Maria Minna

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say this to you, but you just said we are debating the immigration bill. We are debating the citizenship act which I think would be important to everyone. I do not understand why we are talking about criminals constantly. It seems that is the only thing the opposition is interested in. It is talking about irresponsible companies—

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification. I would just like to know if we are debating the Citizenship Act or the Immigration Act. I am not sure. The opposition seem to be talking about something else.

[Breast Cancer, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to say that as a woman I am at risk because of an unknown and to date an unstoppable killer. I am referring to the killer known as breast cancer.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women in Canada. It is estimated that by the end of this year 5,300 women will die from this disease and 90,300 new cases will arise. These figures are frightening and they hit close to home.

This past summer I was reawakened to this terrifying disease when I witnessed my own cousin become one of those estimated fatalities of breast cancer. Through research we know that the risk of breast cancer is slightly higher with a family history of cancer incidence and with increasing age, but while research has been ongoing over the past two decades the mortality rates for breast cancer have not changed.

The renewed commitment to breast cancer initiatives by the federal government was announced in June. The first five year contribution amounting to $45 million will go toward reducing both the incidence of breast cancer in Canada and the mortality rate and to improve the quality of life of those directly and indirectly affected by this disease.

As the minister stated, the government's renewed—

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Speaker made comments earlier concerning debate. In debate the first person up is the person who is recognized. The rules that apply in question period are not the same rules that apply in debate.

[Immigration, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, this information is not news. As the hon. member knows, the minister tabled this information in the House of Commons on April 2. The hon. member did not have to wait for it to be in the news to make a point of it.

Nonetheless, over the last five years the number of permits issued has decreased by 75%, from 16,000 per year to 4,000. We have changed it considerably. A permit can be revoked at any time. Permits are given for many different reasons, such as temporary work permits.

[Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the question of my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast.

The Immigration Act provides for the removal from Canada of any foreign national found guilty of serious criminal activity. I think that is pretty clear. Any person facing charges in Canada's judicial system is however presumed innocent until proven guilty. In any instance where an individual has been convicted of a serious offence under the Criminal Code departmental officials monitor the case to ensure that enforcement action is taken when warranted.

At present there are currently no regulatory bodies, as the hon. member mentioned, or regulations governing immigration consultants. Citizenship and Immigration Canada officials are currently examining the very complex issue of how to best encourage competency and integrity in persons who represent immigrants or refugees.

In view of the fact that this is an area involving provincial jurisdiction, departmental officials have been in contact with provincial authorities. In addition, departmental officials have been consulting with other federal authorities as well as with the legal community.

The issue of immigration consultants has also been a subject of discussion during the recent legislation review consultation. Subsequent to these consultations departmental officials will be presenting the minister with options on ways to address this important issue directly.

While I understand that the hon. member does not agree, we still have to abide by the Privacy Act. With regard to charges brought against specific individuals, I am still unable to discuss details of any specific case in public.

I agree with the hon. member that it is an issue which has to be addressed. As I have previously stated it is provincial jurisdiction, not just federal. It needs to be addressed across the country and negotiated with all provinces. This is what the department is attempting to do as we speak.

[Immigration, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Reform Party can determine fact from fiction. I see no other purpose for Reform's immigration pamphlet than to foster anti-immigration sentiment in the country.

The Reform Party states that Canada now accepts more immigrants per capita than any other country in the world. This is false. I urge the Reform Party to look to New Zealand first. Its pie chart shows immigration of skilled workers at only 21% when in fact the 1997 figures show over 55% were from the economic class.

The Reform Party claims that some immigrants are sponsoring extended families and people who are not really relatives. The Immigration Act only allows sponsorship of immediate family, parents and grandparents.

Reformers insist that they are committed to restoring the confidence of Canadians in the immigration system. They should start by speaking the truth.

[Immigration, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify the position of this government once again with regard to the recommendations made to the honourable Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The minister has stated on several occasions, as I have in this House, that the recommendations made by the review committee are simply recommendations. They were not made by the government and are not carved in stone. The minister took these recommendations straight to Canadians herself to get a firsthand account of their concerns and views.

I remind this House this is the first time a minister has conducted her own consultations and involved the public to such a degree. After consulting with Canadians the minister reiterated that we are not bound by any of the 172 recommendations, that language requirement is too excessive and we will not go that route.

I have spoken with constituents in my twin riding of North Vancouver and they have clearly stated that although our system of immigration does need changes, installing the suggested language recommendation is not one of them. I do not believe we can be any clearer on this issue.

[Division No. 118, March 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, as you know, appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada are made by the governor in council. Puisne judges as well as the chief justice are appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in consultation with the Minister of Justice. In the process leading to an appointment, senior members of the bench and the bar are consulted. While there is no formal involvement of provinces in the selection of the judges, the province from which the appointment is made is consulted as well.

This selection process has produced excellent results in the last 122 years, by allowing for the appointment of highly qualified jurists. However, since the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the bench, and particularly the supreme court justices, have become the interpreters and protectors of the values enshrined in the charter.

Canadians now show an increasing interest for the judicial function and for those who fulfil that function. Consequently, it is important to make sure that those appointed to the bench are receptive to the values reflected in the charter.

As she said on the appointment of Mr. Justice Bastarache, the Minister of Justice is open to expanding the consultation process leading to the identification of qualified candidates for a position with the court.

Unfortunately, because of the untimely death of the late Mr. Justice Sopinka, just a few weeks after the appointment of Mr. Justice Bastarache, the Department of Justice has not yet had the opportunity to closely examine all the possibilities.

In any case it is very clear to the Minister of Justice that Canada should avoid the adoption of a U.S. style confirmation hearings process which has too often become a sideshow in which reputations are routinely destroyed by opposing politicians' intent on scoring political points.

Let me assure this House that this government—

[Division No. 118, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think it should be clarified that the report submitted for public consultation is not a government report. It was written by an independent group of consultants. It is not the minister's or department's report. The minister is not bound by any of the 172 recommendations.

The minister has made it clear a number of times that the recommendation with respect to the language issue is not on. I think the hon. member is creating unnecessary anxiety where there is none because there is full consultation. In preparing the report, for example, the legislative review advisory group consulted with hundreds of groups and individuals across Canada.

There were consultations that also took place in 1994, as the hon. member will remember. They have done very thorough work. The minister has no intention of duplicating the work at this point.

The minister, however, has travelled across Canada and has consulted with various interested parties about these recommendations. The public submissions to the minister that took place in seven different cities across Canada were only one part of the broader consultation effort. The minister has also invited all interested Canadians to read the report, look at its recommendations and submit their comments in writing. All opinions and comments will be taken into account in the development of new legislation.

Initially the minister intended to conduct five days of consultation. That number more than doubled to accommodate requests from a variety of groups, allowing for even more voices to be heard on more issues. The fact that the minister extended the consultation days is a clear indication that the minister is listening.

It is the government's desire to develop legislation that will reflect the needs of Canadian society and prepare Citizenship and Immigration Canada for the 21st century while keeping in place Canadian values.