Val Meredith

[Petitions, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present another 1,239 names to the tens of thousands of signatures already submitted.

These 1,239 signatures represent people from across the country who are asking that Parliament enact legislation against serious personal injury crimes being committed by high risk offenders by permitting the use of post-sentence detention orders and specifically by passing Bill C-240.

[Immigration, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I stand today to respond to the minister's statement on immigration levels for the coming year, I am not particularly reassured by the minister's glowing picture of the state of Canada's immigration policy.

The minor increase in actual immigration numbers is somewhat irrelevant, as the actual number of immigrants who will be arriving this year is closer to the lower levels of projections for this year and will probably be the same next year. However, by announcing a modest increase of 5 per cent, the government can say it is moving closer to its red book promise.

The Liberal red book states: "We would continue to target immigration levels of approximately 1 per cent of the population each year". That works out to approximately 300,000 immigrants a year, and we are only at two-thirds of that total. I would suggest this is a much more reasonable number than the red book promise, but a number that is still likely to cause difficulty.

Part of the problem with these numbers is that the minister's own department is having difficulty handling and processing the applications. Last month one of the managers from the Vegreville office spoke to MPs' staff in the Vancouver area. At that time he announced that the Vegreville office had a backlog of over 15,000 files, with 7,000 of those files being over a year old. If we have that type of backlog now, what is going to happen if the Department of Citizenship and Immigration proceeds with its proposed cutbacks of up to 25 per cent of its staff?

Another interesting aspect of this announcement on new levels is the new category of provincial-territorial nominees. This new category will give the provinces and territories, with the exception of Quebec, the ability to share a grand total of 1,000 immigrants. As I said, with the exception of Quebec. Under the Canada-Quebec accord, Quebec already has sole responsibility for the selection of immigrants destined to that province. This applies only to economic immigrants. Nevertheless, last year Quebec had the ability to choose more than 11,000 economic immigrants who came to that province. In a sense of fairness, the federal government has decided to permit the rest of the provinces and territories to have a say in selecting a total of 1,000.

The numbers show another interesting aspect of the Canada-Quebec accord. Under this arrangement Quebec received $90 million to spend on settlement in that province. The federal

government in turn spent about $270 million in the rest of Canada. Thus, Quebec's share was about one-quarter of the total allotment, which was fairly consistent with Quebec's one-quarter of the population in Canada and was fairly consistent with Quebec's intent to settle 47,000 of the immigrants to the country, or one-quarter. However, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Quebec settled only 26,000 immigrants last year, which is only 13 per cent of the total. Yet it still received $90 million, or approximately one-quarter of all settlement dollars.

Next year Quebec will settle only 27,000 immigrants and refugees, or approximately 12 to 13 per cent of the total. Yet it will still receive $90 million, or 25 per cent of the funding.

Given Premier Parizeau's comments about the ethnic vote in Quebec, I can understand why immigrants are reluctant to move to that province. However, the reality is that the federal government is now funding the settlement of immigrants in Quebec at a rate twice that of the rest of Canada.

Levels, numbers, and dollars are only one part of the equation. Canadians are just as concerned about the quality of the immigrants we are receiving as we are about the number of immigrants we are receiving. Polls show there is not a great deal of public support for Canada's current immigration in this nation. The government likes to say it is because of the Reform Party that such support is down. While I appreciate the government's acknowledging our influence, I must inform its members that our party is just reflecting the concerns of ordinary Canadians.

Ordinary Canadians get upset when they hear that 14 per cent of sponsorship obligations are in default, to the tune of $700 million in 1993. They get upset when they read in the September 30 edition of the Ottawa Citizen that 19 per cent of welfare recipients in the Ottawa-Carleton region are immigrants and refugees. They want this government to get tough on sponsors who default on their obligations. Instead, they hear about cases like Mohammed Assaf.

In 1989 Mohammed Assaf sponsored his brother and family to settle in Alberta. Within two years his brother's family went on welfare. The Alberta taxpayers have had to shell out $40,000 in welfare payments. Despite attempts by the Alberta social services to collect the money from Mohammed, the sponsor, he ignored them. He then wanted to sponsor his second wife to come to Canada. In their wisdom, the immigration department officials said no, he could not sponsor her because he had an outstanding sponsorship obligation already.

Mohammed Assaf paid back $8,000 of his $40,000 obligation and then came up with a better idea: He would appeal to the IRB. Guess what happened? The IRB members said: "Do not worry about your debt to the Canadian taxpayer, we will let you sponsor your second wife here anyway".

What kind of message does this send, not only to the immigrant community but to the Canadian public at large? Outrageous IRB decisions like this one undermine everything the minister says he is trying to do to rectify the problem of defaulted sponsorship.

It is not good enough to blame the IRB. The members of the board are patronage appointees the minister installed. It is somewhat ironic that everything the minister is trying to accomplish through his department is being undone by the political hacks he appointed to the IRB.

While the percentage of immigrants who arrive in this country via the family reunification aspect of immigration is being reduced, it is still a major problem area. Most Canadians will acknowledge that the reunification of family members is a valid goal. However, this reunification must be limited to immediate family.

As reported in one of the studies incorporated in the book Diminishing Returns , over recent years each individual who has immigrated to Canada under the family class has had a multiplier effect of an additional seven immigrants. Unfortunately, many of these are solely done for money, be they arranged marriages for a large dowry or outright sham marriages. I have been informed of one case in which a woman was upset because she was having difficulty sponsoring her fourth husband in four years. Shams like these contribute to bringing the whole system in disrepute.

On the plus side, we have those immigrants who do make a positive contribution to Canada's economy. Studies consistently show that these people make more money than native-born Canadians.

Last year the minister proudly announced that the percentage of economic immigrants will rise from 43 per cent to 55 per cent of all immigration. While this may sound good, it is somewhat deceptive. In fact the majority of immigrants who come under the economic class are not those high income earners but the dependants of high income earners. In reality, only 17 per cent of those in the immigrant class are these high income individuals. When we add refugees to the equation, only 14 per cent of all newcomers to the country are economic immigrants.

Unfortunately, many of these individuals are becoming disillusioned with what they find here. Media reports from Vancouver recently indicated that many of these immigrants who arrived from Hong Kong are returning to Hong Kong. They cite the high and numerous taxes in Canada as well as endless government regulations that tend to discourage the creation of wealth as the main reasons they are leaving. Is it not ironic that these individuals believe they will be better off from a business perspective under the

communist regime of the People's Republic of China in a couple of years than they are under the Liberal government today.

Finally, I would like to discuss Canada's acceptance of refugees. We have always been generous in accepting legitimate convention refugees, and we should continue to receive our share of those fleeing persecution from conflicts in Africa, Asia, and the former Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, convention refugees are not necessarily what we are getting.

One of my staffers recently met with a young Somali refugee currently attending Ottawa University. The only problem is that this individual is neither a refugee nor a Somali. Rather he was born in neighbouring Djibouti and while a resident of France he came to Ottawa to go to university. When he started to run low on funds he went to a local Canada immigration office, claimed to be a Somali refugee and now the Canadian taxpayers are funding the rest of his education.

How about Tejinder Pal Singh, a convicted airline hijacker? He arrived in Canada, claimed refugee status under an alias and is now free on bail in Vancouver while the IRB hears his case.

If the government wants Canadians to openly accept refugees, then it had better make sure we are opening our doors to legitimate convention refugees and not murderers, hijackers or scam artists.

If the government wants all Canadians to support its immigration policy, then it had best make sure that it is bringing in people who want to make a positive contribution to our country, and not in the minister's own words the "wretched refuse" from "teeming shores".

[Immigration, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is willing to let the provinces have more control in immigration.

I would like to know if the minister, when he announces the immigration projections for the new year on Wednesday, is going to allow the provinces to have input in the immigration levels of their provinces.

[Immigration, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, no matter what happens with the vote in Quebec tonight, Canada must proceed with important constructive change.

Four years ago the Canada-Quebec accord was signed, which gave Quebec a significant voice and federal funding for immigration matters in that province. I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if this government is prepared to sign similar agreements with the other provinces.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am one of the first to support self-government at a local level within the context of Canada being the nation. Not only do I talk about it, I have worked hard to implement it.

I do have a concern which I would like the hon. member opposite to address. How do we deal with the aboriginal communities who see inherent self-government as being separate and apart from Canada? They see the right of inherent self-government as a separate and distinct nation from that of Canada. How will we deal with those aboriginal communities which see inherent government as being separate from the Government of Canada?

[British Columbia Treaty Commission Act, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the government talking about dealing with the issue of land claims negotiations quickly and resolving the problems.

We heard of an Indian settlement area on the west coast that has been working for 23 years to resolve these issues. A whole generation has spent time negotiating with governments that obviously have not come to any sort of agreement. The negotiation is still not finished after 23 years.

My colleagues and I agree that it is very important to get on with the job to settle the land claim issue and to negotiate with the aboriginal people. However it is not right for the government to hold out unrealistic goals for aboriginal people. It is not fair to the aboriginal people to lead them to expect more than what they are likely to achieve through the process.

I spent 15 years living in an aboriginal community in northern Alberta. I spent three years working to prepare non-treaty settlement areas for self-government. I know the process. I have been through the process and it can be done successfully. However they have to be very realistic in their expectations of what government and the people will help them to achieve.

I do not think this government is any more able than the previous government unless it comes into these negotiations with a very realistic perspective.

I am concerned. I would like to ask a question of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Why has it taken the government over two years to come up with legislation to support the process which I feel may work in British Columbia? Why has it taken the government two years to address that issue?

[Immigration, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned that the minister does not take the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with the seriousness with which it deliberated over it.

I would like to ask the minister if it is his intention to proceed with the deportation process against Mr. Chan and other refugee claimants who are using the one-child policy in China as their claim of refugee status in Canada.

[Immigration, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Kwong Hung Chan's fear of forced sterilization in his native China was not sufficient grounds for a refugee claim in Canada.

In light of the supreme court's decision, does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration consider this decision to be a general precedent, that China's one-child policy is not a basis for refugee claim in Canada?

[Employment Equity Act, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-64 today.

The government likes to talk about Bill C-64 in terms of employment equity and it shudders when the terms affirmative action or quotas are used. The reality is the bill is exactly about quotas and affirmative action. What else can it be when numerical targets are provided, employers are required by law to attain those targets, and those who fail to do so are subject to significant fines? This legislation is about quotas, pure and simple, and it is wrong, pure and simple.

The entire premise of Bill C-64 is built on the concept of correcting historical wrongs. There was discrimination in Canada's past. I will use women in the RCMP as an example. Women were not allowed to join the RCMP as regular employees until 1974. That was discriminatory. Women who were born prior to the 1940s were discriminated against because they were denied the opportunity to apply to become regular members of the RCMP. However, for the past 21 years women have had the opportunity to apply for positions. There have been successes and failures. Now we are

starting to see women cracking the commissioned officer ranks of the force.

If nature were allowed to take its course, over time we would see the numbers in the RCMP change dramatically, as all those males retire who were hired under a men only policy. This is not good enough for the government, as it wants to legislate the ratios immediately. It does not take into consideration the fact that fewer women than men are likely to see police work as a desirable occupation.

The reality of police work is that it is a dangerous job. People shoot at you, punch you in the face and fight you when you try to arrest them. For some strange reason this does not have a lot of appeal for many women. I do not know why that is. The way I look at it, if you are going to spend your Friday nights fighting drunks you might as well get paid for it, but that is another matter.

The reality is that since the pool of male applicants for police work is significantly larger than the pool of female applicants, it is not surprising there are more qualified men than women applying for those jobs. That is not to say there will not be a significant female presence on any police force that hires solely on the merit principle. I have absolutely no doubt that the top female recruits compare favourably with the top male recruits. However, this bill ignores the principle of hiring based on merit. We will have a situation where the RCMP will be hiring some female applicants who are less qualified than some male applicants, who will not be hired because of this legislation.

The government says that this discrimination is justified. When we look carefully, we will have a system whereby females will receive a special advantage because their mothers were discriminated against. At the same time, the government will endorse state sponsored discrimination against males because their fathers had an unfair advantage over 20 years ago. I guess this all makes sense to the government, but it sure does not give me any positive feeling. The convoluted logic behind this argument is surprising, to say the least.

I ask the government, when has one form of discrimination ever righted any wrongs created by a different form of discrimination? People are already being hurt by employment equity programs, and this bill is going to make it worse. I have met a number of young men who want to become police officers. They have degrees in criminology and they meet all the other criteria. However, when they happen to be white males not only can they not get hired, but they have been told they should not even waste their time applying for the position. These men have never received any specific advantages because they are white males, yet this government believes they must be punished because at some point in time white males did receive unfair advantage.

Perhaps these young men should be instructed to turn their career sights to the nursing profession. Here is an occupation that has been traditionally staffed by a disproportionate number of females, so with the new employment equity legislation many more men will be hired for this profession because of their under-representation. Right? Wrong. Since men do not qualify as one of the designated groups, they do not rate protection under Bill C-64. Despite the fact that men have traditionally been under-represented in the nursing profession, just as females have traditionally been under-represented in the policing profession, this bill works only in one direction, and that is in itself discriminatory.

Is that not what Bill C-64 is all about, the creation of state sponsored discrimination? Let us treat people differently because of their gender or their race. Let us punish young white males today because their fathers may have received special and unfair advantages decades ago.

We all know that it is easy to pass legislation due to which other people are expected to make sacrifices but not the lawmakers. That was quite apparent when the government dealt with MP pensions and it is quite apparent here. The government has no problem imposing these quotas on others but is it prepared to live up to the spirit of the legislation itself?

When one looks at the cabinet one sees an extreme over-representation of white males. Of the 23 cabinet ministers in the House, excluding the secretaries of state, only four are female. If we were to make the cabinet demographically correct there would be more females.

Once the government passes Bill C-64, I am very curious to know which eight white males will resign their cabinet positions and give up their spaces for females. Which eight are prepared to sacrifice the additional $46,645 of the cabinet salary? Which eight are prepared to sacrifice their jobs, just as they expect others to do in the name of employment equity?

I am proud to belong to a party that believes that the only criterion in hiring or promoting is that the best qualified person should be given the job. If this principle were followed I am sure we would have a workforce that is truly reflective of the Canadian mosaic.

As a female I find it extremely insulting to suggest that I need special legislation to compete with a man. I believe the things I have accomplished have been because of my abilities, not my gender. I am proud that when I won the Reform Party nomination for my constituency I competed on an equal basis with five males and I won a first ballot victory, not because of my gender but because of my abilities.

During the election campaign the Liberal, Conservative and NDP candidates were all male. While I certainly do not believe I won just because of my gender, it obviously was not a detriment to my campaign.

There are a number of people in this country who are sexist and racist and who engage in other forms of discrimination. They will not disappear just because Bill C-64 is passed. If the government wanted to deal with discrimination in hiring or in promotion practices in the public service all it had to do was make it clear that anyone who engages in such a practice will be immediately fired. If this approach had been taken we would have obtained the same results without instituting the state sponsored discrimination that Bill C-64 brings.

I cannot support any legislation that is discriminatory and racist in content and institutionalizes the concept that individuals in Canada will be treated differently because of their gender or race.

I will not ask government members to vote against Bill C-64 because I look forward to going into the next federal election with them having to defend it, just like Lyn McLeod had to defend her support for employment equity in the recent Ontario election. As the old saying goes, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. I take it the Liberals are saying they are intent on following the footsteps of the Ontario Liberals in the next federal election. That is just fine with me.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House to speak on Bill C-242. It is a very rare occasion to see anything concrete coming from the government side of the House that makes any sense and actually deals with the real issues. I guess it is because it is coming from the back benches and not from the government that I can appreciate we are dealing with the real issues here.

Having had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee of Justice and Legal Affairs with the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, I can appreciate his approach to legislative changes. During his tenure on the committee the member for Scarborough-Rouge River has been able to identify problems with the current laws, propose legislative changes before the committee and try to promote them. Unfortunately he has had very little support from members of his own caucus.

He is attempting with Bill C-242 to deal with the real issues, the real concerns, and to suggest legislative changes. There is nothing earth shattering about the changes he is recommending. Serious repeat offenders should be denied statutory release. Loopholes should be removed from the calculation of parole eligibility which allow repeat offenders not to serve their full new sentences. Victims of sexual assaults should be allowed to request that their assailants provide blood samples to check for infectious diseases. Bail procedures should be toughened up. Crack houses should be outlawed and the age of criminal responsibility for young offenders should be reduced from 12 to 10 years old.

The member for Scarborough-Rouge River has identified a number of flaws in the justice system and has offered workable solutions to these flaws. Either that, or I would suggest he has been reading the Reform Party's policy book again. Bill C-242 reads like it came directly out of the criminal justice reform section of our policy book. In either event the Reform Party certainly supports each and every one of the amendments in Bill C-242.

It is a shame that these issues will only receive one hour of debate this afternoon and then will die. All these amendments have the support of the Reform Party. I am certain they also have the support of an overwhelming majority of Canadians. Canadians are demanding justice reform. There are just too many cases where the law is not protecting the average citizen.

Canada's justice system needs to adopt one underlying principle: when the rights of a convicted offender are in conflict with the rights of the victim or the rights of society as a whole, the rights of the victim or of society shall take precedence every time. A prime example of the need for this principle is contained in clause 7 of Bill C-242.

The need for legislation sprung out of a case in Quebec a few years ago when a mother was sexually assaulted by an inmate on parole. The inmate had previously been incarcerated in an institution with a very high number of AIDS cases. Since her assailant had been an intravenous drug user the victim was naturally concerned that her assailant may also have carried HIV. When her assailant refused to voluntarily give a blood sample the victim went to court to have one given. Her request was rejected because conducting a blood test against the offender's will was deemed to be a violation of his rights under the charter.

This is a prime example of what is wrong with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This offender who committed a serious crime of sexual assault should have lost some of his rights. One of the rights he should have lost was the right to refuse to take a blood test.

On the day of the sexual assault the victim's life was irrevocably changed. Sexual assault leaves emotional scars that never leave the victim. One additional burden should not have been her daily concern about whether or not she had been infected by HIV or any other sexually transmitted disease.

Clause 7 would have addressed that issue. Unfortunately Clause 7 like the rest of Bill C-242 will never be enacted.

In the last days of June we finally got the government to move on the question of taking DNA samples. Why could blood samples not be given the same consideration where there is justifiable cause?

Another aspect of Bill C-242 I should like to address is the amendments the member for Scarborough-Rouge River wishes to make to the Young Offenders Act. He felt it was necessary to lower the minimum age from 12 years to 10 years. The member for Scarborough-Rouge River cites the example of the murder case in Great Britain where two 10-year old boys murdered a 3-year-old. The member correctly pointed out that had the offence occurred in Canada the police would have had little recourse but to simply accompany the boys back to their parents, and that would have been the end of it.

It is interesting this example was used because I have used it myself on many occasions. I have been criticized because such a horrendous event has not occurred in Canada and therefore it is inappropriate to use it.

Then I switched to my Mikey Smith story. Mikey Smith is an 11-year old boy from Surrey who has for the past couple of years been one of the most active car thieves in the lower mainland area. While I am not sure what his current total is, it is probably well over 100 cars. Mikey Smith publicly admitted that he would

continue to steal cars until he was 12 years old because there was nothing anybody could do about it.

Mikey's mother asked that he be charged before he either killed himself or somebody else, before he reached a point where he could not turn his life around. The Surrey RCMP would have been more than happy to have accommodated the mother but the law did not allow it. The Surrey crown counsel would have loved to have been able to have accommodated Mikey's mother, but as the Young Offenders Act currently stands there was nothing they could do.

I questioned the Minister of Justice about it in the House and in committee. He expressed concern about the issue. He basically said that while they can do something about it they are not prepared to do so.

In the meantime one of my constituents was going home one afternoon, going through an intersection on a green light, and was sideswiped by a car stolen and driven by Mikey Smith. Fortunately no one was seriously injured, but it is incomprehensible that this kind of situation can continue to be allowed and that Mikey Smith should be allowed to continue the mayhem.

One response I received from the federal government was that it was a case in which the provincial social services should have intervened. Just for the government's information, they did. They sent Mikey on a wilderness program so that he could develop a better attitude. The program helped so much that on the day Mikey returned to Surrey he stole a car to celebrate his return.

Unfortunately Mikey is not the only youngster under 12 to be engaged in crime. Youth gangs are recruiting 10-year-olds and 11-year-olds to carry out some of their crimes because they know that they cannot be charged. Still there is no hint from the government that it will support this kind of change. In fact when the Reform Party put forward a votable motion last year not one Liberal voted in favour of it.

In conclusion, Bill C-242 is a good example of how some Liberal backbenchers have proposed good legislation but how the government is not prepared to let the legislation be enacted. It is apparent to me that the only way these criminal justice reforms will ever be enacted is if there is a more Reform minded government in place. I assure the member for Scarborough-Rouge River that such a government would be much more sympathetic to supporting these initiatives.