|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
New Immigration Bill Tabled Creating More Problems
Canada needs immigration to help reverse the problems caused by our
ever-decreasing fertility rate which, according to Statistics Canada
1998-1999, is only 1.55 children per woman of child bearing age. Replacement
level, according to demographers, requires a fertility rate of 2.1
children per woman of child bearing age. According to Denis Desautels,
the federal Auditor-General, this declining birth rate will devastate
Canadian society in just a few years. In his final report before his
retirement, which was tabled in the House of Commons on February 6,
2001, Mr. Desautels stated that enormous pressures will be placed
on government finances by the year 2015, because of the decline in
births. He warned that while today there are five Canadians of working
age for every Canadian over 65 years, in three decades hence, there
will only be half that - 2.5 workers - to maintain the financial infrastructure
of this country.
Further, in a report issued on March 13, 2001,
Statistics Canada warned:
By 2016 at the latest, Canada will have far more seniors than children
aged 14 and under, a phenomenon never before recorded.
According to the Conference Board of Canada, this country will experience
a shortage of one million skilled workers by 2020, if the current
trends continue. This conclusion has been confirmed by Human Resources
Minister, Jane Stewart, (Globe and Mail, February 27,
2001). Unfortunately, immigration is not going to be enough to fill
the gap left by our low birth rate (See Reality, (September/October
2000, "Immigration and our Aging Population," p. 8). At
best, it will provide some relief by way of more employed workers
whose taxes maintain society.
New Bill Tabled
The Liberal government's policy has always been to permit wide-open
immigration to Canada - a policy which, unfortunately, has been abused
by some claimants. Some of the problems caused by this open policy
have been addressed in the provisions of the new Immigration Bill
C-11, tabled on February 21, 2001, by the Minister of Immigration
and Citizenship, Elinor Caplan.
These provisions include better screening of all claimants, fewer
appeals for serious criminals, with the aim of expediting their removal,
and the suspension of refugee claims for those charged with serious
crimes until the courts have disposed of the charges. This Bill is
similar to Ms. Caplan's previous Immigration Bill C-31, tabled last
April, but which died on the Order Paper when the general election
was called last year (See Reality, September/October
2000, "The Liberal Party and Its Immigration Policies, Bill C-31,"
p. 9).
The other positive provisions in Bill C-11 include:
- The tightening of penalties and fines for human
trafficking by "snakeheads" ($1 million fine or life
in prison or both);
- The ability of the government to collect monies
from those sponsors of immigrants who have not lived up to their
financial responsibilities which has resulted in such immigrants
becoming dependent on our welfare system; and
- New measures to ensure that criminals, terrorists
and human rights abusers do not take advantage of the refugee
protection system. Included in this list, by the way, are those
convicted of spousal abuse or those in default of spousal or child
support payments.
Predictably, the immigration industry, consisting of
lawyers and advocacy groups who make their living off our immigration
system, protested loudly that these changes would deny the immigrants
their civil rights. It is noted, however, that this new Act, if anything,
assists immigrants and refugees by creating another level of appeal
for them. That is under Bill C-11, on rejection of their application,
claimants may make further internal appeals to the Immigration Appeal
Board and if rejected there, can make an appeal to the courts to have
their claim accepted. According to Financial Post columnist,
Diane Francis (March 20, 2001), it is already difficult to remove
undesirables under the previous Act. In this connection, the debate
on this Bill on second reading in the House of Commons, Alliance critic
for Immigration Leon Benoit (Lakeland) pointed out in Hansard, February
27, 2001, p. 228 that:
…our official acceptance rate for refugees
is something like 50%, which is many times higher than the rate
of most other countries, only 15% of all people who come to Canada
claiming to be refugees are ever known to leave the country
Ms. Francis also states in her article that this widening of the appeal
process for refugee claimants in Bill C-11 is not surprising in view
of Minister Elinor Caplan's conflict of interest in the matter. It
seems that Ms. Caplan's brother-in-law has reaped substantial financial
benefits as an immigration lawyer. Ms. Caplan has also recently appointed
a former immigration lawyer, Peter Showler, as Chairman in the Immigration
Refugee Board. Mr. Showler previously ran, according to Ms. Francis,
a storefront legal operation and made his living by tapping into tax
dollars by way of legal aid funding to help all kinds of refugee claimants
gain admission to Canada. During his term of office, as an immigration
adjudicator, according to Ms. Francis, he reportedly admitted the
majority of the claimants.
New Definition of Spouses
Immigration is already an extremely lucrative industry for those involved
in it. How necessary then is it to add the highly controversial
loophole included in this Bill in regard to family class immigrants?
If passed, this loophole will permit common-law heterosexual couples
and homosexuals to enter Canada as legal "spouses." This
will mean that anyone who purports to be the partner of a Canadian
citizen will be treated as family class and given the same standing
as parents, children and legally married spouses, and in fact, creates
a unique loophole to provide for "couples of convenience."
What a tremendous boost to the already booming immigration business!
Controversy of Admitting Homosexuals and
Common-Law Couples as Spouses
Although the news release issued by the Immigration Department on
Bill C-11 acknowledged that same-sex couples and common-law heterosexual
couples would be admitted to Canada as "spouses," this amendment
was not written into the Bill itself. Instead, in an obvious attempt
to avoid messy public debate on what constitutes a "family"
and who qualifies as a "spouse," the government has eliminated
the controversy by the simple expedient of not including these definitions
in the Act. Rather, S.14 of the Act provides that these definitions
will be set out later in the regulations. A bill has
to be debated and passed in the House of Commons, whereas regulations
do not. Such regulations, which are usually concerned with non-controversial
procedures or administrative matters only and not matters of substance
or policy, are almost always passed by way of an automatic rubber
stamp by the Cabinet, without debate and without public input.
Defining "spouse" and "family" does involve serious
policy issues. Passing them into law by way of behind-the-scenes regulations,
rather than by Parliament, although convenient for the Liberal Government,
is highly autocratic and undemocratic.
In short, it is highly irregular that a major change in policy is
being undertaken by bypassing Parliament and implementing it by way
of the rubber stamp process of regulations. This is yet another egregious
example of the Chrétien government's determination to force
its own agenda, regardless of the views of the voters who are, as
usual, being deliberately ignored.
It is significant that the Liberal government was obliged to bring
about this change on homosexual couples slyly, by way of regulation,
because it had previously proclaimed during the debate on marriage
in the House of Commons in June, 1999, that the definitions of marriage
and "spouse" are restricted to the union of one man and
one woman only.
Federal Justice Minister Anne McLellan is on record, during that debate,
as stating that her party was in support of the decision of the British
House of Lords in Hyde vs. Hyde, in 1866, which held
that marriage was a union of one man and woman to the exclusion of
all others, and that this definition was considered clear law by Canadians
citizens, academics and the courts. (Hansard, p. 15966-7,
June 8, 1999 also see Reality, July/August 1999, p.
1).
Ms. McLellan also made this point when, under intense political pressure,
she was forced to include this same definition in her infamous Bill
C-23 on same-sex benefits (See Reality, May/June 2000,
"The Fiasco of Bill C-23 (Same-Sex Benefits)," p. 9).
The government, therefore, did not wish to lose credibility and possibly
cause a firestorm of protest by re-defining "marriage" and
"spouse" in the Act for all to see, a major contradiction
to what it has been publicly proclaiming. Instead, the government
attempted to get around this difficulty by way of a calculated deception
of the public.
Other Changes in the Bill Reducing
Sponsor's Responsibility
The Bill also provides that the length of time a sponsor will have
responsibility for a "spouse" ? common-law or homosexual
? who has immigrated to Canada, has been reduced from 10 to 3 years.
The result of this is that any unmarried individual, whether homosexual
or heterosexual, may now bring in anyone as a so-called "spouse."
Since there is no documentation of the relationship, such as a marriage
certificate, to prove that such a relationship actually exists, there
is no way to invalidate their status as partners. The sponsoring individual
need only be responsible for this alleged "spouse" for 3
years. Upon separating from this "spouse," since they are
not "married," there is no need for divorce, and the individual
Canadian may therefore apply again for the immigration of another
"spouse." Consequently, the open-ended, promiscuous relationships
of homosexuals and others are rewarded under Bill C-11 - at the taxpayers'
expense. This is a travesty of marriage and of the "family re-unification"
policy which has played a very important part in our immigration policy
over the years.
Medical Exemptions for "Spouses"
There is a further problem to be considered by the inclusion of unmarried
partners as "spouses" under this legislation. Bill C-11
provides in Section 38 that family class members including common-law
heterosexual and homosexual "spouses," unlike other immigrants,
may be admitted to Canada even if they are a danger to public health
and safety, or might cause a demand on our health and social services.
In short, Canada will, under this proposed Immigration Act, become
a haven for individuals with any disease such as AIDS and those suffering
from tuberculosis, malaria, etc., under the new broad definition of
"family" and "spouse". Isn't our medical system
under sufficient strain already?
Restricting admission to Canada to the healthy has always been a cornerstone
of Canadian nation-building. Unpleasant as it is, plainly speaking,
preserving the nation's universal health care and social services
from the world's sick and needy is still of vital importance to the
taxpayers.
Please write immediately to:
The Right Hon. Jean Chrétien
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington St. 2nd Floor
Ottawa ON K1A 0A2
Tel 613-992-4211 / Fax 613-941-6900
The Hon. Ms. Elinor Caplan
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
365 Laurier Avenue West
Jean Edmonds South Tower 21st floor
Ottawa ON K1A 1L1
Tel 613-954-1064 / Fax 613-952-5533
The Hon. Ms. Anne McLellan
Minister of Justice
Justice Building
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0H8
Tel 613-992-4621 / Fax 613-990-7255
Your MP
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Please remind them that homosexuals under the law are
not "spouses" and should not be admitted to Canada as such.
Advise them that the government's duplicity on changing the definition
of "marriage" and "spouse" by way of regulation,
rather than by way of legislation and public debate on the floor of
the House of Commons, is completely unacceptable.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
