Steve Mahoney

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I know it upsets people, but let us put the facts on the table. When a member in this place accepts a stipend of an additional $200,000 because he wants to make close to what he was making in the private sector, and then instructs the rest of his caucus not to vote for the raise, it is unconscionable. It is nothing more than grandstanding by the leader of the fifth party. The Canadian people will see through that.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it might not come as a great shock to people but I have been actually advised by some people, as we all seek advice, that I should not talk about this issue.

I strongly disagree. I am prepared to stand here, talk about the issue and defend why I am prepared to vote for the bill. I will do it in this place, in my office in the Confederation Building, in my office in Streetsville and in my community. I am prepared to be held accountable.

I am not prepared to say what I have heard others say and what the previous speaker said. I will not say that unless I get what I want I will vote against the bill but that because I am worth the same as every MP I will also accept the pay increase.

It is not parliamentary to use words like hypocrisy, so I will not. However that is the most astounding position a parliamentarian could take. Members should have the courage to be accountable for the decisions they make and make the decisions they think are just and fair.

I was first elected municipally in 1978. I served for almost 10 years as a municipal councillor in the city of Mississauga. One of the issues we dealt with in the early years was the rate of pay. It was a job that changed dramatically from 1974 when the city was created to the early eighties when the rapid growth of wards and constituencies turned it into a full time job with tremendous pressure. It was a seven day a week job. It was not uncommon to work 18 hours a day. We needed more staff, more resources and better equipment.

Frankly the councillors in those days deserved a pay increase and we went through one. It was horrific. It was very difficult to sit there and have people scream at us that we did not deserve it. People said it should not fall to elected representatives to make the decision and that someone else should vote on it. They said there had to be a better way.

I went through the reverse when I was elected an MPP in the province of Ontario and we took a pay decrease. Let me say how many phone calls came in congratulating me for reducing my pay by 5%, the taxable portion, from $45,000 down to roughly $42,000. I am quite sure no one remembers that occurred and yet we had to vote on it.

If one must vote on a decrease I suppose one must vote on an increase. I have the greatest difficulty with the misinformation being perpetrated and bought, by and large, by members of the public. They are calling it an opting out clause. We could take that literally as we did with the pension.

We all know what happened to the Canadian Alliance members who wore pigs on their lapels, made grunting noises in this place and said they would never come to the trough and take the pension. They turned around and opted back into the pension just in time. I never opted out. I have always thought a pension was fair for a legislator or member of parliament.

I know what happened over there. They can heckle if they wish, but we have in the bill an opting in provision which is substantially different. Once the bill is passed all members in this place on all sides would have a period of 90 days to inform the payroll department whether they wish to accept the increased pay. Members who fail to do so would not receive the increase.

Another interesting point about the opting in provision is that it is private. It is between members of parliament and the payroll department. It is not between members of parliament and their constituents. It is between members of parliament and their consciences. If members vote against the pay raise they in good conscience should not opt into the plan and accept the increase. That is accountability. Let us understand that.

I hear crying from across the way that it is unfair, that it is the Prime Minister being a bully. It is nothing of the sort.

It is nothing of the sort. Members in this place who believe the bill is wrong because of the timing, the amount or any of the issues involved have an obligation to their constituents and to their own consciences to vote against it. I have no difficulty with any member on any side of the House voting against the bill.

I have grave difficulty when members grandstand in this place or in their constituencies, condemn the government and say the bill is awful, vote against it and then opt in. Members will not be in a position to sit back and allow it to happen automatically. They must physically do something to obtain the raise.

It is time we looked at what has happened with public wages and turned it around to all areas. What has happened to teachers and nurses is unconscionable. It is time to end it. Why has it happened? It has happened because all of us, on all sides of this place and in all legislatures of this great country, have worshipped at the altar of tax cuts to the point where we have gutted the public service. We are all culpable and we are all responsible.

PSAC is currently negotiating with the treasury board for an increase. It is time we were fair. It is time we looked at increases for people who do the important work of the public. I have listened for years to the denigration of public servants, of those who work for the people of Canada. They deserve to be paid.

In the limited time I have I will touch on another issue. It is the height of twisted logic for the leader of the fifth party to stand in this place, shaking à la John Diefenbaker, and tell us his caucus will vote against this dastardly pay raise while he continues to receive a supplement from his own party of $200,000 per year in addition to his pay as a member of parliament. For the member to stand in his place and pontificate while he accepts $200,000 a year from his own party, when the party is in debt by over $6 million, must turn people like Mr. Diefenbaker over in their graves.

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

There might be. One never knows.

I want to address the issue around refugees, which my hon. friend recently talked about.

One change to Bill C-11 that is really important from the standpoint of refugees is the one year window of opportunity that they will have to sponsor family once they have been accepted as a convention refugee.

That opportunity has not existed in the past. This is contrary to some of the media articles, notably the one by Diane Francis, whom my colleague from Scarborough East greatly admires, in which she stated that all the people who come here as refugees cheat the system and go on welfare, which is what my friend from Winnipeg was saying. The article creates the image that these people are a burden on the taxpayer, whether it be at the municipal or federal levels. I agree that statistics will be available to show that is simply not true. It is an image put forward by some of the more extreme right wingers, both in political circles and in the media, which is most unfortunate.

The fact is that the vast majority of people who come here and apply for refugee status are people who have some stress in their lives. They are either fleeing persecution, torture or possible death. Many of them come from very unstable countries with a military presence.

There will of course be people who try to abuse the system and that is one of the things we are trying to address with the changes in Bill C-11. However for people to suggest that all refugees are in that category is profoundly unfair and it creates a stereotype that is not true.

I have travelled with the immigration minister to our ports overseas to visit with immigration staff and to go to refugee camps. Unfortunately the member from the official opposition has declined to attend, for whatever reason. It is an educational experience to see the situations in Africa, Moscow and other parts of the world where there are terrible economic problems.

One example that will probably stay with me the rest of my life is when I was in Nairobi, Kenya. I sat in on interviews with people who were applying to come to Canada. Through a translator, one woman told a story of how she and her husband were dragged out of their bed in the middle of the night to the front yard where her husband was shot and killed. Her teenage son ran to help his father and he was also shot and killed. A third boy came out and he was put in the back of a truck. She was thrown into the truck and then put in prison for two months where she was gang raped every day by seven guards. To this day she has yet to see the son who was taken away. She does not know if he is alive or dead, being tortured, in a work camp or perhaps sold into slavery. She has no way of finding out what happened to him. While this woman was being tortured and raped in prison for two months, her three children, who were under the age of 10, were left to fend for themselves.

This is a reality that many of these people are facing. As Canadians, we need to understand the terrible suffering and brutality that is going on in the world. As Canadians, we need to find a way to open our doors to these people so we can help them.

This woman was applying for refugee status in Canada. I will never forget the moment when the immigration officer asked the woman's 11 year old daughter what she wanted to be when she grew up. Through an interpreter, she said that she wanted to be an airline pilot. The closest these people would be to an airplane would be 10,000 feet as it passed over them while they were wandering in the desert.

If that young 11 year old girl could arrive in Canada, go to school and have the opportunity for a life, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that she may one day be flying MPs between Toronto and Ottawa on a regular basis. Who knows? It is not beyond the realm of possibility because this is Canada and that is what the bill is about.

The bill is about opening up our doors to people throughout the world who need the compassion, the opportunity, the caring and the help that we as Canadians can provide.

My old friend, Johnny Barker of the United Steelworkers in Sault Ste. Marie, used to say “Don't let your bleeding heart run away with your bloody head”. The point of that is, of course we have these terrible problems throughout the world but does that mean that we should just let our hearts bleed or should we put in place some realistic, achievable goals for trying to help the world's refugee population? If we can once and for all close the back door to the illegals who do abuse our system and our generosity, then we will be able to open the door to people like the lady I met in Nairobi and her daughters.

What I find particularly troubling is that so much of the focus of the debate around Bill C-11, not from the speaker just before me but from the critics for the other parties, is why we are taking away appeal rights for convicted criminals. It is difficult to understand why we are worried about people who have been convicted of a crime that comes with a 10 year sentence and who receive at least two years of actual sentence time as a result of that conviction. They have a right to appeal that through the criminal justice system, to have that appeal turned down, to spend two years in jail and then we have the opportunity as a country to deport these people. There was anguish in committee. Members opposite said that it was awful to treat people like that?

We are not talking about refugees. We are talking about people who are landed immigrants in this country, not Canadian citizens, who commit a serious crime.

Madam Speaker, as a lawyer you would know that to get a two year sentence in this country one has to do something pretty serious in the criminal justice system. We are not talking about minor felons here, we are talking about serious problems.

Why the opposition continues to foster the idea that somehow we should provide greater rights and protection for convicted criminals or potential terrorists in this country is truly mind-boggling. It has been an enormous exercise in frustration to listen to the members opposite put forward that kind of argument. I can only think that they do it because they are opposing for the sake of opposing instead of realizing that the aims in Bill C-11 and the aims of the minister are to deal strongly and forcefully with people who would abuse our system, commit crimes and do things against our society. We can deport them and once and for all not allow them to re-offend.

The bill would bring integrity to the immigration and refugee system in the country. I hope members opposite will see fit to support it.

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

There is not trouble, Madam Speaker, contrary to what the opposition might think.

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

Mr. Speaker, I actually was not going to say much here this morning but I feel I must respond to the comments of the two previous speakers to the bill, the critic for the NDP and the critic for the Conservative Party.

When they talk about the fact that the government is not living up to its charter of rights obligations and that it is taking away appeals from people, I think there are a couple of things that are conveniently left out. One of them is who it is we are talking about here in terms of permanent residents who are facing deportation. A permanent resident is a landed immigrant. I am sure everyone knows that no government would in any kind of a light fashion institute deportation proceedings against someone who has attained landed immigrant status. It would have to be pretty serious, and what exactly does it mean?

There is a rule in the bill that we refer to as the 10 and 2 rule. The people we are talking about who could, may or might face deportation proceedings in this instance are people who have committed a crime for which they have been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. The sentence must be a minimum of 2 years and the crime must allow for a maximum of 10 years. It is the 10 and 2 rule.

If the crime is serious enough to have at least a 10 year sentence applied and the decision by the judge is that the person who has been convicted, and that is very important, must serve at least 2 years out of a possible 10, then the person has committed a crime that the ministry would see as serious enough, possibly, to institute deportation proceedings. It is not automatic. A notice would have to be sent.

The suggestion that people do not have a right of appeal is just patently false. What they do not have a right to do is jam up our federal courts in appealing. They do not have a right to come out after their sentence is over and they are facing deportation proceedings and then jam up the judicial system while they continue to stay in the country, avoiding the deportation order and perhaps reoffending.

Members opposite say the government has not listened to Canadians. I am sorry, but I represent a riding, Mississauga West, where immigration is one of the hottest issues. I can tell members that Canadians have told me loud and clear that they do not want Canada to be seen as a safe haven for criminals, convicted felons, violent perpetrators, terrorists or subversives.

Some would say this is against the charter of rights. Come on. There is a right within the bill for people who have been convicted and sentenced. By the way, they would most likely have appealed it, so they would have gone through the criminal justice system appealing everything all the way. If the appeal did not set them free, they would have been incarcerated. When they get out this government wants the right to say that it no longer wants those people in the country continuing with those kinds of offences. That is number one. Let us be clear about that. The government has done the test on whether or not the bill will stand up to charter challenges and it is absolutely convinced it will.

Canadian people have a right to feel safe in their communities. One of the arguments I hear from the Progressive Conservative critic is that people who come to this country could be here for 20 to 30 years and then the government would turn around and deport them because they have committed a serious crime. If they have been in the country for 20 or 30 years and have not sought Canadian citizenship that clearly is their option. There is no obligation on them to become citizens, but if they want to become citizens and a productive part of our society then we welcome them to do that. If they choose not to do that and they simply maintain the status of being landed immigrants or permanent residents, as it is referred to in the bill, then they run the risk, and they should know they run the risk, following a conviction on a 10 and 2 crime, a serious enough crime, that they may well be deported.

They can appeal that decision to an independent adjudicator, who will make a decision as to whether or not that deportation order should be upheld. The decision of the independent adjudicator is judicially reviewable in the courts. If the order continues to be upheld, it can be appealed under humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which is also judicially reviewable in the courts. I count that as four reviews.

Members opposite would paint some kind of a clandestine approach to this, as if we are simply saying, no, they are out of here, they get the boot and they do not get a chance to have their cases reviewed. That is simply not the case.

Yes, the Canadian Bar Association did come before the committee and appealed to it to allow for continued extensive use of the court system. Frankly, in the bill we have listened to Canadians. They do not want these people abusing our court system while they are free to reoffend. We as a government must have the right to make sure our citizens are safe.

I have one final point with regard to refugees. The member for Fundy—Royal, the Progressive Conservative critic, wrote an article that was published in one of the Toronto dailies on Friday, wherein he said that refugees only get to apply once in a lifetime. I do not know why he would say that when he knows that in fact is not the case, that if there are changed circumstances a person can reapply every six months, not just once in six months but every six months. With new evidence, new information, with changed circumstances, refugees can apply again and again.

For people who have applied for refugee status and have no change in their circumstances, the bill does not allow appeal after appeal. We have all seen and heard of the abuse and we know about such situations. In fact there have been some recently mentioned in the media, about people who have stayed in the country illegally for five, six or seven years while they abused the system and used the appeal system.

To suggest that the bill is flawed because we have stripped people who are on Canadian soil of their rights is just fundamentally inaccurate, in my view, and is not a fair portrayal of the bill. Canadians have told us that they want our immigration system to be open and welcoming to immigrants and refugees who need our protection and who will come here and help build a greater Canada, but they no longer want to tolerate the kinds of abuses they have seen where people have been free in our society to reoffend, to commit additional crimes. We have lost some of our best young people to such tragedies as the Just Desserts file and many others. We will simply not tolerate it. That is what Canadians have told us and that is what the government intends to do.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the only resolutions or ideas that come from the Bloc deal with taking money, power or both, and we know they are both the same, away from the federal government and giving increased money and power to the provincial government in Quebec City.

We know what the agenda is of the members from the Bloc but I find it curious indeed when I sit in this place and see the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition stand in his place and rap his arms warmly around the Bloc's concept of stripping power away from the federal government and increasing it at the provincial level.

What we have here is a group in opposition who are indeed provincial politicians who should be selling their wares in the beautiful province of Alberta or in the province of Quebec. The reality is that there is a role, much to the chagrin of the Bloc Quebecois, for the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I will also be splitting my time after question period with the member for Markham.

I find it astounding to hear members of a national parliament stand in their place, as a member opposite did, and refer to the nation of Quebec and to hear the Canadian Alliance agree with that. The reality is that there is no nation of Quebec. There is a wonderful province of Quebec in the nation of Canada. It is about time those members understood that.

I heard a member also stand in his place and ask when the Liberals were going to accept the consensus of the people of Quebec? I have a message for that member. Perhaps that member did not get it in the last election.

The Liberals won 10 additional seats in the province of Quebec in the last election. We accept that. We are quite happy to accept that. We have 36 or so people in the Quebec caucus representing the federal government in the province of Quebec.

The issue is not whether Quebec City, Toronto Queen's Park or Alberta should have more authority to take more money away from the people, or whether or not the federal government should deliver services. The real issue is that the provincial governments, and my province of Ontario is a classic example, having done this for years, continue to run a deficit while cutting taxes, which means they are cutting taxes while borrowing money to pay for those tax cuts. Someone help me understand where that fits in economics 101.

How can the province of Ontario, with a straight face, hand out to all hospitals around the province envelopes with $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, and $5 million for the purpose of buying capital equipment? When we add up the amount of money being transferred to the hospitals it just happens to be $294.5 million. That happens to be the exact amount of money transferred from the federal treasury to the province of Ontario for the purpose of acquiring new equipment. Is that not interesting?

How can the province then turn around and announce it will spend $114 million on children's services under the ministry of community and social services? When we look at the CHST and the amount of money transferred under that agreement to the province of Ontario from the federal government, it just happens coincidentally to be $114 million.

The real issue is how to make the nation work. I suggest there is a very important role for the government to play in terms of national standards. I say to the members of the Bloc Quebecois that there is only one nation. Outside of the one policy they have in their policy platform they are not bad parliamentarians, except that every once in a while that one policy, like eating a bad cucumber, comes back up.

That policy simply says that they want to destroy Canada. I have news for them. We will not let them do it under any circumstances. Under our watch there is no chance and no way that they will have success in convincing either Quebecers or Canadians that somehow we should split the country along provincial lines. It is not on.

I had the privilege of attending the FCM conference in Banff, Alberta, last weekend where I spoke to many people from Alberta and many people from right across the country. The people from Alberta love this country. They will not allow any kind of an unholy alliance between the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois destroy what amounts to the greatest country in the world, a country of which we are all very proud.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to put my comments on the record at this stage, as other members have done. I think I am the longest serving member of the citizenship and immigration committee and I must say that I have seen quite a change in the function of that committee.

I do not think there is another issue that causes such ranges of emotion and passion to come out, not only from Canadians who come before the committee but from members of parliament on all sides. I say that not having sat on the justice committee, which might be equally interesting and entertaining at times, or on the health committee in regard to certain issues.

Immigration is such a passionate issue for all of us because at the end of the day we are all immigrants or sons and daughters of immigrants or, at the very least, grandsons and granddaughters of immigrants. That is what this nation is built upon. The very foundation of this country is that over the years, regardless of who is in office, we try to develop policies that will allow for resettlement of people from other parts of the world. Whether it is the people who came here in the fifties, who could be called economic refugees in some instances, or the people who are coming here now from places in Africa or China who are modern day refugees, they are coming here looking for new opportunities and new hope. In my view, hope is probably the number one issue in citizenship and immigration.

I say that because I have seen such a change in the committee from the first year I was on that committee four years ago. It was incredibly partisan. We could not have a debate on any issue without shouting, frankly, even in committee. Often it happens in here and we know this is a little mini theatre from time to time, but it should not and often does not happen at the committee level. That is where MPs roll up their sleeves and get to work trying to work out the best solution for all Canadians. In my view the committee was dysfunctional at best in the first year.

I do not want to be unfair or unkind, but I have seen a terrific change that I think is due partly to some changes in personalities and getting away from the clashes. Also, we have grown together as a committee to understand the importance of immigration to Canadians and to understand that partisanship, in the case of immigration, should be put on the back burner.

I extend congratulations. I tremendously enjoyed working with members opposite. The member for Fundy—Royal was great fun to work with and insightful. He put forward suggestions, a couple we might have adopted and many we did not, but he understands the process. The member for Winnipeg—North Centre, representing the New Democrats, did a tremendous job in representing her caucus and in putting forward arguments that of course many of us did not agree with, but that is the democratic way and the process. We had an opportunity to debate back and forth as to why we did not agree. Those members, with the member for Laval Centre, the member for Dauphin—Swan River and the member for Blackstrap, who was at most of the meetings I was at, all made contributions that are extremely important.

Those contributions are particularly important today because we are functioning in a political atmosphere that is in danger of becoming dysfunctional. What do we read in the newspaper every day? It is either something an MP said on this side of the House about someone, or a battle with internal caucus fights on the other side of the House, or something that someone did wrong. It is just not stuff, frankly, that should be of consequence or important to Canadians.

This is what is important to Canadians: amending the immigration bill and changing the system. I know that members opposite get tired of hearing the catchphrase about closing the back door to open the front door, but that truly is what the minister wants to do. It truly is what we on this side of the House want to do, and I believe members opposite want to accomplish the same thing.

How do we get there? We will arrive at this through a process. I unfortunately was unable to travel with the committee as there was a death in my family and I had to attend a funeral in England, but I did read the briefs. I certainly listened to many people who appeared before us here in Ottawa. As a person who has been on the committee for four years, I like to think I have some familiarity with the issues of concern.

However, the committee travelled in good faith across the land and met with people, but it did not have the luxury—and this is perhaps one of the downfalls of committee travel—of taking with it senior citizenship and immigration staff, the deputies and the lawyers, to respond to the issues put forward, whether they were from the Law Society or an immigration consultants association or just a Canadian concerned about immigration.

It all seemed like a great idea at the time. It sounded fair and reasonable, but when we finally got into the clause by clause back here in Ottawa, in which I had the pleasure of participating, we got the answers to the questions that were put forward and realized that while it might have seemed like a good idea it posed some problems and difficulties.

It is not that we did not listen to Canadians at all. The member for Winnipeg North Centre says we have failed. I appreciate her perspective as a member of the opposition, but I strongly disagree with that statement. In fact I think we have succeeded beyond what I thought we might be able to accomplish in terms of making changes and amendments to an incredibly important act that affects every one of us and every one of our constituents. At the same time, we built some goodwill among members of all parties, even with me on the committee, so there is something to be said for that.

I want to address a couple of issues on which we spent an almost inordinate amount of time. One of them was the issue of foreign nationals. People from across the country who came before us in Ottawa said they did not like to be referred to as foreign nationals but as landed immigrants. If were to go to the ceremony at Pier 21 in Halifax or to Pearson airport in my community of Mississauga, we would meet people who have applied, who have sweated, who have gone through the proper process. They have not come in the back door. They have applied to become landed immigrants.

I look across the floor right now and I suspect there are people sitting there, including you, Madam Speaker, who took that step of becoming a landed immigrant before applying for Canadian citizenship.

People said they or their parents or grandparents were landed immigrants, not foreign nationals. It was almost an affront; people were offended to be referred to as foreign nationals and the government agreed with that. I certainly agreed with that.

What we are talking about in terms of definition might seem inconsequential and a small point, but philosophically it says to people who live in this country as permanent residents, which is exactly the same thing as a landed immigrant, that we recognize that landed immigrants are permanent residents. It is such an important thing.

Foreign nationals are referred to in the bill. If we are talking about refugees or illegal migrants who we are dealing with through a detention system or something of that nature, then we have to use that terminology because it is used internationally when dealing with other people around the world.

I know I have run out of time, but I just want to close on this section by saying that one of the major differences in themes in this bill, which we dealt with and disagreed with, is in regard to dealing with people who are permanent residents, who have been convicted of a crime punishable by 10 years and who actually served 2 years in jail, the 10 and 2 rule. We dealt with whether or not we should have the authority to deport those people without giving them a myriad of opportunities to appeal all the way up to the supreme court. It is a reputation that Canada has to change. This bill would change it. If a person lives in this country as a permanent resident and commits a crime serious enough that the person goes to jail for two years, then the government would have the opportunity to deport that person without that person abusing the legal system. It is one of the key issues in this section of the bill.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

I have heard members opposite speak about it in this place. They can try to deny anything they want.

Maybe the member brings a softer, gentler approach to this whole issue than some of the former members who have been here a little longer. That would be delightful to see. However, no matter how the Alliance tries to soften or change its image, Canadians know what it stands for. Canadians have heard it in this place and they have read it in the Alliance election materials.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the answer is fairly simple. It was in that party's election platform in the past.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to hear the personal attacks. I thought I was being fairly non-partisan in my debate compared to my normal approach to things. I was trying to notch it down a bit so that we could deal with some of the substantive issues.

The member hit it on the head. He said he wants us to admit that they want to stand alone. We know that is what drives them every working day, but that is not what the bill is about. The bill is about young people. Whether they are in the province of Quebec, Manitoba or British Columbia does not matter.

The effect of the youth justice system should have nothing whatsoever to do with the partisan desire of that party to separate from the rest of the country. Its members stand and say they are different from us and that we must come to Quebec because we do not know anything about Quebec.

I will tell them what I do know about. I know about young people. I know about Canada. I know that our young people from sea to sea to sea need a fair and balanced youth justice system. That is exactly what the bill will provide, and it will do so in la belle province.