Sergio Marchi

[Immigration, February 14th, 1994]

I thought I was a nice guy, Mr. Speaker.

I do not want to have the issue emotionalized one way or the other. We have had a decision made on immigration levels in keeping with the red book, which the member suggests was not very popular. However, the last time we checked the red book enabled us to have a strong majority government, a mandate for this Prime Minister.

Second, we have announced unprecedented consultations to discuss with Canadians where our country goes from here, how immigration can plug in, and to ensure that the country reaches those dreams and those aspirations.

I also wish to add that Vancouver has had the greatest economic output in the last number of years. It received the most immigrants in any region across the country so the correlation between immigration and employment has worked for Vancouver.

[Immigration, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a certain frustration many Canadians feel.

Speaking generally, Canadians face and favour a system which is tolerant to those who legitimately wish to put their claims before the Immigration and Refugee Board. On the other hand they want a sense of balance for those who are convicted of heinous crimes or those who wish to clearly subvert the law. They do not want that tolerance abused.

As the minister I certainly share that frustration. I will be working at trying to come to grips with that balance by trying to keep out those who clearly do not require assistance, without closing the door under the Geneva international convention to those who legitimately seek it.

I would also like to point out to the member that those criminal cases are very few, in the minority in comparison to the general number. I am saying one is too many, but I am also cautioning the member in her leaving the impression that the IRB process is riddled, if I can use that word, with all sorts of criminal elements. It is not. We have to deal competently and quickly with those minority of cases.

[Immigration, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that this side, this minister and this government do not look favourably on those who wish to subvert our immigration and refugee laws. The member also knows that privacy laws prevent us from getting into the specifics of the case.

Suffice to say, I wish to reassure the hon. member and the House that I have asked my officials to put representations accordingly on this particular file. I can assure the hon. member we are standing up to the very letter of the law for those who legitimately seek assistance under our refugee and immigration laws.

[Immigration, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is wrong with respect to drawing that conclusion from the Economic Council of Canada.

The Economic Council of Canada agreed with the approximate 1 per cent figure. It also made the additional recommendation that governments should pursue that 1 per cent gradually and that is exactly what we did. We honoured the commitment of approximately 1 per cent which was a red book commitment and we are doing it gradually which is in keeping with the Economic Council report recommendations.

[Immigration, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I criticized no such report. I simply said that the report, often quoted by that gentleman and his

party, did not tell Canadians that it was found in the very worst case scenario that immigration was neutral on the economy. That is what I said and that is what I stand by.

[Immigration, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have just been through the most exhaustive consultation process. It is called a national election. The last time I checked the Prime Minister had won a decisive national mandate. Immigration was part of the red book.

On top of that we have announced an unprecedented consultation process which will not only talk to organizations and experts but also allow Canadians to have their say in developing the policy because after all this is their country as well.

[Immigration, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when we announced the levels we talked about a balanced approach. If one is to consider a number of different variables I am not sure we should put more emphasis on one or the other.

We need to have a balanced approach that serves the interests of our country, that serves the interests of families and family reunification, that serves the interests of job creation and investment as we have done through the increase of independent skills and business workers.

The other slant of immigration policy has to do with maintaining a tradition of keeping our obligations to those who seek assistance so there is a humanitarian aspect to immigration. Only when we have a balanced approach do we have a good healthy immigration policy.

[Immigration, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. I took note of the statement by the member on January 31 with respect to the same issue.

While members of the Reform may laugh, it is very important the member underline the role that settlement plays when we have set levels of immigration. We cannot divorce the two if we want to guide a coherent immigration policy.

I can assure the member that over 300 organizations have entered into contractual agreements with my department to improve those settlement deliveries. In fact one entitled Host was piloted in the member's very own riding.

I can assure the hon. member and the House that the specific subject of settlement will be an integral part of the consultation process. The subject will also be the focus of an expert panel to ensure that we are maximizing our settlement programs and seeking modifications where they are needed.

[Michael Drake, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that one of the hon. member's colleagues asked the same question last week.

I mentioned to her and through her to the House of Commons that privacy laws prevent me and him from going into the details. Suffice it to say that Mr. Drake is coming up for a hearing and I will use every method within the Immigration Act to protect Canadian communities and the security of Canada with respect to this case as with respect to other cases.

The hon. member should also know that since my appointment as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I have acted to move and to deport individuals whom I thought thwarted the very system upon which this act is predicated.

[Immigration, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend from Winnipeg North and also take the opportunity to commend him for the leadership role he has taken within the general policy areas of both immigration and multiculturalism.

The member raises a good point. There needs to be a connection between the desired levels of immigration announced and debated and the delivery mechanism.

I can tell the hon. member and the House that, for instance, we have increased the number of visa officers at our High Commission in India from 19 to a current 30. As well, we have also put in place accredited medical practitioners because of the demand in the state of the Punjab.

Since the fall of the Berlin wall we have opened visa offices in Kiev, Bucharest and Prague. The hon. member is correct and we are moving with dispatch.