Paul Forseth

[Terrorism, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, U.S. officials only told Canada about Suhail Sarwer after he was arrested. We already know that inside our country the RCMP and CSIS do not always talk to each other. Obviously we do not talk to our American counterparts either. So much for the Ridge agreement.

Why would the U.S. wait to tell Canada until after the suspect was in custody? Is there something wrong with our relations with the U.S. when it comes to national security?

[Immigration, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, human cargo may travel via many countries to get to our soil for social and legal benefits. A lot of money changes hands to be smuggled into Canada by criminals. The refugee system is being abused and the minister knows it.

When will the government bring in a list of safe countries such as the European Union and the United States to raise our security and reduce the trade in people?

[Immigration, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration. Canadians have a right to be upset. Even after the revelations of September 11 the government continues with low border security at Pearson airport. A people smuggling ring brings in dozens of phony refugees every week from countries such as Costa Rica and India which are both democracies.

When will the government bring in a list of third safe countries and stop this abuse of a well intentioned law?

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for years the official opposition has been telling the Liberal government it is not properly managing Canada's immigration system. Now citizens are clearly saying so as well.

A poll conducted in February says that 54% are unhappy. People are naturally reacting to how the Liberals have made such a mess of the immigration system.

Citizenship and immigration has thousands of backlogged applications. It thinks the only way to deal with the pileup is to place unrealistic expectations on the backlog then change the rules in the middle of the game. It lets in undocumented security risks yet rejects fine candidates with masters degrees. Nearly $100 million is spent on the IRB to screen applicants whom the immigration department does not accept, which puts them through its own screening.

The Canadian Alliance has a clear, positive immigration policy that can inspire public confidence, for with clear principles we can manage in the national interest. As the evidence shows, the Liberals cannot manage.

[Canada Elections Act, March 13th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 122 before us reads specifically as follows on page 39 of the Wednesday, March 13, 2002, Order Paper and Notice Paper:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending the Canada Elections Act in order to grant the right to vote to those residing in Canada with landed immigrant status.

In the usual pattern, the member has reasoned himself into an illogical position.

We can just think back to recently here in the city of Ottawa, the capital, to January 2, 1997. At that time, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration noted that it was the beginning of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Canadian law under which we are Canadian citizens, for we must remember that in January 1947 the Canadian Citizenship Act first came into effect.

Prior to this event, people living in our country were considered British subjects residing in Canada. The passage of the act signified that Canada was at last a full fledged and equal member of the community of nations. We had a lot of celebrations that year. It was certainly a chance to reflect on the successes of our country and what we enjoyed over the previous decades. It was also a chance to think about the rights that we share as Canadian citizens and the responsibilities that go with such a distinction. We had special ceremonies and since then there is often a citizenship week in February.

Let us just look for a moment at what it really means to be a Canadian citizen, for Canadian history and traditions have created a country where our values include tolerance and respect for cultural differences and a commitment to social justice. We are proud of the fact that we are a peaceful nation and that we are accepted in many places around the world as peacekeepers. It does mean something when we wear the Canadian flag on our lapels when we travel abroad.

As a small population occupying a vast northern land enriched by immigration throughout its history, Canadians have developed a kind of genius, I think, for compromise and coexistence, which lie at the heart of our federal system of government. We value the fact that we live in a democracy where every citizen is encouraged to do his or her share. Our democratic values are the basis of our laws. These values include, among other things, equality. In other words, we respect everyone's rights, including the right to speak out and express ideas that others might disagree with, and we never take up arms as a result of that. Governments have to treat everyone with equal dignity and respect, which are both fundamental to our form of democracy.

Second in the values that I am talking about is tolerance. We try to understand and appreciate the cultures, the customs and the traditions of our neighbours.

Next is the ethos of peace. We are proud of our non-violent society and our international role as peacekeepers.

Next, then, is law and order. We respect democratic decision making and the rule of law. We promote due process so that the courts and the police will treat everyone fairly and reasonably and we ensure that our elected governments remain accountable to Canadians.

As we reflect on these values, we ask ourselves what responsibilities we can take around citizenship. One of those fundamental benefits that really makes citizenship valuable and that makes it mean something is that we have the right to vote. We have equality rights, democratic rights, legal rights, mobility rights, language rights, minority language rights and education rights. These are some of the general rights that come to us as benefits of being a Canadian citizen.

Also with being a Canadian citizen come some responsibilities. Canadians also share common responsibilities such as understanding and obeying Canadian laws, participating in Canada's democratic political system, voting in elections, allowing other Canadians to enjoy their rights and freedoms and appreciating and helping to preserve Canada's multicultural heritage. All Canadians are encouraged to become informed about political activities and to help better their communities. Also, we have a multicultural heritage.

However, we must also look at the charter. Under democratic rights, the charter states:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Therefore I have to pose this question to the member proposing the motion. Is the member also suggesting changes to the constitution of the country, to the charter of rights and freedoms and so on, before he proposes a change to our law here?

The problem is that the motion has an inherent meaning of undermining the value and the legal significance of citizenship. We must reflect on how such a high price was paid for citizenship of our country and what it really means in its fullest sense, represented, perhaps, by the graves of our soldiers around the world.

Canadian citizenship is a great gift, perhaps next to the charter of rights and freedoms which talks about life and security of the person. Consequently it would be it most disrespectful, I think, to support the motion before us today. We need to better promote Canada and what it means to be a Canadian citizen and to defend that from all those who would diminish the culmination of our great national achievement: to be a citizen of Canada.

[Immigration, February 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has finally admitted that he is in political trouble and that the government has botched the new rules for immigrants.

Independent adult applicants who applied before December 17, 2001 will now have the old rules applied until January 1, 2003. These applicants will be at the mercy of the speed of the bureaucracy to get the paperwork done. If the slow administration does not work by January 1, 2003 then the new rules will apply to the backlog, but the bar will be set at 70 points under the new rules instead of the intended 80 points.

There are literally thousands of backlogged applications due to continued under-resourcing of a swamped bureaucracy. The public reaction to the practical consequences of the regulations has generally been very negative. In contrast, the Canadian Alliance is committed to providing a simple credible system that the public can understand and politically support.

The system lets in possible terrorists but screens out university graduates with fine reputations. This whole mess reveals that the Liberals cannot manage the public interest.

[Refugees, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the House on my hon. colleague's motion with respect to third safe countries.

Those who flee their countries seeking a better life do so because they are in search of refuge from the way they have to live. We have heard that there are some 100 million people on the move because of economics and war. These refugees are looking for somewhere to be safe and to start a better life without the worries and strains that plague them in their countries of origin. People are seeking democracies and the benefits that come from democracies.

Canada received 22,834 refugees in 1998, 24,392 in 1999 and 30,044 in the year 2000. However, more frequently now we see refugees landing in our country and it may not be their country of choice. We are seeing a system of country shopping. They proceed to locate in Canada claiming to be refugees and are basically shopping for a country. The refugee system is being used to supplant the orderly immigration laws and systems.

The third safe country provisions are common in Europe, where the Dublin convention provides for any European Community member state to retain the right as part of its national law to send an applicant for asylum to a third state in compliance with the provisions of the Geneva convention. Australia also passed similar laws with the border protection legislation amendment act in 1999, which introduced provisions against foreign shopping and third safe country provisions similar to those in place in many European countries.

The majority of asylum seekers enter Canada through the United States, perhaps 40% or so, and we have heard figures like that, so if Canada were to enter into an agreement with the United States it would reduce significantly the burden on our refugee determination system. Similarly, if we were to enter into agreements with the European Union countries we would see a further reduction in the number of spontaneous refugee claimants or what I call surprise arrivals.

These country shoppers would be forced either to seek refuge in the country they arrived in or to apply for legitimate immigrant status through the proper channels. If it is conceivable for other countries to enact these laws, why can we not do this in Canada? The rationalizations we have heard and the hand wringing we have seen from the government speaker, the Bloc and the NDP must sound absolutely incredible, if not pathetic, to concerned Canadians.

It is a well known fact that Canada is one of the top choices in the world for individuals seeking refugee status, because capacity creates its own demand. We are a soft touch and we are vulnerable. In the larger sense we currently have so many difficulties with the immigration system in its present state that to have safe third country legislation certainly makes eminent sense. It would provide great relief to an overburdened bureaucracy trying to fulfil its duty under the law. The idea of having third safe country legislation makes good managerial sense. The fact that the Liberal government has not already introduced such an effective tool only helps to reinforce the fact that the Liberals really cannot sufficiently manage the business of the country.

At the House Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration we discussed this. The committee heard that many refugee claimants come to Canada through the United States. For the past few years approximately one-third of claimants entering the Canadian process have had the opportunity to claim asylum in the U.S. but instead chose to come to our country. In the fiscal year 1999-2000, 10,967 asylum seekers embarked from the U.S., representing 34% of all refugee claims. In 2000-01 over 11,000 claimants entered from the U.S., which is 37% of that year's total claims.

The committee also heard about great difficulties around that problem. The IRB chairman, Peter Showler, gave evidence at the committee and somewhat addressed the differences between the Canadian and American refugee determination systems. Among other things he told us that for nationals from some countries it may seem easier to obtain permission to enter the United States first, but the ultimate destination is Canada.

As a result of the committee looking at this issue, the committee came up with a recommendation which stated:

The Committee recommends that:

While maintaining Canada’s commitment to the Refugee Convention and our high standards in respect of international protection, the Government of Canada should pursue the negotiation of safe third country agreements with key countries, especially the United States.

That is what the committee said, but all we hear are rationalizations. The government cannot seem to get it done. We hear excuses. The hand wringers give us all kinds of alternatives about why this motion cannot be supported, but I am saying that Canadians are watching the ability of the government to deliver on the rhetoric. We will watch this new minister to see if he has the courage or the capability, with his cabinet colleagues, to get this done.

[Species at Risk Act, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Group No. 3, with the main theme of socioeconomic interests and public consultation.

The laissez-faire, wide open approach is not the current situation in Canada, as we do have a multi-level system of environmental laws. However, we need to go to the next step in identifying specific endangered species and finding ways to protect and preserve them. We understand that if we are not careful in creating boundary lines that limit property rights and commercial activity we could ruin the economy and still not significantly help species at risk. It is finding those boundary lines, the system of discretion where we shall impact or limit or may even punish, that the whole controversy is all about. Also there must be a range of incentives to protect and preserve. The consequences of the new act, on balance, must result in species preservation, but if that wrong line is chosen, which it looks like the government indeed has done, then species will not be protected at all.

I note that the Species at Risk Working Group, which had representations from a broad range of environmental and industrial groups such as the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Mining Association and so on, recommended as an amendment in its presentation to the standing committee in September, 2000, that:

The purposes of this Act shall be pursued to the extent possible while taking into account social and economic interests of Canadians.

We say that in this section of the bill it is a failure on that count.

There has been a lot of debate around COSEWIC itself. COSEWIC stands for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. It is a panel of scientific experts appointed by the minister whose chief function is to classify species at risk and to recommend to determine the scientific list of endangered species. This is where a main controversy erupts. Environmentalists want the scientific list determined by COSEWIC to automatically become the list that is enforced by law. The Liberals want cabinet to have the final decision as to which scientific recommendations are accepted and which are not.

The Liberal government wants to have political control over which species are protected. Then the consequences can be applied, perhaps according to which area gives to the Liberal Party or sends Liberals to the House. In other words, regional differences and influences will be played again by the Liberal government.

In committee, the Canadian Alliance proposed a balanced compromise which was accepted by the committee. The Liberals now want to reverse it. We argue that the scientific COSEWIC list should become the legal list within 60 days if the cabinet does not act to prevent it. In other words, under this approach cabinet would have the final say. Indeed, politicians have to make that final decision but they would have to act to perhaps overthrow or overcome a scientific recommendation with convincing justifications to the public and also with the political consequences that would flow from that. Under the Liberals' approach cabinet could defeat scientific recommendations simply by ignoring them.

How dare this Liberal government ignore the work of the House standing committee and run roughshod over its own backbench members and parliamentary democracy? Why should MPs listen to witnesses or bother finding consensus positions between parties when the government ignores it all anyway?

The House standing committee's balanced approach to listing endangered species proposed by the Canadian Alliance is, I believe, the responsible position. The Liberals want all power to remain with cabinet so they can simply ignore the scientists, and environmentalists would make the pronouncements of unelected, unaccountable scientists the law of the land, but it is cabinet's job to consider the socioeconomic consequences of listing and to determine the proper response to scientific recommendations. Scientists should do science. They should not get into the world of politics. The political decisions should be rightly left to cabinet, but cabinet should at least be required to explain and justify itself and should be publicly accountable if it chooses not to follow a scientific recommendation.

Part of that process is public consultation and public notice. That is a very positive thing. Some of the technical amendments in this grouping are heading in that right direction.

However, protecting endangered species absolutely requires the support of property owners. For this reason, it must be as transparent as possible. People must have the opportunity to make their case before decisions are made. The system must be perceived as responsive to their needs to create co-operation rather than an unpredictable law that is to be feared and perhaps even circumvented.

The bill would preserve the minister's discretionary power. He would decide whether the compensation is given or not and how much. He would decide whether provincial laws are effective or not and, therefore, whether the federal government would step in to impose its laws. This discretion is the opposite of transparency, the opposite of incentives to protect and preserve.

The government has refused to provide any draft regulations about the process for compensation, who would qualify or for how much. These are essential and should be part of the debate before they are finalized.

Where is the technical amendment which would provide a predictable process for property owners to seek compensation? The committee at least said that the minister must draft regulations, but the government wants to do away with that obligation also.

Where is the technical amendment which would set out the criteria which the minister would use to determine whether a province's law is effective or not? The committee put criteria into the bill, but the government wants to take it out also.

The process for action plans and recovery plans must be transparent.

In summary of this section, it appears that the Liberals want a species bill under such a name so they can say that they have one, regardless if it ever saves anything. They want to take total control. This means only one thing, judging by past Liberal government performance on other files. It wants to selectively apply the law which puts political considerations first. If the consequence affects the likelihood of money delivered to the Liberal party, then that factor will probably have sway.

Under the present form of the bill, it will be the Liberal Party first and species and the environment second or even third.

The bill is a classic example of how good intentions get perverted by Liberals, how an environmental need is secondary to interests of the industrial friends of the Liberal party. It is clear that the Liberals cannot manage and this bill is the clear evidence of it.

It will probably take a Canadian Alliance government to eventually bring into the country a nationally fair and workable law that actually saves some endangered species rather than being designed to save the endangered Liberal Party.

[Citizenship and Immigration, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for years the Liberal mismanagement of our immigration system has seen the stayed deportation of many individuals who should have been deported immediately.

Won Pil Park, a South Korean, was originally ordered out of Canada in 1995 after being sentenced to three years in prison for causing the death of a teenager in a road rage offence. After his release Park appealed to the Immigration and Refugee Board and had his deportation put on hold twice. During this time he committed a criminal act where he sexually assaulted a waitress at his restaurant and has again been found guilty and sentenced to another three years in prison.

What kind of example is the government setting by allowing convicted criminals to remain in the country? Will the immigration minister ensure that once Park is released from prison for the second time he will finally be deported? This is one of many cases which again reveals that the Liberals cannot manage even the basics for the country.

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to premise my remarks with regard to the species at risk act, Bill C-5, I might say that Liberal duplicity is exposed. I wonder if the bill, when it is finally proclaimed, will protect or save anything at all.

It must be perfectly clear that the Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species. The bill will not work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. Farmers, ranchers and other property owners want to protect endangered species but they should not be forced to do so at the expense of their livelihoods.

We can look at all kinds of other references or examples of compensation working in other jurisdictions. Quite apart from direct expropriation laws, there are statutes that provide for compensation where land is not taken but perhaps where it is injuriously affected or has depreciated in value through either public work or a structure erected adjacent to the land.

Provisions for compensation should be mandatory, not discretionary. The minister should have to provide compensation for the impact, costs or losses which a landowner incurs as a result of the prohibition against destroying habitat. That is fundamental.

As the legislation is currently proposed, compensation is not even mandatory in cases where regulatory restrictions have had an extraordinary impact on the landowner's use of his land. That is a fatal flaw in the bill.

Adequate compensation is the incentive to co-operation. Without adequate compensation the landowners will have no reason to co-operate because they are being asked to bear a disproportionate share of the cost of protecting endangered species. In other words, the individual bears the cost of a national objective. Compensation for private landowners for regulatory restrictions imposed for protecting endangered species and preserving biological diversity is practised in jurisdictions around the world so why not in Canada?

Compensation also corresponds with the basic principles of the economic market. If the value of a property is diminished because of someone else's actions, there is naturally an expectation to be provided with some compensation. It strengthens certainty and leads to greater confidence in the marketplace. It supports the prospect of foreign and domestic investment and without it that kind of investment will be placed on hold. We know the problems with the lack of aboriginal settlements in British Columbia and how that has affected foreign investment.

Having provisions for full and fair compensation in the legislation acts also as a disciplinary device for governments. It restricts random regulations and makes the government more careful in planning. It also respects the principle of private property. It is the basis of our economic system and provides economic order in the country.

We have all heard the stories of bureaucrats descending upon some hapless citizens. We have a lot of examples of that. The current bill also leaves open the abuse of the system upon the rights of the individual.

Compensation or full support is absolutely necessary to achieve full co-operation from landowners and to have healthy species populations. The United States is facing that difficulty but it is not directly parallel. However, without proper incentives, compensation and the other range of help that might be available, people depending on their land for their livelihood will act in ways perhaps counterproductive to saving species at risk.

While many landowners have in the past co-operated in species recovery programs without compensation, I think we can clearly say that the majority of these cases involve those who can either afford the changes to their practices or are willing to make sacrifices for species. We believe there are those who may not be so willing or, especially in these economic times, may be seriously financially impacted and who are already experiencing very difficult financial circumstances. They have the desire and the will but not the economic capacity to do so.

For the helpless species and in the name of putting people at the centre of legislation, those people must be fairly compensated or supported, and that means fair market value.

We can draw upon the experience of land trespass and the resultant devaluation from the compensation process that surrounds the oil exploration and extraction regime. It is a good model to follow but the government has heard all those things and in the face of it has completely ignored it.

The other thing I would briefly mention is that criminal liability must require intent. We have the concept in law of mens rea, having a guilty mind. This also was a point that was brought to committee and the government is not providing for that.

The act would make offenders out of people who may inadvertently and unknowingly harm endangered species or their habitat. This is unnecessarily confrontational and would make endangered species a threat to property owners. As a result of this, co-operation would be gone and goodwill would evaporate.

Also, we need co-operation not confrontation with the provinces. The 1996 national court for the protection of species at risk was a step in the right direction. Instead, Bill C-5 would give the federal government power to impose its way on provincial lands. However, since it is completely at the minister's discretion, landowners do not know if or when. Instead of working together with the provinces and property owners, the federal government is introducing uncertainty, resentment and distrust.

The final insult is that the government is amending Bill C-5 and reversing many of the amendments voted by its own Liberal MPs who worked on the environment committee. The committee, which had the spirit of co-operation, and in view of sound evidence from the experts of the world who testified at committee, the government is riding roughshod over the process. That is another example of top down control perhaps from the Prime Minister's Office and unelected officials there. It looks as though the Prime Minister has completely failed in this regard and again shows the contempt in which the government holds members of parliament in this place.

What is the point of having a committee stage in the legislative process at all or even involving parliament in the process when the Liberals will simply govern by edict. The report stage reverses the work of the committee so why have it? Why go through this process at all?

The bottom line is that unless the bill provides for mandatory compensation and stops criminalizing unintentional behaviour, it will not provide effective protection for endangered species and we cannot support it.

I would ask some of the members who were on that committee, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, the member for North York, the member for Davenport and perhaps even the member for Kitchener Centre, if they would stand in their place for the courage of their convictions and vote against the legislation. I call upon them to do so.

The overall process shows that the Liberals cannot manage and certainly, as a flagship piece of legislation, the minister himself has failed.

In summary, the Liberals abuse parliament and, on the administrative side of government delivering, they also fail to wisely administer on behalf of all Canadians.