Keith Martin

[Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Act, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do understand what the hon. member is saying. The last thing I want to do is institute any element of prejudice into this at all. There has been much said by various people in the media and groups in this country that certain immigrants are criminals and they should not be allowed into the country.

I am looking for answers that have not been provided by the minister of immigration. I think it is important for us to determine whether there are individuals coming into this country who are criminals or who commit criminal acts in this country. If we can do a better job of determining who those individuals are beforehand, in other words have some way of predicting this behaviour in the future such as, for example, if they have a criminal record in the country of origin, perhaps we can use this data to protect the citizens of this country.

That is what I am driving at, not to institute any prejudice on the country of origin. Rather, if there are characteristics of an individual who comes to this country who has had criminal behaviour in the past and is an incorrigible criminal, we should know this information before they come here in order to protect the citizens of this country and not allow them to enter into our borders.

[Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Act, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question the person should go through our courts, guilt or innocence should be determined and if he or she is found to be guilty then they should be deported to the country of origin with the understanding that the person should be faced with serving a sentence appropriate to the crime in the country of origin.

My constituents have told me they think it is grossly unfair that the Canadian taxpayer has to foot the bill in the order of $50,000 or $60,000 per year to have this person sit in a penal institution for that period of time. It is a cost that I do not think Canadian taxpayers should have to shoulder.

[Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Act, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-35, to consolidate citizenship and immigration functions, I believe is a laudable one to attempt to streamline and reduce duplication. I can only applaud this manoeuvre and hope

that when the two ministries are brought together there can be a streamlining of administration, increased efficiency and significant savings to the taxpayer, particularly important in these days of deficit spending. I have no real problems with the bill, but I think this might be a superb opportunity to address many of the unanswered questions on immigration and some of the efforts the new department should undertake.

One of the greatest characteristics of our beautiful country and one I am very proud of is our cultural mosaic. Very few countries in this world of ours have been able to assimilate a heterogeneous group of people from all over the world. In fact, every country in the world is represented within our borders. We have managed to create a melting pot with a minimal amount of civil strife, prejudice and intolerance. As a result of this, we have produced a rich culture that has benefited all individuals who live within our borders.

The exposure to different cultures, ethnic groups and religions is something that enriches us all and breeds tolerance. It is perhaps this tolerance and understanding that we as Canadians seem to have that sets us apart from almost every other country in the world giving us our unique international characteristics. It is this unique level of tolerance and understanding that has given us such a high level of esteem in international circles. There is no doubt in my mind that immigration has proven to be a benefit to us.

Today in the 1990s much has been said about immigration. Often passionate and divergent views are extolled about immigrants from many quarters. The numbers of immigrants: Are they too high? Are they too low? Their characteristics: Are we allowing too many in with certain characteristics that would not benefit the country? The country of origin: Are some countries better suited to adapt to the Canadian way of life than others? Are immigrants a boon or are they a loadstone to this country?

Those questions are even more pertinent today. They have a certain imperativeness about them in their response because of our high unemployment levels, our uncertain economic future, the rapidly shifting trends in the economy and our relatively lower standard of living that plagues current generations more so than others in the past.

The arguments also become more passionate and more subjective as these pressures on Canadian society grow. Immigrants are often taken as a scapegoat for some of these problems in this country. In order to serve the Canadian public, the country and the immigrant population better, I believe it is imperative that these questions be addressed and that these problems be met head on instead of trying to avoid them.

It does not pay to ignore life's realities. Thus there has never been a better time to ask for the truth about immigration. What immigration levels should we have? What type of immigrants should we be selecting? The only way to get this is through cold, hard data. Let us not hide from this.

First it would serve to have a brief overview of immigration in Canada. As I have said before, immigrants no doubt have been a tremendous boon to this country. I am an immigrant and I am proud and very thankful at being allowed to come to this country. In fact, I like to think of this country as a founding country of many different races.

Between 1967 and 1978 immigration policy favoured highly qualified and skilled immigrants with high education. They came to this country and got jobs. Their earnings grew and in fact exceeded those of indigenous Canadians. They became a net contributor to the treasury and there was minimal job displacement.

After 1978 the immigration policy changed. The education of immigrants fell and their earnings fell. There was more job displacement, particularly by unskilled workers from third world countries.

There is also less integration now than before. Immigrant adaptation has also taken longer than before. This adaptation is dependent upon a number of characteristics: the immigrants' education, language, age and the nature of the receiving society, the level of skills required by the country, the labour market and the extent to which the country is receptive toward them.

In the last 10 to 15 years we have had a decreasing number in the independent class of immigrants, those who were selected to come to this country and went through a selection process and had a very high chance of getting a job. An increase in the number of family reunification class of individuals has happened in Canada in the last 10 years. Those are people who were allowed into the country purely on the basis of having a relative here.

The immigration policy from 1967 to 1980 was undoubtedly successful. That was due primarily to the selection process I mentioned and the commitment of our country to minority cultures, tolerance, equal rights and human rights for all.

However, recent trends in the labour market performance of immigrants have been disquieting. Much has been stated by various people on the level of criminality among immigrants and whether or not they are a loadstone or a benefit to Canada in terms of social services. I have not been able to see any data or information on this subject, but I think it is high time we started to look at the truth, not to create any scapegoats for this country's problems but rather to better serve the immigrant population and the citizens in Canada.

If immigrants are having a difficult time and are going to the social services in a disproportionate fashion, then we need to determine what we can do to alleviate this problem. Perhaps the solution is in having a better selection process for what Canada needs in terms of its economy and also providing the immigrant population with more targeted services.

It is also time that we looked at immigrant populations and determined what they are doing at perhaps six months, one year and two years after they come to Canada to determine whether or not they are an economic benefit. In times of deficit spending our country cannot tolerate a greater strain on social services. As I have said in the past, Canada cannot help other countries unless it itself has a vibrant and strong economy with low unemployment and a reasonable level of growth. It is only by providing this strong economy within our country that we can extend our hands economically and technically to other less advantaged countries.

Another question is as to how many immigrants run foul of the law. This has been mentioned today. It would be prudent for us to determine this if the statistics are there, but they are not. We need to know what we should about it. Other issues which are important are the individuals who commit indictable offences in this country, after having their guilt or innocence proven, should automatically be deported back to their country if they are proven to be guilty. It is completely unfair for the Canadian taxpayer to foot the bill in excess of $50,000 to $60,000 per year per person for an individual who is incarcerated in a penal institution. Currently 85 per cent of individuals who commit a crime and are thought to be eligible for deportation stay in this country. This must stop now.

Another aspect that is unfair is that we should not allow visitors to come to this country with the express interest of having babies on our soil so that their children will automatically have the rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship. In other words, Canadian citizenship should not be automatic if a child is merely born in this country to a person who is a visitor.

Immigrants and Canadian citizens will benefit from a well thought out immigration policy.

I would implore the hon. minister to do the following: Tie non-refugee groups of immigrants to the economic needs of the country and make these rules colour blind with no bias in terms of country of origin. We must also not forget our humanitarian obligations under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. Let us tighten up the definition of refugee class. It does not serve the legitimate refugees in this country or the independent class of refugees if they are queue jumped by individuals who come to this country with fabricated reasons.

Let us also look at New Zealand and Australia as examples of countries whose policies of family reunification classification we should adopt. They are well thought out and they are fair to all parties.

We also should do HIV testing for individuals who wish to immigrate to this country. People are tested for other groups of infectious diseases. There is no reason why HIV, a disease that tragically has a 100 per cent fatality rate, is not tested for.

Also, amalgamating citizenship and immigration I would lastly suggest that the ministry consult with a private group that specializes in giving advice on streamlining the ministry. It may serve the Canadian public and the minister as well to have this expertise as it costs about $50,000 per year to have an immigrant processed.

[Tobacco Packaging, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as a physician I have taken into consideration all of the data that has been presented to us. There is no evidence so far that plain packaging will reduce consumption. We know that if costs go up consumption will go down. The minister appears to have his priorities a little bit confused. If she wants to reduce smoking, we need to put the taxes back where they were. We keep on hearing about the commitment on the national forum on health care before the end of June. This is June 13. For the fourth time in this House I would ask the minister this: What are the terms of reference for such a forum? What role will the provinces play? When will it be held and where will this forum be held?

[Tobacco Packaging, June 13th, 1994]

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

It would appear that the minister's proposal to legislate plain packaging is in serious trouble. Health committee members from her own party have told the Toronto Star they will not support the proposal because there is no evidence that plain packaging will reduce smoking.

The Minister of Health says she is concerned about the health consequences of smoking. If the minister is really serious about the health of Canadians why does she not put the taxes back on tobacco?

[Yukon First Nations Land Claimssettlement Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the costs of these land claims are absolutely enormous to the Canadian taxpayer. It will cost over $260 million to settle these four claims. Something is missing in this equation. No one is standing in the House today speaking about the non-native Canadians.

Who is standing up and speaking for them? Who is speaking about their responsibilities and their ownership of other parts of the country?

Is it not that Canada from sea to sea belongs to all Canadians, native and non-native alike? Are all of us here interested in the well-being and the welfare of the native peoples in this land claim? What will the land claims do to benefit the native people? Is there a better way of doing this, is there a better way to help the welfare of the native people? What responsibility or what accountability is there going to be to the non-native people in these land claims as they are going to impact dramatically on the taxpayers of Canada.

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do very much appreciate the comments of the hon. member. Whether she believes it or not what she is saying is supporting what I have said. I agree with many of her comments.

The Department of Indian Affairs is paternalistic, does not serve the native people at all and should be eliminated. They agree with that and I think many people in the House do. It is insulting for them to have an institution such as that govern them in the way it does. They do not deserve it.

I will reiterate it again as I did at least twice in my speech that we in this party stand for equal rights, equal status and equal opportunity for all Canadians, natives and non-natives. We should concentrate on investing our efforts collectively, natives and non-natives together, to determine how every individual who lives within this beautiful country can become the best they can.

We have to dismantle some of the barriers for native people. I would ask whether settling these land claims is going to do that. An economy cannot be created in some of the far away places where these land claims are to be settled and expect individuals to improve their socioeconomic situations. It will not happen. We must provide a helping hand to enable native peoples to become the best they can become. I am sure that we can do that.

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure here to speak on Bill C-34 which represents the settlement of four self-government agreements in Yukon with the native peoples.

There are 10 more self-government agreements that still have to be settled. This bill if it is passed will give further agreements to be ratified by cabinet alone and therefore does not have to come under the scrutiny of Parliament and therefore the scrutiny of the Canadian people.

The purpose of this agreement is to deal with aboriginal self-government to a vast and sparsely populated part of Canada. I think it is worthwhile for us today to discuss some of the salient points of this bill, what it would give the native people, vis-à-vis the Canadian people, the rest of Canada.

Bill C-34 gives special rights and special privileges to some of the native peoples of the Yukon Territory. As a representative here of all Canadians I have some problems with this. This bill is divisive. It will define the citizens of the First Nations as a separate group of citizens. Therefore what we would have in this land are two citizenships, citizens with different rules and regulations pertaining to each group.

As a result of this we are setting up separate governments for separate nations within the borders of this country, new governments with broad legislative powers, independent legislative powers of the rest of the country.

Native peoples see themselves as separate nations and not part of Canada. This I recognize. It is obviously a philosophical point of contention. To see oneself as a nation that is separate from another within the borders of this country may sound good to some, but I think that it is only divisive.

The native people should ask themselves if this is indeed going to improve their social and economic situations or will it be divisive and counterproductive. The rest of Canada must also ask whether they are prepared to accept this within the borders of their country.

Yukon I believe, as most Canadians believe, belongs to all Canadians. Let us elaborate on some of the nitty-gritty of these bills. Bill C-34 will increase the number of governments in Yukon right now up from two to sixteen. This would produce an increase in bureaucracy, in taxes, in rules and regulations for only 7,300 people, 20 per cent of the people who live there. This is apartheid. It smacks of the old South Africa. In effect we are creating separate nation states within the borders of our own country. This is a new brand of Canadian apartheid.

Apartheid, as we know, means separateness or apartness for those who do not realize it, not togetherness, and this at a time when above all else we need to work together. It is wise to reflect on the meaning of this when we look at what will be happening to the Yukon if these bills are passed. It will mean a division among people.

Another question that has not been asked concerns the structure of the legislative body that would have the ability to pass laws and legislations within the Yukon. This has yet to be finalized but would be left up to the native legislative body. I can say this though, it does enable the body to give the power to a single person to enact legislation. There are no rules and regulations concerning democratic institutions in this bill and this concerns me greatly.

Who will be paying for this self-government? The Canadian taxpayers and the native people together will be paying for it. However the Canadian taxpayer will be footing the major portion of the bill. Then they must also have a say in what will be the outcome of the negotiations on this bill. The cost would be far greater than that which is borne today by the federal government to provide services to the aboriginal people in this area.

We must stand back and look at the larger issue here, in fact the most important issue, the welfare of the native people. No one disputes the ability of any individual to exercise his or her democratic rights and freedoms. I do not think anyone has a problem with enabling any group of people who live in an area to govern themselves by municipal powers, the same municipal powers that are given to any other area of the country.

However will providing these vast, expansive special agreements to the rest of Canada, a part of Canada that belongs to every Canadian, help the welfare of the native people? Let us get

down to brass tacks here and call a spade a spade. Many of the native communities tragically are wracked with very high rates of suicide, alcoholism, substance abuse, unemployment, depression and sexual abuse.

As a physician I have spent much time in northern British Columbia working with native people. The plight of these individuals breaks my heart. I have seen individuals raped, had their heads put through walls, beaten up, smashed up, shot and killed, people who have suffered the ravages of alcoholism. I have seen them go for years, suffering these ravages only to have to pronounce them dead on the gang plank of an emergency department.

It is intolerable for this to have occurred and it is intolerable for it to continue. Part of the blame rests on the non-native population and in particular Canadian governments that have continued to treat people in a paternalistic fashion by providing for them many of their basic needs without trying to do much to stimulate self-reliance.

Whenever you give an individual or group their basic needs they will lose their desire to fight for these things and therefore lose their self-respect, pride and self-reliance.

I also put a large part of the blame squarely on the shoulders of the native population and native leaders who in my opinion have been unwilling to take the bull by the horns and ask what they can do to pull their communities out of these tragic situations.

Do the native peoples' leaders truly think that settling these land claims and self-government in a different fashion from anybody else-it is important to emphasize different-is going to do much to alleviate these tragedies? Are they trying to carve out an area of Canada for their people based on history and have them live like they did 150 years ago? If so, do they think that their people want or need this?

If you want to go back to living off the land so be it, but you cannot expect to do that and still have a VCR, car, CD player and many of the other amenities of 20th century, first world lifestyle. In other words, you cannot have it both ways.

Over time and history, groups of individuals have moved from one area to another, expanded and taken over certain areas where others live. This has occurred, whether you are speaking of Canada, America, Australia or England. It has been a fact of life and a fact of the history of mankind. It is something that none of us here can do anything about. We must look ahead, look into the future and determine how all people in the country can have their socioeconomic situations improved. This is particularly important for the native people because their socioeconomic situation is the poorest in the land.

However it is incumbent on the native people to ask themselves what they can do to help themselves. In my discussions with native people, it has been sorely lacking. They speak about getting back pride and self-reliance. I can tell members that the only way to get back pride and self-reliance is if you earn them yourself. You only achieve these things through your own hard work, your sweat and your desire to fight for your basic necessities and your life.

Pride and self-respect are not things that are given to someone, paid for or bought. They are only things that come from within your heart and soul and only from your ability, as an individual or community, to fight for your own life. I do not mean this in a pugilistic sense or by taking up arms. I mean this figuratively and in a spiritual sense.

When one works hard and fights for one's life in this world, win or lose, one develops a sense of pride, self-respect, self-reliance, self-esteem that nobody can take away. It is the only way that this will come to the native communities.

As I have said before, it must come from within the people. Canadian governments and provincial governments have done too much to pander to the communities. They have taken this desire away from them, this fight to become the best that they can become.

Cultural, social and linguistic integrity does not have to be lost but again the responsibility for this resides squarely on the shoulders of the native population. Canada's cultural mosiac is a great benefit to every citizen. For the native population to lose its history and its culture would not only be a disservice to them but to every citizen, native and non-native.

Rather than dealing with trying to buy out the native populations with these huge land claims, perhaps it would be better for us to determine ways that together we can work toward helping the native population becoming self-reliant. Of course this does not preclude the concept of municipal governments in areas where there are native populations but these rights are the same for every Canadian, non-native and native. I will reiterate this again. The rules, regulations, laws, responsibilities and privileges of a citizen of our country must be equal for everybody, native or non-native together.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Bloc should not in any way, shape or form be surprised at the fact that this party would include them in this discussion.

Unlike some parties, we stand for including all Canadians in our decisions. This is not a family feud. What we have is an effort by a group of individuals in the House to fracture the country and I, like the member across the way, will not stand for it.

This is in part accomplished by misleading the people of Quebec as to what is really going on in the country. I would ask at some time what Canada has done against the people of Quebec. I will tell members in part.

The Government of Canada gives to the people of Quebec in transfer payments more money than what the people of Quebec give out to the federal government. I would also say that the federal governments in past years have pandered to the province of Quebec in an effort to keep it within the fold. This is special status. This is special treatment and it only causes division. It is divisive within the country.

In this world, we have tribalism: one group or tribe against another. It is perhaps the singular, most divisive problem that we have in this world. Francophones, anglophones, men, women, black, white, it is all the same thing. All we can hope for in the world is that we are treated equally under the law, that we are free of prejudice. What we make of our lives as individuals is up to ourselves.

I have a question for the hon. member from the Bloc. What is so wrong with a country where we are all treated equally, where we all have the same rights under our laws, where culture and language is the responsibility of each province whether it is Quebec, New Brunswick or British Columbia? What is so wrong with a vision of Canada that includes all Canadians? I would like to ask the hon. member what is so wrong with that.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under Standing Order 43(2) and on behalf of the Reform whip I would like to inform the House that our caucus members will be dividing their time when they speak.