to be honest I believe this is outside the
purview of Bill C-11. I applaud the government in its approach
to this. It has gone away from an occupation based criteria in
attracting economic immigrants to a skill based scenario. Skills
need to be transferable in the context of a modern economy. That
is a step in the right direction.
I would ask the minister to work in collaboration with the
Minister of Labour, the Minister of Human Resources Development
and the provinces to ensure that the credit agents, whether they
be from engineering, or medical or other professional
designations, have some way of being integrated into our Canadian
economy. That way immigrants will have a larger capacity to make
more of an impact right from the start. They will be able to
contribute to the growth of this great nation.
I would like to raise a concern that the Progressive
Conservative Party has with respect to division 4, clause
36(3)(b) of the bill which states “inadmissibility cannot be
based on a conviction in respect of which a pardon has been
granted”. How can we judge if it is a valid pardon. What about
violent crimes? What about situations where an individual has
been pardoned within some form of regime for consistent and
habitual spousal abuse or something of that kind?
Clearly, the minister would have the flexibility and the purview
to block that particular issue because she could conceive that
the individual could be of a violent nature and a harm to
Canadian society.
1725
I would like to see during the course of committee an amendment
or something with respect to the pardon. If an individual has
been pardoned for a serious or violent crime, he or she should go
through a higher degree of scrutiny than is outlined in the bill.
This is something the minister should consider as we debate this.
Another clause I am concerned with, although I think the
government is in the right direction in its approach, is a when
foreign national, other than a permanent resident, is
inadmissible on grounds that another family member is
inadmissible. I am talking about a situation where an individual
has lied or misrepresented the facts in some shape or form and
that individual was deemed to be inadmissible and sent back to
his or her country of origin.
Let us envision this situation. As it is in the bill right
now, family members, whether they be a child or a spouse, would
be deemed inadmissible as well. Also, there might be a situation
where a 20 year old has in Canada for quite some time. However,
after a long time we find out that one of his or her parents
should not have been granted admissibility into Canada. That 20
year old could be sent back to the country of origin. That child
could have lived here all his or her life. We are concerned
about that possible connector. We think that would be wrong.
I give credit to the minister and her department in that there
is less room in this bill for regulations compared to the
previous attempt in Bill C-31. There is a fair amount of
legislative license afforded to the minister. We would like to
be able to find out a little more about the regulatory regime
before we have a blind faith in the bill. The minister has been
quite genuine in that she would share that regulatory regime with
us. We will clearly take her at her word. We will work in
conjunction with the regulations and the bill. It is a step in
the right direction.
We applaud the government's initiatives with respect to stopping
multiple claims, where foreign nationals, other than the
permanent residents, must answer truthfully all questions put to
them and produce all documentation that the officer reasonably
requires. This particular initiative is something that deserves
some accolades as well.
Another house cleaning item in the bill, which the Progressive
Conservative Party firmly supports, is the government would
update the statute for same sex partners. That is a step in the
right direction and is in the context of the modern, open and
tolerant society.
Bill C-11 goes on to conclude that people would be inadmissible
if they lie or omit information, or if they commit an act
referred to in the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, or
if they are convicted of a crime or an offence outside of Canada
which would be punishable by more than 10 years of imprisonment
in Canada. Some individuals who may actually consider that
particular approach to be draconian. At the end of the day, if a
person has been sentenced to a crime of that nature, it is
clearly in the purview of the Canadian government to take
appropriate steps and deport that individual immediately.
* * *
1730
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NO. 2
NOTICE OF CLOSURE MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that with
respect to the consideration of the motion under government
orders, Government Business No. 2, at the next sitting I shall
move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not
further adjourned.
* * *
IMMIGRATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, an
act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee
protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, as I was
saying with respect to those very rare exceptions, the situations
that do not happen every day, contrary to what our colleague in
the Alliance has stated in his speech, it is clearly in the
purview of the Government of Canada to make initiatives when
required.
There are some safeguards in the bill as well. The case was
mentioned of Nelson Mandela. Clearly the Government of Canada
would address trumped up political charges of that nature. There
is enough ministerial licence to be able to address such
concerns.
I compliment the government with respect to its approach toward
human trafficking and toward the people who profit from such
initiatives. I think the government has stepped in the right
direction in terms of addressing such completely unacceptable
actions.
In conclusion, the Progressive Conservative Party will be
supporting the bill at second reading and reserving our judgment
on support at report stage and at third reading, subject to our
capacity to augment the bill and ensure we have the best piece of
legislation for Canadians.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member for Fundy—Royal on his call
for the elimination of the head tax. Members of the Canadian
Alliance take the same position.
Hopefully the country will learn the lesson going back 100
years, that a head tax is exactly that. As the member for
Fundy—Royal indicated in his speech, the money is thrown into
general coffers. The last thing new Canadians need is another
tax they cannot pay, even though under the current circumstances
the government will lend them money to pay the head tax. It
makes no sense.
It is estimated that there are 150 million migrants on the move
around the world. There is no doubt that Canada is a major
destination. What position does the member's party take in terms
of the immigration numbers we should accept into the country?
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, immigration into the
country is an economic necessity. With respect to the numbers we
have right now, an academic study shows the numbers of immigrants
we are currently taking in are drastically too low.
The Liberal Party of Canada set the minimum number at 1% of the
Canadian population. It needs to be more aggressive in hitting
that target. Sometimes, however, the target number can be
somewhat negative. There is an exponential amount of room to
increase the numbers we have now, and we must recognize the
economic necessity of immigration.
To be square with the hon. member from the Alliance, I do not
have a specific number. Something in excess of the government's
number of 1% of the population would be comfortable for us.
1735
I think the hon. member would agree that we need more
co-operation with the provinces to ensure we get a fair share of
new Canadians in all regions of the country and not just in the
urban centres.
I would say to the member from the Alliance that we are doing
the minister a direct favour by attacking the head tax. If it is
not a head tax then the moneys should be allocated directly
within the purview of her department. If it is an administrative
surcharge in some form it would rest with her department.
That would not satisfy the Progressive Conservative Party or, I
believe, the Canadian Alliance. We would rather do away with the
$975 charge altogether. Until it is in a stand alone account in
the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, it is a head tax.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
participate in the debate on Bill C-11, an act respecting
immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to
persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.
The purpose of the bill is to replace the Immigration Act of
1976. The current bill takes into account various facets of the
standing legislation and attempts to make the legislation much
stronger. While the legislation may be well intended, our
analysis shows that the outcome will not serve its stated
purpose. That was very eloquently mentioned by our chief
immigration critic in his speech a while ago.
Before I analyze the speech in depth, I would like to tell the
House and Canadians who are watching that I am a new immigrant to
Canada.
The Canadian Alliance and I respect the multicultural diversity
of our country. I and my party also respect the contribution
made by immigrants to our great country. Canada is a country of
immigrants.
Contrary to remarks made earlier by some members in the House
during debate, our policies are pro-immigration. I would remind
the House that approximately two to three years ago I moved a
motion at the immigration committee that the discriminatory head
tax should be removed. Government members in committee opposed
the motion. The government has taken away the head tax on
refugees. The discriminatory head tax still continues for
immigrants. That shows that I and my party supported the right
measures whenever we needed to.
In the past I spoke to Bill C-31 a few times, probably at all
readings. In my first speech three years ago I used the analogy
that we should open the front doors to immigrants but diligently
monitor them. I also mentioned that we should close the back
doors, including the windows and ventilators.
Today in the House the minister used my analogy. She said that
she intends to open the front doors and close the back doors.
However, I believe that by messing with the act she has lost the
opportunity to fix it again. She has not opened the front doors,
nor has she been able to close the back doors.
I will justify what I am saying. The minister has installed a
third door in the House, a revolving door. The people who enter
through the back door are stuck in a revolving door in Canada.
People trying to immigrate to Canada through the front door are
also stuck in the revolving door, as are their sponsors.
There are unnecessary delays. People are harassment on medical
grounds. Those people suffer various kinds of harassment.
1740
The minister has not been able to open the front door or close
the back door, but has instead installed a revolving door in the
bill which will cause further problems.
I will talk about the kind of approach we should take to the
immigration legislation. We need an immigration system that is
faster, but we also need fairness in processing. We need a
system that shows openness to newcomers but also addresses abuse
of the system. We need a system that demonstrates clearly our
social and humanitarian values but gives due consideration to
Canada's economic interests. Therefore we need a balanced
immigration and refugee legislation to meet our immigration
needs.
On the weekend, at the consultations in Ottawa for the World
Conference Against Racism, the statement by the immigration and
refugee caucus expressed huge dissatisfaction with Bill C-11.
According to the statement, of which I have a copy, the
criticisms are due to issues ranging from negative language and
stereotypes to discrimination against certain groups. They also
mentioned the lack of protection for stateless persons and the
detention and imprisonment of children.
The statement also highlighted that Bill C-11 falls short of
Canada's international commitments to human rights. I was
surprised when I saw that even at the World Conference Against
Racism the legislation was not appreciated. It received
criticism from all over, including from the auditor general.
The bill has little transparency. So many things in it are not
clear. The lack of real enforcement behind the legislation will
ultimately cause more trouble than the legislation it purports to
replace, simply due to a lack of clarity in the bill and its
reliance on a myriad of regulations.
The bill has not addressed the discriminatory head tax placed on
prospective immigrants. It also has not addressed the
recognition of foreign academic credentials by the immigration
department, by other departments and by industry.
The recent supreme court ruling also has serious implications on
any power the minister of immigration had in the past to deport
people. Therefore the efficiency, effectiveness and toughness of
the bill is nullified.
The bill allows extended absence from Canada. It will limit the
number of humanitarian and compassionate applications to one per
year. As well, the sponsorship period for new prospective
immigrants has been reduced from 10 years to 3 years.
Some things in the bill are reasonably good but let us see how
we can make the existing system work. The way the Liberals run
our immigration system is like a clogged plumbing system in a
house. It needs to be cleaned up and made workable.
Improvements, additions and elimination of overlap need to take
place.
Staff at immigration postings is in short supply, inadequately
trained and overworked in coping with the demands. That creates
unacceptable delays and mess ups.
An important aspect of the bill is security. Staff problems
also create security risks, as we have seen with Mr. Lai
Changxing, the accused kingpin smuggler. He landed in Canada
through queue jumping and was not detected by the visa officer.
There is also the example of a fellow who came to Canada with an
active case of tuberculosis and exposed some 1,500 people to the
deadly bacteria.
1745
Having enough well trained staff to enforce the legislation is a
must in order to effectively do the job. Visa officers, our
frontline defence team, need to be properly trained to identify
undesirables from immigrating to Canada. They should have
clarity of law and a clearer criterion for processing immigration
cases. In her speech the minister mentioned front end screening.
This security clearance check only applies to refugees and not to
immigrant applicants. This is what we heard when department
officials gave us a briefing.
There is no indication in Bill C-11 as to whether or not staff
will get the proper training to enforce this security clearance
check. The bill contains no deterrent from repetitious
fraudulent applications that cause endless paperwork for our visa
officers.
There have been numerous incidents of fraud by the staff,
particularly locally hired staff, in our foreign missions abroad.
In certain instances they can make more money than their whole
year's salary by defrauding a single immigration case. There is
no punishment in the bill for the applicants or the staff
committing fraud.
The bill promises to deliver better enforcement of security
measures for both refugees and immigrant applicants, but there is
no plan of action set out in the bill to explain how it will
work.
There should be mandatory communications among the RCMP, CSIS
and other international criminal investigation units. I do not
see anything mentioned in the legislation about that. That is
very important, particularly in the light of the question during
question period about someone who came to Canada without being
detected at the entry port.
The auditor general is critical in his report that this type of
communication is imperative. Mr. Lai Changxing may never have
got into the country if there was communication with Interpol
because he was one of the most wanted persons on the Interpol
list.
No one should be allowed into Canada without proper checks
concerning the possible risk they may pose to our country. That
is a legitimate request that we have for the minister.
Immigration into Canada should be simple: either they meet the
criteria or they do not. It is one of the two. There is nothing
in between. Either they meet the criteria or they do not meet
the criteria.
Immigration is an important aspect. We have to look into the
bill very seriously. If we do not meet the immigration targets
or quotas promised by the Liberals in any given year it is not a
crisis. Quality must not be compromised or sacrificed for
quantity. We have to be careful who are coming to Canada. Of
course we welcome genuine refugees with open arms. We welcome
immigrants with open arms, but it is the bad apples we are
talking about that should not be entitled to come to Canada and
put our citizenry at risk.
The government should be encouraging open and accountable
discussion that needs to take place between CIC, Health Canada,
HRDC, DFAIT, as well as the provinces and non-government
immigration organizations, the NGOs. It is missing that
opportunity with its proposed changes to the bill.
The criminal code would include human trafficking and smuggling
as federal offences for a change. Conviction of this offence
would be life imprisonment or a fine up to $1 million. Repeated
offences of these crimes, such as possessing fraudulent
passports, visas or any other travel documents, would also
receive monetary fines and jail time. That is a good thing in
the bill.
The bill proposes a very stiff penalty for human traffickers.
1750
Individuals convicted of political crimes or other serious
crimes can now be considered for risk of removal assessment. This
may turn Canada into a haven for those criminals.
In regard to refugee processing, one of the key changes proposed
in this bill includes referring refugees to the immigration
refugee board within three working days. However, the processing
time of the claim will remain the same, at 90 days or more. Our
experience has shown that the UN convention relating to the
status of refugees is simply too vague. The refugee definition
needs to be clear.
Most Canadians know what a true refugee is and we support doing
our part to help those who are truly in need. Keeping them
clogged in the system is not helping them, especially when they
are found not to be genuine refugees and are deported. Their
lives are ruined after so many months or even years.
I know this from practical experience in my own constituency. I
have been dealing with about 45 refugee cases where those
refugees are in the revolving door I mentioned; they have been in
the revolving door for seven, eight, nine or ten years. In the
meantime, they cannot unite with their families, they cannot work
properly and they cannot have peace of mind. They are in the
revolving door. They do not see the world the way the rest of us
do.
The bill also gives refugees as well as refugee applicants full
charter protection, so if someone is either denied access to
Canada or is refused refugee status for any reason, he or she is
entitled to a full set of appeals. It is like the layers of an
onion; he or she can keep peeling one layer after the other. It
also means he or she is given full rights as a citizen of Canada.
No other country in the world does that, not a single country in
the world.
The bill of course provides an elimination of appeal for those
who are serious criminals, for people who present security risks,
are members of criminal organizations or war criminals, and for
both fraudulent and seriously criminal applicants.
Health testing is another important ingredient for prospective
immigrants when they come to Canada. There is no provision in
this legislation to update the standard tests performed on all
immigrant applicants, nor is there anything in the bill to
increase the number of department physicians, either here in
Canada or abroad in our missions. There are currently 22
department physicians, 11 here and 11 abroad. These physicians
are responsible for the paperwork at the completion of the health
testing. They are also responsible for contracting out to local
physicians who do the actual testing.
These standard tests I am speaking of are up to 40 years old. We
know how the world has changed in 40 years and how technology has
evolved, particularly in the medical field, in the last 40 years.
Often, local doctors abroad are not aware of the criteria that
need to be met for admittance into Canada.
Foreign local doctors also need to be periodically audited to
ensure that no form of malfeasance is occurring. There have been
many complaints in my constituency office about the ethics of the
testing physicians abroad, from bribery to all kinds of
malpractice.
Currently Canada will accept applicants who do not pose a danger
to the Canadian public or place a strain on the Canadian health
system. A list of what conditions and ailments we will and will
not accept is needed and it is not in the bill.
There is nothing to streamline medical testing for families. I
have seen a number of cases in my constituency office where
medical testing of all family members was not co-ordinated. They
tested one member of the family, waited for three or four months
and then started processing. By that time, the medical testing
has expired. Then they went on to the other members. They keep
on juggling the medical tests, sometimes for four years. I have
one applicant in my constituency office whose family has been
medically tested three times. They passed every time. Each time
they had to go for medical tests it cost them money, real money
in their country's local currency.
It not only puts unnecessary financial strain on prospective
immigrants but also causes long delays.
1755
As I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker, let me sum up.
Under discretionary powers in the bill, the dual intent of the
applicant is now recognized. That means someone can be a visitor
to Canada and an immigrant to Canada at the same time. I believe
this will put a strain on the visitor visa. The visitor visa,
which is never addressed in any of the legislation, will have
serious problems.
Without a more open system and a far more communicative
department, the bill will not achieve its intended goal.
There are no set standards for operation of any of our overseas
offices.
The health standards, as I mentioned, have not been updated.
In the end, I would like to say that the Canadian Alliance would
increase the number of staff, as I mentioned earlier.
Bill C-11 promises to modernize the selection system, but unless
the amendments are accepted we will be unable to support the
bill.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I enjoyed the speech our colleague made. Of course he
has a lot of first-hand experience with immigration issues, and I
would like him to just expand on the last part of his speech. He
seemed to run out of time, and I think he still had some really
important things to say. I wonder whether he has any further
comments to make before he gives his notes away.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I
think I need unanimous consent to go on for another 10 minutes,
but I will try to finish in the little time I have.
I want to mention the accountability part, which is another very
important aspect of the bill. Positions on the Immigration and
Refugee Board along with all positions within the Department of
Immigration, such as citizenship judges, department physicians
and visa officers, need to be publicly advertised before people
are hired. It should not be up to the minister to appoint
someone to these important positions, because the criteria lack
accountability, clarity and efficiency for the system.
Another thing I want to mention is that the minister in her
speech this afternoon mentioned regulations. There are 89 pages
of regulations attached to the bill. When we have a bill in the
House with not much solid content, where only the intent is there
but there is no solid plan of action, we have to govern
ourselves, or the legislation has to be effective through the
back door, which I call regulations. That is never effective.
I have been co-chair of the House and Senate Standing Joint
Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. There are over 900
regulations in the pipeline. Hon. members will be surprised to
learn that many of them have been in the pipeline for the last 25
years. They have also not been tackled.
Governance by regulation is not the right way to do it. All
those regulations should be brought back to the House in their
respective bills so that we can debate them in the House. We
cannot debate the regulations. None of the members in the House
will ever get the opportunity to see those regulations and debate
them.
Another important aspect is about a court decision. The
Canadian Alliance supports deporting undesirable individuals
without question or delay in the cases of criminal activity or
non-compliance with the Immigration Act. Bill C-11 purports to
do the same. However, the minister, who had little power to do
so before, is now completely stripped of her right to deport
those who have either broken the law or have come to Canada to
escape the law. The Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the case
of the Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay, which came down on
February 15, 2001, applies to those individuals who face a threat
to their person if deported from Canada. I believe this ruling
will limit the minister's authority to deport any undesirable
element from Canadian society.
1800
I could make more points, but I will leave some time for members
to ask questions.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that all members
and people who are watching the debate realize how important it
is for the bill to go to committee so that the public can have
its say.
Bill C-31, its predecessor, had extensive debate in the House. I
know many questions were raised in the House which do not
accurately reflect what is in the bill. Some are changes that
have been made to the bill, and I know that the public will want
to have its say. Those who are experts in immigration will want
to have a chance to come to committee and to be heard.
However, there is one point that I wanted to make. Canada is a
world leader in our ability to remove those who do not have the
right to stay in Canada. We believe as a matter of policy and
principle that we can live up to our human rights obligations,
that we can abide by the rule of law in Canada and still deport
those who do not belong in Canada. Those two principles, rule of
law and human rights, go hand in hand. They are Canadian values
and we believe that the bill would enshrine those principles.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I can boast here a bit.
I have extensive experience dealing with immigrants. My
constituency of Surrey Central is the largest constituency in
Canada in terms of population since the constituencies are
divided based on registered citizens who can vote, the electors.
It has a high population of immigrants.
I went through Bill C-11 very thoroughly. I also attended the
minister's briefing. The briefing was very good. I appreciate
that. The minister mentioned that the bill is going to
committee. We appreciate the opportunity to come forward with
amendments, but I hope the minister will listen to those
amendments.
Last time when we were debating the same bill in its previous
form, Bill C-31, we did not have opportunity for the minister to
listen to us properly and accept our amendments. Our chief
critic for immigration came forward with very good amendments but
they were not accepted. That is why we are in this mess and
dealing with it again.
Also the minister mentioned that Canada is a leader in removing
the people who do not belong in Canada. That is not true.
According to the auditor general we have 15,000 people still in
Canada but whose whereabouts are not known. Could the minister
track those people? No, she has been unable to track those
people. They do not belong in Canada but they have been consumed
in the system. They are hiding but they are there somewhere and
we cannot remove them.
According to the auditor general's report, 60% of visitors who
come to Canada to apply for refugee status come without
documents. When they board the plane they have documents because
the airlines will not allow them to board without them, but when
they land in Canada 60% of them land without documents. What has
the minister done about it? Nothing. The auditor general's
reports for the last 10 years have been critical one after the
other, but the minister has chosen not to take any strong action.
During this debate we are hearing some good intentions, but we
appeal to the minister to come with a proper action plan. Let
her address the real hot buttons in the bill so we can make the
system more efficient, effective, absolutely accountable and
clear.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak today on Bill C-11 dealing basically with
immigration and refugee protection. I am rather familiar with
this bill, on which my colleague very eloquently expressed her
point of view just a few minutes ago. This bill is quite similar
to former Bill C-31.
I want to address a number of issues during my speech, including
the population movements which occurred in the 20th century and
which were important often for economic reasons, but also for
political reasons.
1805
I also want to talk about the detention of children.
During consideration of Bill C-31, I was among those who thought
it was crucial to address this particular issue for all kinds of
reasons, for instance, because Canada has signed the
international convention on the rights of the child. In my mind,
it was important to uphold the rights of the child, but also the
international conventions signed by Canada.
I think the whole issue regarding the detention of children
should be clarified in Bill C-11, the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, and not in future regulations, as the government
intends to do.
I would also like to touch on another issue, namely the
administrative slowness of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
This is a reality we have to deal with in urban ridings. It is
part of our life. People come to see us in our constituency
offices because they are facing unacceptably long delays, which,
we have to admit, causes terrible human tragedies.
Families are often the main victims of this administrative
slowness in the application review process by the Immigration
and Refugee Board.
I will also say a few words about illegal immigrants. When the
government introduced Bill C-31, it was more or less responding
to an alleged new reality that was emerging mostly in western
Canada, where more and more illegal immigrants were coming to
our country, particularly from Asia.
Members must realize that this phenomenon, which is indeed new,
is marginal. It is not true that the majority of those who want
to come here, either as permanent residents or as refugees, do
it by illegal means. Yes, this phenomenon exists, but it is
marginal. Unfortunately, the government is trying to use
legislative amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act to respond to a new current in western Canada even though it
is in fact a minor problem.
Another aspect of the question are the costs entailed by the
slowness of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada process.
I will come back shortly to a number of figures that are
specific to the Montreal offices in terms of claimant waiting
time and the number of claimants waiting.
Inevitably, this time frame and the slow administrative pace
result in significant administrative costs to the provinces and
the Government of Quebec for which the federal government should
assume responsibility at some point, insofar as the law does not
speed up the process and satisfactorily address the claims
currently before the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The last part of my speech concerns the objectives Canada is
setting for itself in terms of immigration, the number of new
immigrants.
We know that the government has just reached, for the first time
in many years, its immigration objectives for Canada.
Quebec too has its objectives, it must be pointed out, which go
far beyond the thirty thousand or so immigrants it would like to
take in. Often, the slow pace of the process blocks claims
currently being made abroad.
1810
I am thinking, among others, of immigration and the embassy in
Paris, where Quebec would like to attract francophone
immigrants. Unfortunately, Quebec cannot achieve its objectives
because of the substantial amount of time involved in the
administrative process.
I come back to what I was saying before. The first point
concerns the matter of population movement. The movement of
people in search of a land of refuge has been a striking
phenomenon of the 20th century, which, far from improving, has
increased in recent years, through an increase in situations of
organized violence, of violations of human rights, of wars and
of conflicts on the international scene.
In 1996 the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees
estimated that there were 26 million refugees in the world and
30 million displaced persons. Because western countries will
take them in only in very small numbers, the great majority of
refugees head for the poorest nations, those close to their own.
Nevertheless the governments of these nations are beginning to
feel that the demand exceeds what they can offer. Many have
adopted very restrictive deterrence measures which have shifted
the demand to other countries.
Today Canada is one of the rare western countries to which
those in danger may still try to apply for asylum under the
Geneva convention.
The Geneva convention confirms the right of an individual to
request asylum in a third country, but does not oblige the
country to which application has been made to grant the request,
in accordance with the rights and privileges of nations, whence
the common notion that asylum is not a right but a privilege.
However, the welcome reserved for those seeking asylum is
becoming increasingly limited, as can be seen from policies and
procedures with respect to entry, application for refugee status
and permanent residence, and from the policies regarding the
support programs and services for which they are eligible.
The 1980s saw an increase in the number of people requesting
asylum in Canada. The average since 1989 has jumped from 25,000
to 30,000 a year, one third of whom have settled in Quebec.
While they only represent a small proportion of the world total,
these people in distress, who are largely from southern
countries and therefore more visible than those who came in
previous decades, because of their unfamiliar cultural and
linguistic profiles, did disturb government authorities and the
public in general.
That is when we politicians, the media and the public, in Quebec
and throughout Canada, began using expressions such as phony
refugees, abusers of the system and cheaters. Ten years
later, these expressions are now commonly used but are not
enough to move public opinion. This is why the government must
now also protect the public against terrorists and
criminals.
This is one of the new arguments used by Canada to justify the
implementation of increasingly harsher policies against people
seeking refuge here. The major argument used remains the
economic weight of these asylum seekers.
While recognized throughout the world for its humanitarian
traditions, Canada quickly developed, in the eighties, a
tendency to restrict its open door policy for these people.
Today those who apply for refugee status from abroad or in
Canada must overcome numerous obstacles before being allowed to
settle here. The federal government has put in place measures to
intercept, in transit areas abroad such as airports, people who
have fled their country without first obtaining the documents
required by Canada.
1815
Yet those who flee their country often do not have access to
these documents, either because they would risk their lives if
they tried to get them from the authorities that deliver these
documents, or because there is no place where they can get these
documents given the country's political instability or state of
war.
When they finally make it to Canada, the people are faced with a
cumbersome and very slow legal process that can have a severe
anxiogenic effect on them. First, the refugee status claim
process is complicated and also costly since the claimant needs
legal counsel to prepare and present his or her claim before the
Immigration and Refugee Board. Then, the operations of the board
need to be taken into consideration, including the way the
hearings are carried out, the attitude of the commissioners and
the nature of the arguments presented if a claim is rejected.
Also, when a claim is turned down, no appeal on the merits can
be made, the claimant can be sent back to his country of origin
even if his life is in jeopardy because his country is at war or
is guilty of massive violations of human rights.
It is important to note that Canada no longer deports claimants
to Burundi as of June 1993 and to Afghanistan and Rwanda as of
April 1994. Following many representations by the Canadian
Council for Refugees and the Table de concertation des
organismes de Montréal, Canada stopped deporting claimants to
Algeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire.
However, Canada has found a way around its commitment by sending
back to the U.S. claimants who have come here through the United
States, who have no qualms about deporting them to their
countries of origin.
Even when claimants are granted refugee status, after being
either selected overseas or recognized by the Immigration and
Refugee Board, policies concerning permanent residency
applications and family reunification can become a major
disincentive to settle in Canada.
In short, precisely when asylum seekers are most in need of
services they are not entitled to them. During the crucial
period when they begin to adapt to their new environment and
build their own perception of this new society, they are denied
the right to be supported.
When they are destabilized the most, and when the risk of
experiencing mental and physical health problems is the highest,
they would be completely shut out, were it not for the human and
social conscience of non governmental organizations working for
the recognition of their rights. This is another issue I dealt
with when Bill C-31 was debated.
I raised another issue in committee, and I remember asking a
number of questions to the government, the officials and the
minister.
It had to do with the detention of minors and children.
Canada has signed the international convention on the rights of
the child, which prohibits the detention of children in a number
of situations. I asked the government to recognize this
protection in a clause of the bill, and not in regulations, like
it intended to do. I am forced to recognize that this will not
necessarily be done this time around either.
1820
I will point out that this bill, and this is important, must in
this respect correspond to a number of articles and not simply
lead us back to a number of regulations.
What is basic is to have this bill correspond to the convention,
and more specifically to article 37(b) of the convention on the
rights of the child, which provides that States Parties shall
ensure that:
No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or
arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child
shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a
measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period
of time;
The other aspect of the convention is article 22, which
provides:
States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a
child who is seeking refugee status or who is considered a
refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic
law and procedures shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied
by his or her parents or by any other person, receive
appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the
enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present
Convention—
We want this protection enshrined in the law. Naturally we will
have work to do in committee, and I am sure my colleague will
see that these guarantees are clearly written into the law so
that Canada may be consistent with the convention it signed.
The other aspect is the whole issue of the Immigration and
Refugee Board. This bill and the minister's statements clearly
show a willingness to improve the claim review process by the
board.
We are totally open to this willingness to improve. Looking at
the current situation, it is clear that the system is not
working. We do not have to watch our words because it is clear.
All those of us who have had to deal with refugee claimants in
our ridings know that the system is not working.
In the Montreal office of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the
average time for processing claims is estimated at ten months.
People have to wait an average of ten months to have their
claims processed.
This means that, while these people wait, terrible human
tragedies unfold. The other aspect is the whole issue of
claimants. Their number exceeded 7,000 in the Montreal office at
the end of 1999.
Overall, we are open to this bill. We hope the willingness shown
by the government will lead to positive results in the
application of the act. We will certainly work to improve this
bill in committee.
[English]
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rosemount—Petite-Patrie for
his comment that sometimes the numbers do not reflect reality.
He used the example of the boat people on the west coast over
the last couple of years. When we look at the real numbers,
there were approximately 600 refugees that came via the boat
route. When we look at the big picture, we had about 24,000
refugees enter during that same time period. Therefore sometimes
the reporting is out of balance. That is the way I would put it.
Another good example occurred during the last federal election.
I do not need to tell members that one of our Canadian Alliance
candidates by the name of Betty Granger made the statement
“Asian invasion” in her comments in Winnipeg.
I truly believe that it was taken out of context. I assure the
House that comment was pretty common language, going back to the
late seventies and early eighties when the economic class of Hong
Kong were scrambling to leave that country for fear of the
Communist takeover.
1825
In my own family, my older sisters who are about 20 years older
than I am did the same. They liquidated all their assets and
brought all their money into Canada during that same time period.
It made sense and people used the statement “Asian invasion”
quite frequently during the late seventies and early eighties.
Unfortunately when it is taken out of context and in light of
what happened in the last federal election it can be disastrous
as results have shown. Unfortunately, again, a lack of balance
in reporting, too focused on one way of looking at two simple
words, creates a lot of problems. Worse still, it creates an
image that Canada is not a tolerant society. I think that is the
sad part about the events that occurred, because in large part we
are a tolerant society and we do accept migrants from all over
the world.
I wish to ask a question of the member for
Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. He talked about supporting the people
that come to this country. I believe that is a shortfall of the
government. We need better planning. I looked at the history
and I know that in the past we have had both voluntary and
government programs that were sometimes piecemeal. What kinds
of support programs are in place for integrating new Canadians
into the province of Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to what my
colleague first said. The numbers speak for themselves: 600
people arrived by boat, as he just said, out of 24,000. It is a
mere 2 to 3%. It is a minor current. This is in fact the
problem. We tend to let a few minor currents like this one
influence us to strengthen legislation. This is dangerous.
I still think that the illegal arrival of boats, particularly on
the west coast, is a minor current and nothing to worry about.
There are of course a number of shortcomings in the system
itself, but I think strengthening the legislation and creating a
detention process is going too far.
I also agree with my colleague when he says that we will also
have to strengthen our policies in general to make sure that we
can integrate the newcomers in a society that really meets
modern needs.
I am thinking in particular of the situation in Quebec. Quebec
needs important resources to help the immigrants and the
newcomers to Quebec society to integrate into the French
community in a sensitive, warm and responsible way. In this
respect, federal government resources are essential,
particularly for those who are responsible for the integration
of the newcomers into Quebec society.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hon. Minister for
Citizenship and Immigration has asked to speak. I must advise
her that there are two minutes left before the end of the
debate. I ask her to be brief in her remarks and also in her
answer.
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the excellent
remarks from my colleague, the former critic for immigration. He
says the numbers speak for themselves. I think it is important
that some statistics be on the record.
For example, the targets that Quebec established for itself for
immigration have been met over the last numbers of years. My
department has made a concerted effort, and last year we achieved
the levels that had been established the year before. We did so
with the additional $139 million that was in the budget and
because of the tremendous effort to ensure that Canada's targets
were met not only for immigration but for government sponsored
refugees and privately sponsored refugees.
I hope all of my critics would take a moment to thank the
officials who work so hard around the world to help us achieve
those goals which are in Canada's interests.
1830
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, we too hope that it will
continue. We hope the federal government will recognize the
distinct character of Quebec programs as far as supervision is
concerned.
That is a repeat request from the Quebec government, through its
minister. He is asking for greater control over the selection of
temporary workers.
Yes, we must go farther in the area of resources, recognize the
distinct character of Quebec programs, and ensure also that
Quebec have a responsibility in selecting temporary workers.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEALTH
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the Minister of Health
sometime earlier in the session with respect to the Virginia
Fontaine clinic in Manitoba receiving a $37 million grant through
the government. The clinic itself is owned by an individual by
the name of Perry Fontaine.
Evidence of highly questionable funding and spending practices
accompanied the exorbitant amount of money that was approved by
Paul Cochrane, assistant deputy minister of health at the time.
Mr. Cochrane later resigned in January. It came to light that
his wife had in fact purchased condos at Mont Tremblant on behalf
of the same Mr. Fontaine who received the government grant.
On February 6 when I asked the Minister of Health about this
situation and if he could explain how his former assistant deputy
minister could authorize such an enormous amount of cash with
little or no departmental scrutiny, the minister's response was
that the transactions were the subject of an inquiry by the
police, auditors, or both, and that the matter was before the
courts in Manitoba. This would ensure that the department would
get access to all documents and would understand exactly how the
public funds were spent.
He assured the House that the department would do everything
possible to trace every one of those public dollars, if any was
misspent, and to recover them on behalf of the public. We would
like to know whether the minister was aware of this at an earlier
time and what he did. Why was there a delay with respect to this
important question? We have seen over the last seven years
massive funding cuts to health care, while at the same time there
is increasing evidence of irresponsible spending on the part of
the government.
With the HRDC scandal we found that being close to the Prime
Minister in the Liberal government is often of great benefit and
a great privilege to those who are in receipt of this kind of
money. Whether it is extravagant cruises, water fountains in the
Prime Minister's riding, canoe museums, monkey pavilions or a
hotel, all these things raise great doubts and great concerns on
the part of Canadians when it comes to the spending of taxpayer
money.
I asked the minister at the time whether a forensic audit would
inquire into why department officials delayed so long before
acting on this matter. There was no response forthcoming. The
minister simply gave a non-answer, stating that the department
had suspended further payments to the centre until all questions
were answered. There are still a number of questions
outstanding.
The Virginia Fontaine clinic simply provides another example of
highly questionable spending practices on the part of the Liberal
government, which also leads to a question of ethics, which again
brings back questions on the HRDC scandal, the case of Pierre
Corbeil who was criminally convicted in his fundraising
activities, and the Prime Minister's bank loan controversy
concerning the auberge. All of these raise questions of ethics
and raise questions of government priorities and how it is
spending taxpayer money.
Nothing is wrong with the traditional job fund that is out
there, but it is the way in which the follow up is done or not
done. It raises alarm bells when it comes to the amounts of
money that hard working taxpayers are paying to the government
only to see these programs go awry and the money being spent in a
highly questionable fashion.
I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair and the opportunity to
make these points on a question that I raised in the Chamber.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Health indicated,
this issue was dealt with in a very transparent manner.
Indeed, as soon as the minister was told about allegations of
improper use of funds, he immediately took three measures.
1835
[English]
First, he directed the forensic audit to take place. Second, he
told lawyers for the government to go to court and ensure that we
had every document needed to trace the funds. Third, he directed
that no further funds be paid to the Virginia Fontaine Addictions
Foundation until all outstanding questions were answered.
The government believes strongly that all public money be
accounted for carefully and the department assures the House that
it will do whatever is required to trace public spending by this
organization.
[Translation]
Health Canada firmly believes that the best health programs are
the ones provided by those who are most closely involved. This
transfer is often made through contribution and transfer
agreements, including the agreement signed with that foundation.
Transfers are a relatively new initiative that has experienced
some growing pains. With the support of first nation and Inuit
leaders, Health Canada has striven to strengthen accountability
provisions in the transfer agreements.
In the fall of 2000, Health Canada began developing an internal
management control framework to improve the management of
negotiations and the enforcement of agreements.
Moreover, all new agreements over $100,000 will now be
scrutinized by a review committee and, as of April 1 of this
year, all new agreements will comply with the new Treasury Board
policy protecting the interests of the state.
[English]
The allegations concerning the Virginia Fontaine Addictions
Foundation are disturbing. Let me assure the House that Health
Canada has taken these allegations seriously and has acted
quickly to ensure that all information is gathered so that any
misspent public moneys can be recovered.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, some
time ago I asked a question of the Minister of Natural Resources
concerning the construction of a transmission line between
Labrador and the province of Newfoundland. I was basically
asking about the proposed development of the lower Churchill.
The minister talked around the answer, mainly because at the
time he could not remember the exact status in relation to the
specific question which was more or less on a study undertaken by
his department into the feasibility of the construction of such a
line.
In March 1998 the then premier of Newfoundland, who is now a
minister of everything in the House and the then premier of
Quebec, met in Labrador for what turned out to be a photo op to
talk about the development of the lower Churchill. Their plans
were disrupted by the native people who were extremely upset, and
rightly so, because they had not been brought in on the
discussions.
As part of all this a commitment was made by the Prime Minister
and the then premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to conduct a
feasibility study into the construction of a transmission line
from the lower Churchill development to the island of
Newfoundland.
Many people fail to realize that Newfoundland does not have a
lot of clean power left. Nor does perhaps the rest of the
country. The lower Churchill is one of the greatest, if not the
greatest, supplier of clean power that is left in Canada.
A transmission line to the province would provide the island of
Newfoundland and the Labrador section with a tremendous amount of
cheap, regular, clean power which is in such demand. Just
recently we heard concerns expressed by the United States,
specifically in California, when it had a number of power
shortages.
Many of the major IT companies made it quite clear that they
could not continue to operate in an environment where there was a
shortage of power because of the dependency on their industry.
They were to look at setting up backup support in areas that
could provide cheap, clean, regular power. A place such as
Newfoundland could do that.
1840
The Government of Canada has to understand that different
regions, whether it be in the west or in the Atlantic provinces,
have a tremendous amount to offer when it comes to natural
resources but they need help in developing them. The minister,
in his response to me, and I thank him for following up on my
letter, talks about a deal between Quebec and Newfoundland. There
are many other partners besides Quebec to help develop our
resources. The study that was requested is extremely important
in setting the groundwork for this work.
I hope the minister has dug into this a little bit more and can
shed a little more light on the status of the study that was
commissioned by the Government of Canada and the government of
Newfoundland.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
minister, it is my pleasure to reply to the hon. member for St.
John's West, who raises some legitimate questions.
The potential of the lower Churchill River as a source of
electricity supply to the North American market is well known.
It is a renewable cost-competitive source with low or zero
greenhouse gas emissions.
The Government of Canada recognizes that the development of
hydro electricity can be an important option to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions in Canada.
[Translation]
The federal government is determined to fulfil its stewardship
role to ensure that the Labrador projects are carried out with
full respect for the environment. The government has made
considerable progress in the development of a standard
environmental assessment process in co-operation with the
governments of Quebec and Newfoundland.
The government also stressed the importance of direct
participation by aboriginals who have an interest in the project
and whose land claims are currently under review.
[English]
Turning to the issue of the transmission line from Labrador to
the island of Newfoundland, the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador and the Government of Canada agreed that federal and
provincial officials would work together to carry out economic
and financial feasibility studies of electricity supply options.
Joint Canada-Newfoundland studies were undertaken to determine
the best option for meeting Newfoundland's future electricity
demands. Two options were examined: one, building a transmission
line, infeed, from the proposed new Labrador hydro electric
project; or two, expanding on-island capacity and selling all the
Labrador power to other markets.
This work proceeded until May 2000 when the governments of
Quebec and Newfoundland issued a joint statement announcing the
scaling back on negotiations and work on the Labrador power in
light of uncertainties over electricity pricing in the
deregulated U.S. markets.
With the decision by the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and Quebec to scale back negotiations on the Labrador power
project, work on the joint feasibility studies on electricity
supply options was suspended until the scope and the structure of
the hydro development project are finalized. Since the size,
ownership and financing of the project remain fluid, the
transmission line study cannot be completed at this time.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to comments made
in question period by the Minister of National Defence on
February 21.
I believe that his response failed to encompass the full scope
of the situation of Canada's military preparedness and readiness.
The comments I made were based on the fact that since the Liberal
government took over in 1993, the Aurora and Arcturus patrol
aircraft patrol time has been cut from 19,200 hours to just
11,500 hours, and the minister wishes to cut that further, to an
unacceptable 8,000 hours a year. This is in spite of a written
recommendation by the chief of the air force who states
emphatically that less than 11,500 hours would result in an
“unacceptable impact”.
I believe that the response did not encompass the real problem
and one of the main purposes for the patrols, arctic sovereignty.
I believe that with the Northwest Passage being used more and
more and polar overflights increasing in number on a day to day
basis, one might argue for more patrolling hours, not less, in
order to assert our presence and our sovereignty in the far
north.
We must remember the Manhattan and how it challenged our
Arctic presence not too many years ago.
1845
However, the Liberal cuts have also decimated our military
readiness in many other areas. Our trucks cannot tow the
howitzers or cannon because they do not have serviceable wheels.
We cannot always have the local motor league towing company that
we have available in Ottawa. What do we do overseas in Bosnia?
Does the Canadian Automobile Association maybe have a European
chapter?
That is one additional problem. As well, our CF-18s have been
shown to have moisture problems. They have water embedded in the
honeycombing in the wings, so there is a definite problem with
the wing flaps. They are without real spare parts, so they are
scavenging other units for the spare parts that they do need.
There is also the report of the Leopard tanks whose hulls have
worn so thin on the bottom that they can put screwdrivers through
them. They have overplated and welded up that condition, but
that too is a 1970s vehicle with some serious concerns.
It was recently reported that barracks in Alberta were being
abandoned after only four years because of hundreds of dangerous
cracks appearing in the foundations. PMQs in Edmonton are in
need of major repairs.
Then there is the government's less than stellar treatment of
our soldiers, who are told that their illnesses are their own
fault, apparently because they are stressed with worrying about
their illnesses.
For these and other reasons, the minister must respond to these
concerns, the concerns of northern sovereignty patrols being cut,
army truck wheels, moisture in our CF-18 wings, wear on Leopard
tanks, new barracks crumbling, PMQs in need of repair, soldiers'
health concerns, lack of heavy lift capability and, of course,
our ongoing helicopter issue.
The public needs answers to these questions about our military
readiness and our Canadian armed forces.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I was going to be very
generous with you, as I was with my colleague, but you chose not
to continue.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know you will give me
the same time tonight that you give all parliamentary secretaries
so that I can go through all of this.
The hon. member raises concerns and questions about the
operational readiness of the Canadian forces. The government is
committed to ensuring that the Canadian forces has the people,
equipment and training it needs.
In fact, we have undertaken a new far-reaching program aimed at
preparing the Canadian forces for the 21st century, including an
investment of $2.5 billion in new funding in the last two
budgets. To this end, a number of initiatives are underway to
ensure that the CF can fulfil its mandate into the future.
To continue our investment in people, equipment and training, we
must identify the essential capabilities needed to perform the
CF's core tasks and missions, and this is what we are doing.
I believe all Canadians should take great pride in the work
performed by the men and women of the air force at home and
abroad. Every day Canadian forces aircraft operate throughout
the country and around the world, performing various and
demanding missions.
One of their most important roles is performed here at home,
patrolling the world's longest coastline, maritime approaches and
territory, a tall order that requires an aircraft with a
tremendous endurance. This task is fulfilled by the CP-140
Aurora, a long-range patrol aircraft able to fly over 9,000
kilometres without refuelling.
The CF-140 fleet procured in 1980 is based in 14 Wing Greenwood,
Nova Scotia and 19 Wing Comox, British Columbia. In classic
mythology Aurora was the goddess of the dawn, the goddess of
light. From surface to subsurface surveillance, the Aurora plays
a dynamic role for the Canadian forces.
Designed originally for anti-aircraft warfare, the Aurora is
also capable of assisting in a wide variety of government tasks,
including: surveillance of Canada's airspace, territory and
maritime approaches; search and rescue; disaster relief; and
assisting other government departments in areas such as fisheries
protection, environmental surveillance and drug interdiction.
An excellent example of the capabilities of our Auroras and
their crews with respect to this latter role was witnessed just
this past Wednesday, when an Aurora from 19 Wing Comox played an
integral role in assisting with the U.S. coast guard arrest of a
suspected drug smuggling vessel on the west coast.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It being 6.50 p.m., the
motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.50 p.m.)