Debates of Sept. 19th, 1994

Immigration Act

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Is it 10 per cent?

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

I have to address this point about 10 per cent in the polls. I do not know who draws the polls, but I can assure them that if they take a little walk where I come from they will not even be on the map. They will not even be on the list of who is in a poll. They should not tell me about how they are doing. They are not doing so well in a lot of aspects. These laws they are trying to write here are weak. They are poorly motivated.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Did the hon. member use the word laws or was it another word that is unparliamentary? If it was the second I would be grateful if he would withdraw it. Was it laws?

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

Mr. Speaker, what was I supposed to have said?

[The Deputy Speaker]

It was a four-letter word beginning with l .

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

I thought I said laws.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thought the hon. member was using the word laws. Am I correct in that?

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

Yes, that is right.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Very well. The word of an hon. member is always taken.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be able to speak today in support of the legislation to amend the Immigration Act.

Let me start by saying that it is interesting to hear the comments of the opposition. On the one side we are becoming heartless by going too far and on the other side we are not doing enough although at least we are listening. The bill is a balance struck between the two, dictated by common sense and the comments of concerned Canadians, and will cure situations like the one presented by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.

In its very essence this is what Canadian democracy is all about. It is fairness and protection for all including the immigrant and the refugee. It is about swift justice for criminals that threaten our system. The legislation is about balance, fairness and justice. The bill will help deal with those few hoodlums with guns and knives that want to subvert our immigration and refugee policy.

Nowhere in the legislation will we find that the government has heeded the voices of reaction that would have us bar our doors and shutter our windows to the world because of the misconceptions of some and violence of a few.

Make no mistakes. We do not listen to those voices and we will not listen because we know our immigration and refugee policy has been just and sound. We know from what others around the globe tell us that Canadian policies are often seen as a beacon of hope in a world of gloom and doom. Bill C-44 is meant to keep that light shining.

When I first came to Canada as an immigrant, I found a free society in which each member was respected and immigrants considered as pillars of society. Canada is a huge country where more people die than are born. This means that the responsibility rests with the immigrants to provide Canada with the numbers required to ensure the efficiency of our society. In return, these immigrants must be guaranteed a dignified life and a future for their children, with the assurance that crime is not the norm but the exception in this country.

Our immigration policy is envied world-wide and has ensured Canada a dynamic and courageous immigration, one which has played a major role in building our country.

We are committed to maintaining a progressive immigration policy. We have seen the benefits it has brought this country. Immigrants create jobs. They do not take them. Immigrants are not likely to depend on welfare or to commit crime. We know that to be a fact. Statistics prove it time and time again.

We can also see other facts. Criminals have slipped through. Crimes have been committed. Compared to the thousands or indeed millions that come to Canada every year, those that commit crimes are in the minority. However the fact that they are small in number does not diminish the horror of some of these crimes.

As soon as this bill was introduced in the House of Commons, we started receiving comments from members, journalists, immigrants, refugees, citizens. We received letters, faxes, telephone calls. This goes to show how much interest was generated by this matter of great importance to everyone. This interest made it necessary to introduce changes to give a sense of security to our citizens.

The legislation is designed to root out criminals that have subverted our immigration system and broken our laws. There can be no equivocating on the issue because it quickly boils down to respect for Canadian law and protection for truly needy refugees and honest immigrants.

The minuscule number of criminals that have crept into the immigration system like thieves in the night do not make minuscule headlines when they go bad. It is those dreadful deeds. We have all seen the pictures and we heard our colleague. They start an erosion of trust in an immigration system that has served the country well.

If people feel they cannot trust a system they will not support it. If people feel a system is open to abuse or misuse they will turn their back on it. The government equates immigration with nation building. Immigrants built the country. They built our railways. They worked in our factories and broke sod for farms.

Because nation building is a process that never stops we need an immigration policy that is both progressive and effective. That in itself is a good reason for fighting to maintain public trust in the integrity of the system.

We must get rid of the criminal element. We must do so intelligently and without undermining the underlying principles of our immigration policy. As we know, all hon. members believe in the principles of confidence, honesty and justice, and I know that all of them wish the law to be changed to regain public confidence.

On examination, we see that the proposed changes cannot be rejected. Some would want more drastic changes, but this would be against the philosophy of our government as well as that of a majority of Canadians.

Can anybody really fault a proposal that would prevent serious criminals from claiming to be refugees to delay their deportation? I think not. We have a system to help refugees, not serious criminals.

How about a proposal that allows us to seize documentation from the mails that would be used to defraud our immigration regulations? I cannot find fault with that and I do not think too many people would either.

The bill smoothes out a number of glitches and bumps in old legislation that gave criminals a place to hide. For example, immigration officials currently have the authority to arrest someone who violates immigration laws, but they cannot issue a warrant for other agencies such as the RCMP to arrest that person.

Under our present system the immigration appeal division of the IRB can overturn removal orders against serious criminals on humanitarian grounds. However the minister alone must deal with the consequences of these decisions. The minister alone is the one entrusted with ensuring the interests of Canadians are protected. Therefore the minister should have the authority to make the decision.

The criminal element is not acceptable and premeditated crime must be punished for our protection and for the sake of justice. For too long, Canada has been a haven for the criminal element which often misused our country's all too flexible laws.

That is why liaison was established with the Correctional Service of Canada to help rid us of criminals immediately after their have served their sentence.

There have been management changes at the immigration appeals division which should improve efficiency and effectiveness in decision making. We are also making sure that IRB gets the information it needs involving war criminals, patterns of fraud or multiple identities.

The legislation before the House does not deal with removals and some might see that as a flaw. I would caution those who think that way to remember that we have targeted foreign criminals for a quick exit through a joint police-immigration enforcement effort.

Members are well aware of the special joint task force involving police from a number of forces and immigration officials. This task force is targeting serious criminals for removal and operational units are working as we speak in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto.

I would also like to ask those calling for more drastic changes to reflect on the fact that our immigration policy has served us well and should not be abolished. Of course, when we have economic problems, we try to find causes for these problems. We do not think about the fact that the economic crisis is a global problem. We respond right away by calling for an end to all immigration. We must, of course, solve existing problems as quickly as possible but this does not mean that we must close off our borders. Canada is the only country in the world with vast empty spaces and even if we closed off our borders, we could not stop immigration. We can only limit it and strengthen the laws controlling it.

It is interesting to note that in the research paper presented at a Carleton University law conference last year-and the same research was mentioned earlier by the minister-researchers noted that under our system immigrants are granted legal status and have access to the legal system. Illegal immigrants on the other hand become accomplices or victims of gangs because they cannot appeal to legitimate authorities.

The research paper also noted: "Tougher immigration laws might well drive more people into the arms of smugglers and the gangs". Of course we do need to be tough on abuse and those who manipulate our system and the intent of our laws. We must send a clear message that those who violate our laws will have to pay a price.

We are not a government that will punish the innocent just to get at the guilty. We have no intention of making people who really deserve Canada's protection pay for the actions of a small criminal element. We will not tar all refugees as criminals because we know they are not. We are not people who have the intention of labelling immigrants and refugees as security risks.

One of our first actions as a government was to take immigration out of a department christened, and unjustly so, by our predecessors as the department of public security and put it in a department called citizenship and immigration where it rightly belongs. We will fight with our every breath to prevent the word immigrant from becoming a synonym of the word criminal.

Look at the members of this House. As you can see, there are very few native people. All the others are new arrivals. They are immigrants themselves. They are the sons and daughters of immigrants. They are the descendants of recent immigrants and, as you know, this diversity represents the reality and the wealth of our country.

By proposing these amendments, the minister tried to eliminate current abuses in the system. He also wanted to indicate to the criminal element taking the place of real refugees and immigrants that crime is not acceptable.

This government's commitment to progressive immigration is reinforced by this bill. We think we can have both a progressive policy and an aggressive strategy supporting the integrity and credibility of our policy.

This bill addresses real problems with real solutions. The key to success is balance. As we have done for generations, we can continue to welcome immigrants and refugees to help continue building our nation. As soon as this legislation is proclaimed we can tell those few who exploit Canada's generosity that in the land of the maple leaf they have nowhere to hide.

I urge my colleagues in all parties to recognize the importance of this legislation and give it speedy passage.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Vancouver East will probably be interested in having the House know, she and I occasionally share time together on a radio commentary show on CBC out of Vancouver. I have grown to respect her and her qualities as I have with many people not only in this House but in Canada. They have come to Canada and made this country great. They have contributed to this country. I stand very firmly behind the people who have done exactly that. They come to Canada to make it the great country that it is.

Would the hon. member not agree there are some people in Canada, again a small minority I am sure, who might want to equate immigrant to criminal or refugee to criminal. The member spoke of confidence. I wonder if she would agree that by having more precise laws, by having a better law than the one we are currently debating, by having a law that has more teeth which would do away with the abject abuses that our member from Fraser Valley West was talking about, would accomplish exactly what she and I want to achieve, that is, to be able to say truly that people coming to Canada are coming to build Canada, make it stronger and a better place for all of us to live.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that this law has the teeth that are required. We cannot put together a state that has too strong a police force and are in control of everything.

What we have now are laws that cannot be implemented in the right manner because we do not have the system. The immigration law in Canada is very generous. I have been in other countries and by comparison Canada has an extremely generous law. It is so generous that we have people who come and fall through the cracks.

Every democracy has its pitfalls of course because democracy is difficult. It can be uncomfortable at times but it is a system that works. We have to have the element of freedom that we have to give to the people who come to our shores.

At the same time we have to have control because people who come and say that they are immigrants should be checked right away. If they are not immigrants as they say, they should be sent away. If there are any problems with their past, they have to be sent away again.

When I came to Canada in 1966, I was asked certain things: "Is anyone in your family insane? Are you insane? No, then you can go to Canada. Did you commit any fraud? Have you ever been to jail? Has a member of your family ever been to jail? No, then you can go". At the time, we were coming for six months.

At times it is really difficult to understand what the system has become and that is why I have faith in this bill. It can do the trick without becoming too stringent and too severe. That is not our style. That is not Canada.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver and found it to be somewhat ambiguous and contradictory.

On the one hand she welcomes immigrants in a very compassionate way, but on the other hand she fully shows why this bill is unacceptable for several reasons. In my opinion, this legislation goes against the traditional policies of the Liberal Party. I remember that the Liberals were opposed to the sometimes excessively right-wing policies of Mr. Valcourt, Mrs. McDougall and other former ministers. Why play these little games today? You do not agree that there is a real problem in Canada, but I see it. There has been some abuse and there are a number of criminals. This is not an exaggeration; it is not a right-wing answer, but there is currently an economic crisis in Canada and this is the worst possible time to legislate on immigration. Why not wait until the public opinion is not so sensitive to this issue? Then we will be able to be more rational about the whole issue.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if everyone was honest we could do it. Let me just give you an example. If your son was killed by someone who came to Canada as a refugee, that person would be a refugee but also a criminal and I think you would have a different opinion. I have seen too many tragedies and I continue to see tragedies. The problem is not with immigrants. I myself am an immigrant and I have a lot of respect for immigrants. I know what it means to be an immigrant. If someone is honest and comes to Canada as a refugee, then there is no problem. That person can certainly come here. However, if a person is not honest our society must have a system to keep that person from

coming in, otherwise there could be serious problems and even tragedies. We witnessed such a case in British Columbia.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Briefly please, the hon. whip for the Reform Party.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

That is caucus co-ordinator.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question about the levels of immigration. Currently the Liberal government targets 250,000.

It has been shown throughout the year that this stretches and puts strain on the bureaucracy and a lot of the various classifications. Because of that there has been a lot of abuse by the criminal element, a lot of abuse under family dependency programs, a lot of abuse of the immigration business program. The department cannot catch them. We may appear to be attacking and criticizing and I agree we should stress the fact that our immigration program is a good one. However, we should look at the numbers.

Does the hon. member feel there is any merit in either putting a freeze on the immigration program for a while or reducing the numbers from 250,000 to 200,000 so that each and every one of these good programs we have can be controlled? In theory they are all great. But in actual practice there are some elements that are being incorporated into the program where the immigrants themselves are getting a bad reputation and it is not fair.

Like the member I am a first generation immigrant. I like to see immigrants come to this country, be happy to come here and be treated with respect. Because we are on this program of high numbers for whatever reason, the integrity of our immigration policy needs to be restored for the protection not only of Canadians but the very immigrants themselves. Does she not feel there is merit in addressing the numbers of immigrants that are being allowed into this country and reducing them even by 50,000 or 60,000 people?

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, briefly I would offer congratulations to both members for being promoted.

The minister is going through this series of consultations and it is clear that there is some concern about numbers. The numbers are being looked at. Again as I said in my speech it is marvellous to have immigrants, but we also have to give them a future and we have to give a future to their children.

We are trying to get our house in order and through consultation we will know what the numbers will be. At this point I do not have any idea. It would be a real shot in the dark.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on this first day of our return to Parliament in what I feel will be a very historic session. We in the Reform Party will be here to make sure the government keeps the train on the tracks during this period.

Over the summer I had the opportunity to hold a series of town hall meetings in my riding. After those meetings it became quite evident that immigration is a priority in my riding. I know that members throughout the House have heard concerns from their constituents as well about immigration. I am certainly glad to see that Bill C-44 is moving toward fixing the problem. Unfortunately it has not gone far enough.

In addressing Bill C-44 I feel it is vital to stress the importance of immigration. It is one of the cornerstones of Canadian society. Cultural diversity has and will continue to be beneficial to our nation. Immigration provides us with an increased global awareness and has been integral to the development of Canada. We must take a constructive approach and work together to solve the many immigration problems, not just criticize, which unfortunately is all too easy.

We are considering a bill which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has proposed, apparently to correct the all too numerous shortcomings and failures in our immigration system left by decades of ill-conceived, misguided Liberal immigration policy.

The bill would never have seen the light of day if Reform members had not presented the minister almost daily with an ongoing litany of outrage and complaints by the Canadian public.

We have an immigration system that is clearly almost as out of control as the $600 billion debt. The government has finally conceded that Canadians in every part of the country are fed up with an inadequate and confusing immigration policy that has allowed thousands upon thousands of unworthy immigrants into this magnificent land, a policy that has blatantly ignored the interests of the people.

What are the priorities for accepting immigrants into Canada? First, family reunification is a policy that has been so badly abused that it accepts people with no thought of whether they will be beneficial members of our society. The reunification of families should be a consideration, one of many in assessing an application, but not the main priority. Immigration quotas call for the largest single group of immigrants, some 111,000 or 45 per cent of the total, to be admitted from this class.

In addition, 11 per cent of immigrants or about 28,000 people will be refugees. In far too many cases these are people who just show up on our doorstep. We have no choice, due to our laws, but to grant these people a hearing, a process which can take up to three years. During this time of overburdened taxpayers, who foots the bill? The taxpayer foots the bill.

Way down at the bottom of the priority list is what the immigration bureaucrats call the economic class, in other words the fortunate few who have the financial resources to purchase their way into the country. Who says Canada is not for sale?

Whatever happened to the hard working, self-supporting immigrants who built this country, people who were admitted because they deserved to be here? Whatever became of the people who had the skills the country needed, who had dreams of freedom and self-sufficiency, who had the initiative and courage to make their own way in a brave new land? That Canada of 127 years ago depended on a sturdy, skilled, hard working immigrant to develop and prosper and to populate our empty lands. That they were successful is apparent in the prosperous, safe, free country in which we live today. Many here in this House have descended from these early immigrants. My grandfather was from Scotland, my grandmother was Irish and my wife's parents are from Italy. They came to Canada and they contributed. They raised children. They were and are law-abiding Canadians.

Today our needs have changed. Our economy no longer needs pioneers but rather computer experts, investment bankers, electronic engineers, experienced business people and traders, technicians, skilled trades people and educators. One thing has not changed. We need people who are ready to take the risk of moving to a new land, ready to seize opportunities, to move and develop some still empty spaces. We do not need those who have come to exploit or drain our social services, and we certainly do not need criminals.

Since that Liberal heyday of the seventies when Trudeau and his obedient officials opened the floodgates to immigration, based not on the needs of the country, not on selectivity or high standards, but on some seemingly intangible set of feel good principles, Canada has been on a backward slide. The Canadian public demands a tougher approach as to who we admit into this country, but this government shows no real intention of doing this or of listening to Canadians.

I have received letters in my office and I know each and every member in this House has received letters from constituents complaining about the immigration system. I would like to read a brief excerpt from a letter received the other day from a gentleman in Summerland, British Columbia. He writes:

Our current immigration system is overlooking our social services, education, health services and policing. We believe we should be good to those we allow in, but we should not be seen as easy marks by any immigrants. There are so many deserving people who want to come to Canada and be good citizens. Why should we have the patience with those who are not willing to obey our laws? If we are tough but fair, we will do far more good overall.

It is noteworthy that Bill C-44 deals specifically with provisions which decide not whether criminals will be admitted as immigrants, but which ones. I put it to you that no criminals, none, should be admitted to Canada, period, not as an immigrant, not as a refugee, not even as a visitor-none.

A report drafted by senior advisers in the immigration department for the minister says that many Canadians think the immigration program is out of control and that major changes reflecting public opinion are needed. There is a sense the immigration program needs fixing. It urges that immigrants need to be better selected.

I further submit that all immigrants to this country must respect the laws and contribute their fair share. Any slip, any criminal conviction, should be grounds for deportation.

It is a privilege for people to be allowed to come to Canada to live, a privilege much sought after by many from other countries all over the world, even by people from developed nations.

Canada and its immigration policy have become the laughing stock of the world. It is no secret it is far too easy for criminals to come here. We are not even checking to ensure the people we do admit are not criminals. As a result, the people of Canada have been subjected to increasingly violent crimes. The bitter irony is that even when these criminals are apprehended and dealt with by our courts and even when deportation orders are issued, our immigration officers are impotent to deal with them, to send them out of the country, to ensure they never darken this land again. Oh, no, they simply file an appeal of the deportation order and disappear into the woodwork.

All of us have seen the devastating and deadly effects of this inept system. Now the minister with this sadly flawed legislation hopes to lull Canadians into believing this government actually intends to do something. Canadians will be fooled no longer.

The minister is proposing that we actually allow criminals into Canada simply because the crimes they committed would not earn a maximum sentence of 10 years in this country. Clearly, this is sending the wrong message. A criminal is a criminal. Those who commit small crimes can be inclined to commit more heinous ones. In what way does Canada or the people of Canada benefit from having criminals here? The only immigration policy that will work is one that allows people into this country solely on merit.

In a letter to me dated August 29 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration states: "Protecting Canadian society from criminals is a top priority for me and my officials". Having the minister guard our gates against criminals is like having a fox guarding the hen-house.

Canadians are far from gullible and will not tolerate this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde approach. Canadians of all stripes are demanding that the law get tough with criminals. That will prove to be an impossible task if we continue to import law breakers. We should bar all criminals. I will repeat that. We should bar all criminals, without exception. Canadians do not want an invasion of criminals. Canadians do not need terrorists hiding here and plotting violence in other parts of the world. Canadians do not need street gangs or the additional stress on our already struggling social programs.

Canada is also nearly bankrupt so how can we afford to admit these people? Before any immigrant steps onto Canadian soil, before they leave their native land, have their criminal record checked with all the resources at our disposal. I have been told that immigration officers are prohibited from checking criminal records through Interpol. Why?

Immigration officials have told me it would bottleneck the application process to check whether refugees have a criminal record. Then let it be bottlenecked. I say it is far better than having even one Canadian murdered or having violence erupt in the streets or making our own citizens live in fear in their own homes, their streets or their playgrounds.

What about immigrants who commit crimes while in Canada? Again, our Liberal created policies and laws have forgotten the sole reason for their existence. It is not to concern themselves with the welfare of the criminal and his or her family. Our laws were made to protect Canadians. The criminal should have thought of the hardship he would cause his family before he broke our laws.

If found guilty of a criminal act in Canada, anyone who is not a Canadian citizen should be put on the first plane out of the country. It would be simple enough to carry this out directly from the courtroom to deportation. Let the offender have the right to appeal. Everyone should have the right to appeal, but let it be from some other country, perhaps his country of origin, not in Canada and not for the taxpayers to pay the final bill.

In my peaceful riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt we have a particularly repugnant fellow, a landed immigrant who feels no particular need to respect this country's laws. He scorns our courts. He laughs at our law enforcement officers. This man eluded a murder charge on a technicality in our courts. Currently he is being tried for a string of burglaries, a crime he has served time for previously. He has a record as long as your arm, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps as long as all of our arms and a deep and abiding contempt for the citizens of our land. He has been ordered deported by immigration officials but he has exercised his right of appeal.

This man is a criminal. He has had a second chance and then some. Where is the compassion and the consideration for the innocent people who are his victims? Logic dictates that there is not even the remotest chance of his rehabilitation, yet we keep him here at the taxpayers' expense.

This individual is a burden on this country and will continue to be so. Why should Canadian taxpayers have to spend some $40,000 a year to keep this foreign national in our prisons? This person should be on the next plane back to his homeland where I understand the law takes a sterner view of this type of criminal conduct. Why are we not sending him home? Let us do it. Send him home.

This unacceptable situation is the end result of the current laws, laws that originated to a large measure with a Liberal government. The proposals before us are more of the same. It appears on the surface to be a step in the right direction. We are tired of hearing that. It is like the old saying: You cannot get there from here. The government knows this proposal will be almost impossible to enforce. It will be spun around and distorted by lawyers and judges and the immigration bureaucracy will find a way to thwart it. After all, this is the way the government deals with these matters with Canadians.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast have called loud and clear for tougher measures. This bill does not address the ills and dangerous inadequacies of immigration. It does not have a clear mandate for the Immigration and Refugee Board which increasingly acts as a law unto itself. It does not solve the problem of a department that cannot enforce its own deportation orders. It does not even have reliable knowledge of how many deported criminals and undesirables remain in this country. It is a typical Liberal answer to a problem: doing too little far too late.

This government, the minister and his colleagues, have exhausted the patience of the people of this country. Canadians are raising a hue and cry. Not only the people of the west but all Canadians demand that the minister do his job.

We Reformers have presented our proposed amendment to this bill and urge all members of the House to support it. This Reform amendment is what Canadians are telling us to do. It is time to start listening and not just pretend to listen. The ministry is out of control. The immigration department is out of control and Canadians will not pay the price for the minister's mismanagement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. That is one of the most beautiful areas in British Columbia which I often have an opportunity to visit. I try to get there every

summer. The lake and the fruit trees make it a very beautiful area indeed.

I commend the member. He has made some important comments about immigration being very important for Canada and how immigration is very important for the economic development of this country.

He also talked about the pioneers. I can share some of his feelings because my own grandfather came here in about 1906. Luckily there was not a Reform government then. Otherwise he might have been deported because he did not have the skills or education. He was an uneducated man but he wanted to start a new life. He came to Vancouver, British Columbia after travelling extensively throughout the world. He obviously was a very smart man. He picked the right place to stay. I share in some of the comments of the hon. member as well.

I would like to say that in immigration there is a balanced approach. One of the areas the member talked about is family reunification. I think it should be known that when you look at the total immigration to this country, the percentage of family reunification has come down. It is actually reduced from what it was in the 1980s.

The members in the Reform Party have often brought up the situation of family reunification. It is about families coming together. I am very surprised that the Reform Party, with its stand on the family and how important it is to have a strong family situation, would be against bringing families together. I am really surprised considering how often the Reform members speak out about how important the family unit is, how important the support system is. Now I hear that they do not think that family unification should be looked at.

In fact, instead of bringing families together, instead of bringing the mothers and fathers together, they want to keep them apart. They do not want to bring them here. They want to set up barriers for them. This is quite surprising considering their stand on having strong families and how important that is in terms of reducing crime and support. I am very surprised.

In the area of refugees, Canadians are compassionate. I remember the refugees from Uganda. I know many of my people who were refugees from Uganda. They have contributed substantially to this economy. I can name lists of people who are now judges or now chair of major companies and so on who came here as refugees.

We did it as humanitarians but they have contributed substantially to our economy. If the hon. member wants to get a list of the many people who have come and who have contributed, particularly those refugees from Uganda, I would be happy to provide that.

The immigration policy has a balance. It says we want to bring families together. I am sure that the Reform people want to keep families together. About 45 per cent of all immigrants to this country are into family reunification in order to bring families together.

Then of course there is the economic class. There are entrepreneurs who want to start businesses here and want to develop our economy. We want to give them an opportunity to help create jobs. I am sure that the hon. member will say it is important to create jobs. It is important to make sure that Canada is working. It is important that Canada be competitive with the rest of the world. We do need entrepreneurs.

There is another matter I want to raise because the member on the other side has talked about it extensively. That is the crime factor.

I have a case in my riding, and I would like the member to respond to this, where a gentleman was deported because he assaulted someone. This gentleman has a wife and two children in Canada but he cannot come back. Imagine what they are going through because he assaulted someone.

I would like the member to tell us whether we should keep that person out of the country forever, away from his wife and two children. Should we say because this person assaulted someone he should never be allowed to come to this country to join his wife and two children? I would like the hon. member to address that and indicate how we should respond to that wife and those two children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. They are very interesting.

I am not a judge nor a jury but I can comment. Maybe the person who committed those crimes should have thought very carefully about the consequences for his wife and children before he considered the crimes. I think it is reasonable to ask that we be responsible for those types of things.

If he is after reunification with his family maybe that is an item for his country of origin to deal with and not a particular problem for Canada in this case.

With regard to family reunification which the hon. member briefly touched on, I would say that the Reform Party does very much stand for the principles of the family.

We do not have a problem entirely with family reunification, but I think it has gone a little bit too far. We are talking about family reunification for adopted children and children of adopted children. It goes on and on with cousins. Where does it end?

Family reunification in the close knit family is fine, but the laws in this country take it a little bit too far in my opinion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if he has actually read this bill. I ask that question because during his remarks today he seemed to be talking about the fact that we were going to continue the flaw in the existing act that talks about criminals having access to our refugee determination system.

The minister stood in this House earlier today and highlighted that provision in the act that is being amended. I want to quote for the member. That is very important because the member is leaving a perception in the minds of Canadians that we are not dealing with this. "No immigrant and except as provided in subsection (3), no visitor shall be granted admission if the immigrant or visitor is a member of any of the following classes: have been convicted in Canada under any act of Parliament of a summary conviction offence, other than an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act, and there are reasonable grounds to believe have been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada would constitute a summary conviction offence under any act of Parliament."

That is a specific amendment to the act. It is a very big improvement. I know the constituents in my community applaud that kind of amendment. I cannot understand why the Reform Party would stand up in the House today and suggest to Canadians that we are not amending that portion of the act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have read through this particular piece of mumbo-jumbo. It is a fact that in this bill we are saying that we will take criminals as long as they have not committed a crime that has a sentence of 10 years or more. That is what this bill is doing.

Why would we do that? Why would Canadians in their right minds say: "We know criminals are bad and we will not accept you if you have murdered somebody. We will not accept you if you have done a few other things that would have a sentence of 10 years or more in Canada; but if it is less than 10 years, if you have just broken into houses-"

[An hon. member]

Twice and you are out.