Herb Dhaliwal

[Fisheries, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the minister has already asked for a comprehensive review from the independent community and also the stakeholders. It will be transparent.

If the hon. member has something to contribute we are willing to look at what he has to offer because every once in a while they come out with an idea we can look at. We will be happy to look at his suggestions.

[Fisheries, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Delta. As he knows, there is a problem in that approximately 1.3 million sockeye are unaccounted for. This government has acted responsibly by asking for a full and comprehensive review of our present management techniques and the science.

As the hon. member is from the fishing community he should know that science is not perfect. We need to look at a number of areas like water temperatures which have a profound effect on sockeye.

We are looking for a full review, including all stakeholders, including the aboriginal community, to get to the bottom of this and to make the necessary changes to ensure we have confidence in the management of the fishery. We will do that and that is what the minister stated earlier.

[Burma, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today to focus attention on Burma.

July 20 marked the fifth year of house arrest for Aung San Suu Kyi. Ms. Suu Kyi was elected by the Burmese people as leader of the opposition in 1989.

Despite suggestions that it is willing to open discussions, the current military regime in Burma has made no attempt to meet with Ms. Suu Kyi.

On April 12 of this year a motion was passed by this House to urge the Secretary General of the United Nations to appeal for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and the restoration of civilian rule in Burma. A petition was also signed by 234 members of this House urging the same actions be taken.

I urge all of my colleagues here today to remain vocal on the subject of Burma and to continue to apply pressure on the Burmese regime to free Ms. Suu Kyi and restore the democratically elected opposition to government.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. That is one of the most beautiful areas in British Columbia which I often have an opportunity to visit. I try to get there every

summer. The lake and the fruit trees make it a very beautiful area indeed.

I commend the member. He has made some important comments about immigration being very important for Canada and how immigration is very important for the economic development of this country.

He also talked about the pioneers. I can share some of his feelings because my own grandfather came here in about 1906. Luckily there was not a Reform government then. Otherwise he might have been deported because he did not have the skills or education. He was an uneducated man but he wanted to start a new life. He came to Vancouver, British Columbia after travelling extensively throughout the world. He obviously was a very smart man. He picked the right place to stay. I share in some of the comments of the hon. member as well.

I would like to say that in immigration there is a balanced approach. One of the areas the member talked about is family reunification. I think it should be known that when you look at the total immigration to this country, the percentage of family reunification has come down. It is actually reduced from what it was in the 1980s.

The members in the Reform Party have often brought up the situation of family reunification. It is about families coming together. I am very surprised that the Reform Party, with its stand on the family and how important it is to have a strong family situation, would be against bringing families together. I am really surprised considering how often the Reform members speak out about how important the family unit is, how important the support system is. Now I hear that they do not think that family unification should be looked at.

In fact, instead of bringing families together, instead of bringing the mothers and fathers together, they want to keep them apart. They do not want to bring them here. They want to set up barriers for them. This is quite surprising considering their stand on having strong families and how important that is in terms of reducing crime and support. I am very surprised.

In the area of refugees, Canadians are compassionate. I remember the refugees from Uganda. I know many of my people who were refugees from Uganda. They have contributed substantially to this economy. I can name lists of people who are now judges or now chair of major companies and so on who came here as refugees.

We did it as humanitarians but they have contributed substantially to our economy. If the hon. member wants to get a list of the many people who have come and who have contributed, particularly those refugees from Uganda, I would be happy to provide that.

The immigration policy has a balance. It says we want to bring families together. I am sure that the Reform people want to keep families together. About 45 per cent of all immigrants to this country are into family reunification in order to bring families together.

Then of course there is the economic class. There are entrepreneurs who want to start businesses here and want to develop our economy. We want to give them an opportunity to help create jobs. I am sure that the hon. member will say it is important to create jobs. It is important to make sure that Canada is working. It is important that Canada be competitive with the rest of the world. We do need entrepreneurs.

There is another matter I want to raise because the member on the other side has talked about it extensively. That is the crime factor.

I have a case in my riding, and I would like the member to respond to this, where a gentleman was deported because he assaulted someone. This gentleman has a wife and two children in Canada but he cannot come back. Imagine what they are going through because he assaulted someone.

I would like the member to tell us whether we should keep that person out of the country forever, away from his wife and two children. Should we say because this person assaulted someone he should never be allowed to come to this country to join his wife and two children? I would like the hon. member to address that and indicate how we should respond to that wife and those two children.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

They should be more responsible in ensuring that we get the true picture of the reality instead of painting distorted pictures about immigrants who contribute tremendously to Canadian society.

The minister by bringing forward Bill C-44 is acting responsibly to ensure that where individuals are abusing the system they are dealt with in a constructive way, and I applaud the minister for bringing this forward.

Instead of hearing constructive suggestions from the member opposite he wants to give the most extreme examples, not to highlight the reality of it but to distort what the reality of the situation is. Knowing the riding that he comes from, I would think he would act in a much more responsible way, as expected by his constituents.

If he is truly interested in contributing, he will support Bill C-44, go along with the government side and get this bill through as quickly as possible so we can deal with abuses that exist. We have to recognize that that is a very small number when you look at the total number of immigrants that come into this country, immigrants who contribute and work very hard. In his own riding they are contributing to the farming community which is very dominant. The faster we can get this through the better so that we can deal with some of his concerns. I am sure he will see that through.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I had trouble following the arguments of the member for Fraser Valley West as to why he would not support Bill C-44 which attempts to deal with some of the abuses that occur.

What we heard today from the member for Fraser Valley West is typical of the Reform Party. It is typical because all of last year we heard how there was a tremendous crisis and that the crime rate was going up dramatically. We heard it every day here in the House of Commons from the members of the Reform Party only to find out that crime has actually gone down.

This is typical. They want to take the worst possible scenario and bring it forward in this House. I think it is totally irresponsible. It is playing on the fears of Canadians. Why do they not talk about the contributions of immigrants to this community? Why do they not talk about the immigrants in this House who are contributing, as many of them are? Why does he not talk about them? Instead they want to take the worst possible examples, and this is the worst kind of politics of fear that you can have.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was not here for the vote but I would have voted with the government.

[The Vancouver Canucks, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the Vancouver Canucks on an absolutely outstanding season and a brilliant performance in the Stanley Cup play-offs.

The Canucks exceeded our wildest expectations. They attained a goal that most teams can only dream about and they did so by virtue of their great skill and spirit. They have made all Vancouverites, British Columbians and Canadians proud.

On behalf of the constituents of Vancouver South I congratulate a hockey team with heart, drive and charisma. In our eyes you are all winners.

[Privilege, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this member has questioned my integrity. He has not offered a shred of hard evidence. I ask the member for Simcoe Centre to apologize for misleading the House and for spreading misinformation.

[Privilege, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my integrity is in question and I will be getting to that in just two more statements.

The member for Simcoe Centre stated that on May 24 I was still an officer of Dynamic. This statement is incorrect. The member stated that I currently reside at the same address as my father. This too is incorrect.

Let me state categorically for the record that my father does not live with me and, for that matter, I would be very honoured in my culture if my father did live with me. I would be happy to have him stay there.