Gurmant Grewal

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the spirit of the summer break and the holidays, I would ask the hon. member to divert from his usual habit of political rhetoric and give us the real contents of the bill.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Yes, backbench MPs. The Liberals curtail, cut off and close debate. They vote for time allocation more often than ever before. There are no more free votes in the House, particularly on the government side. I bet that sometimes backbenchers do not even know what they are voting on. Committees are a farce and a partisan exercise to keep backbenchers busy. Their priorities are often wrong and their deliberations become good for nothing exercises.

Question period has become a circus. Some ministers are consistently in the habit of rejecting even the preamble to legitimate opposition questions. There are no answers given to legitimate and serious questions. Perhaps it is true to its name; it is only a question period and not a question and answer period. It should actually be called the accountability period.

I have tabled Motion No. 291 on the order paper calling for the name change. I hope with a name change that the nature of question period will also change.

Citizens work hard to collect thousands of signatures on petitions highlighting important issues and demanding the government's attention. After the petitions are tabled in the House they gather dust on a shelf rather than get a government response.

Debates have become a joke. Decisions are already made before a debate even commences. Rarely is there a quorum during a debate in the House. Sometimes there are more pages than members in the House. What good are take note debates without a vote?

The officers of the House are regularly snubbed by the Prime Minister's Office, including the auditor general, privacy commissioner, chief actuary, information commissioner and so on.

The Prime Minister has failed to hold his ministers accountable, even after boondoggles and serious unfounded allegations about things like cross burnings. It is no wonder that the public's perception of the integrity and credibility of politicians is so low and that voter turnout has fallen in recent elections.

The Canadian Alliance strongly advocates parliamentary reform and private members' business is one of the serious issues. The Canadian Alliance wanted every MP to have at least one votable item per session but the NDP opposed it.

Here we are today debating the motion. We are continuing our battle with the arrogant Liberal government to empower members of parliament but it will not. Since I have been a member of parliament I have seen my party dragging the government along while it kicks and screams. The Liberals are dragging their feet on this issue. They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk.

Private members' hour occurs every day. I have spoken on many private members' business items. It is the purest form for MPs, representing their constituents, to truly speak on behalf of their constituents in an attempt to contribute to the legislative process.

MPs work hard with stakeholders to prepare their bills and motions. The legislative branch of the House is involved in getting the bills drafted, translated and printed. Members and their constituents have high hopes and expectations from a bill or a motion.

I would like to give an analogy. When a baby cries, a mother sometimes gives the baby a pacifier. The baby starts working at the pacifier with expectations that something will come out of it. The baby actually gets nothing, even after a lot of work. Eventually the baby shuts up and remains busy. After some time, both the mother and the baby understand each other's role and, as a routine, both become habituated to the exercise.

This is exactly what happens with private members' business. It is an exercise to shut members up and keep them busy for some time with false hopes. It becomes a vain exercise with both the government and the members knowing their roles and what outcome to expect.

Veteran MPs know the usual outcome. They have a lower standard of expectation and aim for highlighting issues just for publicity purposes. This can bring media attention to some of the issues. That is the best outcome to be expected from private members' business rather than it becoming a law. The government keeps members busy and this bars them from lobbying the government.

There is no use for private members' business unless it is votable, adopted in the House and some concrete action is taken as an outcome. That is why the official opposition is trying to get the government to realize this and help change the procedure.

We are here to make laws. We are legislators. We should be working on legislation and voting on legislation. When an MP goes to the trouble of working the legal beagles in the House to the point where he or she develops a private member's bill, the bill deserves debate and a vote.

When was the last time a private member's bill was passed? Rarely, hardly ever. In the last parliament I submitted sixteen different private members' items, four of which were bills. I even had two motions for the production of papers. So far during this parliament I have half a dozen motions and almost as many bills prepared.

However I am not optimistic about having the government debate and vote on any of the items that are important to the people of Surrey Central. The Liberals will try to ensure that the voices of Surrey Central and other members in the House are muted. My whistleblower bill cannot even get to debate stage.

The process is very disappointing. The Liberal chair of the subcommittee has control. Unanimous consent or unanimous agreement has to be reached before an item can become votable. It does not work. Members on both sides of the House are frustrated.

We are looking forward to making meaningful change in the House. One of the initiatives in that change is that private members' items have to be votable. There is no use debating when we cannot vote.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on the Canadian Alliance supply day motion asking that all items of private members' business votable in the House. It reads:

The House does not attach any great importance to private members' business as it is now organized. This is evident from the fact that members are seldom greatly concerned to claim the priorities they have drawn in the ballot governing the use of private members' time, and this is largely because private members' bills and motions rarely come to a vote.

This was the observation of the McGrath committee in June 1985. It is as true or even worse today. Of the private members' bills and motions introduced in the first session of the 36th parliament less than 16% were drawn and under 4% were votable. In the second session, just 9% were drawn and less than 3% were votable.

In the 37th parliament 8% of private members' bills and motions were drawn and only 1.6% were votable. That is less than 2 out of 100 votable items. The ratio of votable private members' bills for the Canadian Alliance is so far one-third of the average of the House in the current session.

There is certainly something wrong. This emphasizes a dire need for reform of the House of Commons to restore to private members an effective legislative function, to give them a meaningful role in the formation of public policy, and to restore the House of Commons to its rightful place in the Canadian political process.

Some years ago it used to be said that members of parliament were nobodies outside the House of Commons. Under the arrogant Liberal government, members of parliament are nobodies inside the House. MPs are rubber stamps and backbench MPs are used as pawns by the Prime Minister's Office where the power is concentrated. As a result, members of parliament are frustrated and many lack morale and initiative.

[Health Care, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in Surrey, Surjit Goraya's husband told me that his wife was a healthy pregnant woman until she lost her baby because of overcrowding at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

Canada's fastest growing cities are unable to keep pace with the demands made on our hospitals and emergency medical services because of the massive cuts in federal health care spending. The government is responsible for tearing $26 billion out of Canada's health care system. This weak Liberal government has created bed shortages and equipment shortages in our hospitals. These shortages have caused unnecessary suffering and even death.

This massive cut in federal health spending has also caused brain drain and labour problems with nurses, doctors and support staff going on strike.

What can the health minister tell the people of Surrey? What can the Prime Minister say to a 25 year old grieving mother who lost her baby? She and her family were helpless.

[Infrastructure, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Cloverdale, Fleetwood, Guildford and Newton in Surrey Central are suffering from a transportation infrastructure problem. Even the public transit strike in B.C. is entering its 67th day.

Mayor Doug McCallum is complaining that the Liberal government has ignored the infrastructure projects for which the city has applied.

The Liberals cancelled the grant program for municipalities and cut transfer payments to the provinces and then they lowered federal revenues for transportation with their inadequate and shallow infrastructure program.

Just 4% of the revenue from gasoline taxes goes to infrastructure programs in Canada compared to 95% in the U.S.A. Canada is the only G-8 nation that does not have a national transportation policy.

All the people of Surrey want is their fair share. The government should either deliver the goods or get out of the way and allow the tax dollars to be spent on transportation in the municipalities where they are collected.

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

Mr. Speaker, before question period I was debating the three important motions in Group No. 3 at report stage of Bill C-11.

The situation with respect to immigration in Canada is very serious. About 200,000 people, according to different reports, are illegally staying in Canada. According to the auditor general, 15,000 people are named in deportation warrants and they are missing. Also, 60% of visitors who apply for refugee status in Canada arrive at Canadian ports without any kind of documentation.

Canadian borders are like sieves. We do not have exit control. CIC cannot track those who are missing or are staying illegally in Canada. The situation is very serious.

Since this is the last group of motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-11 we are missing the opportunity to debate many worthwhile amendments, many of which were put forward by the chief critic for the Canadian Alliance, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River. The amendments related to consultation by CIC with the provinces, municipalities and other NGOs. They were related to family reunification and one dealt with once in a lifetime sponsorship by a Canadian citizen of related family members.

There were also amendments related to foreign academic degrees, to refugees, the discriminatory head tax, the appeal process and various aspects of the refugee process. The whole appeal process is just like the layers of an onion. We can keep on peeling it. We need to streamline the appeal process. Since the government has not been particularly interested in stressing the appeal process it could only be done through amendment, and the amendments were not accepted.

Other amendments would have fixed the outdated 40 year old health standards in Canada. The standards are so old and incomprehensible that we need to fix them. Those amendments were not accepted.

There were amendments related to improving communication among CIC, CSIS, RCMP, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of International Trade and various NGOs involved in immigration work. There is no communication. The minister believes that she knows better or more than expert advisers from various organizations like CSIS. That is probably the reason the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Cooperation attended the Tamil tiger fundraising.

In a nutshell the amendments were related to training and staffing requirements, security risks, human smuggling, organized crime, fraud, bribes, the operations of overseas officers and patronage appointments. All these amendments—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate, Group No. 3, on Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection. I will address my remarks with respect to the four motions in the bill.

Motion No. 9 in regard to the refugee protection section of the bill is a Bloc amendment. It adds new clause 95.1, which states:

The Minister shall assume the social and medical costs of refugee claimants as of the ninetieth day after the day of the claim and until a decision is made in respect of that claim.

Since social and medical costs are under provincial jurisdiction and immigration is under federal jurisdiction, and because of the federal government's mismanagement of the refugee claims and the inefficient refugee claim process, why should the provinces bear the cost? It seems logical, even though the separatist Bloc member may have meant to show patriotism toward Quebec, but it is not fair to assume that the provinces can afford the entire cost of relocation and the medical expenses of refugees who are not yet permanent residents, landed immigrants or citizens.

The Canadian Alliance, through our chief critic for immigration, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, moved the amendment that the minister shall consult with the municipality with respect to resettlement for immigrants and integration programs where applicable. This amendment was not accepted by the Liberal government's immigration committee.

The government should be encouraging open and accountable discussion among CIC, Health Canada, HRDC and DFAIT as well as the provinces and the non-government organizations related to immigration. Rather than a co-operative approach, the arrogant, weak Liberal government always uses a confrontational approach with the provinces and territories. We should work with the provinces for policies on the settlement of immigrants. The Liberals are again are missing that opportunity in the bill.

In regard to Motion No. 10, in the convention refugee and persons in need of protection clause, this Tory amendment will add, after the end of paragraph 1 of clause 101:

—Subparagraph (1)(b) does not apply—

That is a claim for protection by the claimant has been rejected by the board.

—and a claim for refugee protection shall be referred to the Refugee Protection Division for a new determination where:

(a) the relevant circumstances of the claimant have changed since a previous determination; or

(b) specific circumstances prevented part of the evidence from being presented during a previous determination.

In fact, new evidence should be one of the very few grounds to create a new hearing.

In Motion No. 11 the Tory amendment again deals with procedure for appeal to the refugee appeal division. In subclause 110(3) it proposes to delete the following the refugee appeal division shall proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the refugee protection division, and may accept written submissions from the minister, the person. Then the clause continues. The amendment proposes to replace that with the refugee appeal division may proceed with a hearing where new evidence may be introduced, the record of the proceedings of the refugee protection division is used, and submissions may be made by the minister, the person. Then the clause continues.

The original clause supports a closed system and hinders the accountability and fairness of the act. This amendment will make the procedure allow a hearing to introduce new evidence instead of disallowing the hearing based on the record of proceedings of the refugee protection division.

The bill does not respect rule of law. Many witnesses, even including lawyers, told the committee that.

Motion No. 12 is a Bloc amendment that deals with pre-removal risk assessment. Under protection in paragraph 112(3)(b), the bill states:

(3) Refugee protection may not result from an application for protection if the person

(b) is determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality with respect to a conviction in Canada punished by a term of imprisonment of at least two years or with respect to a conviction outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be punishable by a term of imprisonment of at least 10 years—

Lines six to eight of that paragraph would be replaced by:

—Canada for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years—

This amendment is a little complicated. It is an extension and it clarifies the original wording. A part of this amendment is just a housekeeping correction and the other deals with the length of term of conviction to justify the magnitude of criminality outside Canada.

This part is so serious and important, particularly in light of the recent reports that more than 200,000 people are staying in Canada illegally. About 15,000 people or more are under deportation warrants, according to the Auditor General of Canada. They are supposed to be deported, but they are still in Canada and they are missing. Also, I am—

[Armenia, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate on the debate on the four elements of the private member's Motion No. 285. I appreciate the sentiment, the emotion and the sense of pursuing research, education and remembrance, as well as learning from the mistakes of history, which is at the heart of the motion.

Our colleague, the hon. member for Brampton Centre, did a great deal of work on this issue in the last parliament. He even caused this matter to come before the Canadian heritage committee and forced the committee to issue a report. This was no small feat.

At my House of Commons office some weeks ago, I had a visit by a delegation from Canada's Armenian community that provided me with some information. I also received information from the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations. I highly appreciate the interest expressed by both communities in the work we do as parliamentarians.

This is a very emotional and controversial matter. My heart goes out to the families, the relatives and the survivors of this dark era in human history.

Having previously spoken on a similar motion today, I rise with misgivings about what the Liberal government is going to do with this debate. I regret I cannot be more positive in my outlook, but I do not want to try to fool anyone. I do not want either the Turkish or the Armenian people to be hoodwinked by the weak Liberal government that lacks vision. I want to be very clear from the outset that the government is not going to recognize the genocide to anyone.

Let us consider an exchange between Brian Mulroney and the late Pierre Trudeau concerning the apology to Japanese Canadians for their internment during the second world war. Mr. Trudeau said, as recorded in Hansard , June 29, 1984:

There is no way in which we can relive the history of that period. In that sense, we cannot redress what was done. We can express regret collectively, as we have done.

I do not see how I can apologize for some historic event to which we or these people in this House were not a party. We can regret that it happened. But why mount to great heights of rhetoric in order to say that an apology is much better than an expression of regret? This I cannot too well understand.

Why does Mulroney not apologize for what happened during the Second World War to mothers and fathers of people sitting in this House who went to concentration camps? I know some of them, Mr. Speaker. They were not Japanese Canadians. They were Canadians of Italian or German origin, or some old French Canadians who went to jail, who went to concentration camps during the Second World War. Why do we not apologize to them?

I do not think it is the purpose of a government to right the past. It cannot re-write history. It is our purpose to be just in our time, and that is what we have done by bringing in the Charter of Rights.

On December 14, 1994, the Liberals' position on redress was articulated by Sheila Finestone, the then secretary of state for multiculturalism and status of women. She said:

Seeking to heal the wounds caused by the actions of previous governments, six ethnocultural communities have requested redress and compensation totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. The government understands the strong feelings underlying these requests. We share the desire to heal those wounds.

The issue is whether the best way to do this is to attempt to address the past or to invest in the future. We believe our only choice lies in using limited government resources to create a more equitable society now and a better future for generations to come.

Therefore the government will not grant financial compensation for the requests made. We believe our obligation lies in acting to prevent these wrongs from recurring.

This latter quote, I believe, is most significant because this is what the hon. member for Brampton Centre is up against. He is up against his own political party on this issue. I seriously doubt that he will be successful. The apology and compensation package given to Japanese-Canadians has set a precedent. Italians and Ukrainians interned in World War I and World War II have also demanded apology.

There are many other communities and groups asking the government to redress the historical past, the wrongs done in history. Let me also remind the House of another situation.

One of the political parties in the House was in power in 1914 when 376 passengers, who were British subjects, arrived on a ship named Komagata Maru. They were not allowed to land on Canadian soil because of an exclusionist immigration policy based on race and the country of origin.

The policy had its origin in the 1880s, when the Canadian government first imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants. The government erected a variety of barriers until 1962.

The passengers on the Komagata Maru thought they had the right to enter Canada because they were British subjects, British citizens. Ninety per cent of the passengers on the ship were Sikhs. The rest were Hindus and Muslims, but they all came from Punjab. Sikh soldiers who had served throughout the British Empire thought they should be able to work wherever the British flag was flying.

After two months of detention in Vancouver harbour, the government brought in the cruiser Rainbow and aimed its guns at the Komagata Maru. That was the first time the Canadian navy used the ship for aggression. The ship was escorted with 352 passengers still on board. It was a bitter and disappointing moment for the friends watching the ship disappear.

A voyage that began on April 4 did not end until September 29 in Calcutta, Indian, where the police opened fire and killed 19 of those passengers. Others were arrested.

In a more tolerant Canada, the Komagata Maru remains a powerful symbol for Sikhs and one that should remind others of the historical past. As a consequence, we are beginning to reassess our past. Giving attention to the Komagata Maru is part of the process.

Will the government offer an apology? I do not think so. Still, some of the candidates of the Liberal Party in the last election shamelessly used all the propaganda they could without apologizing or redressing for their party's behaviour with respect to the Komagata Maru incident.

How about the Chinese interns who are demanding a redress along with 10 or so other groups?

As I said, the hon. member is facing unfavourable odds in terms of having his motion passed by the House. He already acknowledged that the government, his party which governs this country, has double standards.

Certainly the human race should recognize the importance of remembering and learning from the mistakes of history. We should make sure that such incidents are not repeated again anywhere on this planet.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate on the motions in Group No. 2 to amend Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

While the bill contains much needed changes to the Canadian immigration system, it also has a series of serious flaws, no matter what the weak Liberal government tries to tell Canadians about the new legislation. It can participate in all the propaganda and sugar coating it wants, but Bill C-11 will not deliver what it intends to deliver without proper enforcement, management and accountability.

Earlier the NDP member from Winnipeg Centre spoke to the first group of amendments. I do not believe he believed in what he said in his speech. The lack of clarity, prudence and real enforcement behind the legislation, despite its wrong tone and content, would ultimately cause more troubles than the legislation it purports to replace.

There is far too much reliance on 89 pages of regulations to interpret the legislation. Much of what is in the regulations could be drafted into the new legislation. The regulations essentially give the minister the option of running the department any way that she or he sees fit. This is not accountability or transparency by government.

The weak Liberal government has a habit of governing not by legislation but by regulations. It not only makes legislation undemocratic but makes it complex and opaque. Being the past co-chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations I can say that with certainty. The regulations cannot be debated in parliament, so I call it governing through the back door.

Let me make it absolutely clear to everyone, including those who have taken the time to watch the debate on TV, that the Canadian Alliance policies are pro-immigration, but we do not want ineffective legislation passed in the House.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, the hon. member for Blackstrap and I as members of the citizenship and immigration committee attempted to make amendments to make the legislation effective and workable, but the Liberals refused to co-operate. Most of our amendments were rejected by the Liberal dominated committee.

There is history to indicate that the arrogant Liberal government will not accept most opposition amendments to any bill. It has blatantly refused to accept amendments from the opposition to Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act which we debated a few days ago.

Bill C-11 would replace the 25 year old Immigration Act, 1976. The previous act has been a mess. That is why in many of the constituency offices of MPs major workloads are arising from mismanagement by the department. Sixty to eighty-five per cent of the resources in constituency offices are utilized in many ridings by immigration alone, and that is not fair.

I have difficulty understanding why politicians have to be involved in visitors' visas, for example. MPs are elected by Canadians and represent Canadians, not people in other countries. It should be the responsibility of the immigration officers abroad to make fair decisions, not the politicians but those well-trained immigration officials.

Surprisingly the Liberal candidates, or even the failed candidates, made promises to people to get visitors' visas issued. They should be immediately stopped from making any representations on behalf of Canadians to the immigration officials in our embassies and high commissions abroad. Ministers continue to abuse ministers' permits to oblige their Liberal friends for political support.

In this group there are four amendments.

Motion No. 5, moved by the Canadian Alliance, deals with the inadmissibility clause 34 of the bill. It replaces line (d), “being a danger to the security of Canada” with “being a threat to the security of Canada as defined by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act”.

There is no definition of danger or threat to the security of Canada in the act. It is left to the subjective judgment. Therefore, this amendment is very important.

The opinion of those government agencies and officials with expertise in security must be heard and employed. It should not be ministers or politicians who should decide on political lines. The decision should be made by experts, based on facts and logic.

CSIS, RCMP and other law enforcement agencies know who is a risk and who is not a risk. They should be the authority in the area, not the weak Liberal minister.

That is why the finance minister and the international co-operation minister should not have attended the fundraiser by the organization said to be the front for Tamil tigers based on advice from CSIS. That is why this weak Liberal government should not have ordered to shred the report called “Sidewinder” written by a frontline officer, Brian McAdam. He is contacted for advice on security issues by the United States, Australia and many other countries. However, at home the Liberal government applied political pressure and had that report shredded.

Bill C-11 is weak with respect to security risks. It allows for front end security screening, but it only applies to refugees, which in some cases is a physical impossibility. Front end screening does not apply to applicants in general.

The bill promises to deliver better enforcement of security measures for both refugee and immigrant applicants, but there is no plan of action set out in the bill to explain how this will work. No one should be allowed into Canada without proper checks as to his or her risk to the security of our country.

There are no provisions in the bill for improved communications between visa officers, law enforcement and international criminal investigative units. Communication among the RCMP, CSIS and other international criminal investigation units should be mandatory and employed immediately. The auditor general pointed out in his most recent report that this type of communication was imperative. However, without a more open system and a far more communicative department, the bill will not achieve these goals.

We have seen Lai Changxing, the accused kingpin smuggler, land in Canada through queue jumping. He was not detected by the visa officer by even a simple background check. Then there is the example of the fellow who came to Canada with an active case of tuberculosis and exposed some 1500 people to the deadly virus.

Motion No. 6 was also moved by the Canadian Alliance. It deals with loss of status by replacing line 1 in clause 50.

At present, there is no linkage between CSIS and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Information from SIRC is presently not utilized. CSIS may make mistakes which oversights people's rights. The whole purpose of an appeal may be defeated just because of that. SIRC reviews cases, and it is an oversight committee over CSIS. It could take away power from the minister. Probably that is the reason why many Liberals will not support this. I urge them to look at the merit of the amendment and how effective this will make the bill.

Motions Nos. 7 and 8 were moved by other parties. Motion No. 7 deals with right of appeal. This amendment will delete some clauses and replace some others. Motion No. 8 will add something to clause 64 that a permanent resident would be allowed to state his or her case before being subjected to deportation or refusal of entry, when CIC that saw fit to allow them into Canada in the first place after due processing. These amendments are important.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 1st, 2001]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-11, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 17 with the following:

“(d) being a threat to the security of Canada as defined by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act;”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-11, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 25 with the following:

“50. A removal order is stayed according to recommendations as set forth by the Security Intelligence Review Committee established by subsection 34(1) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act”