Stan Dromisky

[Immigration Consultants, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Motion No. 29, proposed by the hon. member for Scarborough Centre. This motion proposes that the government work and consult with the provinces to develop legislation which would set guidelines and licensing regulations to govern the business of immigration consultants.

Immigration consultants can play an important role in the immigration process. They typically provide advice to those immigrants who require specialized advice such as how to invest money in Canada, transfer their businesses to their new home, sponsor their parents or help bring an orphaned relative to Canada. In any of these cases they may want the help of an immigration specialist.

Many new immigrants turn to consultants because they are typically people who have practical experience in the area. They

may be former civil servants, paralegals or community activists. They may have experience in processing immigration applications and advising new immigrants, and sometimes they base their qualifications on their own experiences as immigrants.

Unfortunately there have been numerous complaints about potential criminal practices and unethical behaviour on the part of immigration consultants over recent years. Consultants have a great impact on the lives of recent immigrants. Immigrants can lose money, their businesses and even their resident status because of missteps and misstatements of inexperienced or dishonest consultants. They can be the victims of unscrupulous individuals who make extravagant promises for extravagant fees.

These types of problems could in part be alleviated by addressing certain deficiencies in the industry. These deficiencies include the absence of tests of competency for practice, a code of conduct, negligence insurance, a formal complaint mechanism, and a disciplinary procedure to deal with incompetent or unscrupulous consultants. There are many ways in which the public remains unprotected.

In spite of the cases of fraud, it would be completely unfair to brand all consultants as untrustworthy. Most consultants are ethical and provide good services. Nonetheless, because of problems in this industry a parliamentary House of Commons subcommittee was set up to investigate the issue of immigration consultants.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration I had the pleasure of being on this subcommittee. This subcommittee was established out of concern for the vulnerability of immigrants and others. The goals of the subcommittee were to examine the problems posed by the complete absence of regulation of immigration consultants and to recommend solutions to the Government of Canada.

A variety of witnesses appeared before the subcommittee, including immigration lawyers and their organizations, representatives from provincial law societies, representatives from non-governmental associations, government and refugee board officials and, last but not least, immigration consultants themselves.

The subcommittee's report clearly recommended licensing was an avenue that should be pursued in order to address the problems in the immigration consultant industry. However, the report also highlighted the need to consult with the closest voices to a potential immigrant's ear: church groups, immigrant service organizations and refugee advocacy groups.

These groups deal with new immigrants on a daily basis and they know the nature of the challenges immigrants face. They hold the newcomer's best interests at heart, which is why it is important to consult with these groups, to listen to their opinions and search for new ideas on how to deal with problems facing the immigration industry.

The problem of completely unregulated immigration consultants has existed for over 20 years. Over this time no concrete action has been taken at any level of government. Licensing of immigration consultants under the current provisions of the Immigration Act would certainly help to correct existing problems in this area.

I support the intent behind this motion. However, I believe that all stakeholders in the system who have not been consulted will have the opportunity before we as a government introduce any new legislation.

Once again, while regulation is an important option to consider, consultation is also important. This will allow for other potential options to be explored and developed. We cannot close off these options. Rest assured the federal government is moving ahead in this area.

In closing, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough Centre for his thoughtful motion. He is doing a great service to prospective Canadians by bringing this important issue to the forefront. I am confident his suggestions will be acted upon in due course with dedication and diligence by those concerned.

[Forestry, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the week of May 5 to 11 is National Forest Week, a time when public awareness of Canada's forest resources is encouraged by the Canadian provincial forestry associations.

Canada has 10 per cent of the world's forests. These forests form a vital part of our economy, supporting over 350 communities and providing jobs for over 800,000 Canadians. With $50 billion of shipments annually Canada is one of the world's largest suppliers of forest products. In my riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan the forest and lumber industry is a significant employer.

This year's National Forest Week theme is "Forest Regions: Varied Treasures". This theme reflects the fact that various parts of the country support different types of forest ecosystems. In Canada we have 10 distinct forest areas, each of which offers its own treasures.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it will be necessary for me to deal in general terms with many of the motions that have been presented to amend Bill C-33.

For effective learning and for a better analysis of what Bill C-33 really implies, it would be necessary for me to repeat quite a few of the facts and some of the concepts.

It is with inner strength and conviction that I speak about Bill C-33, the government's commitment to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. The act clearly states that it is against the law to discriminate on the basis of race, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status and disability.

The bill where we are adding two more words to the list is in essence a fulfilment of a resolution passed by the Liberal Party at its 1994 biennial policy convention. This resolution represents a longstanding policy of the Liberal Party dating back to at least 1978.

In January 1994 the Minister of Justice indicated during a response to the government's first throne speech that amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act were to come. Specifically he stated: "In the throne speech the Prime Minister's commitment made during the election campaign was renewed. We shall introduce amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. These amendments, among other things, will include sexual orientation as a ground upon which discrimination is prohibited".

This House has been attempting to implement this principle since 1986. Ensuing governments since that time have also expressed intentions to introduce this amendment. Bill C-33 will finally accomplish that.

What most people do not realize is that this bill will do what eight other Canadian provinces or territories have already done. Every province and territory has a separate human rights act, such as those found in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Yukon. This bill will also bring us in line with court decisions and with an all-party parliamentary subcommittee report from 1985 which recognized that gays and lesbians merit equal protection under the law.

Just what is it that this amendment is advocating? Primarily this amendment seeks to allow someone who has been fired from their job or denied a service by a federal business because of their sexual orientation to file a complaint of discrimination. By federal business I am referring to any company, public or private, which is regulated by federal laws, rules and regulations, such as banks, railways, airlines and telecommunications companies, plus all federal employees.

Clearly this is a question of fundamental fairness and justice, fairness and justice for approximately 10 per cent of the Canadian workforce. What about the other 90 per cent? I repeat, the vast majority of the remaining workforce is covered by provincial and territorial legislation.

The Reform Party would have Canadians believe that this bill detracts from the importance Canadians place on strong, healthy families in our society. This is absolutely and completely false. The fact is that this government has, is and always will protect, maintain and introduce legislation that places the traditional family as the very basis of our society. A strong, healthy family unit is created through the loving relationships among all members of that family unit.

In our family my loving wife and I have taught our children and grandchildren that Christian values are to be used as guiding principles in relationships with all groups and individuals. They are not to be used only with a selected few. How can one be a good Christian by selecting a few and rejecting others because of their differences?

This amendment will have absolutely no bearing on the definitions of marriage, family or spouse. In fact, similar legislation at the provincial level has never had any bearing on issues of same sex benefits. These are the facts, whether the Reform Party likes it or not. Marriage is a provincial issue, not federal. Adoption is a provincial issue, not federal. That is where they shall remain.

It was a very sad occasion last week when the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan made discriminatory statements regarding gays and visible minorities. It is truly unfortunate that members of the Canadian Parliament in this day and age subscribe to such a despicable belief. However, he is not alone. Let me share some of my recent experiences from my riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan.

In the past two weeks approximately 40 phone calls have been received by me and my office staff. We received most of them in the last two days, after people had attended church. Every time I managed to get one of the phone calls I asked the person: "Why are you asking me to vote against this amendment?" They always had reasons: "It is going to allow same sex marriages". I had to explain to them that they were wrong. "It is going to lead to the adoption of infants". I had to explain to them that what they were told and what they were saying was not true.

The calls established three categories. When I had a chance to explain what Bill C-33 was all about a very large percentage of the people accepted my position. They accepted what it was all about. They were happy and no longer distressed and uncomfortable. A smaller group did not want to discuss the matter with me on the telephone and asked that material be sent to them. We shipped material off to their homes.

However, there was a small, small group, four in total, no more, who frightened me because of the kind of things they said. They made threats and declarations about what should be done to people who are so different from them, that they should be taken out of the city limits and stoned. They also talked about the leeches in our society, those who suck the treasury dry and said that they should be treated the same way.

At that moment, I knew there were no options for me. I knew I had only one avenue to follow, which was to support Bill C-33. I had to make sure that as long as there were neo-Nazis in our community advocating what they said to me, members of Parliament must do everything to adhere to our mandate to protect the citizens of this country no matter what their differences might be.

Canadians do not approve of discrimination based on sexual preference. A 1994 Angus Reid poll supported this, indicating that 81 per cent of those surveyed would be bothered if a gay or lesbian colleague experienced discrimination in the workplace.

In conclusion, I take pride that our government has done more to support equal rights for all our citizens within our first two years in power than the previous government did in almost a decade.

Bill C-33 is delivering justice to all Canadians. I commend the minister and this government for strength of resolve. I ask Canadians of every ethnic background and every religious faith to celebrate their differences-

[Bank Act, April 23rd, 1996]

I vote yea on Bill C-15.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Cuba, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian book publishing companies have been more than generous with university students in Cuba.

Recently I sent requests to approximately 600 publishing companies across Canada for donations of Canadiana. These books are for the library at the recently established department of Canadian studies at the University of Havana.

The response has been tremendous. On a daily basis we are receiving eight to ten boxes of books. These donations are a clear example of the sympathy that Canadians have for the struggle faced by the people and students of Cuba. We should continue to do all that we can to help this island nation overcome the hardships imposed upon it by the unjust embargo.

I congratulate the Canadian book publishing industry for its gracious support. The people of Cuba are truly grateful. They are once again reminded of the generosity and humanity for which Canadians are known worldwide.

[Wildlife Poaching, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.

The Humane Society has indicated that in Canada the illegal profits of wildlife poaching rank third after drug and tobacco and liquor smuggling. Especially prominent is the smuggling of bear gall-bladders.

What measures has the government taken to curb this illicit smuggling of animals and animal parts?

[Byelections, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party's response to the government's national unity proposals were nothing more than the same old tired decentralization arguments spewed by right wing pontificators everywhere.

The danger of Reform's approach is that it would leave Canada without a sense of common national purpose.

The Reform Party's fifty plus one referendum standard revealed its hidden agenda for separation. Upon realizing it could never lead a federal government with Quebec as part of Canada, it opted for this agenda. Through separation Reform hoped its future electoral fortunes would brighten.

Voters in today's byelections in Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland will not be fooled by Reform's devious tactics. Today the voters will say bye, bye to the Reform Party.

[Scott Tournament Of Hearts, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, over 800 volunteers and 51,000 fans enjoyed the display of superb curling at the recent Scott Tournament of Hearts, our annual Canadian curling championships held in the great city of Thunder Bay, Ontario. The enthusiasm and commitment of all combined to make Thunder Bay the warmest city in Canada despite what the thermometer may have read.

This year's winning foursome came from St. Catharines, Ontario and consisted of Marilyn Bodogh, Jane Hooper-Perroud, Corie Beveridge and Kim Gellard. A capacity crowd saw the Ontario team post a 7 to 4 win over Alberta. It was truly an exciting eight days worth of curling.

Thank you Thunder Bay for a job well done.

[Status Of Women, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for Secretary of State for the Status of Women.

This week Canadians are celebrating International Women's Week, highlighted by International Woman's Day on March 8. It is an occasion to look back on the accomplishments of women in Canada and across the globe.

What is the government doing to further the cause of women's equality?

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the creation of jobs, I think my colleague from Quebec is quite aware that the federal government in essence does not create jobs by itself. It is a co-operative venture, as was clearly indicated by the infrastructure program we initiated two years ago. It was extremely successful and produced over half a million new jobs in this great country of ours. Even the province of Quebec benefited immensely from that infrastructure program.

However, as I pointed out in my delivery, it is a co-operative venture. It is the needs that are identified and have to be catered to by the people who are involved.

In the province of Quebec I am anticipating that not only might all three levels of government be involved in a co-operative venture but that the people who are employing and the employees themselves through their various agencies and associations may have the opportunity to contribute to this decision making process. The people in the community may also have the opportunity to contribute.

What I have said is clearly indicated in my speech. We must change our ways of the past. We must not have the same expectations that one authority, one government is totally responsible for the creation of jobs. This government, in co-operative efforts with all other levels and all other agents, must work together to create those jobs. This is a completely different approach to the job creation philosophy versus the philosophy of job creation that we have maintained in this country for so many years.

We are active participants in a very co-operative, dynamic venture. We hope that citizens as well as the various levels of government in the province of Quebec and in all other provinces will join in a united effort to help nurture and create the kinds of jobs our young people and others need to meet the challenges of the next century.