Debates of Feb. 6th, 1995

Immigration Act

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Why do we not go together? Maybe you can apply to re-enter Canada so you will know what Canada is all about.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, on several occasions, my hon. colleague mentioned the Bloc Quebecois. I am proud to be the citizenship and immigration critic of my party.

During the past year, as a member of the House and of the standing committee, I noticed that the positions of the organizations and individuals who appeared before the committee have been closer to that of the Bloc Quebecois than to the Liberal Party's. Of course, they do not even come close to the Reform Party's position.

We found that we shared identical views on many issues regarding immigration and the plight of refugees. This is because we come from a province, the province of Quebec, which is generous with immigrants and refugees, takes care of them, welcomes them and helps them settle by providing French language instruction and assistance to find work and housing. We have our own immigration department. We are the first province in Canada to have its own immigration department and a well defined immigration policy, and to have signed agreements with the federal government, giving us self government in many areas.

We are proud of the fact that Quebec has a progressive, generous, and open policy. Quebec is the province where there are the fewest problems with immigrants and refugees. We have not seen in Quebec events such as those in Toronto. We do not see in Quebec papers the kind of over-reactions we sometimes see in the English press with respect to refugees and immigrants.

I am very proud to be from Quebec. We do not need and never will have headquarters in Ottawa. Our headquarters are in Quebec, where we are from, where we work; we are only trying to make Canadian immigration policy a little more humane. This is the contribution of the Bloc Quebecois to the House of Commons.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, he cannot have it both ways. First he complains we do not listen, then he says that all the witnesses spoke very highly about the Bloc Quebecois. Which one is true? Did they speak very highly about your policy or our policy? We listen. If he does not like the decisions we make, I am sorry. He does not want to stay in Canada anyway, so what is the point? He wants to go.

Also he says he is proud that he came to Quebec. He should know if Canada was not here he would not have any Quebec anyway. He should stand up and thank Canada for allowing him to come here and also thank the people in the province of Quebec for asking him to serve Canadians in the province of Quebec in this Chamber.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have just a couple of questions for the hon. member. First, I have a general comment. I do not know where the hon. member spent the Christmas break. I assume in his riding. If he spent his time in the riding perhaps he would realize that the world does not revolve around Ottawa, but the world actually does go on outside of this place.

The idea that a party must have its headquarters in Ottawa, must lick the boots of the special interest groups in Ottawa, must spend its time catering to Ottawa, looking after Ottawa, making its friends comfortable in Ottawa is typical, I may add, of the Liberal Party.

However, since they brought it up and not myself, I would like to take issue with a couple of comments that the member made that if immigrants sometimes look different they are persecuted. Obviously when that happens or if that happens then Canadians should be outraged that people are persecuted based on their looks, their race or their gender. It should not be tolerated and has no place in Canadian society.

However, the point that the member does not seem to want to admit is not that people may look different, it is that they commit serious illegal acts while they are not Canadian citizens. While they are refugees and commit serious acts what should happen to them?

I guess my question for the member is this. If someone who is claiming refugee status is charged with a serious crime should they be held in detention pending a deportation order or should they be released back into the general population?

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am appalled that some members take the matter so lightly. They make the accusation that 24,000 new Canadian immigrants or refugees who are waiting to be processed are criminals and that 30 people are not enough to investigate them. Now they turn around and try to defend themselves which is indefensible.

The other point that the member made earlier was that one did not have to be in Ottawa to know in which direction the government is going. He is very right. He is 100 per cent perfect. During the Christmas recess I was in my riding and I knew it far ahead of the hon. member. The reason I mentioned that they do not know what is going on in Ottawa and the rest of the country is because during the campaign in my riding on Victoria Park Avenue, the Reform Party candidate had a four by eight sign which read: "We will run the country the way we run the campaign" and they ran the campaign without Quebec, just remember that.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, how apropos that I have the floor after that rather inane comment by the member opposite because of course the sign reads: "We will run Canada as we will run our campaign, which is debt free". The Liberal Party is still paying off its debts from the election because of course it cannot even run an election. The Reform Party has a tidy surplus which we will use to win a majority in the next election.

It is a pleasure to address Canada's immigration policy within the context of Bill C-44 this afternoon. I find myself a bit of the horns of a dilemma with respect to this bill. On the one hand it does represent a rather feeble attempt to toughen up the immigration system. Since Canadians want and need changes in the immigration system the bill at least recognizes that change is required. Therefore in one sense this bill is better than nothing.

Unfortunately it is not a whole lot better than nothing. It places some restrictions on the rights of refugee claimants who would abuse our system. It contains provisions allowing immigration authorities to seize fraudulent immigration documents from the mail. Any non-citizen convicted of a crime in Canada carrying a sentence over 10 years long would be deported. Although with our justice system one pretty well has to murder someone to receive a 10 year sentence. Those immigrants who are found to have been convicted of a crime in another country that would carry a sentence of more than 10 years here would be automatically barred from entering Canada.

These are welcome provisions and I generally support this tentative first step toward creating an immigration policy acceptable to Canadians. However, when we look at the government's overall priorities as they are seen in terms of its actions, not just its words, it places the bill in a different light. We will see that as a whole this bill is timid. It is weak and it is ineffective.

Edmund Burke said: "The concessions of the weak are the concessions of fear". His proverb is two centuries old but it rings true today. If there are two dominant characteristics of the Liberal government they are weakness and fear. The Liberals fear going out on a limb. They fear acting aggressively in the public interest. They fear confronting wrong in order to accomplish justice for all Canadians. Fear causes the government to act with timidity and weakness.

This fear drives the strength out of the government's legislation and it saps the morale of government officials, officials who are supposed to be zealous in the protection of Canadian citizens but who are today demoralized and discouraged because they are not properly supported by the government.

I am not without feelings of goodwill toward bona fide refugees. The people who testified before the standing committee dealing with the bill have expressed their reservations about the fact that it reduces the rates of refugee claimants. They are very concerned that every refugee have access to fair consideration of his or her claim and they do not want people deported into countries where they will be tortured and imprisoned because of their political views and other obvious injustices.

I appreciate the sensitivities of groups like Amnesty International and the Mennonite Central Committee came to testify. The fact that we have tender consciences in how we treat refugees reflects well on our nation. This is a wonderful thing, a thing to be thankful for in Canada. I stand with them in their desire for fairness in their hope that Canada will remain an international sanctuary for people who are truly oppressed.

However there is a question of balance today, a question of the genuine concerns of the Canadian people balanced against the convenience of some of the phoney refugees who use our system as a cloak to hide their criminal intentions.

Today Canadians are the ones being oppressed by some so-called refugees. The balance must be swung in favour of protection of our own citizens. It appears to me that the presumption of innocence in Canadian law has come to mean the determination of innocence without investigation.

It has become the practice of our immigration system to assume that all refugees are nice people, that all refugees are good for society. They ignore the fact that some of them have long criminal records. The government appears to ignore the outrageous crimes some of them commit on our soil.

One of those crimes was the senseless murder of Todd Baylis, a constable in Toronto who was gunned down last year. An immigrant who had been ordered deported in 1991 stands accused of the crime. The department simply failed to deport him earlier, which I am sure provides little comfort to the Baylis family. Would the people at Amnesty International agree that this person should have been deported four years ago? I think they would.

I will cite one more outrageous case. There are many more. A Vietnamese man is serving an eight-year sentence in Kingston for murder. He stabbed a man to death in a Toronto bar in 1991. His case was heard while he was in prison in Kingston serving his sentence and all his legal fees were paid by the Canadian taxpayers.

That man was granted refugee status. In a few more years he will be free and soon he will be a Canadian citizen. I doubt that the Mennonite Central Committee would approve of this situation.

Our system is becoming unbalanced. The focus of this imbalance is the Immigration Refugee Board, a quasi-judicial body set up to hear the cases of refugee claimants and hear appeals of deportation orders.

A few weeks ago the Reform Party critic for immigration advanced a discussion paper that said that the IRB is out of touch and is virtually untouchable. The IRB is ridiculously lax. In some regions of Canada, the IRB accepts more than 90 per cent of the claimants that come before it.

In making a determination about a refugee claim, IRB officials are not even allowed to use an adversarial approach as in a regular judicial hearing. They take the burden of proof on themselves to disprove a refugees claim and even take pains to avoid using a tone of voice that would suggest that the onus of providing proof of legitimacy rests with the claimant and not the board.

Officers of the IRB are discouraged from checking into the personal history of a suspicious claimant or even cross checking to verify their stories. It is incredible.

As I stated earlier, this is a question of balance. Where the safety of Canadians is at stake, any error should be on the side of caution, not caution in favour of the refugee claimant who is already known to be a dangerous criminal but the balance must lean in favour of the victims, the Canadian people.

Bill C-44 intends to change the appeal process for refugees convicted of serious crimes. It will take away the right of appeal on humanitarian grounds from the Immigration Refugee Board and give it to departmental officials. Why is the minister doing this? This action really amounts to an accusation against the IRB. The bill in fact shows that the IRB cannot protect the public.

The Liberals act in weakness and respond in frailty. First they appoint their friends, friends who are usually non-objective refugee advocates, to the board. Then they allow their ridiculous decisions to stand. When the public outcry becomes so great that someone must do something, the Liberals grudgingly take action. They certainly do not want to disturb their leftist friends at the IRB. No, the Liberals will just give their work to the department.

The government refuses to attack the problem at its roots. The problem lies in the decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Rather than taking the board in hand and taking it to task, the Liberals take the easy way out and pass legislation that changes the board's authority.

The bill is a vote of non-confidence in the IRB. It is an admission that there is rot in the system and the rot should not be ignored. It should be cut out. Bill C-44 will not be able to patch up this problem; it will only fester and grow worse.

We would know exactly what to do with the Immigration and Refugee Board. Reformers would dismantle it and replace it with immigration department officials who have a mandate to protect Canadian citizens. These competent public servants would be able to do a much better job of determining refugee claims at much less expense than 235 left wing political hacks making $85,000 a year.

In short, we would toughen up our system to protect Canadians born in Canada as well as Canadians who have been welcomed as immigrants to our land. Canadians born in Canada and newer immigrants who are Canadians by choice realize that some refugees come to Canada not to escape persecution but to escape prosecution.

In Vancouver near my own riding there was a recent headline in the Vancouver Sun quoting the Vancouver chief of police saying that one of the greatest problems facing the police in that city were despicable Asian gangs that extort money through violence and intimidation from other innocent recent Asian immigrants. These gang members act with virtual impunity because of loose laws and a silly bleeding heart Liberal government lacking both the will and the courage to protect innocent people.

That brings me to another issue. Immigrants call my office and tell me they are ashamed and disgusted by the illegal actions of a few and because of the government's inaction in this regard every immigrant is tarred with the dirty brush of the criminal. That is not fair to the vast majority of immigrants and refugees in the country. The government is undermining its own policy by allowing criminals to roam free. It is not fair.

Allow me to suggest a recommendation of the Canadian Police Association that we would do well to think about. At present we have two parallel systems of justice in Canada: one for refugees and one for everyone else through the criminal courts. The police association says we should allow criminal courts to determine whether or not refugees are criminals and then to decide if they should be deported, so that there is one system for everyone in Canada: the equality of treatment idea.

This would take the burden away from the department and the minister and give it to judges who work daily with criminal law.

However the Liberal government will no doubt leave its friends in the Immigration and Refugee Board undisturbed.

Bill C-44 is like sewing a new patch of cloth on a ragged old pair of jeans. When we wash them the new patch shrinks and tears away, and in the end the hole is bigger than it was to begin with. The bill will do nothing more than tear new holes in the fabric of our old flawed immigration system.

Why? Because it mandates more work and more powers for officers without providing the resources to get the job done. The bill barks but it has no bite. It is nothing more than window dressing. It is good theatre with a parade of fine characters, but when the curtain comes down and we go back to real life nothing will get done, nothing will change.

Canada does not need more patchwork legislation. It needs a completely new wardrobe. Nothing less than a complete refit of our immigration system will do the job, and I might add that Canada will probably also need a new tailor to finish the job. Decades of Liberal neglect have whittled protection to the bone.

You may not be aware, Madam Speaker, of an amazing fact. These figures are give or take a thousand so I will not argue with the figures in totality. There are currently 24,000 outstanding deportation orders in the city of Toronto. How many enforcement officers are there to deal with this problem? There are 35 officers to locate and deport 24,000 people. This is just one indication of the priority the Liberals place on the protection of ordinary Canadians.

Even when the immigration department just trying to do its job issues deportation orders to these people, the Liberal government does not have the will to remove them. Canada's refugee determination system is in a shambles. It is worse than shameful. The electorate will one day act as police, judge and jury because of it. The people will try the Liberals, convict them and stick them in the political slammer for a generation.

The minister with great fanfare set up a task force last July to crack down on illegal immigrants.

[An hon. member]

Rhetoric.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Oh, no. He means it. This so-called task force is made up of twenty RCMP officers, four assigned to Montreal, four to Vancouver and only twelve to metro Toronto where there are 24,000 outstanding deportation orders. Immigration officers are so overwhelmed by the sheer numbers that they are unable to execute a removal order unless the individual voluntarily turns up. What a mockery of our system.

When the task force was struck the words of the sergeant in charge were pitiful. He said right away to the press that he was not going to go knocking on doors and arresting people. What was he supposed to be doing then? This is symbolic of the government's attitude toward 24,000 illegal acts gone unchecked, 24,000 people flouting Canadian law and laughing behind the backs of a lax justice and immigration system.

Listen to what the Canadian Police Association said just before Christmas during the committee hearings on the bill. I quote:

How anyone in this world when you have a police service of 16,000 members-that's the RCMP-could call 20 persons spread in the three major cities across Canada a task force is really inconceivable to me. That phrase is seriously abused-I'm not trying to be facetious, but (C-44) reminds me somewhat of putting a band aid on the Hindenburg.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I think I have heard this line before.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

The Canadian Police Association said that band aid solutions would not work any more. Our system is hemorrhaging and nothing less than radical surgery will restore it to health.

There is the question of balance and there is the issue of protection. I want to address one final issue upon which this entire discussion turns. That is the issue of priority. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration and all the costs associated with settlements and so on approach $3 billion each year. It costs $1 billion alone to process refugees. They teach English, settle immigrants and do a host of other good things. They also enforce the provisions of the Immigration Act.

However the priority placed on enforcement is the real barometer of the government's real concern for these law and order issues. The government can talk all it wants about protection, but all this is just talk unless the government puts its money where its mouth is. Only $50 million each year is spent on enforcing the act, and that is compared to total expenditures of $3 billion.

If my math is correct-and I think it is because I checked it on this side of the House and not with the finance minister-that amounts to 1.6 per cent of total expenditures. Less than 2 per cent of the money we spend on immigration is spent on protection and for that matter protecting recent immigrants as well. How much is spent on salaries alone at the Immigration and Refugee Board? I am sure you could guess, Madam Speaker. In salaries alone the IRB costs the Canadian taxpayers $58 million each year. It is an outrageous abuse of taxpayers' money and an indication that the government places less priority on protecting innocent Canadians than on pleasing its fat political friends at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Reformers do not suggest that the government spend more money on immigration. Far from it. Reducing immigration flows as we have suggested would reduce expenditures and free up some of the taxpayers' funds to be placed where the priority should be, on the protection of Canadians. Changing the priority

from an Ottawa based bureaucracy to a front line bureaucracy would save additional millions.

While the government announced a reduction in immigration rates last year, as a York University professor argued today in the Globe and Mail : ``Mr. Marchi imposed only a symbolic reduction. He has buckled to the pressure of ethnic lobbies''.

Bill C-44 is just talk and it will remain empty talk until the government gets busy and makes real and not just symbolic changes to the immigration system.

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

Madam Speaker, I am overwhelmed at the extremely low level of knowledge with regard to the entire working of the immigration department shown by my charming and well meaning colleague across the way.

I would like to ask an absolute plethora of questions.

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

Have you ever been at a hearing?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Many times I have been before the refugee board. I have appeared before it many times. Heaven knows I never thought I would find myself in the position-

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

What is the question?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

This time is for questions or comments. I can do either, and this is a comment.

I never ever believed that I would be in the position of defending Edmund Burke. It is a very difficult position for a Liberal to be in, to be defending Edmund Burke. I can only say that I studied Edmund Burke. Through his works I knew Edmund Burke. I would almost say in the sense one can be a friend of a literary person who lived 200 years before one that Edmund Burke was a friend of mine. To the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, through you, Madam Speaker, he is no Edmund Burke.

At any rate, the number of 24,000 deportees has been batted around ad nauseam in the House. I just wonder if the hon. member across the way has a scintilla of an idea as to how many of those 24,000 have criminal records. The answer is very few, but I am sure the hon. member does not wish to be distracted by fact.

May I also say that one should be careful in the realm of comment, with the greatest of respect to members on the other side, when talking about people who have not yet been tried in our criminal justice system, about guilt or innocence. The word alleged is a good word to throw around here. I am sure my colleague, the hon. member for Rosedale, who is on leave from the faculty of the University of Toronto Law School, would be happy to agree with me on that score. It is extremely unwise as legislators to throw around words about guilt or innocence before someone has been tried. If that were the case this legislature would not need to exist.

My colleague from Fraser Valley East said that he does not want us to spend any more money. That is admirable. As I understand it that is the Reform theory. Yet he thinks that we should be hiring all kinds of people to rush out and find these 24,000 people. Yes, they are under deportation. Yes, they should be out of the country. But, again, the vast majority of them are not criminals.

Does the hon. member understand how small a number of immigrants and refugees actually has criminal records, particularly when compared with born Canadians who have criminal records? Does the hon. member know the difference between immigrants and refugees? He tosses the two words around as if they were interchangeable. As my hon. colleague from Bourassa would agree with me, they are not the same. They are quite different.

I am glad my whip is here. He may have to bring me water because I may faint from the criminal level of lack of knowledge that has been evidenced here by people standing and declaiming about things they know absolutely nothing about.

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

Rhetoric is what you got.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Can you spell it? Probably not.

At any rate I want to say that if the hon. member can answer these questions, I would like to hear an answer instead of the nonsense that has been put forth about immigrants and refugees in this country from this member.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting after the verbal tirade and pontifications of the hon. member that she went on at some length to talk about the need for a proper trial and so on that she says that I have a criminal lack of knowledge. I guess she has tried and convicted me already. Maybe there is no point in answering.

When it comes to the exact number of people of the 24,000 that I mentioned earlier who have criminal records, I would not know. Say there is 10 per cent, say there are 2,500 cases serious enough for deportation. Certainly in one city the size of Toronto I would be alarmed at 2,500 people having criminal records causing them to be deported. That is cause for serious concern. The rest of course are also ordered to be deported and according to the government's own figures and facts no fewer need to be deported. It says that it is the one that has given the deportation orders. It is just that it does not carry them out.

There is a sad part about this. There was a case a little while ago. Someone wanted to bring in a 14-year old girl from Fiji on a student visa and this is the gong show they had to go through.

They have to get the student visa which is the last step in the whole process. However that is what they are trying to get.

These people put forward a net worth statement and had to prove they had an ongoing job, that they could support this student while here. They did that.

Next they had to give a floor plan of their house showing they had a room for this girl when she got here. That was kind of insulting but they got the floor plan for their house and faxed it off to try to arrange for this student visa.

Then they had to arrange for legal guardianship so that they could say they would be her legal guardian while she was in Canada on this student visa. They arranged for that.

Next they would have to get permission from the school board. They arranged for written permission from the school board for the girl to attend.

Then they received a fax saying that was not enough. They now have to have a transcript of the court decision that gave them legal guardianship. It was not enough that they had the paper. They now had to jump through another hoop and show the transcript.

All this is safe. This is what someone is trying to do to legally bring someone in on a student visa.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

What is wrong with that?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong with that is these people are Canadians by choice. They are relatively recent immigrants. All of their friends ask them: "Why do you bother? That is the legal way to do it. Why bother? Nobody does that when they want to get someone over. You just go through the refugee system and bring them in".

This girl should be here. I put a letter of endorsement on this girl's application. They reason she cannot come to Canada to get four years of senior secondary education is that the system is so screwed up that it is better to come through a bogus refugee system than it is through the legal means. That is what is wrong with this system.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Madam Speaker, it certainly is my pleasure to continue this debate in the House today regarding Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration and Citizenship Act.

Amendments have taken place in part because of public opinion, because of a need to address some abuses of our immigration system by criminals. Although the incidence of abuse is minimal, this bill will reduce the possibility for abuse.

I would like to spend some time on that process and on the statement I made regarding the use of public opinion. In this House public opinion emerges, is debated and is transformed into rules and regulations governing the behaviour and actions of the people, institutions, companies and so forth in this country. It is a very time consuming and costly process in a democratic society. If it were a dictatorial society decisions could be made instantaneously depending upon the whims and fancies of the dictator.

So far all the rhetoric we have received from the Reform Party clearly indicates they have the absolute solutions to all the major problems that exist in the field of immigrants and refugees. It is a very strong and dictatorial approach to problem solving.

Today the member for Calgary Northeast made two statements that all those who are in this House and those who made deliberations in the past have laughed in the faces of Canadians. He clearly indicated that Canada is an international laughing stock. The deliberations in this House of Commons both past and present at no time have deserved that type of abuse from the member for Calgary Northeast.

I feel very strongly that the member should apologize not only to all the present members of the House of Commons but also to those of the past hundred years who devoted their time and energy to solving the problems in our society. Above all he should openly apologize to the people in the riding he represents because the House of Commons is not laughing in their faces. They are not laughing in the faces of all Canadians. They are demanding an apology from the member for the type of ridicule imposed upon members of Parliament who represented his riding in years gone by and who devoted their time and energy to make this a much better country. That is the kind of dedication we would like to see in this Chamber. That is what a member of Parliament of honour and nobility would portray in this House as he tries to enhance the lives of all Canadians.

Yes, we do have problems in this country, but we will continue to search in a very positive and sincere manner for solutions to these problems. Problems emerge as people provide us with their opinions. Through studies and the multitude of strategies that we use in our communities the information flows and we have to make a list of priorities and deal with them using the resources we have, whether they be human or financial. The time factor is very important here in what should be dealt with immediately and what should be dealt with in the future. Long range and short range planning are critical as far as the deliberations of the members of the House of Commons are concerned.

One problem we have that has been mentioned by members across is the problem of selection, the problem of screening prior to a refugee or an immigrant being accepted into this country. What actually takes place beyond the shores of this country when an individual puts in a claim to be accepted as a refugee or an immigrant?

Contrary to what has already been presented by members of the Reform Party, for the viewing public as well as for members of the House of Commons I would like to clearly stipulate the process all potential immigrants and refugees must go through.

All immigrants to Canada are screened in depth by officers for security and criminal concerns. Visitors are checked against Canadian indices and followed up if there are previous adverse records. Visitor applicants from high risk countries which may pose security or criminal concerns are subject to additional screening in Ottawa. There is a mandatory delay before which a visa may be issued.

Contrary to what has already been presented by the Reform Party I would like to point out to all listeners that immigrant applicants abroad are requested for criminal purposes to produce a police clearance where such is available and reliable. In certain cases a secondary verification of this document takes place. The RCMP also provides support in verifying criminal record information in related matters.

Another point is these officers in selected countries abroad also receive and gather information on selected individuals who are suspected of war crimes or crimes against humanity. This information is used to prevent admission of such undesirables.

I have just given a portion of the strategies used in order to glean and to screen the applicants who wish to come to this country.

Most of the people who came to this country in the past and are here now are very good Canadians. They have chosen very wisely. They have chosen to come to the best country in the world. The vast majority of them turn out to be the very best citizens we have. They are extremely hard workers, dedicated and conscientious, constantly supporting the family unit, constantly honouring and abiding by those values that Canadians in general adhere to and support. They are not an army of criminals. They are not an army of potential thieves. They are not an army of potential deceivers.

We have to be very careful how we address this problem and how we accept the data that is being presented by those opponents to the immigration acts, not only on Bill C-44 which is being presented, but on all those acts that have been presented and passed in this House of Commons in generations gone by.

In support of what I have been saying, I would like to quote from the Toronto Star of November 6, 1994 where in a flippant manner an individual from the Reform Party has misquoted and used numbers and figures to serve a certain purpose. The purpose is suspect, the purpose is questionable. It states: ``Reform MP Jim Silye has insisted that RCMP documents prove a total of 1,935 people were accepted as refugees without any prior screening. Only later did police discover they had criminal records''.

However all indications from the RCMP, the documentation from immigration officials are that the statement is 100 per cent totally inaccurate. However it could have an impact in tainting the perceptions and tainting the opinions and attitudes of the people who had first heard it.

What we did find out is that the number was used when that number of people were being processed and had been fingerprinted. We have to be very careful how we use figures that appear in the documents and in public.

In my riding individuals approached me and were very concerned about the criminal element. The criminal element has been receiving a tremendous amount of attention in the media in the past few months. Every time a society, no matter whether it be Canadian or any other society in the world, goes through some negative process, a decline in productivity, in employment and so forth, in other words there is a recession or a depression, we will find without fail that immigration policies will be constantly attacked.

Every time it happened in our society there was a scapegoat that took a tremendous amount of abuse and a great deal of unhappiness was generated in certain communities because people did not take the time to understand and be compassionate. They listened to the kind of rhetoric that we are getting from the Reform Party that does nothing but incite fear in the minds of individuals wondering what is going on and what the Canadian government is doing and so forth. They are frightened. They are afraid for their jobs and so forth.

I could go on a great deal continuing with this debate but unfortunately time is running out.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member has 10 minutes left on his time when we resume debate on Bill C-44.

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

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I asked for an opportunity to comment on and criticize the answer given by the Minister of Human Resources Development in response to my question on December 6, 1994. I asked the minister how he could claim that his reform was supported by 96 per cent of the population.

This is called putting a spin on the figures. It is a very good example of the old saying that you can make figures and statistics say anything at all. The minister has turned this into a fine art. I carefully examined the results of the poll the minister used to support his statement, and I was very surprised when I found that the poll's originator, the Angus Reid group, reached conclusions that were sometimes the exact opposite of what the minister said.

Before I give you some examples, I would like to make it clear that in the interests of authenticity, I will quote the results of the poll as written. This way, people can hardly accuse me of the kind of behaviour I did not appreciate in the minister.

As my first example, I will quote question 4 which reads as follows: The federal government is proposing measures to reform social programs in Canada. Do you think it is a good or a bad idea?" On December 5, the minister claimed that "96 per cent of Canadians believe major changes have to be made in"-and here is the difference-"social policy".

I take this opportunity to remind you that the minister then accused me of misunderstanding. According to the minister's statement, we could expect 96 per cent of the people to answer yes to question 4. Surprise, surprise. Only 70 per cent of respondents thought it was a good idea. People thought social reform was a good idea but a comprehensive reform is a different story.

Can someone tell me where the missing 26 per cent are hiding? Not among the 13 per cent who are undecided or the 17 per cent who are opposed. I might add that the question to which 70 per cent replied yes referred to a reform and not a comprehensive reform, as the minister claimed.

Another flagrant example of inconsistency with the facts concerns Quebec's support for the federal initiative. The minister said that "when the survey is broken down by region, as many people in Quebec support the social reform proposals of the government as in the rest of Canada". This statement differs substantially from the authors' findings. Let me quote them on two issues. On page 7, they say that Ontario respondents were the most likely to say that programs should be completely revamped (64 per cent), while Quebec respondents were the least likely to give the same answer (44 per cent).

I note a 20 per cent difference between the two provinces. Is that what the minister calls equality?

My second quote is the following. On page 11, we read, concerning the proposed scheme for seasonal workers, that respondents from Quebec are much less favourable to these options; for example, 39 per cent of Quebec respondents agree with the amount of benefits paid being reduced beyond a certain number of applications, as opposed to an overall average support of 52 per cent, a 13 per cent difference.

One last comment. It is not by overstating the importance of an alleged popular support that we will convince the people of the merits of these proposals. It would be much wiser to stick to reality and, this way, preserve our credibility. This comment is valid today and it will still be when the reform proposal is back on the agenda, as we now know that political considerations have prevailed over the need for reform.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, this government has consulted extensively with Canadians in an unprecedented number of ways on whether and how Canada's social safety net should be improved.

These consultations as well as a number of independent polls show a clear consensus across all regions on the need for reform. Canadians want change and they want it now. In one poll 96 per cent of Canadians believe that some change must be made to social programs. In another poll after being questioned on all key proposals almost two-thirds of Canadians felt the government is moving in the right direction.

Support for the directions of reform has increased to 50 per cent in Quebec and has also increased in Atlantic Canada. During our consultations with Canadians over 600 organizations, including women's organizations, appeared before the committee. Over 100,000 Canadians participated in other consultations including town hall meetings, seminars and completing workbooks. Women's groups held a separate consultation process, as did aboriginal groups. We welcomed their contributions to the debate.

With respect to the hon. member's concerns regarding proposals to modify the unemployment insurance program, it should be pointed out that while income testing is one option being considered, 70 per cent of women who claim UI are not frequent UI claimants and would therefore not be affected by this proposal.

It should also be noted this government has taken concrete measures to address the concerns of female UI recipients. Recent changes to the UI program through Bill C-17 included a new 60 per cent dependency benefit rate for low income earners. To date nearly 78 per cent of claimants under this rate are women.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Madam Speaker, on December 15, I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to tell us why the Canadian government let the United States unilaterally change the classification of products with a high sugar content. I should point out that, because of that decision, Quebec and Canada stand to lose 2,400 jobs.

The minister replied that Canada was opposed to the position taken by the United States and had made representations to the U.S. department of agriculture.

For those who work in the sugar industry and who are trying to keep their job, these platitudes mean absolutely nothing. Since these changes occurred before the signing of GATT, the federal government should have taken action then. It should not have waited until it was too late and then use its commitments to GATT as an excuse.

The minister also told us at the time that the Minister for International Trade was in touch with his U.S. counterpart to make the Canadian position abundantly clear, which was very reassuring at the time. It is nice to talk, but it is even better to act.

Along with such evasive answers, the minister also promised that the best interests of Canadians and Quebecers would be protected swiftly and efficiently.

It would appear that the lion has shrunken to a pussycat when confronted by the American giant, since it seems that the restrictive measures taken by the Americans have been in place since January 1.

It is increasingly clear that Canada is the lightweight in these bilateral negotiations. The sugar issue will follow the red wheat and durum wheat issues on the list of good examples of the federal government's spinelessness.

The federal government accuses us left and right of criticizing without making any suggestions. When I raised this issue last December, I strongly suggested that the minister submit the issue to the GATT panel. At that time, he replied that the Government of Canada would take all of the steps necessary to protect Canada and Quebec from measures taken by the Americans of which he disapproved. Since the government who is supposed to be protecting us is scared of its own shadow, we Quebecers have to defend ourselves, and there is not much time.

Worse yet, we learned today in a Canadian Press report that the United States intends to challenge Canadian tariffs on dairy product, egg and poultry imports.

Since we have lost the fight with regard to durum wheat, sugar, ice cream and yogurt, I fear for our producers and our processors. In one corner, the Minister of International Trade, a cocky little scrapper, and in the other corner, the American trade representative, Mickey Kantor, who knocks out our minister, our defender, our leader in the fight for our economic rights.

The sugar industry has already lost 2,400 jobs and will lose several thousand more. That is exactly what the Liberals wrote in the red book: jobs, jobs, jobs. They were right in the sense that-