Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2005

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts (fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and funding to the territories), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-24.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

It being 6:09 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

moved, seconded by the Hon. Andrew Telegdi, that Bill C-283, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker,I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to lead off the debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-283, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the regulations.

I would like to commend the Liberal member for Kitchener—Waterloo for seconding my bill as well as the official opposition senior immigration critic, the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill, for her support, guidance and advice on this issue. She will be speaking later on the bill.

This enactment amends the act and regulations to provide for the sponsorship of foreign nationals who apply for temporary resident visas, commonly referred to as visitor visas. This bill would provide options and extra measures to allow higher acceptance rates for family visits while protecting the integrity of the system from queue jumping.

The sponsorship will enable visitor applicants who have difficulty establishing their bona fides to provide immigration officials with stronger evidence of their intention to return home before their visas expire.

Under my bill, a foreign national who has been issued a temporary resident visa as a member of the visitor class pursuant to sponsorship under proposed section 193.1 shall not: work or study while in Canada; apply for an extension of their authorization to remain in Canada; apply for permanent resident status while in Canada; or remain in Canada beyond the period authorized by their stay, even if the foreign national marries or applies for refugee status while in Canada.

Bill C-283 does not override the other requirements of the act. Let me make it clear that this suggested enforceable guarantee or the posting of a bond is not a prerequisite for a visitor visa. It is only an option or a last hope once a visa under the normal process has been denied. It is a solution to the current dead end which potential visitors face.

A Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant may apply to sponsor a foreign national to visit Canada if in the previous 12 months the foreign national made an application for a visa which was denied. Since we do not have any exit recording system in Canada, the visitor, upon returning to the country of origin, must, according to proposed subsection 193.1(5), report to an immigration officer or other representative of the Government of Canada within 30 days after leaving Canada in order to prove that he or she has left the country and so the guarantee or bond is nullified and void.

If the visitor fails to report, he or she will not be permitted to re-enter Canada and the sum of money deposited shall be forfeited or the guarantee posted shall become enforceable. The amount of the deposit or guarantee shall be fixed on the basis of the criteria set out in subsection 45(2), or it can be a percentage of the assets or net worth, for example, so that the amount is not punitive to the sponsors, who may be financially weak. This will prevent discrimination against poor sponsors and yet will be effective in preventing the abuse of the system.

Such a system is in place and working effectively elsewhere. Australia, for example, introduced a sponsored visitor visa class in July 2000. The new visa, in lieu of MPs' support letters, et cetera, provides decision makers with stronger evidence of a visitor's intention to return home before the visa expires.

The Australian government claims its sponsored visitor visa category allows the country to receive more family and business visitors while at the same time enhancing border integrity. Australia's global approval rates have increased and they are now roughly 20% higher than Canada's rates.

The increased international flow of goods, services and people means Canada must have an efficient and effective visa system able to handle millions of temporary visitors.

Each year the Department of Citizenship and Immigration issues over 600,000 visitor visas to people in over 130 countries. Under the Immigration Act, the burden of proof, or the onus, rests entirely on the applicant to satisfy the visa officer that he or she is coming for a temporary purpose as a visitor.

An immigration officer must make decisions quickly and be fair and careful. We know the challenges are well understood. Before deciding, immigration officers look at many factors, such as: the purpose of the visit; the applicant's ties to his or her home country; family ties; employment, financial and economic situation; and political stability of the home country, et cetera. The invitations or assurances from Canadian hosts or letters from their members of Parliament carry little weight.

The black and white rules of the immigration act result in a lack of compassion shown for applicants who may want to travel to Canada for legitimate reasons but who are barred due to the heartless consideration of the law.

For example, the only son of a seriously sick Canadian mother was denied a visa to visit her, but upon his mother's death after two weeks, he was given a visa to attend her funeral. How good it would have been if he would have seen his mother when she was alive.

In many cases, visitor visas are refused even to very close immediate family members or relatives wishing to attend funerals, marriages or social events in the family. Recently a young lady died in an accident. She did not have any close relatives in Canada. Her widowed mother was refused a visitor visa to attend her funeral.

Businessman Darmohan Gill in my riding needed a live-saving kidney transplant. A matching donor could not be found in Canada, but one was found in India. Mr. Gill was advised by doctors not to travel because of health considerations and the donor was repeatedly denied a visa.

There are cases of grandparents dying without ever being able to see their grandchildren. This leads to a permanent separation of families.

An applicant qualifies under the investor or entrepreneur categories but does not qualify for an exploratory visit for just two weeks due to lack of funds. That was the reason given. Can members believe that?

Almost every week numerous cases of frustrated constituents come across my desk. I am sure most members experience this too, where relatives of constituents are refused visitor visas. The truly sad part is that these applicants have little recourse once a decision has been made, and MPs can do nothing to help their constituents.

There is no appeal mechanism as there is in other countries like Australia. Sure, they can reapply, but seldom does the decision differ. In the end they just become a cash cow for the immigration department and the application fee goes directly into general revenues as an illegal tax.

According to CIC data, only about 23% of the people who apply for visitor visas are turned down, but I doubt those figures. Although the department boasts the success rate to be over 75%, one can just stand outside our High Commission in New Delhi any single day and check for oneself. No more than 20% are successful. I have seen this myself and our constituents repeatedly tell us that this is the case.

The reality facing applicants in countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Fiji or the Philippines, and many more, is much worse. The immigration officers are overburdened. They need to be better trained and more culturally sensitive to environment in which they work. To be fair and non-discriminatory, the case processing time should be the same at all our foreign missions.

The Conservative Party of Canada supports a well-managed immigration system to serve the best interests of Canada: a system that is fair, transparent, effective, efficient, compassionate, and sensitive to the needs of family reunification, skilled workers, economic migrants, genuine refugees and visitors.

Canada is a country built by immigrants. Immigration was and continues to be,at the heart of what Canada is all about and is accordingly of central importance to all Canadian citizens.

In the last few years, however, our immigration system has become sick. It is rife with systemic problems. It is a Gordian knot. And there is mounting evidence of abuse, fraud, corruption and incompetence in the immigration department.

There is currently a widespread consensus on both sides of the House and among the general public that our ailing immigration system must be reformed. My party, the Conservative Party of Canada, will be conducting round table discussions with people across the country and making recommendations on how to improve the immigration system and ensure that it is open, fair, efficient, effective and beyond political interference.

The Liberals over a period of time have given Canadians and immigrants bitter medicine by sugar-coating it. They have been fearmongering about my party and have literally abused the immigration system for political and electoral gains, but Canadians and immigrants will not be fooled anymore.

Due to major resource cuts by this government, there is not enough personnel to process the backlog of applications, and let us keep in mind that the first line of Canada's security is our immigration system. Sponsors' income checks and applicants' medical and security checks are not done in a coordinated manner. Sometimes one expires and the other is valid; the other expires and the first one is valid. These are people's lives the government is playing with and quite frankly it is treating them shabbily.

When I was first elected in June 1997, it took 22 months to process a family class immigrant from New Delhi. The former minister testified before the citizenship and immigration committee last fall that it now takes 58 months for family reunification, that is, 22 months then versus 58 months now. It is unbelievable. How dare the Liberals claim to be “immigrant-friendly”?

Immigration targets for Canadian missions do not come close to meeting the demand in high volume countries like China and India. The resulting bottlenecks lead to unnecessary delays, not only causing inconvenience but also creating incentives for people to cheat the system. By closing the front door, the government is encouraging people to try the back door.

Corruption at our overseas missions seems to be an inevitable result. I have personally uncovered three instances of corruption in our foreign missions and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Despite my pleas for action in this chamber, the systemic problem continues. There is evidence of immigration being used as a political tool for the government. Minister's permits often appear to be used for partisan purposes. In the immigration system it should not matter who one knows or whose campaign one volunteers for.

Arbitrary criteria are used to evaluate immigration cases. Staff receive inadequate training in local customs and traditions and they reject spousal cases based on outdated traditions and norms. Many of those cases go to the courts, where they win on appeal, but there are some unscrupulous lawyers and unregulated consultants who milk potential immigrants and visitors of their money without offering real service or value and thus add to the mess.

The Liberal government is absolutely disillusioned. I do not blame people who are frustrated as a result and go to MPs' offices. My office is overwhelmed with immigration cases. Eighty-five per cent of my resources and time is used for immigration work. I commend my staff for working so hard, particularly Sasha G, who works very hard on immigration cases. Her work is exhaustive and it is very stressful, but she still gives excellent service to my constituents. I applaud her efforts as well as those of other staff.

It is equally frustrating for constituents as well as members of Parliament when MPs can do nothing to secure visitor visas or to deal with the delay when we cannot do anything. Potential visitors who have not even visited this country always get a negative impression about it.

In conclusion, my bill will not cure all the problems that ail the immigration system. It will, however, be a positive step. Rather than only criticizing, I have come up with a solution-oriented approach, as I have done in the past for recognizing foreign credentials. Now everyone is on board to get the credentials recognized.

Foreign visitors are our emissaries. They help to create goodwill and they strengthen family bonds. Encouraging visitors to come to our country strengthens people to people ties.

In conclusion, Bill C-283 is certainly solution oriented. It is an improved approach that would minimize minister's permits and other political interferences and manipulations. It would make the system accessible, transparent and fair. It would tackle arbitrary subjective judgment, discrimination or weakness in the system. It would help to check the abuse of the system.

I will be interested in listening to the comments by other members. I hope that members will support my bill.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend across the way.

I have to say that the idea of asking people to put a bond or come forth with some security is not something that is new. I am sure that many times members of Parliament from all parties go to the minister and/or call the consulates abroad and say that they are going to guarantee it. It is not a new idea. As a matter of fact my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River brought forward something similar back in 1994.

I want to give the member credit for coming forward with some positive ideas. One thing he said was that he personally knows of three cases where corruption certainly was uncovered by his office or by him. I am wondering if these three cases are not in front of some investigating body. Would the hon. member table them in the House right now and/or give them to the RCMP? We on this side of the House want to get to the bottom of any investigation. Will my hon. colleague table these three cases today?

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member's question shows how ignorant he is about the case. It was reported in the national media when I had tipped off the RCMP commissioner as well as the minister. It was a Tuesday afternoon. Wednesday I was contacted by the RCMP and I provided them with the evidence. Thursday they left Canada for two different missions, one in New Delhi and the other in Islamabad. Based on my information seven locally hired employees were fired in New Delhi and three were fired in Islamabad.

That was not the end of it. I had another piece of information. I informed the RCMP. RCMP officers were sent to investigate. Based on the information I provided they caught red-handed two people who were locally hired in New Delhi exchanging the money for issuing the visas.

The third time I gave the information to the minister and to the RCMP commissioner and again action was taken.

I am very proud that I not only talked about it but some solid action was taken. Despite that, the government members have failed to act. Corruption is still going on in many missions abroad.

The member mentioned that this is not a new idea. I agree it is not a new idea but I ask the member, where is the action? Has his government taken any action? Absolutely not. The Liberals talk but there is no action.

I am at least coming up with a solution oriented approach. I have come up with an action oriented approach. I want the government to take action and accept my bill and make it a law so that we do something worthwhile which would be useful to help the potential visitors and stop the abuse in the system.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that Canada was built by immigrants and immigration is very important to this country. I also agree with the direction in the bill.

I still have not received an answer to a question I posed to the member in private. I think it is important that I pose it publicly. It is on the whole issue of the amount. The amount has not been considered in this bill. As well, could the hon. member clarify for us, is he not worried that the bill might lead to only those who could afford it would be able to get a residency visa?

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member's question is a very reasonable one.

I thought about the issue but I did not indicate a specific amount in the bill. There is already a provision in the immigration and refugee protection regulations. Subsection 45(2) stipulates how the amount for a particular bond or a guarantee is to be determined.

Moreover, I would not want the amount to be punitive. The amount can be determined based on the financial situation of the sponsor. It could be a percentage of the sponsor's net worth or assets. It could be a specific amount depending on the legislative inclusion which is already there. It has to be flexible.

I thank the member for extending his support. There are many members on the Liberal back benches who have congratulated me and have extended their support for the bill. I take this opportunity to thank all members across all party lines who have thanked me for introducing this bill.

As well, Bill C-283 was seconded by a Liberal member. I am sure that all members will support the bill and make this solution work for Canada. We are so proud that Canada is a country of immigrants. Immigrants are the backbone of this country. The diversity of their effort is not a liability. I would expect that members would support this bill.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to be here in the House to discuss Bill C-283, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

I accept the spirit of creative problem solving which the member says is his intent. His bill would essentially allow any Canadian or permanent resident over the age of 18 to apply to sponsor a visitor from overseas by posting a bond or guarantee provided he or she has not sponsored an individual within the last five years who has failed to abide by the terms of his or her visa. That sounds reasonable.

The idea of making it easier for more people to visit this country on the surface is something I think all of us could support. Many of us have friends or relatives in far-flung parts of the globe whom we often think about and wish to see, especially at times of crisis or celebration. The same is true for many of our constituents who are often forced to leave behind loved ones, close friends and business associates when they choose to put down roots in Canada.

Today the mechanisms we have in place that allow foreign nationals to visit, allow Canadians to be reunited with their loved ones, or allow people to welcome business associates or other visitors works well, but we know that there are problems. Canada's visa offices routinely issue more than 500,000 temporary resident visas each year in addition to processing many other types of applications. By comparison 150,000 applications on average are rejected each year, suggesting that there are in fact compelling reasons to do so. Therefore I am deeply troubled by several aspects of this bill.

Canada's experience with the use of bonds to ensure individuals comply with the terms of their visas is spotty at best. Many of us remember the disappearance of an entire boatload of illegal migrants in 1999 after bonds were posted to ensure that they would report for the hearing process, yet they disappeared.

Investigators from Citizenship and Immigration Canada subsequently said that many of the individuals who posted these bonds had connections to smuggling organizations and that the migrants made their way to the U.S. It is fairly safe to say that bonds alone in this case provided an ineffective deterrent to flight. Such is the reality of a world where individuals are willing to pay smugglers tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for the chance to come to Canada to find a better life. For a bond to be effective it would have to be high enough to prevent that counteractive smuggling bond that is posted. In doing that we immediately discriminate against families with low incomes. We do not allow for those families to post that kind of bond that would make it effective.

Under the terms of Bill C-283, today's practice of requiring bonds at ports of entry under certain circumstances and for certain individuals would therefore essentially have to be extended to overseas visa offices. This would result in a much heavier administrative burden and the need for substantially more resources. Currently we have huge inventory backlogs because of those resources, which are not able to deal with the heavy backlogs.

Bill C-283 would require more resources to deal with and investigate each sponsorship application to ensure that the financial resources were not linked to organized crime. It would require more resources to assess a sponsor's credit worthiness and to confirm his or her identity and status in Canada. More resources would have to go toward processing applications. Canada would have to introduce an exit control system to ensure that persons complied with the bonds. That would take more processing, more paperwork and more resources. Application processing times and delays would therefore increase and not decrease.

Other departments such as the Canada Border Services Agency and Foreign Affairs Canada would also be negatively impacted. All this would happen with very little return in the form of a substantial increase in the number of visitors to Canada since visa offices in most cases would not likely be swayed by the offer of a bond if the application for a visa had been found questionable on other criteria.

One aspect of the bill that I particularly want to point out and which I find very disturbing is its apparent lack of regard for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's international obligations under UN conventions. Clause 5 would add a new subsection to the immigration and refugee protection regulations stipulating that a foreign national who comes to Canada under the terms of a visitor visa bond must leave the country at the end of that period authorized for that stay even if the person applies for refugee status while in Canada.

Such a clause could mean that they would have to leave Canada before their refugee claim has been assessed on the merits of a fair and impartial tribunal.

Such a provision appears contrary to section 7 of the charter which talks about the risk of harm to the person if they go back and, therefore, the need to follow through on a refugee application. Moreover, it could lead to violations of Canada's obligations under UN conventions not to return anyone to a country where they face torture or where they have a well-founded fear of persecution. That is because that section stipulates that once the period of their stay has ended they must return. That is a stipulation under the bond. We would therefore be in complete contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Canada has the appropriate mechanisms in place today to allow individuals from all over the world to visit. We also have a system that allows for ministerial discretion in cases where there might be a compelling personal reason for someone to be allowed to visit who would not normally qualify and under extenuating circumstances.

Our present system works well and processes requests in an expeditious, fair and reasonable way, but all of us still say it could do better. We know we could do better. The way to solve a problem with a system in which we are not only looking at visitor's visas but also looking at permanent resident status, is not to cherry-pick pieces and fix it by fixing the cracks. The way to solve the problem is to look at how we can make the whole immigration system, and the parallel system of refugee processing, work better. We have to look at the whole system and make that system more effective and efficient. Cherry-picking does not allow for that to happen.

I cannot nor will the government be able to support Bill C-283 or any other such proposal that contains these kinds of serious flaws and that has the potential to do more harm than good to undermine the stability and sustainability of Canada's current visa program and that also violates our domestic laws as well as our international obligations.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois welcomes Bill C-283 presented by my colleague from Newton—North Delta with pleasure.

The text amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Regulations is intended essentially to facilitate the issuing of visas through a sponsorship system and to bring about improvements to a system that was greatly in need of them. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle of facilitating visits by family members of permanent residents in this country.

I would remind hon. members that this measure is based on close family ties, and is intended to facilitate family visits and not new immigrants. Those who would be eligible under this measure, close family members, are already able to take advantage of other, existing measures in order to establish themselves in Canada under the family reunification immigration category.

Let us look at the details of the proposal. As far as the guarantee of return is concerned, this measure is intended solely for the relatives of visitors who have had an application for visa denied. What is proposed in Bill C-283 is that a close relative established in Canada will be able to sponsor a visa applicant and provide a guarantee, thereby allowing the applicant to obtain a visa and come to visit his or her relatives.

Bill C-283 applies only to close relatives: husbands, wives, children, sisters and brothers, parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews, and no one else.

It provides that the guarantee posted will be refunded only after foreign nationals report to a Canadian officer upon returning to their country. The officer or other representative of the Government of Canada absolutely has to be outside Canada for the visitor's return to be confirmed and the guarantee reimbursed to the sponsor. This deposit or guarantee forces foreign nationals to leave Canada once their visa has expired. It ensures that those benefiting from this measure will leave.

Note that, under CIC's current voluntary return policy, there are no mechanisms to monitor the departure of individuals who are issued visas. This is therefore an improvement on the existing system. Later on, CIC will have to look into the issue of managing departures.

These visas may not be extended at all. They do not allow foreign nationals to work or study in Canada. They are clearly intended only for travelling. Moreover, the foreign nationals will not be permitted to apply for permanent resident status while in Canada and will have to leave even if they married or applied for refugee status. They absolutely have to leave the country and apply from their home country.

The fact that the bill ensures the return to the country of origin reduces the risk of compromising the primary intention of the legislation. It seems to create an incentive to reduce the amount of abuse and to discourage people from trying to enter the country permanently this way.

I want to commend my colleague for his interest in nurturing the family values of Canadians and Quebeckers by relaxing the rules for visits by close relatives.

As I was saying earlier, currently only officials have the authority to issue visas. Bill C-283 aims at giving visa applicants more chances by reducing the discretionary power of CIC personnel. It gives power and responsibility to the citizen.

This legislation fights the democratic deficit that exists in all aspects of our society. It is a small measure, a drop in the bucket, but its symbolic significance is much greater than it may seem at first.

The Prime Minister cannot be against this principle, he who is constantly trying to find ways to bring citizens closer to the decision-making process. Well, this is a fine example of how to do just that.

The bill states that applications can only be made if an application was previously denied by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. In other words, not every citizen will automatically resort to Bill C-283. Otherwise, the department would be left with a door wide open. Instead, the bill offers the possibility of appeal where there is none.

I still have a few questions on certain points such as the workload and processing deadlines. I wonder about the proposal to issue visas individually, without grouping applications. As has been pointed out, the bill is very specifically aimed at visitors of the family class. It is common for people to travel with someone else. There has to be a way to make it easier to submit these types of applications.

Likewise, children should be allowed to accompany their parents, if that is the wish of the visiting family. Since this legislation is directed at relatives visiting from far away, it seems relevant to process a single application for all parties rather than individual applications.

It is also important to ensure that the issue of the deposit of security is fair for everyone.

It would be deplorable if only those who were better off could take advantage of this measure. The plan is for the officer to determine the amount according to a number of factors, including the individual's financial resources. But there must still be assurance that this is not a way of placing overly onerous conditions on certain applicants. Refugees must still be entitled to make application.

The intended purpose is to make it easier for families in Quebec and Canada who are far away from their loved ones to have them visit. It would be deplorable if some of them could not afford to take advantage of this. There is a control measure already in place for people who sponsored someone who did not fulfill his or her obligations. If this is the case, the applicant cannot apply again for five years. I would like this to be looked into. We need to be sure that this is indeed the best way to protect against abuse of this measure.

More than 72,000 visitor visas were issued in 2003. That is just the total that were granted. I am sure that some of the ones denied were refused on good grounds, according to the administrative criteria. That does not, however, mean that, if they had been issued, national security would have been endangered.

Bill C-283 will make life much easier for many families. The Bloc Québécois is happy to encourage such a thing.

Bill C-283 is clearly not in draft form. The bill has been polished since its first version and can now be referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It is legislation the country can use and that is why I encourage all my colleagues to join me in voting to refer this bill to the committee for consideration.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight to Bill C-283, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. As we have heard, this bill proposes certain changes to the visitor visa process.

Specifically, it allows for the sponsorship of foreign nationals who wish to come to Canada on a temporary resident visa under the visitor class. This bill would add section 193.1 which stipulates that a person who meets the criteria for a sponsor, as already defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, can apply to the minister for the authorization to sponsor a foreign national as a visitor.

This foreign national must be coming to Canada under the visitor class on a temporary resident visa. This foreign national who is being sponsored must not work or study while in Canada, may not apply for an extension of the stay in Canada and may not apply for permanent resident status. Finally, he or she must leave Canada by the end of the allotted time. The bill also mentions that if foreign nationals marry or apply for refugee status during their stay in Canada they must also leave.

This bill provides for deposits and guarantees that could be sought by the minister, and the amount of the deposit or guarantee shall be fixed on the basis of the financial resources of the person or group, or on the cost that could be incurred to locate the foreign nationals and deal with them, or to the costs to enforce the guarantee.

The foreign nationals must also report to a representative of the Government of Canada within 30 days after leaving Canada in order to prove that they left the country. The bill proposes consequences if the conditions of the visa are not met. If the foreign nationals fail to comply with the conditions of their stay, then the sponsor's deposit or guarantee is lost. The sponsor cannot sponsor again for another five years, and the foreign national cannot enter Canada again.

As we have heard, this bill seeks to increase the options available with regard to the issuing of visitor visas, especially when an initial application has been turned down.

Bill C-283 is of huge concern to my constituents in Burnaby—Douglas and I am sure constituents of most other members of Parliament. Applying for a visitor visa seems like such a very simple act and simple request. It is to share a visit with family or friends here in Canada. However, this simple hope all too often seems to become a complicated, totally frustrating process for too many people.

In my many years as a constituency assistant to a member of Parliament, I dealt with many cases of folks who had been denied a visitor's visa for a very simple family visit. In fact, I kept a box of tissues on my desk because invariably the frustration of that denial led to tears and much emotion.

The requests are so very straightforward, for a relative or friend to visit for a wedding, to be present at the birth of a grandchild, to attend the funeral of a family member. These are all key moments of our lives, moments that we all expect to share with family.

Nothing is more difficult than telling someone that a close relative will not make it to a funeral, a wedding or a baptism. However, there is also the hope for others to extend simple hospitality, something that I do not think we can undervalue. This is the hope to return hospitality shown when a Canadian visited overseas, when we visited family members overseas or the hope that a friend or family member might have the chance to see firsthand what our lives are like in Canada and what our country is about.

The refusal of these simple, straightforward requests causes terrible trauma for families. I have often heard from people who have had a relative turned down for a visitor visa that they feel like a second class citizen in Canada because they cannot have their relatives visit them here, whereas other Canadians do not seem to have that problem.

Often it is hard for people here in Canada to explain to relatives overseas why they cannot visit. It can cause problems for families because relatives feel that the Canadian family member did not try hard enough or, for some reason, does not really want them to visit. Some people are refused time and time again and there seems to be no recourse. There is no appeal. Only a new application is a possibility and this leaves families in a state of despair.

I am interested in this bill because it seeks to make it possible for people who would not have been able to visit relatives in Canada, because they were refused a temporary resident visa, the chance to do so. Other aspects of the bill include upgrading the invitation process into a full sponsorship process, which increases the options that people have.

The problems that may have impeded the ability of people to visit Canada include insufficient funds or what are considered not strong links to their home country. If a Canadian citizen could formally sponsor them, then their application may be more successful.

It is important for families to maintain their connections, even over many thousands of miles. I am very concerned about the need for friends and families to be able to reunite for a visit, perhaps to celebrate important family occasions.

My concern for the maintenance of these bonds is evident in the bill that I have introduced in the House which would allow for the once in a lifetime expansion of the family class definition so that other relatives can be sponsored in an attempt to bolster family reunification. I am sensitive to the fact that in our increasingly global society we cannot always remain physically close to our families and friends, but these ties remain and must be supported and maintained.

We need to consider how we maintain our edge in a world that now competes for new immigrants. Australia and the United States are also working to attract immigrants to their countries. Canada needs new immigrants. The government's own studies show that by 2011 all growth in our labour force will come from immigration and by the mid-2020s all population growth will come from immigration.

We need to ensure that those who choose to come to Canada believe that our immigration policies will support them and their families, and the hopes for their future. We cannot afford to further a reputation that says Canada will not allow simple family visits from relatives of new immigrants.

While I support the intent of this bill, I have some concerns. I have concerns about the inequality of requiring a deposit or guarantee. I understand that the intention of this rule is to make foreign nationals more likely to comply with the conditions of their visas for fear of losing a sum of money or damaging the reputation of their sponsors. However, this possible monetary requirement limits the people who would be able to take advantage of this opportunity to have a loved one visit Canada. It may favour those who are affluent. Not everyone will be able to make the necessary guarantee.

By emphasizing this option, we could be making it even more difficult for families that are not wealthy or that are of more modest means from enjoying a visit from a family member. I am concerned that this may make it harder for those families to enjoy a visit from a family member if the option of putting up a guarantee always becomes operational.

We need to look more closely at clause 7(d) of the proposed bill, which indicates that persons may not stay if they apply for refugee status while in Canada. There is a possibility that something will transpire in their country of origin, such as a change of government or a civil unrest, that will affect them directly and make it important for them to make a refugee claim while they are in Canada.

I do not believe we can stipulate that such a refugee claim cannot be heard. I am very concerned about that and would certainly seek that kind of change should this bill come before the committee. I do not believe we can in good conscience require someone to return in that kind of situation.

There is a stipulation that requires visitors to report to an officer or other representative of the Government of Canada within 30 days after leaving in order to prove they have left. I have a slight concern about that in terms of the overload that we already face in the immigration system. The system is overloaded. We see that everyday. We need to address the funding that the department receives and the organization of the department in order to deal with that issue.

I do not want to see us in a situation where MPs are acting as the go-between for their constituents and the minister. We cannot afford another level of bureaucracy in the government. I think we need to address this issue in the context of the overall functioning of the department.

On the whole, I am very interested in this debate. I am interested in hearing from constituents and organizations about this proposal. On balance, any proposal which seeks to address the situation of visitor visas, the refusal of visitor visas, and the barriers that families see to making simple visits with their family members in Canada, I believe deserves serious consideration.

I would be pleased to continue this discussion at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and I hope this bill is referred to the committee.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand and support my colleague's bill. The bill is very simple. It is an effort to address a very outstanding, difficult and serious problem for many Canadians, and people who have come to Canada as new Canadians and as immigrants.

The problem is that they cannot have the pleasure and opportunity to have visits from those who are dear to them from their country of origin. My colleague has put his mind to work and has discussed this problem with a number of people. He has come up with a pretty simple solution which would allow potential visitors to have their compliance with the terms of their visitor visa be assured by the posting of a bond.

The bond could be flexible. It could be more money depending on the circumstances of the sponsoring individual and the visitor, or it could be less but it could be and would be proportionate to the ability of the visitor and the sponsor to pay.

My other colleagues in the House have pointed out how terrible, frustrating and heartbreaking it can be not to be able to share lives with family in a meaningful way. Suppose for example, that one had a new child, a little baby and there was a lot of excitement about that, but one's own parents could not come to see the little one or the time could not be shared with one's sisters or brothers.

In the case of weddings, where one wants to gather the whole family together to celebrate and support each other, visitor visas can be denied. There are so many heartbreaking stories that we as MPs hear and it is unfair. A lot of times sponsors are Canadian citizens. Why should some Canadian citizens be able to share their lives and celebrations in their lives with those who are dear to them while other Canadians are denied that opportunity? The government tells potential visitors they cannot come in and share the wedding, the celebration of the birth of a child or grieve with their Canadian family members on the death of a family member. What kind of inequality is that?

However, the Liberals defend that inequality. They defend having two classes of citizens, some who can share their lives with their friends and family, and others who are denied that opportunity. Yet, the parliamentary secretary defends that kind of inequality. Shame on the Liberals.

The Liberals say that organized crime could put up the money or the system may be abused. Well, there is a news flash for us. The system is being abused by the Liberals and they are doing precious little about it. We just had this terrible case of Mr. Singh who came in on a visitor's visa permitted by the government. It took 16.5 years to get him out of the country, even though he failed every single time on his applications and appeals.

The Liberal government has no business pretending that it is concerned about abuse of the system. My colleague has put forward a very sensible suggestion. Safeguards could easily be built around this. Bonds are provided every day for any number of activities. The parliamentary secretary got up and said that we cannot have that. That is just ridiculous. She then said the charter could protect people who come in and the government could not ensure they leave. There is another news flash for us.

Just today there was a report of a fellow where a judge ruled he could not be sent back to another country because he might be tortured. This happens every day. This is no excuse to bar the door to visitors of legitimate Canadians and permanent residents of this country. I cannot imagine how these arguments could possibly hold any water over there. It is said that it is a problem that such visitors would not be able to apply for refugee status. Maybe we need to discuss that, but is that a reason to keep people from being able to visit their families? It is not.

The government pretends to be the friend of immigrants. It is always accusing Conservatives of having some anti-immigrant agenda, quite falsely and ridiculously. Look at what it does. The Liberal government is hurting many immigrants and permanent residents and their families by the fact that it has completely and utterly mismanaged the system.

What happens when a Conservative bill comes forward to fix one of the worst problems that separates families at important times of their lives? The Liberals trash it. That is the Liberal way. Nothing else can work, but the system they are running does not work. They are the administrators of the system that does not work.

Surely there should be some openness to sensible, well thought out proposals like that put forward by my colleague to fix the problems in the system. However, the Liberals do not want the system fixed. They do not want people to have family visits in a way that satisfies the concerns about whether visitors' visas will be honoured. Yet visitors' visas are not being honoured now. Helping to fix that problem should win the approval, the support, the enthusiasm and the gratitude of the government. However, it does not.

The parliamentary secretary says that there are just too many problems. The problems are with the government and with a department that is not being managed properly. It is time now that we work together in the House. I know members from all parties support my colleague's bill because it makes sense. It is a simple, doable, reasonable proposal that would allow families to come together without jeopardizing the safety of our system and some of the rules that have been put into place for visitors.

I applaud my colleague for his initiative, his intelligence and his good judgment in coming forward with a solution. We have all wrestled with this. We have talked to our constituents. My colleague across the way says that he has a box of tissues in his office because it is so heartbreaking for constituents when they cannot get together with their families because they cannot invite them to visit from other countries. It is a terrible situation for people. To be hard-hearted enough to turn down a sensible proposal to fix this makes no sense.

I appeal to the Liberal government and the parliamentary secretary who spoke earlier to rescind this rejection of something that could benefit so many people and families. I appeal to them to work with the Conservatives and with my colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP who have supported the proposal. Let us work together to help people. Instead of just seeing problems, let us see solutions. Let us support my colleague's bill.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to join in the debate. This is an issue that has been supported by members of Parliament from all parties. One of the strongest proponents we have in the Liberal caucus is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport who wants to open up the process.

Who are we talking about? What is at issue here so Canadians can put this in proper perspective? We have six million Canadians in the country who were not born in Canada. My colleague, the critic of the New Democratic Party, has mentioned that he has a Kleenex box in his office for when he has those heart-rending cases that come to his office and he cannot assist them. That situation exists with all members of Parliament.

So people understand what we are talking about, I will use the example of a young couple in their early thirties with two young children who came to Canada from India. They came to my constituency office. They had just purchased a house and were working at jobs that did not pay a whole lot of money, but they were managing. The wife was diagnosed with brain cancer and she had a very short time to live. As her last wish, she applied to have her mother and sister come over from India for a visit. She died within a month, and the visas for those people were turned down.

Imagine a young family with no extended family in Canada. The wife, husband and the children were going through a very tragic time. What did she want for her last wish? It was for her mother and sister to come and visit her before she passed on. That is the issue about which we are talking. I mentioned that the issue has been raised by all members of Parliament.

Bill C-219, which was introduced in the House on March 17 by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, spoke to this issue. The member for Surrey North had a motion on the issue. I look at the minutes of the parliamentary committee of December 2, 1998, Madam Speaker, when you spoke on opening up the visa process because too many people were rejected.

Let me conclude by saying that in 1993 we had a rejection rate of 12.9%. In 1997, according to officials, we had a rejection rate of 10%. In 2003, according to the notes from officials, we had a rejection rate of 21.4%, 143,058 people.

What is being proposed in the bill will not fix the system. It is not in its final form. However, I have listened to all the critics in this chamber. Let me make it clear to all members that the opposition combined on a committee has seven members, the government has five members. Therefore, the will of the House expressed by all the critics from the opposition parties is the majority will of the House.

There are many members on the Liberal side who have fought for some kind of improvement in the system which can be so heartless that it can deny the final wish of a young woman who is dying. That is in my riding. I also have a box of kleenex in my office and I have it particularly for cases like this. When the system fails, some Canadian gets hurt.

In terms of the justice system, a surety process is in place where provincial courts and other courts deal with this situation every day. It is time for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to start to come up with solutions that will serve Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to have some time in the House to speak to Bill C-17, the marijuana bill. I asked a couple of questions in question period, but the answers were less than adequate. Bill C-17 is coming up in due course and there are serious ramifications with it.

The government has introduced the bill to address the needs of young people who are caught with very small amounts of marijuana in their possession. They would not receive a criminal record for that possession. There are different things that also need to be addressed with respect to the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Something characteristic has happened here. There has been a gross mismanagement of Bill C-17. It is inadequate, and there is no national drug strategy around the legislation.

Bill C-17 would allow for the decriminalization of up to 30 grams of pot, which translates into 45 to 60 joints. A few years ago a bill was passed allowing people who were ill to use marijuana if they really needed it. It has been used by cancer patients and in other instances in controlled environments.

At this point in time it is easier to get drugs on a school yard than it is to get alcohol and cigarettes. Thirty grams of pot for recreational purposes is equal to 45 to 60 joints.

There has been no concrete research with respect to health and safety issues. In the area of health, it has been proven that there is 50% more tar on the lungs with the use of marijuana than there is with the use of cigarettes. Yet we hear across the nation talk about banning cigarettes and the serious health consequences of smoking.

Bill C-17 would allow 30 grams of pot, or 45 to 60 joints, to be used by young people without any ramifications. They also get a discount when it comes to fines as compared to adults. Young people who are caught with one to 15 grams of marijuana in their possession receive a fine of $100. Adults who are caught with the same amount receive a fine of $150.

I implore members opposite to take a second look at Bill C-17 before it goes any further. I implore them to take a serious look at the health consequences, at the law enforcement consequences and at the safety issues with respect to driving. Drunk drivers are fined more than someone who drives after taking drugs.

Bill C-17 is a flawed bill. It has not answered the questions about this problem, as asked by the public.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, in looking at this question, I think we do need to look very seriously at the component parts of Bill C-17 and at what Bill C-17 represents.

I think it represents overall the widespread view that the full criminal process is not the best way to combat the use of small amounts of marijuana for personal consumption.

The potential consequences, including the loss of job opportunities and the inability to travel to some destinations, is, quite frankly, disproportionate to the offence.

The bill responds to the report of the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs in the last Parliament. Rather than easing the restrictions on simple possession of marijuana, however, the approach in Bill C-17 should lead to a more effective and more consistent enforcement regarding marijuana possession which, I must remind the member, will still remain illegal.

In any event, while media attention has been focused on the possession offence, I think we need to look at Bill C-17 for its significant change in the sentencing of those who are involved in the cultivation of marijuana, which clearly the public is very concerned about.

In the bill, it proposes that if one is cultivating between one and three plants it would be punishable by a fine of $500 or $250 for a young person. This is probably more than one would pay if the police and prosecutors bothered to lay a charge for an amount that small. More important though, if a person is growing between four and twenty-five plants, the bill proposes a maximum penalty on indictment of five years less a day and eighteen months and/or up to a $25,000 fine on summary conviction. In the case of 26 to 50 plants, the offender faces a maximum of 10 years. Where a person cultivates more than 50 plants the maximum sentence will be 14 years or double the current maximum.

The government is well aware of the problems that marijuana grow ops have been creating in our Canadian communities. For that reason, Bill C-13 contains significant guidance to the courts as to when they should impose a term of imprisonment on marijuana grow operators.

If more than three plants are involved, the court will have to give reasons for not sending the offender to jail where: first, the person used real property that belongs to a third party to commit the offence, for example a grow op is located either in a farmer's field or in a rented house; second, the offence constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children in or near the area where the offence was committed. We know that some houses have been extensively modified to become grow ops and children are living in these homes. Third, the offence constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; and last, the person set or placed or allowed to be set or placed a trap, device or other thing that was likely to cause death or bodily harm where the offence was committed.

Clearly the bill addresses both the origins of the marijuana and the use of marijuana. We think it is a very important bill. We think it will go a long way toward dealing with the problem that needs to be addressed and hopefully meeting some of the hon. member's concerns.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I heard a dialogue from a set of notes; the canned answer to any question we might have about Bill C-17.

We on this side agree to stiffer fines and jail terms for marijuana grow ops, but the penalties are still at the discretion of the judges. We want to push for set mandatory minimum sentences.

I will give an example. A guy was caught with a $440,000 grow op with the estimated value of growing equipment seized at $4,000. He was convicted and received a 30 day conditional sentence in the community with a fine of $5,000. He made an awful lot of money out of that deal.

From what is on paper I have to say that there has not been enough research nor has there been enough talk among police associations. I just visited my police association in Winnipeg, Manitoba and it thinks this bill is a joke. There were recommendations that were asked to be put in the bill by law enforcement. This is a flawed bill and it needs to be looked at. The intent may be good but the fact is the research and the substance is not there.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think I was giving the straight talk on what in fact is in Bill C-13. I do not believe we are talking about anything that was canned.

It is very important that the member go back and look at that bill and look at the implications. Fourteen years as a maximum penalty is a significant penalty in terms of the criminal law and it really should have a deterrent effect. However until we have the opportunity to put it into play and where in fact people can react to this, I do not think that one can form the conclusion that the hon. member is forming.

Earlier the hon. member said that she did not believe that we had an effective program dealing with a drug strategy. When the cannabis reform legislation was first introduced, the government committed to spending an additional $245 million on Canada's drug strategy and a significant portion of those funds will go to the police to enhance their ability to detect and take down marijuana grow ops.

I think this is a good bill and the member ought to take another look at it.

[Jim Gouk, Conservative, Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to raise this issue. I know the parliamentary secretary, who will be responding to me, is very eloquent so I hope he will put his podium and canned notes away because I am going to turn it just slightly. I do not want to talk about the badges and the stolen clothes but if he recalls the question that we are dealing with, I talked about random checking, and that is the issue that I am particularly concerned about.

Random checking is where we have airport employees, everyone from concession operators on air side to the window washers, baggage handlers and everyone, who do not get regular security checks. They get random checks. They come and go, back and forth, and they are subject to random checks, which means a lot of the time they go through without any check at all.

We have talked to CATSA at Transport Canada about operating some kind of system for pre-security clearance for high frequency travellers, suggesting that this is probably a good way to cut down on CATSA's workload, to move the travellers more efficiently, to get more value for the money for Canadian travellers and to cut the cost down, seeing as how the government imposed 100% of the cost of this on the travelling public in an airline industry that is already in trouble. So we have random checking already in place.

Now, either the government believes it is safe, in which case it should introduce this for high frequency travellers who have been pre-screened and who have submitted to a full security clearance, or it should admit that this random checking of airport employees is dangerous and unsafe and that it will start doing absolute full security clearance whatever the ramifications might be.

The United States is already doing this. Several airports have a test program under way whereby they are doing just exactly this, pre-security clearance for high frequency travellers who have submitted all the information and gone through the complete security screening. Is Canada waiting to follow in the footsteps of the United States, to let the Americans do the work and then make the decision that if it is safe for them then I guess we can do it without going through this, or are we doing something on our own?

The final questions I would ask and hopefully get a response on are these. Is Canada consulting with the United States on its program of pre-clearance of high frequency, low risk travellers? Is Canada developing its own system of doing this and, if so, when can we expect to see something like this put into operation?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the matter raised by the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior on December 6, 2004, regarding air transportation security.

I want to assure all members that the Minister of Transport takes issues related to the security of Canada's transportation system very seriously.

Since September 11, 2001, the Government of Canada has committed $2.2 billion to further enhance Canada's aviation security. Transport Canada continuously monitors and reviews aviation security in Canada to ensure that it is effective in the face of any change to the security environment.

The Government of Canada has taken numerous actions since September 11, 2001, to further enhance the security of Canada's air transportation system, including: enhancing pre-boarding screening at Canadian airports: funding of over $1 billion over five years for the purchase, deployment and operation of advanced explosive detection systems at airports across the country, covering 99% of all air passengers. This technology for screening of checked luggage has now been implemented at major airports servicing the Canadian public.

The International Civil Aviation Organization has designated January 1, 2006, as the deadline for countries to have in place checked baggage screening for international flights. CATSA is on track with a national deployment plan for baggage screening and is on the way to meeting its baggage screening commitments by December 31, 2005.

Other actions we have taken are: an expanded program of RCMP officers on board selected domestic and international flights; increased funding for security modifications, including the reinforcement of cockpit doors; new limits on carry-on checked luggage and requirements for random secondary searches for all passengers travelling on flights bound for the United States of America, as well as their checked luggage; the implementation of an enhanced restricted area pass system for Canadian airports; and, random screening of non-passengers entering restricted areas at airports.

With respect to the issue of misplaced pieces of CATSA uniforms, as the minister requested, CATSA produced a report on this issue in December 2004. CATSA has subsequently engaged the services of Deloitte & Touche to conduct an internal audit on the current system program to manage and control uniforms. Deloitte & Touche has begun this work and has completed visits to selected airports, as well as to uniform suppliers. Once completed, CATSA will review the Deloitte & Touche report and prepare a response and action to be provided to the minister for his review.

In addition to the above, CATSA has also notified all its screeners to be extra vigilant at screening points and to immediately report any irregularities to their supervisors.

Although a special security pass is required to have access to restricted areas in an airport, Transport Canada has also issued a notice to all concerned Canadian airport operators requesting that they remind airport employees of the need to be vigilant both at airport entry points and on an ongoing basis in their workplace.

The government is satisfied that all necessary actions on this issue are being taken to maintain an appropriate level of security at Canadian airports.

I want to assure Canadians that airport security remains a top priority. We are constantly monitoring and reviewing our procedures to respond to emerging concerns and we will take further actions to protect the security of Canadians as required.

[Jim Gouk, Conservative, Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is why we have a problem. I ask the Liberals a question dealing with pre-security clearance for high frequency travellers and they give me a canned answer that has absolutely nothing to do with what I just asked. However let us look at what he did say.

He said that the government spent $2.2 billion. Are we getting value for the money? There is a way that we could provide faster, less costly clearance in the same manner in which the Americans are doing it and yet for some reason it is not good enough.

They are talking about enhanced checked baggage and yet they let employees go through who are not subject to checks at all, except randomly. They talk about secured cockpit doors, which has nothing to do with having people go through who are pre-cleared so we can speed up these lines and cut down the costs and the overall operation for CATSA.

In terms of secured cockpit doors, seeing as how the parliamentary secretary brought it up, I fly pretty regularly and every single flight that I have been on, at some point in the flight that cockpit door has been open. So much for secured cockpit doors.

He talked about airport employees being vigilant. They are the ones who are getting through with only random clearance. Who is being vigilant about the vigilant answers? That is the thing the government has to deal with.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, security is paramount to all Canadians when they travel.

I have travelled extensively. I have to reassure my hon. colleague, and as he said, being involved with the airline system he knows that Canada has one of the best security systems in the world to look after its passengers. There have been times when I have travelled abroad and have seen cockpit doors being opened, pilots going back and forth, having a smoke, talking to their wives in the back. Canada would not allow that.

I have talked extensively to pilots. I can say that if there is one system in the world that is secure, it is right here in Canada. May I remind my hon. colleague that if we were to take lessons from our good friends to the south on how they do things, we would certainly learn a few things. The reverse is that if they were to take some lessons from us, I am sure this system would go a long way.

CATSA has held international forums that people attend. Americans were invited. I am sure they will participate again in order for all of us to learn from each other and make the world a safer place.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was disappointed to learn a moment ago that the Minister of Canadian Heritage will not be replying to my question tonight regarding Victoria Crosses and their importance to Canadian history and that the answer will come from the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. My disappointment is no reflection on the parliamentary secretary, but I am very disappointed that the Minister of Canadian Heritage seems to believe that this is such an unimportant issue that she would not respond to me.

I asked very respectfully on December 3, 2004 how the minister intended to ensure that the medals that are important to the history of this country are not sold. She very bluntly told me that she totally rejected the premise of my question. It was an honourable question and a serious question.

The Victoria Cross is the realm's highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy. It has precedence over any other of the sovereign's awards. The cross itself is cast from the bronze of cannons captured at Sebastopol during the Crimean War. The design chosen by Queen Victoria consists of a cross pattée ensigned over a royal crest.

There were only 1,351 Victoria Crosses awarded worldwide since 1856 and 94 Victoria Crosses have gone to Canadians. It is my intent through a private member's bill to ensure that we not only uphold the rights of private property and give people the right to sell these medals if they choose to, but I want to ensure that Canada as a country has the right of first refusal to buy those medals.

We have had cases where medals have been sold out of the country. If it were not for a very distinguished member of this society, we would have lost the John McCrae medal. I do not believe that we should be in a position where we are depending on independent business people in this country to save these medals. It is the responsibility and the job of our government.

My private member's bill I hope will make it to the floor before the end of this session because this is something that I do not want to see repeated again. These are very important medals. They are a part of our history. If we allow them to be sold without having any checks and balances in place, I think we have made a serious mistake.

If it were not for the National Post 's Chris Wattie writing a story that went across the country and caused the outrage of legion members and citizens alike, we may not have even known someone was going to try to sell this particular cross. That is something that needs to be stopped, and it needs to be stopped now.

I want to ask for the cooperation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Veterans Affairs to work with me to try to put something together that would ensure that Canada's history stays in Canada. Many men have given their lives. In many cases they have been wounded and have suffered from those wounds for the rest of their living days. I think the Victoria Cross and other crosses awarded for valour are something worth fighting for.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the member that as a former educator for 20 years particularly in the area of Canadian history, I share her concern and her passion with regard to saving Canadian heritage.

There is nothing more precious than to be able to show future generations the symbols of the history of this country. I want to point out to the member that over 25 years ago, in 1977 the Government of Canada responded to the need to protect Canada's heritage by introducing the Cultural Property Export and Import Act.

The act controls the export of nationally significant heritage objects, including medals. It encourages through tax incentives the sale and donation of such material to public collectors where they may be preserved and made accessible to present and future generations of Canadians.

It is important when cultural property is threatened with export to give the government the ability to aid the cultural institutions, if necessary, with grant funds to help them acquire these objects.

Each year the act is responsible for the sale and donation of important cultural objects worth more than $100 million in Canadian collections. Since its inception the act has ensured the retention or return to Canada of over 600 nationally significant objects and entire collections that otherwise would have been lost to Canadians.

It is through this extremely effective legislation that the government acted, as it has on countless other occasions, to ensure that Canada's heritage institutions were able to acquire a medal such as Corporal Topham's Victoria Cross.

It was the export permit process under the act which first alerted Canada's heritage community to the possible loss of the medal. It was the act that allowed the government to demonstrate to the medal's owners the tax advantages of selling it to a Canadian rather than a foreign collector.

The member clearly is concerned. I want to point out to the member that if something can be improved upon, it is incumbent upon all of us to look at that. However, I would not want the member to have the impression that the Government of Canada did nothing. That is why this act is in place.

If the member has a way that can be helpful obviously in strengthening it, I am not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but I certainly will advise both the minister and the parliamentary secretary, that we have this private member's bill.

Clearly the object is no different from what the member is saying and what we are saying, which is that we need to preserve and maintain Canadian historical memorabilia in this country.

The United States would not have sold Sir John A. Macdonald's bed, as happened many years ago. We need to keep these things. They are a part of what makes us Canadian.

I assure the member that the act is there. If there are ways to improve it, then I think we are obviously open to that. However, I would not want to give the impression that the Government of Canada in this case or any other case was in fact asleep at the wheel. Clearly we alerted the community and that was very important.