Jean Augustine

[Unemployment Insurance Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond.

Under the present system Canada spends a lot, about $16 billion, on post-secondary education. The federal government alone spends $8 billion annually. The cash portion of the EPF transfers to the provinces is slowly ratcheting down. As the cash portion decreases the invisible portion which is given to the provinces through tax points is increasing. This is an invisible endowment to the provinces which will grow from about $4 billion in 1996-97 to $6 billion within 10 years.

The provinces will make the decision whether or not to pass on some or all of this cash reduction to students. Nobody yet knows how much will actually be passed on. That remains to be seen. Many factors will influence their decisions.

At the same time we face different pressing realities. Government resources are shrinking but more people need more education to get and to keep a job. Full time college and university enrolments are up 36 per cent since 1981 and 3 million workers, 25 per cent of the workforce, want to upgrade their skills and cannot afford it.

The discussion paper asks whether the federal government's role should remain as is or whether we should develop a more strategic approach. One option proposed in the green paper is to use the cash to invest in a new permanent program to provide more loans and grants to individual students.

Each $1 we spend could mean $4 in loans, $500 million could mean $2 billion in loans. Instead of declining cash loans would remain constant. Along with tax transfers this would mean the total resources available to the post-secondary education system would continue to grow in order to meet increasing demands for more learning opportunities for more Canadians.

[Canadian Foster Family Week, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Ontario Association of Childrens Aid Societies, I wish to bring to the attention of the House that this is Canadian Foster Family Week.

In this International Year of the Family the celebration of the contributions of foster parents is even more significant. It is important to recognize that nearly 5,000 Ontario foster families provide much needed care, nurturing and stability for children in need of protection, many having suffered from abuse and neglect.

Between 1982 and 1992 the number of foster families available to care for children dropped substantially. This created personal challenges for the Childrens Aid Societies and in some cases required the separation of siblings and a move far from the child's home community.

Canadian Foster Family Week provides an opportunity for members of this House to recognize the contribution of foster families in their respective communities. We must alert the general public to the need for more foster parents to care for children who need the special love and care that foster parents can provide.

[World Habitat Day, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House that Monday, October 3 is World Habitat Day. In this International Year of the Family the celebration of World Habitat Day by the United Nations is even more significant.

It is important to recognize that more and more families around the world are living in substandard housing conditions. The need for adequate shelter is not only a basic human right but necessary for the well-being of all world citizens.

As members of this House, we can facilitate the promotion of public awareness about housing by celebrating World Habitat Day in our individual ridings.

[Petitions, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present a petition signed by some of the residents of Etobicoke-Lakeshore asking that Parliament inform the Leader of the Official Opposition that he is not supporting the majority view of the residents of Etobicoke-Lakeshore when he is travelling to permit and promote the separation of Quebec from Canada.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the member's question directly. Canada's relations with Burma are limited because we remain concerned about the deplorable human rights situation and lack of progress toward democracy in Burma.

Human rights abuses continue unabated and the military have made it clear that they will not relinquish power. Canada suspended its aid program in 1988 and military sales are not allowed to that country.

Furthermore, the Canadian government does not encourage Canadian business activity in Burma. Petro-Canada pulled out of Burma in November 1992 and Canada has worked actively through bilateral and multilateral channels to promote democratic development and respect for human rights in that country.

At the 1992 Association of Southeast Asia Nations Post-Ministerial Conference Canada called for an international embargo on the sale of military equipment to Burma, bearing in mind that country's lamentable human rights record.

Canada made strong statements on Burma in its human rights speech at the United Nations General Assembly in December 1992 and contributed to the resolutions on Burma at both the United Nations General Assembly and the 1993 United Nations committee on human rights. We continue to be very active at the UN third committee and the UN commission on human rights.

We are among the larger donors of multilateral humanitarian assistance to Burmese refugees and we continue to press for the immediate release of Nobel peace prize winner Madam Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to say that we allow criminals to come into the country and not to differentiate between conventional refugees is how the discussion gets into the emotional arena.

Immigrants go through police checks and all kinds of processes before they are even allowed to complete documentation. To roll everything together and to say that we are doing what we are asking for or what the member is asking for is to make certain kinds of judgments. We are the envy of the world, the number one country in which anyone would choose to live. We find it is an avenue most individuals outside our borders would like to enter.

It is also important to note that at this point in time we are not just an open system where anyone who wishes may come here. Too often we hear being tossed about across the way that the system is such that anyone may come here. There are guidelines. There are rules. There are things within the system. We need to be able to differentiate between refugees, people who are fleeing, people who are coming to our shores as a result of international agreements, and people who are coming here as a result of family reunification, support systems, applications and other things. We roll so many things together that the discussion becomes almost confusing.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me in reading the bill that the intent is really to take away the discretionary powers that are presently in the system.

When there are clear rules, when there are clear guidelines, when there are administrative processes that ensure that an individual acts in a specific fashion, those measures take away discretionary powers and what could be considered ways of dealing with individuals in a fashion that could be called unfair.

It is important to say that the situation we see in urban Canada, the situations that the hon. member refers to in terms of Toronto, the situations in which we could use, as the member across the way objected to, the terminology that they are really an element of a minority group of people whose activities are considered nothing more than hoodlum, whose activities could be considered nothing more than destructive not only to themselves but also to their community and society in general.

It is important that in looking at Bill C-44 we ensure that we support this so that fairness is in the system, the rules are clear, the procedures are laid out and there are members of the department and those who deal with the criminal element know precisely how to act.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the member should be presenting the kind of statistics that he is asking for on the nature of the crime, the nature of violence and other acts committed by immigrants in our various communities.

The member also seems to be confused about the issues. On the one hand he says that we should do this, that we support this. On the other hand, he seems to be arguing against himself. It is important to note that what we see on the front pages of our newspapers on a daily basis is that the criminal acts committed by people who come into the system and people who abuse the system are not massive numbers of individuals.

The intent of Bill C-44 is really to ensure that the loopholes that allow those individuals in and the process by which we get the individuals quickly away from our shores, are the issues that are important for this discussion. There are so many other things that the member should want to deal with but chooses to make the connection between refugees and criminality or immigrants and criminality. To continue to put the two together all the time seems to me to be doing a disservice to Canadians who are contributing members of this society.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's immigration program has contributed to a sense of Canadian identity and prosperity for more than 125 years.

Our challenge, as we consider Bill C-44, is to preserve public support for our immigration system, support that is essential if we hope to maintain the humanitarian traditions that have earned Canada respect around the world.

We must appreciate that the trust of Canadians is undermined whenever abuse, fraud, criminality raise their ugly heads. Quite naturally, failure to satisfactorily address the minority of cases of fraud and abuse will erode public confidence. It will inhibit a serious and reasoned discussion of immigration. If this happens, our future as a generous, open nation is in jeopardy.

That is why the provisions found in Bill C-44 are so important. When Canadians are confident that the provisions of our immigration program are enforced effectively, fairly and without prejudice or favour, they will continue to support a progressive approach to immigration.

Today there are only four countries around the world that receive immigrants in significant numbers. The four countries are Canada, Australia, the United States, and Israel, which is a special case. By almost any measurement, Canada ranks near the top in receiving immigrants and accepting people fleeing persecution. A major reason we have been able to respond with such generosity to migration needs and international crises is because we have carefully maintained public support for our broad objectives.

Canadians have demanded with reason that their immigration and refugee systems be not only fair and effective but also well managed. Once assured, Canadians have generously supported Canada's commitment to meet our international obligations even in the present unsettled economic times.

That is why the measures in Bill C-44 are so important. This bill pragmatically balances principles of fairness and tolerance with the principle of respect for the rule of law. It is an astute and sensible response to a situation that demands action. It closes the loopholes that unscrupulous people have exploited and gives our enforcement authority the tools to remove the lawbreakers who would abuse our system and our society.

In closing I would like to emphasize that Bill C-44 is not about revenge or punishment. Instead it is about preservation, preservation of the tolerance for diversity. The government is dedicated to the integration and preservation of ethnic cultures in Canadian society. We have continued to see this great country as richer because of the contributions immigrants have made and continue to make in Canadian society.

We will continue to promote and preserve ethnic cultures in a united and tolerant Canada. Bill C-44 will play a critical part in the preservation of the ideals that we hold dear.

In speaking in support of Bill C-44, I urge all members to consider the importance of the measures within the bill.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, my remarks today will focus on the important measures that are before us from the perspective of a person who immigrated to this country more than 30 years ago.

I came here from the Caribbean island of Grenada. I was a teacher in Grenada looking for an opportunity for further education and self-development. In Grenada one goes overseas. Overseas means having money to do so.

The Canada domestic worker program offered me the opportunity to work for one year with a Canadian family in return for landed immigrant status and life in Canada.

I came with great anticipation and with high hopes. I looked forward to my responsibilities as a domestic because I saw them as a stepping stone to something better. I saw my initial job as an opportunity to support myself through honest work.

I resumed my career as a teacher while earning a bachelor of arts degree and master of education from the University of Toronto. I became an elementary school principal and went on to chair the Metro Toronto Housing Authority, serving over 100,000 people in the metropolitan Toronto area. Now I have the responsibility of serving the great constituency of Etobicoke-Lakeshore and working on behalf of the men, women and children who come to Canada to share identical dreams.

I relate my experience as an immigrant because I want to place the provisions of Bill C-44 in their proper context. I want to make it very clear to everyone who is concerned about immigrants that the vast majority of people who come here are just like I am, with credentials, hard working and committed to a future in Canada.

They may not come from Grenada. They may not look the same as me. They may have a different accent and they may cherish different customs. Most of us share identical dreams. We dream of making a better life for ourselves. We dream of building a better future for our families. We dream of crafting more challenging prospects for our children and we aspire to serve our communities.

We want to contribute to the betterment of our neighbourhoods. We want to create conditions where our loved ones can thrive and prosper and last, but hardly least, we want to rid our streets of crime and violence.

All of us have heard countless stories of successful immigrants to Canada. Even before Confederation was a gleam in the eye of Sir John A. Macdonald waves of newcomers swept into this land. Many were willing to do the most menial labour under

incredible conditions in order to scrape a living and to survive. Others were escaping persecution and seeking freedom. All were intent on building a new nation.

The examples abound. History has recorded the extraordinary contribution of immigrants from many backgrounds, races and cultures who have built this country. From the Montreal harbour to the Toronto skyline, from the building of the railways to the development of our prairie wheat fields, immigrants' labour helped to build Canada.

Where are today's success stories? Are there no such success stories today? Are we now bereft of immigrants improving and enriching Canada?

What I find distressing in this discussion is the lack of recognition of the continuing contribution of newcomers to this country. What I find disturbing is the emphasis that is placed on the negative, destructive aspects of the modern immigration experience. What I find unacceptable is the distorted impression that this lack of recognition and negative depiction of immigrants sometimes leaves in the minds of the Canadian public. Think about it.

Where can we read of present day success stories? Where can we learn of the accomplishments and contributions of recent immigrants? Where can we find out about the achievements of newcomers? Not on the front pages of our newspapers. It is not standard news on the radio and it certainly is not the ordinary fare of television newscasts.

If positive information ever appears it is on the back pages. It is a late radio filler, it is an afterthought buried deep in a television program on a low rating day. Apparently good news about immigrants is not a good enough sell. It is simply not marketable news, and because they are not glamorous, another more sensational picture of the immigrant experience receives the lion's share of the media spotlight.

It is the minuscule minority of immigrants who operate as petty hoods that grabs the media attention and dominate the headlines. It is the small number of immigrants who enter the criminal world that captures the radio news clips. It is the tiny band of fraud artists who come here under false pretences that catches the attention of television reporters. A distorted public picture of modern immigrants is the unfortunate result.

The real story, the whole story, is either too big or too boring for the tabloid headlines. The real story is really about hard working immigrants, entrepreneurs providing jobs and benefits to this country, immigrant students winning scholarships, or it is about immigrant scientists pioneering innovative techniques to alleviate pain and suffering. It is the negative story that most often dominates public reports and it is this information that confounds the public's understanding of immigration and its impact on Canada today. It is the kind of story we hear from across the way.

I doubt very much that any of us can persuade the media away from the idea that bad news should dominate good news at every turn, or even now and then. What we can do is change what is out there about immigration to report, and that is where Bill C-44 comes into play.

Bill C-44 promises to play a pivotal role in diminishing opportunities for the minority of criminals who immigrate to Canada to steal, to deal, to intimidate, to extort, or even to injure and kill. Quite simply, Bill C-44 makes it easier for us to remove unwanted elements that none of us, whether we be descendants of immigrants, old immigrants or relatively new immigrants, want here in the first place.

I would suggest that the changes incorporated in Bill C-44 will not solve the problems of crime in Canadian society but it will help us accomplish our goal of preserving public confidence in Canada's immigration program. More than that, the measures in this bill will also help us rid our country of those people who have little interest in contributing to our society in a positive way.

All our statistics show that newcomers are, if anything, more law-abiding than Canadians born here, even though the scanty minority of exceptions loom lopsidedly large in the public eye and in the media. As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explained to the Canadian association of police chiefs in Montreal this past August, his department has been directed to use three means of strengthening our enforcement activities; legislative changes, administrative reforms and closer co-operation with other law enforcement agencies to locate people who would abuse our generosity.

At the same time, I was particularly pleased to see the minister declare that the Immigration Act will continue to serve as the foundation of our system. This act was amended with utmost care. It was altered only after it was determined that the amendments would both protect the public and promote continued public confidence in our progressive immigration policies at the same time.