Eleni Bakopanos

[Witness Protection Act, September 26th, 1994]

I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the House to suspend the proceedings until noon.

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question and I would like to make a comment.

Bill C-44 is a law that thinks about the victims in our society. Despite what the hon. member said, we as a government are concerned about the victims. That is why we want to introduce the legislation.

I also want to bring to the member's attention that the minister has said he will collaborate both with the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice to make sure that the law is enforced. If the problem of enforcement is there the three will work together to make sure there will be enforcement of the law.

I understood the hon. member to say that there were no deportations last year, if I understood him. Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps he could correct me. Does he have knowledge of how many deportations were issued last year and how many individuals were deported last year?

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are just as concerned as the hon. member about the costs of our system. The minister has stated publicly that he is reviewing the whole process. We are taking measures to make sure the public purse is not being overly burdened by the system.

I would also like to say that no system is perfect. There will always be people who will find a way to abuse the system, any system. That is exactly why Bill C-44 is an important piece of legislation. We are trying to do our utmost as a government to plug those loopholes that do exist. However, no law is perfect and there are always people who will get around the law. However we are doing our best as a government to make sure there are fewer ways of getting around the law.

As far as sponsorship is concerned, I think the hon. member answered the question himself. The minister has tightened up those rules and will continue to do so.

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to establish reasonable measures in which to make sure that the few-and I want to repeat that constantly, because the image the opposition party gives to the general public is that these few people are in fact vast numbers.

I do not want to say that all Reform members stand up and speak about immigrants in a negative way. I really do not want my words to be misinterpreted in that way. All I want to say is that there are a few examples which are exaggerated by the media and some opposition members. Unfortunately, because members of the general public may not have the same opportunity to be in contact with members of our cultural communities across Canada, they may be left with that tainted image of someone having abused our system.

The reason I support Bill C-44 is that we are trying to do away with the loopholes and close the doors that lead to the abuse of our system and to also get rid of those criminals who take advantage of our system.

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that my riding includes constituents who belong to various cultural communities. These are the people who voted for me, and I want to thank them again for doing so.

I have had the privilege of working with these people for fifteen years. The hon. member for Bourassa knows that I have been working with immigrants for 15 years. In fact, these very same people agree that we must do something to deal with the abuse in the system.

I will repeat what the minister said, which is that we are not trying to penalize immigrants who have not committed serious crimes. We are only trying to eliminate the abuse that exists in the system and ensure that criminals are deported from this country.

You said something I thought was very interesting. You said that we favour European immigrants. I do not think the minister of immigration ever said that this government only favours European immigrants. It is not this government's policy, and it should not be, as far as I am concerned.

I repeat what I said in my speech: We are a generous society and we want to keep it that way. Genuine immigrants who are not criminals are aware of this. Canada will continue to keep its doors open.

What we want to do is close the loopholes in the law.

I find it rather unusual that we have one opposition party saying we are going too far and the other one saying we are not going far enough. This indicates to me that we are doing the right thing somewhere along the line.

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, hon. members of this House, I am proud to rise to support Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act.

Canada is a great and generous country. Its doors have always been open to welcome all people who dreamed of a better future,

people who came for a better life in a country free of civil violence or war in order to raise a family in one of the best countries in the world, as the UN so honoured us not once but twice.

These immigrants, people like my parents, became Canadian citizens and participate actively in all facets of our society. Canada's history is full of stories of immigrants who through their hard work and perseverance have made this country what it is today.

Throughout our history, immigrants have come to Canada. These immigrants included some individuals guilty of serious offences. Amendments must be made in order to put a stop to this problem and to correct some flaws in the Immigration Act. I want to discuss these changes, because Canadians rely on us to protect them and their children. They rely on the department of immigration as well as on Canadian police forces at the municipal, provincial, territorial and national levels. But first and foremost, they rely on the government to pass legislation that will protect their interests.

In its present form, the Immigration Act contains complex provisions as well as loopholes which allow criminals to abuse the system.

Every day, you meet people who were not born in Canada. These persons overcame various difficulties to come here with more or less money, and they adapted to our society. I am one of them.

If you ask these persons what they think of criminals and individuals who abuse the system you will see that, like the rest of us, they are frustrated, shocked and resentful. They also fear that all immigrants will be assimilated to these offenders.

Bill C-44 is an essential piece of legislation if we are to meet the expectations of all Canadians. It brings solutions to specific problems. We must send back those who are not deserving of our institutions and who only want to take advantage of our generosity, while hurting the reputation of honest immigrants and genuine refugees.

Canada's immigration policy plays a key role in our country's future. We believe strongly that Canada must conserve this policy and the changes which we are proposing today will help to alleviate the abuses in the system and the problems that exist.

The minister of immigration said, on August 24, at the annual conference of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: "I will not tolerate those who take advantage of our generosity and violate our laws. No Canadian should put up with such an insult. A good immigration policy is one that ensures a balance between equity and tolerance, on one hand, and law enforcement, on the other hand.

I do not want to have to go looking for these people; I want them out of the country".

Remember that Canada has an immigration program that is the envy of the whole world. We cannot let a handful of individuals discredit it and take advantage of us. We have a good program, but it needs to be changed and fast.

The problems in this area are long-standing. It would be pointless to search for their causes. We need to act now and to take whatever action is necessary.

I would like to take a few moments to go over the four-point strategy announced by the minister of Immigration last June.

First, we want to amend the Immigration Act in order to reduce fraudulent claims and improve law enforcement measures, which should help us stop criminals from cheating the system.

Second, we want to make some changes to the management of the immigration appeal division of the IRB and improve the decision-making process.

Next, we need to exchange information with the Correctional Service of Canada on parolees facing deportation, if necessary.

Finally, guidelines are being developed to ensure that immigration officers are better prepared when they appear before the Board to discuss the files of war criminals or people who systematically use an assumed identity.

Let us review the proposed changes to the act. Right now, the immigration appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board can allow serious criminals to enter Canada and to stay in our country for humanitarian reasons. The immigration appeal division will lose that authority and only the minister will be entitled to allow a permanent resident, someone for example who has lived in Canada all his life, to stay in Canada for humanitarian reasons or to deport him.

We need to prohibit people convicted of serious crimes, crimes punishable by a sentence of 10 years or more, from claiming refugee status. This should apply whether the crime took place in Canada or anywhere else.

Dangerous criminals will no longer be able to seek refugee status in their goal to postpone removal from this country. We need to ensure that criminals are not allowed to ask for refugee status.

We also need to regulate the problem of multiple applications. Last year over 800 people presented more than one claim for refugee status. Under the proposed legislation only the first claim will be studied by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

We need to stop the flow of illegal documents used in claims. That is why we are proposing to give immigration officers the power to seize identity documents from the international mail that might be used by impostors for fraudulent or improper purposes.

The minister instead of the cabinet will be authorized to make the decision in all cases of rehabilitation of former offenders. Once the Federal Court has determined that a security certificate is justified or not, it will no longer be possible to file an appeal with the immigration appeal division of the IRB. Let us take these measures seriously. Would we not all agree that we need to have all the necessary information before we grant these people Canadian citizenship? That is exactly what another of these changes will ensure.

The proposed provisions are reasonable and fair. Contrary to what our colleagues opposite have said, these provisions are in keeping with the Geneva Convention relating to the refugee status where crime is concerned. This is a question of justice, a question of democracy.

That is why our government is committed to maintaining an immigration policy which would truly put a stop to illegal immigration and ensure effective control of our borders.

In order to do that, we must establish a close co-operation between the various agencies involved in dealing with frauds and crimes, for example immigration officers and members of the RCMP and of the various police forces.

We need all the men and women of local, regional and provincial police forces if we are to better enforce the law. Only with their co-operation shall we improve our effectiveness in getting rid of undesirable elements. We created a partnership with the Correctional Service of Canada for that matter and foreign offenders will not be allowed to remain in this country once they have served their sentences.

In addition, the minister of immigration will be working closely with the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice. We are all partners when it comes to maintaining the security and prosperity of our country and in preserving our quality of life. These measures we are introducing will ensure the integrity of Canada's immigration and refugee system.

I will say it again, not all immigrants are criminals. Immigrants have been a part of the development of this country since the beginning of our history. Today, in this changing world, there is a constant movement of populations and the high number of immigrant applications poses crucial problems.

I am sure you will be surprised to learn that our officers have interviewed more than three million persons last year. Clearer legislation would make their work much more efficient. We all know that among the immigrants who come to Canada, some set up small businesses and contribute to job creation. We would be wrong to think they come here to steal our jobs. This is not my own saying; it has been demonstrated by statistics. Immigration is good for Canada and it must continue to be so.

Our intention in proposing this legislation is to eliminate the small percentage of abusers in our system who profit from the loopholes in our law. All immigrants should not have to be made to pay for the few individuals who take advantage of our country's generosity. Unfortunately this small group of immigrants is drawing the attention of the media and of course of the opposition which in turn sensationalizes these events and causes Canadians to question the integrity of our programs.

My experience of 15 years in dealing with immigrants has shown me that the large majority of immigrants want to live a peaceful and productive life. Just look around this Chamber and see how many hon. members are of ethnic origin. Many on this side of the House are children of immigrants, including the minister of immigration himself, who are now giving back to this country what this country gave to them.

Bill C-44 that we are bringing in today fulfils our requirements. It does not penalize those who wish to make an honest living in our country, but it will prevent abuse of our system. It will not have any impact on those individuals who, in good faith, make application to the Immigration and Refugee Board. As I said at the beginning of my speech, Canada is a generous country. Help us maintain that image of generosity and keep our reputation in the eyes of the world and help us prevent abuse.

Therefore, I trust that you, as members of the opposition parties, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, will support us. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that you will give your general support to this important bill.

[Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to register my vote with the Liberals.

[Social Housing, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the parliamentary secretary to the minister in charge of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

On June 8, federal, provincial and territorial housing ministers met in Bathurst, New Brunswick, to discuss among other things a social housing strategy aimed at helping low-income Canadians.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell us what concrete steps the federal and provincial governments have agreed to in their efforts to house Canadians in need?

[Auditor General Act, June 13th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address the House on this bill to amend the Auditor General Act. I have followed the discussion with interest on the question of when and how the Auditor General reports to Parliament.

Since 1980, the public accounts committee and the Auditor General have repeatedly recommended that the Auditor General Act be amended to allow more frequent reporting to Parliament. Such recommendations were made in 1984, 1986, 1988 and 1993.

Both the former Auditor General, Mr. Kenneth Dye, and the current Auditor General, Mr. Denis Desautels, have supported initiatives to amend the Auditor General Act to allow them to report results of individual audits at their completion.

Both Auditors General have examined the merits of completion date reporting. They have noted that more frequent reporting would lead to a more even workload within the office of the Auditor General. This would lead to improved efficiencies. However there has been no estimate of the magnitude of these efficiencies.

The primary benefit for supporting change to allow the Auditor General to report more frequently would be to enable Parliament and the public accounts committee to discuss the findings of the Auditor General on a more timely basis.

This would imply that corrective action could be taken sooner and that Parliament would be in a better position to influence that action. These are indisputable goals. However, it must be clear that we are not referring here to the timely reporting of very urgent issues.

Section 8 of the current Auditor General Act already allows him to report at any time to the House of Commons on any matter of pressing importance or urgency that in his opinion should not be deferred until the presentation of the annual report.

This section allows the Auditor General to make a timely report to Parliament on any pressing matter. Yet, no Auditor General has never done so. Why is that?

Another reason advanced for changing the current act is that more frequent reporting will help the public accounts committee to do a better job. The committee will be able to hold department and agency officials more accountable to Parliament and the Canadian taxpayers.

For instance it will be more likely that public service employees called as witnesses before the public accounts committee will be the same ones involved at the time of the Auditor General's audit. In the past this was not always the case. Again this is an admirable goal which members should support. Anything we can do to improve the results of this important committee should be seriously considered.

However the most important question we must ask ourselves today is what will be the impact of this bill on the effectiveness of the office of the Auditor General?

The Auditor General is effective because of his independence and the credibility that results from that independence. We would not want to support changes to the act that would put the Auditor General's independence at risk.

The Auditor General recognizes the importance of his independence. It is a key component of his office's mission statement. The Office of the Auditor General of Canada conducts independent audits and examinations that provide objective information, advice and assurance to Parliament. We promote accountability and best practices in government operations.

The importance and the necessity of the work of the Auditor General and the public accounts committee is not a question for debate. It is how we can make the best use of these important tools that is the issue.

In the past when the issue of completion dates reporting was discussed in the House, it was noted quite correctly that the findings of the Auditor General have become more positive in recent years. The Auditor General has been reporting in his annual follow-up chapter that progress has been made in solving problems reported in earlier reports. Improvements in departmental management are being made and reported by the Auditor General.

Reporting audit findings closer to the completion date of the audit will result in early reports to Parliament, but this alone will not solve the timeliness problem.

The very nature of the auditing process is a partial explanation. Complete auditing within a department can in fact take up to two years. I know the Auditor General is working on a solution.

It should be remembered as well that audit findings are discussed with the managers responsible as they are being developed. Issues are addressed by government managers on a priority basis as they are identified by the auditee. Corrective action plans are generally developed well before the tabling of the Auditor General's report to Parliament.

I believe that the Auditor General would be happy to report that all the problems have been solved. In one of his first reports he noted: "Accordingly, the greatest professional satisfaction for me and for my colleagues in the office will not be the disclosure of error, waste and loss, but rather the evidence that management has corrected unsatisfactory situations".

Mechanisms are in place within the government to address observations made by the Auditor General. Furthermore, as I commented earlier, provisions already exist in the Auditor General Act that empower the Auditor General to report to Parliament on an urgent basis at any time.

This act is a very important piece of legislation. It is critical to the accountability process that takes place between the government and Parliament and the Canadian public. However, it is an act that is viewed as being very successful. Canadian taxpayers are happy that they have an independent and effective watchdog on their side.

I have another concern relating to the proposed amendments to the current act. I am concerned that the Auditor General could come to be used as a short term investigator asked by House committees and others to respond to the partisan controversies of the day. Pressures to agree to investigate concerns of this nature could place an unbearable workload on his office. This additional workload could put completion of his extensive statutory workload in jeopardy.

In summary, I would like to emphasize that we should be careful when amending the Auditor General Act. We should ensure that we have all the facts on the table. We should know all the consequences, both the positive and the negative.

In conclusion, the amendment proposed here at report stage is an inappropriate one. It calls essentially for mandatory quarterly reports rather than a more reasonable approach of one report annually with the option for additional reports as audits are completed.

The Auditor General opposes this sort of additional duty because it forces him to have a new report three more times a year, whether he is ready or not. The amendment has the potential to be an absurd waste, given the fluctuations of the audit cycle.

The Auditor General is opposed to the amendment because he does not feel he should be required to report until he is ready. He must have the choice, as given him by the act.

I urge all members to oppose this amendment.

[Antilymphocyte Globulin, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Since Tuesday, the opposition has been claiming that the lives of two children were seriously endangered after the drug ALG was administered to them. As a mother of two myself, I am quite concerned.

When did this incident happen? And is it true that the lives of these two children were threatened by this drug?