House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 80% of the vote.
Questions On The Order Paper February 8th, 2000
With regard to the groups consulted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in the first session of this parliament during the period from February 27, 1998, through to March 11, 1998: ( a ) which of the groups received government issued grants and/or subsidies; ( b ) what was the total grant or subsidy; ( c ) what was the reason for the grant or the subsidy; and ( d ) which government department issued the grant or subsidy?
Standing Committee On Finance December 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the member's presentation he indicated that the Liberal government is implementing what Reform would like to have implemented. I am deeply offended by that presentation.
Standing Committee On Finance December 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have a 10 minute question and answer period. The government has probably been so damaged by this speech that it should have a right to question—
Petitions December 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns children having a need and a moral right to be loved by both parents. The petitioners are saying that no parent should lose custody of a child, that no parent should be allowed to seriously obstruct a child's relationship with another parent, and other related issues. I am proud to table both of these petitions.
Petitions December 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to table two petitions on behalf of my constituents.
The first petition requests that parliament pass legislation recognizing human fetuses as persons.
Minimum Sentences December 14th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the last five minutes to wrap up. I thank all members who spoke to my motion. I could have been blown over with a kiss when the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, from the governing party, admitted that there was a problem and acknowledged that something must be done.
He did say that I had anticipated something the government was already doing. I look forward to that. I have been waiting six years for legislation to deal with it. I have been calling for action on this matter not just since this summer but for six years. I encourage him to carry on beyond what he said into taking some action and bringing it about very quickly.
The Bloc MP for Rosemont generally supported the concept. He expressed some concern about minimum sentences, but a motion is just meant to indicate what issue is being dealt with so that a committee can work on the details. I would be glad to work with members from all parties at committee.
The member for Winnipeg Centre, the NDP representative in this debate, quite shocked me. I will be sending out a press release to his constituents tomorrow. I just cannot believe what he said. He said that only 500 people came in over the summer and that was no problem. We are not only talking about those 500. They amount to only 2%.
Clearly the debate is not focused on the people coming in as much as on the people smugglers. We have all focused on that. We all support accepting refugees into our country. That is not the issue. Why is the hon. member trying to make that the issue? He is the kind of member who makes me ashamed because he attaches labels to political parties and to individual politicians for strictly partisan reasons instead of dealing with the issue. It is very disappointing.
He basically said that we should open up our borders for anyone who wants to come. There are 1.2 billion Chinese alone and I am sure a couple of hundred million would love to come to our country. I wonder if Canadians support his stand in that regard. I doubt it very much. He ought to listen to the NDP government in British Columbia and what his own colleagues say about it. They say something entirely different.
The Progressive Conservative member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough talked about the human tragedy, the seriousness of the problem, and said that he supports the motion. I appreciate that.
I acknowledge up front that imposing minimum sentences is only a small part of the solution to the problem. A large part of the problem is that those who are smuggled into our country by human smugglers end up going through our refugee determination system, and that is a disaster. I will just throw out a few statistics to demonstrate that, because I think Canadians ought to know them.
Canada has become a favourite destination of people smugglers because in fact our acceptance rate for refugees is in effect 80%. I will explain that in a minute. In the United States it is 17%, Germany 7%.
Of course Canada is going to be a prime destination if they are planning to have people go through our refugee system, which is what they do. Many may be smuggled in unknown to us. That is a distinct possibility. We found out this summer and in the past that it happens on a regular basis. Certainly immigration officials told me that they may catch 3% of those who come in illegally through our airports, most with the help of people smugglers. They are smaller numbers at a time but far more overall. It is the same across the borders.
In our refugee determination system the acceptance rate is high. That is not the formal acceptance rate. If we ask the government, it will say 44%. Last year there were 23,838 people who claimed for refugee status inside Canada and 6,200 withdrew. Only 5,000 are known to have left the country and 13,000 were actually accepted as refugees. That is the 44% the government talks about. That means that 5,000 out of the 24,000 have actually left the country as far as anyone in the immigration system knows. That means we have an effective acceptance rate for refugees of about 79%.
If we want to look at solving the problem of people smuggling, we have to put in place the minimum sentences I am proposing in the motion. We should go far beyond that and fix the refugee determination system which has failed Canadians so dramatically. It has failed refugees because we are not getting people who are clearly refugees from camps overseas in the numbers that we should. Our system is failing us because of those who apply inside the country.
Let us start by fixing that. Then let us put these minimum sentences in place as soon as we can. Let us work at both of these things together. If we do that, we have made progress.
Minimum Sentences December 14th, 1999
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should impose minimum sentences for those involved in people smuggling, with the highest minimum sentences for those who profit the most, including organized crime bosses, “snakeheads” and those who carry out the actual smuggling operations.
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to have a chance to present my private member's Motion No. 20.
In my presentation today, I will first read my motion so that people listening and watching will know what this is about. Second, I will explain why the motion is very necessary when we consider what is happening in the country in terms of people smuggling. Third, I will explain what I am calling for in the motion and what I see resulting from the motion. Last, I will explain the current situation with regard to what happens right now in Canada with people smugglers.
As people watch this story unfold tonight, they will recognize that the state of our current law and what the government has allowed to happen in the area of people smuggling is truly disgusting. It is unacceptable, not good for Canadians and not good for the people being smuggled. It is only good for the people smugglers themselves who are most often involved in organized crime. As I will explain later, the organized crime activity of people smuggling is encroaching on drug smuggling because it is very profitable and the penalties for getting caught, especially in countries like Canada, really are minimal.
Motion No. 20 reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should impose minimum sentences for those involved in people smuggling, with the highest minimum sentences for those who profit the most, including organized crime bosses, “snakeheads” and those who carry out the actual smuggling operations.
What is this motion about? From reading the motion, we can tell that it is about imposing minimum sentences in the area of people smuggling and to apply them to those involved in people smuggling. I am talking about those key organized crime figures who organize and spearhead these operations, those people who actually organize the people smuggling operations and those people who physically carry it out. For example, the crew on a ship or on an airplane might be involved or those who drive a vehicle across a border.
I am saying all this partly because of the current law but more importantly because of the way our judges have been interpreting and applying the law to people involved in smuggling other humans into our country. The sentences that have been given out have been weak. It is necessary to put minimum sentences in place along with the maximum sentences.
As I go through the information on the current situation, we will see very clearly why this is the case. Statistics from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics show that there have only been 14 charges made under the Immigration Act between 1995 and 1998 that apply to people smuggling in any way. All charges were made under subsection 94.1 of the Immigration Act, which states:
Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet the coming into Canada of a person who is not in possession of a valid and subsisting visa, passport or travel document where one is required by this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both.
That is the current law that is in place. Let us take a closer look at it. In the last five years not one day has been served in jail by those convicted under subsection 94.1 of the Immigration Act for smuggling people. This is unbelievable for a crime that has extremely serious consequences for the people being smuggled, for Canadian society and for the taxpayers of this country and other countries that may be involved in this crime.
Of the 14 charges that have been laid, there were only 12 convictions, 11 of which were in the fiscal year 1996-97. There have been no convictions under subsection 94.2 which deals with organizing the entry of groups of 10 or more, nor under subsection 94.4, disembarking people at sea in order to help them evade the requirements of the law.
According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, the toughest sentence handed down under subsection 94.1 of the Immigration Act for those convicted of a crime of this severity was a fine of $4,000 and one year's probation; no time in jail.
Subsequently, foreign nationals who were convicted of this serious offence were allowed to remain in Canada to serve their sentence with the minimal supervision of our federal probation system. This means that they were given a little slap-on-the-hand fine, which is peanuts in the scheme of things. Let us consider the example of the almost 500 people who came illegally by boat this summer. They paid about $50,000 American per person to the smugglers who helped them come to our country. That is only the tip of the iceberg. Those who came by boat are roughly 2% of all those who came illegally to our country in this past year. The rest came through our airports, by airplane, or across our border from the United States. That is how the other 95% came here.
We can talk a bit more about that layer, but as we can see clearly, our judicial system and the government are not taking this situation seriously.
When we look at this situation, where people have only received fines and probation when they have been convicted of people smuggling, does it sound like those signs are appropriate? I have clearly stated that I do not think so. What I have heard from Canadians across the country over the summer and through the fall is that they do not think so. To be fair, I have heard from the minister and from others that they do not think these sentences are in line. I guess my question is: Why has the government not done anything about it?
I am here today with my private member's motion because the government will not do anything about people smuggling. However, we are getting used to that, especially on justice issues and on defending the sovereignty of our country. I and the Reform Party feel that we have to fill in and take the responsibility for the government. It is okay by us because we are fully planning on taking over government after the next election. We are the ones who will act responsibly on issues like this. I believe that is what will happen.
That is the situation now in terms of sentencing. We can see that there is a great lack of seriousness attached to this issue. We may have government members standing, as they take part in the debate, saying “But the solicitor general came up with a document last January to deal with organized crime. We believe in protecting Canadians and we are going to get tough on organized crime”, generally on organized crime, not just people smuggling.
The previous solicitor general last January came up with a 10-page document generally laying out the problem with organized crime. He even mentioned people smuggling and how serious it was. What action have we seen over this past year? We know the answer to that. We have seen no action on that whatsoever. It is discouraging, disgusting and it has to change.
Today I am focusing on one aspect of organized crime, people smuggling, which is an area of crime that is growing. People smuggling now, according to some estimates, involves $10 billion a year. It is so serious that it is adding to the current organized crime activity in the drug trade. They are moving their efforts to organized crime because very little happens to them if they get caught.
In other countries the sentences involved are a lot more serious. For example, the United States has a minimum sentence and, depending on the level of involvement, those who are found guilty of people smuggling can be sentenced to three to five years. The maximum sentences in Australia, New Zealand and the United States are much higher than in Canada. This points out the relative seriousness that those governments place on the issue of people smuggling.
In Australia the maximum penalty for people smuggling is 25 years. In Canada it is 10 years. But what is the use of having a 10 year sentence? It sounds like a pretty serious sentence, and it would be if it were applied, but in Canada there is no jail time. We do not want to get tough with anybody who is caught smuggling people, even if they are involved in organized crime. We just give them a little slap on the wrist.
That has made the government, in effect, a partner in organized crime. We send that kind of signal to people involved in smuggling human beings, causing the pain and the sorrow that goes along with people smuggling. The people who are being smuggled find themselves working in sweat shops, often in prostitution and drug trafficking. If that is as serious as the government takes these types of activities and this type of enslavement, then it should be ashamed of itself.
I look for quick action on this issue. Today, again, I am offering this private member's motion. It should go to committee. It should be fleshed out and it should provide a minimum sentence for those involved in people smuggling.
My motion does not provide a means by which to seize the proceeds of crime achieved by those involved in people smuggling. That is certainly something which must be dealt with.
The motion does not deal with any other area of organized crime. It does not deal with some other very serious issues involved in people smuggling.
People smuggling does not only cause pain to those being smuggled, it encourages and accommodates those who would like to come to our country illegally. When we have large numbers of people coming to our country, often undetected, then I would suggest that is a threat to the very sovereignty of our nation. That speaks to the importance of this issue, which the government must deal with, and I would encourage it to do that now.
I have not even touched on the cost to taxpayers. I will talk about that later, as well as the many other serious issues which are involved.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 13th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Wentworth—Burlington and I have agreed to exchange positions on the order of precedence for my motion, Motion No. 20 and Bill C-206 effective for private members' hour tomorrow.
However, to do so I have to seek the unanimous consent of the House to waive the 48 hour notice pertaining to such exchanges and replace it with a 24 hour notice. In the spirit of non-partisanship, we would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this exchange. I would request that all parties put partisan politics aside and, since this is Private Members' Business, grant unanimous consent.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 6th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 160
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding before line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development shall prepare an annual report with respect to the implementation of this Act.
(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of this report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Minister has prepared his report.”
Motion No. 161
That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:
“20.1 (1) On the expiration of four years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”
Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act November 29th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this very important bill. We are talking today about medical research. We would all agree there is very little that is more important in the country than medical research and other things that lead to better health and good health care.
Every one of us could probably draw on personal experience to point to examples of families that have needed good health care. Every one of us could probably point to a family member who has died because the research had not been done which could make progress, make changes and advance medical capability to a point where it could save lives.
This is a very serious subject. It touches every one of us. It touches our families. For that reason the Reform Party takes it as a very serious issue. We do generally support the bill although we do have some proposals for change.
I will talk a bit on what the bill is about. Many past speakers have spoken to very important aspects of the bill but have not really explained what the bill is about. The bill will establish the Canadian institutes of health research. Its purpose is to put in place a medical research body which will excel according to internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence. This is an important point.
We have some concern about whether it will work in the way it is intended to work, but funds will be targeted based on standards of scientific excellence. That is a very important factor. Let us look at legislation passed in the House. We can point to several different pieces of legislation. Too often the government puts forth legislation which does not consider sound science as a basis.
I could certainly point to the gun bill. In spite of the sound science presented when the bill was being debated, the government pushed ahead, ignored the science and put in place a bill which was flawed right from the fundamental concept. No one would argue that the process of registering guns is in a state of disaster right now. Part of the reason is that the bill ignored the sound science presented from the start. At least the government is presenting a bill which will consider sound standards of science in allocating funds. The importance of this cannot be overstated.
The second purpose of the bill as stated by the government is to provide more effective health services and products in a strengthened Canadian health care system. I will speak a bit more about that in a couple of minutes.
The third stated objective of the bill is important as well. It will provide a more direct and systematic approach to research in Canada. I have heard calls for this approach, particularly by people in the area of research.
There is something that I am not convinced is in the bill and I have heard criticism in this regard. I want people in research fields to be assured, if they are doing research in a very important area which has been targeted for funds, that their funds will be allocated in the long term rather than just year to year. Researchers spend more of their time trying to justify getting the funds for next year than actually ensuring that they will do highly successful research which will lead to better health care.
This stated objective or reason for the bill is honourable. I am looking for it to be put in practice. I am not convinced it will be the case, but I am certainly hoping from the bottom of my heart that it will be the case.
I also want to talk briefly about the financial cost allocated to the bill: for the first year, $374 million and for the second year, $500 million. That is a lot of money. When I think of other ways the government spends $500 million I cannot help but think that it sounds like an awful paltry sum. When we look at the heritage department and the way it blows hundreds of millions of dollars every year, the $500 million allocated to research sounds like a small amount of money.
When we look at the amount of money being allocated to the CBC as a partially publicly funded network, we realize it is a billion dollars a year, or twice the amount that will be allocated to medical research under the bill in the second year and almost three times the amount that will be allocated in the first year.
Then we wonder about priorities, especially when I believe the CBC could be a very profitable TV network if it were to become a network which operated in the business world without public funding. Many would argue that is long overdue. When we look at the billion dollars of public funds put into the CBC and the $374 million to be allocated to research under this bill, the amount of funding is questionable. It is a matter of government priorities.
The priorities do not seem to be well thought out. There is a lot of wasted spending. The government proposed new programs which I believe will not benefit families in a significant way. In fact they will be harmful in some cases and will cost billions of dollars a year. Yet $374 million have been allocated to research. Where is the balance? Where are the priorities? Who is setting these priorities? It can be demonstrated very clearly that the government is not doing a very good job of that at all.
Government members did speak to the bill, but I note they are not speaking to it any more. Many of them talked about the high priority of health care for the government. They pointed to the fact that they would increase spending between the first year and the second year under this program from $374 million to $500 million.
I remind Canadians that this is the same government that reduced spending for health care by about $5 billion a year when it reduced transfers to the provinces for health care. Then it put $374 million, a small portion of that amount, into the proposed program. We have to ask what kind of commitment the government has made to health care. The answer is obvious that it has not made a reasonable commitment at all, Mr. Speaker. I see you agreeing with me on these points. I really appreciate that.
We can take it back another step, back 30 years to when the health care act was signed or medicare was put in place. At that time the federal government was absolutely committed to funding half of the public health care program. Is the federal government still funding half as it did in that first year? No. In fact its portion of funding is now down to about 11% rather than the 50% it committed to, and it has been a Liberal government over most of this time. That is the kind of commitment it has to health care.
It giveth a bit of taxpayer money with one hand and then it taketh away from us on the other hand. It spends the money that should be designated to health care on what many Canadians and I would consider to be wasted spending. Clearly the government is not doing a good job of setting spending priorities. Clearly it is not committed to health care funding.
I will touch on the brain drain. I acknowledge up front that most of the brain drain is happening because of high taxes. Most of us could look to our families and see a family member who has left the country. I am referring to doctors or other professionals, for example. My brother is a doctor, an emergency specialist. He and three other doctors set up the emergency services at the Red Deer hospital about 15 years ago. He had to leave this year because he had a certain retirement expectation. Because of high tax levels, because the government was taking 70% of what he earned, he felt that in order to retire at the level he expected he would have to work in another country. We are supposed to have a maximum rate of 50%, but the government was taking 70% from him.
He and many of his friends are now working in Saudi Arabia where they are taxed at the level of 5%. He is no longer a resident of Canada. He is not proud of that. He is not happy with that. He is committed to Canada. He wants to be a Canadian citizen, and he is, but he cannot live in Canada because of the high tax levels.
As well as taxes, the poor funding of research has led to the brain drain. That has to be acknowledged. This will help in a small way, and I want to acknowledge that.