House of Commons Hansard #197 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was crime.

Topics

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

March 16th, 1999 / 3 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

When debate suspended for question period there were five minutes left for questions and comments on the speech of the hon. member for Mississauga South.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, when the member for Mississauga South was talking about the Reform opposition day motion he spoke at some length about Justice Shaw's pornography decision in British Columbia on the Sharpe case. I would like to make a few comments about that because I have some information and then I will have a question for the member for Mississauga South.

The member talked about media reports from that trial and he also talked about the fact that Mr. Sharpe was not represented by legal counsel.

There was only one member of the media at the trial, who is a radio reporter from my community. There were several UBC law students at court that day. There were other media who popped in, heard what they thought was a poorly presented case and left because they thought there was no way this individual could win. Why did the law students stay? Because they knew he was going to win. The radio reporter from my community talked to those students and therefore decided to stay.

The member for Mississauga South indicated that he is of the opinion that the case was not well argued. I beg to differ. It was not well presented, but it was well argued.

I do not believe that Justice Shaw made an error in judgment. His judgment was the culmination of a series of earlier decisions by judges because of the way in which our laws are written and earlier jurisprudence on the child pornography issue related to the Constitution.

I will make the same admission as the member for Mississauga South: I am not a lawyer, but this is my belief.

The message that I think I am hearing out of those court proceedings is that under the current legislative framework it does not matter what happens with the appeal. In the short run that may work, but in the long run the current legislative framework will be found lacking and will require a legislative solution or a notwithstanding solution.

Why is the member so quick to sign a letter to the Prime Minister and so slow to stand in the House of Commons to vote for a motion to support the very same issue?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, very quickly, the media reports I was referring to were not the media reports on the hearing. They were, in fact, media reports on the opposition day motion which we voted on in the House. The media reports indicated that government members had decided they were voting to do nothing, and that is not the case.

I am glad the member raised the issue about why I signed a letter to the Prime Minister on behalf of a number of caucus colleagues asking for attention. The reason I signed the letter was because at the time the letter was written—and the case had happened a week earlier—the position of the government was that we would defend the laws of Canada before the Supreme Court of Canada. The letter that I signed, together with a large number of my caucus colleagues, was to ask the Prime Minister and the justice minister to consider stronger, more direct action because of the importance of the issue.

Indeed, to the credit of the caucus members who spoke up in caucus and who signed that letter, the justice minister did announce that the federal government was going to participate in the B.C. appeal hearing along with the attorney general of B.C. to deal with it right then and there, the swiftest, most effective way to deal with a very bad court decision.

I thank the member for his question. I wrote the letter because it was the right thing to do.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my comments in this debate today on our supply day motion to the whole issue of the proliferation of drugs, what it means to organized crime and what it means to our young people.

I attended a conference last weekend in Montreal. The conference title was “Injection Drug Use and Societal Changes”. The primary focus of this convention was on implementing more effective measures to reduce the harm associated with injection drug use, in particular the spread of HIV and AIDS.

A number of speakers recommended the continuation of the needle exchange program. Some recommended allowing for and establishing safe injection houses or sites. Some recommended the medically controlled injection of heroine addicts and some even recommended legalization of drugs.

The conference focused primarily on harm reduction. Therefore, presentations did not provide recommendations or solutions to prevent our youth from becoming addicts in the first place. There were absolutely no statistics based on comparative studies or experiences such as those in Switzerland demonstrating how, if at all, harm reduction ultimately results in fewer drug addicts.

I did not recognize any other members of this House in attendance at this very worthwhile conference which gathered together many experts in the field of harm reduction.

The most important revelation that emerged from this conference was that we need a balanced approach or what the RCMP spokesperson termed “a whole meal deal in dealing with illegal drugs in this country”.

To date, the war on drugs by this government and previous governments has not been successful as evidenced by the growing number of drug addicts living and using drugs on Canadian streets, particularly in downtown east side Vancouver.

Inspector Richard Barszczewski, the RCMP officer in charge of operations of the drug section and the drug awareness program, began his address at the conference by stating “Canada has no war on drugs”. There is no war on drugs because successive governments have failed to introduce a balanced approach to deal with the issue of illicit drugs.

Inspector Barszczewski revealed that the illicit drug trade remains the principal source of revenue for most organized crime groups. The combined annual supply estimates for all drug types has the potential to generate criminal proceeds in excess of $4 billion at the wholesale level and $18 billion at the street level. It is estimated that 15 tonnes of cocaine are smuggled into Canada each year. Additionally, one to two tonnes of heroine are required annually to meet the needs of Canadian heroine users.

One presenter at the conference, Eric Single, a professor with the University of Toronto, estimated that the total cost for illicit drug use for 1992 was $1.4 billion. This cost included but is not limited to police, courts, corrections, customs and excise and health care.

The RCMP revealed that in B.C. alone there were 310 drug overdose deaths in 1996 and again in 1997. Eighty per cent of all property crimes committed by individuals were directly or indirectly related to substance abuse. I am referring to the province of Alberta now. Fifty per cent of those accused of homicide and thirty-eight per cent of homicide victims were intoxicated or under the influence of illegal drugs or both. Forty per cent of all motor vehicle accident victims were under the influence of drugs.

What are we to do? What would be the ingredients of a balanced approach to the problem we have within Canadian society? There are a number of points I would like to touch on.

First, we should strengthen social policies and programs as a means of prevention.

Second, there should be more education and drug awareness in schools. My province of Alberta has the DARE program, a very effective program administered by the police forces which operates with schoolchildren. I have been privileged to attend some of the graduation exercises of those groups of young people. It is heartening and hopeful to see this occurring and what it means for the future.

We need stricter law enforcement of trafficking charges and penalties.

We need to extend such programs as the Toronto drug court to divert addicts and street level drug traffickers away from the traditional judicial system, allowing for treatment rather than imprisonment.

We need to increase penalties for high level drug trafficking.

We need better organized crime legislation, including proceeds of crime legislation which would allow the authorities in this country to seize the proceeds of drug crimes and turn them over to the state.

We need to increase substantially the RCMP's budget to allow for the hiring of additional officers to be utilized both domestically and abroad.

There is a need to stop the flow or supply of drugs through better interdiction.

Last, effectively implement means to stop the flow of drugs in prisons in Canada. The hon. Justice William Vancise of the court of appeal for Saskatchewan stated during his presentation at the Montreal conference: “It is easier to get drugs in prison than on the streets. They are only more expensive within prison”.

There are numerous flaws in the federal prison service program and for detecting illegal drugs. An 80 page report released by the Quebec provincial ombudsman estimated that between $40 million and $60 million in drugs flow through the prisons of that province annually. There is a commercial enterprise of drug dealing within our prisons.

Justice Vancise revealed an appalling fact that many offenders go into prison without a drug problem and come out as drug addicts. That is unacceptable. The government has failed dismally to introduce the whole meal deal or a balanced approach to dealing with illicit drugs and it is our children and grandchildren who will pay the price.

I will touch on the whole business of the government's attitude toward the use of illegal drugs, particularly hard drugs within our prisons and society. If we want to determine the attitude of the government over the last six years toward the drug problem in Canada, that attitude is best displayed when we examine what is happening within our prisons.

If there is any place that we should be able to reduce if not eliminate the use of drugs, it ought to be within our prisons and yet, as Judge Vancise told us at the Montreal conference, it is as easy to get drugs inside our prisons as it is on the streets. The only difference is that it costs more in our prisons.

The Government of Canada's attitude toward this whole problem is reflected in what is happening within our prisons. It is in complete control of who and what goes into the prison and yet we have this type of unacceptable, reprehensible situation within our prisons where people who are arrested and sent into prison without any type of drug habit are coming out as drug addicts, as the judge said.

We have seen where inmates of our correctional centres have sued the government for various reasons. I predict the day when we will see some inmate suing the government for placing them in an environment that is unsafe because of the uncontrolled trafficking of drugs that occurs within the prison system. It is unacceptable and the government's attitude toward not just the drug situation but crime in general is most vividly reflected in what is happening within our prisons today. It is unacceptable.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, a former RCMP officer, for his very eloquent dissertation. I have four points to make and I would like my hon. colleague to answer them.

A person convicted for an offence can be eligible for parole after serving only one-sixth of their sentence. This appalled me when I was in jail as a correctional officer and as a physician. I thought it was ridiculous.

Does the hon. member feel that people caught trafficking or using illicit drugs while in jail should actually have more of their sentence to be served in jail rather than being eligible for parole after one-sixth, have that pushed to two-thirds of their sentence which would have a very clear punitive action against those who are wilfully using drugs while in jail?

Persons caught trafficking drugs outside have to pay the price. Does he feel our judicial system right now is enforcing the penalties that are there?

In terms of dealing with hard core drug addicts, the Geneva post-needle park experiment is perhaps the best in the world. Half these drug addicts have become integrated and productive members of society. It is the best model in the world.

There are two ways of dealing with the use of drugs in society. The first is management of the problem and the second is prevention.

I would like to know how my hon. colleague feels about calling for a national head start program that deals with children in the first eight years of life to make sure they have those basic needs met. It has been proven that it has a profound impact on decreasing child abuse and ensuring that children are in school longer, commit less crime and become integrated members of society. This motion passed in the House last year. I would like to know the member's opinion on those points.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, I hope I have time to get to all the member's questions because each one requires an indepth analysis. I do not know if I will have the time to do justice to these questions.

As far as serving one-sixth of a sentence, I simply go back to what we have been crying out for, truth in sentencing. We do not have it in this country. I think my hon. colleague has brought this very important matter up and it is on the record. We emphasize again that we do not have truth in sentencing.

We hear some criticism even from our party about the way judges handle things. How in the world can judges do their job when their sentencing is overruled by a parole system that puts the lie to their original assessment of the seriousness of the offence by way of the sentence they imposed?

There is no question that our government should take a serious look at increasing the penalty for the top flight traffickers in this country. They should pay a very serious price. What we heard over and over again at the Montreal forum was that these people do not care what they do to the young people, to the addicts, to the people who get hooked on drugs. They are only worried about profits. That is what we should be looking at. That is what the RCMP was talking about when it said a full meal deal.

Let us take a full, broad, balanced approach to this where we go after the traffickers and start to treat those who have addictions as they are being treated through the drug court in Toronto where there are options for them to receive the treatment and care they need. We must also put in the effort required in order to rehabilitate them.

There is no question the head start program, this kind of education at the earliest age, is extremely important in preventing our young people from getting involved in drugs. There are drugs within the schools throughout the country. What we must do is encourage the government, which we are doing in this debate today, to take a serious look at this and help those young people through a broad and balanced approach to this drug situation in Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the speech I noted that the member mentioned some inmates had sued the government because of their exposure to drugs in the prison system.

I am sure the member is familiar with the fact that in downtown Vancouver and on the Vancouver east side the government is also, by its actions, exposing its own citizens to this sort of thing through allowing these criminal drug dealing refugees to come into the country. I am sure everyone in the House has heard about the Honduran drug dealing problem in Vancouver. We have it with Iranian and Chinese refugee claimants as well.

There is frustration among the police trying to deal with up to half of the people arrested every night in Vancouver being illegals trafficking drugs. It is a major problem and certainly places the citizens of Canada at risk.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP officers at the Montreal forum expressed their dismay over the lack of funding. Their budgets are being cut, particularly in this area.

What we have to do is focus on this very broad question. What my hon. colleague has brought up with regard to the drug issue and immigration is there. It has to be looked at. It has to be dealt with. Otherwise the east side situation in Vancouver will get worse and will spread to other parts of the country.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on a criminal justice motion placed before the House by the official opposition. It raises the need for greater focus on reform of our criminal justice laws to make Canadians feel safer in their homes and in their neighbourhoods.

At the outset let me say how very disappointed I was to hear the shrill and extreme remarks of the parliamentary secretary to the attorney general. This morning she suggested that if the official opposition had its way Canada would be a country governed by vigilante justice where every individual would own a firearm.

I understand partisan differences and differences of opinions between members of this place. That is what serious democratic deliberation is all about. I find that kind of shrill, extreme demagogic rhetoric from a member beyond the pale of reasonable debate.

The member cackles across. She does herself a gross disservice by engaging in that kind of over the top, demagogic rhetoric by grossly mischaracterizing the legitimate and heartfelt concern of the members of the official opposition and the millions of Canadians we represent when it comes to the need for criminal justice reform.

I can have a disagreement with the parliamentary secretary and members of her party about how to weigh victims rights versus the rights of criminals, due process, sentencing and so forth. We can have legitimate arguments about these matters. That is what this parliament is for. I will not ascribe motives to that member and suggest she does not care about criminal justice. I know she does. I will not castigate this government as not caring about victims. I know it does. We have different approaches about how to defend the rights of victims. I will not countenance any member from any side of the House using that kind of extremist and shrill rhetoric we heard from that member this morning.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Ahuntsic, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do believe using the word shrill is unparliamentary.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order. That is a point of debate depending on your perspective.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I guess she resembles that comment. I rise because, unlike the noisy and gutter raking, guttersniping parliamentary secretary opposite—

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Shrill was not but guttersniping is. I ask the hon. member for Calgary Southeast to withdraw those words.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any unparliamentary remarks. I hope members across will try to engage in a more serious and substantive debate.

I recall, running in the last election in my constituency, that one of the most obvious concerns of my constituents, as I went door to door to thousands of homes in the southeast part of Calgary, was crime, particularly violent crime by young offenders. One issue raised with me frequently was the growing trend in home invasions. It is something I would like to address.

When I look at the overall statistics that Statistics Canada reported in 1995, 27% of urban residents of Canada had been victims of crime. About one quarter of Canadians were afraid to walk alone after hours in their neighbourhoods.

It is a shame that in what we often regard as such a peaceful country, so many of our fellow citizens should feel afraid to walk in their own neighbourhoods at night. We cannot rest as legislators as long as the kind of fear founded on crime disturbs the normal and peaceable lives of Canadian citizens.

I look at the situation in an otherwise stable and peaceful suburb of my constituency, the Sundance community. There was a gang fight in September 1997. A 17 year old whose name has been withheld by virtue of the Young Offenders Act stabbed and assaulted three 16 year olds. One of them had lost 10 litres of blood. He was stabbed in the heart, coronary artery and liver. An autopsy was scheduled for one of the three victims of the young offender's crime.

The 17 year old, who was nicknamed Baby Gangster, was sentenced to one year. His name was not released. The judge in that case said “he has a propensity for violence but it is more attitude than anger”. The judge cited a psychological report urging social and anger managing counselling. With all due respect, attitude was not the problem. The lack of social management counselling was not the problem. The problem was that there was a violent thug who nearly took a child's life.

We as legislators need to take more seriously the justice part of the justice system when it comes to imposing appropriate sanctions on individuals like this young so-called gangster.

I also raise the tragic case of young Clayton McGloan of the northeast part of Calgary. Later this month I will be hosting a town hall meeting with his parents. Clayton McGloan was a 17 year old who was viciously attacked by a gang of youths in the Coral Springs community of Calgary on October 31, 1998. He was hit over the head with a bottle, knocked unconscious and stabbed 12 times in the back. This was not an attitude problem on the part of the person who attacked him. It was a vicious murder, attempted and executed.

Clayton fought hard to stay alive. However life support was removed two days later after he was declared clinically brain dead. Close to 2,000 people attended his funeral.

Two juveniles, 15 and 17 years old, were charged but again they cannot be identified under the Young Offenders Act. They will not be identifiable under the bill recently introduced by the Minister of Justice. Both these juveniles stand a good chance of re-entering society in a couple of years.

This is the backdrop we see as members of parliament in representing our constituents. I find it unfortunate that after years and years of advocacy and hard work on the part of victims and their families to establish more meaningful sanctions for violent crime, particularly violent youth crime, that Bill C-68 placed before this House by the Minister of Justice does not come anywhere close to addressing the very real concerns of Canadians on this issue.

I now turn to a growing trend which really is very disturbing, the trend of home invasions. This is a situation where criminals invade a home as a random act if they know the occupants are there. This is not just a simple break and enter for the purpose of robbery. This is an aggravated form of assault on the property and home of residents.

In Kitchener—Waterloo a 71 year old woman was terrorized. Teenage thugs broke into her home, bound her, blindfolded her and threatened her with assault. I read of a case on Saltspring Island, British Columbia where residents were dismayed after their home had been invaded twice in five weeks by separate groups of young offenders.

In my own riding I recall going door to door in the election. I knocked on a door and an elderly lady came to the door after several minutes. She was petrified to open the door. She kept the chain on. She asked me what I wanted. I said I was running for parliament. She said she would not open the door because two young teenagers had tried to break down her door the previous week while she was there. She broke down in tears. She could not sleep at night. She was concerned that they were going to come back. The police were called but the boys ran off. The police said that even if they had been arrested they would be back out on the street in a day or so.

I have seen the very real faces of people concerned by this. It is not just the Reform Party who are concerned about this. I read the comments of the Attorney General of British Columbia from the New Democratic Party who says that home invasion is a serious problem across the country and the federal government needs to take some leadership on it. He proposes, as do we, that there be a minimum Criminal Code offence for home invasion above and beyond the offence for breaking and entering, and that this be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. There would be a higher sentence if this kind of home invasion is a factor in a crime that is committed.

I call on the government to listen to Canadians who are suffering from the growing number of home invasions. I urge government members to listen to the official opposition, listen to the provincial attorneys general. Bring in the kind of sentencing guidelines which would more seriously punish those who violate the privacy of innocent law-abiding Canadian citizens in their homes.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, my first choice would have been for a Liberal member to get up and ask a question and get into the debate. Let us talk about what can be done to solve these problems.

I appreciated the examples my hon. colleague used. I guess we all have stories and anecdotes which underline the need to improve our justice system and our dealings with people who so blatantly walk over the rights of other people.

The most serious one that has happened in the Edmonton area in the last little while involved three young people whose names could not be released. They invaded a house one night looking for money. The lady of the house went down to see about the noise thinking it was her dog. It was the three young people who stabbed her to death. A young mother's life was taken. Under the protection of the law, their names cannot be released. How can we justify having this lack of accountability for people and their actions?

Beyond publicizing their names thereby holding them accountable for what they have done, has the member given any thought to what kind of sentences and how long those sentences should be for things such as home invasions especially if weapons are used? Has the member given any thought as to how we treat these youths in terms of giving justice to the people whose rights are seriously violated?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to be an expert on sentencing guidelines, but I do know that the current Criminal Code does not have a minimum sentence provision for simple robbery as an example. I am proposing that home invasion be treated along the same lines as committing a crime with a firearm, which I gather carries a minimum sentence of four years.

The member is absolutely right when he says that this is a serious problem.

I read a story of a different home invasion which occurred in Edmonton this year. Two young people invaded a home, attacked the occupants and ran off when the police appeared. A reporter who covered the story interviewed some neighbours who said that these types of invasions had been going on for some time. These young people will check mailboxes, look in windows and when chased away say what are the cops going to do.

It is comments like that which reflect the growing lack of confidence Canadians have in our criminal justice system. I think it is atrocious that ordinary law-abiding lay people feel that the police do not have the criminal sanctions they need to ensure these kinds of violent invasions of people's homes do not occur.

I do not propose a particular guideline, but I do think there should be some kind of minimum sentence for cases which involve this aggravating factor of home invasion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Kitchener—Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, will the member tell the House, when he looks at all the countries in the world and all the criminal justice systems, which country does he think should be the model that Canada might look at? Which country's model is closest in its thinking and philosophy? I would like to hear that from the member.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am no expert on the criminal laws of other jurisdictions, so I would not propose any single model. I suggest that a made in Canada solution is probably the best. We have different conditions, different circumstances which we should consider in framing our own criminal justice laws. I think that question probably is not relevant.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Kitchener—Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking to different parts of the motion, but I am first going to make some general comments.

The member said that he does not know much about criminal justice models around the world. I suggest that the member is correct. I suggest that the Reform Party knows little about criminal justice models around the world and if Reform members do, we would like to have them stand in the House and tell us which system they would like to see us model our system on. Would it be Europe? Would it be the United States? Would it be South Africa? Would it be Texas? Which?

One of the problems when we enter into this type of debate is that members of the official opposition ends up trafficking in a lot of fiction. By saying that I mean they would misrepresent a situation of crime and the number of victims in this country as to how we compare to other countries.

The Reform Party would have us believe that our Young Offenders Act is the most lenient act around. For the record, our Young Offenders Act incarcerates 15 times as many young people as similar acts in New Zealand and Australia, 10 times as many young people as in western Europe and even twice as many young people as in the United States. Our Young Offenders Act is more punitive to young people than an adult charged with the same kind of crime. Young offenders spend more time in jail for a crime than adults do in the adult system.

When I say that the official opposition is trafficking in fiction, that is exactly what I mean.

It is nice for the Reform Party to go around and say there is a fear of crime in this country and that people should not be afraid. Every one of us in the House would agree that one victim is one victim too many, that one crime is one crime too many.

The reality is that the crime rate has been dropping over the years. It has been progressively going down. Compared to the United States, our crime rate is much lower. Canadians feel much safer in this country than they do in the United States. Every example calling for tougher sentencing and dealing more toughly with law breakers always points to the American model.

One of the biggest fears people have of crime involves the use of guns. That is why the government put in place gun registration, which I must say is being ignored and was not supported by the Reform Party.

I want to touch on immigration. Immigration has certainly been a greatly exploited topic by the folks on the other side.

The safety and security of Canadians are a concern of the government. Through the immigration program numerous measures have been undertaken to ensure that criminals do not enter and that those who have entered have no right to remain and are removed.

This undesirable group, however, represents a small fraction of the total number of visitors and immigrants that come to Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada strives to ensure public safety while facilitating the entry of legitimate travellers. It is difficult to balance.

Last year alone 110 million people crossed our borders to enter Canada. Many of them were Canadian citizens returning home, as well as visitors, immigrants, foreign students and refugees. Security screening is used for all those who are entering Canada. Toward the goal of public safety there are three screens in place to guard against illegal entry and to identify those who should not be here.

Before I continue, I will be splitting my time with the member for Erie—Lincoln and I look forward to his contribution.

At the international level a screening occurs. Those wishing to come to Canada as visitors or immigrants are scrutinized when they apply for a visa. Immigration control officers working in Canadian embassies and missions abroad ensure that security and health checks are done. It is at the international level that we have formed partnerships with foreign governments to help confirm the identities of foreign criminals and to prevent them from coming to Canada. The problem of illegal migration is a global one with crime rings operating beyond national borders. It is therefore necessary to work toward solutions at the international level.

A second screen is conducted at the Canadian border where Citizenship and Immigration Canada officials and those of Revenue Canada deal with incoming travellers. The use of computer databases has helped greatly in establishing identification, ensuring that those seeking to enter Canada have not been previously arrested or removed. The work at these border crossings and airports is a key element in our defence against illegal entry.

The third type of screening goes on within Canada with the co-operative work of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the RCMP, and all Canadian police forces. This inland screening is an ongoing process that makes use of shared databases and immigration warrants. Often something as routine as a traffic stop allows an officer to determine immigrant status and possibly the existence of warrants.

It is this information sharing with police forces across the country that has allowed Citizenship and Immigration Canada to identify and remove criminals and those without status in Canada. I remind members opposite that the removal of foreign criminals and failed refugee claimants has increased steadily over the last four years.

In 1998, 8,012 people were removed from Canada. This represents an increase of 67% from 1995 when citizenship and immigration effected 4,798 removals.

While there is much to commend in the current Immigration Act there are avenues for improvement. Changes are now being considered. On January 6 this year the minister proposed new directions for immigration legislation and policy. Under these proposals the system would be improved by clearly defining who is admissible to Canada, by creating new inadmissible classes, and by enhancing the capacity of government to remove people who have no right to establish themselves in Canada. Also among the proposals is the removal of a level of appeal for serious criminals as well as those people who obtain permanent resident status through misrepresentation.

As we advance with these proposed changes I look forward to the contributions of members opposite so that we might recognize the efficiencies and improve the Immigration Act.

There is no question that we have problems in enforcement in terms of having people who come to the country that commit offences.

When we look at our immigration policies over the years we have to recognize that we have a country with a population of 30 million. Something like six million people were not born here. We have a generous acceptance of refugees which is both humane and generous. Beyond that, the number of people who involve themselves in criminal activity compared to the whole is very small.

People look at Canada overall as being a nation of immigrants. I can look around the House and say there are 47 members who were born outside Canada. A number of people were refugees and are represented pretty well in all parties.

Canada is a nation that was built on immigration. If we look at the status we occupy in the world because of this reality, we have to say that our policies overall, which will get some improvement, have served the country very well.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Reform

Ted White Reform North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about crime decreasing, but youth violent crime has been rising, as I am sure the member knows, particularly among young women. If he doubts that, he can get on the Internet and look up the website for North Shore News . He will find an article within the last two weeks with plenty of statistics for the Vancouver area.

In addition, the member talked about how Citizenship and Immigration Canada strives to protect Canada's borders and to do screening during entry. Yesterday afternoon on Vancouver's top radio station, CKNW, a Mr. Johnston from Citizenship and Immigration Canada was on the line for an hour. I invite the member to call in and get a transcript of the program. He will find out that it is just not so.

Certainly fingerprints of refugee claimants are taken at the port of entry. What happens is that those fingerprints are sent to Ottawa where they are hardly ever checked. During a recent drug arrest in downtown Vancouver when 80 Honduran refugee claimants were arrested for drug trafficking, a local policeman from the Vancouver area took it upon himself to check the criminal records of these claimants. He found that 20% of them had criminal records in the United States. Yet here they were coming into Canada. It is absolute bunkum.

The member would have us believe that things are getting better by talking about how the number of deportations has risen 67%. I am not the least bit surprised. Probably the number of criminals getting into Canada has gone up by at least 67%. If the member doubts it, he needs only to come out west, take a little visit to the Vancouver area and find a dose of reality, what is really happening out there.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite that I go out west twice a year. I stay for about a week at a time. When we first came to Canada we lived in Vancouver, including North Vancouver. I have returned there on many occasions.

If the member does not believe that the crime rates are dropping, there is not a whole lot I can do about it. I can only suggest to him that he read the facts.

People abusing our immigration system is a problem at times. The member continually refers to the Honduran claimants. Whether or not those people are kept in custody when they are apprehended or charged is a decision made by the local courts. It is important for the member to understand that. If the local courts believe that the person will commit another offence or not show up for the next hearing, the person will be kept in custody.

I implore the member to read the statistics so that he understands that the crime rate has been dropping not just in Canada but in the United States and in western Europe as well.