Mike Wallace

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 20th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-4 today. However, as this is my first time rising in the House since the election in May, I would like to take one moment to thank the voters of Burlington for sending me back here with 54% of the vote. It was a very nice election.

I want to congratulate all members, whether new or returning to the House. As well, I believe it is important to welcome the pages who are just starting out this week. Remembering everyone's names and idiosyncrasies is a tough job. They do a great job and I thank them. I hope they have a great year.

I am pleased to stand in the House today to speak in support of the bill. It will go a long way to making our nation safer by cracking down on the illegal and dangerous activity of human smuggling. The Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act is a critical piece of legislation that responds to a critical need.

The smuggling of people is not a new crime. In fact, it has been happening around the world for many decades. I am sure all hon. members have heard stories of people paying a fee to bypass legal and proper immigration processes to sneak across the Mexico-United States border.

My riding of Burlington is not that far from the U.S. border, and on a weekly basis a number of people come to see me regarding the issue of crossing the border illegally.

When I was first elected, I was amazed that individuals in discussing with me how they came to Canada eventually would admit that they got here illegally. They did not follow the legal process. They claimed refugee status when they arrived at the border. Then they would come to my office because they wanted me as their MP to help them continue the illegal process they had started.

Out of respect for the office I hold as a member of Parliament, I told those individuals that I would not interfere in any illegal activity that they had undertaken. I instructed them to follow the legal and appropriate processes to immigrate to Canada, under the refugee system and the immigration system. Often we would call those people a few weeks later to determine what they had decided to do, but they would be hard to find and in some cases we could not find them at all. It does happen. It happens in Burlington. It happens across this country and has been happening for many years.

It may come as a surprise to some that this problem is not new to Canada. Every year thousands of people seeking asylum try to enter Canada illegally by air or by land through the help of organized criminal smuggling networks.

As well, illegal immigration by sea is not new to Canada. In 1999, close to 600 immigrants from China's Fujian province arrived on Canada's west coast in four different vessels. What has changed is that Canadians are aware now of the direct impact this criminal activity is having on our nation. Canadians have received a wake-up call that Canada is being increasingly targeted by organized human smugglers based out of Southeast Asia who view our immigration system as a very generous system to be exploited for profit.

Two events in recent years have served to raise the profile of this issue in the minds of Canadians. One is the ship that recently came to British Columbia. My constituents have been asking what we will do to stop this from happening in the future.

Last August, 492 Sri Lankan Tamils arrived in British Columbia aboard the vessel the MV Sun Sea. This occurred less than one year after the arrival of the MV Ocean Lady, which carried 76 Sri Lankan Tamils.

These two events are an issue in my riding. Although we are in Burlington, thousands of miles away from where the activities took place, Burlingtonians and all Canadians are concerned about how we could allow those events to happen.

While these two vessels landed on the west coast, this is an issue that, as I said, extends across the country. In the past, Canadian border authorities have also dealt with cases of human smuggling in eastern Canada, including at the Port of Montreal.

This is a growing transnational issue that threatens our national security. It also raises significant concerns regarding human rights and the rule of law here in Canada.

These human smugglers are making huge profits by promoting illegal immigration. They are not immigration consultants. They are not helping people with the actual process. They are taking thousands of dollars from individuals and putting them on inappropriate ships and sending them to countries, including Canada, where they think they can get away with bypassing the immigration system. They are charging individuals large sums of money to transport them to a country and advising them to claim asylum, refugee status, when they arrive. This unlawful activity has implications for our country. Ultimately, it affects our system and all Canadians across this country.

I am sure that hon. members can well imagine how conducting identity and admissibility examinations of over 500 individuals arriving on a single boat can significantly tax our immigration and border security systems. Let us be frank about it: we are not set up for mass immigration or mass asylum seekers in that format.

Sadly, the costs of human smuggling to society are more than can be measured on balance sheets. Often this illegal transport means great misery, illness and even death for many of the individuals involved, who are transported thousands of miles in very unsafe conditions.

This was clearly seen in the terrible events that occurred off the coast of Australia's Christmas Island in December of last year. Thirty people lost their lives when a wooden boat operated by suspected human smugglers was destroyed in stormy weather. The Christmas Island example in Australia is just one of many incidents that have happened around the world.

Further, human smuggling is fundamentally unfair to those who follow the rules and wait their turn to come to Canada, which we all see in our offices. We all sympathize with those who are following the rules and are trying to become Canadian immigrants by following the legal procedure.

I am a sixth or seventh generation Canadian, but my in-laws came here from Italy. They came through the legal route. They had to wait their turn to get here. They followed the process. They did not come on a boat and claim refugee status after paying a smuggler thousands of dollars to escape from Italy. They followed the rules. They expect everyone else to follow the rules. They welcome immigrants, obviously. In my family, particularly through marriage; people in my in-laws' family are almost all immigrants. They have been very successful. Canada has been good to them. Canada is the better for their arrival and their contribution, but they did it the legal way, and that is what this bill is about.

Canada welcomes thousands of new immigrants and refugees every year through one of the most generous and fair refugee systems in the world, but when Canada is forced to deal with the arrival of a vessel filled with hundreds of illegal migrants, the resulting backlog of work means that those who go through the proper immigration channels get pushed back in line. This is not fair to them, their children or their spouses.

We will not stand idly by while criminal organizations target our country and our generosity. That is why our government took action in October of last year and first introduced this legislation to send a clear message to human smugglers that Canada will not tolerate them. That is why we have reintroduced this legislation in this session. We believe that the passing of this bill cannot come soon enough.

This issue is not going to go away. We must act now. We must be responsible parliamentarians.

With this legislation we are taking firm and reasonable action to defend the integrity of our borders. We are determined to protect our immigration and refugee system from abuse and to prosecute human smugglers to the full extent of the law.

While Canadians are, by and large, supportive of a generous and open immigration and refugee system, we also understand that every sovereign country has a responsibility to protect its citizens and the integrity of its borders. This bill clearly shows that we will not tolerate abuse of our immigration system, either by human smugglers or by those unwilling to abide by the rules. At the same time, it will allow us to continue offering protection to legitimate refugees.

The new legislation will enable the Minister of Public Safety to declare the arrival of a group of persons as an “irregular arrival” and make those involved subject to the bill's measures. The bill recognizes the gravity of this decision by stating in clear terms that only the Minister of Public Safety can make this decision and that it cannot be delegated to another official.

The legislation will also make it easier to prosecute human smugglers, establish mandatory minimum prison sentences for those who are convicted of human smuggling, and hold shipowners and operators to account for the use of their ships in human smuggling operations. This bill reduces the attraction of coming to Canada by way of an illegal smuggling operation.

The legislation contains measures to prevent those who come to Canada as part of an irregular arrival, including those who subsequently obtain refugee status, from applying for permanent resident status for a period of at least five years, including those who obtain that refugee status.

We want to enhance the opportunity to rescind the refugee status and remove from Canada those who return to their country of origin for a vacation or who demonstrate in any other way that they are not legitimately in need of Canada's protection. We must prevent individuals who come to Canada as part of a designated human smuggling operation from sponsoring family members for a period of up to five years.

Many of Canada's global allies and partners have found themselves the target of organized human smuggling ventures. This is an international problem, and it must have an international solution. No nation can solve illegal smuggling by acting purely on its own. That is why we have appointed a special adviser on human smuggling and illegal migration, Mr. Ward Alcock, to coordinate a whole-of-government approach to this issue. Mr. Alcock's role allows us to engage other international partners with a common voice to find ways to prevent these vessels from departing from their home country in the first place.

Since his appointment in October of 2010, Mr. Alcock has met with officials in Australia and a number of other states in southeast Asia, as well as with representatives at the United Nations, to discuss approaches to managing irregular immigration that is happening around the world. He has also attended several meetings of the Bali process, which is a regional forum that brings together more than 50 countries and international organizations that are developing practical measures to combat human smuggling and related crimes in the South Pacific region.

Adding weight to this international discussion, the Prime Minister has urged leaders from the APAC nations to work together to find concrete solutions to the problem of human smuggling. Last fall, the Prime Minister met with international allies at the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum highlighting the critical need for stronger and more effective laws to crack down on this global problem. This ongoing collaboration is critical to shutting down human smuggling operations and will send a very strong message to would-be smugglers that their illegal activities will no longer be tolerated.

The measures we are introducing today will substantially improve our ability to crack down on those who engage in the illegal activity of human smuggling. These measures respect our international obligations and commitments that provide assistance and sanctuary for those who are legitimate refugees and who need our protection. Canada opens its doors to make sure they have the quality of life and opportunity that they all deserve so that they are able to start a new and better life here.

We call on all hon. members to support this legislation and help us pass this act as soon as possible.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's speech. I know he has been working on it for the last couple of days.

It is my second Saturday in Ottawa since I was elected five and a half years ago. The first Saturday that I spent here was for a wedding and it was much more enjoyable.

The question I have is very simple. New Democrats have been saying that all we have to do is call Canada Post and tell them to unlock the doors. Does that mean there is a commitment from the NDP that it will tell the union that if Canada Post unlocks the doors, the union should make a commitment not to have rotating strikes and sit down and negotiate?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment first and then ask a brief question.

I am glad that the member opposite talked about owning three successful businesses, which makes him management, in my view. I wonder how his customers would feel if every other day some people in his shops did not show up for work because they were on a rotating strike. How long would he put up with rotating strikes while his successful businesses suffered?

I have heard from the hon. member and other members that the Canadian people are going to suffer. What percentage of the 30-plus million Canadian public are supporting this government in making sure that Canada Post gets back to work? What number do they need before they understand that Canadians want this Parliament to work? They want us to move this legislation forward and get Canada Post back to the activity of serving all Canadians. Is it 70% or 80%? What number do they need to hear before they finally take action?

[Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Legislation, June 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to stand up in the House since being re-elected on May 2. I want to thank the voters of Burlington for sending me back to this fine institution. I hope to be able to support the needs and causes that are important to Burlington over the next four and a half years.

My question is simple. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the postal workers have never had an opportunity to vote of any offers that Canada Post has made to them. I have had calls from CUPW workers asking me to support back-to-work legislation because their union would not let them vote on the offers that had been made by Canada Post.

Can the hon. member explain to me what the responsibility of union leadership is in allowing its workers an opportunity to vote on offers that have been made to them?

[The Budget, March 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very good question for me. I am a big supporter of the arts. I have been working since 1999 on getting a performing arts centre for the city of Burlington, which is under construction as we speak with the support of federal money.

As a father with daughters, I have taken advantage of the credit for activity in sports. I have very active, sports-oriented children.

However, the community of Burlington has a tremendous arts community for young people taking dance and music. We have the Teen Tour Band, a world renowned band of 200 young people performing in their red coats all around the world. They will be travelling to commemorate Pearl Harbour and will be the only Canadian representatives there.

This tax credit will make a big difference to the families of Burlington in ensuring their children are able to participate in the arts, which makes culture, not only in Burlington but across the country, an important aspect of everyday life.

[The Budget, March 24th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what the member will tell his people back in his riding about forcing an election when we had an opportunity to make a difference for Canadians.

To the credit of the Minister of Finance, he put out a pamphlet in a relatively short form so that the Liberals would understand it because we knew they would not read it. However, if the member went through it, he would see that under “supporting families and communities”, we have enhanced the GIS, we have enhanced he new horizons senior program, we are eliminating the federal rules on retirement age, we are supporting families through the family caregiver tax credit, we are changing the medical expense tax credit and we are introducing flexibility on the registered disability plan.

There are pages and pages that Canadians will not benefit from because the Liberals were caught with their pants down thinking the NDP would be supporting the budget. Now they are facing an election and they have no idea what they are doing. However, we are going to beat them at that.

[The Budget, March 24th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, we have made some significant improvements in that area.

Another area in the budget that I want to highlight, which has not been well-talked about but will be over the next 36 to 45 days, or however long the election campaign will be, is the investment of $10 million in the new horizons program. I will give an example of what the new horizons program has done for Burlington.

We have a seniors centre in Burlington that provides a breakfast program to shut-in seniors once a month. Through the new horizons program, we were able to put a new kitchen in that seniors centre. This program provides support for groups that are doing good work for seniors in our communities every day. I am honoured that the finance minister saw that the new horizons program does deliver and that we will continue to deliver by adding $10 million over a two-year period to this program.

I advocated for a couple of things in the budget for families. They are a little different than what I was asking for but they do attack the problems that I have been talking about.

My wife works for Easter Seals, which is a charity in Ontario that raises money for disabled children. I actually used to work there myself a few decades ago. This budget would eliminate the $10,000 cap on the medical expense tax credit. If one is disabled, there is no limit on the amount one can spend and receive for a tax credit. However, if one is caring for someone else, in this case a child, there is a $10,000 limit on what one can spend each year and receive as a tax credit. This budget would eliminate that $10,000 cap.

From my own experience, as well as my wife's experience, the costs and difficulties that parents face every day while caring for a disabled child is a tremendous burden to begin with, but one that the parents who I know take on willingly. They are willing to spend what they can to ensure their disabled children are comfortable, productive and enjoy life as much as possible. However, that costs money. We are removing that cap on the capital expense through the medical expense tax credit that is in existence now. I am proud of that move.

I also advocated introducing a new caregiver tax credit. As we all know, our population is aging. I have two 93-year-old grandmothers still with us and I have known four great-grandparents. In the case of both grandmothers, one lives with my parents and the other lives with my uncle and aunt, so they are caregivers to those individuals. There are caregivers in every single community. What we are doing for those 500,000 caregivers is providing a tax credit to recognize the work they are doing to look after either their spouses, grandparents, parents, children or their common-law spouses. We are recognizing the value and the efforts those people put forward to ensure a good quality of life for those individuals who need help and are given care at home.

The other area I want to mention, which may not have been discussed in great detail yet, is that we are offering a forgiveness of loans to those young doctors and nurses who are graduating from medical school if they choose to practice in rural or remote areas.

Some might ask why that would be important to someone from Burlington, which is an urban area. I actually grew up in a small town in Ontario of approximately 5,000 people. I can say that over the last number of years members of my family have struggled to find a doctor after their doctor retired. It has been very difficult for that community to attract doctors and nurses to come and practice there. This money will give a new doctor or nurse the ability to start a practice in these communities, such as the one in which my parents and family live, without the burden of that debt that he or she may be facing.

I have had meetings with medical students who are looking at debts of a hundred thousand dollars, which is a significant amount. We want to encourage young people in the medical field to go to those rural areas and provide the services that we receive in the urban areas.

The previous speaker mentioned the eco-energy retrofit program. I am proud that we are going back to ensuring that individuals are able to look at their energy efficiency needs for their own home. We will support them in reducing their costs and their consumption of energy, which is very important in this province and around the country.

I heard that we were not supporting research and development. I want to read a quote that I do not think too many folks have read. It is from McMaster University, which has a campus in my riding. The president of McMaster University, Patrick Deane, said:

The Federal Budget announced on Tuesday included new funding to support a variety of important university initiatives. “The government has again recognized the critical role universities play in building Canada's future through its budget commitments to university research and support for students”.

We are putting money into innovation, students and research like no other government ever has in this country. I am very proud to be a Conservative, I am proud to serve in this government and I will be proud to serve in our future government after we go to this unnecessary election.

[The Budget, March 24th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for sharing her time. She is new to the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and is doing an excellent job in leading our committee. I want to thank her for her efforts.

Today, I have 10 minutes to talk about everything that is in our low tax plan, this budget that the Minister of Finance has brought forward. I want to focus on a number of things that affect Burlington in particular. If I wanted to go through all the good things for Canadians that are in this budget, it would take me about two hours instead of 10 minutes.

I am going to focus on things that are for Burlington. I hope my NDP friends listen because this is some of the stuff that they actually asked for and are now going to an election. I think they hoodwinked the Liberal Party into thinking that the NDP was going to support the budget, so they could say anything they wanted. But all of a sudden, no, they are not. Now the Liberals are caught with egg on their face, now that we are facing an election.

Let us get back to what is important to Burlington in the budget. First and foremost, the majority of the calls, emails and visits to my office are from seniors, by far the greatest number are from seniors about the issues facing seniors in my riding of Burlington.

I have advocated for a number of things for seniors over the years with the finance minister and with other departments. I am very happy to see what we are doing for the poorest seniors in this country. In the past we have looked at seniors issues, and with pension splitting we have been able to resolve some issues. It is a big benefit to the seniors of Burlington.

In this budget we are enhancing the money that is going into GIS. GIS, for those who do not know, is the guaranteed income supplement. That supplement is for those who have the lowest income levels in Canada. This change that we are making today will affect 680,000 seniors across this country, including many seniors in my riding. It is $600 annually for an individual or $840 for a couple, which will make a significant difference in the income levels for those seniors.

I did a study when I first got into office, five years ago, on what a senior's income actually is. At that time it was just over $18,000 a year for Burlington seniors. It has gone up. Our party has done things for seniors, in terms of deductions and so on. We have been able to address this.

This is a significant change that we are making, that is targeted—

[Competition Act, March 10th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise this evening to participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-452.

This private member's bill seeks to amend the Competition Act to provide Canada's Commissioner of the Competition Bureau with the power to launch a broad-based inquiry into an industry sector in Canada.

I will give a brief history of this bill in Parliament.

Bill C-452 was added to the order of precedence last spring and referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, of which I am a member, just prior to the summer recess of Parliament.

The industry committee took up its consideration of Bill C-452 in two sessions this past December prior to the Christmas break. With the support of all three opposition parties, the committee members agreed to report the bill back to the House of Commons without amendment. This is where we stand today.

The government has raised several concerns with Bill C-452 over the last number of months and I will highlight a number of them.

First, it is not evident that the new powers proposed in the bill are required or helpful given the authority that the competition commissioner already has under the existing legislation. The 2009 amendments to the Competition Act provided the commissioner with significantly stronger tools to take action against cartel activities, which are a source of concern underlying this bill.

Second, there is a risk that authorizing this use of formal investigation powers to conduct open-ended inquiries into industry sectors could pose significant compliance and reputation costs on the businesses that they affect. This would also impose significant financial and human resource costs on the Competition Bureau. This would require the commissioner to reallocate resources away from her current enforcement priorities, including cartel investigations and other anti-competitive conduct that negatively impacts the day-to-day lives of Canadians.

Third, during the committee hearings it became evident that a misconception regarding the commissioner's ability to initiate an investigation into wrongdoing or, specifically, an incorrect concern that she does not have this power, may be a driving force behind the bill.

While appearing at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in December, the representative from the Competition Bureau clarified that the competition commissioner does not require the powers in this bill to discharge any of her enforcement responsibilities. The commissioner already has clear authority under the act to initiate her own investigation into the actions of businesses and individuals whenever there is evidence that the enforcement provisions have been, or are about to be violated.

More important to our debate today, she does not have to wait for the filing of a complaint by the public or for instructions from the minister. In fact, the committee was told that at the time of the hearings, approximately 30% of the ongoing formal investigations under the act were initiated by the commissioner without having received a complaint regarding that matter. Clearly the commissioner is able to exercise her discretion to act whenever the circumstances warrant.

In our debate on the merits of the bill today, we believe it is important that we also reflect on the advice that the Canadian Bar Association provided to the committee in December. During their testimony, representatives of the Canadian Bar Association examined the types of outcomes resulting from such broad-based industry inquiries. Their overall conclusion was that they could not foresee any circumstance where there would be any overreaching benefit to society resulting from this bill.

The Canadian Bar Association explored three possible outcomes.

First, at the end of such an inquiry the commissioner concludes that the sector in question is sufficiently competitive. In that situation, the bureau would likely be widely criticized, both for significant financial costs and for disruptions it imposed on the daily business operations of Canadian businesses, only to confirm that the market in question was indeed competitive.

Second, the sector is not sufficiently competitive. However, this could be owing to such aspects as the structure of the market and is in no way related to the conduct that offends the specific enforcement provisions of the Competition Act.

As we are aware, the commissioner does not gain any new authority through the bill that would allow her to impose structural changes on the market. As a result, in these circumstances there would be a finding that the market is not competitive, but there would not be any avenues available to the commissioner to address the problem. Such an outcome would only result in widespread frustration to the entire process.

A third outcome that the Bar Association highlighted is that the commissioner could determine that the industry is not sufficiently competitive and that it is indeed the result of activities that violate specific provisions of the Competition Act.

The bar cautioned committee members that the bureau's ability to pursue a subsequent case using its enforcement powers may be potentially undermined on account of the legal due process concerns arising from the manner in which the evidence was collected.

In particular, the bar was of the view that serious legal challenges could arise regarding the rights against self-incrimination, where information is compelled from a person for the purpose of a market-wide inquiry and then later used in enforcement proceedings against that person.

Even in this case, where anti-competitive behaviour has been identified, the commissioner's ability to challenge the behaviour may be hindered because of the legal constraints that could arise from this bill.

The bar also took the opportunity to remind committee members of the fundamental objective that the Competition Act is designed to address, which is to protect the competitive process and not the day-to-day operations of specific markets. This is done through targeted enforcement action against specific anti-competitive conduct. The act is not intended to regulate the operations of a market.

In conclusion, I want to remind the House that it has only been 24 months since Parliament passed the most significant amendments to the Competition Act in 20 years.

During the industry committee's review of Bill C-452, both the Canadian Bar Association and representatives from the bureau emphasized the value and clarity provided by these new laws, which make it clear and unequivocal that it is illegal to agree with one's competitor on price, market allocation or output levels.

In effect, this government provided the competition commissioner with access through the amended legislation to new and powerful provisions that clearly strike at the heart of the concerns that underlie this legislative initiative.

It is important that we allow more time before we move to consider further changes to such an important piece of the framework of legislation. Only in that way will we be able to judge the full effect of the new provisions that this government has introduced to the Competition Act.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, that is the problem with days like today. Opposition members do not take them seriously.

We need to remind the House that on the issue with Elections Canada, we have taken it to court and we have won. It was appealed and we lost, but we are continuing that process.

We believe we did the right thing based on the interpretation of the law at the time. When that interpretation changed, we changed our practice. There is nothing wrong with what we have done.