Sergio Marchi

[Immigration, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. It is an issue that our officials have been studying for four months.

We have an internal task force looking at sponsorship breakdown, the fact that some people fraudulently break their contract with this country. I think we should look very carefully and very toughly at those individuals.

Second, there are those individuals in Canada who, through no fault of their own, have been hit by the economic impact and are thus not in a position to sponsor those individuals.

There is a third category that is growing of individuals who, under the threat of going to the government and pulling the sponsorships, are physically violating women. That is under active consideration.

We have engaged the provinces so that we can come up with a package that is not only tough with those who break the law but sensitive to those individuals who through no fault of their own find themselves in impossible situations.

[Immigration, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I said last week that this member does not have a monopoly on virtue or concern and that I do not take any pleasure whatsoever in seeing those individuals who do not merit our consideration walking our streets. The member should do justice to how all members feel about a number of cases.

In answering the question I am going to ask the member to get his facts right and perhaps he could listen. For example, in Ontario since 1992 there has been a reduction of general immigration staff from 1,560 to 1,040. In the meantime, in Ontario, in terms of investigative enforcement officers, the staff has increased from 50 to 60. Five of the six individuals who were reduced in Toronto at the behest of this minister, those individuals have not been reassigned. They are still there.

Also, the unit was not-

[Immigration, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I said last week and I repeat that in the large number of cases of individuals who appeal to the immigration appeal division my department is not in favour of staying or overturning those deportations.

The member ought to use his words very carefully because it is not true when he characterizes my department as being against the individual's deportation.

Second, I think the member owes it to the immigration file not to suggest somehow that the entire situation is out of whack. The

member should not consider immigration in the way we sometimes consider airplanes, by the ones that do not land, because 99 per cent of the airplanes land at our airports seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

It is the same for immigration. Of the 1,100 cases appealed last year only 16 in terms of criminality were overturned. I admit that some cases ought not to have been overturned and I was very honest and candid with one case last week.

Before last week I said it is not incompatible to have a fair and progressive immigration policy which also means being tough in applying the law to those who seek to break or abuse it. We are not backtracking on that. We will be bringing those amendments to this Chamber so that we can target those individuals who by their actions give all immigrants a black mark.

[Minister's Permits, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, the report to Parliament on the minister's permits issued from January 1 to December 31, 1993.

[Immigration, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my department wanted and pushed for deportation. An independent quasi-judicial body stayed the deportation. The adjudicator who made that decision was not reappointed to that board. She was not reappointed by this minister. Therefore we need no lessons from the hon. member.

[Immigration, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this member of Parliament does a disservice to the facts of the issue and to the concerns both of us and both sides of this House share. You do not have a monopoly on concern-

[Immigration, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult situation. We should be careful and try not to be in contempt of court so as not to prejudice this very important case many Canadians are looking at. Let me say this tragedy moved more than the city of metropolitan Toronto. It moved the whole country to think about that senseless killing.

Let me also put into focus this department moved on the basis of inadmissibility grounds to deport that individual. I can tell the hon. member and this House I believe when we moved to deport that individual the case was made before an immigration appeal member. This is not controlled by my department but is a quasi-judicial independent tribunal.

I will say the system failed us on this case. That strengthens my convictions that the amendments I have been discussing with my officials to strengthen the criminality provisions and to close the loopholes are the right course.

[Immigration, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, what I mentioned was that if our doctors currently detect symptoms of HIV, they order a test. The test is based on two questions, one in terms of public health, safety to the country and, second, the whole question of the tax that the disease would put on the medical infrastructure. The judgment of the doctor is then rendered.

I said then and I repeat today that based on the tests done, our doctors currently reject most of those individuals from coming into the country, not based on general public safety but on the whole question of how taxing the disease would be on the medical infrastructure.

I have also said that we are reviewing this situation so as to update ourselves with respect to HIV and AIDS. These diseases are a growing concern that has consumed the attention of many individuals. Third, in terms of tracking the number of cases across the country I do not think my department or any department keeps those kinds of numbers.

[Immigration, April 25th, 1994]

You can hem and haw all you want. You can look at truth right in the face.

Then I went on to say that as part of the review in immigration there is a review of the class of medical inadmissibility. I mentioned that it is appropriate for the department and for the country to consider that things do evolve. As the member mentioned there are a number of diseases that we automatically check.

I also mentioned that where our doctors, our practitioners, see evidence of HIV positive they are permitted clearly on their judgment to test and subsequently refuse people admittance.

The question that I raise which will be part of the review is ought this test to be an automatic part of the medical check, yes or no. We are happy to look into that question and no one is hiding anything.

[Immigration, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when he asked me that question he said he was amazed to have discovered at committee the day before that we did not automatically test.

When I said he had faulty research it was in the sense that he had not known that to be the case as opposed to being amazed and surprised.