Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m. and time for Private Members' Business.
Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), standing in the name of the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Madam Speaker: Leave? Leave has been granted.
Motion presented.
Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, the overall purpose of this bill is to provide to Manitobans and victims of crime in particular some comprehensive rights recognized in law. The second purpose is to ensure that these comprehensive rights are enforceable by way of a mechanism for redress.
The legislation that is before the House is a result of extensive consultations and research not only in North America but elsewhere and not only by reviewing the authorities but by listening and hearing the concerns of victims in Manitoba. The legislation that is proposed here is arguably the strongest not only in North America but perhaps in the modern world.
We think it is time that the needs of victims not be recognized in small steps. The system owes something to victims, Madam Speaker, and we think it is time for a revolution of victims' rights and not simply an incremental change.
The background of this legislation is important to an understanding as to where we come from in this important area for Manitobans. New Democratic governments in this province have an extensive record of action on behalf of crime victims, Madam Speaker. We note, for example, that New Democratic governments in Manitoba introduced one of the first victim compensation schemes in Canada. It introduced one of Canada's first child abuse victim support programs.
New Democrats introduced the first provincial protocol for zero tolerance of spousal violence. New Democrats introduced: Canada's first surcharge on criminals to fund victim services; Canada's first legislated Victims' Assistance Committee, and Canada's first specialized victims assistance, that being the Women's Advocacy Program.
Manitoba was also the first in Canada under the NDP to enact victims' rights principles. That same New Democrat government was one of Canada's first pioneers of victim impact statements and was involved in a project that was very important for the development of victim impact statements in this province.
Now, Madam Speaker, it was at the 1996 convention of New Democrats in Manitoba that a resolution was unanimously endorsed by delegates to direct our caucus to bring into this legislature legislation to protect victims' rights and provide enforcement.
In September of 1997 during the Portage la Prairie by-election then, our leader announced that our caucus would be introducing victims' rights legislation into this Assembly. Interestingly, it was only after that announcement that the government became interested in talking about legislated rights for victims. Until then the government had apparently rejected any notion that there should be legislation brought in to address the needs of victims in this province.
A number of months ago we outlined the concerns of Manitoba victims as we have heard those concerns and set out a discussion document which contained in there draft legislation for Victims' Bill of Rights. I just want to table that in the House.
What was important to the drafting of the legislation was the consultations that we had and the horror stories that were brought to our attention by victims of crime in Manitoba. This party has long advocated for those who do not have power and privilege and have long sought a rightful role for healing those harmed by serious wrongdoings.
It is in the context of that purpose of the New Democratic Party that we now seek to provide a real voice for victims of crime. Victims of crime are virtually powerless in the criminal justice system. As I have said time and again, the victim is the most affected by a crime and yet is the party most left out of the process. That has to change. We certainly know of the extensive recognition and entrenchment of rights for offenders. What we seek is a balance to ensure that the needs of victims and their rights are now given a rightful place in the justice system.
We believe that cases will be stronger when the victim is afforded respect and involvement in the case that affects them. We think it is also important that victims not be victimized a second time by a system that does not take into consideration their needs and really discounts their role.
I have heard it said that victims currently in the system are treated no differently than a bloody shirt or some other piece of physical evidence. The victims are only paid attention to when they are needed as witnesses in their criminal prosecution.
Madam Speaker, the lack of respect for victims under the current government is also a driving force behind this legislation. This government week after week has been found to have turned its back on victims of crime and whether that is as a result of failing to inform them of the progress of a case, failing to institute a victim impact statement program in Manitoba like almost every other jurisdiction in Canada has, whether it is because of plea bargaining, generous plea bargaining that even the Court of Appeal has said has been wrongly done lately without involving the victim, whether it is because of a lack of attention to the ability to ensure restitution for a victim, this government has a sorry record. This legislation, therefore, seeks to address that serious shortcoming.
* (1710)
Before the Legislature, Madam Speaker, is legislation now introduced by this government to deal with victims. We had hoped that the government would have paid attention to our proposals and would have adopted many of the rights that we set out in this bill and would have ensured the kind of enforcement mechanisms that we put in our bill. It has failed to do that. Their legislation is a great disappointment and does not meet the needs of victims in Manitoba. I, therefore, with even greater conviction now, urge this Assembly to consider the legislation that we are now presenting and urge the government to amend this legislation to incorporate the features that are contained in our bill.
It is important, Madam Speaker, that victims not only be able to be notified of the case that involves them but also to participate in the prosecution of that case. It is further important that a victim be given the right to greater protection from harm and, of course, as I said earlier, have the right to the enforcement of their rights.
In this legislation, we recognize that the most important right of a victim is to be informed of the rights available at law. That is the threshold right. Rights do not mean anything if one does not know what they are, so unlike the government bill, Madam Speaker, it is mandatory in our legislation that victims of crime be advised of their rights under the bill. It is also mandatory that victims be advised of assistance programs, compensation and protection orders. On request, victims are given a right under this legislation to know of the dates, locations and outcomes of all court proceedings, of any proposed plea bargains and the details of an offender's release, whereabouts and conditions. That, however, is mandatory when there is a release on bail.
The right to participate in the prosecution is an important aspect of this legislation, and we looked elsewhere, particularly around North America, and we incorporated some of the strongest features of legislation that enables a voice for the victim in prosecutions. It is important that the victim be able to describe to the court, orally or in writing, the impact of the crime, have input into bail and conditions and diversion, have input into the staying of charges, into proposed plea bargains, to seek restitution from the court, to comment on pre-sentence reports, to bring a support person to the trial and to have input into an offender's release from custody and, as well, to provide access for the disabled, to provide interpreters and culturally sensitive services in the justice system. These are so important that they are contained as enforceable rights within this bill.
It is also important that the need to be protected from harm be ensured to victims, and this bill provides on request for the confidentiality of the address, telephone number and place of employment of a victim. It provides notification if the accused is released on bail, plus the conditions of bail, to secure a waiting area during court proceedings, not to be disciplined by an employer for participating in a proceeding, to be interviewed by a person of the same gender in a sexual offence, and to copies of court documents relevant to safety.
Very important, Madam Speaker, is the right to the enforcement of rights by a complaint process to a new crime victim investigator by civil court action outside of the criminal court system, by requiring compliance in the job descriptions of Justice officials with the rights set out in the act, and by the Attorney General implementing incentives and sanctions for compliance.
Madam Speaker, I hope the government will have second thoughts about its legislation, which is not up to the standard, and, therefore, I urge consideration of this bill by this House.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, just on a matter of House Business, with the leave of the House, I would like to announce that the Law Amendments committee will meet on Thursday morning of this week at 10 a.m. to consider bills passed in this Chamber: Bills 4, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 27 and 42.
It is our intention, Madam Speaker, that on Thursday morning there be two private members' hours in this Chamber, and, while that is happening, the Law Amendments committee would be sitting, with the leave of the House.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave for the Standing Committee on Law Amendments to sit on Thursday morning concurrent with the House sitting in the Chamber? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Leave has been granted. The Standing Committee on Law Amendments will, therefore, meet on Thursday morning, June 4, at 10 a.m. to consider the following: Bills 4, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 27 and 42.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos),
"WHEREAS immigration has a net economic and social benefit for our society by providing labour and investment, purchasing power for goods and services, attendance at universities and stimulation for job creation; and
"WHEREAS in the 1993 election, the Federal Liberal Party promised to maintain a fair immigration policy; and
"WHEREAS the Federal Liberal Government has imposed a $975 right-of-landing fee combined with a $500 application fee for permanent residence, while reducing opportunities to sponsor relatives for family reunification; and
"WHEREAS in addition, there is a wide range of other fees affecting immigrants such as $200 to take out Canadian citizenship and $75 for a proof of citizenship card; and
"WHEREAS these fees prove to be prohibitive for many potential new immigrants; and
"WHEREAS stemming immigration hurts Manitoba's economy and stifles attempts to revitalize our province.
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Federal Government to keep its promises on fair immigration policies, especially as they apply to family reunification; and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Federal Government to abolish the discriminatory 'head tax' on new immigrants."
Motion presented.
* (1720)
Mr. Hickes: I am pleased to rise today and bring forward this resolution because I think it is crucial to our great province of Manitoba. When we look at the make-up of Manitoba and especially the make-up of Canada, we only look at the First Nations communities. Then we look out of the First Nations communities and the individuals that make up that population through their family tree or through their ancestry, at one time or another, had to immigrate to Canada. We are fortunate that these individuals chose Manitoba as their new homes.
If you reflect back and you look at a lot of our very prominent citizens of our great province, through our fair immigration policies, a lot of the individuals have really benefited our province as a whole and made great contributions to Canada as a country. If we had to follow the proposed immigration changes, which I am sure every member in this House would disagree with and hopefully encourage the federal government to have a serious look and maybe make those changes. If those policies had to be followed in the years that our population of Manitoba grew through immigration, a lot of them would not have had the opportunity to make Canada their new home.
A lot of individuals in this Chamber are products of that fair immigration policy. We only have to look in the mirror and just look at the great contributions that each member of this Chamber is making to our great province.
There is not a member in this Chamber who has not sought to be elected unless they really believed in helping their constituents and helping our province to, hopefully, produce quality services and make a contribution to the betterment of our citizens. But if you look at the changes that have reflected over the years, you only have to look at the right-of-landing fee of $975, which in some countries is more than a yearly salary for one individual.
If you look at the immigration to our province and to our country, a lot of the individuals that immigrate from other countries immigrate as families. So we are not here only talking about $975; you are talking of doubling that, and also the $500 processing fee. So just that tax alone, you are looking at $1,950 for a couple. You know in some countries that would be a rich fortune, so a lot of the individuals we want in our province to make their home here would not be able to immigrate to Manitoba just because of dollars and cents.
Yet we need those individuals to choose Manitoba as their new homes. If you look back in history, and you look at our own grandparents and, in a lot of cases, our own parents, it was normal to have large families. It was very normal for families to be five, six, seven children in the family, and in cases 12, 13 children in the family, but that is not happening today. A lot of families are having only two or three children, so our population is declining. So, if we let our population decline, that means we are losing the economic spin-off for our province through purchasing power for our businesses and through the opportunity of employment opportunities, even through our tax system.
We need people to continue buying our goods, buying houses, buying cars, buying televisions, and manufacturing those products. Sure I agree that we need to look at the business side of immigration. Yes, we need people with wealth to come to Canada, but we cannot only rely and only have people of wealth to immigrate to Canada, because I know that we have always been a very friendly country. Our arms have been open to new Canadians. We are very fortunate to have them choose our country as their new home.
If we only leave it to the individuals that have wealth, I do not know what would happen to our country because we need hardworking individuals that will provide our shrinking labour force. For one thing we need the painters. We need the plumbers. We need the electricians and on and on and on. So, when a person chooses, we should not put barriers in front of individuals.
The other cost that a new Canadian or a potential immigrant to Canada is $200 to take out Canadian citizenship, and $75 for proof of a citizenship card. So, if you tally those costs up, I am afraid we are heading in the wrong direction. We are making immigration to Canada out of reach of a lot of individuals.
If you just look at the makeup of our province, you have individuals from the Phillippines, from China, from Asian countries, from European countries. If you look at and talk to those families, it is very difficult for a lot of individuals to put those kinds of dollars together to come to Canada. I do not want to see where we as a province and as a country are sort of leaning towards only European immigration versus Asian countries, because it is a lot easier for individuals to immigrate to Canada from Europe because of their wage structure alone. Their wage structure is very comparable to ours, so $975 for one individual has a lot different meaning to someone from an Asian country versus someone from a European country. It would be easier for individuals, say, from England or France or Germany, where the wages are very comparable, to afford the opportunity to come to Canada.
The other thing that I stress and I hope, and I am sure all members of the Legislature will support, is the whole family reunification sponsorship, because we talk as families in this Chamber, we talk of families and the importance of families. When we welcome people into our country and our province, we should also welcome the families. Because if you only look at grandparents as an example, the grandparents in most families are the educators of the families. They are the ones that look after the children. They teach the children the language. They teach the culture, because I knew, when I was growing up, one of the main reasons why I retained my first tongue is because I spent a lot of time with my grandparents. They are the ones that built the foundation for my values that I have today. They are the ones that instilled the importance of hunting and fishing and sharing, and pertaining to who I am, and to be proud of who I am, no matter what anybody else says.
So, with those few words, I hope, I encourage all members of this Chamber to support this, because it is a very friendly resolution. We are encouraging the federal government to take a second look and, hopefully, will open the doors for more immigration into our great province. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I get to talk on an issue in which I feel very close to in the sense that there is likely no other issue that comes up more as a constituency issue for me in areas of immigration, and I am talking about specific cases. If I was to rank them, immigration would probably be the first one right at the top as I try to deal with constituents, even if it does not necessarily fall within my jurisdiction, because I recognize the importance of that particular issue.
In reading through the resolution I know the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) is hoping to get all-party support for it. I do not necessarily believe, as the resolution reads, that it is something in which I could in fact support. I think that there are a number of concerns that I have. I think that there is a more constructive way. The essence of the resolution in opposition of the landing fee I support wholeheartedly. I do not have any problem with that, Madam Speaker. I think the landing fee is something in which is, or it has the potential to have an impact. Whether or not it has an impact is really secondary for me. What I believe is important is that Canada retain an open-door policy towards immigration, as it has generally speaking. In the past, there have been exceptions. I do not necessarily believe the $975 landing fee is a positive thing, and I would like to see the government of Canada withdraw that.
* (1730)
It is nothing new with respect to that particular position. The provincial Liberal Party has adopted that position. In fact, when the landing fee initially came out, I had made a trip to Toronto with our then-leader, Paul Edwards, to meet with the Minister of Immigration, and share the concerns that I had with respect to the landing fee. The Minister of Immigration at the time had indicated one of the choices that he was given was that he had to look at either coming up with some resources or cutting back at other ends. What was being suggested was the immigration settlement type of package, so that when immigrants come to Canada there might have to be some cuts.
He chose to favour the landing fee. Well, Madam Speaker, even though I do not agree with my federal counterparts in Ottawa with respect to the landing fee, and as I expressed to the minister first-hand and I have expressed to other members of Parliament of the same political party that I belong to, the fee still stands. There was a great deal of concern that we raised with respect to if you are going to have this fee, that when you are collecting the fee is also very important, and I think that there has been some movement in that area. I think that the government has at the very least provided the opportunity for individuals to pay back in the future, so that, in fact, individuals who are in a country where they might not necessarily have the financial resources to immigrate to Canada, at least it is being addressed.
Again, Madam Speaker, by talking about that, it does not necessarily mean that I support it. I did not support the landing fee when it first came out, and I do not support it today. I think that is the essence of the resolution which the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) is trying to get across, and if, in fact, that essence was reflected in more, I would suggest, appropriate wording--it can still be strong--I would be more inclined to support it.
It definitely has other implications within the resolution. It takes very strong lines or at least implies in part in the third WHEREAS, for example, that the federal Liberal government has imposed a $975 right-of-landing fee which no one questions, combined with the $500 application fee. Well, the Liberals did not impose the full $500 application fee.
Now, I raise it because in the last provincial election, it was an issue which my opponent had used, and it is an issue which I addressed head on. There was a lot of misinformation that was being provided, misinformation that it was going to cost you over $1,400 to come to Canada as an immigrant, so if you were a family of four people, let us say from the Philippines, you were going to be looking at somewhere in the neighbourhood of $6,000.
Well, Madam Speaker, that is just not accurate, but that is the type of misinformation that was being intentionally sent out in order, I would argue, to get individuals who might have been inclined to support me as a Liberal offended enough to the degree where they would not support me, even though it was not within provincial jurisdiction. I had argued with many of those individuals who brought it up that there are so many things within health care, within education, that were taking place, that that is what we should be basing our vote on, that you should not be looking at the federal counterparts, and if you disagree with what they are doing, do not automatically assume that it is something which I support or the provincial Liberal Party supports. So, when I read that particular WHEREAS, I am wondering to what extent that could be potentially used against me in the future.
Madam Speaker, the most positive WHEREAS in there is the very first one where it talks about the benefits of immigrants. I would suggest to you that Manitoba has been robbed of our share of immigrants over the years, that, in fact, we should have received thousands more immigrants to our province over the last decade, that we have been at the short end of the stick for far too long.
One of the positive things that Ottawa has done is they have entered into for a first time a bilateral immigration agreement with the province. So the province actually has more opportunity to bring in more immigrants, and I think that is a positive. We can emphasize the need for family reunification because Manitoba is unique. Manitoba's most successful immigrants have been under family reunification, and I think that is an area which we need to be promoting.
But one of the things that has always been a very important issue to me has been the government's approach at trying to deal with the so-called fair share of immigrants to our province. Well, Madam Speaker, what the government and the official opposition have argued in the past is that we would like to see somewhere in the neighbourhood of that 3.5 percent, 3.8 percent of the total immigration that comes to Canada coming to the province of Manitoba.
Well, the government is wrong, I believe, in arguing that point. What the government should be doing is looking at the type of immigrants that would best serve the province of Manitoba under family reunification in particular and set our own target.
So, if Ottawa says, well, we want 200,000 immigrants, nothing prevents us from saying, well, in Manitoba we believe that we can sustain, quite easily a 1 percent, or, if you like, somewhere in the neighbourhood of, let us say, 10,000 immigrants depending on the classifications that are coming from abroad. That is how many we could absorb in the province of Manitoba. That is, in fact, what we should be arguing for. We should not be articulating that we want to have 3.6 or 3.7 or whatever our percentage of the overall population of Canada is and then take that percentage and argue for the same percentage with the number of immigrants that happen to be coming in in any given year.
I would have liked to have seen that particular issue addressed in this particular resolution. If the opposition or the government wanted to see a resolution in which you would receive all-party support inside this Chamber, I would think one of the first things you would want to do would be to sit down with all three representatives of the political party and come up with some sort of a consensus.
* (1740)
It was a couple of hours ago the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) indicated to me that the government was thinking of amending this particular resolution. I have not seen anything--well, I should not say anything--20 minutes, or 10, 15 minutes ago is the first time I actually caught wind of that, in fact, that the Chamber was looking at some form of passing of this particular resolution.
Well, if you want to be able to put individuals in a position of having to give unanimous support, I would think that you should provide them the courtesy of at least allowing them to have proper input into the resolution. I do not believe that that has necessarily happened, at least from my point of view. I think that is something that is worthy of making note of because you need to have a high sense of co-operation, I would argue, if in fact you want to be able to pass resolutions in the Chamber.
I know I have spoken on many resolutions inside this Chamber, and we have seen a few of those resolutions actually pass. Generally speaking, I think it is important to see parties getting together to be able to support good ideas. This particular resolution, as it currently stands, I know I would have liked the opportunity to have consulted with other members from within the Liberal Party. Whether we have very prominent community leaders, like whether it is a Fred De Villa or it is a Mohindar Singh Pannu or any other individual that this Chamber was looking at trying to accomplish an all-party agreement on, then I could have at least solicited some sort of feedback from what other people would have to say.
Because this, in general, the essence of the resolution is something which can be supported. It can be supported because the essence of the $975 landing fee, Madam Speaker, that is what we are talking about. That is something in which I can tell you that the party and the provincial party does not support. We have more in terms of percentage of immigrants that are coming to the province compared to other provinces, and I think there is a lot more that we could be getting.
Madam Speaker, what I would have really liked to have seen is sitting down with the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and possibly others that would have been interested, because there are some other concerns that maybe we could have had a more all-encompassing resolution. [interjection] Well, there are a number of different issues that are facing immigration which an all-party resolution could have sent a very strong, positive message. Hopefully I will get another opportunity to conclude my remarks.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) for bringing this matter to the House today. I understand there have been discussions between the honourable member and the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey), and with a minor amendment we might end up with something acceptable to this House today, despite the comments of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). I simply cannot understand anybody who would not want to be supportive, any Manitoban, of what the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and the minister have been able to agree to.
Madam Speaker, unless we are aboriginal Canadians, we are all immigrants or the descendants of immigrants in this country and in this province. That makes us the richest country in the world in my opinion. I have long believed that.
I remember Sharon Carstairs so well who loved to talk about how poor we are as a province and how much of a have-not province we are. I know that we get into debates about some of our problems and that is what we should do, but why would anyone want to harp away about how we are a have-not province? How does that instill hope and strength in the younger generation, or indeed in ourselves to look forward to the future with confidence and to build and to work hard, to make our lives better and to make us something other than a have-not province?
Now, I did not mean to turn this discussion into something negative because I believe it is a very positive point we are trying to make here. Manitoba has grown and has prospered with the contribution of immigrants and recognizes the social, cultural and economic benefits that newcomers bring to our province.
In recent years, federal immigration policies have tended to have an inequitable impact on family class and refugee immigration. Manitoba appreciates the difficulties that immigrants face in raising funds to pay the $975 right-of-landing fee and the $500 immigration application processing fee for each adult. We know the difficulties associated with that. I have numbers that indicate that something is having the effect of curtailing the growth in immigration at a time when we need strong immigration policies to help not only enrich the cultural diversity of our province, but also, and very, very importantly too, the economic health of our province.
We need customers for our shops. We need consumers of our goods. We need people to produce those goods, and we need people to serve those customers. So it is a full circle. I agree with the honourable sentiments which bring the honourable member's resolution before us today. Without a lot of debate because I think we are going to do something special here, we are going to pass something and have a meeting of the minds.
Madam Speaker, I think that the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) can surely look into the depths of his soul and find his way clear to supporting what it is that is being proposed here today. The wording in my amendment is simply something worked out by the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey). It is acceptable, I understand, to both of them and makes the resolution acceptable to everyone in this House in my respectful opinion.
So, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), who shares with me these sentiments about the value of immigration to our province, that the final paragraph in the resolution be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "Be it further resolved that the Members of this Assembly urge the Federal Government to review the fees it charges immigrants in the interest of greater fairness and equity."
* (1750)
Madam Speaker: The amendment is in order. However, it has been the practice of this Speaker to take all amendments under advisement, but if there is willingness of the House to deal with the amendment, I will therefore do so. [agreed]
There is an agreement, okay.
Motion presented.
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I just stand to speak on two points and very quickly. The allegation that immigrants take away jobs from mainstream Canadians, this is a myth because in a study in 1986 by John Samuel, it concluded that on balance immigrants create more jobs than they take.
Because this study was in 1986, the Economic Council of Canada made another study in 1991. It corroborated and confirmed this finding that immigrants contributed to the economic development of this country more than they take anything from mainstream Canadians. If they take anything at all, it is the job that the mainstream Canadians do not like, like being a seamstress in the garment factory.
Another point I would like to make is that immigrants are costing the federal government too much money in terms of social benefits. This is not so, because by charging $975 head tax just for applying and right-of-landing fee, and another $500 for processing the fee, again imposing some kind of a $10,000 bond to ensure that immigrants will not use the social safety network, that will be assurance that they are no longer a burden, nor do they take anything from the social programs of Canadians.
In fact, I know that seniors from foreign countries have to wait for 10 years before they even qualify for any kind of program by the federal government, such as the program that gives them a little bit of money because they cannot contribute to the pension plan anymore.
This point I would like to emphasize. On the whole, immigration in our country is for the benefit of Canada and this province. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, speaking to the amendment?
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I think that the government House leader's amendment--and I would not mind to just get a copy of it--from what I have heard, I think it is a positive change. I have had opportunity to have some discussions with the members for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) as they are trying to address a couple of other changes. I think if those changes were given, that we could, in fact, have that unanimous support.
But, having said that, Madam Speaker, I think that along with the resolution, members' comments should also be provided. When we talk about reducing--like, the $975, in one of the WHEREASes--and I do not have it right in front of me so I am just going strictly by memory here. It talks about reducing reunification of families. Well, I know that the government has done things that have assisted in reunification. This, no doubt, the $975, will have an impact, but there are other areas in which the government has made positive steps toward immigration. I think we would be remiss in not acknowledging that.
So I wanted to make it very clear on the record that even though the $975 has the unanimous support, I believe, of members of this Chamber, there is also recognition that there have been initiatives, such as the bilateral immigration agreement, which I think in the long term can have a very positive impact for the province of Manitoba.
What I look forward to seeing is a much more active role in this area but recognize at all times that it is the national government that plays the leading role. I was led to believe that there were a number of provinces that were actually quite supportive of the actions that the federal government has taken. I think what that means is that in a national situation you cannot please everyone all of the time. I would have liked to have seen Manitoba as concerned with respect to that $975 fee and not only listened to but also acted upon.
I know that the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) is getting very close to seeking some of the changes that would at least address the concerns that I have expressed. I know that if, in fact, they are addressed, there would in all likelihood even be leave inside the House not to see the clock in order that the member for St. Norbert can get those amendments brought forward.
So if by chance six o'clock comes a little quicker than the member for St. Norbert might be prepared, I am sure that there would be leave of the Chamber to accommodate the member for St. Norbert to facilitate those two amendments. Having said that, I did want to again emphasize the important role, as the government House leader--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, because I understand with a little honest brokering going on with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), we may still have something we can all agree on here, and if it is necessary not to see the clock for a couple of minutes after six o'clock, that would be okay with honourable members on this side of the House.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House for the Speaker not to see the clock at six o'clock? [agreed]
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, I believe that with a friendly amendment we might have willingness of the House to pass this forward on a vote.
I move, seconded by the honourable government House leader (Mr. McCrae), that the third WHEREAS clause be amended by adding "an already existing" preceding "a $500 application fee," and that the fourth WHEREAS clause be deleted.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Regretfully, procedurally, the honourable member for St. Norbert cannot move a further amendment.
Is the House ready for the amendment? The amendment moved by the honourable government House leader (Mr. McCrae), seconded by the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that the final paragraph be deleted and the following substituted.
Is the House ready for the question? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House to adopt the amendment? The resolution is accordingly amended as proposed.
Mr. Laurendeau: Madam Speaker, we have come to a friendly agreement. With leave of the House, I would like to move a further amendment.
I move, seconded by the honourable government House leader (Mr. McCrae), that the third WHEREAS clause be amended by adding "an already existing" preceding "a $500 application fee," and that the fourth WHEREAS clause be deleted.
Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for St. Norbert, seconded by the honourable government House leader, that the third WHEREAS clause be amended by adding "an already existing" "a $500 application fee." The words "already existing" to precede the "$500 application fee," and that the fourth WHEREAS, which reads WHEREAS in addition, there is a wide range of other fees affecting immigrants such as $200 to take out Canadian citizenship and $75 for a proof of citizenship card be deleted. Agreed?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the proposed resolution as amended? Agreed?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).