Debates of Nov. 1st, 1995

Points Of Order

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under citation 487(1) of Beauchesne's which states that threatening language is unparliamentary. I bring to Your Honour's attention comments of the hon. member for York South-Weston who said very clearly in the House in earlier debate: "You should be tried for treason, Preston".

Those remarks are absolutely threatening and unacceptable. I ask that they be withdrawn from the record of the House.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member who is mentioned is not in the House now. Your Speaker did not hear the remarks.

We will take the point of order under advisement. We will see if it appears in Hansard and we will deal with it at the earliest possible time.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last evening during the taking of various divisions the chief government whip proposed during the division on Bill C-103 that the vote on Motion No. 19 of Bill C-61 be applied to the motion that was then before the House.

This is verified by a review of the video from last night's proceedings. However this reality is not reflected in Hansard , as recorded on page 16056 where it shows the government whip applying the vote in reverse.

The video also shows that it was you, Mr. Speaker, who following the House's decision later sought clarification from the chief government whip, although this fact is also missing from Hansard .

My first concern is that Hansard , the official report of the proceedings of the House of Commons, does not reflect the realities of last night's proceedings. While it is true that members are permitted to make slight corrections to Hansard such as grammatical corrections, this type of alteration completely reverses the intent of what the chief government whip clearly stated, which has been verified by a review of the video.

My second point is that unanimous consent was sought to apply the result of report stage Motion No. 19 to the concurrence motion at report stage of Bill C-103. This was, in fact, agreed to by the House as verified on the video.

It was only later that you, Mr. Speaker, noticed the government had applied a vote which resulted in the defeat of Bill C-103 and then asked the government whip if he had meant to apply the vote in reverse. You asked him yes or no.

It is my contention that the House had clearly given its unanimous consent to apply the vote as first specified by the chief government whip. If this was to be changed, it was incumbent upon the Speaker to ask the entire House for its unanimous consent, and not simply engage in a personal dialogue with the chief government whip. If you review the video, Mr. Speaker, you will find the evidence to support my submission.

In summation, I would first like to say how disturbing it is to see that the official record of Parliament does not reflect the reality of last night's proceedings. Second, the video clearly shows that the House gave its unanimous consent to apply a vote which resulted in the defeat of a government bill. If it was a mistake on the part of the chief government whip and he wanted to reverse the decision of this House, then he ought to have sought its consent and not simply told you, Mr. Speaker, what he meant to have said, if it was only that easy.

It is not that easy and it is dangerous to engage in such practices. My reason for raising this point of order is that the most important protection that we as members of the opposition have in this House is you, Mr. Speaker, and the rules of the House.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a point of order that on its face sounds reasonable.

I urge him first of all to have regard to the practice of this House in relation to the words spoken in Hansard . If I am making a speech and I say words that I do not mean to say, that are incorrect, such as when I say a not when I did not mean to say a not, and then repeat the sentence correctly, Hansard does not print two sentences, one with a not in it and one without. They print it the way I intended it; it is corrected and printed as one sentence.

Similarly, if I repeat words for emphasis I get reported in Hansard , but if I repeat them because of interruptions that might come from hon. members elsewhere in the House, those additional words are not printed in Hansard . The editor takes those words out.

I submit in the case that the hon. member has raised there is clearly a misunderstanding as to what happened, as to what the chief government whip said. When it was corrected by a subsequent intervention by Your Honour in asking the chief government whip whether he intended it to be in reverse and he confirmed that he had intended it to be in reverse, there was simply a correction made by the editors to make it appear that there had not been that misunderstanding. The question was not replaced in Hansard .

First, Hansard has never followed the exact words spoken in the Chamber word for word on every occasion. That has been a practice in this House for as long as I have read Hansard , which is over 30 years. I think the hon. member will recognize that fact.

Second, last evening after the vote was applied in accordance with the request by the chief government whip, there was a misunderstanding on the part of the Chair, which I submit was the correct understanding. If the hon. whip is correct in his submission, the thing that should have happened is that the bill should have been defeated because there were more nays than yeas on the division cited. I know that is his point.

My recollection is very distinct. I have not looked at the video to check it but after the vote was applied, Your Honour said: "I declare the motion carried". My recollection is that on Bill C-103 we were dealing with concurrence at the report stage. Your Honour then put the question: "When shall the bill be read the third time?" The answer was, at the next sitting of the House.

The Chair understood the way the chief government whip intended to have the division applied, which was to carry the vote. Everyone in the House understood that the government was going to win the vote and that it was intended to be applied that way.

All the Hansard editor has done in this case, in my view quite correctly, is excised the questions that resulted in the clarification and made it appear that the chief government whip did it right the first time. He apparently did make that slip. The Chair, in my submission, understood what he meant and the correct procedure was followed, the bill was concurred in at report stage and third reading was ordered at the next sitting of the House.

Had the Chair correctly heard the chief government whip and applied it the way the hon. Reform whip is now suggesting, that would not have been the result and we would have had a clarifica-

tion in an awful hurry because I was listening to the proceedings and I heard it go. I was satisfied that third reading had been ordered at the next sitting, otherwise I would have been on my feet.

While I sympathize with the Reform whip in his submission, I submit that the Hansard editors have acted very correctly in this case. The hon. member really has nothing to complain about because everything was clarified last night. Nothing was done in secret between the Chair and the chief government whip. It was done on the floor of the House where everyone could see. If there were objections to the procedure the hon. member should have raised them then.

[The Speaker]

I am going to come back to the whip of the Reform Party. I am now going to go to the whip of the government party.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the Chair and all hon. members will know, some time ago informal discussions were held among whips-I know it was a different whip for the Reform Party then-toward arriving at an informal system of accelerating the voting procedure, thereby saving considerable overtime and taxpayers' dollars for votes that would have traditionally taken sometimes seven or eight hours in the evening. They can now be collapsed into a few minutes.

I hate to interrupt this private conversation, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

I would appeal to all hon. members, because this point of order affects all of us and is a serious one, that if they have discussions to please have them behind the curtain.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

As I was saying, this system was established informally with the previous whip.

May I suggest there have been a number of occasions in the past when whips have sometimes indicated that they were voting yea as opposed to nay. Whips across the floor of the House would heckle informally or indicate informally: "No, that is not what you want to do", in an effort to assist each other because this informal understanding has been established with the stated purpose of condensing a process which formerly took several hours.

In order to make the system work even better, an informal document is exchanged among the various whips and given to the Table so if there is an occasional slip-up in the process, it is corrected.

Again, the then whip for the Reform Party would recognize how this was established co-operatively among all whips. I am referring here to the member for Calgary Centre.

The point I am making is that this is an informal system which was established among the whips. Whips have traditionally assisted each other in order to accurately reflect the intention of each respective party in the House and it was done that way.

We could revert to the system which existed before. The system which was in place before costs approximately $25,000 an hour. I believe it costs approximately $17,000 an hour to work regular overtime and $25,000 an hour for extended time. Even the process we used last night could have cost perhaps $100,000 to $150,000 and instead cost nothing to the taxpayers of Canada because we had developed this informal system with all the goodwill that had, up until now, been there. I only wish that the goodwill we have had may prevail after today as it has over the last year since establishing the system.

We had an extremely effective working relationship in the past with the previous whip. I hope it will remain identical with the present occupant of that position on that side of the House. It is my considered belief that when members cease to be able to function with each other, where there are disagreements-and there have been some of those today-that the whips can quickly rally behind the curtain, find out what the disagreement is among members and then hopefully assist each other in making the House work better and assisting Mr. Speaker in his job of serving all of us. That is the system under which we have all operated individually and collegially as a group of whips in the past.

I hope we can continue to assist each other in order to reflect the intention of the House and not try as whips to trip each other up at every possible opportunity.

There is the cut and thrust of debate in the House. That is fair game. I appreciate that. Heaven knows I was a member of that group for longer than many. However, in our role as whips there is also the very close working relationship we have had with each other. I hope and pray that will continue, not for my good, but for the good of this institution and for our country.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since I am the one whip previous to whom everybody is referring, I thought I should make a quick intervention.

The point our party whip is making, and I checked it with our assistant, is that there was an intervention made by you in the Chair with a member of the House. It is that intervention which is not included in Hansard . That is the point. We respect, and I certainly do, everything that has been said here, including the intervention by the member for Kingston and the Islands.

It is okay to correct words and that is what the member for Kingston and the Islands was pointing out. But when an entire intervention is left out, it is a serious omission. I do not believe we are trying to trip up the government; we are just saying that an intervention is missing. That is the concern because what if at some time in the future it is an important intervention? That is the point.

We do intend, hope and will always try to make sure that we continue in the same spirit of co-operation that we have established over the course of time.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are several points I hope to clarify. First, I endorse what my colleague has just said to the chief government whip. By all means we should continue the system we have for getting on with business. There is no other way to do it.

I would like to clarify too that there is no allegation here whatsoever of secrecy going on. That is not part of it.

I would also like to address one point made by the member for Kingston and the Islands, which is that the correction in Hansard was not a result of member's statements but was the result of another vote being taken. So there is quite a difference between the two.

Finally, I must maintain my point of order because my principal point is that we in opposition rely totally on you, Mr. Speaker, and on the rules of the House. Without that we are nowhere.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I have heard both sides and I think your Speaker has to accept some responsibility here, of course. As I recall and if I might just explain, I believe the hon. whip of the Reform Party asked me for a clarification. Upon hearing the whip of the Reform Party I asked the whip of the government party for a clarification. When he gave me the clarification, I looked over at the Reform whip. That cannot be seen in Hansard but can be seen on the video. The whip nodded to me, yes he was in agreement, so we went on.

The point that the Reform whip makes is, of course, very valid. The rules should be adhered to. I believe that by and large we have adhered to the rules in this particular circumstance.

Would members permit their Speaker to perhaps make an observation? I have been here for decades and it seems to me that the system the whips of the three parties have worked out, with the independents as well, makes the House work much better in terms of time and understanding. Usually these things are all ironed out before these votes take place.

From my perspective as a long time member of Parliament and also as the Speaker, I think it is good for the institution that we can work together in this way.

If by some oversight your Speaker has failed to ensure this was in Hansard I assure the House now that should something like this occur again, I will take it upon myself to see that exactly what is in accordance with the rules is done. I encourage my colleagues to persevere in a system which is new but which does work.

I salute the whips from all parties for what they have done for this institution to make these votes proceed a little more quickly but fairly, which is the important thing here.

I thank you for your comments. I agree with the Reform whip that of course the rules will be adhered to. As your Speaker, I assure you this will be done.

A message from His Excellency the Governor General of Canada transmitting supplementary estimates (A) for the financial year ending March 31, 1996 was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

Immigration

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table today, in both official languages, the 1996 immigration levels.

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have tabled the immigration levels for 1996. This package is a legislative requirement. It is something we have to do by or on November 1 each year. These packages, and this year's is no exception, are always much more than a legislative requirement, much more than something we simply have to do. Simply put, this is a map to the future, a chart which will hopefully guide us into our tomorrows.

One year ago today I stood in the Chamber and unveiled the government's 10-year immigration plan. This plan was the result of an unprecedented and extensive consultation with Canadians from all backgrounds, from all walks of life, in every region of our country. It laid out a clear path which we are following and honouring today.

The levels before the House also demonstrate our commitment to a partnership with both provinces and territories as well as our continued covenant with the people of Canada and those who would call Canada home. They also underline the government's commitment to economic growth but not at the expense of our humanitarian mission.

In 1995 the level range was set at between 190,000 and 215,000. The projection for the end of this calendar year is about 198,000 to 200,000. For 1996 the government has set the level range at between 195,000 to 220,000. The levels are slightly up from last year. This is as we expected and predicted.

Last year we took stock of our immigration program. We made some decisions and made some serious changes. We have reinforced the foundation and now we can begin to grow that program. The levels also show we have achieved what I believe is a healthy balance. We have a large influx of economic immigrants because this is where we said we would increasingly focus our attention through promotion and recruitment around the globe.

We also have preserved a strong family class component. The rebalancing of the economic and family immigrant components introduced in last year's plan is on track. Economic migrants and their families will account for 50 per cent of the overall total of immigrants in 1996. The family class component will make up 46 per cent. The remaining 4 per cent will be accounted for by humanitarian and compassionate landings in Canada.

Canada needs immigrants.

Our country needs workers and investors to maintain and improve our standard of living. We need them to help us keep sparking our economy and to create jobs.

As I have said many times in this House, and even more times in communities across this country, maintaining and improving the standard of living of every Canadian relies, in part, on keeping a vibrant and dynamic immigration system.

The Canadian experience shows that immigrants as well as refugees become some of the best, brightest, most self-motivated and hard working Canadians. These are the people who will work with us to build a stronger, more economically dynamic country, which is why we are actively promoting Canada as a place in which to settle. We are back in the business of promotion and recruitment internationally, something we have lacked for a number of years. We are getting the message out that Canada was, is and will continue to be a land of opportunity.

In 1996 economic immigrants will include three categories: skilled workers; business immigrants; and a new category called the provincial-territorial nominee class, which is individuals sponsored exclusively by provinces and territories.

We are aware that for people to succeed in today's rapidly changing labour market they have to be adaptable. For this reason we will also be introducing changes very soon to the criteria for the selection of skilled workers. A revamped point system will emphasize the skills needed for long term success in this nation: experience, linguistic skills, education and adaptability to the ever changing global economy.

Business immigrants represent another classification of the economic category. In this regard we expect that between 18,000 and 20,500 business immigrants will come to Canada next year. Over the past year we have worked with our various provincial and private sector partners to examine the two components of our business immigration movement, our investor and entrepreneur classes.

Since it started in 1986, the immigrant investor program has attracted more than 13,000 business people who have invested over $2.5 billion in approved businesses and funds and who in the process created 17,000 jobs for Canadians. The government wants to build on these successes. I want to ensure an even stronger source of risk capital to support growth and job creation, particularly in the small and medium size sector.

Last year the Minister of Industry and I appointed a private sector panel to examine the program and make recommendations for improvement. The report was recently made public and we are considering the responses, advice and comments submitted by Canadians across the country. A new program will be in place by Canada Day of next year.

Like the immigrant investors, the entrepreneur program has one overriding goal: to create jobs and stimulate growth. We want to attract additional business people who can contribute to the Canadian economy through their hands on management of a business entity in our country. In 1996 we will also be introducing changes to enhance the overall economic benefit of the entrepreneur program.

As I mentioned, a new provincial-territorial nominee category will recognize the simple truth about our country, that the employment needs of one province may not be the same as another.

It also acknowledges that Canada is a big country. Not only does it have six time zones, but the kinds of jobs needed in the sub-Arctic will not necessarily be the same in a seaboard community, on the prairies or in downtown metropolitan Toronto. Consequently the nominee category would allow each province or territory to identify a limited number of economic immigrants each year, which will be negotiated and flexible, to meet these special provincial and regional economic needs.

This category is built on the premise that both federal and provincial governments must work closer together, more than ever, if we are to keep pace with an economy changing with lightning speed.

The economic component of our immigration program, however, is only one piece of an intricate tapestry. Woven throughout is our continued commitment to the family and to those in need of Canada's protection.

With respect to immigration policy, the Liberal government has long recognized the importance of the family. We fully and simply appreciate the importance which family plays in the life of an immigrant and in the very life of our country. Let me assure the House that family reunification is and will continue to be a vital component of Canada's immigration program. The concept of family runs through every single category I have spoken of in the last few minutes.

In the 1996 levels plan, the arrival of 78,000 to approximately 86,000 family class immigrants will take place. The majority of these individuals are immediate family members: spouses, fiancés and dependant children of Canadians.

I would like to think our commitment to keeping families together is a good indication of what kind of country we truly are, a country that cares, a country that values compassion and humanitarian values. It is those same virtues which shine through in the refugee policies of not only our government but historically of our country.

When confronted with suffering and atrocities, Canadians do not want us to turn away.

Again this year, refugee levels are highlighted separately from the immigration figures, reflecting our belief and practice that the refugee program is best managed in partnership with other interested stakeholders and separately from the immigrant program.

The changes we envision will require greater cooperation between ourselves and members of the private sector. We want to continue to revitalize private sponsorship of refugees and encourage more people to get involved and make a difference.

I am happy to say that we are already making progress on this front. Recently the government and a number of non-governmental organizations formed a partnership to respond to the appeal by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees for the resettlement of some 5,000 refugees internationally from the former Yugoslavia. Canada has agreed to take 10 per cent of that number. We have agreed to share the cost of settling a minimum of 500 people in Canada. The government will cover the crucial first three months of financial assistance for refugees and private sponsors will then take responsibility for the remaining nine months or until the refugees are self-sufficient, whichever comes first.

At this point I would like to thank organizations and Canadian families across the country as well as members of Parliament from all sides who have inquired about the program. I give a particularly warm thanks to those individuals and organizations who have acted. A church in New Brunswick is prepared to sponsor a family of four from Yugoslavia before Christmas. On top of the 500 Canada has committed to, the province of Quebec is prepared to take an additional 100 refugees from the former republic of Yugoslavia.

Those are examples of what people of goodwill, compassion, and courage can do when they put their minds and their hearts together. Thanks to this Parliament and to a number of government initiatives, we have made a good number of accomplishments in the world of immigration.

We have strengthened the integrity of our immigration system through the passage of Bill C-44 and ushered in changes to the Immigration and Refugee Board. We have been able to obtain agreements with various countries with respect to travel documents for the purposes of removal.

We have worked with communities throughout Canada to help refugees from around the globe. We have co-operated with other departments and Canadians to make sure that Canada's voice at the world population conference in Cairo and at the Beijing conference was both forceful and eloquent.

We have initiated improvements in application processing domestically and around the globe. We are improving our structures continually, as well as looking at how we do settlement and integration of newcomers, not only for their advantage but for the advantage of Canada.

Of course there is always more to do. There are still other items on our agenda that need to be realized, and they will be. As I said at the outset, we have a plan and we are staying the course.

I am an optimist. I believe in immigration. Canada's cherished position in the world today is testimony to the undeniable fact that immigration has served our nation well. There is no reason to question, no reason to have doubts about whether immigration cannot continue to give Canada that strength and that dynamism.

In mapping out our immigration levels for 1996, our destination is very simple. It is a tomorrow that tempers economic growth with care and compassion, a tomorrow that is welcoming and accommo-

dating for our newcomers, a tomorrow that builds a stronger country, in essence a tomorrow that belongs rightfully to Canada.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the immigration levels that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has just tabled before the House under the Immigration Act.

The minister has announced to us that Canada will take in next year a total of 195,000 to 220,000 immigrants and refugees, that is, between 171,000 and 187,000 immigrants and between 24,000 and 32,000 refugees.

He has just mentioned the efforts that Canada is making in favour of refugees. I have taken note of the fact that we have made some efforts regarding nationals from the former Yugoslavia. I would also like the minister to make additional efforts in the case of other countries and other continents, particularly in assisting women and children in distress. I think that we should put an emphasis on women and children in distress, who represent the majority of refugees in the world. Quebec will accept 27,000 immigrants and refugees next year, a quota that was established by the province in accordance with the Canada-Quebec agreement.

We generally agree with the number determined by the minister and his government. In fact, it is almost the same plan as the one he submitted to us last year, except for slight changes. The first change is a small increase of 5,000 new immigrants; the second one is that 3,500 immigrants who are subject to a removal order that is not yet in effect will be admitted for humanitarian reasons; the third change is that a new category has been established, that is, candidates sponsored by a province or a territory. A thousand new immigrants are expected in this category.

The minister has just shown his willingness to work in partnership with the provinces and the territories, but he only foresees 1,000 immigrants for the nine provinces and the two territories. That is not much. That is not a serious effort of decentralization and co-operation with the provinces. We know that the provinces, except Quebec, which already has very definite powers in that field, are also asking for powers concerning immigration. Manitoba and Saskatchewan come to mind, in this regard.

The Minister's 1994 figures indicated Canada would receive between 190,000 and 215,000 immigrants in 1995. In fact, for the first eight months of this year, Canada has had only 132,000 new immigrants. I estimate that the total will not exceed 200,000 by the end of this year.

It must be pointed out that potential immigrants are less attracted to Canada, particularly those from many Asian countries. Many naturally prefer to go to the U.S. or Australia, or other countries with a high rate of economic growth. This is the case despite the considerable Canadian government investments in advertising, promotion and the recruiting of new immigrants in many countries.

The greatest obstacle, however, without a doubt for new immigrants is the $975 entry tax on top of the $500 up front processing fee. This tax represents an enormous barrier to people from poor countries.

In addition to setting immigration quotas, the minister ought to have announced measures to reduce delays in processing immigration files. Despite some efforts by the minister, which I am prepared to acknowledge, an application for permanent residence in Canada sometimes takes 18 months or more. So refugees who have been here a year or two awaiting refugee status have to wait another year or more to gain resident status, when they can bring in their spouse and children. It is inhumane to keep families apart for such long periods of time. The minister will have to take the appropriate steps on this.

I would also like to denounce the abusive use of DNA testing to prove parent-child relationships. Many members of the Haitian community in my riding of Bourassa, in Montreal North and in all of Montreal complain that departmental employees, particularly in the Canadian embassy in Port-au-Prince, require tests which they feel are discriminatory.

I should add that a DNA test costs $1,000 and, naturally, they often cannot afford it. It should be enough to present a birth certificate to prove kinship.

I would like the minister to tell us what justification there can be for this to be made a practice of in the case of Haitians. Why are European immigrants not subject to the same requirement, except in rare instances? These measures often work against the family reunification program just mentioned by the minister as being a priority for this government.

I would like to talk about the immigration tax in particular. Since its implementation in the last federal budget, the Bloc Quebecois has repeatedly expressed its opposition to this tax, and has opposed this $975 fee immigrants and refugees have to pay to become landed immigrants.

Numerous organizations in Quebec and in Canada have condemned this discriminatory measure and have campaigned against it. Last October 28, which was the national day against the head tax, the Montreal refugee services organisations round table reiterated its opposition to the settlement fees for refugees, immigrants and their families. This very respectable organization said this tax imposed an intolerable and discriminatory burden on these people.

Canada is the only country in the world which has decided to impose such fees on refugees recognized as such under the Geneva Convention. It should be pointed out that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has voiced very serious concerns about this dangerous precedent.

Bob White, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said that the head tax is basically contrary to Canadian values of equity, equality and progress.

He added that rich immigrants are able to pay this tax, but that most African, Asian or Latin-American people who want to immigrate to Canada or come as refugees cannot afford to do so. I seize this opportunity to ask the Minister why the number of immigrants and refugees from Latin America keeps on getting smaller year after year. For a number of years now, it has been almost impossible to come to Canada from Latin America.

The loans system established to help those who have to pay this tax did not work. A moment ago, an official told us they have no way to assess the impact of this tax abroad. A lot of loan requests are rejected because the candidate will not have the money to repay the loan.

Once again, I ask the minister to put an end to this tax, at least for refugees. I remind him that even some of his Liberal colleagues made such a request regarding refugees. My wife, my two children and I came from Chile in 1974. If we had had over $4,000 to pay in landing fees in order to have our application examined by immigration authorities, we would never have been able to come.

Worse still, all the money collected, estimated at $146 million for 1995, goes into general revenue instead of being used for settlement services for immigrants. Of course, despite the immigration tax which, as I just said, will bring in $146 million in 1995, the transfer of responsibilities to NGOs for immigration and integration of new arrivals will mean a drastic reduction in funds and services.

Already, hundreds of civil servants have lost their jobs with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. In 1996 alone, the government will cut the number of civil servants by 20 per cent at headquarters and in the regions. Once again, I denounce these massive cuts of civil servants.

In short, I am asking the minister to pay more attention to the reports issued by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It has issued several reports which were tabled in this House, but we never had any feedback from the minister. Although many witnesses have come before the committee and much effort was spent on this, the minister has not bothered to respond to these reports.

I will conclude by saying that the minister should take additional measures to launch an education and awareness campaign, directed at the Canadian people, on the contributions and other positive influence of immigrants in our society.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I stand today to respond to the minister's statement on immigration levels for the coming year, I am not particularly reassured by the minister's glowing picture of the state of Canada's immigration policy.

The minor increase in actual immigration numbers is somewhat irrelevant, as the actual number of immigrants who will be arriving this year is closer to the lower levels of projections for this year and will probably be the same next year. However, by announcing a modest increase of 5 per cent, the government can say it is moving closer to its red book promise.

The Liberal red book states: "We would continue to target immigration levels of approximately 1 per cent of the population each year". That works out to approximately 300,000 immigrants a year, and we are only at two-thirds of that total. I would suggest this is a much more reasonable number than the red book promise, but a number that is still likely to cause difficulty.

Part of the problem with these numbers is that the minister's own department is having difficulty handling and processing the applications. Last month one of the managers from the Vegreville office spoke to MPs' staff in the Vancouver area. At that time he announced that the Vegreville office had a backlog of over 15,000 files, with 7,000 of those files being over a year old. If we have that type of backlog now, what is going to happen if the Department of Citizenship and Immigration proceeds with its proposed cutbacks of up to 25 per cent of its staff?

Another interesting aspect of this announcement on new levels is the new category of provincial-territorial nominees. This new category will give the provinces and territories, with the exception of Quebec, the ability to share a grand total of 1,000 immigrants. As I said, with the exception of Quebec. Under the Canada-Quebec accord, Quebec already has sole responsibility for the selection of immigrants destined to that province. This applies only to economic immigrants. Nevertheless, last year Quebec had the ability to choose more than 11,000 economic immigrants who came to that province. In a sense of fairness, the federal government has decided to permit the rest of the provinces and territories to have a say in selecting a total of 1,000.

The numbers show another interesting aspect of the Canada-Quebec accord. Under this arrangement Quebec received $90 million to spend on settlement in that province. The federal

government in turn spent about $270 million in the rest of Canada. Thus, Quebec's share was about one-quarter of the total allotment, which was fairly consistent with Quebec's one-quarter of the population in Canada and was fairly consistent with Quebec's intent to settle 47,000 of the immigrants to the country, or one-quarter. However, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Quebec settled only 26,000 immigrants last year, which is only 13 per cent of the total. Yet it still received $90 million, or approximately one-quarter of all settlement dollars.

Next year Quebec will settle only 27,000 immigrants and refugees, or approximately 12 to 13 per cent of the total. Yet it will still receive $90 million, or 25 per cent of the funding.

Given Premier Parizeau's comments about the ethnic vote in Quebec, I can understand why immigrants are reluctant to move to that province. However, the reality is that the federal government is now funding the settlement of immigrants in Quebec at a rate twice that of the rest of Canada.

Levels, numbers, and dollars are only one part of the equation. Canadians are just as concerned about the quality of the immigrants we are receiving as we are about the number of immigrants we are receiving. Polls show there is not a great deal of public support for Canada's current immigration in this nation. The government likes to say it is because of the Reform Party that such support is down. While I appreciate the government's acknowledging our influence, I must inform its members that our party is just reflecting the concerns of ordinary Canadians.

Ordinary Canadians get upset when they hear that 14 per cent of sponsorship obligations are in default, to the tune of $700 million in 1993. They get upset when they read in the September 30 edition of the Ottawa Citizen that 19 per cent of welfare recipients in the Ottawa-Carleton region are immigrants and refugees. They want this government to get tough on sponsors who default on their obligations. Instead, they hear about cases like Mohammed Assaf.

In 1989 Mohammed Assaf sponsored his brother and family to settle in Alberta. Within two years his brother's family went on welfare. The Alberta taxpayers have had to shell out $40,000 in welfare payments. Despite attempts by the Alberta social services to collect the money from Mohammed, the sponsor, he ignored them. He then wanted to sponsor his second wife to come to Canada. In their wisdom, the immigration department officials said no, he could not sponsor her because he had an outstanding sponsorship obligation already.

Mohammed Assaf paid back $8,000 of his $40,000 obligation and then came up with a better idea: He would appeal to the IRB. Guess what happened? The IRB members said: "Do not worry about your debt to the Canadian taxpayer, we will let you sponsor your second wife here anyway".

What kind of message does this send, not only to the immigrant community but to the Canadian public at large? Outrageous IRB decisions like this one undermine everything the minister says he is trying to do to rectify the problem of defaulted sponsorship.

It is not good enough to blame the IRB. The members of the board are patronage appointees the minister installed. It is somewhat ironic that everything the minister is trying to accomplish through his department is being undone by the political hacks he appointed to the IRB.

While the percentage of immigrants who arrive in this country via the family reunification aspect of immigration is being reduced, it is still a major problem area. Most Canadians will acknowledge that the reunification of family members is a valid goal. However, this reunification must be limited to immediate family.

As reported in one of the studies incorporated in the book Diminishing Returns , over recent years each individual who has immigrated to Canada under the family class has had a multiplier effect of an additional seven immigrants. Unfortunately, many of these are solely done for money, be they arranged marriages for a large dowry or outright sham marriages. I have been informed of one case in which a woman was upset because she was having difficulty sponsoring her fourth husband in four years. Shams like these contribute to bringing the whole system in disrepute.

On the plus side, we have those immigrants who do make a positive contribution to Canada's economy. Studies consistently show that these people make more money than native-born Canadians.

Last year the minister proudly announced that the percentage of economic immigrants will rise from 43 per cent to 55 per cent of all immigration. While this may sound good, it is somewhat deceptive. In fact the majority of immigrants who come under the economic class are not those high income earners but the dependants of high income earners. In reality, only 17 per cent of those in the immigrant class are these high income individuals. When we add refugees to the equation, only 14 per cent of all newcomers to the country are economic immigrants.

Unfortunately, many of these individuals are becoming disillusioned with what they find here. Media reports from Vancouver recently indicated that many of these immigrants who arrived from Hong Kong are returning to Hong Kong. They cite the high and numerous taxes in Canada as well as endless government regulations that tend to discourage the creation of wealth as the main reasons they are leaving. Is it not ironic that these individuals believe they will be better off from a business perspective under the

communist regime of the People's Republic of China in a couple of years than they are under the Liberal government today.

Finally, I would like to discuss Canada's acceptance of refugees. We have always been generous in accepting legitimate convention refugees, and we should continue to receive our share of those fleeing persecution from conflicts in Africa, Asia, and the former Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, convention refugees are not necessarily what we are getting.

One of my staffers recently met with a young Somali refugee currently attending Ottawa University. The only problem is that this individual is neither a refugee nor a Somali. Rather he was born in neighbouring Djibouti and while a resident of France he came to Ottawa to go to university. When he started to run low on funds he went to a local Canada immigration office, claimed to be a Somali refugee and now the Canadian taxpayers are funding the rest of his education.

How about Tejinder Pal Singh, a convicted airline hijacker? He arrived in Canada, claimed refugee status under an alias and is now free on bail in Vancouver while the IRB hears his case.

If the government wants Canadians to openly accept refugees, then it had better make sure we are opening our doors to legitimate convention refugees and not murderers, hijackers or scam artists.

If the government wants all Canadians to support its immigration policy, then it had best make sure that it is bringing in people who want to make a positive contribution to our country, and not in the minister's own words the "wretched refuse" from "teeming shores".

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 96th report to the House of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the membership of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons and the list of associate members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

If the House gives its consent I intend to move the adoption of this report later today.

Corrections And Conditional Release Act

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-355, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (arrest without warrant).

Madam Speaker, this will not take very long. It is a short bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It would allow police forces throughout the land to arrest without warrant a person who is in breach of a condition of parole or statutory release. It has been stated to me by a number of police officers throughout the country that if they had the ability to do this, they would be able to prevent a number of crimes from happening. I believe that prevention is a major concern and a major goal of all parties of the House.

When the idea was presented to me by the police forces, it was thought that it would be an extremely useful preventive tool. It would prevent death, injury and harm to property and lives of other Canadians. I hope this will become law soon.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Supplementary Estimates A, 1995-96

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5) and 81(6), I wish to introduce a motion concerning referral of the estimates.

I move:

That supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996, laid upon the table on this day, November 1, 1995, be referred to the several standing committees of the House, in accordance with the detailed allocation attached.

Madam Speaker, in accordance with our normal practice and if it is agreeable to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. President of the Treasury Board. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I move that the 96th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

That is the one I tabled earlier, changing the names of members of various committees.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That the House, pursuant to Standing Order 119(1)(i), authorize the Standing Committee on Industry to televise its meetings with banks and other lenders during the week of November 6, 1995, in accordance with the guidelines pertaining to televising committee proceedings.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present a petition dealing with the tendering practices of the Department of National Defence.

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, if Question No. 223 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.