Mike Wallace

[Preventing Human Smugglers From Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that very good question on stopping the issue at source from the country where the potential migrants are being smuggled by illegal smugglers.

It is an important piece. As a country, part of our diplomatic effort is towards those countries where smuggling takes place and from where we get boat loads of individuals who pay exorbitant prices to illegal smugglers to get to this country. We have to nip that in the bud, at the source, and use all of our diplomatic strength, as a country, to make sure that does not happen.

I like to use the analogy of the drug smuggler who needs customers to smuggle drugs. We need to make sure that those who are potential customers of these human smugglers know that it is not a free ride here in Canada, that there are issues. This is what this bill does. It tries to take away at source the incentive to deal with human smugglers to come here.

[Preventing Human Smugglers From Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join in this debate on Bill C-49, the government's legislation to prevent human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system.

I am proud to rise in support of this fair and necessary piece of legislation that aims to turn those who want to live in Canada away from using smugglers to get into our country. It is no secret that international criminal organizations make huge profits by preying on the vulnerable and extracting large sums of money for a treacherous voyage to our shores. Such criminal activity is a threat not only to the well-being of the migrants involved but also to the safety and security of Canadians. As such, we do not want Canada to become an easy target for human smugglers.

Supporters of the status quo would have us believe that Canada has a humanitarian duty to treat human smuggling and illegal migration as an acceptable way to come to Canada. However, in arguing for leniency, they ignore the fact that human smuggling is a profitable business for the ruthless criminals who organize these voyages of great distance and peril. They ignore the fact that human smuggling is a dangerous and exploitive enterprise that puts lives at risk. Worst of all, they ignore the fact that human smuggling undermines Canada's security.

Human smuggling is a venture. I would remind my hon. colleagues that the venture operates on the lawless margins of the international transportation industry. The very nature of human smuggling means that virtually anybody can be among the human cargo destined for Canada.

Put another way, any individual with a criminal history or malice of intent can board, blend in with the crowd, and be on their way to Canada. Once they reach our border, the large scale of the arrivals makes it difficult to properly investigate whether those who arrive, including the smugglers, pose risks to Canada on the basis of either their criminality or national security.

It would be a mistake, one with potentially disastrous consequences, to give the benefit of the doubt to migrants lacking the proper identification. We cannot allow good intentions to get in the way of protecting the safety and security of our streets and our communities.

Under Bill C-49, the government proposes to introduce mandatory detention for up to one year or until a positive decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board that grants refugee protection, whichever comes first. This would allow the determination of identity, admissibility, or illegal activity, thus helping to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians.

This is a cautious, common-sense approach. Quite frankly, it would be the height of folly to do otherwise. After all, we often do not know who the smuggled migrants are or whether they might be involved in criminal or terrorist activity. We need time to confirm their identities and to complete screenings and investigations.

Bill C-49 also aims to discourage migrants from putting their lives in the hands of those with a callous disregard for anything but ill-gotten profits. The bill would prevent those who would come to Canada as part of a human smuggling event from applying for permanent resident status for a period of five years, even if they successfully obtain refugee status. It would also prevent individuals from sponsoring family members for five years.

Canadians by and large support a generous and open immigration and refugee protection system. They also understand that the need to keep Canada's doors open to newcomers must be balanced by the need to protect our borders and the integrity of our immigration system.

This is especially true at a time when Canadians watch in anger and disbelief as irregular mass arrivals land on our shores and threaten the integrity of our immigration and refugee protection system. The recent spate of mass arrivals through human smuggling calls into question the most basic obligation of a sovereign country, which is to control its own borders.

The consequences of not acting against this threat are troubling. A failure to act, and to act strongly, could lead to a major collapse in public support for our immigration system.

The editorial board of the Globe and Mail agrees, arguing recently that “The government must act to safeguard the integrity of Canada's immigration system, which welcomes 250,000 newcomers a year”.

The editorial continued, by noting that:

Polls show that the public's high level of support for immigration dipped by 20 per cent after the arrival of the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady—even though asylum seekers and skilled immigrants are two very different streams.

The poll results are worrisome because Canada has been fortunate in having a level of public support for immigration that is unparalleled elsewhere in the world. As the minister has said, we cannot keep public support for immigration refugee protection and we cannot take it for granted.

This sentiment was echoed by Randall Hansen, Canada Research Chair in Immigration and Governance at the University of Toronto. Mr. Hansen pointed out in a recent article that support for immigration plummets as soon as people start to think that government has lost control of its borders.

The government believes it is of the utmost importance that we maintain the public confidence in the integrity of our immigration and refugee protection systems and in our borders. After all, our economy will need even more immigrants in the years ahead.

Canada is a generous and welcoming country for those who want to work for a better life, but there are proper ways that must be followed in order to do so. Human smuggling is not a legal or legitimate way to get into Canada, and it will not be tolerated. That is why we are taking decisive action to combat human smuggling and those who would abuse Canada's generous immigration system.

With this bill, the government is taking action to crack down on a reprehensible crime, protect the safety and security of Canadians and safeguard the integrity of our immigration system and our refugee protection system from those who pose as human smugglers and threaten our borders.

I therefore urge my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-49.

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, my colleague talked about a variety of options. New Democrats are offering one option, that CPP be doubled, which my colleague mentioned in her speech.

My colleague is talking about a crisis presently in the pension system. Would she not agree that a doubling of the CPP would take 20 to 30 years for true effect in terms of providing a stable pension income for Canadians? Would she not agree that the government needs to do things other than doubling it at this point, because it would not affect the immediate needs?

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I want to quote a Liberal member from earlier this evening, not in this debate but in a debate regarding a private member's bill on pensions. That Liberal member said, ”We either come here to make a point or we come here to make a difference”. In my view he is absolutely right, and this government has made a difference. The Liberal approach is to always try to make a point, but they never actually make a difference.

This government has made a difference. I have a long list which includes the introduction of pension income splitting, the increase in the age credit amount by $2,000, doubling the amount of income eligibility of pension income to $2,000 from $1,000, and the list goes on and on. We talked about RRIFs.

The point is we are making a difference. My colleague spoke about what we are hearing at committee. I happen to sit on the same committee. There were a number of suggestions.

Is it not important that the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Finance consult with all Canadians, including those in the—

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, my colleague is absolutely right. One of the issues facing all Canadians, whether they are seniors or not, is financial literacy.

During the last break, there was a pre-retirement public meeting held in my riding and about 125 people came out. Service Canada gave a presentation and indicated that Canadians have to understand that they need to apply for certain things before they can get them, such as GIS. A person applies once and qualifies and it continues from there on in based on one's income every year.

When we look at all of the things that the government has done, from income splitting to doubling the age credit, to the change of age in converting RRSPs to RIFFs and what has been done with the tax-free savings account, a whole list of things has been done. What should an individual from her riding do to find out about the government programs that are in place today because of this government so they can access what is rightfully available to them if they qualify?

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure to be taking part in this take note debate this evening.

The Ontario Liberal finance minister was quoted as saying in May of this year, in the Hamilton Spectator, that Canada has one of the best post-retirement income systems in the world and a dramatic lowering of instances of old age poverty.

We are trying to learn from each other here tonight. I wonder if the member would agree that there is no easy solution to the pension issue. Would she agree that it is a very difficult issue?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has been working with all finance ministers across the country on this issue. There is no single, simple solution. What is important and tends to be forgotten here that we need to work together with the provinces. Rather than the Government of Canada running the show, in actual fact the government only controls about 10% of registered pensions. The rest are controlled at the provincial level.

What recommendations would the member make to involve the provinces, including the Liberal finance minister in the province of Ontario?

[Pensions, November 23rd, 2010]

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to take part in tonight's discussion on pension reform.

The Minister of Finance and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance have spent a lot of time over the last number of years looking at this issue. I am fortunate enough to be on both the finance committee, which dealt with this issue last spring, and on the industry committee at present where we are discussing Bill C-501.

Parliament and this government have been engaged in this issue and we have made a number of changes over the last couple of years.

However, I am not absolutely sure about something. The member for York West has been sitting in on our industry committee on the issue of Bill C-501 but I cannot tell whether the Liberals are supporting that private member's bill. I wonder if the member could tell us. I know that is a private member's bill and probably an individual decision, but based on the work that she has done and whether that bill would actually help Nortel employees, will the Liberals be supporting it coming back to the House?

[Retirement Income Bill of Rights, November 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for York West for bringing her private member's bill forward, the pension income bill of rights.

A month ago or so the member sent out a media kit that talked about the bill. As she knows, about 90% of pensions are dealt with at the provincial level, leaving about 10% at the federal level.

It does require a tremendous amount of cooperation between the federal and provincial governments across the country. The parliamentary secretary has been across the country on pension consultations and the Conservative government has been working very hard on that.

Has the member presented the proposals that are in the bill to the provincial houses across the country? Did the member get any response from the provinces, that we can see, on how they feel about the bill of rights that is proposed in this bill?

[Statistics Act, November 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the national household survey, which will be conducted next year. This voluntary survey has very much been misconstrued by my colleagues across the floor. I believe that asking the long form census questions on a voluntary basis in the national household survey will provide a better balance between collecting necessary data and protecting the privacy of Canadians. I am confident this new survey will establish a balance among the requirements of governments, businesses, municipalities and associations for good information and the willingness of Canadians to provide that information.

This government is well aware that without good information, informed decisions are difficult to make. Nevertheless, the government is not willing to force Canadians, who may conscientiously object to giving private information to government officials, to do so.

I would like to take a few minutes to ensure that there are no misconceptions in the House about the national household survey.

The national household survey will collect information on the demographic, social and economic situation of people across Canada and the dwellings in which they live. Approximately one-third of all households across Canada will be selected to participate in the national household survey. Information will be used by governments, businesses, associations, community organizations and many others to make important decisions about the services in our communities. These services include child care, schooling, family services, housing, roads, public transportation and skills and training for the employment sector.

The national household survey will provide information about the living arrangements of people in Canada: family size, number of children living with one parent or two parents and the number of people who live alone. This information is important for planning social programs. It is also used by communities to plan services such as daycare centres, schools, seniors centres and seniors residences.

The survey will also provide information on the number of people in Canada who have difficulties with daily activities and whose activities are reduced because of a physical or mental condition, or a health problem. This information is used to plan services relating to accessibility and to support health care for the communities that they serve.

The national household survey will provide a social and cultural profile of Canada's population. This profile will tell us about the movements of people within Canada and from other countries other than Canada and for newcomers to Canada. It will collect information on the citizenship status of Canada's population, information that is used to plan citizenship classes and programs to help support those newcomers to Canada.

This new survey will also provide the number of immigrants and non-permanent residents in Canada and the year the people immigrated. This information is used to compare the situation of immigrants over time to provide immigration and employment policies and the programs which serve those individuals and to plan on education, health and other services much needed by these communities.

The national household survey will provide information about the ethnic and cultural diversity in Canada. This information is used by associations, agencies and researchers for activities such as health promotion, communications and marketing.

The survey will also collect language information which will be used to determine the need for language training and the services in English and in French.

Another important aspect of the national household survey is the information collected about aboriginals, both on and off reserve. This information is used by governments, including aboriginal governments and organizations, to develop programs and services for our aboriginal peoples.

Another question on the survey will tell us about the visible minority population in Canada. This information is required for programs under the Employment Equity Act which promote equal opportunity for each and every Canadian.

There will also be a religion question. This question will be used to measure religious affiliation and diversity. It is for use to trace changes in Canadian society. The information will also be used to help plan facilities and services within our diverse communities across the country.

We will also know, when the results of the survey are released, where residents of Canada are moving to and where they are moving from. This information is used to look at the characteristics of people who move and to track the needs for housing, education, transportation and social services.

We will also know more about the social and economic conditions of the second generation of Canadians. This information helps us understand Canada's immigration history.

The national household survey also has a series of questions on education. These questions will tell us about the education, training and recent school attendance of residents of Canada. Governments use this information to develop training and other programs to meet the changing needs of our workforce and of the education needs of specific groups such as immigrants, aboriginal peoples and youth.

The labour market questions provide information on paid work to plan education and training programs, assess language use at work and the forecast of job opportunities. Information on where people work, how they get to work tells us about commuting patterns, public transit needs and energy use. This helps identify locations for new schools, hospitals, daycare and recreational facilities and the need for roads and transit services.

Income questions provide statistics on income from all sources. Governments use these statistics to develop income support programs such as old age security, provincial income supplements and social assistance payments. Businesses use income statistics to locate stores and to develop new products and services that are demanded by Canadians. Private and public sector researchers use information about earnings to study labour markets and industry patterns.

Information on expenses related to child care and support payments, along with information on income, provides more precise measures of disposable income.

Finally, questions on housing provide information to develop housing communities and projects. Information on the number of rooms and bedrooms in homes and on housing costs is used to assess the economic situation of Canadian families. Governments use this information to measure levels of crowding within households and to develop housing programs within their communities.

Information on the age of dwellings and the need for repairs is used by municipalities, for example, to develop neighbourhood improvement programs.

I would ask for the support of hon. colleagues for the national household survey. I trust they will encourage their constituents to complete the survey next May. This will ensure that all Canadians have the information they need for a better future.