Debates of Feb. 7th, 1995

Immigration Act

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was interested in the comments of my colleague just a minute ago. I want just by way of comment to expand on them a bit and then get his response.

It is rather interesting that in the last election in the wisdom of the voters of Ontario they elected 98 out of 99 members to this House from the Liberal Party, but I wonder who really speaks for the people of Ontario. The reason I ask that question and wonder why this issue has remained dormant as far as the follow-up from the members from Ontario is that with respect to what my colleague was just saying, there is federal funding to help with immigration settlement.

I am working from documents provided by the government which show that $90 million goes to the province of Quebec to help with the settlement of immigrants. There is $110 million that goes to the province of Ontario.

It is relevant to note the proposed immigration levels for 1995. In Canada the total immigrant and refugee intake is proposed to be 190,000 to 215,000 of which Quebec is only going to take 40,000. That is relatively interesting because if I divide 40,000 into 200,000 for a percentage it comes out to significantly smaller than the number that were accepted.

With respect to immigration by metro area in 1993, Toronto alone accepted 28.3 per cent of the immigrants coming to Canada which equalled 71,964 people. Why there are no Liberal members speaking up on this particular issue is beyond my comprehension. Clearly the Reform Party has to do it for them.

I do not really understand how they can take the figure from 1993 of Toronto accepting 71,964 immigrants and Quebec only accepting 40,000 in 1995, not quite half, and Quebec is guaranteed $90 million for the settlement of immigrants, whereas the entire province of Ontario only gets $110 million. There is obviously a lack of voice for the people of Ontario in this Chamber, particularly in the area respecting immigration.

I wonder if my colleague has any further comments he would like to give on this.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, it would be very easy to use this issue and say we could somehow be divisive about it.

I simply say that I believe those individuals from Quebec who are making the decisions are on the right track. We are talking now that there must be some benefit both to the immigrants and to Canada in immigration. In my view Quebecers have figured out that there is a balance. They have looked very specifically at what their needs are and I believe they are trying to meet those needs.

I would encourage those members opposite to think very carefully about that. Is there in fact an imbalance? I will leave that up to the colleagues on either side to think of very carefully.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. He made a few references to the situation in Quebec. We are very proud, in Quebec, of having a Department of Cultural Communities and Immigration, something you will not find anywhere else in Canada.

I do not understand why there is no department of immigration in Ontario, with the most immigrants, or in British Columbia, the province with the most immigrants in Canada on a per capita basis.

Quebec signed agreements with the federal government and receives transfer payments, because Quebec subsidizes COFIs, which offer French courses to new arrivals and help them get settled, find work, housing and so on.

The federal government and the provinces share jurisdiction for immigration. But English speaking provinces are at fault for never taking on any responsibility for immigration. Why? The constitution is very clear on this point: the jurisdiction is shared.

Quebec is expecting 40,000 immigrants this year; 42,000, next year; 44,000 the following year, because we have the power to decide on and set our own immigration quotas. I invite people from the English speaking provinces to put pressure on their individual governments to sign agreements with the federal government. This way, some of the problems can be resolved.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, Quebec's approach is the answer for everyone in Canada.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, like many of us here on all sides of the House I was not born in Canada, I am an immigrant myself. Many of us here are immigrants. I think it would be fair to say that immigration has provided Canada with many blessings.

The collective contribution of immigrants to Canada has been immense. We have built our farms, we have built our cities, we have built our quality of life, we have built our railways on the work, on the toil and on the immense sacrifices of the immigrant community.

We have to recognize that immigration has been to us a great benefit, a blessing. At the same time, we must live in the reality of our world today. I was interested in listening to my colleague from Bourassa. I must commend him for the way in which he approached the debate in measured tones and a constructive spirit. I appreciate this.

The hon. member says that we are going far too far, that the government's legislation is very regressive. On the other side of the House colleagues from the Reform Party are saying that the government has not gone far enough, that this legislation will not serve its purpose.

We stand in the middle of what may be two positions at either end of the spectrum. We say that today the reality in Canada is that a tiny minority-I think we all agree it is a tiny minority-abuses the system.

What we want to do is to say that if you are a legitimate immigrant, if you live by the rule book, by the law of Canada, then you are most welcome. The hospitality we give will be the hospitality that you have always received here. At the same time, if you breach our laws, if you use unfair or criminal methods to jump the queue, if you use fraudulent means to come into Canada or if when you are here you abuse the system in such a way that you prejudice the rest of us new and older immigrants and natural born Canadians, then there is a price to pay.

What this bill says in effect is that we will reward and will recognize the legitimate, the fair immigrant. At the same time we will say to the immigrants who take advantage of our system that enough is enough and they cannot do it.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Then he will just say: "I am a refugee".

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I gave you your chance to speak. Give me my chance to speak. Be courteous at least.

This bill wants to give certain powers to the immigration ministry and the immigration minister so that certain cases of extreme abuse are rectified.

The legislation will give the minister the power to intervene to prevent appeals against deportation where the deportee has been convicted of serious criminal offenses. The legislation will give us the authority to interrupt the process of Canadian citizenship acquisition when the applicant's claims are being investigated. This will make it possible to declare non eligible for immigration the persons convicted on summary proceedings in Canada or abroad.

We propose to remove the right of appeal for all persons involved in crimes of violence, involved in crimes involving weapons, sexual assault or drug offences, those crimes that have been punishable with sentences of 10 years or more. I do not think this is extreme. I do not think this is abusive.

I find it sad. I must join my seatmate here to say that I found it sad, that I felt the member for Fraser Valley West lowered the standard of debate in referring to animals, creeps and creepy crawlers.

His colleague from Macleod gave him a very good example. We can debate. We can differ. At the same time, we can use language that is measured in tone, that is constructive, that makes a point. You convince people far more readily that way than by using abusive terms such as animals, creeps and creepy crawlers. I do not think this kind of language helps the debate. It certainly does not raise the standard and it convinces very few people.

My hon. colleague from Kootenay East raised the question of statistics between Quebec and Ontario, whether it should be $90 million to Quebec, $110 million to Ontario, and dividing and adding and multiplying. When I listened to him in this debate I thought to myself what about human beings? What about people? People are not statistics. Human beings are not statistics.

We should all remember back to our First Nations, to our aboriginal people who have been there for thousands of years. All of us, regardless of our political stripes, regardless of the colour of our skin, regardless of our faith, regardless of whether we are young or old, are all immigrants. They have accepted us here, sometimes not willingly, but today with great calm, with great patience and fortitude.

We have to remember that all of us, whether we were born here or not, were immigrants too. We have to give a chance to the others who want to join with us. At the same time that we give them a chance we want to make it a fair game and say "Those of you who want to make a contribution, those of you who want to be true Canadians, we will help you, we will support you, we will give you all the blessing of our hospitality and welcome. At the same time, those of you who do not want to play the game, who want to abuse the system, there will be a law, a fair law to use in cases of abuse". That is the reason I support Bill C-44.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, continuing with the parliamentary secretary in this debate I believe the issue is for the people, particularly of the Toronto area, who presently under the current socialist government in Ontario have seen their taxes increase very significantly. As revenue critic we are frequently bringing up the issue that probably this federal government is going to be increasing taxes. They see their municipal taxes increasing and then at the same time they see that another jurisdiction, the Quebec jurisdiction as opposed to the Ontario jurisdiction, is given approximately twice as much money for the immigration settlement.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary might not agree that if we are attempting to create an environment in which people are not going to be hostile toward legitimate immigrants coming in-I agree with him, building Canada but I cannot help but wonder when there is this imbalance that the Liberal members from Ontario and particularly Toronto are not raising this particular issue. Would he not agree that with this imbalance, where Quebec has taken its affairs into its own hands and has said that it can afford to assimilate 40,000 people, whereas the federal government seems to be imposing much larger numbers on Ontario, particularly on the Toronto area, and the practical fact that people are seeing their dollars going further and further awry, that this is part of the reason for the hostility, some of it founded, some of it unfounded, nonetheless this does contribute to the problem.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the answer is very clear and simple. Are Quebecers agreed under flexible federalism, under federalism that works, that shows that it works, to share immigration duties with Canada? It provides all kinds of services to new immigrants that the federal government transfers money for.

It is perfectly legitimate. If tomorrow Ontario chose to do the same and take over a lot of these duties that would be worth compensation.

I think this is really fair under the system of federalism. If there is one example that is so clear of federalism at its best, it is the immigration system which is in use in Quebec.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to address the matter to this member regarding the difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada as far as immigration policy is concerned.

Reform has been saying for some time that all we want is a similar type of agreement for the rest of Canada as what Quebec now enjoys and really prospers under. That is the only thing we are saying. Quebec's numbers and levels are very satisfactory given the economic situation of the country. Quebec also cited for low immigration levels, the reason it had decided to go lower on its immigration levels, was economic problems within the province.

Does the member not think there is an economic problem in the rest of Canada too when he sort of favours the view that Quebec has taken on this immigration debate? It really is not part of the debate. It already has the matter settled in its own province.

The member basically accuses Reform of belittling the parliamentary process by so-called name calling and the like in the immigration debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been much more cutting in her viewpoints of Reform and the position we have had. This parliamentary secretary has said absolutely nothing.

I would suggest the parliamentary secretary look to his own party and perhaps attempt to assist it in being more diplomatic in its viewpoints.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, very briefly, I have never liked to wear Paris hats, Quebec versus Ontario, Ontario versus British Columbia. I have never been that kind of person. I am a Canadian. I believe in the Canadian state.

At the same time, fair is fair. The immigration system as it is today allows all the provinces to enter the same kinds of agreements that Quebec has entered.

There are negotiations going on now with other provinces. If a province wants to take over the immigration there are negotiations going on now with the provinces. To introduce Quebec and this other debate is not very constructive. I will not get into this game at all.

It is important to make sure that people always come first, regardless of whether they immigrate to British Columbia, Newfoundland, Quebec or Ontario.

With regard to the tone of the debate I will mention what I heard today. I heard one member speak about animals, about creeps, about creepy crawlers and I said that does not raise the tone of the debate. That detracts from it and that really makes it very unfortunate because it does not convince anybody. That is all I said.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis for his speech. I think it was a good speech, although I do not agree with its substance. As he stated, he is a Canadian federalist and I am a sovereignist.

Nevertheless, I should like to pay tribute to the English speaking community in Quebec for its interest, support and financial contributions in the areas of immigration and refugees, especially the Jewish community, which is heavily involved with refugee matters in Montreal and other cities. Having experienced hardship, I believe they never forget it, just as I never lose sight of my immigrant origin.

But I would put the following matter to my fellow member. It is difficult to accept that in regard to international mail, for example, an immigration officer may open and seize international mail if he believes that it may contain identity papers or passports which might be used for fraudulent purposes.

To my knowledge, no democratic country in the world gives civil servants the authority to open mail. It is always up to the judge to do so once reasonable grounds have been established to believe that a crime has been committed or is in the process of being committed.

The other part of my question pertains to senior immigration officers who are entrusted with several new powers. Immigration officers will for instance be authorized to issue warrants for arrest. In all democratic societies, a judge would normally do this, but this bill allows it. What do you say to that?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, unlike my hon. colleague, I did not get the chance to participate in the parliamentary committee as I am not a member. However, my colleagues who took part told me that there were numerous representations. There were representations from the Canadian Bar Association and other very credible institutions, who said that the bill was valid, that the principle of the bill was sound. This is not a stand-alone bill; it is part of a 10-year immigration reform. It must be seen as part of a whole package.

We took into account the representations made by these credible institutions and made 11 amendments. In today's context, I think that this bill makes sense. There will be a debate here in this House and I think that the bill in its present form is worth supporting. I hope that you will think it through and that we can count on your contribution and support.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

As I see no other members rising, is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ) I have been requested by the chief government whip to defer the division until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 6 p.m. today, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.