Clifford Lincoln

[Immigration Act, February 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the answer is very clear and simple. Are Quebecers agreed under flexible federalism, under federalism that works, that shows that it works, to share immigration duties with Canada? It provides all kinds of services to new immigrants that the federal government transfers money for.

It is perfectly legitimate. If tomorrow Ontario chose to do the same and take over a lot of these duties that would be worth compensation.

I think this is really fair under the system of federalism. If there is one example that is so clear of federalism at its best, it is the immigration system which is in use in Quebec.

[Immigration Act, February 7th, 1995]

I gave you your chance to speak. Give me my chance to speak. Be courteous at least.

This bill wants to give certain powers to the immigration ministry and the immigration minister so that certain cases of extreme abuse are rectified.

The legislation will give the minister the power to intervene to prevent appeals against deportation where the deportee has been convicted of serious criminal offenses. The legislation will give us the authority to interrupt the process of Canadian citizenship acquisition when the applicant's claims are being investigated. This will make it possible to declare non eligible for immigration the persons convicted on summary proceedings in Canada or abroad.

We propose to remove the right of appeal for all persons involved in crimes of violence, involved in crimes involving weapons, sexual assault or drug offences, those crimes that have been punishable with sentences of 10 years or more. I do not think this is extreme. I do not think this is abusive.

I find it sad. I must join my seatmate here to say that I found it sad, that I felt the member for Fraser Valley West lowered the standard of debate in referring to animals, creeps and creepy crawlers.

His colleague from Macleod gave him a very good example. We can debate. We can differ. At the same time, we can use language that is measured in tone, that is constructive, that makes a point. You convince people far more readily that way than by using abusive terms such as animals, creeps and creepy crawlers. I do not think this kind of language helps the debate. It certainly does not raise the standard and it convinces very few people.

My hon. colleague from Kootenay East raised the question of statistics between Quebec and Ontario, whether it should be $90 million to Quebec, $110 million to Ontario, and dividing and adding and multiplying. When I listened to him in this debate I thought to myself what about human beings? What about people? People are not statistics. Human beings are not statistics.

We should all remember back to our First Nations, to our aboriginal people who have been there for thousands of years. All of us, regardless of our political stripes, regardless of the colour of our skin, regardless of our faith, regardless of whether we are young or old, are all immigrants. They have accepted us here, sometimes not willingly, but today with great calm, with great patience and fortitude.

We have to remember that all of us, whether we were born here or not, were immigrants too. We have to give a chance to the others who want to join with us. At the same time that we give them a chance we want to make it a fair game and say "Those of you who want to make a contribution, those of you who want to be true Canadians, we will help you, we will support you, we will give you all the blessing of our hospitality and welcome. At the same time, those of you who do not want to play the game, who want to abuse the system, there will be a law, a fair law to use in cases of abuse". That is the reason I support Bill C-44.

[Immigration Act, February 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, like many of us here on all sides of the House I was not born in Canada, I am an immigrant myself. Many of us here are immigrants. I think it would be fair to say that immigration has provided Canada with many blessings.

The collective contribution of immigrants to Canada has been immense. We have built our farms, we have built our cities, we have built our quality of life, we have built our railways on the work, on the toil and on the immense sacrifices of the immigrant community.

We have to recognize that immigration has been to us a great benefit, a blessing. At the same time, we must live in the reality of our world today. I was interested in listening to my colleague from Bourassa. I must commend him for the way in which he approached the debate in measured tones and a constructive spirit. I appreciate this.

The hon. member says that we are going far too far, that the government's legislation is very regressive. On the other side of the House colleagues from the Reform Party are saying that the government has not gone far enough, that this legislation will not serve its purpose.

We stand in the middle of what may be two positions at either end of the spectrum. We say that today the reality in Canada is that a tiny minority-I think we all agree it is a tiny minority-abuses the system.

What we want to do is to say that if you are a legitimate immigrant, if you live by the rule book, by the law of Canada, then you are most welcome. The hospitality we give will be the hospitality that you have always received here. At the same time, if you breach our laws, if you use unfair or criminal methods to jump the queue, if you use fraudulent means to come into Canada or if when you are here you abuse the system in such a way that you prejudice the rest of us new and older immigrants and natural born Canadians, then there is a price to pay.

What this bill says in effect is that we will reward and will recognize the legitimate, the fair immigrant. At the same time we will say to the immigrants who take advantage of our system that enough is enough and they cannot do it.

[Petitions, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition on behalf of 48 citizens of my riding.

The petitioners request that Parliament ensure the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that deserves an answer. I believe that the actions of the minister speak for themselves. She is the first to take concrete measures and the first to have the courage to act on this. The actions speak for themselves, we do not need any other kind of answer.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this government is that it is taking measures that the hon. member's leader did not take for two years with respect to the Irving Whale . Ask your leader, when he comes back, what he did about the Irving Whale .

I am not talking about Mr. Bouchard as an individual but as the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to ask the hon. member who is criticizing the minister if the Leader of the Opposition, while he was Minister of the Environment and after receiving numerous letters, did anything about the Irving Whale when he was responsible for the matter? And you have the gall to criticize the minister who, after only three months, did something about it!

As for the BAPE, I ask the hon. member to prove to the House that the BAPE will disappear, that its operations will change from what they are now. Indeed, I am in a good position to know the BAPE because I established the Lacoste Committee on the BAPE in Quebec. I know the BAPE inside out. You will have to

show me how the BAPE will differ from what it is today and why it will make fewer evaluations.

The BAPE will continue to operate in exactly the same way. What we want to do with the act is to maintain what is already provided for in the federal guidelines. Nothing will change except that there will be an act instead of guidelines. That is all. The federal government has very clear jurisdiction, as I explained, and that is why we are doing this.

How could the PQ and Bloc members, who want to destroy this country, agree with a federal piece of legislation? Of course you will not support a federal law! Name one other province, only one that refuses Bill C-13 today. Name only one. If you can, I will support you.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, December 12th, 1994]

I see this bothers the members of the Bloc. We show them the courtesy of listening to what they have to say, but they never show us the slightest courtesy. All they can do is shout.

That did not prevent me from saying what I think, that is that there are two sides to a coin. You, of course, would like Canada to break up. How could the Bloc Quebecois, the members of the Bloc, possibly accept a federal piece of legislation? Surely it is unthinkable. Indeed, the member for Laurentides showed her bitterness by saying how abysmally ignorant the current minister was on the issue. Speaking about the Irwing Whale , she invited the minister ``to take a very close look at the matter.'' What nerve.

In fact, as my colleague said, the current Minister of the Environment was the first one-I think there were six before her, including the Leader of the Opposition who was responsible for the matter for two years and did nothing despite all the mail he received-to take action less than three months after she got the environment portfolio. Now the member for Laurentides who is new to these matters has the nerve to say that the minister is abysmally ignorant.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, December 12th, 1994]

In any case, the principle of this bill is identical to that of the previous bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition.

In fact, in September 1994, only two months ago, in an interview with the Gazette , the Leader of the Opposition referred to this legislation as his baby''. During the 1993 election campaign, he made a reference to the legislation in an interview on <em>Le Point</em> , when he said:We must support this legislation''. I remember several instances during his previous and present mandate when he supported the principle of this bill.

One can use quotes to prove anything, but perhaps we should also quote what was said by the people of the Quebec centre of environmental law who say this legislation is entirely legiti-

mate. Perhaps we should also quote lawyers Michel Bélanger and Franklin Gurter, and see what they have to say. Lawyers do not all think alike.

But the crucial point is that today, yesterday and the day before, there have been assessments in areas of joint jurisdiction. I explained this to the hon. member for Laurentides the other day. I mentioned several cases: the Port of Cacouna, the Lachine Canal, the Sainte-Marguerite River. Today, she stressed this would be impossible under the present legislation. Prove it! In fact, the legislation has an active provision that allows for administrative agreements with all the provinces, individual agreements under which this kind of joint assessment can be done in an entirely normal and active way. So there is nothing in this legislation to discourage the kind of joint assessment that was done in the past.

The government has no intention of interfering with provincial environmental assessments. She talks about the BAPE as though the BAPE in Quebec were going to disappear. She talked about Quebec's environmental assessment process as though it would cease to exist. Of course it will continue, as will everything else, the same way as in the past. Except that today, in accordance with a formal commitment we made during the election campaign, in the red book, we decided to proclaim this legislation which was initially introduced several years ago and then put on the back burner for a number of years, for no good reason. So at least we had the courage to proclaim it. From now on, all environmental assessments will have to be done on a co-operative basis.

I think the minister made that quite clear. She got in touch with her counterparts, both Mr. Paradis and Mr. Brassard, to explain that the federal government did not intend to encroach on the provincial government's exclusive jurisdiction, but nevertheless, it has certain rights and duties, as ruled by the Supreme Court, that must be respected and that include doing environmental assessments where necessary. I do not see that as an encroachment by centralist federalism and all those big words the hon. member for Laurentides mentioned with such resentment.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Laurentides had to say. I would ask her to at least have the courtesy to remain silent for the time being and let me speak.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening as usual to my colleague from Laurentides who was speaking as usual about duplication and overlapping. I do not know what she would do if these words were not in her vocabulary.

During her speech, she asked quite a surprising question when she wanted to know what the federal government was doing in this. I wonder, at times, if we are living on the same planet. She also talked about centralizing federalism. In the most decentralized federal state in the world, perhaps she should have a little talk with the German minister of the environment or with the director of the American EPA and learn about how things are done in federal states.

In fact, as I said the other day, perhaps we will have to remind her once again that the Supreme Court said that the federal government not only has the right to intervene in the environment and in environmental assessments, but also has a strict duty to do so for all Canadians. I will remind her once again that the federal government is responsible for navigable waters, for all navigable waters whether they are in Quebec, New Brunswick or British Columbia.

It is responsible for fisheries throughout the territory and for all coastal areas, whether in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, British Columbia or the Arctic. All federal lands and all federal buildings in Canada are under federal jurisdiction.

The federal government also has a fiduciary responsibility for native peoples and thus for all the lands where native people live and have rights. It is responsible for the national harbours and ports, airports, the St. Lawrence Seaway, interprovincial and international trade and international agreements.

What is so unusual for a government with national responsibilities to pass a law on environmental assessments for whatever comes under its jurisdiction?

In fact, this law was written when the opposition leader was Minister of the Environment and now, people will try anything to demonstrate that it is different. But basically the law is exactly the same as it was initially.