Derek Lee

[Unemployment Insurance Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in the time that remains, I think members on both sides of the House have fairly addressed the main principles here. I want to touch on just two.

First is the reference to jury service as a mode of employment. I do not see jury service as being a job, as being an employment. It is the fulfilment of a civic duty. People who go into jury service do not do it to earn income. There is not much income there. As was said by the last speaker, $10 or $20 per day in some places might pay for the parking tab.

In addition the remarks pertaining to compensation for jurors relate to areas of provincial jurisdiction. These amounts are settled by the governments in each province. It is a tenfold problem if you want to look at it that way.

The mover of this bill has referred to the remarks of a judge, I think it was in Nova Scotia, who referred to the ruling at the Unemployment Insurance Commission as a stupid ruling. I think, as the previous speaker has pointed out, that the ruling was correct. However, I feel that the rule is stupid.

I think the rule in the Unemployment Insurance Act interferes with the ability of the citizen who happens to be unemployed at the time in fulfilling their civic obligation. That is an important civic obligation. It is such a civic obligation that governments do not even bother paying very much for the fulfilment of that obligation. It is basically come and get in here and serve as a juror because you are obligated to do it as a citizen.

As has been pointed out by the mover of the bill, that circumstance with the unemployment insurance rules causes the person called to do jury duty to perhaps lie or refuse to serve when they should be ready, able and willing to serve. I think that is a misfit in the UI rules.

As the previous speaker has pointed out you can fix it on either end. The mover of the bill believes, and I agree with him, that the quickest route to a solution is to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act as suggested.

The mover of this bill has had success in this House previously in relation to the same bill. If I am not mistaken the matter was referred to the committee by the House after an hour's debate in private members' hour at some point in the last Parliament. As he said, the minister, the parliamentary secretary, the chair of the House human resources committee and others all on the government side and other members on both sides of the House have agreed it is an issue that should be addressed and can be rectified.

I chair the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. When the matter came before the committee all of the members conceded that it was an area that could and should be addressed. For other reasons the bill was not included in the votable bills.

I want to indicate that I have always been and I continue to be supportive of this legislative amendment. Perhaps it is too small an amendment for the minister who is working on huge projects now involving UI and the social safety net to include as a single legislative item. But it is acknowledged by virtually everyone to be an issue which should be rectified.

As a result, it would be a shame if as an item of private members' business this matter could not be dealt with at the standing committee. It would be easy to get it there, but as you know, Madam Speaker, and as all members know, at this point in the process it would require unanimous consent of the House. It would be second reading and adoption in principle. I intend to ask the House for that now. I think all members have heard the arguments lying behind the bill and I hope they will accept it.

I am torn between moving adoption of the bill at second reading and referral to a committee or simply asking members to agree unanimously that the subject matter be referred to the human resources committee.

Since I am still standing, maybe I will move the former and perhaps, Madam Speaker, there might be a disposition in the House to adopt the bill at second reading and refer it to the human resources committee. If that were not the case, perhaps I might be allowed to continue with my remarks for another 20 or 30 seconds to wrap up.

I would put the motion now. I would ask that the motion as now placed before the House be moved and ask Madam Speaker to ascertain whether or not there is unanimous consent to do that.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, April 28th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce bill C-242, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act (improvement to public safety).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to reintroduce into this House this bill which amends the Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The bill will close a significant loophole in sentencing laws. It will lower the age of application of the Young Offenders Act. It will outlaw so-called crack houses and other locations involved in the trafficking of drugs. It will provide for stiffer bail procedures. It will deny statutory release to repeat serious offenders and will allow for the benefit of victims judicially ordered blood tests for those accused of sexual assaults and rape.

I want to acknowledge the support and collaboration of other colleagues in this and the previous Parliament and the assistance of various victims groups throughout the country which participated and collaborated in the construction of this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Foreign Affairs, April 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am struck tonight by the relative brevity and great relevance of the remarks to this issue and what appears to be a growing concern in this House on both sides as to where our government should take us over the next few hours in dealing with this very difficult issue of the request for the possible use of air strikes in and around Gorazde and other places in Bosnia.

The views expressed here tonight I am very sure will provide great strength to the members of the cabinet, our government, when they make their decision, a very difficult decision but one that they are charged with and one which will bind inevitably all of us as Canadians, those who pay taxes, those who wear military uniforms, those who have relatives abroad and Canadians in all walks of life.

What we see here tonight is a Parliament at work expressing the views of Canadians for the benefit of a government which shortly must act. As I understand it there are a number of other countries in this world which are waiting for Canada to make up its mind. We are on the verge of that now as we speak.

I think most of the issues that one would have wanted to deal with here tonight have been dealt with extremely well by my colleagues. There are only two that I will refer to. It is the often heard statement that we should not get involved in this kind of a war because we cannot win it. We would prefer to be involved in a peace. Let us not turn this into another Vietnam.

In this particular case I do not think the intention is to get involved in a war. No one intends to invade Bosnia. What we are dealing with is not even the whole country of Bosnia. What we are dealing with is five safe havens, five places where the world, through the United Nations, told Bosnians, principally Bosnian Muslims, that they had safe haven. At the time we were developing that thesis we also, maybe for good reason, imposed an arms embargo. We said they may not have the arms to protect themselves, we will stop arms from getting to them but we will also put some blue helmets on the ground and have some safe havens. In the end I think we had five safe havens.

We created them. We set up the arms embargo and now the people there numbering in the tens of thousands-in this particular case tonight as we speak it is Gorazde-of men, women and children without weapons to defend themselves. We are watching and some of us are saying we should not be there. I say we are there and we must stay there to finish our commitment.

We cannot walk away and leave those men, women and children to the guns that are advancing. References have been made in this House tonight to other incidents in history in which maybe we should have been there but we were not. Suffice it to say that we are there because, although we might rather not be, we wanted to be there and we have a job to do. I say we must finish and deliver on our commitment.

The second thing I want to say is that there are millions of people all over the world watching what is happening in Bosnia with a slightly different perspective than that of most Canadians. One cannot help but notice that the majority of the people in Gorazde and in the safe havens are Muslims, people of the Muslim faith. They have lots of brothers and sisters here in Canada and they are also looking at the world. They are looking to see if other countries of the world, those that have the money, the guns, the resources, the morality, the guts, the principles, are willing to stand by and protect the lives of those tens of thousands of people.

The fact that they are of the Muslim faith is very relevant to the whole world. There are millions of people all over the world who will be watching to see how we Canadians stand up for the principles, the morality which we have espoused since the beginning of this country.

I want to close and mention the bad words air strike. This is a mechanism, this is a method by which we are informed by the experts, by the people who know about these things, that we may be able to fulfil our commitment. It will not achieve it by itself. It may enable us to accomplish those very limited goals of protecting the safe havens.

We do not want to micro-manage what happens there on a minute by minute basis or even on a day by day basis. We are asked to say yes to the use of that instrument and I am prepared to say yes.

[Refugees, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

According to recent news reports as many as 24,000 former refugee claimants whose claims were rejected after a hearing have not yet been removed from Canada. Since most of them are not allowed to work this will place an additional burden on the taxpayer.

Can the government advise the House how many people are in this category, when the removals will proceed, and can we be assured that these circumstances will not impair the integrity of Canada's refugee program?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the bill and the motion currently before the House.

I am not surprised to see a number of the opposition rising and joining what has been called around here from time to time the ranks of the perpetually indignant. I know of what they speak because it was not but a few months ago I sat in opposition myself.

They are upset or feign being upset because of the use of time allocation. I understand that too because I sat over there. There is a reason the government believes that the time should be allocated. I ask the members opposite, as we have debated this throughout today would the result be any different in the ultimate vote if we had extended the time for debate? Under all the circumstances I think not.

I want to explain why I support the bill. Notwithstanding that I have a riding with over 150,000 people, I could sure use a smaller riding, as could my staff. So could many other members whose ridings exceed the norm of 90,000 or 100,000 people. That is one reason I might want to see this redistribution process go ahead immediately.

I come from the province of Ontario which would get another four seats in the process. Therefore my Ontario colleagues and I would probably want to see the bill go ahead and we would have another four seats. Why do I not want that to happen?

The reason is that the process as currently constructed will increase the membership in the House of Commons to 301. That is a very significant item because a close look at the statutes indicates that growth continues. It goes on and on over the years. MPs have realized it is time to put a stop to that.

I want to correct one item. One of the members who spoke within the last half hour said the last time there had been a change in the electoral boundaries was in 1980. That is not accurate. The last electoral boundary change took place for the 1988 election. I know because I was elected in 1988 on the new boundaries. The process took place in 1986-87. It is not long ago that redistribution took place. I have nothing against redistribution, in fact I am in favour of it.

Getting back to what I was speaking on a few moments ago, I sit on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. About a month ago the Chief Electoral Officer was before us describing the process.

At that time I and other members spoke on the issue of the increase in the number of members. For every new member we add to this House, it costs the taxpayer roughly half a million

dollars. Add six members and that is $3 million per year. That is an annual cost of $3 million forever. That is the financial issue.

I have not even mentioned the cost of renovating the House of Commons. Every time a piece of carpet, a wire or a pipe is installed it seems to cost us $10,000. There just is not any more room in this House. There would have to be a significant renovation.

In any event, 301 members is not what Canadians want. They want a Parliament that works. They want to see it work with 295 members and not 301 or 310 or 320 as time goes on. In my view the position the opposition parties are taking seems to be a desire to show blind submission to a process that was put in place about 30 years ago and keeps on growing, keeps on causing the numbers of members of Parliament to grow and the costs to grow.

A number of the interventions today were from members of the Reform Party. I would have thought there would be some element of reform in the way they are addressing this.

I accept that the redistribution process is calculated to be fair and that it is there for a reason. But lying behind that is the growth in the numbers of MPs and I want to put a stop to that.

Yes, $5 million has been spent on the current process. But how much more money would continue to be spend on the existing process if we did not stop it right now? If we do not stop it this month or next month we will continue to spend the rest of the $8 million and I suspect, as per usual, it would not be a surprise to see them go away beyond budget. The process simply has to be completed.

I will tell the House why I support this bill. It is because I want to cap the growth in the number of MPs in the House. The only way to do it is to grab hold of this process and stop it dead right now. Put it on ice because the changes to cap the growth in the number of members in the House involves a change in the Constitution. We do not make those overnight in this place. I do not think any country makes constitutional changes overnight.

This is the way to do it. The matter is to be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee, an all-party committee, not a Liberal mechanism as was alluded to earlier by one of the Reform Party members. It is an all-party committee and it will study the issue and report back to the House where the issue will be debated. I cannot imagine that the government would want to put closure on that debate when it comes back. However, at the moment we have to do this piece of business to stop the growth and the procedure. If we do not do this, within a year or two it is going to give us 301 MPs running in the next federal election.

I will end there. I hope the message is clear. I hope some of my colleagues opposite will understand it. We will redistribute the boundaries at some point. We have to. We certainly have to in my riding. However, let us get a handle on the number of MPs that are needed to serve the country as a whole, refashion that process, refashion that mechanism first.

[Immigration Act, March 17th, 1994]

moved that Bill C-219, an act to amend the Immigration Act (visitors' visas), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, the background to the bill takes us into the inner workings of the Immigration Act. A bill similar to this private member's bill was presented in the last Parliament. I guess it is fair to say we are taking another crack at the issue.

The background relates to the procedures which are used by visitors who wish to come to Canada, visitors from what we call visa countries, countries where it is necessary for residents to get visas from Canada before they visit here. The bill would permit the Canadian relatives of such visitors to put up a bond or a surety. It would require a Canadian immigration officer who was considering a visa application to take the existence of that surety or bond into account when the application was made.

The best way I can describe the types of difficulties that the bill is aimed at resolving is by referring to an individual case. The individuals involved know I will be speaking about the case because I mentioned the same case a couple of years ago in Parliament. They are good enough to permit me to use it as a good example of why the bill might be of assistance.

It relates to members of the Saravia family who live in Scarborough. They have lived in Canada for about 20 years. They are originally from Bolivia. They have brothers, sisters and other family in Bolivia.

A couple of years ago after some discussion it was proposed that one of the brothers visit for Christmas. He had never met his nieces and nephews here, and everyone thought it was a good idea. The mother had successfully visited Canada with a visa about a year and a half prior to that time. In this instance the visitor, Mr. Torres, travelled to Peru because we do not have a visa issuing office in Bolivia. He made his application about a week prior to Christmas. He went with his airline ticket and a document sent to him by the family here and was turned down for a visa. Regrettably while in Lima he was robbed by some people there. The Christmas visit did not take place. That was the bottom line and my constituents were unhappy about it.

This is one case in hundreds I have had to deal with as a member of Parliament. I know all members of Parliament, particularly those of us from urban areas, have had to deal with the problem of applications by family members for visitors' visas.

In this particular case we received a letter of explanation in our office. It was a good letter, a good response. I am not in any way critical of our officials in Lima. They replied and gave their version of an explanation. I am going to read portions of the letter because they help describe some of the background. They wrote:

Visitors visas are a very tricky part of our work. As you know, a great number of aliens enter Canada each year as tourists and try to stay after their original stay has ended. We have to determine in each case, with very little information at hand if the applicant is really a visitor or if the person is an immigrant trying to enter Canada on a tourist visa. The only way an applicant can convince us that he or she is really a visitor is by demonstrating that he or she has very strong ties to his or her home country which will force him to return to that country.

This is what we expressed to Mr. Torres to show us. He explained he was leaving his wife and two children behind. He declared he had a job in Bolivia to which he wanted to return. Unfortunately he showed absolutely no proof that his financial situation in Bolivia was comfortable or that he had any property or good reasons to return.

It is very frustrating for a Canadian resident to know that a brother, sister, mother, father, son or daughter cannot make a family visit because he or she does not have financial resources, when often the family in Canada does have some resources.

Therefore the bill is intended to rectify the omission from the process. We were just speaking a few moments ago about the criminal process where the victim has been excluded from the process. Here is another process, the visitor visa process, where the resident Canadian, the relative, the person who has invited the father or mother to come and visit, has been excluded from the process and does not have role. The bill will provide for a surety or a bond that will give these Canadian families an opportunity to participate in the process and provide greater assurance that the visas will be followed through.

The surety proposed does not require cash. The amount would be set by the Department of Immigration in the ordinary course as it sets other bond amounts. It provides the resident Canadian with a role in the process. It gives the Canadian a stake in ensuring that the terms of the visitor visa are met. Because these are family members there is a reasonable amount of suasion existing. There is a bond, a relationship between the visitor and the inviting family. Surely there is a degree of what I would call suasion in having the visitor fulfil the terms of such a visit.

The current law in section 8 creates a bit of a catch-22. Subsection 8(1) reads:

Where a person seeks to come to Canada, the burden of proving that that person has a right to come into Canada or that his admission would not be contrary to this act or regulation rests on the person.

That is the visitor. It has nothing to do with the Canadian. Subsection (2) indicates:

Every person seeking to come into Canada shall be presumed to be an immigrant until that person satisfies the immigration officer examining him-that he is not an immigrant.

Basic visitors have to obtain visas and are basically presumed not to be bona fide visitors. There is a presumption that they are not bona fide visitors. They are presumed to be immigrants.

That is built right into the act. It is a great procedural device to put the burden on the visitor. If I were a Canadian with a family visitor from abroad, I would not be too happy about it.

I suggest it is a bit of a catch-22. It is not fair to these Canadians. The challenge of setting aside that catch-22 is exacerbated when there is a language barrier. Many visitors coming to Canada do not speak English as a first language. If the visa officer is looking for some subtleties in intention here, it is going to be awfully difficult to pick up on those subtleties when the language being spoken is not a first language. In the few questions that are asked the information exchanged is going to be pretty basic.

Turning to some of the statistics behind the bill on the surface do not look bad. In 1993 the department issued 545,000 visas or over half a million visas around the world. It turned down almost 82,000 around the world. That is not a bad statistic. One might say that is not too bad in the face of half a million visas issued. I think about 79,000 of those turndowns were relatives of my constituents but that is not true. It just takes two or three of them to frustrate the heck out of a member of Parliament.

Over 50 per cent of the people in my riding are immigrants. This means it is likely many of those Canadians have families and relatives abroad who want to visit. Therefore 82,000 is a big number. Even if there were only 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 affected by the bill, it is a big number when we are talking about Canadians who want family visits to take place.

There are two perspectives worth noting. One is the huge increase in the number of families in Canada with relatives abroad. People are moving all over the globe now. There are huge increases in travel and large increases in the numbers of immigrants to Canada so hopefully many more family visits can take place.

Second, the refugee claims process has poisoned the atmosphere for visitor visa applications. In all cases visa officers are on the lookout for phoney refugees. There might even be a real refugee who is trying to get here through a visitor visa. Our visa officers put their careers on the line when they grant visas. I understand and I am sure other members understand that they cannot be seen to be making many mistakes. Every time a fake refugee claimant stays here on a visitor visa the dollars start to add up. It is not $1,000; it could be $20,000 or $30,000 in costs to the federal, provincial and municipal taxpayer by the time we are done with legal aid for a lawyer, welfare support during processing, the cost of the processing, the accommodation and so on. It is a very frustrating and high stakes games. These are some changing realities we have to keep our eye on. Canadians have been neglected in this process.

I want to conclude by outlining some of the salient features of this private member's bill. It provides a formal role for resident Canadians to participate in the process. Right now all we have happening with resident Canadians is sometimes they will go to a lawyer or a notary and get a letter prepared that says: "My brother, John, is going to visit and I will support him while he is here". They get the notary to seal it. The notary charges them $50 or $100. I will not comment on the appropriateness of the fees. As can be seen in the letter from Lima, Peru that kind of intervention by the Canadian family did not carry much weight in the decision.

Second, my bill would provide a material financial assurance of compliance with the visa by the visitor.

Third, it provides a real linkage between the applicant and the Canadian family doing the inviting.

Fourth, my bill would not prejudice those applicants who do not have a relative in Canada or do not put up a surety. The bill specifically provides that the absence of a surety is not to be taken into account by the visa office.

Fifth, it provides for individual applicants who have Canadian relatives the same ability to be bonded as group visitors currently have under the existing act. Group visitors can have bonding arrangements. Individuals at the moment cannot.

Sixth, it will not change the test for visitor visas. It will not change the underlying test and we will have the same test and the same safeguards. It will provide a significant role for family members here and provide a further assurance of bona fide fulfilment of the terms of the visa.

To conclude, I am hopeful that the government will listen carefully and include this type of amendment, this mechanism, as a new feature of the Immigration Act when it next considers amending our Canada Immigration Act.

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in listening to the member's speech I note that the quote was taken from a time, while certainly not the middle ages, some 23 years ago.

I would also point out and perhaps the member could respond, that about a year and a half ago in passing legislation dealing with corrections and parole, the statute dealing with penitentiaries and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and in reviewing the draft of the statute the priorities which were to be considered by the department were listed in the statute. For some particular reason and we did not know why, the safety of the public was not number one.

I say that in revising the statute for passage we in the committee moved the item up from No. 3 or 4 up to No. 1. I want to suggest that perhaps the pendulum is swinging back the other way after some 20 years. I accept the member's approach and I wonder if he would comment on the swinging of the pendulum.

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to intervene and comment for the purpose of clarifying the section 745 provision and ask a question of the member. I have considerable sympathy for his position on this issue and how his views relate to the position of victim, which is of course the way the opposition motion is phrased today.

The section 745 provision enables someone who has a 25 year minimum incarceration to ask a jury if they might have an earlier parole eligibility date than the 25 years. A person who is sentenced to life imprisonment has a sentence for life. Therefore, it is parole eligibility that is shortened not necessarily the sentence.

Could the member comment on how that would relate to the position of victims, victims beyond the person who is dead of course. I guess we are talking about family when we talk of victims of a murder.

[Alberta, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Government of Alberta for its generous gesture to renegotiate its loan arrangements with the Government of Newfoundland in recognition of the tough times Newfoundland is experiencing as a result of the collapse of the cod fishery there.

This gesture demonstrates a generosity of spirit which has manifested the Canadian tradition of sharing, co-operating and assisting one another to make this country a better place.

That spirit has allowed us to make Canada one of the most desirable places in the world to live. This spirit of collective will and national goals is shared by Canadians in all provinces, including Quebecers, but regrettably it is not reflected in a major policy plank of the Official Opposition which pursues a policy of separation.

We should all be grateful that we have the privilege of considering that policy in a peaceful and democratic way in Ottawa, in Quebec City and in all provinces.

However, I want to suggest today that in many ways this commendable gesture by the province of Alberta is the antithesis of the separatist plank of the Official Opposition.

[The Late John Candy, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today we mourn the sudden death of Canada's John Candy, an actor and comedian who entertained us here as well as people around the world.

He is one among us who invested his many talents in the entertainment industry and left an indelible contribution. His legacy includes over 40 feature film credits.

As those of us who knew him will attest, John's brand of humour reflected his roots, his neighbourhood in east Toronto and even the hallways of Neil McNeil High School in Scarborough where I first met him and his brother. He was a powerful example of determination and success to all of us.

Amidst his career success he never stopped being the kind and compassionate person he was, a husband and a father. We extend heartfelt condolences to his wife and family.

The fun and laughter John Candy has created for all of us will forever outweigh the tears we will shed at his passing.