Art Hanger

[Refugees, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that section 7 of the charter applies to everyone that is on Canadian soil. The Reform Party has argued that refugee claimants must be heard in a manner that is humanitarian and fair but which does not tie up the judicial system with endless legal wrangling.

Will the minister of immigration agree that it could be necessary to amend the Constitution in order to limit the ability of non-residents to endlessly tie up our refugee determination and legal systems with appeals?

[Immigration, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this reasonable motion. It is only a shame that this motion did not originate with the government. It seems that the government has a great deal to learn, at least as far as immigration policy is concerned, from its own backbenchers and especially from my hon. colleague, the author of this motion.

The fact that a motion like this even requires debate and is not already government policy is a reflection of the power that special interests have exercised and continue to exercise on government policy.

We currently have an immigration policy as outlined in the Liberal red book that is literally based on nothing. This government is allowing nearly 1 per cent of the population to come into the country this year as immigrants; 250,000 immigrants. At the same time Canada is experiencing a level of unemployment that is denying jobs to 1.5 million people.

The government can offer no rationale for this level of immigration. It is not derived from economic research, since the experts are agreed that immigration does not add to the wealth of Canada. Over the long term economic forecasts suggest that our current levels will actually lower the average income of all Canadians. There is no evidence that immigrants create more jobs than they take. At best the job and wealth creating effects of immigration are neutral.

There are data to back up arguments for restricting immigration during times of recession. There are data that clearly suggest that immigration should be tied to the economy. Moreover, it is only common sense that immigration should serve one primary role, to supplement our labour force to strengthen the economy and contribute to Canada's economic growth. That is not the agenda of this government at present and that is not the agenda of the immigration industry.

There is no question that immigration could be made to work in the interests of the economy and the interests of Canadians. There is a simple recipe for success. That recipe is to cut the numbers of immigrants, especially during hard times such as the one that we are currently facing and ensure that immigrants who come into Canada are chosen for their ability to quickly and successfully integrate into the economy and to make an immediate contribution.

The way that we can do that is to ensure that the bulk of immigrants come in under the point system. Currently however only 15 per cent of immigrants come in this way. The rest are family class and refugees.

Over the summer a poll was conducted by the immigration association. One of the questions that was put to over 1,000 people across the country is the following: "Would you approve or disapprove of a proposal to place restrictions on the entry of immigrants who may compete with unemployed Canadians during times of high unemployment in the country?" The answer to that question was an overwhelming yes. Canadians would approve of restricting immigration levels if it was determined that the job market could not accommodate newcomers. Sixty-seven per cent of Canadians approved. In political terms that is an overwhelming majority.

That is not the only poll around. Earlier in the year the department of immigration commissioned the EKOS polling firm to survey Canadians on their feelings toward immigration policy. In this poll a majority of Canadians surveyed said that there were too many immigrants coming into Canada, period. That is very revealing.

Canadians have always been among the most accepting people on earth. We have welcomed newcomers and believed that there was a place in Canada for them where they could contribute, where they could stake out a place and become productive members of society.

Now the majority are saying: "Let's tighten up. Let's shut the doors", and many of them are immigrants themselves. Frankly there is little wonder that this sort of reaction is occurring. Officials from EKOS have told me that there is a direct correlation between the state of the economy and the desire of Canadians to limit immigration.

They also inform me that this level of discontent with immigration levels was unprecedented. Some spin doctors call the results of the EKOS poll intolerance. It is nothing of the sort. It is a logical reaction to a strain on Canada's economy and that strain while apparently unnoticed by officials in the department of immigration and by the minister himself is being felt by Canadians who are on the streets competing for jobs.

Canadians it seems have again demonstrated that they know more about the consequences of policy than do the policymakers. What Canadians want is an immigration policy that works for them. Canadians are not intolerant.

This government and those in the immigration industry should bear in mind that when they call those who are opposed to current levels of immigration intolerant that they are indicating a sizeable majority of the population. Are we to believe that the majority of Canadians are intolerant? Absolutely not. They simply want change. They simply want an immigration policy that makes sense. They want an immigration policy that first and foremost ties immigration levels to the state of the economy in a real way, in a substantial way. Immigration can work in the interest of the economy.

Tying immigration to the state of the economy would be so simple and the benefits would be immediate and would be profound.

This minister and this government refuse to consider it. This minister and this government are at the beck and call of a small group of immigration lawyers, immigration and refugee advocates and government funded ethnic leaders who have a monetary stake in ensuring that immigration levels are maintained at the current level or even raised. If anyone doubts that the immigration industry has the ear of the current minister, they need only look at this minister's appointment to the Immigration and Refugee Board. That will give a clear picture of who is calling the shots.

It is time to take immigration back from special interests. It is time to put the direction of immigration policy into the hands of Canadians. They should be consulted. It is time to do precisely what this motion demands. It is unfortunate that it is not a votable motion. It only makes sense. I surely hope that this minister listens to what the Reform Party along with the majority of Canadians have been calling for for some time.

I hope the minister will look at the intent of the motion and recognize that it reflects Reform Party policy and the will of the majority of Canadians. I hope this minister does what is right and reduces immigration levels until Canada pulls itself out of this recession. I hope this minister does what is good for Canada. I am afraid he has not done this so far.

I applaud my hon. colleague for his common sense and for the courage to table a motion that flies in the face of policies that his own party has generated up until now.

[Aids, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have the Minister of Health taking action on a disease that is treatable and not likely to spread in Canada. Canadians expect that.

However, I find it ironic that the minister of immigration has refused the Reform Party's repeated calls for HIV testing for immigrants, a disease that is fatal, invisible and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat.

When will the minister of immigration stop treating HIV AIDS as a politically protected disease and put the health and safety of Canadians at the top of his priority list.

[Petitions, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present this petition bearing 181 signatures from my constituents of Calgary Northeast.

These petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Immigration Act, September 23rd, 1994]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should regulate the testing, under Sections 11(1) and (3) of the Immigration Act, of all applicants for immigration to Canada for H.I.V., and that a positive result of an H.I.V. screening be included, under the terms of Section 19(1) of the Immigration Act, as grounds for the inadmissibility to Canada of the applicant for landing.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House and address my hon. colleagues to argue this issue, although I do not think there is much of an argument in this case.

This motion to require the regulation of HIV testing for all applicants for immigration and the barring of those who test positive for HIV and AIDS from immigration to Canada is really only common sense. However, often common sense gets lost where immigration is concerned.

Let me briefly provide some background on this issue so that all members of this House can understand the importance of this issue and the importance of passing this motion. I do not need to tell anyone in this House that HIV and AIDS, and I use those terms interchangeably for obvious reasons, is a plague whose potential for death while having been intolerable and heartbreaking has yet to reach its terrible potential.

Thousands of Canadians have been afflicted with this condition. Thousands more may be. As tragic and devastating as this disease has been in Canada, AIDS in Canada has not reached the terrible scope that it has in many other nations, primarily developing nations around the world. There are nations in Africa where estimates put the rate of HIV infection at 20 per cent or more. That is a statistic that should sadden and terrify us all.

There is no question that the prevention of AIDS has been a priority for Canadians. We have engaged in education campaigns, campaigns to clean up our blood supply, efforts to prevent those with the disease from spreading it any further. However, there is one area of control, an obvious area, that no government has made an effort to enforce, in immigration.

The Immigration Act is clear on a couple of points. First, the protection of Canadian health and safety must be the priority of our policy. Second, anyone who suffers from a condition that would place an excess demand on our social or health services should be considered inadmissible to Canada. The language in the Immigration Act is as simple and straightforward as that.

In order to fulfil the mandate of the Immigration Act the immigration department conducts routine testing of all immigrants and refugees who apply for landing in Canada. To the credit of our immigration medical regulations it is a rigorous test. Here are a few of the things that we currently test for: tuberculosis, hepatitis, diabetes, debilitating physical conditions and even syphilis. Sexually transmitted diseases are currently tested for. Those who have them are screened out with the exception of the most dangerous of all sexually transmitted diseases, the one transmitted disease that is 100 per cent fatal, AIDS.

Why? That is a good question. I have asked that question on many occasions. Here are some of the answers I have received from the department and from the minister. I have been told by high ranking members of the immigration department that HIV-AIDS is not a contagious disease.

I am not kidding. They have told me that AIDS is not contagious. Of course they went on to explain that in their terms contagious means something that you can catch in the air from someone's breath or from a touch. Apparently you cannot contract AIDS in those fashions but everyone knows that AIDS is a highly communicable disease. To say that we need not test immigrants for HIV because it is not contagious is either the height of semantic stupidity or is political correctness that could cost hundreds if not thousands of lives and untold millions of dollars.

I have asked the minister if his government advocates the testing of immigrants for AIDS. He told me that the discretion for testing and recommending inadmissibility lies with the doctors overseas.

He said that if doctors detect traces of AIDS then they can, if they want to, recommend that someone not be allowed into Canada. I am not sure what traces of AIDS means. I suspect that the minister meant symptoms.

Needless to say, there are no symptoms of HIV. There is no way other than through a quick, cheap and easy to administer blood test to determine whether someone is infected. I said cheap in my last statement because several people have approached me asking how much this will cost. The answer is not much, from what I understand.

The AIDS test is one of the most routinely performed of all blood screenings. Blood screenings are already performed on all immigrants and the cost of including the HIV screening would be negligible. Even if it were a significant cost, so what? We are literally talking about life and death.

Should someone come to Canada infected with HIV, we the taxpayers are looking at a minimum cost of $200,000. That is a minimum cost to treat each patient until death. That is a cost we cannot bear.

The risk of admitting immigrants with HIV who likely do not even know that they are infected is one we cannot tolerate. I have asked immigration officials who are currently working on a new set of immigration medical inadmissability guidelines if HIV infection will be reason enough to declare someone inadmissible if we somehow find out that they have the disease. The answer was no.

They told me the same sort of logic which only some bureaucrats are capable of that the new guidelines use a five year window of medical service consumption. If an immigrant is not expected to use more than the average of medical services within five years of coming to Canada, then they are admitted.

Thus, HIV is not on the list because someone with HIV could remain relatively healthy for up to five years despite the fact that after five years, whenever AIDS kicks in-it undoubtedly will-the costs will be enormous and the risk before that time of transmission is great.

Also, now that doctors around the world have recognized the existence of HIV-2, a new strain of the disease that often takes much longer than five years to develop into full blown AIDS, there is even more reason to conclude that the five year cost guidelines the ministry has come up with do not make sense, not for this disease. That is precisely why we need the government to take specific action on this specific disease.

Canada is currently not testing for HIV because one, it is not contagious; two, doctors need to look for symptoms even though there are not any; and three, it is not expensive to treat. That is the logic coming out of the immigration system currently.

Clearly we need to jump start the immigration department into exercising a little logic in looking after the best interests of Canadians. This motion, when implemented into the immigration regulations, will provide that jump start.

I simply do not understand why this government has held out on the implementation of this measure but on my cynical days I think there may be some special interests that have the ears of this minister and previous ministers of immigration and that have nixed this common sense measure.

In case my colleagues on either side of this House think that voting for this motion would cost them votes or would raise the ire of a significant number of people, let me reassure members that it will not.

Let me also assure members that voting against this measure would cost votes. Allow me to provide some evidence to back this up. The immigration association conducted a poll over the summer.

One of the questions that was asked of over 1,000 people nationwide was whether they think people with incurable, contagious diseases should be permitted to immigrate into Canada. The result was 77 per cent of the respondents said they should not. Anecdotally, a radio station poll was conducted in Calgary just before the summer asking the same question. This time it was dramatic, if unscientific. Ninety-four per cent said that those with HIV should not be permitted to immigrate into Canada.

When was the last time any issue received this kind of consensus? That is the point. There is consensus on this issue. Granted, I have received letters from one or two individuals with a radical agenda who opposed my calls for HIV testing. That means little when compared with these numbers.

I can assure my hon. colleagues this is a consensus issue. Canadians were shocked when I brought to light the fact that immigrants are not screened for AIDS. Now that they know, they do support the necessary changes.

However, there is more to this than simply acting on the will of the Canadian people. Of course, that is a significant reason in itself for us to act. There is also the matter of doing what is best, doing what is right and doing what makes sense.

Canadians, including the members of this House, want AIDS eliminated in Canada. There is no one who does not want to see this plague eliminated. Given that, why are we not taking the most basic, the most proactive, the most obvious measure possible to move ourselves down the road to doing away with AIDS in Canada, preventing those who carry this disease from coming into Canada?

It boggles the imagination. I do not know how many of my constituents and citizens all over the country have written to me or have personally asked me how we could as a nation be so stupid as to not test immigrants for HIV and screen them out. My answer has been that I do not know.

Why are we not doing it when virtually every other nation on earth is doing it, when countries like the United States have gone so far as to prevent those who admit to having the disease from even entering the country as visitors?

Let me note this is not the intent of my motion. There is no way to screen visitors for HIV. Nor would it be feasible to

consider doing so. This motion would only affect those who make an application either through the immigration or refugee streams for permanent landing in Canada to become permanent residents.

Let me speak a moment about the humanity of this motion. I have been criticized by one or two of my colleagues on the opposite side of the House for not being humanitarian, for not being sympathetic to the cause of those who want to immigrate into Canada and who carry HIV.

Refusing immigration to Canada to anyone for any reason is not a pleasant task. Canada is the greatest nation on earth and one of the most desired of destinations for those who seek a new and better life in another land.

For these reasons Canada receives more applications for immigration than we can accept, even though we are accepting far too many. Canada must say no to some. There is no way around that. We cannot take everyone who applies. Given this fact, we as Canadians and as a government have some hard choices to make.

We have to devise rules that will screen out some and allow residency to others. In order to write good rules, in order to devise a just and appropriate screening process we must establish priorities.

In my mind the priority that should overshadow all others is the protection of those who have already been admitted to Canada, or were born in Canada. There is no other way. We would be doing a grave injustice to our electorate if we were to hold any priority above its protection and the protection of the services that government administers for it.

When some people apply for immigration to Canada who have a disease that not only threatens the safety of Canadians but is guaranteed to place a burden on our already crumbling health care system that is nothing short of massive, we have no choice but to conclude that the acceptance in Canada of these people poses a serious safety and cost threat to Canadians. Such immigrants must be excluded so that a place can be opened up for someone else.

Canada has no moral burden to accept everyone who applies to come to the country. We only have a burden to provide a good home for those whom we accept.

We as legislators have a duty to ensure that only the best, only the most fit and only the most productive come to the country as immigrants. We have a duty to protect our constituents. We have a duty to enforce the preamble of the Immigration Act which charges us to protect the health, safety and good order of Canadian society.

Immigration policy of late has failed in that duty. People have become disillusioned with immigration policy and with the people who implement it. They do not think that the right people are being allowed in and they see too many examples of good people being excluded. That has to change.

The motion is a small step in restoring some legitimacy to the immigration program in Canada. This is a small step toward convincing Canadian people that their protection is really our top priority. This is a small step toward making the immigration program make sense.

Let us take that step. Let us pass the motion in a non-partisan manner and improve immigration. In the process let us take another step that is just as, if not more, important toward preventing the spread of AIDS in Canada.

When implemented the motion would be a significant step in the war on AIDS. No one loses. Everyone gains. The people of Canada gain increased safety and a lowering of the burden on our medical system. Legislators gain by voting yes on an overwhelmingly popular initiative. The government gains by being handed an order of the House to move on something that is long overdue. Immigrants gain by having the status of their health thoroughly checked.

It is a hard decision to bar someone on medical grounds from coming to Canada as an immigrant, but so many people infected with this disease do not know that they are infected with the disease. While we will stop them from coming to Canada as immigrants, at the same time we could very well be providing an invaluable test and invaluable information to hundreds or thousands of people who may not know they are infected.

We are not doing a disservice to those who are infected since their fate, I am afraid, is certain. However we could unintentionally be doing a service to those who are infected but do not know it.

Finally, regulation is long overdue. It should be passed and it must be passed. There is no good reason for it not to be passed. It should not matter that the motion originated on this side of the House. Just let it pass and we will know we have done our job for the day and have taken a significant step forward in the protection of our citizens and the rationalization of Canada's embattled immigration program.

[Immigration, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, again from the minister's department we get the same mumbo jumbo, political double talk and no real, clear answers in reference to removal, deportation or whatever.

The minister is making a great to-do about his new immigration reform package which is currently before the House. Since nothing in this legislation would have prevented someone like Forbes from returning to Canada, is the minister willing to immediately undertake legislative changes to bar any applicant for immigration who has previously been deported for any reason?

[Immigration, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration neglected to answer a very simple, very straightforward question.

Dudley Vincent Forbes, who is accused of a shooting spree in Toronto over the weekend in which two people died, was deported not once but twice for breaking Canadian visa law.

My question is for the parliamentary secretary. Why was someone who has flouted Canadian law twice, both criminal law and immigration law and been deported twice, allowed to be sponsored as a spouse and returned to Canada?

[Immigration, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's bureaucrats want numbers cut. They want family reunification rationalized and refugee determination tightened. The minister's department, the overwhelming majority of Canadians and even a significant number of backbenchers in the minister's own party want Reform policy implemented.

When will the minister stop standing alone, stop pandering to special interests and do what everyone wants him to do: implement Reform immigration policy?

[Immigration, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this summer the results of a very revealing immigration poll were released. Sixty per cent of Canadians believe immigration levels should be lower. Sixty-nine per cent said sponsorship should be limited to immediate dependent family. Ninety-six per cent did not want people admitted with terrorist or anti-democratic backgrounds.

Will the minister of immigration admit that his policies of high numbers and extended family reunification and his recently released guidelines that fast track those with violent and anti-democratic backgrounds fly in the face of what an overwhelming majority of Canadians want?

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

There were 8,200 orders carried out; 1,200 of those orders were criminals and a minimum of 3,000 orders were against criminals who still remain in the country and cannot be located.

The member spoke of the collaboration between the Minister of Justice and the minister of immigration to deal with the matter of removal. I agree that is what has to happen. Under the terms of Bill C-44, however, removal will not occur at any faster rate than it is right now.

The minister recognizes that in the fourth paragraph of page 5794 of his legislation. It will be a lengthy process and we will be faced with the same problem that has been addressed by one member of the official opposition.