Gar Knutson

[Petitions, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present three petitions. The first petition has close to 500 names on it from constituents of my riding.

The petitioners are asking that Parliament support only gun legislation which severely punishes any violent criminal who uses a weapon including a weapon other than a firearm, protects the rights and freedoms of law-abiding recreational firearms users to own and use firearms responsibly and repeals firearms control legislation which features tortuous language and has been characterized as one of the most horrifying examples of bad draftsmanship.

[Ontario Elections, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish all candidates the best of luck in the upcoming provincial election. Their province and their country need them.

A Liberal government led by Lyn McLeod at Queen's Park will help get Ontario back on track. The performance of the current NDP government, including its obstructionist, unco-operative dismissal of federal-provincial relations, has left Ontario with uncontrolled government spending, rising debt, a stalled economy and one in nine Ontarians on welfare. Clearly the time for a change in government is now.

I wish Mr. Rudy Stikl and Mr. Barry Fitzgerald, the Liberal candidates in Norfolk and Elgin, all the best. Their own communities and all Ontario need their contribution at Queen's Park. Good luck to all Ontario Liberals.

[Petitions, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have six petitions with a total of 471 names to present.

The petitioners are praying and requesting that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

[Petitions, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition requests a referendum on bilingualism.

[Petitions, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition.

The petitioners are asking Parliament to act quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex relationships and families in federal law.

I also have four petitions in which signatories are opposing any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

[Immigration Act, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague's point. It is something we have to be very concerned about. I would remind him though that it is not the only threshold; it is not the only test. The first thing the person must have done to get into the problem is to have committed a crime where they would have received a maximum of 10 years in jail or more. Then the department would make its finding that they are a danger to Canadian society.

I appreciate the member's worries and concerns and we will have to watch the system as it develops.

[Immigration Act, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I acknowledge that it is a legitimate concern and that the hon. member has raised a legitimate point. The short answer is that I do not know. That is not what the guts of the bill are about. It is not about sorting out the technicalities of travel documents.

Let us say we have someone who came over when they were six years old. They grew up here. They are not a Canadian citizen. Then they commit a very serious crime. The country we are going to send them back to does not want them back. It considers them to be Canadians and is not going to give us the travel documents to send them back. We have a policy in this country of simply not putting someone on an airplane, sending them off to somewhere and simply leaving them there. Then we get into a game. We send them there, they send them back, we send them there. Who knows where the person disappears to. We cannot kick someone out of the country if we are going to make them stateless.

There is a mechanism that we have to follow. There is a process. If the country on the other side does not co-operate, I agree it is a problem. I do not have the answer.

[Immigration Act, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in another form that is the same question the Reform Party is asking. It is saying the minister has the power and that he should just use the current act.

I would like to point out that under the current act, under the current law, if somebody is convicted of a crime after they have served their time in jail they can apply to the Immigration and Refugee Board on humanitarian, compassionate grounds to defeat their deportation from this country. That process now takes three years. There is a three-year delay. Under this new law the process will probably be reduced to about thirty days. There are about 1,200 people the ministry or the department has, at least on first glance, determined could be dangerous criminals we want removed. This bill will do it.

With regard to the issue of the immigration department being understaffed and needing more resources, I will not dispute that with anyone. I will not dispute it with my colleague. I will not dispute it with the Reform Party. I am not responsible for that decision. I would suggest that you make your argument to the finance department or to the finance minister. I am sure the minister of immigration, if he were here, would be quite happy to be getting extra resources for his department.

The last issue is that he used the word draconian. I do not think the measures are draconian at all. First of all, the person has to commit a crime that will get them a maximum of ten years in jail. That raises one threshold. The second threshold or test that they have to meet is they have to be considered a danger to society. Clearly we are not going to be throwing out the person who simply steals a television that is worth more than $1,000. Clearly we want to go after the people who are committing assaults or murders or rapes or a whole bunch of other types of crimes for which Canadians have no appetite to have these people kept in our country.

[Immigration Act, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we disagree on that one fact. The member is saying that the appeal to the refugee board does not stay that proceeding and I say it does. However, I will get a reference and send it to him.

Clearly this act takes power away from the refugee board and puts it in the minister's office. If he was not responsible before, Canadians can now look to him and say that he is the one they are relying on to deport dangerous criminals who are not Canadian citizens. That law will narrowly focus it on the minister and on the government and they can take responsibility for that.

[Immigration Act, February 6th, 1995]

The pith and substance. I do not want to be too high falutin because as my colleagues have said they are not legal experts. I use the vernacular instead of using a term that might have been used in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The pith and substance of what this bill is about is really taking an appeal process that has been dragged out to three years to non-lawyers, non-judges, the Immigration and Refugee Board, an appeal process on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and saying in some very narrow circumstances where someone has committed a serious crime that will get them more than 10 years in jail maximum sentence and they are considered a danger to society, taking that appeal process and reducing it to virtually 30 days, narrowing the terms where they can only appeal to the federal court. That is the pith and substance of this bill and that is what the Reform Party should be supporting.

My colleague is absolutely right. I have never been to a border crossing and looked at the refugee determining process and what happens when someone shows up without documents. My view is that we should hold them in detention and should not let them go until we know who they are. I would certainly be happy to sit down with my colleague and look at the Immigration Act and look at the system that is in place and try to work something out that is reasonable. I agree, we should not be letting just anyone in. If they do not have documentation or cannot prove who they are then we should be concerned about that.

However, to re-emphasize my point, that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about people who apply on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to the refugee board and Canadians do not want to give them the right to do that. They have said:"You are a danger to Canadian society and we want you gone from our land".