Debates of Sept. 19th, 1994

Immigration Act

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

They can do it twice in Canada? I see. Clearly, this is not what Canadians have been asking for. Why are we admitting people with criminal records at all? They should not be allowed in the country.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in this important debate on Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act. The proposed changes will expand the government's authority to deny serious criminals access to the refugee determination system and will simplify the procedure for excluding from Canada persons who have previously been deported.

At the same time, the bill in its balanced approach to solving a serious problem of criminals, though few in number, assures Canadians that Canada will continue to welcome legitimate and law abiding immigrants as full partners in the Canada of today and the future.

Indeed this bill means a great deal to me. My wife and I came to Canada as immigrants 26 years ago. Our four sons were all born in Winnipeg. We have all been very proud to call this country our home.

There are a number of other honourable colleagues in this House who chose Canada as their home and I would like to urge them in particular to take part in this debate because it is important to bring experience as well as compassion and intellect to our discussions of Bill C-44.

Firsthand experience is one of life's great teachers and we who have been through the immigration experience know of the urgent need to protect the integrity of the system that we have.

I want to relay to members the sense of unease I have felt of late when discussions turned to the topic of immigration policy. Recently, when listening to open line shows, talking to people on the streets or opening the morning mail I have detected an anti-immigrant sentiment in some of the comments.

It is not difficult to see where this comes from. There have been too many stories about criminal acts committed by immigrants. There have been too many tales of people who laugh at our laws or use the system to their own advantage. The anger is directed at those who have abused or who would abuse our system and our generosity. But sometimes that anger spills over and it hurts everybody, all of us.

We know there are a number of abusers, the criminals in our midst, although we do not know the exact number. By all estimates the number is small compared to the large numbers of honest, law-abiding immigrants in this country. But we also know that in our society acts of violence or crime are relayed over the airwaves far faster and further than acts of kindness and greatness. In other words, the actions of a few criminals can reflect badly on the good work of the many.

Of course this is wrong, of course this is unfair and of course it should not happen. But it does. In Winnipeg, my city, immigrants are angry when they hear stories about the few who thumb their noses at the laws of the land. We need to make sure people do not abuse our immigration and refugee system or break our laws. We need to stop the abuse and we need to root out the few who are making life difficult for the many.

When cheaters abuse the generosity of Canadians or when thieves or murders try to pretend they are refugees, we and this government should say to them: "Enough is enough".

The reality is that they are not only stealing from the Canadian taxpayer. They are also stealing from would-be immigrants and refugees who really need our help. There is a limit to the resources and energy that can be expended on immigration and refugee matters and when some of those resources and energy are squandered on felons and cheaters, it clearly takes away from those who truly need our help.

Bill C-44 will ensure that the immigration and refugee system provides the best possible protection for those who really need it. I know there will be people all across Canada in the immigrant community and elsewhere applauding this fair and balanced legislation. In fact, if this government had not moved now to fix the system, there was a very real possibility that citizens' trust in it would dissolve.

We need to have the support of all Canadians so we can maintain a sensitive and fair immigration policy. After all this policy has been key to the success of our country. There is a lot in this legislation to recommend to my colleagues across the floor. The fact that the bill will prevent serious criminals from claiming refugee status or from appealing a decision to the Immigration and Refugee Board as a way to stall their removal from Canada is very important.

I must stress that we are talking about serious criminals. We are talking about people who have been convicted of a crime either in Canada or abroad that would be punishable in Canada by a minimum of 10 years in prison, or of anybody the minister believes poses a serious threat to the public and to the security of the nation.

Bill C-44 also gives immigration officers the legal authority to seize documents sent through the international mail that could be used to forge identity papers or circumvent our immigration laws. Customs officers already search international mail and already bring such documents to the attention of immigration officials. However under the current law the immigration officials cannot do anything about these documents. The legislation will fix that problem once and for all.

All of us in the Chamber know that when loopholes exist there is always going to be somebody who will try to take advantage of those loopholes. That is another reason why the bill is necessary. It removes those loopholes. For example, immigration officials currently have the authority to arrest anyone who fails to appear before a senior immigration officer as required, but they cannot issue a warrant authorizing other agencies such as the RCMP to arrest that person. The legislation when passed will allow warrants to be issued so police across Canada can help to find suspects wanted for violating our laws.

This strategy for ending abuse of the system outlined by the minister earlier today impressed me with its fair and balanced approach. Admittedly some critics have complained the amendments do not go far enough. On the other hand there are complaints that the government is too tough and too harsh. When we hear those two extremes I think it is safe to say that we have struck a delicate balance. We can be tough and make it very clear to those who would abuse our laws that they will not be tolerated in Canada. At the same time we are being extremely careful not to destroy the very system we are trying to protect.

As we look for criminals we must make certain that we do not punish the innocent. This is like giving antibiotics to a patient with a serious bacterial infection or administering chemotherapy and radiation to a patient with cancer. We just give the dosage sufficient to cure the infection, control the spread of cancer or cure it if feasible, and not too much treatment so as to endanger the life of the patient himself or herself.

The minister has made it abundantly clear that the people who deserve Canada's protection, those who are fleeing war, famine or persecution, will not have to pay for the wrongs of a few. We must continue to remember that for the most part the people immigrating to Canada today are the nation builders of tomorrow.

I am very proud to say that immigrants have added a lot to the Canadian way of life. They built the railroads and tilled the great prairie farms. Today some of our most prolific artists and performers, distinguished educators, politicians, public servants, inventors, manufacturers and scientists are immigrants. We should never lose sight of their invaluable achievements. We should never let the crimes of a few paint a false portrait of all immigrants.

Most Canadians recognize the positive side to immigration. Many Canadian families can trace their roots back to an immigrant who landed here to start a new life. These positive facts are well documented and understood. Therefore it is very important that public faith and trust in the immigration and refugee process be reaffirmed. If people turn their backs on what we have built, if they lose confidence in the system that we had, it could take generations to gain it back.

I believe this timely legislation will go a long way to reaffirming that faith and trust. The bill will permit those who arrive and strengthen the social, cultural, political and economic fabric of our nation to continue to wear their immigrant status with justifiable pride.

In conclusion I urge members to give passage to the legislation without delay.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the government's, the Liberal Party's strategy of letting Liberal members of ethnic origin defend a bill that is considered to be anti-immigrant by an important part of the population.

I must tell you that Canada's crime rate has gone down in recent years and that the crime rate among immigrants is lower than that among Canadians who were born in this country. I repeat, the crime rate among immigrants is lower than that among Canadians who were born in this country.

This bill could be declared unconstitutional in several respects because, in my opinion, some of its provisions violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Geneva Convention on Refugees. How can the hon. member justify these drastic provisions?

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is a very balanced one. It has been so balanced to ensure that it withstands the challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and sees to it that it fulfils our obligation under the Geneva convention. I can assure the member who is still worried that the bill will stand those tests.

I was taken aback when the member tried to insinuate-and I hope he did not mean it but he said it-that the government has a strategy to get ethnic Canadians to debate the issue. Irrespective of origin Canadians are Canadians by any definition. I must tell the member as a matter of fact that I was not sent by my government to debate the bill. I spontaneously volunteered to debate the bill even before the parliamentary recess.

To impute that motive is unconscionable in the Chamber and to impute that ethnicity is to be taken into consideration to me is the highest order of parliamentary obscenity. I hope the hon. member did not mean what he said and I am prepared to accept an apology.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud very much the comments and responses of the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

I stand on a point of clarification. I believe there has been some misunderstanding on the benches opposite with regard to the question of indictable offences and summary conviction offences under the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the member addressing a question or comment to the member who just spoke?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

No, Mr. Speaker. I was addressing a comment to the House to clarify a point. We are looking at two different things here. We are looking at apples and oranges, the apples being those people who applied for landed status as immigrants. In the particular case with regard to criminal convictions, if they are summary conviction offences there are those that are punishable by a minimum of six months. If they are indictable there are those that are punishable by five years. Mr. Speaker, you would probably know this better than I would, but I think five years is the low end of the scale for indictable offences.

The question with regard to those crimes punishable by 10 years relates only to those within the refugee stream. That is tied to a United Nations convention to which we are a signatory. I hope that helps. Indictable offences per se run the gamut. It is not a 10-year thing. It does not relate to landed immigrant status. It relates to the refugee process and it is part of the UN convention.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member who just gave his presentation the same question I asked the previous member.

There is evidence in the past year that current levels of immigration are putting a stress and strain on the bureaucracy and all the good programs that Canada has which people love to apply and come to Canada for as the hon. member indicated his family did.

Does he not think there is some merit, any merit at all, in looking at the system and our levels of immigration which are currently at 250,000 people? In our opinion it is at least 50,000 too high. It is unmanageable. We need to control it a bit better. It would preserve the integrity of our immigration system. It would restore confidence in the minister of immigration and I am sure the hon. member would dearly love to see his reputation stay at a good level.

Most important, it would also help and protect immigrants who come here to give their best to this country. Immigrants send their children to school, but because of high numbers and the reputations that some of the bad apples bring to the system they go to school and are discriminated against. They are called names. They come home and they cry.

This is not what we brought them to Canada for. This is not what they applied to Canada for. Those are the things we have to try to improve within the system. That is what we are trying to get across here.

We are not against immigration. We are for immigration but we are for numbers at a speed and at a level that we can control things. We cannot control a car going around a 90-degree corner at 150 miles an hour. They should reduce the numbers to control it better.

Does the member who just gave his speech see any merit in looking at the numbers and reducing them for better control?

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I am pleased to note that he welcomes immigrants to the country.

With respect to numbers the question was put to the Canadian electorate no less than in October 1993. The Canadian electorate made a decision by putting the Liberals into government that the level was a reasonable one.

When we look at the problem we have to look at the two sides of the equation. If we do not have enough resources to manage the 250,000 one possibility is to reduce the number. However I would suggest there is another better alternative and that is to increase the resources to absorb our commitment to the Canadian people.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be involved in a debate that has engaged people's thinking as much as this one has. It is a very healthy sign that we are looking at the merits and the particulars of what we are trying to do here.

The motion before us opposes Bill C-44 on the grounds that it does not prevent the screening out of applicants for refugee status or for permanent landing when those applicants have criminal histories or may be the perpetrators of violence.

This is as opposed to true refugees who are so often and often have been the innocent victims of violence.

Those on the opposite side of this House who have risen to speak on this motion and to Bill C-44 have argued that Bill C-44 does permit the screening out of undesirables. They argue that Bill C-44 does have teeth and that we are misguided in our attacks on this bill.

It is easy to understand why they would argue that the bill does go far enough, but this bill would not clean things up. This bill does not strike at the heart of the problem and does not deal with the real workings of the refugee determination system in Canada. One could say that it is a refusal to face facts about just how badly our immigration and refugee systems have gone wrong. We hear a lot of defence of the system across the way.

There is no excuse for this refusal and no excuse for the inability or the unwillingness of this government to face those facts. The shortcomings of the immigration system and our refugee determination system have been given wide publicity since the Reform Party began pointing them out.

The media has widely reported our exposing of deportation backlogs that cannot possibly be dealt with by the existing enforcement resources in Canada. It has been reported that refugees who are members of genocidal regimes who have caused death and despair in their native countries are now happily residing, often at taxpayer's expense, in Canada. They have reported, after we exposed them, refugee admittance guidelines that actually invite undesirables to make a refugee claim in Canada.

The government knows about these scandals. It is feeling the heat from these scandals. The people of Canada are better informed than ever about what is really happening in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and polls are reflecting their anger and dissolution.

In response to that outrage and concern, government hastily put together a package of response that it claims will take care of the problem. It claims that this package of reforms will stop riff-raff from calling Canada home by preventing refugee claims being made in prisons and will stop the immigration appeals division from overturning deportations, something that the IAD has become all too notorious for.

These so-called reforms are nothing more than long overdue common sense. However, they fall so far short of the mark of affecting any real fundamental and significant change to a system that so desperately needs it that we cannot support the bill.

I urge support not only by my colleagues in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition but also by the members opposite for a motion to stop this bill and force, finally, real reconsideration of the way Canada handles its immigration and refugee systems.

The minister wants us to believe that Bill C-44 is a cure for the massive haemorrhage in Canada's immigration and refugee systems. Bill C-44 offers nothing more than a few band-aids and for that reason it must be rejected. For that reason we cannot allow the people of Canada to be duped into thinking that they are getting real reform here, that things will actually be better after this bill passes. They will not.

Nothing significant is going to change and I will tell members why. The first element of this legislation, the element touted by the minister as being the most significant change, is one that would prevent criminals in Canada from making refugee claims in order to delay their removal from Canada. That is a good idea. I cannot understand why it was not done long ago.

The idea of immigration and refugee board members going into a prison to hear refugee claims is patently absurd. The government would have us believe that this is somehow going to prevent criminals from making refugee claims when it will not. We know how many criminals apply for refugee status from Canadian prisons or while they are on parole. That is easy enough to keep tabs on.

We have no idea whatsoever of how many criminals who have committed their crimes abroad seek refugee status and are successful each year. We have no idea.

It is easy enough to prevent someone who is already residing in Canada, especially in a Canadian jail, from making a last ditch attempt to remain in the country. It is not quite as easy to prevent those who have criminal backgrounds from entering the country in the first place, not that it is impossible. Other countries have extensive refugee background checks before they hear a refugee claim and make a determination. Why do we not?

We do not because the immigration and refugee board and its supporters tell us that we are not allowed to, that it would be a violation of our commitment to the United Nations convention on the status of refugees. Of course that is sheer nonsense but it is a popular tune that continues to be sung again and again.

It has been revealed to us by people intimately associated with the refugee process that this year the IRB has been giving orders to refugee hearing officers forbidding them to do background checks of any kind whatsoever prior to doing a refugee claim. They have issued orders preventing refugee hearing officers from using Interpol or even getting in touch with the RCMP or CSIS to investigate those refugee claimants of whom there is serious suspicion of criminal activity, guerrilla or terrorist backgrounds, or even genocide. As hard as it is to believe that is the fact.

Bill C-44 appears to be a bill that will take care of the problems when it does not even address them. What good does it do to make changes to rules governing the hearing of a refugee claim preventing those who have committed crimes in Canada from making claims when we welcome those who have committed crimes, even crimes against humanity, from other countries?

It is true that we are welcoming these sorts of people. In fact the IRB is going one step further. Not only are guerrillas from Latin America, double agents from Bolivia, and high ranking members of brutal totalitarian regimes allowed to make a refugee claim in Canada, once they do make that claim they are fast tracked through the system.

The Reform Party proved that this summer. We provided the documents written by a member of the minister's own department circulated by the immigration and refugee board and forced upon refugee hearing officers that spell out that those who fit the categories just mentioned do not even need to go before a full three member refugee panel. They get expedited. So far this year over 3,500 refugee claimants have been expedited in this manner.

How many of those claimants were criminals, terrorists, guerrillas or war criminals is not known. We may never know because the IRB with the full blessing of this government and the current minister has stripped its refugee hearing officers of the power to do even the most basic background checks. That is absurd and outrageous but it is happening.

While it may be a good first step to prevent hearing officers from hearing refugee claims in prisons it is far more imperative that the entire system, the entire process of refugee hearings and determinations be changed.

The Canadian interest is not being represented in this process and that is why it has gone so dreadfully wrong.

The second major element of this legislation deals with the prevention of the IAD, the immigration appeals division, from overturning deportation orders based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

That too is common sense but raises a troubling question. I am sure I do not need to inform this House that the IAD is a branch of the IRB, the immigration and refugee board, and that this board is populated by the same appointees as the IRB. The same people who are mandating that guerrillas, double agents, et cetera, be welcomed to Canada are also refusing to enforce the deportation orders of those we happen to catch up with.

The same people who want to fling the doors of Canada wide open have been refusing to enforce the laws of Canada for those who make it into the country. Now Bill C-44 comes along and it would take the power to overturn some deportation orders, not all just some, away from these appointees.

Instead of slightly curtailing the power of these people to allow violent offenders to stay in the country, we need to re-examine the very role of the IRB. Do we need such a board of political appointees accountable to no one? Who are they working for? Whose interests are they serving? What are the priorities of the government when it comes to immigration?

The government has two choices right now. The first choice is to align itself with the appointed members of the IRB, the members of the immigration industry and the refugee advocates who say that we need to keep the IRB the way it is, that we do not need major reform in the system and that the interest of Canadians must be, and I stress they have actually said they must be secondary to the interests of immigrants and refugees. The interests of Canadians come second.

The government could align itself with the overwhelming majority of Canadians who feel that immigration policy and even refugee policy should first and foremost work in the interests of Canada. Immigration and refugee policy while being compassionate, balanced and legal must clearly be seen to protect the interests, the security, the health and the safety of Canadians. That is the reform we really need and it is time the government looked after its duty to Canadians.

Bill C-44 does not reflect the willingness of the government to truly protect the interests of Canadians. Bill C-44 is stop-gap. It is a band-aid and it almost entirely maintains the status quo. The status quo does not deserve to be maintained. Canadians deserve better. Thus we cannot support a weak and ineffectual bill like this.

Let me make one last appeal to my colleagues opposite. I know that the Reform Party is not the only party that has been hearing the cries of Canadians for immigration reform. I know that the Reform Party is not alone in receiving hundreds and hundreds of letters and calls from across the country, but especially from Ontario, which decry immigration policy and demand change. They have been hearing those calls too. Do the people, largely the constituents of your ridings not deserve better than window dressing? Do they not deserve better than stop-gap measures? They want real change. They want a better system that protects Canadians. Let us give them that.

Let us vote against Bill C-44, start over and change the way that Canada does business when it comes to immigrants and refugees. Let us give Canadians a system that really works not just for immigrants and refugee claimants but for Canadians too.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say to the member that I thought her remarks were substantive and constructive. I listened to her attentively. The member gave me some insight I had not been exposed to before.

I am a member from Ontario, from downtown Toronto and we hear the concerns expressed about the immigration policy. Our minister is also from Toronto. Does she not think it would be more constructive in advancing this debate if some of those ideas that she talked about today are addressed in committee where the minister has said he would listen to some amendments being proposed rather than to try to kill the bill even before-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after a bill is drafted it is very difficult to get it substantially changed in committee. I believe and the hon. member opposite would know as well as I do, perhaps better because he has been in the House longer, that it is very rare for a bill to be substantially changed when it deals with a whole system, a whole process of dealing with a government department.

I really think it would be better to look at this from square one rather than trying to tinker with a bill that has already been drafted.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is now 6.30 p.m.

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

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on June 7, 1994, I asked a question of the Minister of Transport having to do with transportation subsidies. At that time I expressed my concern to the minister about a speech he had given and which I had subsequently read. I felt the minister had given undue attention to the way in which the rail sector in our transportation system was subsidized.

Having gone through the speech, I noticed he was making a general argument about the subsidization of our transportation argument, but every time he gave an example it was from the rail sector.

I rose at that time to complain about this singling out of the rail sector, asking the minister to make sure that whatever he did or whatever he planned for our transportation system-it is still unclear at this point exactly what he does have in mind-that he not operate on the basis of this bias that he had revealed in this speech with respect to the rail sector.

Not surprisingly, of course, as ministers are wont to do, he got up and assured me that he would take everything into account. I still have that concern. It is something I want to follow up today.

Subsequent to that question, the minister has said a great deal about other elements of our transportation system, particularly with respect to airports and the commercialization plans that he has for the air sector as well as other transport sectors.

A lot of Canadians see through this. They see behind the word commercialization basically the same consequences and the same agenda as what the previous government used to call privatization.

There may be some fine difference between commercialization and privatization, but I am sure it is a difference that will be lost on the people who either lose their jobs or whose wages are reduced and whose standard of living is consequently reduced when the jobs they used to have go from the public sector to the private sector and they no longer receive the same benefit that they received before.

As with so much of this privatization, commercialization, deregulation, free trade, et cetera, a lot of this is simply an agenda for reducing the incomes and the standard of living as a consequence of a great many Canadians who over the years have come to be paid decently in the public sector and for that matter in the private sector.

What is happening now in so many ways is that these well paid working Canadians are on the hit list. They are the working middle class whose wages are being targeted for reduction. I would like to say that when the minister takes into account the relationship between the various transportation sectors, he ought to take into account the views of my constituents.

He wrote me a letter at the end of June saying that he wanted to know what my constituents feel. I can tell him what my constituents feel. They feel that the minister should take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we have a healthy rail sector in this country.

When he does that and when he is doing that, he should take into account the way the trucking industry is subsidized, not just through the financing of public highways, but by the people who work in the trucking industry. One of the characteristics of the trucking industry and one of the reasons why it has been able to be so competitive with railways-using that awful word competitive which hides a great many injustices-is that its average hourly wage is so much lower.

Why is it more? It is a result of deregulation. Anyone with the capital to finance a few trucks has the ability to set up a trucking business and to operate almost free of governmental constraints and regulations. There is this downward pressure on wages. Therefore many people who used to expect to make a decent living in trucking or for that matter in a great many other industries no longer have that expectation.

One of the ways in which various transportation modes are being subsidized, but particularly in this case, trucking, is through the wages of the people who work there. I can say on behalf of the people who work in the rail sector in my riding, whether they work for VIA, CPR or CNR, they do not want to subsidize the rail sector by reducing their wages but that is exactly what is being asked of them now.

I hear it in the minister's voice when he says: "Well we don't want to go ahead with the VIA cuts but it depends on the labour negotiations". The minister is deliberately trying to set up the employees of VIA and other railway employees as the scapegoats for whatever cuts he is already planning to make. I urge him not to scapegoat those employees. They are trying to hang on not just to a way of life but to a way of life for all Canadians, that is to say a way of life in which working Canadians are able to be well paid.

The agenda which this government is following is the same as the last government's. It is an agenda which means that the middle class will disappear. The wages people were paid on the railway and in other organized industries will disappear. We will have a fragmented society. A few people at the top, the minority, will make a lot of money while more and more people at the bottom will make less and less all the time as a result of so-called competition, deregulation, globalization and all of the other things I have come to despise since I came to this place.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Thank you to the hon. member who knows he got a little more than the four minutes one is supposed to get. We ought to give the same extension to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, first let me say nothing could be further from the truth that our agenda is that of the previous government. There is a lot of difference between commercialization and privatization, but that is for another day. This government does not intend to attack workers or force on anyone a loss of income or lower standard of living. It is about building a national, integrated, efficient, affordable transportation system taking all modes into account. As I said, that is for another day.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona raised the issue of transportation subsidies. He expressed some concerns that the rail industry would be unfairly affected by a review of subsidies. I am glad to have the opportunity to address his concerns and assure him and the House of Commons that any review of transportation subsidies will be balanced and will ensure that all modes are treated fairly.

Transportation subsidies currently affect every mode. As an example of subsidies received by modes other than rail, almost 80 per cent of freight subsidies in Atlantic Canada are received by motor carriers. Further, as mentioned by the Minister of Transport in his speech in Thunder Bay on June 3, the federal government subsidizes ferry services by approximately $160 million and ports and harbours by $100 million each and every year.

I understand the hon. member's concerns about hidden subsidies. Indirect subsidies account for almost $700 million spent by the Department of Transport. One example of such a service is the provision of navigational aids provided by the coast guard.

In the coming months the government intends to review all options for dealing with inefficient subsidies. Transport Canada is in the midst of exploring possibilities for commercialization of many activities that could be better achieved by other means. The exercise will not be targeted at specific modes but rather will attempt to eliminate existing distortions.

I can assure the hon. member that the Minister of Transport is clearly aware of the situation in the rail industry and that the rail sector will not be singled out. The objective is to provide Canadians with an efficient, integrated, affordable transportation system where the costs now imposed on taxpayers are borne as equitably as possible by the users.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.39 p.m.)