Gurmant Grewal

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for some time. The Liberal government has destroyed our health care system. It has cut $24 billion from health care spending since 1993. When the Canada Health Act came into existence the federal government agreed to share 50% of the cost with the provinces. It has now dropped to 15%.

The Liberal government should apologize to Canadians for causing the health care system to be in the shape it is today.

Canadians now know that it is going to take many years to rebuild our health care system which was destroyed by this government.

The Canadian government has put the health care system in this position. Now it is spending millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in a damage control campaign. The finance minister—

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am debating Bill C-63 which is in my hand. I have read every page of it thoroughly. This is an act respecting Canadian citizenship. I was on clause 2(1) under interpretations. I am discussing the definition of citizen and citizenship and also in clause 6 and clause 8 which state “The minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to a person who”. I am talking about the person who, which is very much relevant and I am sure that the member will let me proceed.

It is four and a half years since the Liberal dominated committee presented its report but we have yet to see any action from the government. That is why it does not want to listen to what I am saying.

In my constituency a genuine refugee has been waiting for over five years and still has not been granted this status. He was tortured for his religious beliefs. After he arrived in Canada, his brother was tortured and killed by the police. Now his wife and children are being harassed and tortured. His family cannot reunite until he is granted this status in Canada. A day is too long for him to wait. My constituent is under tremendous pressure and mental torture.

Why is it this way? Who is responsible? The Liberal government is responsible for this mess. That is what we are talking about today.

As Canadians we want to welcome genuine refugees to our country. We want to help those people who need the help. Our refugee system is so full of flaws that it does not grant quick protection or provide protection for those who genuinely need it.

Instead of fixing our broken immigration system, the Liberals have us debate changes in the Citizenship Act, Bill C-63.

The auditor general deplores the fact that it takes on average more than two and a half years to settle a refugee status claim. The average processing time went from seven months in 1993-94 to nearly 13 months in 1996-97. It almost doubled in two years. This same period saw a sharp increase in the backlog of claims waiting to be processed, from approximately 17,500 to 29,000. A person claiming refugee status can count on staying in Canada for more than two and a half years.

Over the past several years, close to 60% of claimants have presented themselves to Canadian officials without a passport, personal identification or even travel documents. This makes the refugee determination process longer and makes it extremely difficult to remove failed claimants.

The auditor general says that out of 20,000 persons ordered deported, the department could act on only 4,000 cases and the remaining 16,000 are consumed in the system. If that is not a cat and mouse game being played by the department, then what is it?

The Immigration Act requires airlines to ensure that their passengers are properly documented.

These very same concerns were addressed nearly 10 years ago by the auditor general. The Liberals continue to make Canadians wait for changes.

It is essential that the realistic expectations for the speed and efficiency of claims be set out.

It is also important that federal agencies respond to these expectations within well defined parameters. There is need to ensure the integrity and efficiency of the refugee determination process. Fairness and efficiency are legitimate and important objectives. The Liberal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is choosing not to do anything about the problem. Instead we are going back to changes in the Citizenship Act.

Let us look briefly at the conditions of granting citizenship as proposed in Bill C-63. On presence in Canada, clause 6(1)(b) proposes to define the term “permanent resident” more concisely than does the current act. Bill C-63 calls for 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada in the five years preceding application for citizenship. However, Bill C-63 does not provide any mechanism for determining when the applicant arrives in Canada or when the applicant leaves Canada.

On penalties for bureaucratic delays, the current act allows individuals whose application for permanent residence is approved to count each full day of residency in Canada from the date of application as a half day toward the total needed for the citizenship application. According to this act, applicants will now be penalized for the system's bureaucratic delays.

Similarly in the case of adoption it is left up to the minister to define the parent-child relationship in cases of adoption. In defining family, clause 43 gives the minister the power to redefine spouse, marriage, family and family relations. She will not consult Canadians. She will not consult parliament. She will decide herself.

There are many things I wanted to say about patronage appointments, about the language requirements and about the oath which was designed by the minister and not by parliament.

We are seeing Liberal arrogance and a lack of respect for parliament and the people of Canada. The minister's first legislation should have been aimed at fixing a failed immigration system rather than citizenship. There is no political will to do anything about these problems.

I predict the government will not attempt to change the immigration and refugee system in the immediate future. It is already too late for many of those who are victims of crime. The minister has been in her portfolio for three years. She should have addressed the serious problems of our immigration and refugee system before tinkering with the Citizenship Act.

Therefore I will be voting against the bill on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and many more Canadians who are looking forward to changes to this act. We have been terribly let down and disappointed by the government's lack of action in addressing the serious problems in the immigration and refugee system.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am debating Bill C-65 and I was on clause 2(1) under interpretations. I am discussing—

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to oppose Bill C-63, the government's proposed changes to the Citizenship Act.

My constituents and I are well aware, as are many Canadians across the country, that our immigration and refugee system is in bad shape. In this legislation the government has chosen to deal with issues concerning Canadian citizenship instead of the serious flaws in our immigration and refugee system. This is mismanagement by the minister. She is mismanaging her priorities. Canadians want her to work on our broken refugee and immigration system.

We should welcome genuine refugees. They deserve our protection. In his December 1997 report the auditor general said that the current process does not quickly grant Canada's protection to claimants who genuinely need it.

The Liberals have no political will to improve the situation. The Liberal members on the immigration committee even refuse to study in the future business of the committee the abuse of our immigration and refugee system by drug dealers, terrorists and other criminals.

Imagine one morning waking up and seeing someone sitting in your living room. You wonder how that person entered your home. No bells rang. You had not let anyone come in. Eventually you find that while the front door was closed the person had no difficulty using the back door. It had been left wide open. After dealing with the person, would you not make sure to keep the back door closed? Then the next time someone rang the bell you would know who your visitor was and you would have the opportunity to show the courtesy of welcoming the guest in and making him or her feel at home.

In our immigration system the front doors are closed or partially closed. But the back doors are wide open and the government is keeping it that way. In our refugee process and system the back door is abused by criminals. Drug dealers come here to sell drugs to our children.

Canada is a country of immigrants. Genuine immigrants should be welcomed through the front door. Their cases should be processed as quickly as possible without any harassment or unnecessary court expenses.

The Liberal government has no political will to fix the system. Rather, it wants to make patchwork changes to the Citizenship Act. The auditor general cautioned the government against making patchwork changes. He indicated that the problem is complex and that there is a need to conduct a total review of the refugee claim process. It is four and a half years—

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in this take note debate concerning the situation in Kosovo and the situation in the Central African Republic.

This debate was arranged at very short notice and without any briefing to members of parliament.

Minutes ago I asked a question. I did not get the answer. I wanted to ask the question to any other member in the House to find out if anyone can explain or highlight the diplomatic initiative or the preventive measures this government has taken to address the situation in Kosovo or in the Central African Republic, particularly in Kosovo since we had a debate in the House on October 7. From then until now what initiatives have they taken? I did not get an answer to that question.

The government should have been pursuing initiatives long ago, at least when we saw the signs of the problem occurring. But it failed to take any initiative.

Now we know that plan A has failed. Plan A is the diplomatic initiative or preventive measures. Even though the government did not pursue it aggressively, we are asked to go to plan B. Plan B is military action. I call it the bitter medicine for peacekeeping.

I ask the foreign affairs minister to look into the possibilities of peacemaking missions rather than peacekeeping missions in the long run.

The Central African Republic is the poorest of the poor countries. I lived in west Africa. I was a university professor in Liberia, west Africa. I have visited many countries in west Africa. What I saw in the bloody civil wars were 10-year old, 12-year old children with AK-47s. I am talking the real guns which can kill, not toys.

The point is those guns are not made in those countries. Some countries in the weapons trade have manufactured those guns and then sold them to the poor people in those countries. That is how they get the guns. I wonder what action the United Nations, the international community and, for that matter, Canada have taken to prevent infiltration of those war causing weapons, particularly in poverty ridden countries.

People have problems putting food on the table in the evening. Their families are starving but they get guns to fight. How can they afford to buy those weapons? What have we done to stop the weapons trade? Absolutely nothing.

Some countries sell weapons to those countries and then they send in peacekeeping missions. How appalling this situation is. We need to find sustainable, long term and real solutions to these civil and tribal wars. We should help promote democracy and education in those countries. A democratic power in any country should lead to justice. Justice should lead to love. People should love each other when they get justice because they are satisfied. No one has worked on these things. When power leads to justice and justice leads to love that is how we get rid of hatred, poverty, ignorance and bloody civil wars which we face every now and then. It is a sad story.

Let me give the House an analogy. When a pressure cooker is heated steam is produced. To contain that steam we put weight on the pressure cooker. Here we try to put military pressure to contain that steam. People of these countries are already deeply divided based on their ethnic backgrounds or on their tribal origins. If we do not want that steam have we ever taken any action to remove the heat from under the pressure cooker? No, I do not think so. Have we ever resolved an issue by solving the problem before it explodes? No, we have not.

In most African countries, including central Africa, ethnic and tribal problems lead to these bloody civil wars. Did any member of the international community do anything to stop the branding of the people based on their ethnic origin, based on the tribes they belong to? That is a root cause of the civil war and tribal wars in those countries.

In African countries when people meet and greet each other either they recognize what tribes they belong to or they ask them what their tribe is, whether it is Loma or Mandingo or whatever. What education has been given to them to recognize the similarity among them rather than dwelling on the differences among them? No one has done anything. These people have similarities. No one has made them recognize the similarities.

What can we expect from the Canadian government? There are no efforts to do that even in our country. This government encourages the concept of hyphenated Canadians. With the hyphenation concept we divide people, not unite them. Unfortunately this government has done absolutely nothing on that.

Our government, I am sorry to say, lacks a proactive role. It reacts to a situation but does not take a proactive role. This government does very little to prevent conflicts in the world. But it is always on the front line making decisions to send our troops without worrying about what situation they are in or whether they have enough equipment and facilities, whether they have consulted elected officials of the House of Commons. The decision is made before that.

We try to resolve political problems by providing foreign aid or by sending military personnel. These are the two solutions we have to resolve these problems anywhere in the world. We either send foreign aid dollars or we send the military. That is not appropriate.

The government needs a broader agenda for peacekeeping and peacemaking issues. Repeatedly there have been serious situations in countries like Rwanda, Nigeria, Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Liberia and the list goes on. Unfortunately this situation will happen again.

I am sorry the United Nations has the inability to respond in a timely fashion. I recognize there is a vacuum and we have to show leadership. Britain, France, Russia and the United States, which was kept busy for one year by Monica, cannot do that.

We are in a strong position as a nation to be mediators in the world. We belong to NATO. We belong to the security council. We are a member of the G-8 countries. We have sent many peacekeeping missions around the world. We are in a perfect position to lead. But this government does not have leading capabilities.

This government is in a better position to lead if it wanted to. We can take peacemaking initiatives in the world. But unfortunately this government lacks those initiatives. There is no leadership. Here is another vacuum.

This is a very important issue but there is also another important issue. If we are planning to take any military action and if we are committing our military support to NATO that means we are committing men and women of the Canadian forces. Many questions deserve answers before we should commit anyone or anything anywhere.

The main question arises here as to whether we are well equipped. Obviously the answer is no. Based on what we have been hearing in the last few months, the answer is no. The defence minister asked for $700 million but he received only $325 million in the 1999 budget. Yesterday the minister received less than half the money he wanted.

I also learned that the Canadian forces have 35 year old Sea King helicopters, decades old tanks, 100 useless tactical helicopters, 20 to 45 year old jets and we are expecting to participate in the air attacks with the equipment we have.

This government has cut $7.8 billion in the defence budget since taking office in 1993. Our defence forces are starving. The minister allowed our troops to be inoculated with expired vaccine. Here is the funny part. He allowed our troops to be inoculated with expired vaccine and he is so irresponsible and so uncaring that he inoculated himself with the expired vaccine.

My constituents and all Canadians need answers to many questions. Canadians are asking why we are choosing a military situation over a diplomatic situation. I do not have any answers. What other possible solutions could we pursue? What are the possibilities of finding a long term solution to this bloody civil war? How are we dealing with the hatred in the minds of those ethic people?

We can send our troops on a peacekeeping mission. They can keep discipline, they can scare people or they can kill people. But how can they kill the hatred in the minds of the people which is the root cause of these bloody civil wars? That is most important. That is the root cause of the problem. Since I have been here the Liberals have never addressed the root cause.

How much involvement are we asking from the European Community or other affected and related countries in dealing with this issue which is in their backyard? What strategy do we have to deal with the security situation in that region? What participation do we have from the neighbouring countries? Canadians want to know whether we will be creating more victims by bombing in that area. What about those victims we will be creating? Are we creating more victims of the war by bombing?

What is the game plan? We on this side of the House do not know what the game plan is. We do not know what equipment we will be using, how many people are going, for how long, what will be the cost and how much will be our share. We do not know those things. Canadians would like to know how much it will cost, who is paying, what is our share, and whether the government assessed the degree of risk before it committed the men and women of the Canadian defence forces. What is the degree of risk? Do they have enough equipment and facilities? They have old equipment and absolutely no facilities. They were exchanging helmets on previous missions.

I am looking forward to those answers but I doubt we will get them from this government. We will only get answers after our tax dollars have been spent and our troops have had to take the great risks.

For how long are we going to commit our military forces? We had a bad experience in Cyprus. We were stuck there for 29 years.

Can the government members throw some light on that? No they cannot because the Liberal backbenchers and even the cabinet ministers are insignificant under the tyranny and dictatorship of the current Prime Minister. The very few Liberal backbenchers who are here tonight are pretending to debate in this House. They only know what they are told to say by the foreign minister, the defence minister or the Prime Minister. Even the minister feels like the last one to know. The Prime Minister takes orders from President Bill Clinton or others. They tell him when and where they need our troops. Do we simply have a take note emergency debate and then decide that because it is a humanitarian issue we have to show support for our allies?

We need answers to all these questions before we decide what we should do. This government is the root cause. It is causing our armed forces personnel to jump without knowing where they are jumping to. An eleventh hour take note debate is not an appropriate way to deal with the important and sad situations in Kosovo and the Central African Republic but it is the only option given by the Liberal government to the members of this House.

We will unfortunately be dealing with these peace initiatives in the future. We expect the government will come up with some strategy to educate Canadians, to let them know what we are doing, why we are doing it and where we are going from here. We can go to plan B because plan A has not succeeded. We did not take the aggressive initiatives for plan A so we are going to plan B which is military action. That is bitter medicine and we have to use it.

I could understand doing that in order to put pressure on the conflicting parties so they would come together in an agreement. But if we really want our forces to go there, I would be skeptical. Like other members of the opposition, I do not have full information.

We intend to support our allies and the brave men and women of our armed forces but we need answers to those questions. We need a good briefing and then a good logical debate in this House. Otherwise, whatever we decide has no effect because the decision has already been made by this government. The Liberals do not have the courage to put this issue to a vote in the House. They do not have the courage to educate Canadians on this issue.

In conclusion, let me wish good luck to our brave men and women of the armed forces.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listened to all the speeches made by members of the House. I particularly admired the speeches of two members of our party, the hon. member for Red Deer and the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. They have thrown light on this issue. They brought to the attention of the House very good issues and I really appreciated listening to those issues.

Just now I listened to the hon. member from the government side. He is the chairman of the foreign affairs and international trade committee and I had the opportunity to work with him. I highly appreciate his knowledge and his experience. He was bragging about the Liberal government's achievements and the direction it is giving us on this issue. He was almost name calling with regard to the official opposition's foreign critic.

Putting that aside, I would like to find out if the hon. member could throw some light on what diplomatic initiatives the Liberal government has taken since we had a take note debate in the House on October 7, 1998. What preventive measures has his government taken in Kosovo or the Central African Republic?

I would also like to know why his party has not given any briefing about the situation in Kosovo and the Central African Republic to members of parliament. We had no briefing and I would like to find out why not. If the hon. member is so proud of the government's record and if he is so proud of the $7.8 billion cuts made to the defence forces, why is he pleading that we should send them whenever we get a 911 call from any country in the world?

I would like to find out why briefings were not given to members of parliament. Also I would like to know why this issue is not put for a vote in the House. If the member is so clear in his ideas, why is there a take note debate and why is there is no vote?

The hon. member bragged about peacekeeping initiatives. When we send forces to the Central African Republic and Kosovo what will they keep there? Will it be peace? Which peace? Is peace existing there? Did we make peace first?

I would like to find out from the member how can he keep something which does not exist there. It is common sense that one can keep something when something exists. First we have to make peace. Then we can keep peace. There is no peace. I would like to ask the hon. member for answers to these questions.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, given the situation we are facing today, let us keep the question to one side that the brave men and women of the armed forces are not well equipped. They do not have enough facilities to go to those countries. Keeping aside the question of how much it is going to cost us, keeping aside what our long term plans are, I would like to find out from the member if he knows how much involvement we are asking from the European Community or the other affected or related countries to deal with this issue in their own backyard.

I would also like to find out from the member what strategy we have to deal with the regional security in that area?

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member very carefully but I would like to ask him one thing.

Given the present situation of calling this debate on such short notice and without any briefing to government members on this issue, perhaps a decision has already been made and this take note debate is merely a formality. On the other hand, we are committing our brave men and women of the defence forces to go to a country without the proper equipment to help them fight a war or maintain peace in that country.

We do not know what the long terms plans are. We do not know how much it will cost. We do not know a lot of things and so many questions have been unanswered.

Given these situations and these uncertainties, does the member feel we should send our forces or not?

[Citizenship Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the last three minutes I have been listening to the member talk about fraud and not the citizenship act. I would ask the member to talk about the citizenship act.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

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?