Joe Fontana

[Medical Hall of Fame, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today we are honouring eight very special Canadians as they are welcomed into the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame. These leaders and pioneers have contributed greatly to medicine in the areas of muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, cancer treatment, cell biology, neuropsychology, disease treatment and genetic research.

The Canadian Medical Hall of Fame and museum is a national organization that was established in 1993 in London, Ontario to pay tribute to the Canadian men and women who mark the history of medicine and to inspire the next generation. To date the organization has honoured 49 of Canada's medical heroes.

I congratulate these eight laureates for their remarkable achievements. Their contributions have not only impacted the well-being of Canadians but have made an impact across the globe, and we thank them for their contributions. They too are the gold medallists of the world.

[Immigration, February 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express the absolute and unequivocal belief of this government in the integrity and the great value of all immigrants to Canada.

I was dismayed at newspaper reports today that quoted a spokesperson for a potential leader of the Ontario government as referring to immigrants arriving in Ontario as garbage.

Let me assure the House that I consider no immigrant to be garbage. This country and this province were built largely by immigrants whose hard work and love of Canada is one of those things that makes this country great.

This government has no objection to sitting down and working with the province of Ontario on a federal-provincial immigration agreement. We have concluded similar agreements with several other provinces such as the immigration accord with Quebec.

All these agreements have been successful to date in answering to the needs of the Canadian economy while welcoming those who came here by choice and by necessity to build the greatest country on earth.

I am asking that all members of the House join me in condemning such language on immigrants.

[Brain Tumour Foundation, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that this year is the 20th anniversary of the Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada.

Each year approximately 10,000 Canadians are diagnosed with a brain tumour. Brain tumours are the second leading cause of cancer death for children and young adults. They are one of the fastest growing causes of cancer death in the elderly. In fact, two of my good friends, David Murray and Emilio Grimaldi, passed away from brain tumours.

This national non-profit organization has grown from a very humble beginning in London, Ontario to become a leader with supporters in many parts of the country. It provides support services to several thousands of those affected by brain tumours. To celebrate its anniversary the Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada is launching today its virtual support centre website, one more way to connect more patients, families and friends for hope, information and support.

I congratulate all of those people associated with the Brain Tumour Foundation for their hard work and contribution to our nation.

[Committees of the House, December 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration entitled “Hands Across the Border: Working Together at Our Shared Border and Abroad to Ensure Safety, Security and Efficiency”.

I take this opportunity to thank members of the committee for their hard work in putting forward 67 recommendations that we believe will help our nation, our relationship with the United States and our international community in dealing with security threats at our borders, but more important, how we can continue our fine tradition of immigration and refugee protection in this country.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests the government to table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Medical Radiation Technology Week, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this year Medical Radiation Technology Week will be celebrated from November 5 to November 9. Medical radiation technology is and will continue to be at the forefront of medicine in the 21st century as more procedures will be based upon the use of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy.

Medical radiation technologists in all disciplines, like Elaine Buchner from London and other professionals from across the country, are frontline health care workers in a variety of settings such as hospitals, clinics, and labs. More of these professionals will be needed to meet the future needs of our citizens.

Recent large government investments in new diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy technology promises to benefit both the public and professionals involved with such state of the art equipment.

I ask the House to join me in recognizing Medical Radiation Technology Week and encouraging more of our young people to seek a career in radiation technology.

[Multiculturalism, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, October 8 marked the 30th anniversary of the introduction of Canada's multiculturalism policy. After 30 years of successes and challenges it is clear that the policy remains particularly necessary and timely at this difficult moment when harmony among people is threatened and our hope for a better world is being sorely tested.

Canada's multiculturalism policy emerged from a vision of a country rich in cultural diversity ever since its history began and was resolutely open to the world. It is a policy promoting recognition of and mutual respect for the many cultural communities that make up Canadian society. It is a policy that allows us to feel free and proud that we are Canadians without having to discard our culture of origin which enriches our entire society.

On this 30th anniversary of the introduction of Canada's multiculturalism policy it is time to renew our commitment to the principles and values that led to its adoption and supported the task of building a country, a land rich in cultural diversity and a model for the world to adopt.

[Terrorism, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I express my most sincere condolences to the families and friends of those killed as a result of the unspeakable tragedy on September 11, 2001. I also thank the people from every community across Canada, and specifically my constituency of London North Centre, who have taken the time to support our American friends by giving blood and helping in the rescue efforts.

In the coming weeks and months, and indeed years, we will be called upon in this place to make many difficult decisions. Perhaps the most difficult task facing us will be that of balancing the new concern for our collective safety with the longstanding Canadian values of acceptance and compassion.

We cannot allow ourselves to dictate something as fundamental as our immigration policies based on the terrible acts of a cowardly few. We cannot let fear change our way of life and the way we treat others. To do so would send a message to those who advance their own agendas with the murder of innocent civilians that they could win this new war.

It would also diminish Canada as a nation. We are a country built on the backs of immigrants. The diverse cultures represented here have made us aware of what we are.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize. I think that last week I might have referred to the member as being from Laval East or Laval West. I want to make sure that it is Laval Centre and she is in the centre politically also.

Before she leaves the Chamber I want to give her some good news. The government will support her Motion No. 12, her amendment, because we believe that the motion introduced by the member is a technical amendment to ensure that serious criminality as defined in this section of the bill is consistent with serious criminality as defined in subclause 36(1). We believe that this amendment does not change the definition of serious criminality or substantively alter the amendment made by the standing committee to this clause, because again the member will know that we have discussed this issue beforehand.

We appreciate the fact that the amendment made by the member for Laval Centre further clarifies the government's intent. We are prepared to approve it, just as we have seen in committee when the member for Fundy—Royal came up with a good amendment and we approved it, and the Alliance critic's, so the committee has been very open.

I want to make one final comment as it relates to what the member for Laval Centre talked about in terms of Canada being generous and compassionate. I want to reiterate what I think all the members of the committee heard. Throughout the country all of our witnesses were proud of the country's heritage, of its proud culture and proud historical contribution toward Canada's generosity in terms of refugee protection around the world. Ours is one of four countries in the world that takes in refugees, is compassionate and understanding of their persecution, of their plight, sometimes in their countries. Our country is one of the most generous on a per capita basis of the number of refugees.

The bill continues to talk about Canada's historical record, about the fact that we believe that Canada has a part to play in trying to resettle some refugees who are being persecuted, around the world. The bill will make it easier for refugees to be processed through the system.

There are a number of changes in Bill C-11 that will allow for quicker adjudication and decision making by single panel refugee board members, by ensuring that the system works really well, especially for those who are in limbo. We have heard of cases where people are still here after eight or nine years but because of documentation problems or a number of different situations they cannot be permanent residents even though they have been given refugee protection. There have been some very positive amendments put forward on Bill C-11 which will make the situation a lot better than it is today.

I also want to tell the member for Laval Centre that the committee has moved on the issue of rehearing a denied refugee claim where there are changed circumstances. Perhaps there was violence in the relationship but the woman could not bring it forward during an IRB hearing because her spouse was there and she was afraid. We have made it possible, thanks to the good work of the committee, to ensure that those facts are reheard by the IRB. While it is not a revolving door or a second kick at the can in terms of a second appeal or a second refugee claim, we appreciate that sometimes there are circumstances that could not be brought up in the first hearing, and under the bill, those changed circumstances would be heard.

I would hope that the member for Laval Centre as well as my other colleagues on the committee appreciate that some of their hard work is found in the amendments to Bill C-11 that they and members of the government have proposed.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 4th, 2001]

A serious crime.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by some members of the PC caucus. The member for Fundy—Royal was an active member of the committee and worked very closely with all members of the committee in a very co-operative way. The issue I wish to comment on has to do with the appeal rights of landed immigrants who have been in this country for a number of years

If in fact there was a serious criminality charge which caused a two year sentence, I want to assure the House that not only did we hear representations but the committee discussed this at some length. We did not take the issue lightly at all. The member who just spoke made the point that permanent residents who have been in this country for a great number of years may or may not choose to become Canadian citizens, that it is their decision. They are obviously fully engaged in Canadian society as they pay taxes, have families, have homes and so on. Therefore there is an attachment.

I believe there are a number of mechanisms before such a permanent resident would be removed from the country because of the serious criminality issue and they should be brought to the House for consideration. The committee took the issue very seriously, debated it and discussed it to ensure that some of the things that have been mentioned would be taken into account. The removal of permanent residents, regardless of whether they have been here for 3 years, 20 years or 25 years, and the significance and the attachment they have to this country should be taken into account.

I want to ensure that the House understands that while the amendment was worthy of consideration in committee deliberations and is worthy of consideration by the House, the decision to remove a permanent resident under those circumstances would not to be taken lightly. The bill would ensure that these removal orders were issued by an independent adjudicator of the IRB at an admissibility hearing. It would not be made by an immigration officer who would immediately move on a permanent resident who had been sentenced for more than two years. There would be a hearing of some sort by the IRB where the issue would be dealt with.

I should also indicate that before the referral to the IRB a CIC senior official would consider personal circumstances such as family ties and attachment to the cultural language of their home country. If people have been here for 15 or 20 years and for some reason, based on a serious criminality charge, they may be sent back to their home country, that home country may not have an attachment to them. They may have been here as children and yet not as Canadian citizens. Therefore we should take into account whether or not there is any cultural language attachment to their home country.

It is important to look at the immigration status and the length of time in Canada, as well as the type and nature of the crime. As we know, in the judiciary there is flexibility. A two year sentence may in fact be a little different for some other crime. We would look to see if the crime was of a violent nature. That must also be taken into account.

The final decision to send the report to the immigration division would be taken by a senior official to ensure that all factors have been given due consideration. In other words, it would be someone at the senior level. Once they look at the permanent residence, the sentence that they have received, the personal attachment and the value that they have to this country then the official would take this issue under full consideration.

I should mention that the IRB's decision is subject to judicial review. If the judicial review upholds the removal order there would still be the opportunity to seek ministerial authorization to remain in Canada for humanitarian and compassionate reasons. The member for Fundy—Royal wanted to make sure that the IRB decision did have judicial review, that its decision would not be taken lightly and that it would be done by senior officials of CIC. He also wanted to make sure the minister could ultimately review a case under humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The amendment speaks to how we could ensure that permanent residents are protected and the value they have given to this country would not be taken lightly. We have built in mechanisms that would not allow us to simply remove them from Canada on the basis of a charge without looking at their total contribution to Canada.

We sometimes wonder about the value of citizenship. As has been indicated, 80% of people who come to Canada move toward citizenship within three years. Why should people become Canadian citizens? These individuals realize that permanent residency does have status but citizenship offers more protection under the laws of Canada.

Everyone knows that we cannot deport citizens. Based on the bill, we may be able to remove permanent residents who have committed serious crimes or who have violated human rights and so on. In the past people did not want to make a decision as to whether or not they needed to give up their citizenship in their home country when they came to Canada. In one way this sends a message to those people that there is greater value to citizenship and that they ought to look at the additional protection they have as citizens of Canada.

Safeguards have been built into the system by the hard work of the minister, the committee and the member for Fundy—Royal. There is value to permanent residency. We cannot just throw people out of the country if they run afoul of the law.