Debates of May 1st, 2000

Petitions

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 300 people on behalf of the staff at the taxation centre in St. John's East-Stafford.

They are looking for equity in the issuance of pay equity cheques. More specific, term casual employees and casuals who have not been on current pay since July 1998 will not get their pay equity cheques until the fall, while other employees received their retroactive pay equity payments in April. All employees are due these retroactive payments and I do not see why they cannot all be paid at the same time.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 45 residents of Newfoundland who wish to call the attention of the House to the degrading nature of pornography to individuals and to society as a whole.

They further call upon the House to urge the government to enact legislation with a view to curbing the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed on behalf of the rural route mail couriers of Canada.

The petition draws the attention of the House of Commons to the following: that rural route mail couriers often earn less than minimum wage and have working conditions reminiscent of another era; that rural route mail couriers have not been allowed to bargain collectively to improve their wages and working conditions; that private sector workers who deliver mail in rural areas have collective bargaining rights, as do public sector workers who deliver mail for Canada Post in urban areas; and that section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits rural route mail couriers from having collective bargaining rights.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was asking the minister at that time how Bill C-31 would impact on closing the door to criminal elements and gangs.

For example, on the front page of the Globe and Mail on the weekend there was an article about the Chinese triads who are infiltrating our country, or who have infiltrated our country, and are establishing a very complex criminal process which is taking advantage of our citizens, and certainly taking advantage of being allowed to operate in our country as citizens.

I would hope that this bill would stop these sorts of very terrible organizations from forming in our country. We have enough crime as it is without having to import it from China and other places.

We have some reservations about this bill. It is essential that the rules apply in the name of fairness and justice and do not result in a travesty of justice. The best example is that we will not allow people who have been convicted of crimes to enter our country.

I think that is a good standard; however, I do not think we should be totally inflexible about it, because a person convicted of a crime punishable by more than 10 years, and who has served more than two years, someone like Nelson Mandela, would not have qualified as a refugee to Canada under the proposed bill. I think we have to look at what sort of criminal records these individuals have and whether they were standing for human rights in their country, charged and put in jail. We have to look at those on a case by case basis.

Other examples are the people who hid Anne Frank and the brave Canadians who helped build the underground railway for American slaves. They would have qualified for stiff criminal penalties under Bill C-31. We believe that there are some problems with that, and I hope that in committee we would be able to resolve some of those issues.

We also look forward to the minister's invitation to review and have some input into the regulations. She indicated in the House earlier today that all stakeholders, caucuses and political parties would have an opportunity to mould the regulations of this bill. I am looking forward to having our critic, our caucus and our party make recommendations with respect to streamlining the regulations, making them as fair as possible.

In summary, we in the NDP believe that the Immigration Act has to be modernized. It has to be toughened up. The two approaches this act takes, being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, are important elements, but we should also open the door for those who legitimately have grounds for immigrating to our country to allow those people in.

We have to have the resources backed up by the treasury of Canada to allow that to happen. This means more resources in the consulates and embassies of Canada around the world. One of the biggest problems we have had, for example, is with our embassy in Beijing. We cannot talk to people there. We only get a recorded message. Anybody who wishes to make application from China to Canada has to go through a very complex and frustrating process. We are hoping that because of the increased resources that will be provided with the bill this will allow the process to be streamlined and allow potential new Canadians to actually talk to existing Canadians on a one to one basis.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-31, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

We have been asking the government for a long time to introduce this new immigration legislation, which was supposed to have been introduced last year. Whether it is late or not, this bill comes at a time when a lot of flaws and chronic problems are surfacing at Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Today I will talk about several issues regarding immigration and the proposed new bill. I will also touch on the auditor general's report on immigration issued a few weeks ago. It has brought to light problems that the government has been aware of for some time.

I would like to set out the recommendations I have brought before the committee. The minister has stated that the bill would be tough on criminals, but I am not so sure. The clauses of Bill C-31 on security are inadequate.

Before dealing with these issues and the bill itself, I want to remind the House that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is the party of immigration. In the 1980s, under a Conservative government, the number of immigrants had skyrocketed. In 1984, the last year of the Liberal government, Canada had admitted 88,239 immigrants. In 1993, the last year in office of the Conservative government, it had welcomed 255,919 immigrants. We know the value of increasing the number of immigrants. Figures do not lie.

However, we are also aware of the flip side: the abuse of the system that occurs all too often.

In the 1980s we introduced two controversial bills to deal with imperfections in the system. These bills, one of which was emergency legislation, were totally opposed by the Liberals. That is hardly a surprise. The Liberal theory is all about ignoring issues and letting them fester. Liberals do not take a stand on issues out of fear of losing the next election.

When dangers arose we took action. I can assure the House, during the course of this debate on the immigration bill, the PC party will continue its tradition of fighting for an efficient and effective immigration system.

We are familiar with the immigration system. That is why this party is looking forward to debating the clauses and provisions found in Bill C-31.

Just three weeks ago the auditor general released a damning report of the department. Chronic problems exist therein, problems the Liberal government has not addressed. Even worse, there are problems the auditor general had discussed before. Allow me to expand on these serious issues.

All newcomers to Canada must pass a medical test to protect Canadian society from the risk of disease. Criteria for medical tests are next to nil and have been standard for quite some time; 40 years. No testing exists for new diseases like HIV or hepatitis. Even more, physicians do not determine medical admissibility; officers do. Approved doctors carry out examinations and forward their advice to the officers. What medical risks are posed to Canadians? What new diseases are routinely transported to Canada?

Just this past weekend the American president announced that he had declared HIV as the number one security risk for the U.S.A., and we are not really even looking at it.

Sadly, the auditor general underlined deficiencies in medical examinations 10 years ago.

The Liberals need to get off their hands and address potential medical risks to Canadians. How could they possibly delay this?

Reading through the immigration bill does not provide any reassurances that the health of Canadians will be protected any time soon. Medical tests and health provisions are given very little space in Bill C-31. I am not satisfied that sufficient preventive measures are taken in the new bill. When will the criteria for medical admissibility be updated? What health conditions are considered to be a danger to public health? What diseases will excessively burden the health care system? These are only a few questions that the minister should address in this new piece of legislation.

The auditor general also addressed the department's computer systems. The systems are outdated and not integrated. Are these the kinds of computer systems that aid in determining medical and criminal admissibility to Canada?

The minister has announced a new global case management system which she says will cost $200 million. The department has received $575 million in new funding, but $209 million has been spent now. This new funding will be eaten up very quickly. Where does the minister expect to find the extra funding that will be required for the case management system and the increased administration brought about by Bill C-31?

No one will ever know how many criminals are admitted to Canada. Foreign police records may not be updated or reliable. Some countries cannot provide the information due to internal turmoil. The department's solution to this is to simply not require police certificates from 40 different countries. This is a preposterous means to deal with criminal admissibility to Canada.

That is not all. In 1998 over 1,300 ministerial permits were issued to people with criminal convictions. What kinds of people are routinely coming to this country?

Stiffer fines and longer jail terms may help in keeping criminals out of Canada, but we need to start at the source. We need to have a better detection strategy in place abroad to screen criminals. Simply not requiring certificates from unreliable countries does not take care of the problem.

I hope the minister sees fit to take an introverted look at her department and fix it on the inside. I hope the new global case management system will soon be up and running. I am not satisfied that the new bill adequately addresses the holes in the internal administration at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

As the standing committee discussed its draft report on border security I was able to secure two amendments in the final report. That amendment was the requirement for all refugee claimants to be fingerprinted and photographed at first point of contact in Canada.

It often happens that refugee claimants disappear and do not show up for their hearings. One statistic from the Immigration and Refugee Board in Vancouver shows that 71% of claimants did not show up for their hearings. Where are these people going? How many criminals are passing through? What threats and risks are posed to Canadians as these unknowns walk our streets?

As a party we are concerned about these potential criminals. That is why identifying these individuals at first contact is of prime importance. As a sovereign nation we have a right and a duty to know who is entering our country. In such a large country as Canada it is hard to keep track of every single person, but we must make some attempt to be familiar with who is coming in.

This resolution passed unopposed at committee. Members were supportive that it be included in the bill. Members can well imagine my astonishment that the minister did not include the fingerprint and photograph recommendation in Bill C-31. When I asked officials about this they told me that it would be carried out by way of regulation. This does not suffice.

Fingerprints and photographs must be provided for in the new bill. We should not allow such an important provision, unopposed by the standing committee, to be carried out only at the whim of immigration officials. To have teeth, this needs to be written into Bill C-31.

A second resolution I proposed at committee involves safe third countries. A safe third country is one a potential refugee to Canada has passed through on his or her way here. Safe third country provisions would be an efficient and fair means to deal with undocumented refugee claimants. These individuals would have a safe haven in a safe third country.

The thinking behind the safe third country provision is that it is mutually beneficial. More important, the refugee claimants are given a safe haven in a country they pass through on their way to Canada. Second, Canada is able to control its borders from undocumented arrivals.

I am pleased that Bill C-31 makes provisions for safe third country negotiations in clause 95. The government is willing to pursue the idea of safe third countries, but why has it not taken any action? Over the past seven years the Liberals have negotiated safe third country provisions with only one country, the United States. They spent one and a half years at negotiations with no success. That is strange since it is beneficial to both countries.

The minister must have an idea of what other countries are seen as potential partners. I would ask if she would provide the House with such a list and when negotiations will start.

One of the biggest fears of this party is the entry of foreign criminals. As we heard from members of the NDP, Canada has enough crime of its own. We do not need to start importing it. Though the new bill purports to toughen our present stance on criminals, much more can be done.

In the new legislation provision is made to bar individuals from the refugee determination system in clauses 31 and 32. Clause 31 deals with those inadmissible on the grounds of having violated human rights. Clause 31 refers to representatives “of a government against which Canada has imposed or has agreed to impose sanctions in association with the international community”. Would the minister please clarify a representative? Is it a government official or a national of that country?

Clause 32 of Bill C-31 sets out criteria for serious criminality. I do not understand why a serious criminal is only deemed to be someone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by 10 years or more in Canada. Why these numbers? Is the minister telling us that offences for which someone could serve only nine years are not serious? What does she mean by serious criminality? I am baffled at why the minister would not take all crime seriously.

Even more, there is not necessarily consistency between the justice systems of two countries. An offence punishable in Canada by 10 years may not be punishable in another country at all. I am not comfortable with these numbers. As they are set out in the bill I do not see how these provisions will be effective in keeping criminals out.

In the PC Party's platform for the 1997 election we spelled out our commitment to end patronage appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board. In keeping with good Liberal traditions, part 4, clause 150, states in black and white that members of the IRB will be appointed by the governor in council. No means of ensuring meritorious appointments are outlined in the new bill. This party and numerous witnesses at committee, including the Canadian Council for Refugees and the Canadian Bar Association, have called on the government to end patronage appointments. The government has again cast aside this recommendation in favour of its own partisan interests.

I believe an effective and representative opposition will criticize the governing party when necessary but will also give it a pat on the back if it does something right. I am pleased that the minister has changed the provisions and requirements for in Canada processing. Spouses, students and temporary workers will now be able to apply for permanent residency from right here in Canada. They will not have to uproot themselves and go through the delays in the immigration system once they have settled in.

This is important for me because I come from Lennoxville, a university city whose population increase in September with the arrival of students who come from all over the world to go to Bishop's University.

I have met many bright, talented, and ambitious students from abroad who would have liked to stay in Canada to start a new life. Unfortunately, I have also met some who did everything they could to stay in Canada, but who had to interrupt their courses or their work program to go abroad in order to apply for permanent residence. This is one measure that will be beneficial to those young people who are brilliant and full of energy.

Recently, a woman from my riding was a victim of the flaws in the current landing provisions. She moved to Canada two years ago to live in the Eastern Townships with her husband, who left her shortly thereafter. Since she had asked to come to Canada under her husband's name, she found herself in a critical situation. She must now leave Canada to be able to apply for permanent residence.

This is all the more difficult since she has four young children, two of whom go to school. That family has begun its integration into Canadian society, but the mother is now forced to leave Canada with her family to apply for permanent residence in Canada. On top of all the trouble this is causing her, she does not even know how long she will have to wait before being granted permanent resident status.

I congratulate the minister for the measures she is taking in that regard. It is a step in the right direction that will open our front door a little wider.

I am happy to express my point of view and that of my party on Bill C-31, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be at the forefront of this debate. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are the immigration party. We took the necessary measures to correct, as much as possible, the flaws in our system.

We have a good knowledge of the subject and, as we have done in the past, our party will see to it that Canada and its borders are well protected.

I will talk about a couple of cases which may illustrate why I feel a lot of things have not been addressed in the bill.

I had the opportunity to sit in on some interviews, the first one being an immigration case involving a young gentleman and his wife. The gentleman was an aeronautic engineer with six years university in another country which he knew from previous experience was not recognized in Canada. By the way, aeronautic engineers were being given high marks on our points system.

He was applying as an aircraft mechanic since he also had experience in that field. Unfortunately our points system had not caught up and he was not recognized as being in demand in Canada. He spoke both of Canada's official languages. He had a young family and a good background and was willing to establish in Canada. Yet, because of the problem with the points system and with not recognizing certain educational certificates from other countries, we are having to refuse people like him. That is one point where our system is missing out, and it is not being addressed in the new bill.

Since I do not have much time I will go directly to the problem of border security. Customs officers in many cases are our first line immigration officers. Unfortunately they have very limited powers, resources and training. This is being looked at.

In my riding I have seven border crossings. The government has decided that at one of these border crossings it will be training people and giving them the required power they need and everything that goes along with it. However, that is one border crossing. It makes absolutely no sense at all. That leaves six other crossings in the riding for which there are absolutely no plans for changing the people, giving them proper training and equipment and everything that goes along with it. Therefore there will not be a problem with any criminals who want to come across the border. They will just pick another border crossing.

That is not directly related to immigration but yet it attacks immigration all along the line. I will leave it at that and I will say that I look forward to bringing forth some amendments and having some good discussion and debate in committee.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting that a member of the Conservative Party pointed out that the Liberal government was not quite the party of immigration it claimed to be.

That is a good point. The Liberals always talk like they care about immigration, but they have let the system decay to a state of shambles. It is not working for economic immigrants who would help our country quite quickly. It is not working for genuine refugees. It is working all too well for bogus claimants, for people who come here illegally and for people smugglers. I do not believe the legislation will help the government deal with it.

At the same time the Liberals have allowed the numbers of immigrants to decline every year since they were elected to office in 1993. That party claims to be the party of immigration. It has allowed the numbers of immigrants coming to the country to decline every year since it has gained power. It is not what it says it is.

My greatest concern is not the number of immigrants so much as the fact that the system has collapsed so badly it just cannot deal with the problem of proper screening and attracting the people whom we need to help us build our country. We are at a stage where our country needs rebuilding.

It is very interesting that the Conservative member talks about the Mulroney Conservatives as having been the party of immigration. It is true that the Conservatives allowed the numbers in, but they were the ones following on the heels of the Trudeau regime who allowed our immigration system, which once was an excellent system, to collapse. They were the ones who allowed that to happen. They allowed many people to come in under a general amnesty. The numbers are there but there was absolutely no screening of people allowed in under the general amnesty. That is the way they allowed high numbers to come in.

The issue is how we help people who will benefit our country most quickly to come to our country and how we keep people out that we just do not want. The hon. member is not looking at the Mulroney record very realistically if he considers that the Conservatives had a good record on immigration.

Hon members should go to the 1990 auditor general's report. They were in office three years after that. The auditor general pointed out just a couple of weeks ago that exactly the same problems are still there in 2000 which were there in 1990. The Mulroney Conservatives did nothing to fix that up in the three years they had to work on the system. Their record is no better and I think the hon. member should acknowledge that.

My question for the member is about the issue of a safe third country. I have heard people who have worked in the immigration system at very high levels say that the reason our refugee system is working so poorly, if we wanted to find one reason, is the issue of a safe third country where refugees are allowed to make claims, even if they come from a country that is considered to be a safe country of origin. I have had more than one person who is very knowledgeable about the system, having worked in the system, tell me that had this issue been dealt with when the IRB was put in place under the Mulroney regime our refugee system would be working quite well right now. Because that was not done, the IRB has been a failure from the start.

How important does the member think this issue is of a safe third country and not allowing people to make refugee claims if they come from a country that is seen to be a country that respects human rights and is a signatory to the United Nations convention on refugees?

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the member's question. The safe third country is something that has been bugging me all along.

I have no problem saying that the safe third was brought in by our government in 1988 but, unfortunately, was never acted upon. When we talk to the people in immigration now they tell us that all they have done so far to the existing law that is on the books is spend a year and a half negotiating with the United States. No other country has been looked at so far, which is really very unfortunate because a lot of countries are out there.

We have seen cases recently, such as the group that came through India last summer from Tibet. We know for a fact that some of those people spent several years in India and others spent several years in Germany. They could easily have applied through those countries. Since we know that they came from those countries, had we had agreements with them, they could have been sent directly back there to apply.

I do agree with the hon. member on that. It was one of the recommendations I made in committee and one that was unanimously accepted by all members. One of the items I had asked for, and which was accepted, was that at the end of each year the minister would bring a report to the House stating how many countries with which they had been negotiating and how far the negotiations had gone. Doing that on a yearly basis would probably push things a little more to get this into the system.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech of the hon. member of the opposition.

I wish to remind him that the vast majority of refugees do not immigrate to Canada to settle here. On the contrary, they choose to go to what they call a third country, the second or third country they move to, namely neighbouring countries to their country of origin. In other words, those who want to leave Rwanda will first go by the thousands if not by the millions to countries next to their own, rather than come to Canada.

When we talk about the few thousands of refugees who wish to come to Canada, I think we must consider the issue in its true perspective and consider the responsibility we have, as Canadians, to accept them.

But most of all, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. How can he reconcile what he said with the facts? The fact is that when the Liberals formed the government in the 1950s and 1960s and even during the 1940s, immigrants came to Canada from Italy, Germany, Greece, and we also welcomed Jews who left Europe after the war. We welcomed them by the thousands and they became the very backbone of our immigration. Today, their children and grandchildren are Canadian citizens.

Therefore, when the hon. member says that the Liberal government of the day never championed immigration, I would like him to explain how, in the face of evidence to the contrary, he can reconcile his comments with the facts?

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question will be very short. There were not only Liberal governments at the time; there were two governments, the Conservative and the Liberal. Both accepted immigrants during the years the hon. member mentioned. I should know, because my wife is from Germany and was a member of this group of immigrants during the 1950s.

Times have changed a lot, needs have changed as well, and the Liberal government did not respond. We responded to these problems.

The Liberal government talks about 300,000 people. This is an approximate number. I have just asked the committee to examine this issue, and I believe it has agreed to examine the number of people we would need now, because the figure is not known.

When we ask the minister, she tells us the figure of 300,000 comes from the red book. I do not think so. The last study was done in 1980. There has been nothing since then.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the very thoughtful, balanced and wonderful position that he put forward on Bill C-31. He mentioned that he had suggested a fingerprint-photo ID with respect to the policy we are now developing for immigration but that the bureaucrats decided that it would best be done through regulation as opposed to legislation. For my purposes, it is always better to have it in legislation so that legislative rule is in place for people to work with that type of photo-fingerprint ID.

Can my hon. colleague tell me why it is that the bureaucrats are so insistent that it be in regulation as opposed to legislation, such as Bill C-31?

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it is more than just bureaucrats. The bureaucrats want to make the regulations but they are being pressured by the minister. It becomes a budget problem. The fact is that to do fingerprints and photos requires equipment. Equipment is available in most of the places but not everywhere. The problem is dollars. The only way we to ensure we have a system like that is for it be in the bill. We will then be guaranteed that the money will be there.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from time to time, immigration makes the headlines. This is especially true lately. Whenever this happens, there is always someone to say that Canada should amend its immigration laws to fix the problem of the day.

Since I came here, we have all heard this on various occasions in the House. However, the time comes when we have to look at the whole picture. Instead of asking for a particular amendment to fix a particular problem, we must overhaul the whole legislation. We have to rethink the way we do things.

Essentially, this is what the government has done with Bill C-31. After extensive consultations, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration recommended that we, parliamentarians, approve a new legal framework for immigration and the protection of refugees in Canada. We are not talking about tinkering. We are talking about a whole new act in tune with today's needs and realities.

I want to spend a few minutes today covering some of the fundamental reasons that Canada needs Bill C-31.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Chatham—Kent Essex.

I want to talk about why the very structure of the act should be changed. Much has changed over the almost 25 years since parliament passed the current Immigration Act and over that time there have been many amendments to the act. In fact, parliament has amended the Immigration Act more than 30 times since the late 1970s. Even with all those changes, we still have issues to address, issues that the bill does address.

Changing attitudes and changing court decisions have obliged governments to see family relationships in a broader light.

In fact, we in the House passed a law not long ago which recognized our view of how family relationships have changed. As a result, Bill C-31 allows the sponsorship of common law partners as members of the family class.

Consistent with modernizing benefits legislation, regulations will then define common law partners as including same sex relationships.

Moreover, we are now living in a world where smuggling immigrants and trafficking in human beings has become a very lucrative activity for ignoble and unscrupulous individuals. This past summer, we all read in the papers about the arrival of hundreds of people being used by individuals who make money on their backs.

We are not only talking about people being smuggled into Canada, we are also talking about people who are trapped in clandestine forced labour by criminals. The bill before us today deals directly and harshly with such criminals. These illegal migrants are just one segment of the growing number of migrant workers throughout the world.

On the good side of the coin, Canadians must review the way our government encourages people who could contribute significantly to our economy to come to Canada. We must see to it that our country continues to take advantage of qualified immigrants coming to Canada in a world where competition is fierce to attract those people.

We must not forget that, as a government, our first responsibility is to Canadians and to the standard of living they want to have.

This bill opens our doors wider. Overall, we need administrative processes that yield good results in a more efficient manner. This bill serves the taxpayers better in more than one respect while preserving the basic principles of equity and a good decision-making process.

It is impossible to patch up the existing legislation to integrate all these changes as well as the other changes that will stem from passage of Bill C-31. The time has come to pass new legislation.

What kind of legislation will serve Canada best in the very volatile world of immigration and refugee protection? Events have already shown us that we need a flexible, responsive piece of legislation, not a cumbersome, rigid law.

To answer that question, I want to turn to the very structure of the act, which this bill would enshrine in law.

This is framework legislation. In other words, it sets out the general principles and policies on which our efforts in the area of immigration and refugee protection must be based. It says clearly that the procedures for the application of these principles and policies will be generally found in regulations.

Some claim, and I think they are wrong, that we are preventing Canadians from reviewing these regulations and giving their input. In fact, there already are many regulations and I can assure my colleagues that the regulatory process in Canada is very transparent.

There are measures to be taken before any proposed regulations take effect. Members and interest groups must be informed and consulted in that regard. And, of course, with tools like the Internet, the government gives Canadians the opportunity to examine existing and proposed regulations and to make comments.

Even so, not everything can or should be in regulations. That is certainly true of something as important to Canadians as immigration and refugee protection.

Canadian immigration policies are built on three pillars. First, we are committed to opening our doors to families and to reunifying families to the extent possible and consistent with Canada's interests.

Second, we are committed to opening our doors to people who can make an economic contribution to this country.

Third, we are willing to meet our obligations to protect people fleeing persecution and to continue our commitment to provide assistance to those in need of protection consistent with Canada's humanitarian ideals and traditions.

Those are the principles underlying the current legislation that will also underlie the new legislation. However, it is important to note that they have never been included in the law before but now will be.

The framework legislation is based on those principles. It integrates the substantive rules that determine who should not be eligible for settlement in Canada. The bill would guarantee fundamental rights. It clearly indicates the criteria used for the determination of refugee status. It clearly defines the power of arrest. Under Bill C-31, the elements that should be included in the act would be included.

The government's decision to introduce the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as framework legislation is easy to explain. A brief overview of the comments on the current Immigration Act is enough.

Many consultations were held in the last few years on the new thrust this legislation should have. The opinions vary on many aspects, but nobody claims that the current legislation is a model of clarity and good public administration.

If we want usable and responsive legislation that can be understood, we have to put into law what ought to be in law. We should leave to regulation what is properly left to the regulatory process.

We will therefore be able to adjust rapidly to meet the needs of Canadians while ensuring that those rights and principles are duly respected. Canadians will have the opportunity to voice their opinion, which is as it should be in matters of public interest.

I will be proud to support this bill when we vote. I urge my colleagues from all parties to do so.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I wonder if the member for Laval West could help me. Was the member for Laval West splitting her time?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had indicated that I would be sharing my time with the hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I was paying such rapt attention that the time flew and I thought, gosh, could 20 minutes have gone by that quickly. It must have.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech and I have a curious question.

In her speech the member mentioned the different things that were changed in the Immigration Act. She drew attention to the fact that changes had been put in to accommodate same sex relationships. I am wondering how she envisions this working. If two young men were to go to an immigration office, and they said they were in a conjugal relationship, what is the government going to do to ascertain that is the fact and that they are not simply two friends from London who decided to come to Canada? How is that going to work?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is too early to answer these questions in detail. However, I can tell my hon. colleague that we had the same problem with regard to refugees. It is possible to ask very specific questions to determine if people who wish to immigrate have really lived together, for instance for several years, and if they truly have spousal status.

In the Province of Quebec, where I come from, the legislation allows same sex spouses to receive some benefits from the provincial government. The beneficiaries only have to prove that they have been living together for a specific period of time. I believe we could apply the same rules in the case of immigration.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member in light of her speech and the government legislation that has been put before us about the higher maximum penalties for the crime of human trafficking.

It is very commendable that the government has raised the penalties to a high level, life imprisonment, high fines and that sort of thing. In view of the fact that most of the people behind human trafficking and human smuggling do not reside in this country and conduct their business offshore, how in the world would the government and the law be able to enforce such a law when these people never set foot in Canada?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is extremely appropriate.

As we know, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has just returned from an official visit to the People's Republic of China, where she discussed this issue with members of the government, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and several governors of provinces from which the illegal migrants and illegal refugees are coming.

The idea here is to pass agreements with the governments of countries where these criminals come from, so that once we have established that these people have committed crimes and are not Canadian residents, action can be taken on the basis of the crimes they have committed. It is therefore a question of signing bilateral agreements with other governments, similar to those which already exist in other areas.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

On questions and comments, the member for Lakeland, a short question.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question that was asked by my colleague because I do not believe it was answered.

The point is that while the minister has put in place in this bill tough penalties for the top level organizers in people smuggling, life imprisonment or a fine of up to $1 million, the fact is that in the next 10 years we will not see anyone face that law. The people who would face the top end of the penalty do not live in Canada. The main organizers are in other countries, in the country of origin.

I would like the member to answer that question. I think it is good and I am glad it is there, but what good and how much effect is it going to have on people trafficking when in fact the top end organizers never will face our law because they operate outside the country?

I have a second question which is on safe third countries. Some people have told me that up to 90% of refugee claimants who come to Canada, who land at our airports or cross our borders, come through safe third countries. For example, many who come to Vancouver would land in Hawaii, so the United States is the first—