Grant McNally

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it has become quite clear that the Liberal Party, the Government of Canada, is using a new code word for its favourite thing to do which is spending, and that word is investment. I do not know how many times we have heard it throughout the throne speech. The intervention of the member for Parkdale—High Park, who is so proud of returning to liberalism, defends the outrageous spending habits of the government.

I would like my hon. colleague's comments on this word investment. Could he tell us what that really means in terms of government spending?

[Immigration, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if there is anybody who is wrong it is members of the Liberal government. They are the ones that continue to impose the head tax on refugees. In fact, they had an opportunity to remedy the situation yesterday in committee and instead voted down a motion to remove the head tax. They continue to tax refugees and they know it.

In 1996 the Liberal Party called for the elimination of the head tax. Why is the government intent on ripping off refugees? Why does it not do the right thing and eliminate the head tax here, now, today?

[Immigration, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister continues to use refugees as a revenue source. The minister claims that in the fall she will examine the $975 right of landing fee which she forces refugees to pay when they apply for permanent residence status.

The Canadian public, all opposition parties, and indeed members of the Liberal cabinet, are calling for the elimination of this fee now. Why will the minister not act today to stop taxing refugees, vulnerable people who are seeking the protection of Canada?

[United Nations Human Rights Committee, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on May 3 I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration two questions about Canada's lax immigration policies. At that time congressional meetings were being held in Washington to study the security of the American and Canadian border.

I asked the minister if she was proud of the fact that under her tenure Canada had become known as a launching pad for terrorism and drug trafficking. I also asked her when she was going to wake up, stop talking and implement concrete measures to fix the broken system, which has become known as an easy mark to drug traffickers and terrorists.

Let me expand on these thoughts. The witnesses that appeared before the committee on the judiciary subcommittee on immigration in Washington said many things which this Liberal government and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, as well as the parliamentary secretary, should take note of. Dale Brandland, sheriff for Whatcom County in Bellingham, Washington, stated before the committee:

Our friends to the north, the Canadians, are good neighbours but I must tell you that I am troubled by their liberal immigration policies. Anyone that has a passport can enter Canada and there is very little to stop them from entering the United States once they get there.

He went on further to cite an example:

Mr. Abu Mezer is a prime example. Local Border Control personnel in Whatcom County had apprehended Mr. Abu Mezer on three separate occasions, after attempting to enter the country illegally. He was finally held, pending formal deportation...Approximately 7 months later he was shot by the New York City Police Department just prior to planting a bomb that would have blown up the subway system.

This was an individual who was in Canada three times under this lax immigration policy, rather than being deported under some criminal charges that he was facing in Canada after serving his time.

Eugene Davis, deputy chief of the U.S. border patrol in Blaine, Washington, said:

Over the past several years Canada has adopted a non-visa requirement policy with many countries that the United States continues to require visas from. This has resulted in many smugglers being able to easily bring third country nationals into Canada and then smuggle them across the border into the U.S.

He went on to say:

The Canadian government has stated that virtually every known terrorist group in the world has offices in Canada.

The Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice, Michael Bromwich, stated:

The border in western Washington is experiencing a marked increase in the smuggling of BC Bud, an especially potent strain of marijuana.

He also stated:

The INS and other intelligence reports indicate that terrorist groups locate in Canada in part because of Canada's liberal visa and asylum (refugee) laws—

It is quite clear that the immigration system is broken. I hope we get some answers from the parliamentary secretary rather than empty rhetoric talking about what other parties stand for when it is his party that has not taken action to correct these wrongs and to fix the broken system.

We saw an example of that in committee today when members of the Liberal government, rather than taking concrete action to remedy a situation on the head tax for refugees, voted against it and defeated it.

They could have taken action to fix a broken part of the system, to remedy an injustice. They could have taken time to fix the system and deal with these individuals who are abusing it. Their own department officials, and I quote from an access to information document, stated:

The blatant misuse of the refugee process (in same series, a Honduran refugee claimant was openly honest about the fact that he had no understanding of what a “refugee” actually was, that he was just doing what he had been counselled to say upon arrival in Canada, and the reason that he was in Canada was to earn some money for his family back in Honduras). This portrayal was extremely damaging to the integrity of the program and department.

Certainly it was. This is the kind of thing that is happening. This is the immigration CICs own internal documents stating that there are problems with the system. Yet the minister fails to take action to address these serious problems.

I would like some answers from the parliamentary secretary to these questions.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Liberal Party seems to be in contradiction with what the parliamentary secretary said earlier about the supremacy of parliament. The member who just spoke seems to be concurring with members of the opposition and others who have said that parliament is supreme. The parliamentary secretary clearly stated that the supreme court is supreme, so there certainly is a conflict on that side of the House.

I know he spoke in support, generally speaking, of this motion, but I want to know how he justifies the following statement:

“Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada strongly urge the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the same way that it recognizes opposite marriages in its distribution of benefits”.

I am wondering how the member from the Liberal Party of Canada can justify supporting this motion? We appreciate his support, but there is a definite contradiction between the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada and what they are saying in the House today. How can he justify that?

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very direct question for my Bloc colleague.

In the motion before the House for debate today it states that it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I would like to ask my colleague from the Bloc if he personally agrees with that statement. Is he speaking for himself, his constituents or his party when he gives his answer to that question? It is a very direct question and I would like to know whether or not he supports that statement.

[Petitions, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions on a similar theme. Hundreds of constituents from Dewdney—Alouette are horrified by child pornography and are astounded by the legal determinations that the possession of child pornography is not criminal.

They ask parliament to protect the most vulnerable members of society, our children, from sexual abuse and to take all necessary steps to ensure possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence.

The second petition asks that parliament amend the charter to prevent the development, purchase and ownership of child pornography.

[Business Of The House, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, my point of order follows along that raised by my NDP colleague from Winnipeg. It has to do with the head tax which he mentioned or, as the House leader likes to refer to it, the landing fee. This was an issue that was brought before committee yesterday. It was a compelling point made by members of the committee and Liberal members absented themselves from that vote. Is that going to inspire the government to move on this very important issue?

[Soccer, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let us picture a non-partisan, united event attended by representatives of all parties in the House. Imagine a spirit of camaraderie, team work and good will which many would say would not be possible.

Last night provided such an occasion as members from all parties put their heart and soul into facing the daunting task of tackling a formidable foe. As it turns out, the foe was not quite as formidable as we thought. Yes, an all party MP team rose to the challenge of the parliamentary pages in a soccer game and defeated them five to two.

The intergovernmental affairs minister showed us that he could dodge more than opposition question as he deked through the pages defence. The member for Fraser Valley lived up to his title as he whipped the pages offence into submission. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke made short work of the opposition even though we would not let him use his hockey stick.

Yes, the pages fell victim to the old adage that says “old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill”.

[Citizenship And Immigration, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is saying that it is okay for a convicted heroin dealer to be granted refugee status here when she could have taken action.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has recently announced that he was going to be cracking down on drug trafficking. He has described illicit drugs like heroin as the quintessential human security challenge. However, his cabinet colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, does not feel it is necessary to step in when a convicted heroin dealer may be about to receive refugee status.

Which minister is speaking for the government: the so-called hard on drugs minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the soft on thugs minister, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?