Bill Siksay

[Civil Marriage Act, February 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I hope every educational institution in this country, whether private or public, has a discussion about this legislation. I hope they have discussions about marriage and the meaning of marriage. I hope they have discussions about the place of gay and lesbian people in our society. I hope they have discussions about the kind of loving commitments Canadians make to each other, whether they are heterosexual or gay or lesbian. That would be a fine thing for this country. I have no fear of those kind of discussions.

The member raised the situation of people perhaps sending their children to a school with a more controlled curriculum or where some issues might not come up as often. I grew up in a school system that did not talk about issues of sexuality very well. As a young gay man I was very isolated. I hope all our institutions will take pains to ensure that young gay and lesbian people are heard. I hope they are not made invisible. I hope they are protected from bigotry and prejudice. I hope they are supported through their years of discovering their sexuality whether that is in a public school, a private school or whatever.

Whatever we can do to foster that kind of discussion and that kind of acceptance will be a good thing.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned there is only one form of marriage in Canada and that is the commitment that we have been talking about here this afternoon. Gay and lesbian people do not have a different notion of marriage. They do not have a different understanding of marriage. They do not have a different ideal around marriage. Marriage is marriage is marriage.

The people who challenged the courts to be included in marriage did so because they believe in that institution and share its values. They support the tradition of marriage. There is no differing idea of marriage. We only need one institution of marriage in this country. Gay and lesbian people, who are seeking to be included in that, support that institution fully and unequivocally.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, as this debate has gone on, I have seen very few people in the corner of those who support gay and lesbian marriage who have had any concern, or any qualm or any intention of challenging a church's right to its own decision making process, its own beliefs and its own theology around the question of gay and lesbian marriage. That is just not an issue in those quarters.

The bill goes out of its way to be very clear that religious freedom is protected in Canada. This is something that we on this side of the House, and I know the member's party does as well, strongly support.

There is no intent here to force religious organizations of any kind to perform a service for gay and lesbian couples against their will, their belief and their theology. That has been very clear. It has been a fundamental part of the debate. It has been a fundamental part of what gay and lesbian people have been saying about the legislation. I just do not think there is any question about it, and the bill takes pains to make that very clear.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I am proud to lead off the debate today on Bill C-38, the civil marriage act.

I had hoped to be able to share this time with my leader, the member for Toronto--Danforth, but he is still recovering from the appendix surgery he had on the weekend. I know we all want to wish him a quick recovery. As a long time supporter of the gay and lesbian community, I know he will be following the debate this afternoon with great interest.

I am proud today to speak to this important legislation as an openly gay man. Thirty-one years ago I was a 19 year old student at the beginning of my university career. I was struggling with coming out as a gay person. For years I had known the terrible isolation of being in the closet, holding a secret that I dare not tell anyone for fear I would be ostracized, beaten or worse.

As a young gay man I saw little hope of a relationship and certainly little hope of a relationship that would be celebrated and honoured as my parents' and grandparents' relationships had been celebrated and honoured. It just was not an option. Gay relationships when discussed at all were usually seen as fleeting, furtive, secretive. In my closet I was led to believe that promiscuity would be the only option if I was to live as an openly gay person.

However that did not sit well with the values I had learned in my family, my church and my community. At that time my very limited experience in the gay community had not shown me other possibilities.

It was at that time that I heard in the media the story of a brave Winnipeg gay couple, Chris Vogel and Richard North. Back in 1974, Chris and Richard challenged the marriage laws and attempted to get a marriage licence in Manitoba. They did not get the licence but they found support in a Unitarian church where they were married after the reading of wedding bans. Their action meant so much to a closeted young man from a small Ontario city.

What a revelation they were to me. Imagine, two gay men willing to challenge the laws and challenge society to seek to make a lifelong commitment to each other. Perhaps after all there was hope that I too could find that kind of loving, creative, secure partnership.

It is not as though gay and lesbian couples were not making commitments to each other back then and for many years before that, but emerging from the isolation of the closet one really had to be lucky to find them.

When I moved to B.C. in 1979 the longest gay relationship I had personally ever encountered was one that lasted 11 months, and that was one of mine. Arriving in Vancouver, almost within weeks I met, through my church connections, two couples who had been together for over 25 years. I could not believe it. Bruce and Ed, Patrick and Rob seemed like the most remarkable people to me, making a relationship work in a society that refused to recognize the full worth of gay and lesbian people, making a relationship work without the support of family, the church, the law. It literally filled me with awe and with hope. Their example opened new possibilities for my life. I longed for the security of home and family. When I thought about a relationship that was my priority.

Twenty-four years ago I met my partner, Brian, at a meeting of gays and lesbians at the University of British Columbia held at the Lutheran Campus Centre. Twenty-four years ago we began a relationship that continues to this day.

In my relationship with Brian, I found the love I yearned for, the security I was seeking, the creative energy that nourishes me and the mystery that continues to astonish me.

Twenty-four years ago, Brian and I could not be married. We made our accommodation with those circumstances. We have been lucky to be supported in our life together by family, friends, colleagues and our church family. We have not yet chosen to be married but to have that choice is very important to us.

Chris Vogel and Richard North continue to celebrate anniversary after anniversary. Just recently, in fact on the same day the Supreme Court ruled on the government's reference on marriage, Chris and Richard received the Manitoba Human Rights Commitment Award for their many contributions to human rights in that province.

Chris and Richard have been joined by many other brave gay and lesbian couples in recent years, couples who have not been afraid to put their relationships in the public spotlight by challenging the laws on marriage which excluded them. These couples challenged the laws in Ontario, B.C., Quebec, Nova Scotia, Yukon, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador and they won their point. It is their efforts that have brought us to this debate today.

These couples have had an important effect on those around them. They have shown many people, whatever their sexual orientation, the importance of making a lifelong commitment. They have championed marriage as an institution of value and worth in our society. They have been role models for young gay and lesbian people who still, far too often, remain isolated and alone in communities in every corner of this country.

In a society where far too many gay and lesbian young people choose suicide, they have shown a way of hope, pride and possibility. In a world that cries out for love and commitment, for responsibility and for right relationship, these couples have had the courage to publicly celebrate their lives together. They have had the courage to call society out of its intolerance and prejudice. They have had the courage to honour an institution central to our society and central to many of our dreams and ideals.

It is not just the couples who challenged the law before the courts. Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples have been married in Canada in the past year. They are all witnesses to love and commitment, role models each and every one. This has not been an attempt to change our society's understanding of marriage. These are couples who sought to be included in marriage as we understand it today, not change its values, ideals or traditions. They have willingly and enthusiastically sought out its responsibilities, obligations and duties. They seek the stability it will allow for them, for their children and for their families.

The bill before us is also not an attempt to change marriage. The bill expands the definition of marriage to include gay and lesbian couples. It allows gay and lesbian couples to access civil marriage in Canada. It does not fiddle with the ideals of marriage, the responsibilities of marriage, the obligations of marriage. It merely acknowledges that the full equality of gay and lesbian Canadians demands our inclusion in marriage, our access to that institution.

On Monday, I was honoured to share a podium with my colleagues from Vancouver East and Hochelaga. My colleague from Hochelaga is also openly gay. I remember very fondly the day he came out publicly. In fact, I sent him a fan letter that day. I have great respect for his work toward the full equality of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Quebec and Canada.

I am constantly proud to be associated with my sister from Vancouver East, who for many years was my member of Parliament and was the first member of Parliament in Canada to acknowledge that she was in a loving relationship with another woman. Her courage and her devotion to fighting for social change and justice inspire me daily.

I was honoured to share a podium with these hon. members as we explained why this debate was so crucial to us as members of the gay and lesbian community and as MPs. We made it clear that for us, this debate was not an abstract intellectual exercise, but that instead it was about how we live and love intimately, how we make personal commitments, how we celebrate our relationships. We spoke about how respect for the institution of marriage was a prime characteristic of our community's effort in this debate. We spoke about how being excluded from a key institution of our society made us second class citizens. We spoke about our support for religious freedom in Canada. We spoke about our determination to carry out this debate with both respect and directness.

This issue is more than just the consideration of civil marriage. It is actually about the full citizenship of gay and lesbian people, our full citizenship. Gay and lesbian people cannot be considered full citizens if key institutions of our society are considered out of bounds to us. We cannot be considered full citizens if civil marriage, one of those central institutions, is seen to be outside our experience and our reach.

Separate or new institutions or legal arrangements will not meet the test of the value of our citizenship. Civil union applied only to gay and lesbian couples is not an answer because separate is not equal. Separate water fountains, separate sections on the bus, separate beaches, none of these are acceptable in societies that value the full equality of their people. I and my party believe the same is true of civil marriage.

This matter is not one that limits religious freedom. The bill takes great pain to be clear on that subject. We in the NDP support the protection of religious freedom. I personally, as an active member of the United Church of Canada, strongly support religious freedom. No mosque, no temple, no church, no synagogue and no clergy person should be forced to perform a marriage of a gay or lesbian couple if that act conflicts with their belief, practice or theology.

Religious organizations must make decisions about religious marriage. However, religious organizations that choose to solemnize the marriage of gay and lesbian couples should also be able to do so in exactly the same way they do for heterosexual couples. Whether that means marrying a couple who has obtained a marriage licence or being able to officially register the marriage of a couple for whom banns have been read, those religious organizations should have that ability guaranteed as part of our commitment to religious freedom.

The Metropolitan Community Church fully supports the marriage of gay and lesbian couples and has worked hard to realize this change. The Unitarian Church and the United Church of Canada have been leaders toward this change, as has the Canadian Coalition of Liberal Rabbis for Same-Sex Marriage. Ultimately this legislation is about state-defined civil marriage, not religious marriage.

Alex Munter, a spokesperson for Canadians for Equal Marriage, had high praise for Bill C-38. He said that the bill reflected the genius of Canada in the way in which it supported the full equality of gay and lesbian couples and at the same time provided for the protection of religious freedom.

I agree with Mr. Munter. The bill is indeed very Canadian. It provides for a difference of opinion, while both protecting and expanding basic rights important to Canadians.

Let me pay tribute to the efforts of Canadians for Equal Marriage and Egale Canada for their tireless work advocating for marriage rights for Canadians.

Not all gay and lesbian Canadians aspire to be married. Not all gay and lesbian couples in Canada will choose marriage. Some in our community have serious and important questions about the institution of marriage, and not all of our marriages will succeed. That is no different than the situation for heterosexual couples and straight people in Canada. In the same way that heterosexual couples have a choice to be married or not, I believe that gay and lesbian couples must have that same choice.

I know this issue is a difficult one for many members of Parliament. I know there are members who have been told that they are not welcome in their faith communities because of the position they have taken. I know all members have been flooded with letters of support and opposition to this legislation. I am well aware of the emotional toll that this debate is having.

As a gay man I can assure this House that gay and lesbian Canadians know all too well the risks associated with standing up for our full human rights. We know that we often lose friends, family connections, our welcome in faith communities and our jobs. We sometimes even experience intimidation and violence when we stand for our full inclusion in the community.

Let me assure my colleagues that there are joys associated with that risk too. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

I know that many of my constituents have strong feelings about this legislation. I have heard from thousands of people, many from Burnaby—Douglas, many from across Canada. My support for marriage will come as no surprise to my constituents. They know that I worked with my predecessor Svend Robinson over many years, supporting his early initiatives on this issue. People in Burnaby--Douglas respected Svend's position, even if they disagreed. He was always clear with them and accountable for his actions.

For my part, I too have been very clear about my stand. It came up regularly during last June's election campaign, in public meetings, in media interviews and on the doorstep. I never shied away from indicating that I would be a strong supporter and advocate for gay and lesbian marriage.

I was not alone in that position among candidates in my riding. In fact, a very strong majority of voters in my riding cast their ballots for candidates who were committed to supporting this kind of legislation.

I know not everyone in Burnaby--Douglas supports this bill. I respect their position. I appreciate hearing from them about their concern. However, when the vote comes I will be voting in support, ensuring that gay and lesbian couples can be married in Canada.

I also want to speak about my party's position on this issue. The New Democratic Party of Canada has been on the record for many years as supporting gay and lesbian marriage. It has been part of our election platform. In fact, the party policy committed the NDP to changing the law to include gay and lesbian couples in marriage in our first term should we form government.

The policy went further. After democratic debate at a party convention, delegates voted for a motion that directed caucus to support this change as a fundamental issue of human rights.

I do not know of any of our party's policies where delegates actually called caucus members to a particular course of action. It tells Canadians of our party's commitment. I am proud that we in the NDP will perhaps have the strongest overall commitment to this change of any caucus represented here in the House.

There are disappointments for me associated with this debate. I am disappointed that it has taken the government so long to get this on the agenda of the House, forcing couples at great personal expense and risk to take their concerns to the courts. I think that the government tried to keep this matter off the agenda of the last election by its reference to the Supreme Court. I think that was just a delaying tactic.

I am disappointed too that if it was up to the Liberal and Conservative Parties this legislation would fail. This is particularly troubling, given the Prime Minister's stirring defence of the charter and human rights in Canada in the last days of the election campaign. The Prime Minister wrapped himself in the charter and pledged to defend those rights. Today we see the Liberal caucus divided on this matter.

Without the NDP and the strong support of the Bloc Québécois, the legislation would not have a hope.

I hope the Prime Minister appreciates that it is the commitment of these two opposition parties to the charter, to human rights, to the full equality of gays and lesbians that will ensure the legislation passes.

I am also disappointed in the position taken by the Conservative Party. Perhaps I should not be surprised given that party's consistent history of failing to support initiatives that address the equality of gay and lesbian Canadians.

However, the way in which the Conservatives have made their argument has been particularly problematic. We first heard how this legislation presented a slippery slope that would lead to polygamy, a notion roundly criticized in many quarters and that ignores the very real problems associated with polygamy that is practised in Canada today. Then it was proposed that there could in fact be an opposite sex definition of marriage that would meet constitutional requirements without using the notwithstanding clause, a position that was denounced by over 130 legal and constitutional experts.

We then heard from the Conservatives that Canada's ethnic communities would not stand for including gays and lesbians in the institution of marriage, a suggestion that offended many in those communities and belied the political, social and religious diversity of ethnic communities in Canada.

And more recently, a longtime Conservative member of Parliament asserted that gay and lesbian Canadians were not discriminated against by the current definition of marriage because we were in fact free to marry a person of the opposite sex. There could be no position that denies the reality of our lives as gay and lesbian people more than that. It fundamentally denies the reality of our love, our commitments, our sexuality, our lives. It makes our love, our relationships invisible. I hope this is not a view that is widely shared in that party.

I have not heard effective reasons from the Conservatives yet, but I am willing to listen carefully to the debate in the coming days.

This legislation will be good for Canada. Because it recognizes the full equality of gay and lesbian couples, it will make a difference. Because it honours the institution of marriage by including couples who are dedicated to the ideals and responsibilities of that institution who do not take it for granted, who are willing to fight to be subject to its traditions and obligations, it will make a difference. Because it will bring joy to the very being of many people who will be able to make a commitment that they only dreamed might be possible or who have sought the opportunity to support gay and lesbian family members and friends find the important affirmation of their relationship, it will make a difference. Because it will say to people around the world that Canada honours and respects its gay and lesbian citizens and is prepared to bring them into full citizenship, leading not following the movement toward equality for gays and lesbians everywhere, it will make a difference.

Relationships are complicated. They are mysterious. They give meaning to our lives. For me, theologian Isobel Carter Heyward offers an excellent description of loving relationship when she says:

To say I love you is to say that you are not mine, but rather your own.To love you is to advocate your rights, your space, your self, and to struggle with you, rather than against you, in your learning to claim your power in the world.To love you is to make love to you, and with you, whether in an exchange of glances heavy with existence, in the passing of a peace we mean, in our common work or play, in our struggle for social justice, or in the ecstasy and tenderness of intimate embrace which we believe is just and right for us--and for others in the world.To love you is to be pushed by a power/god both terrifying and comforting, to touch and be touched by you. To love you is to sing with you, cry with you, pray with you, and act with you to re-create the world.

When it comes down to it, there is no difference in the love experienced by gay and lesbian couples and heterosexual couples. Love is love is love.

The bill is a cause for celebration. Soon, when it finally passes, we will be able to celebrate the love and commitment of all Canadian couples. The circle of love, of responsibility, of commitment, of marriage will be wider.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight to Bill C-283, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. As we have heard, this bill proposes certain changes to the visitor visa process.

Specifically, it allows for the sponsorship of foreign nationals who wish to come to Canada on a temporary resident visa under the visitor class. This bill would add section 193.1 which stipulates that a person who meets the criteria for a sponsor, as already defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, can apply to the minister for the authorization to sponsor a foreign national as a visitor.

This foreign national must be coming to Canada under the visitor class on a temporary resident visa. This foreign national who is being sponsored must not work or study while in Canada, may not apply for an extension of the stay in Canada and may not apply for permanent resident status. Finally, he or she must leave Canada by the end of the allotted time. The bill also mentions that if foreign nationals marry or apply for refugee status during their stay in Canada they must also leave.

This bill provides for deposits and guarantees that could be sought by the minister, and the amount of the deposit or guarantee shall be fixed on the basis of the financial resources of the person or group, or on the cost that could be incurred to locate the foreign nationals and deal with them, or to the costs to enforce the guarantee.

The foreign nationals must also report to a representative of the Government of Canada within 30 days after leaving Canada in order to prove that they left the country. The bill proposes consequences if the conditions of the visa are not met. If the foreign nationals fail to comply with the conditions of their stay, then the sponsor's deposit or guarantee is lost. The sponsor cannot sponsor again for another five years, and the foreign national cannot enter Canada again.

As we have heard, this bill seeks to increase the options available with regard to the issuing of visitor visas, especially when an initial application has been turned down.

Bill C-283 is of huge concern to my constituents in Burnaby—Douglas and I am sure constituents of most other members of Parliament. Applying for a visitor visa seems like such a very simple act and simple request. It is to share a visit with family or friends here in Canada. However, this simple hope all too often seems to become a complicated, totally frustrating process for too many people.

In my many years as a constituency assistant to a member of Parliament, I dealt with many cases of folks who had been denied a visitor's visa for a very simple family visit. In fact, I kept a box of tissues on my desk because invariably the frustration of that denial led to tears and much emotion.

The requests are so very straightforward, for a relative or friend to visit for a wedding, to be present at the birth of a grandchild, to attend the funeral of a family member. These are all key moments of our lives, moments that we all expect to share with family.

Nothing is more difficult than telling someone that a close relative will not make it to a funeral, a wedding or a baptism. However, there is also the hope for others to extend simple hospitality, something that I do not think we can undervalue. This is the hope to return hospitality shown when a Canadian visited overseas, when we visited family members overseas or the hope that a friend or family member might have the chance to see firsthand what our lives are like in Canada and what our country is about.

The refusal of these simple, straightforward requests causes terrible trauma for families. I have often heard from people who have had a relative turned down for a visitor visa that they feel like a second class citizen in Canada because they cannot have their relatives visit them here, whereas other Canadians do not seem to have that problem.

Often it is hard for people here in Canada to explain to relatives overseas why they cannot visit. It can cause problems for families because relatives feel that the Canadian family member did not try hard enough or, for some reason, does not really want them to visit. Some people are refused time and time again and there seems to be no recourse. There is no appeal. Only a new application is a possibility and this leaves families in a state of despair.

I am interested in this bill because it seeks to make it possible for people who would not have been able to visit relatives in Canada, because they were refused a temporary resident visa, the chance to do so. Other aspects of the bill include upgrading the invitation process into a full sponsorship process, which increases the options that people have.

The problems that may have impeded the ability of people to visit Canada include insufficient funds or what are considered not strong links to their home country. If a Canadian citizen could formally sponsor them, then their application may be more successful.

It is important for families to maintain their connections, even over many thousands of miles. I am very concerned about the need for friends and families to be able to reunite for a visit, perhaps to celebrate important family occasions.

My concern for the maintenance of these bonds is evident in the bill that I have introduced in the House which would allow for the once in a lifetime expansion of the family class definition so that other relatives can be sponsored in an attempt to bolster family reunification. I am sensitive to the fact that in our increasingly global society we cannot always remain physically close to our families and friends, but these ties remain and must be supported and maintained.

We need to consider how we maintain our edge in a world that now competes for new immigrants. Australia and the United States are also working to attract immigrants to their countries. Canada needs new immigrants. The government's own studies show that by 2011 all growth in our labour force will come from immigration and by the mid-2020s all population growth will come from immigration.

We need to ensure that those who choose to come to Canada believe that our immigration policies will support them and their families, and the hopes for their future. We cannot afford to further a reputation that says Canada will not allow simple family visits from relatives of new immigrants.

While I support the intent of this bill, I have some concerns. I have concerns about the inequality of requiring a deposit or guarantee. I understand that the intention of this rule is to make foreign nationals more likely to comply with the conditions of their visas for fear of losing a sum of money or damaging the reputation of their sponsors. However, this possible monetary requirement limits the people who would be able to take advantage of this opportunity to have a loved one visit Canada. It may favour those who are affluent. Not everyone will be able to make the necessary guarantee.

By emphasizing this option, we could be making it even more difficult for families that are not wealthy or that are of more modest means from enjoying a visit from a family member. I am concerned that this may make it harder for those families to enjoy a visit from a family member if the option of putting up a guarantee always becomes operational.

We need to look more closely at clause 7(d) of the proposed bill, which indicates that persons may not stay if they apply for refugee status while in Canada. There is a possibility that something will transpire in their country of origin, such as a change of government or a civil unrest, that will affect them directly and make it important for them to make a refugee claim while they are in Canada.

I do not believe we can stipulate that such a refugee claim cannot be heard. I am very concerned about that and would certainly seek that kind of change should this bill come before the committee. I do not believe we can in good conscience require someone to return in that kind of situation.

There is a stipulation that requires visitors to report to an officer or other representative of the Government of Canada within 30 days after leaving in order to prove they have left. I have a slight concern about that in terms of the overload that we already face in the immigration system. The system is overloaded. We see that everyday. We need to address the funding that the department receives and the organization of the department in order to deal with that issue.

I do not want to see us in a situation where MPs are acting as the go-between for their constituents and the minister. We cannot afford another level of bureaucracy in the government. I think we need to address this issue in the context of the overall functioning of the department.

On the whole, I am very interested in this debate. I am interested in hearing from constituents and organizations about this proposal. On balance, any proposal which seeks to address the situation of visitor visas, the refusal of visitor visas, and the barriers that families see to making simple visits with their family members in Canada, I believe deserves serious consideration.

I would be pleased to continue this discussion at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and I hope this bill is referred to the committee.

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the whole question of reforestation is a crucial one. It is particularly crucial around this whole matter of the pine beetle. In the past, in clear-cutting practices, we tended to take out the whole forest. We take out the whole forest and change the huge diversity that exists in the forest.

Someone who has visited an old growth forest will see the incredible range of plant life that is there, the incredible range of trees. It is not generally just one species of tree that is found in that area. However, after it has been logged and reforested, often it is replaced by a single species. I once heard an expert on forests call them ghetto forests because they were replaced--

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Yukon for his compliments about my speech. It is very important that we ensure that our governments take this crisis as seriously as possible. Certainly, the people in the areas affected feel this crisis very directly and very personally.

I do not think any amount of money will address all the needs and the important concerns that are in the area. We need to be working actively to see that this crisis is addressed. The B.C. NDP leader suggested to put local people in direct control of some of the windfalls that come out of this. It is strange how often, when there is a disaster in the works, there is some benefit to the overall economy.

I always think it is strange that sometimes a great disaster, such as a hurricane or earthquake, can often increase the GDP of a country because of all the effort that has to go into restoration work and rebuilding. Even though there has been a huge disaster, often lives are lost, and a huge disruption to society, it somehow ends up being a bonus when we look at the overall impact in the way we manage and the way we account for our economies.

We need to be careful in this instance. We need to ensure that we take innovative steps in order for local people to benefit from the outcome of this and that the benefits that accrue from this disaster, and unfortunately there will be some, do not all dwindle away to other parts of the province, other parts of the country or leave the country, or all go into the profits that the corporations will reap in this area. I think the B.C. NDP has come up with a really important suggestion.

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate this evening. I want to share my time with my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster.

As a British Columbian, let me say that this is an important issue for our province. There is no doubt about the importance of the forest industry to our province. No one has any questions about that. There is no doubt about the importance of tourism to our province. There is no doubt about the spiritual importance of the forest to everyone in British Columbia.

I personally have seen the devastation caused by the infestation of the pine beetle even though it has not spread to my part of British Columbia on the lower mainland. I understand the fear and frustration that this causes for the communities that have been directly affected. I have talked to people about their dread as the infestation spreads across the province.

To see one's livelihood turning brown before one's eyes as the lodgepole pine trees in the area die, to see the timber that is harvested stained blue from the fungus carried by the pine beetle and made less desirable and less saleable, to see logging increase to make use of the dead trees immediately rather than seeing the long term viability of the industry in one's area, bringing into question the future jobs and future survival of one's community: I understand the dread that this causes for people in other parts of British Columbia.

The B.C. government has taken some initiatives on this, that is clear. I am hoping that the federal government will get behind those initiatives and expand them. It needs to get on board.

Tonight I want to talk about the suggestions made by Carole James, the leader of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia. On November 25, Ms. James made an important suggestion about a pine beetle community investment fund for communities in northern British Columbia. This fund would be modelled on the Columbia Basin Trust and the Nechako-Kitimat Development Fund.

Not so long ago, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and I and our colleagues from the NDP caucus in British Columbia visited the West Kootenays. While we were there, there were important meetings happening around the Columbia Basin Trust. We saw first-hand the importance of that arrangement for those communities and the passion that people felt about the Columbia Basin Trust and how important it was to the future viability of those communities. It is a great model in terms of the ongoing importance of those areas.

The suggestion was that a fund would be established with revenue generated from harvesting operations to control the spread of the pine beetle infestation. The need was to keep the revenue being generated from that harvesting near the affected communities rather than see it end up in the coffers of the provincial and federal governments.

This comes from the increases in the annual allowable cut in the areas around Quesnel, Prince George and the Lakes districts, where the government will collect revenue on an additional 5 million cubic metres this year alone. That is a huge windfall for the government. We and Ms. James want to make sure that the revenue is spent in the those local communities and does not disappear to Victoria.

She proposed that there needed to be community representatives making decisions and setting priorities on how to invest the revenues in their communities. Local people need to be involved directly in setting those priorities so that it is not just people in Victoria or people in Ottawa who do that work. Business, labour, first nations and municipal and regional governments all need to be directly involved--and directly involved locally--in establishing the criteria for their community investment fund on the pine beetle.

The amount of timber harvested in these areas will decline by between 20% and 40% over the next 10 to 15 years because of the extra harvesting that is happening now. As I mentioned earlier, that means the long term viability of communities is put into question. That means the ability for people who live in those areas to count on a future in that same region is being put in jeopardy because the work is being done now and not spread out over a longer period as was expected before this infestation happened.

Prince George city councillor Murray Krause believes that northern communities need to have control of their destiny by stopping the outflow of the wealth from the north. That is a key part of any long term plan for the region.

Councillor Krause strongly believes that local people in his area, in Prince George, need to have a key role in making the decisions about how this crisis is managed and how the future of those communities is developed in light of the infestation.

Nate Bello, the mayor of Quesnel, said:

This initiative recognizes the need to invest in the economic future of those communities directly impacted by the pine beetle infestation, including forestry and pine beetle recovery, transportation, tourism, energy, small business and sustainable economic development.

That is quite the list of important areas that the mayor of Quesnel has identified, but the basic fact is that he, like others, wants to be directly involved in how this crisis is managed and what the future planning and future economic development of his region is going to be. I think he recognizes that what Ms. James has suggested in her initiative around a pine beetle recovery fund goes some way to addressing that hope.

In passing, I remember not so long ago seeing a display of value added wood products made from timber that had been stained by the fungus that is left by the pine beetle. This gives the wood a streak resembling a blue grey kind of stain. It was very interesting to see that an enterprising entrepreneur in the area had actually taken this and tried to turn it to advantage, and use the special qualities of that wood in products that he was hoping to market.

That is the kind of local initiative that we need to support as well. We know and we have heard from other members this evening how the staining of this wood has decreased the value and desirability of the wood. We heard how Japan was no longer interested in the stained wood even though its strength and other qualities were not affected. It is just the cosmetic value of the wood that is affected. Here is an entrepreneur that has taken that head on and made products. He has attempted secondary manufacturing that takes advantage of the staining that has happened to the wood in order to turn the disadvantage into an advantage for British Columbia.

There are significant questions raised by the infestation. The role of fire suppression and how our fire management process has sometimes set us up to undo the natural changes in the forest. Sometimes this has made it even more likely that the pine beetle is going to take hold in an area. Regarding forest management and clear-cutting practices, when we clear-cut a forest and then reforest it, we often plant a single species which ultimately will make the forest more vulnerable to an attack by a pest such as the pine beetle.

Instead of matching the great diversity of the original forest we see the ghetto forest developed by this process. We also need to look at the whole question of climate change and how it affects this whole crisis.

[Immigration, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last week an Iranian woman, a refugee claimant, was deported back to Iran. She was immediately detained, charged with leaving Iran illegally and could face the death penalty. She had fled Iran because of her activism on student and women's issues.

How could this happen given Canada's position at the UN where just last month Canada again condemned Iran's human rights record and its treatment of women? Has the government forgotten Zahra Kazemi's death?

How could the pre-removal risk assessment process conclude that there was no risk of return to Iran? Only 3% of PRRA reviews are successful, raising serious questions about their effectiveness. That Immigration Canada could be so off base with Canada's foreign affairs policy is appalling.

Two years ago Parliament passed the refugee appeal division, a fact based appeal on the merits of a refugee case. The government has refused to implement it, showing contempt for Parliament and leaving refugees at risk.

Deportations to Iran must stop immediately. Deportations to any country where there is any risk of persecution must end. The refugee appeal division must be implemented now.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I just cannot conceal my enthusiasm for giving people that chance, that chance to make sure that the people who are important to them and make up their family are here.

Yes, it will mean an increase in the immigration level, but we are only meeting 66% of the target that the government sets now. Why does the government consistently miss that target? Why can it meet its targets in other areas like deficit reduction or debt reduction, let us say, but not the target around reuniting families in Canada?

I think it is time we put as much effort into that target as we do with these other targets. If we did that, we would go a long way to ensuring that families have the people who are most important to them, who are closest to them and who supported them in Canada here with them.