Sophia Leung

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition calling for the abolition of nuclear warfare which has been signed by residents of British Columbia: “We, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following: Whereas the continued existence”—

[British Columbia, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration recently visited Vancouver, British Columbia. I had the opportunity to organize an informal round table with 30 community leaders to meet with her. This forum gave my constituents and British Columbians an opportunity to raise issues and concerns to the minister that are important for the entire community and Canada.

I would like to thank the minister for lending her time to these important community discussions in Vancouver. We can now incorporate some of the citizens' ideas to the planning of new policy.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Vancouver Kingsway, B.C., I am pleased to join in the debate. The Nisga'a treaty offers the opportunity to begin the process of reinvigorating economic growth in the province of B.C. through an agreement that will provide certainty for the benefit of British Columbians.

The amendments to Bill C-9 proposed by members of the Reform Party are puzzling because they would defeat the certainty we worked so hard to achieve. Those amendments would lead to uncertainty because they would make Bill C-9 inconsistent with the Nisga'a treaty. The amendments will lead to further uncertainty by making Bill C-9 inconsistent with key aspects of the provincial legislation which gives effect to the Nisga'a treaty. The amendment proposed by the Reform Party would eliminate or impair the ability of third parties to benefit from terms of the Nisga'a treaty which were carefully negotiated for their benefit. The Reform Party has called for consultation but does not seem to realize that its amendment would defeat the result of consultations held with third parties.

Members of the Reform Party will have to explain why they are choosing to ignore the views of British Columbians who were consulted during the treaty negotiations.

The Nisga'a treaty contains key certainty provisions which provide for the modification of Nisga'a aboriginal rights and title. Reform Party suggestions that those provisions be deleted or changed would defeat those certainty provisions. The members opposite must not realize or care about the impact of those proposed amendments which would leave the Nisga'a with the same aboriginal rights and title they may currently have under Canadian law. Members of the Reform Party must not realize that the certainty approach was developed with extensive consultation in British Columbia and modifies Nisga'a rights. This is the key part of the certainty approach. The amendments proposed by the Reform Party would make the certainty provisions inconsistent with the treaty and with the language that third parties expect based on our consultations in B.C.

Members of the Reform Party have proposed amendments which could defeat the transfer of lands and lead to uncertainty of title. Members of the Reform Party do not seem to realize that third parties have made it clear many times that a key goal of treaty negotiations is to create certainty as to ownership of lands.

Once again, members of the Reform Party have proposed amendments which are directly contrary to the advice our negotiators received during consultations. We value the advice and assistance we received from knowledgeable third parties during negotiation of the Nisga'a treaty obviously much more than the Reform Party.

Let me remind members of the Reform Party how Bill C-9 and the Nisga'a treaty provide certainty. Let us talk about full settlement. The Nisga'a treaty is a full and final settlement of Nisga'a claims to aboriginal rights and title and through this agreement those rights will be known with certainty. In future we will all be able to use the treaty for a precise description of Nisga'a rights. All of us will be able to use the treaty because the treaty says that it can be relied on not just by government and the Nisga'a, but by other persons.

Let us talk about future development. The Nisga'a will be able to develop Nisga'a lands. Businesses that are interested in economic development opportunities on Nisga'a lands will know from the treaty that the Nisga'a own those lands. Outside Nisga'a lands, the province of B.C. will be able to develop lands and know precisely the scope of Nisga'a rights and the procedures to follow to develop lands. Businesses that are interested in development opportunities outside Nisga'a lands will similarly benefit from knowing the province's authority to develop those lands.

Those who oppose the Nisga'a treaty risk losing, for all of us, this opportunity.

As in other areas of B.C., without the Nisga'a treaty there would be considerable uncertainty in the Nass Valley as to the scope and location of aboriginal rights and title. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 says “the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed”. Section 35 does not define the scope, content or location of any existing aboriginal rights.

In the case of many first nations in B.C. like the Nisga'a, there is uncertainty as to where aboriginal title applies. Apart from the uncertainty as to aboriginal title, there is also uncertainty as to where aboriginal rights to harvest resources such as fish and wildlife apply. There is also uncertainty as to where an aboriginal right of self-government might apply.

Apart from all of this uncertainty as to the location of aboriginal rights and title, there is uncertainty as to the scope of aboriginal rights for any particular group like the Nisga'a. In a particular location a first nation might claim aboriginal rights, such as the right to harvest wildlife, to gather medicinal plants, to carry out traditional religious practices or to carry out a variety of other activities.

Speaking of negotiation and litigation, it would be costly and time consuming to use the courts to examine each claim of an aboriginal right for each location in B.C.

In the Delgamuukw case the Supreme Court of Canada commented on the disadvantages of litigation and encouraged negotiation as the best way to resolve these issues. Some members might remember that the Delgamuukw case took more than 10 years to go through the courts and in the end the supreme court ordered a new trial. There is still uncertainty as to the aboriginal rights of the Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en who were involved in that case. The Nisga'a treaty shows the advantages of negotiating those issues instead of going to court.

The Nisga'a treaty negotiations were not an attempt to define Nisga'a aboriginal rights, but instead to address uncertainty by exhaustively setting out and defining, with as much clarity and precision as possible, all the section 35 rights which the Nisga'a can exercise after the Nisga'a treaty is concluded.

In the past Canada has achieved certainty through an exchange of undefined aboriginal rights for defined treaty rights, using the language of cede, release and surrender. Objections by first nations to this surrender technique have been a fundamental obstacle to completing modern treaties. The Nisga'a treaty provides for a modified rights approach.

Using the modified aboriginal rights approach, Nisga'a aboriginal rights, including title, continue to exist, although only as modified to have the attributes and geographic extent set out in the Nisga'a treaty.

The approach to certainty is primarily set out in the general provisions chapter, which contains its basic elements. However, certainty is also achieved by the precise description of rights throughout the text of the Nisga'a treaty.

I urge Reform members opposite to come to their senses and to recognize that the amendments they propose would defeat the goal of certainty—

[Recognition Of Crimes Against Humanity Act, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Brampton Centre for introducing Bill C-224 as a recognition of crimes against humanity.

We all know that every murder destroys a measure of human dignity. Atrocities against humanity have a long and sad history. I will cite a few incidents of inhumanity.

One of the earliest examples are the horrors that were perpetrated by the ancient Romans when they fought and destroyed Carthage. In the 1930s Stalin began his collectivization programs in Ukraine. The result was mass starvation of untold numbers of Ukrainians, an atrocity that community even today is struggling to deal with.

In 1931 to 1945 historians estimate Japanese soldiers slaughtered 35 million Chinese during the Japanese invasion of China.

In 1975 the Cambodian people began a terrifying period of their history as the Khmer Rouge took over. The legacy of that regime is known as the killing fields. Over the subsequent four years, an estimated 1.5 to 2 million Cambodian people were murdered or died as the result of the reorganization implemented by the Khmer Rouge.

In 1994 attention slowly focused on Rwanda as news of a massacre emerged from the nation. Those atrocities left communities shattered, families broken and left thousands struggling for survival. According to statistics from the Rwandan Ministry of Home Affairs, obtained from the preliminary census of the vulnerable groups, the number of vulnerable because of genocide stood at 145,881 widows, 49,299 without shelter and 39,727 orphans. The physically and mentally handicapped totalled 4,619.

As recently as last week, stories from East Timor tell of the discovery of mass graves; priests, women and children shot or stabbed to death and buried in an effort to conceal the evidence.

We must stop those senseless crimes against humanity by recalling history so that our children may learn from our past mistakes.

I congratulate the hon. member for Brampton Centre. I fully support Bill C-224, the Recognition of Crimes Against Humanity Act. I would encourage other hon. members to do the same.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the motion currently before the House. I will share my time with the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.

Organized crime is a serious national and international problem that threatens public safety. It is now a multibillion dollar enterprise in Canada. It has a negative impact upon all Canadians.

Many of the problems Canadians see every day are linked to organized crime. Whether it be a drug related burglary, a carton of smuggled cigarettes, a telemarketing scam or juvenile prostitution, it is usually part of the larger problem of organized crime. That is why fighting organized crime is a major task for the government and a key priority of the RCMP.

The federal government has done much so far to hit hard at those criminals. The government is proud of what it has accomplished, but we all know there is more work to do. The government has undertaken a number of initiatives in its fight against organized crime. This government also recognizes that in the global war on organized crime, no one country or government can win by acting alone. Take the example of human smuggling and trafficking.

The government shares the concerns and frustrations of many Canadians in relation to the challenges posed by the arrival of illegal migrants. Canadians are proud of and deeply committed to our humanitarian traditions, but it is equally true that we have no tolerance for those who would abuse this generosity. Today criminally organized smuggling and trafficking operations are conducting an extensive international trade in lives and in the forced labour of human beings.

The United Nations estimates that international smuggling and trafficking operations have grown to a $10 billion a year industry. Organized criminals are demanding as much as $50,000 from their naive or misguided victims, exploiting their simple desire for a better life. We know that this debt is typically repaid over a short and brutal lifetime of illicit activity, sexual exploitation and forced labour.

This is a truly despicable set of circumstances but we must be clear about its source and direct our rightful anger and outrage toward the criminals who seek profit in human suffering rather than toward those victims who in search for a better life allow themselves to be put into such slavery.

Let us be clear about what has been happening with respect to our recent boatloads of arrivals from China. The boats were identified, intercepted, boarded and apprehended. Nine crew members have been charged. Their passengers have been detained. Organized crime has been denied access to the source of its profit. The economic incentive has been cut off. Those who have claimed refugee status are being given a fair hearing on an accelerated basis and in accordance with our charter, our international obligations and our proud humanitarian traditions.

Canadian government officials from the coast guard and national defence, the RCMP and Citizenship and Immigration Canada have all responded admirably under extremely stressful conditions, but the integrity of the system is something we take very seriously. Simply put, if we allow the rules to be abused and the rules are not respected, they cease to have meaning.

People smuggling and human trafficking are serious international problems. That is why we have initiated a serious international response. Canada has assumed a leading role in the development of United Nations protocols on transnational organized crime and migrant smuggling.

We have been working closely with our partners in the United States to improve our crime databases and on joint efforts to track and apprehend international criminals and terrorists. We are working along similar lines with law enforcement agencies in Australia, New Zealand and the European Union. It is worth noting that other countries are confronting similar problems, often on a significantly greater scale. This month alone Australia has seen the arrival of 10 migrant vessels carrying almost 900 people.

We are working with the People's Republic of China. Senior immigration officers along with members of the RCMP have recently returned from Beijing and the Fujian province where they met with representatives of the Chinese government, its enforcement officers and local police.

Last September I and two colleagues from the House went to China. We had discussions and negotiations with Chinese officials to work jointly to solve the human smuggling problem. This visit has helped us to advance our working relationship on human trafficking, people smuggling and the repatriation of Chinese nationals. The Chinese government has reported the recent seizure of six migrant vessels, including up to four which are thought to have been destined for Canada.

Smuggling has been around for a while. It is a fee for service operation where smugglers are paid for simple passage across international borders. They provide this service through various means which include such things as false travel documents and undetected border crossings. Their customers are sometimes economic migrants, but sometimes they are legitimate refugees who resort to smugglers as the only way to escape the source of their persecution.

Human trafficking is more akin to human slavery. The goal of traffickers is to profit from indentured human slaves. Once their debts have been imposed, the victims of human trafficking are bound to a long term repayment plan involving forced labour, prostitution and other illicit activities. These victims often have reason to fear for their lives and the lives of their family members back home.

For human traffickers, the goal is not legal status. In the first instance it is to evade detection at our ports of entry in order to enter unnoticed and force their passengers underground and into slavery as soon as possible. We are opposed to both smuggling and trafficking. But above all, Canada will not tolerate the abuse of our system by organized criminals engaged in such deplorable human exploitation.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has travelled across the country speaking with her provincial counterparts, representatives of various non-governmental organizations and other concerned citizens. She has listened to a wide range of views on the matter in order to come up with a solution to this problem.

There is no easy solution to this problem. That is why I am pleased to support the motion that is before the House. I urge all members to do so.

[Immigration, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

This past summer, four ships packed with illegal migrants landed in B.C. What measure is the minister taking to ensure that the B.C. coast is properly patrolled in an effort to deter future human smuggling?

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House in both official languages the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association on the eighth annual session of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly, OSCE PA, in St. Petersburg, Russia, July 6-10, 1999.

[Business Registration, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to open the newest one stop business registration service for the SUCCESS program in Vancouver last week. The SUCCESS program allows new and existing entrepreneurs to register their businesses in one place at one time. It is a fine example of government cutting red tape for small business owners and I am sure that is something we can all be proud of.

[Immigration, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Last year less than 14,000 business immigrants came to Canada, yet the minister's projection for this year is even higher. How does the minister intend to attract more skilled business immigrants to Canada?

[Health, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Some 30% of Canadians live in rural communities yet only 14.3% of general physicians practise there. Fewer than 3% of all specialists operate in rural communities.

What immediate action will the minister take to correct the tragic situation for health care in rural Canada?