Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and contribute to the debate surrounding Bill C-35 on third reading. As members know the bill's intent is to establish the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, but in fact this bill is simply standard housekeeping material and no real meat.
My colleagues and I in the Reform Party would rather this government bring forward legislation that deals with some of the numerous problems our misguided Department of Citizen-
ship and Immigration faces. Further, I believe that the government must begin immediately to look at new specific goals and new hard nosed policies for this department, using as criteria the safety of Canadian society and the economic needs of our country.
At present this government is pursuing an immigration policy that will allow 250,000 newcomers into Canada this year. This represents about 1 per cent of our general population. What is the justification for this number? Where is the economic justification? The minister continues to claim that extensive consultations unprecedented in their scope and attendance has set this number. We in the Reform Party ask, what consultations? Who was in attendance? What views are being accepted?
Let me tell you about this government's method of consultation. In fact its consultations are basically centred around special interest groups, particularly those that have direct interest in the maintenance of a complicated, expensive and slow moving immigration process. In most cases this means a financial interest.
For example, it is estimated the processing of one refugee costs between $30,000 and $50,000. Do you believe that immigration lawyers who are consulted extensively during the minister's extensive consultation process are interested in streamlining determination systems? Not on your life.
What about the consultation material received from polls? What about the opinions of rank and file Canadians? We have heard these consistently. Over the last few years polls have shown that a majority of Canadians believe that there should be a decrease in immigration numbers, particularly during tough times.
However, the voices of Canadians are ignored in favour of listening to special interest groups with their own special agendas. Once again this government policy of higher immigration levels flies in the face of its infamous red book assertion that "people are irritated with governments that do not consult them or that disregard their views". The key word in that statement is people.
This is an interesting contrast to the broadsheet published by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and distributed earlier this year which asks for input to the consultations which are supposedly under way right now. It states: "It is also important for information to flow from you and your group to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration". Note the phrase you and your group. Notice how the request for written submissions to the consultations task force is not addressed to individuals but rather to groups.
What happened to the government's promise of consulting with the people on important issues? Where is the fulfilment of the red book promise? It is simply not there. It has not happened and will not happen because this government like the Tories is simply not interested in what ordinary Canadians have to say.
Of the 250,000 immigrants this year, only 18 per cent will be evaluated for their potential economic benefit to Canada. Accordingly the skill level and education level of immigrants in comparison to Canadian citizens has been declining over the years. However, the fiction of the red book refers to an immigration policy that considers economic needs and our ability to absorb and settle immigrants.
These Liberal election promises are in clear contradiction with their current policy of a 1 per cent ceiling and their current policy that only 18 per cent of immigrants will be screened for economic benefits. How does our current immigration policy deal with Canada's economic needs or our ability to settle immigrants? It does not.
In addition, after much pressure this government recently introduced a bill to partially overhaul the outdated workings of the immigration and refugee board. However, even with these partial amendments there are still fears that the IRB will continue in its fumbling ways in creating a huge backlog of cases and by putting Canadians at risk by not deporting criminals. The present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when in opposition on June 22, 1992, commented on the system of removal. He lamented about people who get refused and then not get deported at the end of the day. He said "even the people who were denied were not deported in the end".
In actuality very few people are removed. This limp-wristed approach to deportation has continued under the present minister's guidance. The lack of exit controls and the staying of removal orders by the IRB has resulted in a system of deportation that is inefficient, inept and creates a huge economic liability to the Canadian people.
Last year the IRB in its wisdom granted 147 conditional stays of between two to five years to those under removal orders. Most disturbing of all, 145 of the 147 had criminal records. They range from drug offences to manslaughter to sexual assault.
The operation of the immigration and refugee board is a travesty. With 250,000 immigrants arriving each year perhaps the minister should undertake to discover why the IRB believes that Canadian citizens need the company of 145 known felons.
Recently an individual with an extensive criminal record was granted a five-year stay by the IRB and was involved in the fatal shooting of a woman in Toronto in April. Just today there was a funeral in Toronto. That is because a few days ago a metropoli-
tan Toronto police officer was killed and his partner wounded in a gun battle with an individual who was ordered deported three years ago.
With people waiting in line for years to immigrate to Canada why does the IRB quash deportation orders of known criminals and why does the department fail to execute deportation orders? I believe the minister should endeavour to find out, and I believe he should apply his words of June 22, 1992, to the workings of his own department. The system is clearly breaking down.
Canada must cease to become a haven for immigrants and refugees who were involved in criminal activity. While we will continue to welcome genuine convention refugees, we must strive for an immigration policy that is driven by the economic needs of our great country.
The average annual number of immigrants admitted to Canada over the last 25 years has been approximately 150,000. This should be our starting point. Then based on the health and the needs of the economy this number could be adjusted, up or down. Undoubtedly because of the immigration policies that are driven by special interest groups the government will denounce such a strategy.
Quebec with its controls of its own program of immigration has decided that it will be cutting back and accept only 16 per cent of all newcomers to Canada this year. What is its reasoning for this? It is its economy, of course, a very fundamental reason I believe.
Its economy is too sluggish and too weak at the moment to absorb and settle immigrants. To quote the red book again: "If a province is utilizing this strategy why is it so incomprehensible to suggest we can use a similar strategy on a national basis". The Reform Party's position is clear. Any immigration policy must be based on the economic needs of our country. What could make more sense?
Finally, this government must reform our system of removals and deportation. Criminals and bogus refugees are being granted stays by the IRB. This must cease immediately. This policy in fact is to the detriment of legitimate immigrants, legitimate refugees, and to the detriment of the Canadian taxpayer who must fund legal representation for these people either before a never-ending string of immigration appeal boards or before a judge in the criminal justice system.
Without real reform to the immigration policy and the workings of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada's economic recovery will most assuredly continue to be weakened and the safety of Canadian streets will most assuredly continue to be compromised.
This is not a time for simple housekeeping initiatives. This is a time to stop listening to special interest groups and start listening to the Canadian people. The Reform Party fully intends to be this government's worst nightmare on immigration policies until constructive, sensible and economy driven reforms are made to Canada's immigration programs. They can go to the bank on that promise.
I would like to address briefly the fact that I am appalled closure would be used on a housekeeping bill such as this one. I would simply quote the member for Kingston and the Islands:
I want to start by talking about the fact that the government is using time allocation once again on this bill. Just to remind the House and the Canadian public of the Draconian approach this government takes to dealing with legislation in the House-
Those were the comments of the member for Kingston and the Islands in February 1993.
In May 1991 the member for Ottawa-Vanier stated:
That is far from being democratic. Here we have an abuse of power by the majority because the government happens to have the numbers and it can impose upon the minority a process which, to say the least, is objectionable.
On May 29, 1991 the member for Kingston and the Islands stated:
A new definition of democracy-I suggest that it is contrary to all the practices of this House for the last 124 years. It is a breach of the proprieties of this place. While the Speaker has ruled that the motion is in order, and I respect that ruling, I suggest that it is-morally wicked of the government to proceed with this motion and particularly then to apply closure to the motion and thereby curtail debate on it.
On May 29, 1991 the member for Winnipeg St. James stated:
If there is going to be any debate, it will not put up with it very long, because it has a Draconian device, a Draconian mechanism called closure. If you deign and if you dare say anything in opposition to the government's proposals or to its motions, it will cut you off.
Finally on March 24, 1994 the leader of the government in the House of Commons stated:
Mr. Speaker, I said on behalf of the government it will be found over the life of this Parliament that this government will be using time allocation and closure far less frequently than its predecessor.
Four times in one night. He continued:
I challenge the opposition House leader to raise this again after a few years and see if I am right.
Perhaps after a few years it will be raised again. This housekeeping bill is no excuse for closure, but I will take this opportunity to close my address as one of the last speakers before the summer adjournment of Parliament.