Thank you.
I'm pleased to have you both here today.
As members of Parliament in high-density areas, we have a lot of immigration, and much of what you've told us we've experienced. However, I think your opinions are certainly more articulate than I could ever....
The problem I have with Bill C-50, and I'd like your comments on this, is the fact that it is turning more power over to the bureaucrats. When they say “minister”, we all know it doesn't mean minister; it means bureaucrats. I think most of us who have dealt directly with the bureaucrats have heard racist comments, and I'll even tell you a few of them.
I called about Jalandhar, and I was told the reason we have such a high percentage of people turned down in Jalandhar is because they were Punjabis, and Punjabis tended to lie more than others. Now, if that isn't just plain ordinary discrimination, I don't know what is. We have a lawyer in Hamilton who has talked about racist comments he's read from bureaucrats.
I'm not saying that bureaucrats are all racist. In fact, it's probably a very, very small percentage. However, on the refugee board...in The Walrus magazine, we've seen that there's been political intervention. And that doesn't mean intervention by politicians; it means intervention by bureaucrats, where there was definite bias against the Romas.
When we're dealing with giving more power to the minister, we're not, we're giving it more to the bureaucracy. When equality is ignored, the first victim is justice.
I would like to talk to Mr. Crépeau sometime about reasonable accommodation and have his opinion on that, because he's pretty fiery when it comes to assimilation and treatment of immigrants.
What I want to know is, do you think our charter has made politicians very lazy? We often pass legislation and say, “Well, the charter will take care of it if it's wrong”. When everyone who presents before us is of the same opinion as you, why aren't we doing it? What's the down side?