Lynne Yelich

[Business of Supply, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague from St. Albert put forward this motion that talks about transparency and accountability.

The member beside me would have liked to ask about the $39 billion debt when the Liberals took power. It has been reduced by $36 billion. The difference is exactly the amount the government robbed from the EI fund in the same time period. That question is on the record now and perhaps we will have a chance to talk about it again.

This is an excellent motion because it talks about accountability. My husband related to me the story about someone who came up to him one day to say his brother was so kind. His brother always used my husband. He always borrowed his tractor and brought it back empty. He always borrowed the car and brought it back with no oil. He was always using him.

Then this friend comes up and says that his brother is so kind and generous that he would give the shirt off his back. My husband replied to the friend by asking “Why does it have to be the shirt off my back?” That is what politics is all about today. It is about parliamentarians being able to have power.

I am new and I would love some power. I would sit on that committee for nothing. I would not even charge the House the $5,000. Would that not be a saving? That would be my first offer because I am paying too much taxes anyhow. Could I use it for a deduction?

[Immigration, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since September 11 it has become painfully clear that there is a need to agree as North American partners on what defines a refugee and how we determine what is a safe third country.

Will the Prime Minister commit to the House that harmonizing our refugee determination system will be part of his upcoming summit with the presidents of the United States and Mexico?

[Immigration, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, too often we have seen bogus refugee claimants hopping from country to country shopping for a nation that will take them in. Too often that country has been Canada. Even the United Nations has called on us to act.

Will the minister of immigration commit to reopening talks with the United States for a new agreement on determining from which countries both our nations will agree not to accept refugees?

[Immigration, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the former ambassador said:

Bill C-11 is a disaster. It plays into the hands of professional smugglers. It leaves Canada wide open for easy entry of undesirables. It seems designed to ensure that the bad buys can never be sent home.

We agree.

When will the minister admit that her legislation is out of step with reality?

[Immigration, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote from a former Canadian ambassador, who said:

Bill C-11 will make it easier for asylum seekers to enter Canada and much more difficult to remove them after they get in. In normal circumstances, this failure would be deplorable. After September 11th, refusal to implement immediate reform of our system borders on criminal irresponsibility.

Will the minister accept responsibility for this bill which threatens the integrity of our immigration system?

[Immigration, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have had eight years to negotiate bilateral agreements. We signed a memorandum with the U.S. six years ago but we have not concluded a single bilateral agreement.

The climate has changed since September 11. Will the minister get on with negotiating a bilateral agreement with the U.S. on an urgent basis or use her power to declare the U.S. and the EU as safe third countries?

[Immigration, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Immigration Act gives the government the power to declare any country as a safe third country when it comes to assessing refugees.

The European Union considers all of its member states to be safe third countries so refugee claimants cannot hop from one jurisdiction to another.

Why does the government not use its power under the act and declare that it will not accept any refugees from the United States or the European Union?

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister was not listening. A provincial government is now enforcing federal immigration laws. Provinces are now forced to ensure the safety of their residents because the federal government did not act.

If, as the minister has said, her government welcomes and supports the creation of a special police enforcement unit by Ontario, will she announce today that the federal government is willing to commit both funds and personnel to this new initiative?

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we read in the media this morning that the minister welcomes Ontario's initiative to enforce deportation orders but in committee today her own colleague dismissed the idea as grandstanding.

We are left wondering what the government's real position is.

Will the minister commit unequivocally to working with Ontario and any other province that comes forward to pick up the slack in the deportation of people illegally in Canada?

[Points of Order, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration suggested in question period that I had pleaded on behalf of immigrants that exceptions to the Immigration Act be made for them. That is not true. However I was trying to point out that errors are made by the department in applying the law.