Debates of Sept. 19th, 1994

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act, be read the second and referred to a committee; and the amendment.

Immigration Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I give the floor to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. I believe she has 10 minutes left.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's immigration program has contributed to a sense of Canadian identity and prosperity for more than 125 years.

Our challenge, as we consider Bill C-44, is to preserve public support for our immigration system, support that is essential if we hope to maintain the humanitarian traditions that have earned Canada respect around the world.

We must appreciate that the trust of Canadians is undermined whenever abuse, fraud, criminality raise their ugly heads. Quite naturally, failure to satisfactorily address the minority of cases of fraud and abuse will erode public confidence. It will inhibit a serious and reasoned discussion of immigration. If this happens, our future as a generous, open nation is in jeopardy.

That is why the provisions found in Bill C-44 are so important. When Canadians are confident that the provisions of our immigration program are enforced effectively, fairly and without prejudice or favour, they will continue to support a progressive approach to immigration.

Today there are only four countries around the world that receive immigrants in significant numbers. The four countries are Canada, Australia, the United States, and Israel, which is a special case. By almost any measurement, Canada ranks near the top in receiving immigrants and accepting people fleeing persecution. A major reason we have been able to respond with such generosity to migration needs and international crises is because we have carefully maintained public support for our broad objectives.

Canadians have demanded with reason that their immigration and refugee systems be not only fair and effective but also well managed. Once assured, Canadians have generously supported Canada's commitment to meet our international obligations even in the present unsettled economic times.

That is why the measures in Bill C-44 are so important. This bill pragmatically balances principles of fairness and tolerance with the principle of respect for the rule of law. It is an astute and sensible response to a situation that demands action. It closes the loopholes that unscrupulous people have exploited and gives our enforcement authority the tools to remove the lawbreakers who would abuse our system and our society.

In closing I would like to emphasize that Bill C-44 is not about revenge or punishment. Instead it is about preservation, preservation of the tolerance for diversity. The government is dedicated to the integration and preservation of ethnic cultures in Canadian society. We have continued to see this great country as richer because of the contributions immigrants have made and continue to make in Canadian society.

We will continue to promote and preserve ethnic cultures in a united and tolerant Canada. Bill C-44 will play a critical part in the preservation of the ideals that we hold dear.

In speaking in support of Bill C-44, I urge all members to consider the importance of the measures within the bill.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have several questions for my colleague. In particular I have several quotes that I picked up from her speech.

In this day and age when we talk about immigration we sometimes get confused about what the intent of the issue is. Many sources in the Reform Party have said that we are not adverse to immigration, albeit we think there should be lower levels. That is a good issue for debate at any time in any country.

However, in many cases we are talking about the problems-and I will speak a little later on this-that we are having with refugee boards and so on. I hear the hon. member say we are dealing with petty hoods. The Liberal party has this tendency to downplay what are the problems with the criminal element in the refugee system that are getting through the bureaucracy and coming into Canada. These are not petty hoods we are talking about. These are hard core criminals in some cases.

When this party talks about how to deal with these individuals we are told things like: "Well, it's only a few. It's only a minority". We have to look at the Canadian victim, the Canadian citizen.

I would like the member to comment on how many criminal element refugees we get in this country. What makes it a majority? What makes it a significant number? When is the government going to start dealing with that problem? There are a lot of victims in the wake of some of these individuals. The government has to look at this. I would like a comment on what constitutes something serious.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the member should be presenting the kind of statistics that he is asking for on the nature of the crime, the nature of violence and other acts committed by immigrants in our various communities.

The member also seems to be confused about the issues. On the one hand he says that we should do this, that we support this. On the other hand, he seems to be arguing against himself. It is important to note that what we see on the front pages of our newspapers on a daily basis is that the criminal acts committed by people who come into the system and people who abuse the system are not massive numbers of individuals.

The intent of Bill C-44 is really to ensure that the loopholes that allow those individuals in and the process by which we get the individuals quickly away from our shores, are the issues that are important for this discussion. There are so many other things that the member should want to deal with but chooses to make the connection between refugees and criminality or immigrants and criminality. To continue to put the two together all the time seems to me to be doing a disservice to Canadians who are contributing members of this society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's remarks. Being a fellow Toronto member, I realize how much she has been seized with this issue. We spend about 70 per cent of our time dealing with matters relating to immigration. It is very important that we get this bill right.

The minister in his remarks this morning said that a criminal element has infiltrated the department of immigration and that we were going to clean up that criminal element and make some constructive amendments to this act.

What I am concerned about is the following. What happens to the legitimate claimant who might, as he or she is going through this process, run into one of those types who the minister described as the criminal element and that person feels that he or she gets unfair treatment? What will we do during this debate to make sure that there is also an accountability within the officialdom in the department of immigration?

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me in reading the bill that the intent is really to take away the discretionary powers that are presently in the system.

When there are clear rules, when there are clear guidelines, when there are administrative processes that ensure that an individual acts in a specific fashion, those measures take away discretionary powers and what could be considered ways of dealing with individuals in a fashion that could be called unfair.

It is important to say that the situation we see in urban Canada, the situations that the hon. member refers to in terms of Toronto, the situations in which we could use, as the member across the way objected to, the terminology that they are really an element of a minority group of people whose activities are considered nothing more than hoodlum, whose activities could be considered nothing more than destructive not only to themselves but also to their community and society in general.

It is important that in looking at Bill C-44 we ensure that we support this so that fairness is in the system, the rules are clear, the procedures are laid out and there are members of the department and those who deal with the criminal element know precisely how to act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore on her speech. I have some concerns and I was wondering if the hon. member could briefly answer a few of them for me.

We all know that Canada is the envy of the world. The bill deals with serious criminals. It tells them specifically that they cannot come to Canada which I think is a move in the right direction.

If we are the envy of the world and if we have the ability within our immigration system to choose the best people to come to our country, ones who are willing to abide by the laws of Canada, why would we say we will not allow people in if they have committed a crime that would warrant a sentence of 10 years or more in Canada? Why are we allowing any criminals into the country? It seems ludicrous.

I heard the minister mention the word accountability several times in his speech. This is not accountability. This is not what Canadian people from coast to coast to coast are asking for. They want law-abiding people to come and live in our country without this ridiculous nonsense of 10 years.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to say that we allow criminals to come into the country and not to differentiate between conventional refugees is how the discussion gets into the emotional arena.

Immigrants go through police checks and all kinds of processes before they are even allowed to complete documentation. To roll everything together and to say that we are doing what we are asking for or what the member is asking for is to make certain kinds of judgments. We are the envy of the world, the number one country in which anyone would choose to live. We find it is an avenue most individuals outside our borders would like to enter.

It is also important to note that at this point in time we are not just an open system where anyone who wishes may come here. Too often we hear being tossed about across the way that the system is such that anyone may come here. There are guidelines. There are rules. There are things within the system. We need to be able to differentiate between refugees, people who are fleeing, people who are coming to our shores as a result of international agreements, and people who are coming here as a result of family reunification, support systems, applications and other things. We roll so many things together that the discussion becomes almost confusing.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time has expired for questions or comments.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I will attempt, at this second reading stage, to highlight some questions that Bill C-44 raises. But before doing so, I would like to discuss the philosophy underlying the legislative amendments that we are debating today.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced in June that he intended to make considerable amendments to the Immigration Act in order to, and I quote: "take all measures necessary to prevent abuses and to protect the Canadian public against criminals".

We are very pleased with that. Nobody, and least of all the members from the Official opposition, would blame a government for trying to protect its citizens. So, the ministerial position is that immigrants and people claiming refugee status cannot use Canadian laws or Canada's reputation as a welcoming country to escape their own country when they have committed serious crimes or to commit new crimes here. We agree with that measure.

We also recognize the importance of a quick and efficient enforcement of deportation measures if we are to prevent criminals from committing other crimes. Thus, there is in this House a rare and remarkable unanimity on the objective, that is the protection of Canadian citizens. However, as nothing is ever perfect, we will reserve our judgment for now on the means chosen by the government for reaching that goal. Many issues are not quite clear to us yet. For example, we wonder about the seriousness of criminality and the link between crime and the immigration process. We also question the motivation behind government's actions. Finally, we would like to see the proposed means analyzed thoroughly.

First of all, let me reassure my colleagues of the House and tell them that I share their indignation towards the crimes committed daily in Canada and in Quebec. All our efforts should be directed to abolishing, or at least reducing crime.

On the other hand, I do not feel it would be appropriate to take into account the public response to criminal acts, and particularly violent crimes, in order to adopt repressive and unjustified legislation. The question is of interest and deserves our attention.

Every day, in this House and outside, we hear detailed descriptions of crimes. We also hear about people denouncing the increasing criminality in our society. And then, some people make a connection between criminality and the immigration process. What is the reality?

Even if people have the feeling that the crime rate is increasing, such is not the case. It has been demonstrated in a study on victimization published by Statistics Canada. That document states that the possibility of being a victim of aggression or theft was the same in 1993 as in 1989. Moreover, another study from the same agency called Statistics on Criminality in Canada, 1993 concludes that for the second year in a row, the crime rate established by police organizations went down in 1993. In fact, the 5 per cent reduction from one year to the next was the largest since we began collecting statistics on crime, in 1962.

The author of the study, who is the senior analyst for the policing program, explains that the very violent crime rate is slightly lower whereas a slight increase in less violent crimes was noted as well as a reduction of about 6 per cent in property crimes.

Therefore, we can see, in spite of popular belief, that there was no increase in the crime rate. As I said, I do not want to trivialize criminal acts, but simply set the record straight. I think, however, that we would be justified to ask ourselves why people feel that way. We can perhaps find the answer in the importance given by the media or the politicians to some individual cases.

Let us go back now to the subject of the debate, that is criminality among the immigrant population. An Angus Reid opinion poll published in June examined the perceived relationship between ethnic origin and crime rate. The results were interesting.

First, the pollster noticed a significant difference between the western and eastern parts of Canada. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 58 per cent of those polled saw a relation between a person's ethnic origin and criminal activities. This proportion dropped to 36 per cent in the Atlantic provinces. So there is a considerable geographic difference.

Another difference was perceived in the way men and women see the issue. While 56 per cent of men associated ethnic origin with criminal activity, only 45 per cent of women agreed. The division is almost the same between seniors and people under 35, that is 55 per cent compared to 46 per cent.

While the perceived association is well established, could it be mistaken? Such is the conclusion of Mr. Derrick Thomas, senior researcher for the Citizenship and Immigration Department.

Last year, Mr. Thomas published the results of research he had done on the relationship between ethnic origin and a tendency towards criminality. He found no proof that such a relationship exists. On the contrary, immigrants, who last year represented 20.2 per cent of Canadians, accounted for only 11.9 per cent of people in detention or on parole. This is a significant difference, and compels us to reject any attempt to link immigration to crime.

At this time, it is proper to remind the House that the minister of that same organization is the very one who wants to impose new standards with the express objective of preventing abuses of the system by immigrants.

Another point also deserves some consideration: the immigrants' level of education. Experts generally agree that socioeconomic conditions can sometimes be criminality factors. So, the poor with a low level of education are more likely to increase the crime figures. Yet, according to Statistics Canada, more immigrants have university degrees than individuals born in Canada-3 per cent more. Moreover, immigrants who arrived between 1981 and 1991 had more schooling than immigrants who arrived before 1981.

From all these figures, we can draw the following conclusions: first, there is no real link with the perception that the crime rate is increasing in Canada. Second, there is no link between immigration and crime; on the contrary, immigrants commit fewer crimes than people born in Canada. Finally, if we are to believe that the more people are educated the less they commit crime, immigrants will be less and less represented in crime statistics.

As was already said, we wonder about the underlying motives for these legislative amendments. Is the government trying to put to rest the fears of the public? We know these fears are real. Indeed, according to the Angus Reid poll mentioned earlier, 82 per cent of the respondents believe our justice system is not strict enough. English Canadians rated crime as their second biggest concern, immediately following unemployment and job creation. In Quebec, however, crime rated much lower and only came after economic revival, education and social services.

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to mention how Quebec society is distinct, even in this area. This high percentage shows how much the public fears for its own security. The government took note of it and has introduced, since its coming to power, several pieces of legislation to strengthen the rules concerning criminals.

Fine. However, we have to ask ourselves if this is the most efficient way to curb crime. Since socio economic conditions are an important factor, we are entitled to wonder if real measures to create jobs would not be more appropriate. We are entitled to wonder if the direction taken by this government is not more political than functional. Why, indeed, is nothing done to ensure that young people can find jobs when they get out of school? Why is nothing done to provide poor families with decent housing? Why is nothing done to really ensure women are safe in our society?

The issue of women is very important here. Women whose security is often threatened know that the threat does not come from immigrants or young people. But the government is attacking these two categories of people. There is a problem here and it raises some questions.

We are also questioning the measures proposed to meet the objectives of protecting the public and preventing abuse. Bill C-44 focuses on four main subjects: crime among refugee claimants, the contraband of immigration documents, the right of appeal and the processing of claims coming from rehabilitated persons. For each of the problems identified, measures are proposed whose final purpose is to screen out persons who committed serious crimes or who try to abuse the system.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, we agree that the laws must be respected. However, the means proposed by the minister to promote that need a closer look.

We think that some of these need to be seriously re-examined to see if the government is not trying to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. First of all, it wants to limit access to our refugee status determination process so that a person who has been convicted of a serious crime in another country will not be able to apply for refugee status.

At first glance, this restriction seems logical. Nobody wants Canada to become a haven for criminals. But it raises some questions. Some experts in immigration law have expressed concern over this restriction, particularly in light of the Geneva Convention on Refugees.

We think that the bill will need to be seriously examined in order to ensure that Canada respects the spirit and the letter of the Geneva convention. Other questions have been raised concerning the right to appeal the Immigration and Refugee Board's decisions.

Another provision that could be a problem is the one concerning documents. Immigration officers will now be able to seize and open all documents and objects suspected of being used for fraud, and this will be possible anywhere in Canada. The first question that comes to mind immediately is the possibility of a violation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

How will this new provision be received by the courts? How will they receive the reversal of the burden of proof in clause 18? We know that the courts have a tendency to resist legislative provisions in which a person is presumed guilty. Will the Minister not have any other solutions to reduce trafficking in immigration documents?

How do we justify seizing items without even trying to define their nature in any way? Those are, briefly put, the questions and concerns raised by Bill C-44. We do know that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigrations will take them up one by one in order to improve this piece of legislation.

However, by way of conclusion, I would like to remind this House that all these legislative amendments seem to draw their first motivation from isolated cases such as that of Mr. Gayle, of Toronto. The objective pursued by the Minister is to ensure that criminals are not welcomed into Canada. Foreign criminals will be turned away and immigrants and refugees who commit serious crimes in Canada will be deported.

But we will have to deal with more contentious cases like those where a person has been living in Canada since childhood. Will we expel to his or her country of origin a person who does not have that country's citizenship? Surely not. How can we seriously think that a person who came to Canada at the age of three and is now an adult still has links with his or her country of origin? How will the courts apply such a policy?

We agree that the security of Canadian citizens must be protected. However, we believe that we have first of all to determine what is the source of this threat to security. We then have to determine what are the most efficient and the most respectful means to be adopted in order to protect citizens and to welcome people in need, a category to which bona fide refugees undoubtedly belong.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker and dear colleagues, the bill before us is an ideal opportunity to show Canadians that we take their interests to heart and that we abide by our electoral commitments.

I want to speak here not only to members of our government, but also and more particularly to members of the opposition. Since this bill was introduced, practically not a week has gone by without the media mentioning the immigration issue one way or another. Headlines are not heartening, because our system is not judged on its achievements but on its failures. That is unfortunate, because our system has its successes and plenty of them. For each case of fraud or crime that makes the headlines, thousands of cases of successful integration go unreported.

Most of the refugees and immigrants who live with us are so well integrated that nobody notices them. I do not need to give any examples. Just look around you.

The owner of your favourite restaurant, your daughter's computer instructor, your cousin's husband or your dentist, for example, may well be immigrants, but you probably do not notice it any more. Canadian society is often compared to a cultural mosaic, and I think this is confirmed in our everyday life. When you meet all these people, ask them what they think today of the cheaters and criminals who make the headlines.

When a person has left his country to start a new life, when he has started from nothing to build a future for himself, when he has finally succeeded in carving a place for himself in society, it must be insulting, to say the least, to be associated with someone who has committed criminal acts and who, in so doing, shows that he has no respect whatsoever for the country which welcomed him.

This explains why this bill is so important and so dear to our government. Of course, we must ensure that no one flouts our laws and our immigration system. But, more importantly maybe, we must protect the reputation of all decent people, those same people whom we represent, whatever our political affiliation.

Some will say that our bill goes too far, that it could be detrimental to refugees and immigrants acting in good faith. Others will say that it is too little too late, that it will not stop criminals from entering into Canada and staying here. Our government expects such criticism. However, as a responsible government, we had above all to avoid going to extremes, and I sincerely believe that we have succeeded in doing so.

Of course, the law must be merciless for cheaters and criminals, but it must not penalize those who are most in need of our help. The measures we are debating today are aimed at a very small minority of individuals. If we had the slightest doubt that they could be harmful to people acting in good faith, we would not go ahead with this bill, that goes without saying.

On the contrary, what could be most harmful to them is not the measures we are debating today, but the actions of a few criminals. Unfortunately, one instance is enough to tarnish the reputation of all refugees as far as some Canadians are concerned. One instance is enough to lead other criminals to think Canada is wide open.

We do not want to give the impression that immigrants and refugees are a threat to the security of our country. That is not true, and that is why now, as my hon. colleague said before, immigration is not the responsibility of a department of public security but a Department of Citizenship and Immigration. We want to show that we can be open when warranted but uncompromising when necessary.

We are prepared to open our doors to those who really need our help, not to just anyone. First of all, we must prevent criminals from claiming refugee status or appealing decisions by the IRB.

The system for recognition of refugee status was not put in place to delay deportation measures. We know what is going on out there, and we have no time or money to waste on criminals.

We also want to use this bill to deal with the problem of multiple claims for refugee status.

Anyone can make a mistake, and some claimants may assume that if they move, they have to submit a second claim. That we can understand. However, some people think they can confuse the authorities and delay their removal by submitting two or more claims. We must also be able to seize certain documents which those who cheat the system send by international mail. Immigration officers need additional tools to be able to do their job satisfactorily, and we, as a responsible government, intend to give them those tools. Customs officers must be able to search the mail and seize any forged documents they find.

We must also prevent criminals from taking advantage of legal loopholes. For instance, immigration officers can arrest a person who violates the Immigration Act, but in some cases, they cannot issue a warrant so the RCMP can arrest that person. In this area, we need all the help we can get. If cheaters set up networks, we must have the tools to deal with them.

Finally, we believe that the minister is still the best judge of whether dangerous criminals should be admitted to Canada on so-called humanitarian grounds. This makes sense, since in the final instances, the minister has to live with the consequences of his decision to quash a removal order which concerns a criminal. Under the bill, this authority will rest with the minister in the best interest of all Canadians. We believe that these new provisions are fair and equitable. To those who find that this bill does not go far enough, I say: tell us, tell Canadians who else should be included in this new legislation.

I know a few who would undoubtedly have a list as long as your arm of people to send back for reasons which I would call arbitrary. This is not the purpose of the government. As I said before, we are not extremists. This bill deals not with the number but with the kind of people to be deported.

We are going after people who defraud our social services and criminals who truly pose a threat to our security and that of our police forces whose job it is to protect us. The processing of citizenship applications is suspended pending the outcome of the immigration inquiry. People who have nothing to hide will have nothing to fear. Their application will not be turned down, its processing will only de delayed. People subject to an exclusion order, who had already been accepted as permanent residents, will lose that status. Up to now, this applied only to people being deported. It will no longer be true under the new bill.

To those who say that our bill goes too far, I say: Canadians are good-hearted but not weak-hearted. We would do a disservice to everyone, including bona fide refugees, by letting things drag on forever. No matter which side of the House we are on, each one of us represents Canadians who expect us to act now and in their best interest. They also expect us to take the necessary steps to enforce our laws. They are quite willing to open their doors to the victims of the various disasters which devastate our world, but not to criminals. They also expect that the efforts and resources that we spend to welcome refugees benefit those who need them most. The days of time and money being consumed by a handful of wrongdoers are gone forever. Canadians expect us to implement a trust-worthy immigration policy. To this end, we must show them that we know the difference between wright and wrong. In fact, we must show them that our government is a responsible one.

Our government has decided that it needed the means to respond to the expectations of Canadians. Bill C-44, presently before the House, is the one from which we expect the most. The measures we propose are aimed at providing specific solutions to specific problems.

This is not a bill prepared in a hurry, without any distinction between the majority of true refugees and immigrants, and a minority of abusers and criminals. Why go to such lengths for ten, twenty or a hundred unscrupulous individuals? Simply because one is enough to end the life of a person, ruin the lives of his or her family, upset their friends and relatives, and harm a whole cultural community. This is the objective of some of the measures in the bill.

The shock wave is being felt from one end of the country to the other, it reaches the ordinary citizens, as well as their elected representatives and their police forces. Who is to blame: society, you and me, our police? No, the culprits are the ten, twenty, or hundred individuals that we should expel without delay. If we do not do it, Mr. Speaker, ten, twenty or a hundred more will come in.

As you know, our government is convinced of the value of immigration for Canada. We believe that Canada should preserve its reputation of openness towards refugees, but we also believe that our policy towards immigrants and refugees should be strictly controlled in order to protect all Canadians.

I will conclude by comparing these abusers and criminals to the weeds that very often, not to say always, invade our gardens. They very quickly encroach on the space reserved for the vegetables we intended to grow and, when the time to harvest comes and the weeds have taken over, we wonder whether we should not have kept the lawn. Let us not deprive ourselves of the fruit we could harvest. Let us pull out the weeds that are trying to take root and let us make sure that we have the tools necessary to take care of our gardens. This is the way to build a better Canada.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of my colleague from Outremont and I think that many people of immigrant origin will be very surprised at the tone of this speech, which seems to be anti-immigration. He tells us that ten or a hundred people cheat. Do you think it is worth passing a very controversial bill to solve five or ten cases that could have been solved administratively, without the need for a very controversial bill which is criticized by immigration lawyers, by the Canadian Council for Refugees and by the churches?

You mentioned mail from abroad. Customs officers will be able to examine such mail. Immigration officers will be able to seize such mail. Who will say, "We will open this letter and not that one"? Do you not think that there will be abuses? Throughout the world, the mail is inviolable. How could you go so far as to allow ordinary officials who are not judges and not trained in law to seize mail? Can you answer me?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, listen, we are in Canada, in a society that is called free and democratic and we are also, first and foremost, in a society of law. I think that the bill before this House reflects the intentions of a responsible government.

As you know, some people in society demand the most extreme things on one side or the other. Of course, in this case, some people would not have wanted us to legislate and others would have wanted us to pass draconian legislation.

This Liberal government has chosen a middle way, a solution that we call reasonable. I am surprised that my colleague seems to be shocked by this reasonable solution or seems to find the measures that we are taking extreme. On the contrary, the measures we are taking are meant above all to protect as well those who apply to Canada as a land of refuge so that they can join the great Canadian family.

As I said in my speech, often a single instance of misbehaviour or a single criminal act is enough to tarnish or ruin the reputation of a whole community. As the member for Outremont, I must say that many new Canadians live in the western part of my riding and I am particularly proud of them; they have integrated very well into Canada and they are well integrated in Quebec and in their community; they live peacefully. From being with them, I know how fragile the reputation of these communities is, unfortunately.

I am glad-and I am pleased-to join the minister of immigration in promoting this bill by which people who really need Canada's help as a welcoming country, a land of refuge, will be able to find a fair and equitable society that can receive them well, a country of refuge that can screen out what I would call undesirables at its borders.

I do not fear abuses, far from it. I am still a little surprised that my colleague from Bourassa said that we are letting ordinary officials decide. I want to tell you, Mr. Nunez, that since my election on October 25, I have had the opportunity to frequent what we call public servants and I can tell you that in many cases they are extremely competent people who see things much better than you or I do. I am glad to give them a little more power, provided that it is not used arbitrarily, and the Minister of Immigration has been very careful about that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Let the hon. member for Outremont be reminded that hon. members are not to be referred to by name but rather by the name of their riding. I know that this is our first day of sitting, and that he will give due consideration to this matter in future.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak on this bill today. This subject has been of interest to me over the last several months. Today I am going to speak about a particular case I have been involved with, a fellow by the name of José Salinas Mendoza and when I am through I think everyone will be quite appalled at what goes on in this country. Prior to talking about Mr. Mendoza, I should comment on some of the previous statements I have heard today.

Once again I am hearing comments that this is a very small minority of the intake into this country and of course it is. This Liberal government has taken in 250,000 to 280,000 immigrants a year. While we disagree with that high a number, we do not disagree with the basic fundamentals of immigration in our society. It seems every time we raise this kind of issue the government comes up with statistics and demographics to show it is such a small minority so why bother with it.

It reminds me of a discussion I had with a parole board member not too long ago. I actually called for the resignations of several parole board members after they let an individual out on the streets when he was supposed to be incarcerated for six

years. He was released after about 16 months and then proceeded to bludgeon somebody to death in our community.

On calling for these resignations I received a phone call from an individual whose response was that in that region there was an 83 per cent success rate. I told him that was commendable but the facts were that I deal with the failure rate. The victims come to my office. There are victims all over this country. I wish we could get off the discussion of the success rate and the rest of it is a minor issue because that is not the case.

Today the minister said we have a good system. We do not have a good system. It has flaws in it. So fix it.

Today the minister said that we have a tiny minority, a handful of criminals. The problem is that we have a serious, serious problem with that tiny minority of individuals who are disrupting law-abiding Canadian citizens. The minister said he is listening to his constituents. I think he is listening to the Reform Party because we are going to push and push and push again until it is changed.

Today the minister asked why this system was not in place before now. We should ask the Liberal government. It brought it in. Wake up over there.

We also have to ask where this legislation deals with the independence of the immigration adjudicators and how we deal with the independence of the refugee board. As I go through the José Salinas Mendoza case they are going to find they are too independent for their own good and they are going to have to be held accountable. It is the same as parole boards.

When we talk about the deportation of individuals, where does the legislation address the fact that people like Charles Dennis Martin were deported and escorted out of Canada nine times? Does the legislation address that? There are a lot more of them. This is only one and again he was in my community.

What about cases that are currently under way? Is this retroactive? There are many people in this system who are going through time and time again, hearing after hearing. We will cover that again in a moment.

While it is nice to talk about immigration and its positive influence on Canada I want to talk about the negative influence. One of those negative influences is José Salinas Mendoza who arrived in Canada from El Salvador in 1988. From February 22, 1989 until November 1992 he had 12 serious criminal convictions in this country including assault, resisting arrest, sexual assault, and on and on the list goes.

On September 23, 1993 a 19-year old young lady in my riding was raped. This young lady was convinced to have the charges stayed on the condition that Mr. Mendoza be deported and he was. He was escorted out of Canada. End of story?-not quite. On April 18, 1994, just a few short months later, Mr. Mendoza was back at the Douglas border crossing just outside Vancouver. He announced himself as a refugee into Canada this time around. The immigration officials processed his application and the story starts again.

Unfortunately the young lady in my neighbourhood virtually bumped into this fellow in a grocery store shortly afterward. She had not even been given the courtesy by immigration officials or anybody else of being notified that he was back in Canada after being deported. Why is he even back in Canada after being deported? Why do we not say: "Get out. We have already deported you once"? Maybe it is going to be like Charles Dennis Martin who was escorted out nine times.

Mr. Mendoza was arrested. His first hearing was on May 13 this year. He was told to report for another hearing on June 17.

By the way, all taxpayers should know that the people at the hearings are immigration adjudicators, an interpreter for Mr. Mendoza, a lawyer who I believe is paid by legal aid, a refugee hearing officer at refugee hearings and, at the request of the criminal, an individual from the United Nations as an observer. They are all paid with taxpayers' dollars.

Two days after his arrival and two days after this young lady saw him again in a grocery store, the RCMP advised her that he is back in the country. A friend of mine asked me to help. On June 17 I attended an immigration hearing at which Mr. Mendoza from El Salvador was considered a danger to the public. He was incarcerated pending a refugee hearing on August 18. This is a fellow who had already been booted out of the country. However, his lawyer appealed that decision to have him incarcerated as a danger to the public and brought in a new immigration adjudicator who seven days later let him out on the street.

What do we have now? We are into our third hearing on this fellow after he has been ordered deported. He is allowed to roam our streets. He has 12 prior convictions and an outstanding charge of sexual assault or rape.

On June 22 of this year he appeared in Matsqui court on relayed sexual assault charges. He was not ordered into custody. On June 24, I say again, he was released. On June 17 the hon. minister of immigration came out on his white horse to Vancouver and said: "I'll intervene in this. We'll take charge". We have not seen hide nor hair of him since. This is a question he will be asked here this month.

On July 5 we did a little research on this fellow. We found that a person involved in last year's election campaign of the failed Liberal candidate of North Vancouver who donated money to the Liberal Party was appointed by the minister of immigration to the refugee board. This individual is a past lawyer for José Mendoza.

What is happening here? Who gets appointed to refugee boards? Who gets appointed as immigration adjudicators? Liberal political hacks are the people who get appointed. What are their qualifications? Are the qualifications that we give money or we help the party? What are the qualifications? Is it who you know or how good you are at it? It happens all the time. Look at the last three senators, senators until age 75. It is who you know in the Liberal Party, is it not?

Let's move along. We had amendments to the Immigration Act in direct response to the issues that Reform has been bringing out. The presentation of the Liberal Party is: "Listen, don't worry too too much about this small issue over here. We have to think about the big picture of immigration. You have to think about both issues, the good people and the bad people".

August 18 was the date for the refugee hearing for Mr. Mendoza.

I found out that an application is going forth to have it closed to the public. I filed an application to have it open to the public. Instead of having a refugee hearing on August 18, we have a hearing to determine whether the public should be allowed in the hearing. Now we are getting ridiculous. We are already into the third hearing and this will be the fourth for this fellow.

The meeting again had eight people involved in it who were paid by the taxpayer. Before I was allowed into this hearing, I had to sign a document that said that I would not tell anything about what was going on on the inside. I signed it to get in. Once I signed the document, I got some documents back. One was a complaint from Mr. Mendoza and his lawyer that I had some information on him that I should not. It was a complaint to the privacy commissioner. Now I am under investigation by the very person who should not be in the country in the first place.

I checked with the privacy commissioner's office and was told yes, I would be investigated. I said: "Yes, maybe I will but you will do it in public, not behind closed doors". Then I checked with the refugee board and said this. "I got these documents after I signed the gag order. Can I show this to people? Can I show them what the charges are?" "No, you cannot". No, I cannot. I am not allowed to defend myself but he can. Why should I not be able to?

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

You are just an MP.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

I am just an MP.

I had our immigration critic come to the refugee hearing but he was not allowed in. He was told to get out. When I got into the meeting at nine o'clock in the morning a summons was tabled to make me a witness to that hearing and future hearings.

I found out that if I was a witness I could not attend the whole hearing. Therefore they got me out. I said that I needed some counsel. I was given 20 minutes in Vancouver to get it. This is a federally constituted refugee board. I went outside and gave our critic 25 cents and he was then my counsel inside. They were now stuck with the two of us in there and we were not moving out of there.

These hearings went on three times and there is another one coming up. We thought we would have one hearing to determine whether the next hearing could be in public but we found that we had three separate hearings. One, the minister of immigration filed an appeal on the decision that one of the second immigration adjudicators allowed this fellow out on the streets. That is going to occur September 28.

There is another one on November 3. That is a criminal court case for the sexual assault of the young lady. It is a separate one. On November 14 our Reform critic and myself will still be battling to get the public involved in the exercise.

The members on the other side sanctimoniously talk about how good the system is working, how well it is working. These people are a very small minority. Is this accurate? The members over there had better wake up.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Ask the question. I don't understand a damn thing you are saying.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

The comment I get from a Liberal member over here is he does not understand a damn thing I am saying. He is absolutely right. He does not understand what I am saying. The system is not working. Get it through your heads. This is an industry that is feeding on itself.

I do hope I have some questions because I am looking forward to a little debate on this with this weak minded Liberal group here. Let us go back to the basics. Let us go back to the fundamentals.

This individual has had far too many taxpayers' dollars for the good of the Canadian taxpayer. He does not deserve it. For anyone with 12 criminal charges who has been deported from this country to walk back in and have a young lady hiding and cringing is wrong. It is wrong to be spending dollar after dollar after dollar on this kind of exercise. We are sick and tired of it and we are not going to take that any more.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before questions or comments it is my duty, colleagues, to read this notice before five o'clock.

Pursuant to Standing Order 38 I must advise the House that the question that will be on the adjournment debate this evening is the following: the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona-transportation subsidies.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I had trouble following the arguments of the member for Fraser Valley West as to why he would not support Bill C-44 which attempts to deal with some of the abuses that occur.

What we heard today from the member for Fraser Valley West is typical of the Reform Party. It is typical because all of last year we heard how there was a tremendous crisis and that the crime rate was going up dramatically. We heard it every day here in the House of Commons from the members of the Reform Party only to find out that crime has actually gone down.

This is typical. They want to take the worst possible scenario and bring it forward in this House. I think it is totally irresponsible. It is playing on the fears of Canadians. Why do they not talk about the contributions of immigrants to this community? Why do they not talk about the immigrants in this House who are contributing, as many of them are? Why does he not talk about them? Instead they want to take the worst possible examples, and this is the worst kind of politics of fear that you can have.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Shame.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

They should be more responsible in ensuring that we get the true picture of the reality instead of painting distorted pictures about immigrants who contribute tremendously to Canadian society.

The minister by bringing forward Bill C-44 is acting responsibly to ensure that where individuals are abusing the system they are dealt with in a constructive way, and I applaud the minister for bringing this forward.

Instead of hearing constructive suggestions from the member opposite he wants to give the most extreme examples, not to highlight the reality of it but to distort what the reality of the situation is. Knowing the riding that he comes from, I would think he would act in a much more responsible way, as expected by his constituents.

If he is truly interested in contributing, he will support Bill C-44, go along with the government side and get this bill through as quickly as possible so we can deal with abuses that exist. We have to recognize that that is a very small number when you look at the total number of immigrants that come into this country, immigrants who contribute and work very hard. In his own riding they are contributing to the farming community which is very dominant. The faster we can get this through the better so that we can deal with some of his concerns. I am sure he will see that through.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is discouraging when we get comments like those. I made a point of prefacing my remarks today by saying that we agree immigration is healthy. We agree with it.

I come from a community with a lot of immigrants. However I was talking about what we do not agree with. It is necessary to bring to the attention of this group here the problems involved in the refugee process. Yes, the bill goes some way toward that but there are still problems. I laid them out. I know the hon. member does not understand but that is what gets Liberals elected nowadays. They do not understand things.

Let us not cloak the issue of serious criminal immigrants in the country under the positive aspects of immigration. There are some serious concerns and they are in virtually every riding. I can assure the House that José Salinas Mendoza is not the only one in my community. In the wake of these it is not only one criminal immigrant. I have already said this guy has 12 criminal convictions. There is a string of victims. There are all kinds of them.

There is not much sense in talking further to the people over there. They have a majority government. They will put through what they want to put through. They will leave out the tough aspects as they did on the Young Offenders Act. There has not really been any toughness in anything they have legislated including the budget.

I tell them to go to it. We will see them in the next election. Then we will talk some real turkey on who is doing better, them or us.