Debates of March 17th, 1994

Immigration Act

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak on the subject of immigration for the second time today.

I am going to be taking another side to this debate. I should point out this House has not been active in the promotion or discussion of legislation dealing with immigration and I applaud my hon. colleague for breaking ground.

Our current Immigration Act despite its enormous length has the appearance of having no teeth as its enforcement is sorely lacking. This also applies in the area of visitor visas. In the minds of many Canadians it fails to ensure that Canada is adequately protected from abuse.

Canada needless to say is a nation with a sterling reputation for compassion and openness. However when that openness is abused the result can be a backlash and a decline in Canadians' tolerance for newcomers or even more so directed toward the legislation that does not seem to fit the abuse. Polls indicate that this is precisely what is happening now.

Canadians see example after example of abuse in the system. They fail to see that immigrants are not to blame per se since those immigrants or visitors who are abusing the system are only taking advantage of the incentives for abuse that our present immigration law provides.

One area of abuse that may not make the headlines frequently but that is nevertheless a growing strain on our immigration system is the failure of many to leave the country after the expiration of their visitor visas. As a result of this abuse, immigration officials have been tightening up the requirements needed for visitors to enter Canada on visitor visas.

Currently one of the determining factors in whether or not a visitor visa will be granted to an applicant is if the applicant poses a risk for non-compliance with the terms of departure from Canada. This security is especially hard on young males and unattached people who it is often determined may have little reason to return to their native land. This is especially so when Canadian immigration is unable in most cases to undertake the process of apprehension and deportation of people who have overstayed their visas.

However if family members who are citizens or permanent residents of Canada were able to post a bond and the posting of that bond were allowed to influence the decision making of the immigration official, then not only would the possibility of overstaying be reduced but so would the likelihood of unjust rejection for visitor visas. At least that is how it should work in theory.

In reality however this legislation may have the effect of actually encouraging more abuse of the system. This legislation if passed, may result in even more people coming to Canada with no intention of leaving and then staying on without ever being apprehended. Allow me to explain why.

This bill makes no mention of the size or the type of bond, whether it is cash or security. Therefore we must assume that the bond will not be overly sizeable. If that is the case then citizens or permanent residents of Canada who desire to bring to Canada a family member may well end up making a rational, economic decision to buy a family member into Canada using a bonded visitor visa rather than going through the long and complicated process of sponsoring under the family class.

Further, when one sponsors a relative there is an obligation to support the individual for a lengthy period of time. I know this requirement has been ignored by many and is also rife with abuse. Nonetheless it is a requirement that presents an obligation which could be enforced, if this government would only demonstrate the political will necessary to enforce it and to support its enforcement officers and divisions.

Were one to sponsor a visitor visa by posting a bond, there could be at most the loss of a couple of thousand dollars. No further financial or more important, legal obligation would be pending. Instead of accomplishing what this bill on its face seems to, this bill would in fact open the doors for further abuse.

I have brought the text of this bill to the attention of individuals with far more knowledge than I possess in the field of immigration. After review, the response I received from them was that while this bill could help to make the visa process somewhat less discriminatory, the price could very well be a flood of visitors who intend to take up residence in Canada by overstaying those visas.

Furthermore I was told that it is virtually impossible due to manpower shortages and legal limitations to track down, apprehend and deport illegals who have overstayed their visas. A huge percentage of illegal immigrants to Canada have used this route to enter the country. This legislation, by making the process of acquiring a visitor visa easier for those individuals who pose a high flight risk could make the number of illegals that much higher.

Further this legislation could make it impossible to charge a citizen or permanent resident of Canada with aiding or harbouring an illegal immigrant. After all if one has posted a bond and then forfeited the funds then legal recourse may be exhausted.

There is also the issue of fraud to consider. Fraud permeates the immigration process in Canada in the form of faulty travel documents, falsified visas and the transfer of documents. It is regrettable that this bill does not address this issue. Rather this bill seeks to make the acquisition of visas even easier and ignores the rampant abuse of the visitor visa system that currently exists.

One other point should be made regarding this bill. This bill assumes there is some mechanism to determine if and when a visitor on a visa leaves the country. How else could the forfeiture of a bond occur? However there is no such process. While visa visitors do have their date of entry logged with Immigration Canada, their date of departure is not. Thus this bill is premised upon an enforcement mechanism which by all rights should exist but does not.

In short, I applaud my hon. colleague for having introduced this bill and to attempt the beginnings of a badly needed restructuring of immigration law. However this bill is shortsighted and suffers from the same malady that reflects so much of the legislation that comes into this House.

In theory we have a good idea here. I know the intentions of my colleague are laudable, but this bill would make a presently existing problem even worse. To make our immigration system function any worse than it does now would be to be jeopardize the future of all immigration into Canada by further raising the level of intolerance that this failed system has begun to create.

I respectfully oppose this bill.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I second the private member's bill of the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. In my riding of Don Valley North about 50 per cent of the population are new Canadians. Of course I am one of them.

This bill will help the system in many ways. It will cut the red tape in our embassies or visa offices overseas. It will help the families living here. It will give them the opportunity to celebrate holidays, important days, religious days or weddings together.

It will help tourism in Canada. The more visitors we have and the less restrictions there are on visitors, the happier they are to spend their money and generate revenue to Canadian businesses.

I am more than happy to second this bill. I urge this House to accept this recommendation and take it to committee. In committee we will certainly support this bill. I hope the other committee members will do so when it comes to the vote in committee.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Madam Speaker, I proudly rise to support this bill introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. He has set a course that is practical and realistic in terms of solving some of the problems we presently have in the immigration system.

I would like to see this idea expanded toward the family sponsorship of immigrants. There are increasing numbers of experiences where families sponsor immigrants to come to Canada. Then in a very short time for whatever reason they abrogate their contract with the federal government to continue their support. Therefore, seems that the principle of bonding would be a very practical means of accomplishing this.

I also suggest to the hon. member that in terms of student visas, young people who come to Canada to get their education, the principle of bonding could be applied as well. That would allow Canadian educational institutions to offer their services to young people from other parts of the world.

I speak from personal experience. Some of my friends and I attempted to have a young Dominican man admitted into Canada to complete his education which he could not get in the Dominican Republic. He was turned down twice. A write-in campaign was launched with the minister and with the adjudicating officer in Santo Domingo. He had to participate and take documentation with him to show he had won the president's citation four years in a row in that country and that he was a highly respected member of his community, and so on.

Finally after the third attempt, this young man came to Canada. He is here now completing his education in computer science. He will go home bringing something very new and special to that country. His mother continues to reside there.

This is a very positive step. Having run this idea by my constituents in the last few months in speaking to chambers of commerce and various people I have received only positive response. They felt very strongly that this was a good new direction to take and that it would help very much to solve some of those problems that end up often causing a backlash among settled citizens in this country. Anything we can do to overcome that is a positive step.

My constituency office has been in touch with various people in the immigration department. The suggestion has been floated there. I can say it has received positive response even there.

I commend the hon. member. This is an excellent move. I would like to see it expanded and moved into a larger base. I do not believe for one minute that my friends in the Reform Party can be serious that this would simply be tacked on as a cost of doing business, if you like, for somebody to buy their way into the country.

It seems to me that all that needs to be dealt with there is how that bond is applied and at what level. This is a mechanical process and I do not think it needs to be simply the price tag for getting into Canada.

I appreciate the opportunity to endorse this bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Since there are no more members who wish to speak, the period provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.

Before asking unanimous consent to call it 6.30 p.m., I would like to wish everyone a happy St. Patrick's Day.

Happy St. Patrick's Day, everyone.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Since it is St. Patrick's Day and I happen to know that you, Madam Speaker, are wearing a shamrock on your gown, I thought it would be appropriate to thank you on behalf of those of us in this House who are of Irish descent. Of course, I include the hon. Minister of Justice who is also of Irish descent. I would never mention his name, it is a weird name to be Irish, but it is there.

We do thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your kind comments.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

May I call it 6.30?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are starting the adjournment debate 10 minutes early, and although I cannot make any assumptions about the absence of members from this House, I would nevertheless appreciate it if a member of the government would respond to this motion.

On Tuesday, I put a question to the Minister of the Environment about Phase I of the St. Lawrence Action Plan. I protested the fact that Industry Canada spent only $5 million in Quebec on Phase I to clean up a river which flows mainly through Quebec.

I suggest we look at the figures that were given initially. I will round off the figures for the sake of convenience. Initially, Industry Canada had budgeted $20 million. Because of the recession, the government cut $2 million, which leaves $18 million. More than $6 million was spent on projects which, in the end, did not make the grade, so that Industry Canada actually invested a mere $11.3 million of the initial $20 million that was to be used to clean up the river. However, the worst part is that Industry Canada spent only $5 million in Quebec.

Madam Speaker, the St. Lawrence River flows mostly in Quebec. Consequently, I find it hard to understand why an amount close to $6 million was used to subsidize an Ontario pulp and paper company located in Miramichi, in New Brunswick, several hundred kilometres from the St. Lawrence River. After all, there are dozens of plants like that one along the river. Why choose the Miramichi facility?

I also find it hard to understand the $450,000 subsidy to Marsh Engineering, from Port Colborne, on Lake Ontario, for the treatment of oil discharged by ships which could some day navigate on the St. Lawrence River. Again, there are many ports along the St. Lawrence in Quebec, including Montreal, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Sept-Îles and quite a few more.

So, why was only $5 million of the $12 million spent in Quebec during Phase I of the St. Lawrence Action Plan? After all, as I said, the river flows mostly in that province.

I remember clearly that, in the 1980s, there was a serious problem with maple trees in Quebec. The Government of Quebec did not buy a plantation of evergreens or oaks to study the problem, It bought an enormous sugar bush, and its officials conducted tests and soil analysis, and found solutions to the problem.

To clean up the river, it would have made sense to concentrate efforts where the river flows. I find the attitude of the Department of Industry unjustified.

In conclusion, the report on this issue states clearly that the partnership between Environment Canada and the Department of Industry is a failure. The two departments went in opposite directions as regards technology.

Last Tuesday, the Minister of the Environment made a formal commitment to the effect that all monies allocated to the St. Lawrence Action Plan would be spent in Quebec. Can she tell us now how she will control the monies invested by other departments during Phase II of the Action Plan, in order to avoid a repeat of what happened during Phase I?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

First of all, what I told the House was that the funds earmarked for Phase II of the St. Lawrence Action Plan will be spent on cleaning up the river.

Having said that, I must point out that the St. Lawrence runs all the way from Brockville, Ontario, before reaching the sea in the Lower St. Lawrence district. My brother's father-in-law has a cottage in Carleton, on Chaleur Bay, just across from New Brunswick.

What we want to do it is to clean up the St. Lawrence and that is exactly what we have committed to do before this House. All the funds earmarked for this project will be spent on pollution control.

That being said, I think that the hon. member is taking a narrow view when he claims that, in the event of technological problems, investments will necessarily be distributed on a geographical basis. He must have heard of Dr. Jonas Salk, the medical researcher who developed the vaccine to stop the polio epidemic afflicting so many people around the world.

We did not tell Dr. Salk, who was with the University of Toronto, that the funds had to be invested in Toronto.

What is important is to use the right technology. The technology used to clean up the St. Lawrence has to be good, whether it is developed in Quebec or elsewhere. If there were a problem in Lake Ontario or Hamilton Sound, near where I live, and a research scientist from Montreal could find a way to solve the problem, I would not tell him not to just because he is from Quebec.

I think that the decision to invest in cleaning up the river is a sound one. Our government is not the one that signed the agreement under which the funds were not distributed properly. This five-year plan for cleaning up the St. Lawrence River was signed by the current Leader of the Opposition, who was Minister of Environment at the time, and his Conservative colleagues. This plan did not specify how much was to be spent on pollution control. That is only part of the problem anyway.

The other one is making sure the right technology is used. I am sure that high-tech environmental companies in Quebec are very competitive and would not appreciate it if we decided that all funds for the Great Lakes could come only from companies around the Great Lakes. What we are looking for is good environmental technology that can be used in Ontario as well as in Quebec or in other provinces. That is what real environmental technology is about.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question I posed on March 15 regarding the concept of a guaranteed annual income.

As the Minister of Human Resources Development continues his review of social policy, I want to encourage him to fully consider and do a cost benefit analysis on the concept of a guaranteed annual income.

Today I would like to present five benefits that I believe commend this notion to the minister for further consideration.

First, in terms of efficiency, we need a comprehensive program to consolidate the patchwork of social programs that presently exist. We could consolidate the guaranteed income supplement, child tax credit and exemptions, married exemptions, federal Canada Assistance Plan transfers, old age security and possibly GST tax credits under a guaranteed annual income. Unemployment insurance as well or parts of that program could also be included.

Does it not make sense to provide one form of support instead of continuing the multiple programs process and bureaucracy that exist presently?

We talk about streamlining government. The guaranteed annual income could help us in this regard.

Second, what about work incentives? Many people fear that a guaranteed annual income will encourage people not to work. I believe that is precisely what our list of programs does right now. Currently, social programs have a high taxback rate on additional earned income, some up to 100 per cent, that in many cases makes it not possible for recipients to return to work. If by finding low wage employment a person risks losing certain other important support, that person really cannot leave the system.

Because the guaranteed annual income would be integrated with the tax system it could provide a gradual taxback of benefits as a recipient finds other sources of income.

My sense is that there is only anecdotal proof that a guaranteed annual income would be a disincentive to work. In fact, the real proof may exist on the other side. A recent study of the Mincome experiment in Manitoba found that a guaranteed annual income did not affect people's work habits.

As well, the National Council of Welfare recently released a study which showed that low income Canadians respond to incentives to work better than people with above average incomes. A person struggling to make ends meet does not have the luxury to relax instead of work.

I am convinced that Canadians want to work and if properly structured a guaranteed annual income will support Canadians to do so.

As for effectiveness, social policy can be more effective if it responds to the different needs of Canadians. A guaranteed annual income is able to do just this. Flexibility in the taxback rates and guarantee levels can provide effective income support for Canadians who cannot be expected to enter the workforce and those who are able to work as well. As well, in our changing economy skills and training are essential elements that create opportunities for lower income Canadians.

A guaranteed annual income would provide income support for those people who participate in training and skills advancement.

Let us consider economic benefits. Good social policy makes good economic sense and allows us to get lower income people the money they need to buy the resources they need to serve their families and they spend it in our local communities.

Finally, let us talk about dignity for Canadians. I believe that a guaranteed annual income protects the dignity of lower income Canadians. First of all, it provides effective income support so that Canadians are able to meet their basic needs.

Second, there would be no requirement to go through the humiliating needs test that are part of the Canada Assistance Plan.

With a guaranteed annual income people do not need to remain on welfare just because it does not pay to work. Moreover, Canadians will have the support needed to gain the skills necessary to compete in today's job market.

In conclusion, I believe and I try to show that a guaranteed annual income could provide significant benefits for all Canadians. I urge the government to do a thorough cost benefit analysis of this concept. It is time to consider a real step change in Canada's social assistance policy.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has asked me to furnish a response on his behalf this evening.

I know the minister would want me to begin by recording his gratitude and admiration for the continued interest of the hon. member for Brant as well as for the thought provoking suggestions which she has put on the record this evening.

I say on the minister's behalf that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development has been listening to Canadians express their views on social security reform. The minister has also appointed a small task force of Canadians involved in matters of social security and employment reform to help him pull together the elements of the reform process.

In April the minister will be presenting an action plan setting out the options and the choices for the standing committee to consider during the course of the summer, using the widest possible means of public dialogue.

The concept of a guaranteed annual income program to meet all the needs of persons with insufficient income has been considered time and again by previous governments, both federal and provincial.

The broad outlines of a guaranteed annual income are consistent with the department's goal of overhauling and streamlining current programs to make them more effective at addressing the social security needs of people today.

A guaranteed annual income would require major reforms to the structure and financial arrangements underlying several components of the income security network, including unemployment insurance, social assistance, child benefits and taxation.

One guaranteed annual income proposal which has garnered much attention in recent months has been the income supplementation program for Newfoundland and Labrador prepared by that province's economic recovery commission.

Federal and provincial officials are working together to review and assess the Newfoundland proposal to see how it could fit into the government's national social security reform process.

However, this government cannot consider a guaranteed annual income outside the context of the broad social security reform process.

A guaranteed annual income is a very innovative approach to reform that is not constrained by the existing program structure. Such a proposal could be presented as one of the many options available.

Before any such option is considered, careful consideration will have to be given to various government objectives, including job creation, achieving current fiscal objectives and addressing the inequities inherent in the current system of government programs.

The social security reform process is an ambitious plan with a tight timetable that will result in major changes for Canada. The action plan review process will be open to the public. Consideration on all options will require the participation of our partners, the provinces, as well as the Canadian public as a whole.

These are essential programs and this government does not intend to leave any stone unturned in considering how best to reform the social safety net.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 6.35 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1)

(The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.)