Maria Minna

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, May 27th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it does not help anyone for the member opposite to give misinformation. He knows full well specific cases cannot be discussed in detail in the House because of confidentiality. Also he knows full well it is not the policy of the government to drug people and to use violence. The hon. member knows full well that is not acceptable.

I also remind the hon. member that, as the minister has previously stated in the House, departmental policy concerning removals to different countries must be based on an individual case examination. Many countries are troubled by civil unrest and terrorist violence but few are so overwhelmed that it becomes necessary for the department to suspend removals to that country.

At present the department has temporarily suspended removals to only three countries: Rwanda, Burundi and Afghanistan. The citizens of these three countries have faced a level of violence and personal suffering so great that they have been forced to flee their homes and abandon their possessions. The situation in Algeria, while regrettable and distressing, does not compare to that of these countries.

The decision to suspend removals is made upon the advice of an Advisory Committee on Country Conditions for Removals. This committee meets on a regular basis to review the overall conditions of countries. In making its recommendation, it considers materials produced by representatives of the department, the Immigration and Refugee Board documentation centre, respected international sources like the UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration as well as other documents forwarded by non-governmental organizations.

Removals are only carried out once all rights of appeal and due process have been exhausted. Before the department makes the decision to remove anyone from Canada, the circumstances of their case are carefully reviewed and all factors are considered. All people in our society have use of the full extent of the law of appeals.

In the case of Algeria, the advisory committee recognized that despite the obvious risk of living in the area, the majority of the population chooses to remain. Industry, commerce and agriculture continue. The country's transportation and communications systems function and people travel into and out of Algeria for various purposes, including family visits and business.

[Immigration And Refugee Board, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to characterize a system as being biased against the safety of Canadians is not only not fair, but it is not just.

Over 50 years this country has opened its doors to thousands and thousands of refugees. This is something I am sure everyone is proud of. There are individuals in this House right now who know firsthand the hardships and perils refugee claimants have to face, the persecution, the sorrow and the fear.

For the rest of us it may sometimes be difficult to understand or comprehend the refugee experience. People in Canada do not have to worry about soldiers coming to their doors in the middle of the night to take them or their families away. We do not have to worry about being tortured or killed for our political beliefs. We do not have to worry about suddenly losing our homes and possessions because of war. We must never forget that many others do.

There are places in the world where speaking one's mind can get one thrown into a cell without a trial or a sentence, or worse. We live in a time when terms like ethnic cleansing and genocide have become part of the daily vernacular. I am proud to say that in Canada we have chosen to confront these issues head on. It has long been recognized both here and abroad that Canadians care and we take our responsibilities as good citizens of the world very seriously.

That is why we accept the international obligations we took on when we signed the 1951 Geneva convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 protocol. By signing those agreements we promised to protect those in need, to open our arms and hearts to victims of oppression and misery.

A key element of the strategy to deal with refugees was the creation of the Immigration and Refugee Board in 1989. The IRB, on behalf of Canadians, reflects our commitment to promote a peaceful and humanitarian response to global issues of conflict, mass migration and human rights. The board's goals and challenges have remained constant: to identify those in need of Canada's protection and to adjudicate fairly and efficiently all immigration appeals, inquiries and detention reviews.

There have been times when the IRB has met all of these goals and challenges. However, we have had problems. There have been times when the IRB's judgment has been questioned. There have been times when the integrity of the system has been placed in doubt. However this does not mean we should scrap the whole thing. This type of haphazard tearing down is inefficient and uncalled for. Characterizing the system by using a few criminal sensationalistic cases is irresponsible.

In 1985 the supreme court ruled that refugee claimants are entitled to a hearing on the merits of their claim in accordance with the charter right to fundamental justice. In the Singh case the court pointed out that fundamental justice required that the claimants had a right to an oral hearing before the decision maker where questions of credibility were at stake. The opportunity to be heard is only one element of fundamental justice. The decision maker must also be unbiased and impartial. There is a requirement not only for justice to be done but for justice to be seen to be done.

We have a board of professionals who are well trained to deal with the intricacies and complexities of refugee cases. Refugee status determination has been described as one of the most difficult forms of adjudication. It is emotionally demanding and requires a commitment to justice and fairness. Board members are chosen because they have the qualities deemed necessary to carry out this important and often heart rending work. They bring with them different perspectives and knowledge of the international community.

The board's record of success far outweighs the few instances of problems. Last year alone the board heard over 20,000 claims. Unfortunately when dealing with that many people inevitably a few people may slip through the cracks. A criminal few have cast some serious aspersions on a good system. That is why the government recently took action to protect the integrity of our system. I am talking about the passage of Bill C-44 which hon. members opposite know well.

Bill C-44 is an enforcement tool which is tough on serious criminals who would abuse our nation's goodwill and hospitality. It stops serious dangerous criminals from claiming refugee status simply to delay their removal from Canada. It also allows our government to stop a refugee hearing after the hearing has begun if it suddenly receives new information about a claimant's criminal dealings.

Before the passage of Bill C-44, we would not stop the process once it started. Likewise, Bill C-44 takes away the right of serious criminals to appeal removal orders to the immigration appeal division of the IRB. The withdrawal of appeal rights will only occur in the most serious cases involving real danger to the public.

We have done a great deal to address the concerns that hon. members across the way are talking about. Perhaps it should be noted right now that improvements to the board are not always legislated in the House. In order to maintain its relevance and efficiency, the board continually assesses its performance and examines ways to improve. The IRB has willingly undertaken an ongoing process of critical self-examination of policies, practices and procedures.

In recent years the board itself has concentrated on developing and identifying best practices. Another example of this positive development was the introduction of guidelines in examining

claims from women refugees fearing gender related persecution. Canada was the first country in the world to undertake such an initiative. This reinforces our image as a world leader in upholding the rights of women.

It is a system which is continually evolving and developing. It is a system which builds on its successes and learns from its mistakes. Countries such as the U.S., which has been admonished by the UN a number of times for its lack of sensitivity and understanding in its dealings with refugees, are not the kinds of countries I would like to compare Canada with.

We have a system in place which is at arm's length from the government, is professional and is doing a good job. We need to improve it, but scrapping it is like sticking our heads in the sand.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 8th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to support Bill C-33.

I have listened for some time now to both sides of the argument. I have listened to some exaggerations sometimes on both sides. However, when we get right down to the essential facts of the issue we have to accept that it is clearly a human rights issue. There is no other way of looking at it.

We can look at every aspect of it. If we look at the provinces we see that most have already adopted this measure in their human rights acts. It has existed for 20 years in Quebec and for 10 years in Ontario. It has not changed the interpretation of adoption in those provinces. In the Ontario legislature it had to be introduced as a separate bill which was defeated at that time. Therefore the courts have not used this section as a way of interpreting spousal benefit, adoption, marital status or whatever. It has nothing whatever to do with that. It strictly deals with discrimination, plain and simple.

Many of us have in our lifetimes experienced discrimination. Those people who have never had to deal with it have no idea what it does to a person's sense of self-respect, self-being and the ability to continue on with their lives. I have experienced some of that in my lifetime. I come from a community where at the time that kind of discrimination was meted out. There are many other groups that still deal with that daily.

As a country, we are proud to deal with minorities. We have always said we must protect minorities, otherwise we have no democracy. If it is strictly a rule of the majority then there is no democracy.

This issue does not deal with pedophilia, as some people are suggesting. Pedophilia is a crime. To suggest this bill does anything but give people basic human rights is distorting the facts. We can distort and misrepresent people's statements all we want but the facts will not change no matter which way we look at it. We can read people's statements and misinterpret and misrepresent them but that does not change the fact that this is a basic issue of human rights and nothing else.

We talk about families. All the amendments refer in one way or another to the traditional family and how this is to affect family structure. I defy anyone to tell me exactly what the perfect family is. Some of my colleagues will say it is husband, wife, children, perhaps adopted, and maybe pets. However, we have single mothers, single fathers, older siblings raising younger siblings, aunts, uncles and grandparents raising children. We have all kinds of family structures.

We also have children who go from one divorce to another where the parent may have divorced two or three times. We have families from which someone has been abandoned. We have families in which there is abuse and the children must be taken away. We have a majority of good families, but family is a term that basically means a place where children are nurtured, looked after and raised with love, attention and stimulation.

I have risen in the House many times to talk about issues like child poverty, child care and assisting parents with their children so that we do not have situations such as the one mentioned recently in the Toronto Star in which a mother left her five-year-old to look after a two-year-old in the library. Or another in which an eleven-year old was at home looking after two younger siblings because the mother was working. They are locked in the home after school hours. There are many cases of latch key kids in society.

That to me is a moral issue. A society that does not make children its priority, does not ensure the development of the children both emotionally and nutritionally is protected, is hindering the future of those children. That is a moral issue.

We do not have enough discussions about that. I do not hear a great deal of uproar and indignation about those issues in the House. I would like to hear members opposite talk about how we might eradicate child poverty in Canada, how we might address the fact that children are living on the streets and that education is being cut back in Ontario and in Alberta. These are moral issues. I do not hear any member opposite standing up and fighting for those issues. Instead I hear fearmongering on the issue of rights.

I learned the other day that South Africa has a new constitution and a new bill of rights. Guess what? South Africa has written into its bill of rights sexual orientation without any qualifiers. South Africa not too long ago practised apartheid, which we fought by boycott. South Africa has acknowledged before we have basic human rights in its society, a very interesting twist.

With respect to these changes we have heard talk about crime, pedophilia and all kinds of horrible things, and spousal benefits and whatever else. If anyone looked at the history of Canada, what has happened in the provinces, what has happened in Supreme Court decisions before this, that has not been the case. We cannot make legislation on the basis of prejudice. We have to make legislation to protect minorities. As a society that is the only way we can move ahead and ensure we have a society which reflects in its every day actions tolerance and respect for one another and which protects its minorities.

I have no problem whatsoever supporting this legislation. To me it is a basic issue of human rights. It has nothing whatever to do with moral issues. There are many other moral issues on which I wish to spend my time and for which I wish to fight so we can enter the 21st century having eradicated child poverty. We must deal with the very issues on which members opposite are talking. We must strengthen individuals within society.

When we talk about family we keep forgetting that gay and lesbians come from families. They are people's children. They have not just appeared out of thin air. They are children of heterosexual couples. I am sure they are loved and supported by their parents. We are not inventing these people. This is not a choice.

I dare anyone in the House to tell me that being lesbian or gay is a matter of choice. If it were a choice, why would anyone choose to be discriminated against, to be abused, to be attacked physically and to commit suicide because life is so difficult? Why would they choose such a tortuous way to live when they could easily choose another, much easier way to live? It is not a choice.

The legislation must address that issue. We have to deal with basic human rights in Canada. I am very proud to stand here to say I support the legislation. I hope other members of the House will find it within themselves to deal with the realities and be generous enough to acknowledge the realities and to support the bill as well.

[Petitions, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by people from my constituency and across Canada. They are members of religious faith communities of various denominations. They call upon Parliament to amend the

Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[Racism, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, history teaches us that racism and intolerance must be challenged wherever it raises its ugly head. Attempts to dismiss racist comments as mistakes are too superficial. They ignore a pattern of intolerance that requires more serious attention.

There is a pattern of statements from members of Parliament in the Reform Party about aboriginal people that is very hurtful because of their intolerance and racist roots. For example one member compared reserves to south seas island resorts in an attempt to ridicule aboriginal land claims. There was a statement made by the hon. member for Athabasca where in reference to the aboriginal people he said:

The Europeans came to this country 300 years ago and opened it up and settled it and because we didn't kill the Indians and have Indian wars, that doesn't mean we didn't conquer these people. If they weren't in fact conquered, then why did the aboriginal people allow themselves to be herded into little reserves in the most isolated, desolate, worthless parts of the country?

There is no room in Canada or in Parliament for intolerance of this kind.

[Immigration, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last September the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced a new partnership between the federal government and non-governmental organizations called the 3/9 pilot project.

The project was designed to help resettle additional refugees in response to the United Nations appeal for help for victims of the Yugoslav conflict. I am proud to say that Canadians answered the call and I will mention two cases only.

The congregation at the Sydney River United Church in Cape Breton helped to bring two Bosnian refugee families to Cape Breton. The Burdzovic family and the Pehar family have both settled in the Ashby area of Sydney.

The citizens of Biggar, Saskatchewan know what it means to offer a helping hand. The town, which has just over 2,000 people, has sponsored the Knezevic family. Local people organized a shower and about 250 people came with gifts. Mr. Knezevic is already working at a local greenhouse.

I commend all the sponsors that extended a helping hand to those in need. I welcome and wish the newcomers well.

[Immigration, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member put his question as an extension of a question to the minister with respect to the Tassé report and the issue of why it refers to them.

However, the member spent most of his time talking about all kinds of allegations and suggestions of irregularities, in addition to talking about business that is in front of the committee, as the hon. member very well knows since he is a member of that committee. He knows full well that the report is not yet finished and has not been tabled in this House. Therefore, it is rather difficult to be debating something that is not here nor part of this House's agenda. He then brings up individual cases which again are not things one should get into.

I am going to discuss for a few minutes the hon. member's question to the minister in the House which is for what I believe this period is intended. It goes back to the hon. member's concerns, allegations and suggestions about bribes.

The fact is that where there has been sufficient information to identify a case we have initiated an investigation. We cannot do those kinds of things based on general allegations.

The government agrees that the immigration enforcement program must be carried out with a high standard of professionalism, respect for the person and within the law. That is something this government is very committed to. This is why the recommendations contained in Mr. Tassé's report are being given very serious consideration as we renew and revitalize the enforcement function.

As I said the last time we dealt with this issue, any instance of substantial illegal or improper behaviour is investigated and acted on by a departmental official. However, one cannot do an investigation just on the basis of allegations. One has to have some proof. This is why when the Tassé report was released, the deputy minister invited anyone with documented allegations of misconduct to come forward. CIC regional directors general will investigate and appropriately deal with any matter which does come forward, as we have said before.

As I have said before, nowhere in the Tassé report is there mention of bribes of officials or of anyone else. As a matter of fact, the Tassé report mentions a great many things but not those kinds of things.

I would like to talk about some of the very good things which are in the report.

[Racism, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today as a Canadian and a member of Parliament.

Like you, Mr. Speaker, my throat catches when I sing our national anthem. Like you, I care deeply about the unity of this great nation of ours.

I feel a deep sense of pride when I see my country named as the number one country in the world in which to live. Yet I am also a Canadian of Italian heritage. I have many things to be proud of in my culture of origin.

I stand here today on the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination and say that only in this country can I be proud to be a Canadian and just as proud of my Italian heritage.

Together we can be one people and yet respectful of our differences. We have done much as country to promote racial cohesion and respect, yet lately we see an increase in racial tension in our land. Today what we have built together may be at risk.

Let us renew on this day our commitment to keep our Canadian values alive, to eliminate discrimination in all of its ugly forms, the ugliest of which surely must be racism.

[Immigration, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the new minister for the department, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was within her right and it is her prerogative to refuse a document which was prepared by her predecessor which did not reflect her prospectus or her priorities for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Therefore, the document was not distributed and her staff took the appropriate action and means to have the document destroyed.

As the new minister of the department it is her prerogative to decide what the priorities of the department are.

[International Women's Week, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to commemorate International Women's Week. Its origins can be traced to labour strikes in both 1857 and 1908 in New York city. Workers were protesting the dangerous working conditions and exploitative wages of women employed in the textile industry.

Later, women's rights and suffrage also became issues of concern. In 1911 the first International Women's Day was celebrated to acknowledge women's struggles.

March 8 marks a global celebration of women's accomplishments and of advancements toward gender equality. It is also a time to focus on issues that affect women's lives. The government is determined to address these issues. I stand proud of our efforts to counter violence against women, inequality in the workplace and gender discrimination.

Imagine a world in which true equality is no longer a distant dream.