Mr. Marchi

I think the hon. member is absolutely correct. I had assumed because of the positioning of the member that he was a member of the Reform Party.

The issues that I raised still stand, but I stand corrected.

I would like to read for the House Standing Order 33(1):

On Statements by Ministers as listed in Standing Order 30(3), a Minister of the Crown may make a short factual announcement or statement of government policy. A Member from each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly thereon. The time for such proceedings shall be limited as the Speaker deems fit.

I thank both hon. members for their interventions.

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa)

Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to the statement of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. However, I must deplore the minister's failure to co-operate with critics from the other parties.

We did not receive the text of his statement-a document prepared months ago-until 1 p.m. and we received only one copy, despite the fact that we had requested two. This is not the first time this has happened. The same problem occurred a few days ago when the minister gave a press conference. We received a copy of his statement only as the press conference was getting under way. What happened to the minister's promise to work with us? I must deplore this lack of co-operation.

Regarding the substance of his statement, I would say that immigration policy does represent an enormous challenge not just for Canada, but also and above all for Quebec. In referring to the new levels of immigration announced yesterday, the minister neglected to mention if he had consulted with Quebec. If he did, when did these consultations take place and under what circumstances?

The minister also broached subjects not directly tied to new immigration levels. For example, concerning criminals, I agree with him that Canada should not let them in, but I hope that he is not merely stating good intentions. Precedents in this regard were set by former governments, and even by this new government of which the minister is a member. We agree that immigrants and bona fide refugees should be allowed into Canada, but not criminals.

Regarding appointments to Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board, more commissioners are expected to be appointed in the coming months. We will be watching the minister closely to ensure that the appointments he does make are not based on political affiliation. I hope that he will consult with all interested parties, including Quebec.

Naturally we share his concern about women refugees. This new issue is also a priority for us. We must protect women who have been persecuted, raped and abused and when appropriate, we must grant them political refugee status in Canada.

Madam Speaker, as you can see from my accent and my name, I am a Quebecer of Chilean origin. I came to Quebec 20 years ago following the 1973 military coup in Chile. I have to say that I was warmly welcomed by Quebecers, labour unions, religious groups and international co-operation agencies as well as agencies working in the field of human rights.

Before I arrived here, I was told I would be going to Canada and I was issued a visa. I was happy because in my mind, Canada was, and still is, a democratic country. However, when I arrived in Quebec, specifically in Montreal, I realized that there were two countries within Canada, two founding nations and peoples, two official languages and two cultures, each with its own history.

Then, I understood the great aspirations of Quebecers, their desire to defend the French language, their traditions, their culture and their history, all the more so because I came from a country where the people had fought for similar goals against powerful forces, against the penetration of English into Chile and throughout Latin America, and for the right to develop their own culture and traditions.

I became a sovereigntist. I have nothing against English Canada, where I have many friends especially within ethnic communities and within the labour movement. However, I support the creation of a country, Quebec, which is the deepest aspiration of Quebecers.

During my term in office, I plan to travel throughout Canada and discuss these ideas with my friends everywhere. When a couple has problems and cannot continue to live together, it must face reality. I think this analogy can be applied to Quebec and next year, the referendum will prove that this is so.

Like my party, I am a staunch supporter of immigration and I would hope that members of ethnic communities will not fear Quebec sovereignty as we sovereigntists feel that they will prove to be a formidable asset for Quebec and for Canada.

At this time, I would like to dissociate myself from the position taken by other members of this House who are afraid of immigration and afraid of refugees. At times they propagate anti-immigrant sentiment and demand not only that harsh restrictions be placed on Canadian immigration levels, but also that claims of refugee status on political grounds and under the Canadian Charter be denied. I wish to dissociate myself because my position is vastly different from that of members who view immigration and refugees in this light.

The minister is not telling us anything new about immigration levels this afternoon. He is quoting the same figures a the Conservatives: 250,000 immigrants will be admitted to Canada in 1994. We have no qualms about this figure as long as Quebec can have its say on the numbers admitted to Quebec.

As far as the mix of immigrants is concerned, we are in favour of Canada and Quebec throwing open their doors to political refugees. Canada and Quebec must honour their commitments. Canada was a signatory to the Geneva Convention relative to political refugees and we have to meet the humanitarian assistance requests that we receive from all over the world, where over 20 million refugees live in various countries. We discussed the situation in Bosnia a few days ago and I mentioned at the time that Canada should be open to Bosnian refugees.

So, I maintain that Canada must also tackle the causes of this form of immigration, that is to say political or economic refugies, and try to solve the problem that exist in the countries of origin. People leave their countries because of problems such as racism, religious strife, poverty, the widening gap between industrialized countries and developing countries, political repression. We want Canada to be generous with refugees, while at the same time addressing the problems that brings them here in the first place.

Based on the minister's announcement, we can see that the number of refugees admitted will increase only slightly, by 3,500. We think that this is not enough, in view of what is going on in the world, in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia and other countries, including El Salvador.

I questioned the minister about the situation of Salvadoran refugees, but I did not get an answer in this House. Today, we read in the papers that the expulsion order has been suspended. That is not what we asked to minister to do. We were asking for a policy stating that Salvadoran refugees would not be returned to El Salvador because there are violent troubles in that area. Last December, the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself was telling us that political violence had flared up again in El Salvador. Death squads are still active there. Reports from various organizations, Development and Peace, Amnesty International, the UN and even the Salvadoran Human Rights Commission, all note the violence with disapproval.

What the minister was asked to do was to apply to El Salvador the same policy as for Haiti, China, Iraq or Somalia. That is all we were asking and all the fifty or so Salvadoran refugees in Quebec were asking.

What the press reports today is that there will be a review, but that has already been done. What we asked the minister to do is to exercise his jurisdiction. He has that power, under the Immigration Act, to intervene on humanitarian grounds, and he should use it to resolve the case of these Salvadoran refugees.

He announced to us a few days ago what he intended to do about work permits for refugee claimants. We agree, we said so, but we would also like the minister to act more quickly.

Why wait three months to give a political refugee claimant a work permit, as well as a medical certificate which he must have obtained before? This still takes a long time. If we do not want the refugee to collect welfare, he must start working as soon as possible.

So far, the minister has not answered requests that these permits be granted quickly. In any case, we know that these refugees will not compete with Canadian workers because refugees will usually get only low-paid unpleasant jobs that other people cannot or will not do.

I noted a glaring omission in the minister's statement, in that he said nothing about Quebec and the Ottawa-Quebec agreement. As you know, immigration is a shared federal-provincial jurisdiction. Quebec has always been concerned about immigration, even in the last century, because it is a vital problem for Quebec as it is for Canada. I would say that it is even more vital for Quebec because Quebec's birth rate is less than the Canadian average. Immigration in Quebec must make up this population deficit.

Immigration is also intended to ensure economic prosperity and openness to the world. Quebec is open to the world, but immigration to Quebec must ensure the perpetuation of the French fact. Quebec is the only French-speaking state in North America. We made demands, we fought the fight and in 1968 we created the Quebec Department of Immigration. In 1978, the Couture-Cullen agreement gave Quebec the power to choose its immigrants. Later, this agreement was improved by the ministers, Monique Gagnon-Tremblay and Barbara McDougall. Today, regrettably, the Quebec Department of Immigration and Cultural Communities has been merged with the Department of International Affairs.

But our main concern is the survival of French in Quebec, and it is closely tied to immigration. You know, as I myself have seen, most immigrants to Quebec integrated with the English-speaking minority. This has been aggravated by the federal government's policy of bilingualism in Canada.

We want Quebec to have immigrants. We also want them to be French-speaking as much as possible or at least able to join the French-speaking community as I was. I speak Spanish; I learned French because I joined the French speaking majority in Quebec.

We also want immigration in Quebec to be regionalized. Too many immigrants are concentrated in Montreal, 90 per cent. That is why we say and repeat that bill 101 is absolutely necessary in Quebec and we would like English Canada to understand that.

Since Bill 101 in 1976, our children must attend French schools. I hope that this concern for immigration in Quebec, a distinct society, will become part of the minister's message in the future. Moreover, we want the agreements reached between Quebec and Ottawa to be honoured. For instance, by increasing the number of people admitted under the family reunification program, the minister is imposing a burden on Quebec since Quebec has no say in this program. The federal government sets objectives and Quebec does not have anything to say about it. I hope that in the future you will pay more attention to this aspect of the immigration policy.

The final objective of our party, and of the entire sovereigntist movement in Quebec, is to put the immigration policy under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction. Again, Quebec is open to foreigners and immigrants; we want to build a just, democratic and fraternal society that is open to the world and based on solidarity.

Mr. Marchi

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend from the Reform Party. I just wanted to respond to my Bloc critic who said that it was his understanding that he was to get the documents at noon. I believe my officials delivered them at one o'clock.

I want to tell the House that I told my officials to provide the reports to my critics at the traditional-

I am sorry, Mr. Minister. The point of order is out of order.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast)

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to reply to the minister's announcement.

This is a policy area of great importance to the people of Canada and to Canada's future. I hope the minister will regard the alternatives presented from this side of the House as constructive and will take them to heart.

I do not need again to point out that Canada is indeed a nation of immigrants. The country as we know it today would not exist were it not for the ambition, struggle and determination of millions of people who have landed on our shores in search of a better life.

Indeed, my parents were immigrants and as such I understand the desire for something better which has motivated millions over the years to come to Canada.

Along with the road to becoming a great nation built by immigrants, Canada has also gained the reputation as a compassionate nation. It is one that has opened its arms to hundreds of thousands of refugees, displaced persons and families wishing to be united.

We are a compassionate nation. We have stayed true to and even gone beyond the mandate created by the United Nations Secretary General regarding refugees. I am proud to be a citizen of a country that has gained an international reputation for its fairness, compassion and its acceptance of immigrants of all kinds.

Further, I represent a riding that more than any other in Calgary is populated by immigrants or the children of immigrants. During the course of my campaign I was fortunate to have had an opportunity to receive input from hundreds of newcomers to this country.

In short, I applaud the minister, who is himself an immigrant, for his dedication in this area and his integrity. Nonetheless, I must seriously question the policy which the minister has announced. This policy could be of more harm than help to Canada given our economic state.

The minister has announced that immigration levels this year will be about 250,000, a substantial number I might add. Of those immigrants 111,000 will come from the family sponsorship class, 28,300 will be refugees and 110,700 will be economic and independent immigrants.

How does the minister justify this level of immigration? Is there a need at present for this number of immigrants? Upon what rationale does the minister base his numbers? The answers to these questions should be discoverable from the minister's statement today or from his press kit.

However when one searches the minister's statement regarding today's announcement one finds that rather than answers regarding the rationale behind this level of immigration being answered, more questions arise. The minister wrote that in 1994 immigration levels balanced humanitarian considerations with demographic and economic needs. Could the minister please explain to this House exactly what sort of a balance has been achieved apart from a strictly numerical one?

In fact, the minister's projected numbers continue the pattern of allowing numbers of family and refugee class immigrants that are virtually unheard of in the industrialized world today. Is this a balance? Very few other governments would agree. What exactly are the demographic and economic needs that Canada faces which this proposed number of immigrants will address?

Further, the immigrants that Canada accepts do not settle in our sparsely populated regions. Rather they are attracted to our already overcrowded and overburdened metropolitan areas like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. Those areas are already polluted. Their landfill sites are overflowing, their traffic is congested, their crime rates are steadily increasing and their schools and hospitals are overcrowded and short of funds. I wonder if the Liberal government took these issues into consideration when they put together a policy that would add more than a quarter of a million new people to Canada per year, people who will be attracted to those overburdened metro areas?

Why then does Canada need the number of immigrants announced? Yes, there was a time when Canada needed vast numbers of people, people with very specific skills to open up our underpopulated areas. That time has long since passed. Even today as a percentage of our population Canada is still accepting more immigrants than any other industrialized nation on earth. Why does this government want to up the number even more?

The government seems to believe that with our fertility rate, which is currently about 1.7, the Canadian population will begin to decline at some point in the future and further, that the aging of our population will place increasing strains upon our social assistance systems and a drain upon our federal reserves as fewer and fewer young people in the population will be working to pay for these social programs.

It is as though the government is using a kind of social engineering to slow down the aging of the population through immigration. Had it studied the demographic projection model of the Economic Council of Canada, it would have discovered that the council's proposal recommends that immigration levels be set at the average of the last 25 years, which is .63 per cent of the population per year or about 170,000 immigrants.

Of the studies that the Reform caucus has examined even this number of 170,000 per year represents the high end. Compare that, Madam Speaker, with the 250,000 as the announcement indicates that this government proposes that we accept.

The government wants us to believe that we will reap enormous benefits by allowing this number of immigrants each year but it has neglected to mention the costs of immigration. A Southam study of literacy in Canada published in 1987 reported that about 34,000 functionally illiterate immigrants were admitted annually. Does this government not feel that there is a cost to be incurred by admitting tens of thousands of illiterate immigrants, especially with the cuts in English as a second language program that are being made across the country?

The provinces no longer have the funds necessary to support a poorly thought out federal immigration policy. For example, the Government of Ontario-and the minister alluded to this-is straining with the acceptance of 59 per cent of all of Canada's immigrants and while receiving 39 per cent of federal funds.

These sorts of problems will only be made worse if we accept the flood of immigrants proposed by this government, especially when those immigrants are chosen largely from the family or refugee classes and not as independent immigrants chosen for their human capital; chosen for their skills, their ability to quickly and independently integrate into Canadian life as well as their ability to contribute to the economic needs of this country. Choosing immigrants on this basis is the policy of the Reform Party. It is one which we believe would turn our present immigration dilemma into a solution to some of Canada's economic woes. Just some.

On the other hand, the immigration plan put forward by the government will actually discriminate against those immigrants who could contribute most to Canada's growth and prosperity. It gives preference to those immigrants who tend to be a drain upon our social services and will lower the average skill level of our work force.

This government is saying that we need to take in our fair share of refugees when in fact Canada's acceptance rate for refugee applicants is already among the highest in the world. This government says that we need to make family class a priority when our family class acceptance system is already among the most generous in the world.

The government in its red book states that we must take humanitarianism and compassion into account in our immigration policy. We are already being more compassionate than any other nation in the world. Is it not fair to demand that this compassion be mated with practicality and a consideration of the other needs in the country?

I want to stress that the Reform Party does not oppose immigration. On the contrary, the Reform Party recognizes that Canada is a nation of immigrants, that this nation was built by immigrants and could continue to benefit from immigration, but only if the immigration is based on a sensible, well thought out policy that reflects Canada's needs.

The Reform caucus strongly urges the government to re-examine its immigration policy. We strongly recommend that Canada return to its traditional policy for determining the admissible number of immigrants by first determining Canada's real economic needs.

The government must also re-examine its refugee determination process. We believe that only genuine refugees should be

welcome and that bogus refugees, illegal entrants and criminal offenders should be immediately deported. Further, anyone who engages in or encourages such activities should be subject to severe penalties.

I applaud the minister for his plan to open up to the Canadian people Canada's immigration policy. If a major overhaul is necessary, and it appears that it is, then it should be prompted by a national referendum. This would ensure that in the area of immigration the Canadian people and not special interests would shape this sensitive national policy.

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-6, an act to amend the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and the National Energy Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-7, an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend certain other acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-208, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

Madam Speaker, this bill deals with the pensions of parliamentarians and this bill prohibits double-dipping; that is, it prohibits parliamentarians from receiving a pension from the Government of Canada if that individual is receiving a salary from the Government of Canada or crown corporation.

This bill also prevents a member from collecting a parliamentary pension until that member reaches the age of 60.

As we saw during the last election this matter is of great concern to Canadians. Given the positions already taken by all sides of the House, I certainly look forward to this bill passing very quickly.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden for seconding the motion.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-209, an act to provide for full employment in Canada.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to table this bill today. This bill establishes that full employment must be the first objective of any economic and fiscal policy of the federal government. It is the surest means to lower a poverty rate of over 11 percent and to put an end to poverty.

This bill would require the Minister of Labour to prepare a draft plan for the achievement of full employment targets which the minister would then put before this House.

I am sure that all members of this House agree that we must in a systematic and dedicated way address the issue of unemployment and I seek when this comes for final reading the support of all members of this House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-210, an act to provide for the recall of members of the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker, I would like to table this. I appreciate the chance to introduce today a bill to provide for the recall of members of the House of Commons.

This bill would allow the electors in any federal constituency to recall their member of Parliament by circulating a petition containing the names and addresses of a majority of the voters who voted in that riding in the previous election. If a recall petition were to be deemed successful by the chief electoral officer a by-election would be called for that seat.

The bill also contains a number of limitations on the recall process designed to avoid superfluous and mischievous employment of this device.

I believe this bill would do more to ensure democratic parliamentary reform than any other single measure. I recommend that the government support this bill as quickly as possible. As the late Senator Stan Waters who said regularly:

"Democracy delayed is democracy denied". I hope we act on this quickly.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)

I move:

That no later than five minutes before the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, February 3, 1994, any business then under consideration shall be interrupted and all questions necessary for disposal of the motion of the Minister of Human Resources Development regarding a reviewof social programs, Government Business No. 4, shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment;

That no later than 15 minutes before expiry of the time for the consideration of Government Orders on Tuesday, February 8, 1994, any business then under consideration shall be interrupted and all questions necessary for the disposal ofthe second reading stages of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Department of National Revenue Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof;

That Bill C-3, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-secondary Education and Health Contributions Act and;

That Bill C-4, an act to amend the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment;

That no later than five minutes before the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Monday, February 7, 1994, any business then under consideration shall be interrupted and all questions necessary for disposal of the motion of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons regarding amendments to the Standing Orders and other related matters, notice of which was given on February 2, 1994, shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment;

That any divisions requested on any of the aforementioned business shall be deferred until six o'clock p.m., Tuesday, February 8, 1994.

(Motion agreed to.)

Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park)

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present a petition signed by petitioners living in Parkdale-High Park and in other parts of Ontario.

The petitioners state that the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is continuing to violate all fundamental and civil rights of the Vietnamese citizens through arbitrary arrests, detention without trial and the censorship of peaceful expressions of political or religious beliefs.

The petitioners urge the government in their prayer to continue to make full normalization of relations with Vietnam contingent upon (1) the unconditional release of all political and religious prisoners in Vietnam; (2) the immediate cessation of punishment of critics through detention without trial; (3) the abolition of all political prisoners and re-education camps throughout the country; (4) the elimination of all regulations, codes and constitutional provisions prohibiting organized opposition activities that are commonly used to repress peaceful expressions of dissent; and (5) a formal commitment by the leaders of the communist party of Vietnam to create a pluralistic and democratic environment with free and open national elections under international supervision so that the citizens of Vietnam may determine the future leadership and orientation of their government.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park)

Concerning my second petition, these petitioners all reside in High Park in my constituency. They state in their petition that they are very satisfied with the service and location of sub-post office number 166, located in the High Park Pharmacy, which the previous government tried to close.

Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge this government to keep post office number 166 located in High Park Pharmacy operating in its present state and location.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)

Pursuant to Standing Order 31, I have the privilege of presenting to Parliament a petition signed by many people from around my riding and around Toronto.

Whereas the incidence of violence against women and children is unacceptable, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women and children, encourage and support women to report incidents of assault or abuse, provide assistance and support for women reporting assault or abuse, and also the need for abuser rehabilitation and a special effort on the training of police, lawyers, court workers and judges to become knowledgeable about women and child abuse and to focus public attention on this very important and long ignored problem.

Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Is it agreed?

Agreed.

Hon. John Manley (for the Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions))

moved that a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the table on Monday, January 31, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to).