Grant McNally

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I frame these comments on the point that if the parliamentary secretary does not realize that citizenship and immigration are interlinked, I submit that points out a very difficult problem for that individual sitting as a member of the government. I am quite shocked that he does not see the relevance of that comment.

If he would like to direct the debate and send over some speaking notes for members of the opposition so we could say exactly what he wants us to say, that is fine, send them over and we will consider them. In the meantime, I will continue to make the same point. I would like to point out something that the member said which goes to the point of what he sees as priorities and what we see as priorities. We would like to see the system of immigration addressed.

The parliamentary secretary in committee, when these issues were brought up, said: “It is imperative that we not overly focus on the question of criminality in immigration. Too much time has been spent on it. I think we have studied the criminality question enough at the present time. We should be getting on to some other very important issues”.

I say that because there are a lot of important issues and that is one I have raised in committee and in the House. There is a problem happening in Vancouver with an abuse of the immigration system. Individuals who will eventually become citizens of this country, should they choose that course, will be governed by the precepts of this bill that the parliamentary secretary keeps objecting to. I make that comment to the parliamentary secretary in the hope that he will see the relevance of that.

Canadians see the relevance. They see that the system is broken. They see that the government is sitting on its hands and not taking action on some of the very important things that need to happen. The Honduran situation in Vancouver is one of them. The parliamentary secretary has the gall to say—

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was stating, in my opinion the immigration system is broken. The minister is either unwilling or unable to fix it. The fact that the minister has brought forward the bill as her first substantive piece of legislation is evidence of that.

I would like to state again as I was stating before I was interrupted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration—he might notice that word on the end of the minister's portfolio—that one of the flaws in Canadian politics is the difficulty in dealing with subjects such as immigration as if to raise the issue itself is tantamount to questioning its beliefs. The place of immigrants or the value of a certain category of immigrants in this kind of unspoken censorship has been a chronic problem for both journalists and politicians.

We firmly believe that the government must account for the way the objectives of immigration programs are being met. This is in accordance with the rules that allow the true exercise of the democratic rights of Canadian citizens. Only then can we restore the public's faith in the management of immigration programs. At the same time we will restore the confidence of those who implement these programs and, in the end, of all those who elect to settle in Canada.

I make that comment because quite often what happens is that members of the government throw names at members of the opposition who would point out problems with the system.

We do point out problems with the system because there are problems with the system. We point out those problems so that the system we would hope would be fixed by those who are in power and have the ability to do so.

We make these comments because we believe in immigration, we believe it is a positive force in this country and because the government is derelict in its responsibility to take care of glaring errors.

I will continue to raise those issues—

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to resume the debate. As I was saying earlier in debate, I would like to frame my comments in the setting of the following phrase, that the immigration system is broken and the minister is either unwilling or unable to fix it. I make that comment based on the fact that the minister has now been the minister for three years and has done very little in terms of substantive changes to the system.

I would like to read a little from the report of the legislative review group which the minister commissioned last. In the document it made the comment that one of the flaws in Canadian politics is the difficulty in dealing with subjects such as immigration—

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-63. Before I begin I would like to compliment my colleague from Wentworth—Burlington for his very passionate and heartfelt speech and for his willingness to be open to share some of himself with us. Often we do not take the time to do that and I appreciate it.

I would like to frame my comments toward this bill in the context of what I see to be a major problem within the current immigration system. I make that comment very clearly, once again, with the immigration system, not with the concept of immigration. Immigration is a positive contribution to Canada. Canada is a country built on immigration. No one disputes that fact. That is a part of our great history.

I would say that there are some serious and very glaring problems within our immigration system which need to be addressed. They have been brought to the attention of the minister and the government, not just by opposition members but by many different groups from around the country in a number of different areas. In fact, I would be so bold as to say that the immigration system is broken and it appears as though the minister is either unwilling or unable to fix it.

I make those comments not flippantly and not in a rhetorical manner. I have had the opportunity to study the system over the last year and half and it has come to my attention that there are some very serious problems which need to be addressed that have not been addressed.

When we see a problem, when we see a concern with something, when we know there is a problem and yet we fail to take action, then we also fail to take the responsibility for that lack of action and the consequences which flow from it.

I would say that there are some serious consequences as a result of many inactions within our immigration system.

I will move on to address some of the information that the minister has shared with us in the tabling of the bill. I would first point out that the current minister has been the minister for three years and this is the first substantive legislation she has brought forward. I have some questions as to why it is that this would be her first piece of legislation when there are many other issues at hand right now. I am not saying that this is not important legislation, but in my mind and in the minds of many of my colleagues, we do not see this as being the top priority. There are some glaring concerns that need to be addressed which simply are not addressed through this legislation.

The problems within the immigration system are most strongly felt by those individuals who are part of the immigrant community and who have come to Canada recently. The comments they share with me are that if the government is concerned about fixing the system, why is it that it does not do anything when it sees a problem?

In essence, the individuals within the immigrant community are then painted with the same brush as the very few individuals who would cause problems within the system. They want the abuses to the immigration system to be addressed and fixed. They are, in many ways, finding their concerns falling on deaf ears.

I would like to point out one situation. This is an issue that has been brought up by opposition and by many people across the country, by lots of different groups. It is a situation that is happening in the Vancouver, British Columbia area right now having to do with people who are abusing the system because of a loophole.

Some individuals have come to Canada and have claimed refugee status falsely. As a result of that, they have abused the system. That is not the only problem. Many of the individuals who have falsely claimed refugee status have been selling drugs on the streets of Vancouver. Again, it is a small number of individuals.

This is a serious problem and it is having a huge impact in the downtown east side of Vancouver. It is spreading into the suburb areas around Vancouver, to the areas of New Westminster, Surrey and elsewhere. This is a concern that has been brought up over and over again. There appears to be very little response coming back in any substantive way from the minister.

Again I make the point that when someone knows something is wrong, when someone knows there is a problem, when they can see it staring them in the face and they can see the effect it is having on individual lives, on individual people, on the young people and others living in these communities, and yet they fail to take action, it is a dereliction of responsibility.

That is exactly the position that the current minister is in. There are individuals who are calling for changes, calling for something that I have suggested, which is an expedited process for those individuals who have been charged with drug trafficking.

Many of these individuals, prior to or upon their arrest for dealing drugs, have claimed refugee status. In our current immigration system they go into the mill. They go into the waiting line with all the other individuals to have their refugee status determined.

The problem is that there is no differentiation between those individuals who are flagrantly abusing the system and those individuals who are genuine refugees in need of Canada's protection. They all go into the same grouping.

It could take up to a year and a half or two years before anything is done to settle the claim the individuals have made. A simple answer to that problem would be to have an expedited process where those individuals who were brought up on these drug charges would be processed quickly to see whether they are truly refugees and then removed from the country if it is found that in fact they have made a false claim.

Why not do it quickly? Why not deal with the issue and solve the problem? It is something that the minister could do today. It is something she could do today if she had the willingness to do it.

I can only conclude that it is her lack of action, her lack of responsibility in moving on this issue and others that points to the fact that she is either unable or unwilling to make that change.

There are many other areas that fall into that same category, where there are individuals who are abusing our system, abusing the goodwill of Canadians, without any action being taken. Again, it is a small number of individuals who are causing the problem, the people who are abusing the system.

Word is out on the street internationally that Canada is an easy place to get to. Canada is an easy place to make a false claim. When a refugee claim is made, the claimant is entitled to all the rights of a citizen, apart from being able to vote. They have access to free medical care, welfare payments and legal aid. What is very insulting about this current situation is that these individuals are taking advantage of Canadians. They are taking advantage of us. Something could be done, but it is not being done, and that is unacceptable.

They are talking advantage of legitimate claimants. They are taking time and resources from the immigration department which could be used to deal with individuals who are truly refugees. Those resources are going to process individuals who are undeserving of our protection, who have committed criminal acts, who have made a false claim and who are not in need of the protection of this country. They are here for sometimes two or three years. I have heard of cases where individuals have been here for five to ten years. That is unconscionable and something needs to be done about it.

When we bring up these issues we are rebuffed by the government in a harsh manner. We are told that we are not supportive of immigration, which is patently false. I cannot emphasize that enough. The fact that we want to fix the system shows we care about immigration. We will fix the system, given the chance to do so, while government members sit idly, twiddling their thumbs, in the face of these issues. We will bring positive change. We will bring those things that need to be addressed and fixed to the forefront and deal with them quickly because they are of great concern.

A couple of government members have made statements like the following when we have brought up this issue. It is a glaring issue. There seems to be a contradiction. The Liberal member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, in a recent letter to his constituents, stated “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”. It seems a bit extreme to me that a government member would be suggesting that.

Other members of the government have said in committee that the official opposition does not support immigration. I cannot agree with that. It is patently false. We want the minister to move forward with positive change. If she is going to sit idly by and do nothing when these problems continue to happen over and over again, let her stand aside, let her government stand aside, because we will do the job. We will move forward with positive change and we will take care of the issues that Canadians are asking be dealt with, rather than having a government that sits idly on its hands and watches these things happen over and over again with absolutely zero response. That is unconscionable.

We will move forward in a positive manner and make the changes necessary to address not only this department but other departments in need of great change.

I could go on at length and name those areas but I do believe my time has drawn to a close.

[Child Pornography, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, here are the top 10 reasons given by Liberal backbenchers as to why they flip-flopped on the child pornography vote last night.

No. 10: Vote against my conscience. What conscience?

No. 9: I like to sign on to things I have no intention of backing up. It makes me feel like a cabinet minister.

No. 8: If I toe the line often enough maybe I will get a canoe museum in my riding.

No. 7: Let the commission do its work.

No. 6: No comment. The minister has not told me what to say yet.

No. 5: This from the member from Coquitlam. I am no yes man and, besides, that is not my signature.

No. 4: The Prime Minister told me I could vote any way I wanted to, as long as I voted no.

No. 3: You get used to it. Remember the hep C vote?

No. 2: That depends on what your definition of the word “is” is.

And the No. 1 reason given by Liberal flip-floppers is: Now I want you to listen to me. My pen did not have relations with that letter, that Liberal petition, and I have never gone back on my word, not once, not ever.