Jean Dubé

[Human Resources Development, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the privacy commissioner's report is alarming.

The commissioner reports that the sole file on each and every Canadian citizen is in fact held by HRDC. This file is known as the Longitudinal Labour Force File. The commissioner feels that this file represents a threat to privacy.

Does the minister intend to take any concrete action to protect the privacy of Canadians from possible intrusion by another mafia boy?

[Petitions, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by residents of my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche.

The petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to withdraw Bill C-23 and to confirm the opposite sex definition of marriage.

[Petitions, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions today.

In the first petition, the signatories ask that parliament repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

[Employment Insurance, May 9th, 2000]

Doug Young's reform.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, once again I see that the few members there are on the other side are very interested in what I have to say.

The systems are outdated and are not integrated. Are these the kind of computer systems that aid in determining medical and criminal admissibility to Canada?

The minister has announced a new global case management system which she says will cost $200 million. The department has received $579 million in new funding but $209 million has been spent. This new funding will be eaten up very quickly. Where does the minister expect to find all the extra funding that will be required for the case management system and the increased administration wrought by Bill C-31?

More frightening is that no one will ever know how many criminals are admitted to Canada. Foreign police records may not be up to date or reliable. Some countries cannot provide the information due to internal turmoil. The department's solution to this is simply to not require police certificates from 40 countries. This is a preposterous means to deal with criminal admissibility to Canada. That is not all. In 1998 over 1,300 ministerial permits were issued to people with criminal convictions. What kinds of people are routinely coming to this country?

Stiffer fines and longer jail terms may help in keeping criminals out of Canada but we need to start at the source. We need to have better detection strategies in place abroad to screen criminals. Simply not requiring certificates from unreliable countries does not take care of the problem.

Our party hopes the minister sees fit to take an introverted look at her department and fix it on the inside. We hope the new global case management system will soon be up and running.

This party supports parts of the bill. We are pleased that the minister has changed the provisions and requirements for in-Canada processing. Spouses, students and temporary workers will now be able to apply for permanent residency from right here in Canada.

I am pleased to express my party's view on Bill C-31, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Progressive Conservative members will be at the forefront of this debate.

Our party knows this issue. It will ensure that Canada's security and the integrity of its borders are respected.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member from Newfoundland does not seem to be aware of the criminals walking the streets of Canada. They are probably walking the streets of Newfoundland and affecting children there. That is why identifying these individuals at first contact is of prime importance. In such a large country as Canada it is hard to keep track of every single person but we must at least make some attempt to be familiar with those coming in.

The recommendation passed unopposed at committee. Members were supportive that it be included in the bill. Our party was very disappointed that the minister did not see fit to include the fingerprint and photograph recommendation in Bill C-31. It is unbelievable.

We later learned that fingerprinting and taking pictures of people would be carried out through departmental regulations. Fingerprints and photographs must be provided for in the new bill. It must be law. We should not allow such an important provision, unopposed by the standing committee, to be carried out only at the whim of immigration officials.

Our party's second proposal at committee involved safe third countries. A safe third country is one which a potential refugee to Canada has passed through on his or her way to Canada. Safe third country provisions would be an efficient and fair means to deal with undocumented refugee claimants. These individuals would have a safe haven in a safe third country.

The thinking behind the safe third country provision is that it is mutually beneficial. Most important, the refugee claimants are given a safe haven in the country they pass through on their way to Canada. Second, Canada is able to control its borders from undocumented arrivals.

We are pleased that Bill C-31 makes a provision for safe third country negotiations in section 95. The government is willing to pursue the idea of safe third country provisions, but why has it not taken action? Over the past seven years the Liberals have only negotiated safe third country provisions with one country, the United States. Negotiations must be expanded.

The Progressive Conservative Party's 1997 election platform spelled out our commitment to end patronage appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board. In keeping with good Liberal tradition, in part 4, clause 150(1)(a) states in black and white that members of the IRB will be appointed by the governor in council. No means ensuring meritorious appointments are outlined in the bill.

Numerous witnesses at the committee, including the Canadian Council for Refugees and the Canadian Bar Association, as well as our party have called on the government to end patronage appointments. The government again has cast aside this recommendation in favour of its own partisan interest.

It is now almost one month since the auditor general released a scathing report on Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Chronic problems exist therein, problems the Liberal government has attempted to solve. Even worse, these are problems the auditor general has discussed before. Allow me to explain these serious issues.

All newcomers to Canada must pass a medical to protect Canadian society from the risk of disease. Criteria for medical tests are less than satisfactory and have been the standard for an unacceptable 40 years. No tests exist for new diseases like HIV and hepatitis.

Moreover, physicians do not determine medical admissibility; visa officers do. Approved doctors carry out examinations and forward their advice to the officers. What new diseases are routinely transported to Canada? The auditor general underlined deficiencies in medical examinations 10 years ago. How can the government delay? This was going on 10 years ago.

The immigration bill does not provide guarantees the health of Canadians will be protected any time soon. Medicals and health provisions are given very little space in Bill C-31. We are not satisfied that sufficient preventive measures are taken in the new bill.

When will the criteria for medical admissibility be updated? What health conditions does the minister consider to be dangerous to public health? What diseases will excessively burden the health care system? These are only a few of the many questions Citizenship and Immigration Canada failed to address in the new legislation.

The auditor general also addressed the department's computer systems. Simply put, the systems are inadequate.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-31, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

We have long been calling for the government to introduce new immigration legislation, which was supposed to happen last year.

Late or not, the bill is presented while many chronic problems and faults are surfacing at Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Today, I will address various issues relating to immigration and to the bill before us. According to the minister, the legislation will be tougher on criminals. I have my doubts. The provisions of Bill C-31 on security are inadequate. I will address the recommendations that my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead, made to the committee. I will also talk about the report on immigration that was published by the auditor general a few weeks ago. auditor general exposed a few problems of which the government had been aware for some time.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is aware of the abuse that occurs at immigration. In the 1980s we introduced two controversial bills to deal with the imperfections in the system. These bills, one a piece of emergency legislation, were vehemently opposed by the Liberals. This is hardly a surprise. Liberals loathe taking a stand on a certain issue out of fear of losing the next election. When danger arose, we took action.

Be assured that during the course of the debate on the immigration bill the Progressive Conservative Party will continue its tradition of fighting for an efficient and effective immigration system. We are familiar with the immigration system. That is why this party looks forward to debating the clauses and provisions found in Bill C-31.

One of the biggest fears of this party and Canadians is the entry of foreign criminals. The new bill purports to toughen our present stance on criminals. Much more can be done.

In the new legislation provision is made in clauses 31 and 32 to bar individuals from the refugee determination system. Clause 31 deals with those inadmissible on the grounds of having violated human rights. Clause 31(1)(c) reads:

(c) being a representative of a government against which Canada has imposed or has agreed to impose sanctions in association with the international community.

Perhaps the minister could clarify “a representative”. Is a representative a government official or is it a national of that country?

Clause 32 of Bill C-31 sets out criteria for serious criminality. We do not understand why a serious criminal is only deemed to be someone who has been convicted of a crime punishable in Canada by imprisonment of 10 years or more. Why these numbers? Is the minister telling us that offences for which someone could only serve nine years are not serious? What does she mean by serious criminality? Our party is baffled why the minister would not take all crimes seriously.

Even more, there is not necessarily consistency between two countries' criminal justice systems. An offence punishable in Canada by 10 years imprisonment may not be punishable in another country at all. The Progressive Conservative Party is not comfortable with the numbers as they are set out in Bill C-31.

As the standing committee discussed its draft report on border security, my colleague the immigration critic, the member for Compton—Stanstead, was able to secure two amendments in the final report.

One amendment was the requirement for all refugee claimants to be fingerprinted and photographed at the first point of contact with them in Canada. My colleague has reasoned that refugee claimants disappear and do not show up for their hearings. One statistic from the Immigration and Refugee Board in Vancouver shows that 71% of claimants did not show up for their hearings. Where are they? How many criminals are passing through? How many criminals are endangering our cities, our streets and our children? How many are there and where are they? As a national party, we are concerned about these potential criminals.

[Human Resources Development, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we are doing, bringing it forward.

Yesterday, in committee, the national president of the department's employees reiterated the department's guidelines to check all files and, where information or documents were missing, fill out the empty files and backdate them. We are bringing these facts to the attention of the department today. These are very serious accusations.

Will the minister call for yet another police investigation?

[Human Resources Development, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister likes to quote transcripts. Let me quote transcripts from yesterday's HRDC meeting. The president of the employees' union on questioning said:

Have you ever received any comments from staff from any office in Canada of this directive by HRDC to fill out forms, to fill out these files that were empty and backdate them? Have you ever received this information?

The answer was:

Mr. Chair, we have got similar directions and the answer is yes.

This is a very serious accusation. Could the minister shed some light on these accusations?

[Employment Insurance, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to take part in the debate on a motion by a colleague from New Brunswick who represents a riding with a very high rate of unemployment. We all know which former MP and former minister used to represent that riding. I think that everyone remembers him when the subject of employment insurance reform comes up. He is none other than Doug Young.

During the last election campaign, Doug Young found out what people in the very high unemployment areas thought about his reform. We have seen the impact of that reform on individuals and families in those areas. I would like to congratulate my colleague for Acadie—Bathurst for his motion.

When I first came to this House in 1997, as one of the MPs from my party on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, I presented a motion at its first meeting. I asked the committee to carry out an immediate assessment of employment insurance reform. My colleague over the way, the parliamentary secretary, was also on that committee. She surely remembers that motion by a newly arrived young MP.

Unfortunately, the motion was defeated. Today, here we are still at the study and assessment stage, when we could have made real changes.

Years have gone by since this reform, and I have to say that people have lost their homes. People have seen their families divided. In many cases it was because of the stresses that were brought on them. Monetary stress and lack of employment certainly were contributors. In these regions the government is responsible for this because the reform has hurt Canadians and has hurt seasonal workers.

There are regions of Canada that have economies that are different from the others. My region of New Brunswick has many seasonal workers. There are people who work in the forest industry. We have difficult winters. These are realities. There are not all types of industries popping up every day. When the government brought in the reform it did not pay attention to these very seasonal workers.

My colleague from South Shore, Nova Scotia is here. He has brought to my attention many, many files of people who are looking for work, people who are running out of employment insurance, people who have nowhere else to go and have no choice but to go on income assistance and wait until that industry re-opens.

It is pretty sad when the surplus in employment insurance is pegged at about $25 billion. Last year and recently too, the Minister of Finance bragged in the House about the balanced budget. That budget without the $25 billion employment insurance account would not be balanced at all. Certainly there is an imbalance.

I read the report that was tabled in the House yesterday by the minister. It is frustrating to read these things. One of the civil servants who worked on the reform to employment insurance was in my office at the very beginning. He told me that people from Atlantic Canada should get a job like he did, just to give hon. members the idea.

There is a minister over there from P.E.I. We all know who he is. He has in his own riding people who are suffering from this reform and he has the gall to stand here and laugh at what we are saying. It is unbelievable. He should be standing and defending those very people.

I read a report which said that many people may be faking illness when they quit their jobs. Imagine. It is typical though. I am not surprised. They are faking their illness. Nurses across the country have been cut back, slashed and have to do the work that two nurses used to do. They are burnt out and yes, some must call in sick. However the report says people are faking.

In the employment insurance assessment report, the statement is made that “overall, we can say that there are indications that some elements of the reform are working relatively well”.

I must tell you that, when I see people in my riding office, people who have lost their homes, families that have been split up, and when I look at the comments in the evaluation, I wonder if these are the government's indications that the reform is working well. It is absolutely incredible.

The report also says “That is why the Government of Canada made a legislative commitment to monitor and assess the impacts of the reform for five years”. It says “monitor and assess”. What the member for Acadie—Bathurst is asking for is this:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate action to restore Employment Insurance benefits to seasonal workers.

The motion says immediate. Here is a typical amendment by a member of the government that introduced the reform. Note the difference. It goes like this:

That the government should...review the issue of employment insurance benefits for seasonal workers.

Here, we have the word review.

With people suffering since the reform, the government still wants to “review” what happened. I can tell the House that we have been hearing what the Liberal government wants to do with an election in the offing; it wants to review the matter.

I can also tell the House that Canadians have not forgotten what happened. The government thinks that the Atlantic provinces have forgotten as well, but it is mistaken. The people of these provinces have not forgotten Doug Young; they have not forgotten EI reform.

As a member, I will make it my business to see that they remember what the government did to them. That is my intention. We must protect Canadians throughout this country. There must be a balance.

Balance seems to be lacking in this reform. We have a great country. We are trying to build a strong country. We are trying to keep the country together. There are many differences, various cultures, and different regions with differing resources.

If we want to succeed as a country, we must focus on balance. What the government has done is unacceptable, and I once again congratulate the member for Acadie—Bathurst on his motion.