Debates of Feb. 16th, 1999

Citizenship Of Canada Act

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for the third time I will try. I hope the parliamentary secretary is listening this time because he certainly has not been listening to anything that has been said so far.

I will mention something one more time. Perhaps I will slow down a bit for the parliamentary secretary so he can understand that the minister is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. That is the whole realm of the minister's responsibility. She has brought in a bill having to do with citizenship and the citizenship act. I know the members opposite continue to heckle because they do not want to listen to substantive changes. They do not want to listen to positive changes. There is a force of negativity coming from the government side. Rather than listening to positive ideas and suggestions of how to fix the system, how to improve this bill and how to improve the immigration system itself, the government wants to shout down opposition.

It does not want to listen to ideas being brought forward by Canadians, by lots of people, by one of the minister's own consultants, Dr. Don DeVoretz of Simon Fraser University, whom the minister consults with regularly and who points out some of the problems not only with this bill but with the immigration system as well.

I had hoped that the government would be willing to listen to some of these suggestions. Obviously that does not seem to be happening so far today. I can only hope that the government's manners improve a bit today and that it has the opportunity to listen, because there are lots of people calling for changes to a system that is broken and hoping that the minister will take action to address these problems.

In this bill I do not see a lot of substantive changes. I thank you for listening, Mr. Speaker. You have been very attentive. I wish I could say the same for the government members.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague who has tried on two occasions to address the issue if he could maybe point out for the benefit of the government members who do not seem to see a connection between immigration and citizenship and perhaps very succinctly explain to them how the relationship is there between immigration and Canadian citizenship.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

As I was trying to say earlier in my speech, of course citizenship and the act of immigration are intricately linked.

Individuals who come to our country through the immigration system are the individuals who end up becoming citizens of this country. That is how Canada was built. Canada was built on the positive force of immigration, people coming from other countries to settle here and build this great country.

I am a bit surprised that members of the government do not see that link. They are linked in such a way that I do not think it needs explaining, but obviously it does to the members of the government.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with Bill C-63 we are dealing with an act of citizenship.

I might point out for the member opposite that it deals with all Canadian citizens and there are 28 million plus Canadian citizens in this country.

I personally and on behalf of the government take great exception to having opposition members stand in their place day after day attacking immigrants and attacking refugees. They say that they are only dealing with a small percentage. But the fact of the matter is if one is to examine everything the Reform Party has said about immigrants and refugees, it is making links to criminality.

I came to this country as a refugee. There are many refugees in this country who became citizens. I tell the members of the Reform Party that you will not get support from new Canadians when you continuously attack and smear them.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the member would like to get excited about this, but I notice he is not addressing the Chair when he is speaking. I just ask that he settle down and keep things cool and address the Chair.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. House leader has a point. The parliamentary secretary I am sure will address his remarks to the Chair and not to other members of the House.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not only do they attack refugees and attack immigrants, they attack aboriginal people on a continuous basis in the House.

How does the member opposite—

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have to suggest that this person is totally off topic. He is not making any relevant comments to the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The parliamentary secretary does appear to be asking a question or making a comment in relation to the previous speech. I know he is about to ask a question which I assume will have some relevance to the speech.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they seem kind of touchy on that side and I can understand it, being a party that is compassionately challenged.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the parliamentary secretary said we attacked aboriginal people. I would like an apology from the parliamentary secretary. He is talking about my family. Please withdraw that comment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member has made his point but I am not sure he has a point of order.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to wrap it up and pose the question, how can the official opposition exhibit the kind of intolerance it has toward aboriginal people, immigrants and refugees, and expect to promote good citizenship in this country when it is forever slandering those people?

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of rhetoric coming from the parliamentary secretary and I think that is obvious to all in the House and I hope obvious to all watching today.

Let me ask the parliamentary secretary a question to see if he would agree with one of his own members of the government, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam who made the following statement. He uses this rhetoric about the Reform Party being against immigration which is completely untrue. He knows it and he is continuing this rhetoric. I will quote directly what a member of the Liberal government said: “I happen to believe that by deporting refugee claimants convicted of dealing drugs we would be taking a major step forward in the fight against the illegal sale of drugs. They should be deported immediately with no review or appeal allowed to drag things out”.

That is a member of the government making that comment and I cannot believe it. That is extremism. That is an unbelievable comment coming from a member of the government. The members have the gall to stand in their places and throw stones here when all we are pointing out is that the system needs to be changed. The problems that are so glaring need to be addressed and the members of the government are unwilling and unable to do it. All they can do is throw stones and be negative where we will be a positive force. We will make the positive changes that are needed to fix the problems with the system. That is what we are here for. We are here for positiveness, not for the negativity we hear from the government side.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will point out a couple of things and then I will ask a question.

I am an immigrant. I immigrated to Canada in 1968. I guess the parliamentary secretary thinks I would stand up and slander myself. He says we slander immigrants, which I totally object to.

A good deal of our caucus consists of immigrants and they are valuable and good Canadians. There was a quote from the country I come from that I was reminded of recently and I will pass it on to this parliamentary secretary.

The person said remember that we have two ears and one mouth and only one of them was meant to close. I hope that some of these people, particularly the parliamentary secretary, will remember that when he is sitting and supposed to be listening to speeches. He will have his turn to talk, I am sure.

I express to the member that we went through quite a lengthy process when I came to Canada in 1968 with regard to obtaining our citizenship. I thought it was valuable. I thought it was worthwhile and it is something that should be done. It is something that has ceased being done to the extent that it was in 1968. I thought it was great the way they did it in the years we arrived. Now they have become very loose and very different which has not been positive for this country.

Does the member feel we need to strengthen the qualifications for citizenship in comparison to what they used to be? Does he believe there should not be any screening at all? The parliamentary secretary seems to believe that if we do screen, we are slandering these people. I would like the member's comments on that.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, citizenship is a positive force in our country and we know that. The minister is bringing forward a bill and I was pointing out that I thought she should have some other priorities over and above this bill.

The member talked about being an immigrant himself, as many of our caucus members are. We know that being a citizen is a privilege in this country. Individuals who work toward citizenship do so with the intention of making a positive contribution to this country, and we appreciate that. That is what Canada was built on.

I point out once again that it is the members of the official opposition who are pointing out problems with the system that need to be fixed and members opposite seem to think that is a problem. They do not even listen to their own minister's panel which says that this kind of unspoken censorship has been a chronic problem for both journalists and politicians. If somebody makes a comment that we should improve the system, then that person must be against immigration, but nothing could be further from the truth. We are for immigration and that is why we ask that these problems be addressed.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will address the comments made by the members of the opposition in the last few minutes. Nowhere in this debate in which the members of the official opposition have participated have they mentioned anything about the Citizenship Act. The reason behind this debate is to make suggestions to the minister responsible regarding the bill before us now. Nowhere have I heard any creative or constructive suggestions regarding this bill. I remind the Canadian public that those members are talking about immigration and not about citizenship. My own remarks will touch directly on the subject.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to participate in the debate on Bill C-63 introduced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This is a bill I support fully, for a number of reasons.

Canadian society and its values have changed since the citizenship law of 1977. Canadians have changed. They now have friends and neighbours of various origins. More than ever they do business all over the planet. They adopt children from overseas and they travel more often than ever before.

With all these social changes, the distinction between citizens and immigrants has now often become synonymous with the distinction between existing citizens and potential citizens.

The wording of the new legislation on citizenship reflects what each of us feels increasingly in our identity as Canadians. By touching on political identity, this legislation reflects Canadians.

This legislation is the people of Canada. It is itself a citizenship act, because it does more than simply create legal Canadian citizenship, that is official citizenship for legal purposes. It also draws on Canadian citizenship, everyday citizenship as reflected in the love we feel for our country, the specific way we are Canadians.

I would like to emphasize two important aspects of Bill C-63. First, it corresponds to our modern way of understanding citizenship. Second, it recognizes the increased importance we give to the sentiment of belonging.

Traditionally, the Canadian concept of citizenship was better defined as the law of the soil rather than the law of the blood. Since the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, a child born of Mexican parents, for example, automatically became a Canadian citizen at birth if he was born on Canadian soil.

Even then, Canada was innovative. Our country was beginning to distance itself from narrow nationalism based on the law of the blood, which had twice brought disaster to Europe.

Our citizenship supports our values, which lead to the law of the soil, and in turn, based on acceptance and collective construction, support citizenship. Our citizenship is thus a constitutional identity rather than an organic, a tribal or even a mystic one.

This logic brings us to consider adopted children who, when this bill becomes law, will no longer be differentiated from natural born children. This is one of the important changes proposed by Bill C-63. Our government recognizes the importance of adoption for the family. And in fact for family members this will probably be one of the most critical events in their life.

An immigrant who becomes a citizen enjoys the same rights as any other Canadian, but in return, he or she has an obligation to respect the values and standards that make these rights possible. These exclusive rights we must not forget are actually acquired privileges and such privileges do not come free of charge to anyone.

Bill C-63 introduces a modified oath that places greater emphasis on the defence of Canadian civic and democratic values, rather than merely seeking to create a formal attachment to an abstract Canada.

Canada represents a particular set of values, experiences and feelings for each of us. The suggested oath briefly summarizes the rights and responsibilities inherent in our citizenship and identity as Canadians.

Canada is proud of its democratic principles and these principles apply to all residents. Non-Canadian landed immigrants have the same rights as Canadians, with one exception: they may not take part in the political aspects of democracy in this country.

Other than that, a landed immigrant may enjoy all aspects of life in Canada and the accompanying economic and social rights.

Later on if immigrants decide to really get involved in building our country, they will have to show that they are willing to do this in full knowledge of the requirements and responsibilities expected of citizens. They will have to ask explicitly for the privilege of citizenship and show that they understand all the implications of this new status.

I would now like to look at the second aspect of the citizenship bill, the key role a feeling of belonging plays in national unity.

We are all aware that the rules of trade have changed a great deal. Economic borders have become more permeable. International organizations and agreements such as NAFTA, APEC and WTO have codified laws and informal agreements that manage, encourage and facilitate transnational trade. Because trade is increasingly carried out across borders, business men and women travel much more often than they have ever done.

The government therefore understands the constraints faced by businessmen and women and recognizes the economic contribution they make.

Under the present legislation, three years of residence in Canada are required during the four years preceding an application for citizenship. However, in response to this new economic reality, Bill C-63 will allow a landed immigrant to reside in Canada for three years during a five-year period in order to qualify for citizenship.

We must not lose sight of the fact that citizenship is the cornerstone of political participation, a participation which is not fully possible for someone who has not had the opportunity to assimilate the country's values.

Thanks to Bill C-63, however, we will now require physical presence by the immigrant, and “cut-rate” citizenship will no longer be available.

I would now like to address the most important topic, the loss or the denial of citizenship for reasons of serious crimes.

Our government through Bill C-63 has shown that Canadians are not naive. Because citizenship is such an important notion, utmost vigilance is required. Immigrants who have come to Canada by the use of fraud and who come here to take advantage of the Canadian way of life through a false declaration will find the door closed to them.

Moreover, persons guilty of serious crimes or deemed to be a threat to national security will continue to be unwelcome. Bill C-63 enables us to tighten up this important means of rejection still further in order to protect Canadians properly.

In the same vein, the mechanisms for cancelling citizenship provided in Bill C-63 make it possible to do away with potential fraud or error by revoking the citizenship of persons who ought not to have been granted it.

This does not in any way mean that we will treat old and new citizens differently by threatening new citizens with a punishment inapplicable to old ones, namely loss of their citizenship. All citizens are equal; this is an inviolable principle.

No, this is an acknowledgment that, since the conditions necessary for recognition of citizenship have not been met by certain persons, it will be as if citizenship had never been granted to them.

Canada wants good honest citizens who are able to integrate. Someone who has committed fraud in this connection has, quite obviously, never met the prerequisites of the law. What is more, the serious crimes he has committed may rightly be interpreted as constituting a danger for all Canadians.

In addition, in certain cases citizenship will no longer be as readily passed from generation to generation as in the past.

In a family who has lived abroad for two generations, the third generation could now lose their citizenship at age 28. Let us use as an example a Canadian couple who today seeks a residence in another country. Their children will remain Canadian citizens throughout their entire lives. However, their grandchildren will have to come back and live in Canada for at least four years in the five years preceding their request to remain Canadian citizens and this before their 28th birthday.

In conclusion, I would like to add that Bill C-63 proposes legislation that is better suited to the Canada of today, while still retaining the historical, cultural and linguistic elements that have shaped the identity of our country, and continue to do so. They will even be enhanced and enriched by the contributions of new arrivals from all of the world's regions and all of the world's cultures.

Whether refugees or immigrants who have come to Canada to rejoin family members, to invest or to make new lives for themselves, these newcomers will understand, thanks to this new process of naturalization, that they are becoming members of a big family that owes them much but—and it is vital to keep this in mind—to whom they owe just as much.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member very carefully. I have reviewed Bill C-63 thoroughly and have found that the minister has drafted her own wording on the citizenship oath in the bill. The minister herself has attempted to give a definition of family or family relations.

She has completely ignored what Canadians are saying. She has not consulted members of parliament. There was no debate on those issues in the House. She has completely ignored the recommendations of the citizenship and immigration committee, which is dominated by Liberals, on the subject of citizenship given by birth.

I have noticed in the bill that the minister has garnished more and more power around herself rather than use a democratic process and listen to Canadians from coast to coast to coast and have the involvement of members of parliament, the elected officials in the House.

Since the minister has garnished more support around her and is making decisions behind closed doors without oversight by parliament, I would like to find out, if this is not Liberal arrogance, what it is.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely surprised by what the member of the official opposition has just said. He said that the minister has ignored Canadians. It seems to me that it is quite the opposite. The minister has travelled from coast to coast to coast. We all know that she travelled across Canada last year, met with hundreds of Canadians and asked for public consultation from coast to coast to coast. She has done this in my own riding and throughout my home province of Quebec and other provinces. That is one aspect.

The second aspect is that the intention of debate is to consult members not only of her caucus but of the other caucuses, the official opposition and the other opposition parties. This is exact reason we have parliamentary debate. It is Canadian tradition to debate a bill at second reading so I do not understand the comments of the hon. member across the floor.

We are talking about citizenship by birth. This particular bill continues the Canadian tradition of saying that children who are born on Canadian soil automatically become Canadian citizens. This is a longstanding tradition as I explained in the speech I just made. We want to continue this most important Canadian tradition.

I would like to ask a question of the hon. member who I know is a Canadian that was not born here but was born elsewhere. I cannot understand how people who have come here, who have been received into our Canadian family, can make comments which mean they would like to close the immigration door once they are on Canadian soil. This is totally unacceptable.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Laval West a question.

When she talks of national cohesion in Canada, does she know what provision there is in the spirit of the law for Quebec and the people of Quebec, especially? In Quebec, we must remember, 83% of the people do not speak the language of the majority of Canadians. So, I would ask my colleague what provision is made for this fact.

In the spirit of the Canadian arrangement, does this mean that newcomers arriving in Quebec find, although there is an obvious specificity, that this is not taken into account? Does this mean that, in the spirit of the legislation, the existence of Quebeckers as a people is denied, that Quebec is considered not only a province but a province just like all the others? I would like to hear her response. deaf

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the question from the hon. member of the opposition.

First of all, there is a legal agreement between Quebec and the Canadian government with respect to immigration and refugees. The Government of Quebec has a large say in the criteria for accepting immigrants into Quebec.

I would remind the member that the Government of Quebec already enjoys considerable autonomy in this regard.

Furthermore, the Government of Quebec has criteria such as knowledge of the French language and the culture of Quebec that it uses in screening immigrants wishing to come to Quebec. That is one point.

The second is that, under this agreement, the Government of Quebec receives a large sum of money from the federal government, giving it complete control over all the budgets for integrating immigrants into Quebec society. By integrating, I mean learning the French language and the culture of Quebec.

The Government of Quebec receives the money from the federal government and allocates it for the provision of courses in the French language and the culture of Quebec. Immigrants to Quebec are therefore able to learn the province's language and culture and be as fully integrated as possible into Quebec society.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made some racist comments. She said that since I was not born in Canada why was I trying to stop immigration. That is not true. I have frequently been accused of this by members opposite. They say that my party or myself is trying to stop immigration. That is complete nonsense and out of order.

On the other hand, the Liberals are bragging about what good they are allegedly doing for immigrants but then are doing the opposite to what they are saying. When they came to office in 1993 new immigrants were paying a $425 fee. Now new immigrants are paying a $1,500 fee. The extra $900 goes to general revenue to balance the budget. It does not go to ESL.

My point is that $1,500 is about 15 days of average wages in Canada, in the U.K, in Australia or in New Zealand, but $1,500 is 15 months wages in countries in Africa, in India, in Pakistan, in Sri Lanka and in Bangladesh. If this is not a racist policy, what is it? Is this not hampering people who come from those countries where it takes 15 more months to earn the money to pay the fee?

Before the hon. member makes those comments, could she justify this $1,500 head tax to fund Canada's revenue which on the other hand discourages people who come from those countries? How does she justify this? How can she brag about how well her party is doing when it is doing the opposite of that?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to the charge of racism. My record speaks for itself. I have worked practically all my life with people from various backgrounds, no matter where they come from and no matter what colour they are. I take great exception to this charge.

We must not close our eyes to the fact that we may be born elsewhere. It is not an insult to be born elsewhere. It is a fact of life.

Once again the comments of the hon. member of the official opposition are on subjects that are absolutely not part of the debate. When he first rose this morning he said that we were not having a debate about the citizenship question, so I challenged the member to speak on the question of citizenship. Why does he want to go back to immigration? We know there is a link between the two, but we also know that in the near future we will have a debate on immigration in the House.

I ask members of the official opposition and of all other opposition parties to debate the bill before us which deals with citizenship. We will come to immigration in due time.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate at the beginning that I will be splitting my 20 minutes with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

I am pleased to be able to speak to the bill today. I know that the member from Winnipeg Centre, our critic in this area, has already expressed the views and some of the concerns of our party on some aspects of bill, for instance with respect to the language requirements, et cetera.

I would like to pick up on the debate that has been going on in the House about citizenship and immigration because they are inextricably linked. I do not think we can talk about one without talking about the other.

The points of order being expressed by the government are themselves out of order and show just how sensitive the government is. It is funny for me, as was said earlier by a colleague, to listen to the Liberal Party accuse other parties of being anti-immigration when it is the party that brought in the $1,500 head tax and refused, against all advice to the contrary, to change that head tax. Any self-righteousness on the part of Liberals in this respect is quite out of order.

I also think it was quite out of order, and I say out of order politically, not procedurally, for the member to suggest that people who are immigrants to this country somehow should not be critical of particular aspects of the immigration policy.

It is partly what is wrong with debate about immigration in this country and, for that matter, about a lot of the other debates we have in this place. When people want to criticize a particular aspect of something, their motives are impugned and they are painted with a broad brush in some negative way. It is high time that people were able to express concerns about particular aspects of the refugee and immigration system in this country and not be accused of racism and of being anti-immigrant.

We clearly see that the government can do this. The member who just spoke from the government side expressed concerns about criminals getting into the country and sent a warning to them. When she does that it is okay, but when others are concerned about that it is somehow not okay. That is part of the problem. I too am concerned about what is happening to Canadian citizenship like so many other members of parliament.

I have people come into my constituency office. They have very painful tales to tell about members of their families who have been left in other countries of the world and cannot come to Canada because of various technicalities in the Immigration Act. There are daughters who turned 19 before they came or who married not knowing that it would harm their chances. There are families whose family circles are broken. They have daughters and sons or sisters and brothers in other countries who are the last remaining members of their families in the country of origin. It makes perfect sense to me that they should be able to reunite with their families, and they cannot do it.

This is where I want to talk about citizenship. Yet if they have enough money they can get into this country any time they like. I have an ad which appeared in the Latin Trade Magazine . This Latin Trade Magazine is published out of Miami, Florida. It caters to an elite business readership of approximately 86,000, over 40,000 from Latin American and Caribbean countries and 40,000 from the U.S. It is distributed on many Latin American airline routes. It is distributed by the American chambers of commerce, world trade centres and other trade organizations through Latin America and can be found at upscale hotel chains.

What do these ads say? They say “Guaranteed immigration to Canada”—just wait for the punch line—“with the purchase of a fleet rent a car franchise, a total investment of $50,000 Canadian/approximately $30,000 U.S. you are guaranteed”—and guaranteed is underlined—“immigration to Canada, even with a criminal record”.

I am sorry if being concerned about this makes me a racist but I do not think it does. I am concerned that there can be ads in these kinds of magazines saying “You put enough money down on the table and you can get into this country no matter who you are”. It is a problem I have had with the investor immigrant program for a long time. It has cheapened the notion of Canadian citizenship, that people can buy their way into this country.

I find this ad particularly offensive and it is why I entered into the debate today. It says “For information write 5950 Bathurst Street, Suite 1009, Toronto, Ontario”, and it gives a fax number, et cetera. This is precisely one of the things that is wrong with our immigration policy. I do not think Canadian citizenship is something that should be able to be bought.

We all should be concerned about any aspects of our immigration and refugee policy, particularly our immigration policy, which if it is not functioning properly does allow people who are undesirable to become Canadian citizens. I do not see anything wrong with being concerned about that. I think a lot of my constituents are concerned about it.

I make this point to the government. The government has said there is action on immigration coming and it is somehow inappropriate for us to talk about immigration in the context of this Citizenship Act. I do not think it is. I think it is an opportunity for us to express some of the concerns that our constituents have. Certainly the constituent who brought this ad to me was very, very concerned that Canadian citizenship should be for sale in this particular way.

I just wanted to register my opposition to this particular notion of Canadian citizenship as something that can be bought and sold in the marketplace like any other commodity. I do not believe that being a Canadian is a commodity. I do not think it is something that can be bought. There are a lot of people out there who want to be reunited with their families who should be given first consideration instead of people who can put $50,000 Canadian down for buying some kind of fleet of rent a cars.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to hear reasoned debate from my colleague. I want to thank him for taking the opportunity to point out many of the same points that were pointed out earlier. I was glad that the government was actually listening instead of heckling. I hope that the message is getting through.

When there is a problem with the system it is our job as opposition members to point out the problems to the government so that it will take action to address the problems. That is exactly what my colleague was pointing out.

I want to ask my colleague this question. He talked about citizenship of convenience and people buying their way into the country. I want to make him aware of a comment made by a CIC official. This is a person who works within the immigration department who says that he believes that part of the business entrepreneur category of citizenship is a way for people to buy their way into the country.

Mr. Coolen noted that this program “assists and promotes citizenship of convenience fraud, promotes abuse in national and provincial social programs and in my opinion is a national disgrace”. Later the same person working for immigration said “The program has never been audited since its inception in 1978. Any claims of investment or job creation are suspect and not reliable due to faulty methods of collection and the lack of any quality control”.

This is another example of an abuse of the system. I would not mind hearing my colleague's comments on this example of fraud as one which he mentioned earlier.