Legislative Review Secretariat,
Narono Building,
10th Floor,
360 Laurier Avenue, West,
Ottawa, Ontario,
K1A 1L1

Dear Sirs:

The Canada First Immigration Reform Committee publishes a monthly newsletter, the Canadian Immigration Hotline, that reaches 2,500 readers. We also have Canada's largest immigration reform website, which attracts 120,000 visitors a month. In 1998, we commissioned a Decima research poll (results attached as Appendix 2) on Canadian attitudes to immigration. This poll found that a majority of Canadians backed the idea of a mandatory five year moratorium on all immigration and refugee intake until Canada's endemic unemployment rate can be significantly lowered.

In a nutshell, here are our recommendations:

1. A five year moratorium on all immigration and refugee intake, until unemployment levels can be significantly lowered;

2. A full national debate on immigration and population policy, with access to public television and radio to all sides of the debate;

3. A binding national referendum on the government's proposed immigration policy formed after the full national debate.

Immigration determines the future of a country, especially when that country is the recipient of massive immigration (over a million people in the past five years) that is fundamentally changing the ethnic makeup of this country. Participatory democracy demands that such fundamental changes should only occur when there has been a full national debate and the resulting policy has been endorsed by Canadian citizens in a referendum. For too long the government has listened only to "stakeholders"; that is, greedy, self-interested immigration lawyers, selfish immigrant groups and bureaucrats in the immigrant/refugee service industry -- ESL teachers who have pay cheques to protect. Left out of the debate are the majority of Canadians who have to pay for the costs of the immigration programme and live with the consequences of having their communities changed.

The present immigration/refugee policy is a disgrace. It is a mess. Thousands of persons ordered deported are still in Canada, including many criminals. [See Appendix 3.] Because we allow people to self-designate as "refugees" and because many of these people have destroyed their travel documents, we are in the position of not knowing whom we're dealing with. These people cost us billions in welfare, legal aid, medicare and processing. We further urge:

4. That Parliament invoke the notwithstanding clause to overcome the Singh decision and to accept only those refugees who apply from abroad and are there vetted for security and health. Those arriving by air or land and claiming "refugee" status should be detained and turned back.

There are serious health concerns about many immigrants and refugees. South East Asia and China are major breeding grounds of hepatitis and tuberculosis. The foremost obligation of any immigration/refugee policy is to put the health, safety and interests of Canada and Canadians first.

5. All immigrants and visitors from these lands, as well as India and Russia, [See Appendix 1 below] should be required to have a recent valid medical document stating that they are free of these diseases.

We reject the "Directions for Reform" contained in Building on a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century: New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policy Legislation. These are not "directions for reform" but self-congratulatory declarations that all is well.

The first direction proclaims the goal: "To continue to move toward increased social cohesion and economic health. ... Immigration will contribute to the achievement of these goals." This is manifest nonsense of "the earth is flat" variety. Canada's immigration patterns have brought in widely diverse cultures -- over 85 per cent of current intake is from non-traditional sources. These people have widely different and conflicting religious, social, and political values. Multicultural policies urge them to revel in and flaunt this diversity, rather than conforming to the Canadian mainstream. No social cohesion can flow from such immigration. How is "economic health" promoted by bringing in over 200,000 more people -- many with few job or language skills -- when Canada's unemployment rate is over 8 per cent, twice that of our American neighbour?

The second direction is, if anything, even more preposterous: "In an environment where one in three Canadian jobs depends on trade, immigration plays a vital role in building bridges between Canada and other countries." That's great theory, but there's little empirical evidence that it's true. Canada's trade in increasingly and overwhelmingly (84 per cent) with the U.S., which is, interestingly, not a major source of immigrants to Canada. There is little evidence that newcomers from China or India or Somalia are opening up vast trading markets for Canadian goods. Successful merchants didn't have to move here to do business. Most of those coming here have few language or entrepreneurial skills to fulfil this dream role.

The third direction goes contrary to the primary duty of any sovereign government -- to put the needs of its citizens and taxpayers first! "We will not turn our backs on those people who need our help the most." Agreed, if we mean Canadians. There should be not one more foreign "refugee" allowed into Canada as long as there is a single homeless Canadian freezing and huddled on a Toronto/Montreal/Ottawa/Vancouver street.

The final direction proclaims "diversity as a source of strength." On the contrary, diversity is a source of discord, disunity and a lack of cohesion.

The Canada First Immigration Reform Committee trusts the minister's assurance that she seeks a wide-ranging public consultation on immigration policy. We, therefore, request an invitation to meet with the minister and to appear before whatever consultative body is formed to further hone proposals for changes to Canada's Immigration Act.

Submitted by:

APPENDIX 3

September 12, 1997

Re: Loss of Control of Canada's Borders

Dear Member of Parliament:

I trust that you will agree that a basic mark of a nation's sovereignty is its ability to control its own borders. Recent events suggest that Canada has lost effective control of its borders.

Consider the following scandals:

* On July 11, two heroin smugglers received terms of 20 years in prison in absentia in Vancouver. They had skipped out on ridiculously low $50,000 bail. The two were Hong Chiang Ho and Ming Pui Sam.The sentencing judge called the two "terrorists" The Globe and Mail (July 12, 1997) reported: "Mr. Ho is a landed immigrant who came to Canada as a refugee from China in 1989. Mr. Sum has been a refugee claimant from China since 1991." Questions: Who checked Hong Chiang Ho for a criminal record prior to his being accepted as a "refugee"? What did this criminal record check show? Is such information adequate to protect Canadians? As for Mr. Sum, he demonstrates the folly of permitting a person to make a refugee claim from within Canada. He had six years to pursue a criminal career while pursuing his "refugee" claim. * Hundreds of Gypsies have poured into Canada following a Czech television show portraying Canada as a generous and easy touch. George Kubes a Toronto lawyer extolled the benefits of Canada. In a seeming conflict of interest, Kubes represents 50 Gypsy families and, of course, has his fees paid by legal aid; that is, the taxpayers. The resulting influx of "refugee" claimants taxed Toronto's emergency housing to the breaking point. Native born Canadians in urgent need of shelter found themselves disadvantaged by the flood of newcomers. The patent absurdity of the Gypsy claims can be seen from the fact that they chose not to apply for refugee status at the Canadian Embassy in Prague, but chose, instead, to apply after coming here, knowing that they could claim welfare, legal aid, and medicare. The right to fly into Canada and designate oneself a "refugee" and to become immediately a burden on the Canadian taxpayer is a signal weakness of the present system. Shouldn't the present laws be amended to require all refugee claimants to apply abroad and to be assessed abroad?

* On September 10, in Toronto, "police arrested 35 illegal immigrants ... in a massive crackdown on organized prostitution. ... Among those arrested was a woman police claimed is the leader of a gang that brought illegal immigrants to Canada from Asia to work as prostitutes." (Toronto Star, September 11, 1997) How did these illegals gain entry to Canada?

I urge you to press for answers to these questions in the new session of Parliament. I urge you to work to secure our borders and to put Canada and Canadians first, by protecting us from criminals and those who would come to exploit the benefits we offer.