Debates of Feb. 14th, 1995

Nuclear Reactor Finance Limitation Act

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

She did not say she would. I say mumble because she made no commitment.

I would hope that after hearing the diverse views here she would say that legitimate views exist in the country and that she would agree to hold public hearings in all parts of the country to allow the public an opportunity to present its views.

Just on the long shot that people are generous here tonight, would there be any inclination on the part of my hon. friends to provide unanimous consent to send this to committee for further consideration?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There is no consent. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

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

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 8, I put my main question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and a supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister regarding the deportation of Taramatie Ramsubhag and her three children, who are originally from Trinidad and Tobago.

The minister then asked me to bring any new information to his attention so that he could review this case on the basis on humanitarian considerations, which I did on February 10, when I personally gave a document to the minister and his parliamentary secretary. Although Mrs. Ramsubhag and her three children had adapted well to Quebec society, they were all ruthlessly deported the same day.

Furthermore, the minister rejected, without any sign of consideration or deference, a request by Quebec's Minister of International Relations, Cultural Communities and Immigration, Bernard Landry, to delay the deportation, to allow the Quebec government to consider issuing a certificate of selection.

The minister and his government did not show any respect or consideration for the numerous women's rights organizations begging them to grant Mrs. Ramsubhag permanent resident status in Canada. These organizations include Assistance aux femmes de Montréal, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Vancouver Status of Women, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, the CNTU's national committee on the status of women, the Quebec women's federation, etc.

The minister showed an unacceptable insensitivity to this refugee claimant. Yet, he gave her aggressor and ex-husband a special permit allowing him to return to Canada. Is that the Liberal government policy on women who are victims of spousal abuse?

Mrs. Ramsubhag does not have a criminal record. Canadians and Quebecers will never understand the policy applied by the minister in this case, nor why immigration officers had to use force to arrest three children aged 9, 11 and 13. Under the circumstances, arresting these children without a warrant amounts to kidnapping pure and simple. Mrs. Ramsubhag also had to pay $800 to have her case reviewed by the same officials who wanted to deport her.

During the election campaign in September 1993, the Deputy Prime Minister promised that women who were victims of family violence and applied for refugee status would no longer be deported. However, so far at least two members of this group of women in Montreal have already been deported. What about the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to defending women's rights? That the Canadian government should take this kind of action is appalling, especially the immigration officers who arrested the three children. This attitude is in stark contrast with the open and generous approach taken by the Government of Quebec, which had applied for a stay of execution to consider the possibility of giving the Ramsubhag family a Quebec certificate of selection.

I wish to commend the many womens' groups that sent letters to the minister, with copies to the critic for the Bloc Quebecois, as part of the campaign to defend the case of Mrs. Ramsubhag. I hope she will return to Canada, with her children, as a landed immigrant.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada is universally recognized as having one of the fairest and most generous refugee determination systems in the world.

We were the first country to establish formal guidelines on gender persecution. It would not be, and the hon. member well knows this, appropriate to go into the details of an individual case on the floor of the House. However let me assure the hon. member that the application was reviewed in a most thorough and fair manner and the individual was found not to qualify as a refugee.

Similarly the case was reviewed in the light of our gender persecution guidelines three times and was examined for any special merit on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

As the results of all these reviews were negative, the individual was obliged to comply with the removal order. We carried out the deportation order to uphold the integrity of the immigration system as a whole. The person did not qualify as a refugee but she is welcome to apply to immigrate to Canada through the normal channels.

I understand the Government of Quebec has shown interest in the case and under the Canada-Quebec agreement Quebec officials are welcome to facilitate her application for immigration to Canada for residence in the province of Quebec.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, on December 6, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether her government was committed to ensuring the continuation of core funding for essential services that help prevent, treat and counsel against violence against women. The minister answered at that time that her government would respect its

commitment to funding for women's shelters and other support services.

However since that time the review by the Minister of Human Resources Development has taken place. We have heard a lot of prebudget comments being made. Indeed there are Liberal members of Parliament who are advocating that these services to women's groups be cut or reduced.

As well, the federal government is considering combining transfers for social programs, health programs and post-secondary education to provinces and territories. One of the concerns in this regard of many groups across the country including myself is that it could break the social consensus that has been built in Canada. It has been one of the strengths of Canada that says that regardless of where one lives geographically and regardless of income there are certain standards of service that one gets as a right of a Canadian citizen.

It is also my feeling that these proposals to do this transfer without national standards would in the end hurt women more than men. Single mothers could lose many of the supports they now have. We know that is the group with the largest number of unemployed.

The Canadian Action Committee on the Status of Women estimate that violence against women adds at least $1 billion a year to the bill for health and related services in Canada. It is the time for zero tolerance of violence against women. Yet I do not see from the government or in the Deputy Prime Minister's response a true commitment in this regard.

We have the Minister of Justice introducing gun control legislation that he says will make women safer because of the number of women who are victims of violence. Yet there is no proof the legislation he is proposing would do that.

It seems hypocritical to me that there is one piece of legislation that we are told by the Minister of Justice will make women safer in their homes, again with no proof, and at the same time they are looking at either not funding at all or severely reducing funding for services that provide information, counselling and protection for women who have been victims of violence.

I was quite interested in doing my research to come across a letter written in 1990 by the opposition at that time to a women's centre. It stated that core funding cutbacks, that is those proposed by the former Conservative government, would have a devastating impact on women seeking shelter from family violence. That letter, by the way, was written by the now Solicitor General.

I want to ask again whether it is the policy of the government to have a real plan to combat violence against women or simply a public relations effort and whether in fact the government and the minister will be committed to having core funding for women's shelters to provide the services that help women who may be victims of violence.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have already demonstrated our commitment.

In 1994-95 for the women's program of HRD Canada the contribution was $4 million in core funding to a broad cross-section of women's organizations across Canada which carry out a clearly defined program of activities related to the areas of economic equality, social justice and access and participation.

In addition, the women's program and the disabled persons participation program of the same department are involved in the family violence initiative, providing approximately $5.5 million for community based initiatives to raise awareness and promote institutional change.

I remind the hon. member, and I know how very deep her commitment to this issue goes, that in the February 1994 budget, the women's program budget for group funding was spared from the 5 per cent across the board cuts made to other HRD programs. That is commitment.

This government has also moved quickly toward prevention of violence against women. We have taken prompt action in several areas. The Minister of Justice today tabled gun control legislation. As well there are the amendments to the Criminal Code's peace bond provisions to be proclaimed into force on February 15, 1995. These amendments will provide increased protection to women and other victims of violence before the courts.

That is commitment and it is a commitment we intend to carry on with.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.26 p.m.)