Rey D. Pagtakhan

[German Unity Day, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, four years ago today saw the dawn of German unity, when the governments of east and west Germany forged one republic. Heralded by the fall of the Berlin wall, the coming together of the two halves of that nation hastened the end of the cold war.

The process was not easy. The political differences which separated the two halves were formidable. But the will to achieve a united nationhood and to act on it was stronger. Unity of effort is no less important than unity of purpose.

I call on my colleagues to join in today's celebration of German Unity Day. It marks the triumph of a people's freedom to live in a democracy and the end of a tragic part of German history.

May we find inspiration in the meaning of this day and pledge to uphold the ideals of a Canada united in vision, purpose and effort and thereby secure the strength, prosperity and freedom of our country.

[Health Care, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Institute of Child Health today released its report "The Health of Canada's Children". Based on 1990-91 data, it paints a dark portrait of the poverty, illness and death that afflict so many of them.

In Manitoba the child poverty rate and deaths during infancy and among pre-schoolers remain alarmingly high, exceeding the national average. Almost 1,000 Manitoba babies were born underweight.

It is therefore timely to remind the House that since the election of 1993 the government has launched initiatives for First Nations children and a nationwide prenatal nutrition program.

I am optimistic that a reformed social security system will win big for the 1.2 million poor children of Canada. This is crucial. Children are less than 30 per cent of our population but they represent 100 per cent of Canada's future.

[Immigration Act, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your kind consideration. I am pleased to debate the private member's motion put forward by the member for Calgary Northeast which in essence asks the government to make it mandatory to test applicants for immigration to Canada for the AIDS virus, also known as HIV.

Because of its severity, its infectious pandemic nature, the lack of a preventive vaccine and an effective treatment, AIDS had in the past engendered a great deal of fear among the general public, employers, insurance companies, schools and even health care workers.

Today the very mention of the term AIDS which once struck fear into the hearts of almost all still frightens some. Fear can elicit two opposite behaviours. It can compel one to take preventive measures, which is laudable, or it can drive out the compassion one would normally feel for those living with the disease, which would be a tragedy.

Fear of AIDS was often based on misunderstanding or misinformation. But as research adds to our knowledge and understanding of HIV and as public education dispels the myths which surround it, much of that fear has now subsided. Compassion for the patients and the victims of the virus has returned. I am therefore concerned that the motion before us and the action it proposes play upon the unfounded fears of the past.

The motion could resurrect public misunderstanding about HIV and cause undue panic and unnecessary suffering without serving any public health good. This misunderstanding could be directed toward immigrants even though immigrants now in Canada are no more likely to test positive for HIV than are Canadians born in this country.

I am concerned that we might unwittingly or wittingly stir up resentment against immigrants without achieving any benefit to public health and safety or to our health care system. We need to keep things in perspective.

Medical experts do not consider HIV to be a threat to public health or safety in the same way tuberculosis is or smallpox once was. I have more reason to fear being in the same room with someone who has a common cold virus than I do being near someone who is HIV positive.

HIV cannot be transmitted through casual contact as a cold can be. Even close contact as happens with health care workers and their patients is a very low risk activity. I certainly will not be infected by a chance contact with an immigrant or foreign visitor who has HIV.

Canada's public education campaign has been successful. I would like to think that the times when innocent children born with HIV were barred from schools are far behind us.

The private member's motion now before us which calls for mandatory testing of immigrants for HIV and the automatic inadmissibility for those who test positive is truly a regressive move. This motion would be a throwback to those dark days of the early eighties when our understanding of AIDS was still in its infancy.

Does the action the member proposes make more sense than barring those living with HIV from schools, from the workplace, from public transportation? Does the action make more sense than simply testing the 28 million citizens of Canada today? I submit it does not.

If the entrance of HIV positive individuals into Canada would pose a threat to Canadians, would the member then take the next step and propose mandatory testing as part of the criteria for obtaining a visitor's visa to the country? What of the open border that separates the United States from Canada? Is the member also proposing HIV testing at the United States-Canada border starting today?

Is the member willing to go on record today as suggesting that all those who enter Canada, including pilots on every return trip, diplomats, tourists, returning Canadians, will need to obtain an HIV clearance card first? Has the member considered the

consequences of false positive screening tests in which healthy individuals without the virus have been deemed possessing it? Has the member imagined the emotional toll this would take on those healthy individuals?

What about false negative tests in which actually infected individuals show negative test results because of the lag period it takes to develop the antibodies? Has the member imagined the false sense of security that would result from this situation?

I wonder if the member has imagined the enormous cost it would entail to test everyone. This is a member of the party that pontificates daily in this House about cutting government costs. Has the hon. member imagined the message we would be sending our tourists and the international community if this motion were to be adopted?

If the member's chief motive is to protect the health and safety of Canadians his proposed course of action would fall flat because it is not based on knowledge of how HIV is transmitted from person to person. If the motive behind this motion is to prevent unnecessary strain on our health care system, the hon. member should recognize that this should be viewed in the light of our overall medical admissibility criteria that already exists.

We would have to ask one fundamental question: Are people carrying the AIDS virus but without the disease not different from those suffering from the disease or any other chronic health condition in relation to cost to the health care system? There is a mountain of difference.

This government is not dismissing the concerns Canadians have about AIDS, its virus or HIV testing of applicants for immigration. It is addressing them in the most constructive and progressive way possible, by conducting a thorough review of all medical testing for applicants for immigration with the benefit of the best expert advice and consultations. When that review is complete the government will take whatever action is necessary to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to preserve the integrity of our health care system.

However, until the review is complete any action of the sort proposed by the hon. member would be premature and unwarranted. Unfounded debate and an uninformed decision by this House would merely foster the kind of misunderstanding and fear about HIV that we should be working to overcome. We must refuse to assist wittingly or unwittingly in perpetrating the myths and fears that too often harden people's hearts and make outcasts of those who most need our human compassion and understanding. We should formulate public policy based on fact not fear, on evidence not speculation, on reason not political propaganda.

I know the hon. member opposite who introduced this motion would like to share the sentiment of this government and that of this member for Winnipeg North.

In conclusion, I would request that the member in all sincerity withdraw his motion until such time as we have all the scientific evidence we need to make a reasoned public health policy that Canadians want.

[Ukraine, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Manitobans take pride in the federal government's recent decision to hold in Winnipeg, home to the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress, the upcoming special G-7 conference on partnership for economic transformation of Ukraine in preparation for the G-7 summit next summer in Canada.

The Ukrainian-Canadian community which has its roots in Manitoba and the greater west had long dreamt of independence for its motherland, a dream that was passed on from generation to generation and finally realized in 1991.

Political independence needs economic prosperity to sustain it. Thus this conference is both essential and timely.

It therefore behoves Canada to ensure that this conference leaves a permanent legacy, perhaps the creation of a Canada-Ukraine foundation to help secure the economic transformation and prosperity of Ukraine which benefits Canada as well.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I am pleased to note that he welcomes immigrants to the country.

With respect to numbers the question was put to the Canadian electorate no less than in October 1993. The Canadian electorate made a decision by putting the Liberals into government that the level was a reasonable one.

When we look at the problem we have to look at the two sides of the equation. If we do not have enough resources to manage the 250,000 one possibility is to reduce the number. However I would suggest there is another better alternative and that is to increase the resources to absorb our commitment to the Canadian people.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is a very balanced one. It has been so balanced to ensure that it withstands the challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and sees to it that it fulfils our obligation under the Geneva convention. I can assure the member who is still worried that the bill will stand those tests.

I was taken aback when the member tried to insinuate-and I hope he did not mean it but he said it-that the government has a strategy to get ethnic Canadians to debate the issue. Irrespective of origin Canadians are Canadians by any definition. I must tell the member as a matter of fact that I was not sent by my government to debate the bill. I spontaneously volunteered to debate the bill even before the parliamentary recess.

To impute that motive is unconscionable in the Chamber and to impute that ethnicity is to be taken into consideration to me is the highest order of parliamentary obscenity. I hope the hon. member did not mean what he said and I am prepared to accept an apology.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in this important debate on Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act. The proposed changes will expand the government's authority to deny serious criminals access to the refugee determination system and will simplify the procedure for excluding from Canada persons who have previously been deported.

At the same time, the bill in its balanced approach to solving a serious problem of criminals, though few in number, assures Canadians that Canada will continue to welcome legitimate and law abiding immigrants as full partners in the Canada of today and the future.

Indeed this bill means a great deal to me. My wife and I came to Canada as immigrants 26 years ago. Our four sons were all born in Winnipeg. We have all been very proud to call this country our home.

There are a number of other honourable colleagues in this House who chose Canada as their home and I would like to urge them in particular to take part in this debate because it is important to bring experience as well as compassion and intellect to our discussions of Bill C-44.

Firsthand experience is one of life's great teachers and we who have been through the immigration experience know of the urgent need to protect the integrity of the system that we have.

I want to relay to members the sense of unease I have felt of late when discussions turned to the topic of immigration policy. Recently, when listening to open line shows, talking to people on the streets or opening the morning mail I have detected an anti-immigrant sentiment in some of the comments.

It is not difficult to see where this comes from. There have been too many stories about criminal acts committed by immigrants. There have been too many tales of people who laugh at our laws or use the system to their own advantage. The anger is directed at those who have abused or who would abuse our system and our generosity. But sometimes that anger spills over and it hurts everybody, all of us.

We know there are a number of abusers, the criminals in our midst, although we do not know the exact number. By all estimates the number is small compared to the large numbers of honest, law-abiding immigrants in this country. But we also know that in our society acts of violence or crime are relayed over the airwaves far faster and further than acts of kindness and greatness. In other words, the actions of a few criminals can reflect badly on the good work of the many.

Of course this is wrong, of course this is unfair and of course it should not happen. But it does. In Winnipeg, my city, immigrants are angry when they hear stories about the few who thumb their noses at the laws of the land. We need to make sure people do not abuse our immigration and refugee system or break our laws. We need to stop the abuse and we need to root out the few who are making life difficult for the many.

When cheaters abuse the generosity of Canadians or when thieves or murders try to pretend they are refugees, we and this government should say to them: "Enough is enough".

The reality is that they are not only stealing from the Canadian taxpayer. They are also stealing from would-be immigrants and refugees who really need our help. There is a limit to the resources and energy that can be expended on immigration and refugee matters and when some of those resources and energy are squandered on felons and cheaters, it clearly takes away from those who truly need our help.

Bill C-44 will ensure that the immigration and refugee system provides the best possible protection for those who really need it. I know there will be people all across Canada in the immigrant community and elsewhere applauding this fair and balanced legislation. In fact, if this government had not moved now to fix the system, there was a very real possibility that citizens' trust in it would dissolve.

We need to have the support of all Canadians so we can maintain a sensitive and fair immigration policy. After all this policy has been key to the success of our country. There is a lot in this legislation to recommend to my colleagues across the floor. The fact that the bill will prevent serious criminals from claiming refugee status or from appealing a decision to the Immigration and Refugee Board as a way to stall their removal from Canada is very important.

I must stress that we are talking about serious criminals. We are talking about people who have been convicted of a crime either in Canada or abroad that would be punishable in Canada by a minimum of 10 years in prison, or of anybody the minister believes poses a serious threat to the public and to the security of the nation.

Bill C-44 also gives immigration officers the legal authority to seize documents sent through the international mail that could be used to forge identity papers or circumvent our immigration laws. Customs officers already search international mail and already bring such documents to the attention of immigration officials. However under the current law the immigration officials cannot do anything about these documents. The legislation will fix that problem once and for all.

All of us in the Chamber know that when loopholes exist there is always going to be somebody who will try to take advantage of those loopholes. That is another reason why the bill is necessary. It removes those loopholes. For example, immigration officials currently have the authority to arrest anyone who fails to appear before a senior immigration officer as required, but they cannot issue a warrant authorizing other agencies such as the RCMP to arrest that person. The legislation when passed will allow warrants to be issued so police across Canada can help to find suspects wanted for violating our laws.

This strategy for ending abuse of the system outlined by the minister earlier today impressed me with its fair and balanced approach. Admittedly some critics have complained the amendments do not go far enough. On the other hand there are complaints that the government is too tough and too harsh. When we hear those two extremes I think it is safe to say that we have struck a delicate balance. We can be tough and make it very clear to those who would abuse our laws that they will not be tolerated in Canada. At the same time we are being extremely careful not to destroy the very system we are trying to protect.

As we look for criminals we must make certain that we do not punish the innocent. This is like giving antibiotics to a patient with a serious bacterial infection or administering chemotherapy and radiation to a patient with cancer. We just give the dosage sufficient to cure the infection, control the spread of cancer or cure it if feasible, and not too much treatment so as to endanger the life of the patient himself or herself.

The minister has made it abundantly clear that the people who deserve Canada's protection, those who are fleeing war, famine or persecution, will not have to pay for the wrongs of a few. We must continue to remember that for the most part the people immigrating to Canada today are the nation builders of tomorrow.

I am very proud to say that immigrants have added a lot to the Canadian way of life. They built the railroads and tilled the great prairie farms. Today some of our most prolific artists and performers, distinguished educators, politicians, public servants, inventors, manufacturers and scientists are immigrants. We should never lose sight of their invaluable achievements. We should never let the crimes of a few paint a false portrait of all immigrants.

Most Canadians recognize the positive side to immigration. Many Canadian families can trace their roots back to an immigrant who landed here to start a new life. These positive facts are well documented and understood. Therefore it is very important that public faith and trust in the immigration and refugee process be reaffirmed. If people turn their backs on what we have built, if they lose confidence in the system that we had, it could take generations to gain it back.

I believe this timely legislation will go a long way to reaffirming that faith and trust. The bill will permit those who arrive and strengthen the social, cultural, political and economic fabric of our nation to continue to wear their immigrant status with justifiable pride.

In conclusion I urge members to give passage to the legislation without delay.

[Philippine Independence Day, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Sunday, June 12 is the 96th anniversary of Philippine Independence Day. Canadians of Filipino heritage across Canada celebrate this occasion with pride. I share this pride and find special meaning in our heritage and history.

Fellow members, we know that it is the dream of every people to live in a country which has the ability to shape its own economic, social, cultural and political destiny. This is only possible in an independent and democratic united country.

Filipino Canadians know too well the legacy of centuries of oppression their country of birth suffered. Because of that history we bring to Canada in our celebration of Philippine independence a reminder for the need for vigilance to ensure the security and permanence of freedom and the dignity of nationhood wherever we are.

Please join me in saluting the Filipino people and the Filipino Canadian community on this historic occasion.

[World No Tobacco Day, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are proud their government announced its largest ever anti-smoking drive on the eve of World No Tobacco Day.

If current trends are not reversed smoking will claim the lives of 10 million citizens of the world each year within three decades. In Canada alone 38,000 citizens die each year from smoking related illnesses, the equivalent of a third of most MPs ridings' population.

The challenge to the world is to create a smoke free society. Harmonization of cigarette prices by means of taxation should be part of an international anti-smoking strategy.

Canada has long been a world leader in this area of public health policy. Effective public policy begins with the will of individual citizens.

For non-smokers this day is an opportunity to reaffirm their will not to smoke. For smokers this day is an opportunity for a new beginning to free themselves from the prison of addiction.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some of the concerns of Quebec students. I was listening earlier this morning to the debate of the hon. member. I recall he indicated that one of the many concerns was withdrawal of the federal government from the educational programs.

Withdrawal in what way-to the point a which funds are not given to Quebec students like they are to any other Canadian? Of course the government stands opposed to that because it is committed to helping every student in the country wherever a student may be. Whether students reside in Quebec, in my home province of Manitoba or in my home city of Winnipeg they are entitled to help from the federal government.

In terms of the administration of the program, I realize that education is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. There is provision in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act for opting out and alternative payments will be given. There is the flexibility in the bill that I indicated during debate to respect provincial jurisdiction, to respect regional interest, but to ensure at all times that students wherever they are in the country will be treated equally by the federal government.