Stan Dromisky

[Health, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Natives in northwestern Ontario are experiencing a fourfold increase in heart attacks and kidney disease compared with average Canadians. These medical crises have a preventable cause, that is type II diabetes.

What are the government's plans for preventive measures which will reduce the negative effects of type II diabetes among First Nation populations?

[Citizenship Act, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this House regarding Bill C-249, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, proposed by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.

We have before us the opportunity to address the process by which we confer citizenship upon new Canadians. Prior to addressing the specifics of the bill, I would like to speak briefly about the importance of the citizenship process. The integrity of this process must be protected because, as all members in this House are aware, it is considered a great honour to be a Canadian citizen. Canadian citizenship is renowned and respected worldwide. In this regard we are admired for our tolerance and our fairness.

Despite this, we do have an understanding that there is a need for a reform of our Citizenship Act. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicated on April 14 in this House that the time had come to introduce amendments to the 20-year old act:

We need a Citizenship Act that also ensures fairness and integrity, one that removes certain discriminatory aspects of current legislation, eliminates inconsistencies in the granting of Canadian citizenship and improves the process of acquiring that citizenship.

To attain this goal important steps have been taken such as the elimination of the role of citizenship judges and the introduction of significant administrative and regulatory changes aiming to expedite the process more efficiently such as increasing the daily number of hearings, establishing group hearings, extending business hours, et cetera. The termination of partisan judicial appointments was especially supported by many Canadians.

At the same time the minister also requested the standing committee to study our Citizenship Act and provide recommendations for improvements. Shortly thereafter in June the committee released its report entitled "Canadian Citizenship: A Sense of Belonging" which presented a series of recommendations.

Of particular relevance to the private member's bill up for debate today are three recommendations which have already been referred to, but I would like to paraphrase them. Children born in Canada should be Canadian citizens only if one or both of their parents is a permanent resident or Canadian citizen. Second, the provision should be made to ensure the above rule need not apply if its application could cause a person born in Canada to be stateless. Third, an exception to the first rule should provide that children born to a parent who is a successful refugee claimant should automatically gain Canadian citizenship.

In light of the above recommendations I feel compelled to point out some serious deficiencies in Bill C-249, the private member's bill being debated today. Although the basic principal of this bill has been agreed upon by the committee, the bill remains quite incomplete in that it has not addressed the latter two recommendations which I have just alluded to. Moreover, the danger exists that this bill can be employed as a vehicle for inciting unwarranted fear among Canadians by exaggerating statistically negligible abuses of the Canadian citizenship process.

A relevant example in this respect involved cases of foreign mothers, be they visitors or refugee claimants, who give birth to children on Canadian soil for the express purpose of attaining Canadian citizenship for their children. I should point out that I have been informed by the Department of Citizenship and

Immigration there is no evidence to indicate we have a significant problem to this end as claimed by the Reform Party.

The committee concluded in this regard indicating in their report that passport babies, as this phenomena is affectionately referred to, does not appear to be a major problem. Nonetheless, the committee provided recommendations designed to prevent the possibility for abuse.

We should all be very clear in this respect. The committee did by no means imply that a problem of any significance existed when it provided suggestions on how we might prevent the possibility of abuse. As such I caution members across the way that it is terribly irresponsible to initiate unwarranted anxieties based upon unsubstantiated claims.

Some members of the House appear prone to taking advantage of occasional and statistically insignificant occurrences and blowing them out of proportion to advance a political agenda. We have seen this many times.

As I alluded to earlier the member's bill is suspect in that it is incomplete. It appears to address a simple problem with a common sense solution. However we live in a complex work in which situations are precipitated by not one factor but often myriad variables which may not at first glance be readily apparent. Most problems require thoughtful and careful analysis and sometimes demand complex solutions to yield optimal and fair outcomes.

The bill is not well rounded nor fair because it has not considered certain scenarios. Although reflecting the essence of the committee's first recommendation found on page 17 of the committee's report, the bill fails to take into consideration the two accompanying recommendations which provide important exceptions to the first rule.

Let me elaborate in this regard. It would be ruthless and uncompassionate to deny children Canadian citizenship if they could not be granted citizenship from another country. We could not leave children in a predicament such that they would remain stateless. I am appalled that the member did not see fit to include this reasonable exception.

Furthermore, regardless of the hon. member's stated intent, the bill indicates very clearly or in no uncertain terms that the children of foreign mothers might gain citizenship only after one of the child's parents became permanent residents or citizens.

This poses a serious problem given that it does not take into account the case of successful refugee claimants who do not choose to seek permanent resident status or citizenship. Because accepted refugee claimants are not obliged to seek permanent residents or citizenship, the possibility exists that their children would for all intents and purposes be denied citizenship.

I was most disappointed to note that there was absolutely no reference to the above two exceptions in the member's bill. I am confident that had a careful and indepth analysis been conducted the contents of the bill would have been more complete and comprehensive.

Without an acknowledgement of these exceptions outlined by the committee, the essence of the hon. member's bill is rendered unfair and our citizenship process rendered incomplete. This is simply not the Canadian way.

In conclusion, Bill C-249, although commensurate with the general essence of the first recommendation on page 17 of the standing committee's report, remains incomplete to the point where it would render the citizenship process unjust and exclusionary. For the above reasons the amendment should be exposed for what it is, a vehicle for partisan gerrymandering.

On the bright side, in the near future the House can expect a comprehensive and fair reform of the Citizenship Act. I am confident that the revised act will prove well balanced and will seriously consider the recommendations presented in the June report of the standing committee.

In the meantime the Reform Party would better serve the interests of Canadians by contributing in a positive manner to the citizen reform process rather than dwell upon the-

[Immigration, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the plan released today by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is the result of a comprehensive consultative process and is the first government consultation to come to fruition.

After talking to a cross-section of Canadians over an eight-month period, the minister has tabled a strategy which reflects the needs and desires of our countrymen. The changes introduced will ensure an increased emphasis on immigrants

with skills and investment potential while continuing to make family reunification a priority.

This plan generated by the people of Canada reflects compassion, humanitarianism and tolerance, time honoured values of the Liberal Party.

I tip my hat to the minister and to the people of Canada for a well balanced and comprehensive citizenship and immigration program that shall meet the needs of Canadians for years to come.

[Immigration Act, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to continue the debate regarding the private member's motion placed before the House by the member for Calgary Northeast. The member is demanding that all applicants for immigration to Canada be tested and screened for HIV, the AIDS virus, that all testing be regulated by the government, and that a positive result of an HIV screening be included as grounds for inadmissibility to Canada.

The member for Calgary Northeast tells us in Commons Debates of September 23, 1994 there is no need to debate his motion, that common sense should prevail and dictate the direction the government should take. The only sense revealed by the member may be common to him and his colleagues of the same ilk, but not common to those with analytical minds that seek the relationships between and among ideas, concepts, facts, events and other dynamic phenomena that assist one in a search for truth.

It is true the Immigration Act requires that visitors and immigrants meet two medically related criteria before being allowed into Canada. The first states that immigrants must not represent a danger to public health or safety. The second states that their admission must not cause excessive demands on Canada's health and social service systems.

To meet these criteria, applicants for immigration are medically examined according to a standard format used worldwide. This medical examination depends on a complete medical history, a complete physical examination, a urine test for applicants five years and older, a chest X-ray for those over 10 years old, and a syphilis blood test for those 15 years and older.

The blood test for syphilis is the only test performed for one specific disease. The X-ray, in turn, may detect a variety of possible ailments such as heart abnormalities, tumours and tuberculosis.

Although there is an attempt to consistently adhere to established procedures, variations in testing will always exist from country to country, from doctor to doctor, depending on expertise and resources available.

It must be noted that immigrants are not routinely tested for HIV. However, during the course of any routine examination the doctor may decide to order further specific tests. At times, if the initial medical assessment indicates symptoms compatible to HIV-AIDS or if the client falls within a high risk group, the doctor may proceed with an HIV test.

In the recent past, several applicants have been refused admission due to the advanced state of their disease. Most of these people were classified as inadmissible to Canada based on the excessive demand criterion and not a declaration that they were risks to public health.

HIV infection and AIDS are not contagious like diseases such as tuberculosis. AIDS and HIV can only be transmitted by specific high risk activities such as injected drug use or unsafe sexual practices, not through casual contact. Therefore, a Canadian resident who is willing to engage in high risk activity with a visitor or immigrant is as likely to engage in a similar activity with another Canadian. The risk of HIV infection comes not from the presence of foreigners but the practice of specific behaviour.

The best defence against the spread of HIV, whether from a Canadian or from a foreigner, is an educated population. It is not a surprise therefore that many organizations such as the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Hemophilia Society, the Canadian Red Cross, the European Parliament, the British Medical Association, to name just a few, all support the view that visitors do not represent a danger to public health.

In January 1991 a discussion paper prepared by Employment and Immigration Canada as part of its review of medical inadmissibility criteria in the Immigration Act stated:

"At the present time Health and Welfare Canada does not consider persons with HIV-AIDS per se as a danger to public health or safety. HIV-AIDS is not considered a dangerous infectious disease, but rather a chronic disease like cancer or heart disease".

The scientific community has argued that allowing a person with HIV into Canada does not pose a threat to the health and safety of Canadians, a position endorsed by the Government of Canada.

In April 1991 the then minister of health and welfare, Perrin Beatty, announced in Vancouver: "Our expert advisory committee concluded AIDS and HIV are not a threat to public health during short term travel to Canada. I am pleased to announce that we have revised the guidelines for our medical officers. We will ensure that visitors with AIDS or HIV infection will be treated in exactly the same manner as any other visitor to Canada".

The government's position was reinforced further by the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when he stated: "It is the policy of this government that persons with HIV-AIDS do not generally represent a danger to the public. Our main concern is with respect to excessive demands on the health care system". These statements are contained in a letter addressed to the Canadian AIDS Society dated August 3, 1994.

In dealing with the second health related criterion, that of excessive demand, there will be little concern with those visiting Canada for a short period of time, no concern because they would not qualify for health service and most visitors would be carrying their own health protection plans. The excessive demand criterion would be invoked when there is a reason to believe that the applicant would require medical treatment while in Canada.

In the case of immigrants, it would be inappropriate to institute a blanket exclusion of persons with HIV. The Canadian Human Rights Commission states that comprehensive individual assessments must be the main tool for determining eligibility, and lumping individuals into groups or broad categories is discriminatory.

In assessing whether an immigrant with HIV would place excessive demand on Canada's health care and social services system many factors need to be taken into consideration. These include whether the person is ill, and the person's potential contributions to Canadian society.

We know that some people have been infected with HIV for at least 12 years and still do not show signs of illness. We do not know whether everyone with HIV will go on to develop AIDS. How can we refuse to allow a person to immigrate on the grounds that he or she might become ill? Even those who have some signs of illness can still make a significant contribution to Canadian society.

Current Canadian immigration policy focuses too much on a person's disability and fails to take into account his or her ability to contribute to society. Each case must be judged on its merits.

The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration states: "It is the policy of this government that persons living with HIV-AIDS not be singled out for immigration purposes. I would like to assure you that I and the officials of citizenship and immigration will do our utmost to ensure that persons living with HIV-AIDS are treated with the same respect and concern for rights as any other visitor to Canada".

The current Immigration Act requires that persons seeking admission to Canada as visitors or as immigrants be subject to standards of admission that do not discriminate in a manner which would be prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 of the charter dictates: "Every individual is equal before and under the law without discrimination and in particular without discrimination based on physical disability".

Canada has traditionally taken a leadership role in recognizing human rights and extending a helping hand to those in need. I am sure the member for Calgary Northeast would be proud and so would his party members in seeing Canada continuing with these honourable, worldly aspirations.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 18th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to vote with the government on this motion.

[Immigration, October 18th, 1994]

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

Persons responsible for criminal atrocities may attempt to gain entry to Canada following an exodus of military police and paramilitary personnel from Haiti. In particular, the attachés and the tontons macoutes have been implicated in human rights violations and murders against the Haitian people.

What is the government doing to ensure that these human rights abusers are prevented from gaining entry into Canada?

[Herman Vanduyn, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to celebrate the impressive accomplishments of Mr. Herman vanDuyn, the owner of Hill's Greenhouse Nurseries in Murillo, Ontario.

This hard working and civic minded entrepreneur has produced over 100 million tree seedlings, a truly remarkable milestone. Mr. vanDuyn is the first Canadian to grow seedlings for the Minnesota state government.

His contribution to his community has been significant, providing employment for 8 full time and up to 50 part time positions. Moreover, he typically donates 10,000 to 20,000 tree seedlings every year to a variety of individuals and organizations in his community and across the country.

This fiercely proud Canadian, born in Holland, chose to emigrate to Canada because of the great respect Dutch people have for Canada. This is one of so many reasons Canada has been and continues to be an excellent destination for business investment.

[Petitions, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents that recognizes there is a unique relationship between grandchildren and grandparents and that no parent should have the right or the privilege of providing an obstacle and preventing that relationship.

Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec Civil Code which states that in no case may a father or mother without serious cause place obstacles between the child and the grandparents.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41 with all its original and recommended revisions is a manifestation of objectives, directives, purposes, even hopes and wishes that have been produced through a demanding problem solving process. By its very nature it can be classified as a democratic one, one in which information is gathered from a multitude of sources, from publications, studies, research, reports, individual and group experiences, input from all aspects of society, each being driven and governed by their own agendas, personal beliefs and value systems-an extremely complex process which produces a declaration of intent, purpose or direction; in other words a statute, a measure, a rule, a regulation, a law.

This government has used this complex democratic process to produce constructive reforms found in Bill C-41.

As we listen to members of the opposition parties we hear their subjective presentations, each believing that they possess some segment of the perfect law. No law made by man is absolute or perfect. No law is safe from the forces of change in a dynamic society. Each change brought about democratically brings us closer to the more perfect solution.

The justice department has heard the voices through the great country of ours and the outcome is a Criminal Code which is more balanced, fairer and rational than the codes of the past.

The section of Bill C-41 that lifts the Criminal Code to loftier heights is the proposed statement of purpose and principles of sentencing. For the first time direction is to be provided to the courts on the fundamental purpose of sentencing which contributes to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

Revenge is no longer the basic purpose of sentencing one who has committed an unlawful act. Although this may be judged to be true by some, a sentence will still reflect the seriousness of the offence.

To diminish the criticism of unjust sentencing the courts throughout the country must give similar sentences to offenders who have committed similar acts. A just law is one that is perceived consistently to be just and fair in every court of the land.

Significant is the statement of principle that states when an offence is motivated by hate based on the race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation of the victim, the offence must be considered as a more serious offence than in the past, thus demanding harsher sentencing.

This bill provides the courts with more options to distinguish between serious, violent crime requiring incarceration and less serious non-violent crime that could be dealt with more effectively in the community.

It is in this area that I feel the most positive strategies can be created to rehabilitate the perpetrators of minor offences. Community service options which have been determined co-operatively with officials of the judicial system, community leaders

and agents from various facets of society will without doubt produce the most effective results.

Rehabilitation programs which keep the offenders from any semblance of normal societal structures, in other words segregated or isolated, rarely are permanently successful. The position of segregation or isolation has built in connotations of inferiority of being a second class citizen. The proposed changes within this bill will reintroduce the minor offender to the normal patterns of community life.

Too often the poor are victimized by well intentioned rules or regulations. The 18th century law that jailed the offenders who could not pay their fines no matter how small the amount is finally being revisited and revised. Such offenders will be subject to other options such as community service or probation. This proposal will result in less crowded, safer prisons as well as decreased costs. Also, more human and financial resources will be free to deal with the more serious offenders.

Many of my colleagues have expressed their opinions regarding section 745 of the Criminal Code. Here violent crime victims are being provided the opportunity to present information which may influence parole decisions pertaining to the offender, a very worthy initiative that is also supported by police chief Karl Ratz in my constituency of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, as well as many others in the law enforcement segment of society.

There is much that can be said about the proposed revisions in the Criminal Code and the relationship to a safer and more just society. Many assumptions can be made and shall be made regarding the various sections of the Criminal Code without seeing their relationships to other forces in society.

It takes more than the breaking of a law to make a criminal. Criminal behaviour is precipitated by a myriad of social causes and ills. Desperate people often resort to desperate means in order to survive or to maintain the family unit. We must address the roles of poverty, racism, family violence, depression, plus many other factors to determine the relationship to criminal behaviour.

We could add a million more laws to the Criminal Code and operate under the illusions that the more we have the better and the closer we will be to the utopian crimeless society. That is nothing but an illusion.

Society must be proactive in the most aggressive manner to prevent crime, thus diminishing the need for impulsive, knee-jerk reactive measures. We must stop pretending. We must stop applying solutions of the 1930s to the problems of the 21st century. This bill brings us one giant step closer to a safer society.

[Canada Wildlife Act, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of supporting Bill C-24 during third reading in the House today. While the legal text of the legislation defines the scope of the act, the regulatory authorities, penalties, enforcement powers and administrative procedures, it is the overall intent of the act and its amendments that makes it truly significant.

Sustainable development is a phrase commonly used today to describe how we should approach decision making in matters of the environment and the economy. Although there are many interpretations of how this approach should be applied, it is generally accepted that it involves adopting a forward looking and broadly based approach which considers both the long term economic and environmental consequences of any decision or action.

Implicit in this is the understanding that sustaining or enhancing the health of our economy intimately depends on the health of our environment and the sustainability of its resources. We have many situations where tough decisions have been made to ensure sustainable use of our renewable resources. Atlantic cod in the Pacific salmon fisheries is a recent example in which drastic action is necessary.

Conservation has become a priority. To avoid these situations we must ensure that we understand and anticipate problems and that all sectors are able to work together and build on each other's strengths to find the best means of managing and integrating our economy and our environment.

Solutions must be based on good science, consultation, co-operation and agreement. That is why I consider Bill C-24 so significant. We cannot hope to achieve sustainable development unless we have the tools. The Canada Wildlife Act is a tool for sustainable development and the amendments will make it an even more effective tool.

The act does not position the Government of Canada to act alone. Some may criticize it for that very reason, but by now we must have learned it is not possible to impose solutions for the kinds of problems we are talking about here: problems of loss of species and habitat conversion, problems of lack of information or informed decision making and so on.

We must ensure that we come to an informed consensus of a need to take action and we must in fact act together. That is why the act is set up as enabling legislation. That is why it demands that the government establish partnerships with the relevant provincial and territorial agencies and with other non-governmental partners.

The programs that have been and will be established under the authority of the act are models for the way we need to co-operate in Canada to deal with issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. We need to recognize the strengths that various partners bring to the table and use those strengths, not argue who should get credit for what, in support of our commonly held objectives of habitat conservation, conservation of threatened endangered species and making sure that citizens know and appreciate the importance of wildlife to their economic and social well-being; in short in support of sustainable development.

Many examples of conservation programs, co-operative research efforts and bilateral and multilateral conservation agreements have resulted from the act's implementation. For example, RENEW, an acronym for the recovery of nationally endangered wildlife, is a co-operative program of the federal and provincial governments and national conservation organizations to develop and implement recovery plans for Canada's endangered species.

The protection of habitat under the act also depends on co-operation and partnership. There are currently 45 protected areas, as we have already been told, covering 287,000 hectares of Canada. If we include the areas protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the total area protected is more than twice the size of Nova Scotia. These protected areas are established in full consultation with local communities and the provinces or territory involved. Once the conservation objectives have been determined, agreement on the type of protective measures that would be appropriate are decided. A distinct management regime thus evolves reflecting the concerns of all stakeholders.

An example of this process is the current work with the Inuit of Clyde River to establish a marine national wildlife area at Isabella Bay, Baffin Island. The Inuit originated the proposal because of concerns for the endangered population of bowhead whales which use this area as summer feeding grounds. The national wildlife area will form the core of an international biosphere reserve. Co-management of the area will focus on protecting critical habitat, ensuring continued traditional sustenance practices and promoting ecotourism and research on whales.

Two provisions in Bill C-24 will significantly enhance the potential scope for establishing protected areas. The first is the expanded definition of wildlife which includes all wild species of animals, plants and other organisms. Traditionally wildlife conservation has focused on particular species or species groups and has been limited to the higher orders of animals.

It is now widely recognized that a broader approach to conservation is needed, an ecosystem approach that considers all ecosystem functions and values including all animal and plant species and a full range of their habitat requirements. Expanding the definition of wildlife is consistent with the recommendation of the wildlife policy for Canada which was endorsed by the Federal-Provincial Wildlife Ministers Council of Canada in 1990. It will allow for research and establishment of protected areas based on an ecosystem approach and will

respond to the recommendations of the convention on biological diversity dealing with habit and ecosystem conservation.

The second change introduced in Bill C-24 which affects a scope of protected areas is a provision allowing for the establishment of protected areas beyond the territorial sea to the 200 nautical mile limit. Critical wildlife habitat, including areas with significant concentrations of sea birds and breeding and feeding grounds for whales, exists or extends beyond the territorial sea. Such areas include seasonal or permanent openings in the sea ice where birds, whales, polar bears and other wildlife concentrate; underwater mountains, upwellings of nutrients in the ocean and other areas associated with Canada's continental shelf.

Protecting these key areas contributes to sustaining the biodiversity and associated economic benefits of marine ecosystems, benefits such as improved recreational opportunities.

As I have stated, the value of the Canada Wildlife Act is that it provides a basis for research, partnership and co-operation. The amendments included in Bill C-24 which I have just described present a new challenge to Canadians to be successful in understanding and protecting ecosystems and their biodiversity, including moving into the area of marine protected areas, which will require new and innovative partnerships involving a wider range of interest groups and stakeholders than has been the case in the past. Broad based strategies of a co-operative nature must be developed to ensure both environmental and economic objectives can be met.

I am convinced that Bill C-24 will help in achieving these ends. I strongly encourage my fellow members in the House to support it.