36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 182
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 16, 1999
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Residential Construction
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Residential Construction
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1010
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC Inquiry
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriages
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-63. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1025
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1030
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1045
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1100
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1105
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1130
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1145
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1200
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1235
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1250
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
1255
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1310
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1325
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1340
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1345
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHINESE NEW YEAR
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EAST COAST MUSIC AWARDS
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
1400
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LITERACY
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHINESE NEW YEAR
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 1949 ASBESTOS STRIKE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WATER
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1405
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PYROCYCLING OF BARK
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1410
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHINESE NEW YEAR
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STRATFORD FESTIVAL
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1415
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1425
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLIC SERVICE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1430
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1435
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1440
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1445
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1450
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AQUACULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Gilbert Normand |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL REVENUE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1455
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROAD SAFETY
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1500
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Parliamentary Language
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
1505
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-63. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1510
1515
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1520
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1525
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1530
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1605
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CITIZENSHIP ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-63. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1610
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Suspension of Sitting
|
1615
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sitting Resumed
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Financial Statement of Minister of Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
1705
1710
1715
1720
1725
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1740
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 83 |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 182
![](/web/20061116182201im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 16, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report
of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
[English]
Pursuant to the order of reference on Tuesday, May 5, 1998, our
committee has considered Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal
Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act. Our
committee has agreed to report it with amendment.
* * *
PETITIONS
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the
House with 245 signatures from British Columbia.
The petitioners are calling upon parliament to take immediate
steps (a) to provide a significant contribution toward homeowners
affected by the residential construction crisis (b) to ensure
that the cost of all qualified repairs are deductible from income
retroactively and in the future (c) to repeal and refund all GST
on qualified repairs and (d) to permit registered retirement
savings plan or RRSP funds to be used to undertake qualified
repairs without penalty and to permit previously withdrawn RRSP
funds used to pay repair specialist assessments to be income tax
rebated.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
on behalf of a number of Canadians including from my own riding
of Mississauga South on the subject of human rights.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that violations of human rights continue to be rampant around the
world in countries such as Indonesia.
The petitioners also acknowledge that Canada is internationally
recognized as the champion of internationally recognized human
rights. The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to
continue to condemn human rights violations and to seek to bring
to justice those responsible for such abuses.
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions this morning.
The first petition is signed by hundreds of residents of my
constituency of Burnaby—Douglas and elsewhere in British
Columbia.
It notes that a commission of inquiry into the quality of
condominium construction in B.C. has concluded that condominium
owners and residents are the victims of a systemic failure to
provide quality accommodation and as a result tens of thousands
of residents are suffering financially, emotionally, medically
and domestically.
Therefore the petitioners urge parliament to provide a
significant contribution toward homeowners affected by the
residential construction crisis to ensure that the cost of all
qualified repairs are deductible from income retroactively and in
the future, to repeal and refund all GST on qualified repairs,
and finally to permit RRSP funds to be used to undertake
qualified repairs without penalty and to permit previously
withdrawn RRSP funds used to pay repair specialist assessments to
be income tax rebated.
Today on budget day I hope the minister heeds that call.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my second petition is signed by residents of a number of
municipalities in British Columbia including Burnaby.
It draws to the attention of the House the fact that the
multilateral agreement on investment or MAI will
disproportionately expand and entrench unprecedented rights to
transnational corporations and foreign investors at the expense
of the Canadian government's ability basically to make decisions
about our own future.
It calls on parliament to consider the enormous implications to
Canada by the signing of the MAI, to put it to open debate in the
House and to place it for a national referendum for the people of
Canada to decide.
1010
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 270 people
from my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo.
The petitioners ask the House to fund all groups, including
students involved in the RCMP public complaints commission
investigation into the actions of the RCMP at the 1997 APEC
summit, and not to engage and create activities at the expense of
national and international human rights. They call for a full
judicial inquiry.
MARRIAGES
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 300 Canadians
from the communities of Picton, Navan, Limoges, Fort Elgin, Owen
Sound, Scarborough, Guelph, Aurora, London, Brampton and
Kleinburg, Ontario, as well as Kentville and Halifax, Nova
Scotia.
They pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the
Marriage Prohibited Degrees Act and the Interpretation Act, so as
to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question
No. 132 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 132—Mr. John Cummins:
With reference to the side effects experienced by those taking
the anti-malarial drug mefloquine (Lariam): (a) provide a
detailed update on the clinical study of mefloquine (Lariam)
announced by the Department of National Defence in 1997,
including trial design, subject inclusion/exclusion criteria,
numbers of study subjects recruited to date and participating
centres; (b) have reviews been undertaken of the side effects
experienced by the Australian, British and Dutch forces, if so
what were the results and recommendations, and what steps have
been undertaken to implement these recommendations;
(c) with
regard to the mefloquine (Lariam) used for the prophylaxis of
Canadian troops deployed to Somalia, what was the nature of the
Department of Health's Health Protection Branch investigations in
October 1997 into the failure of the manufacturer to properly
supervise and ensure compliance with the Lariam safety monitoring
study and the failure of the Department of National Defence to
comply with its obligations under the safety monitoring study;
(d) with regard to the mefloquine (Lariam) used for the
prophylaxis of Canadian troops deployed to Somalia, what was the
outcome of the Department of Health's Health Protection Branch
investigations in October 1997 into the failure of the
manufacturer to properly supervise and ensure compliance with the
Lariam safety monitoring study and the failure of the Department
of National Defence to comply with its obligations under the
safety monitoring study; (e) what is the date of the insert in
the mefloquine (Lariam) package used in Canada today; (f) what is
the date of the product monograph for mefloquine (Lariam) used in
Canada today;
(g) have reviews been undertaken of the insert in
the mefloquine (Lariam) package and the prescribing information
used in Australia, if so what were the results and
recommendations of the reviews, and what steps have been taken to
implement the recommendations; (h) have reviews been undertaken
of the insert in the mefloquine (Lariam) package and the
prescribing information used in the United Kingdom, if so what
were the results and recommendations of the reviews, and what
steps have been taken to implement the recommendations; (i) have
reviews been undertaken as regards the differences in the timing
and content of the Canadian product monograph approved by the
Department of Health Health Protection Branch as compared with
Australian and British product monograph equivalents, if so what
were the results and recommendations of the reviews, and what
steps have been undertaken to implement these recommendations;
and (j) what was the source of the mefloquine (Lariam) supplies
used for the prophylaxis of Canadian troops deployed to Somalia?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by the
departments of health and national defence as follows:
a) A Department of National Defence (DND) specific research
study to determine whether there are any objectively measurable
neuro-psychological effects associated with mefloquine was
approved by the Medical Services Research Board in 1995. The
study designe is a double blinded, randomized, placebo controlled
trial. The suggested sample size requires 280 persons per active
and placebo group.
Inclusion criteria:
1. Age over 18 years;
2. Expected deployment to an area requiring mefloquine
(chloroquine resistant area); and
3. Informed, voluntary consent to participate in the study.
Exclusion criteria:
1. Prior use of mefloquine, with or without an adverse drug
reaction;
2. Pre-existing medical disorders, including: seizure disorder,
vertigo, neuro-psychiatric disease or cardiac conduction
defect;
3. Pregnancy, or the likelihood of pregnancy during the study
period and for three months following the study period;
and
4. Any allergy to the study medications.
Due to the unavailability of a suitable number of Canadian
forces (CF) participants (CF personnel since 1995 not having been
deployed in sufficient numbers to a region where the use of
mefloquine is required), no subjects have been recruited and
participating centres have not been confirmed.
b) Yes, reviews indicate that the experience of the Australian,
British and Dutch forces with mefloquine is similar to the
Canadian forces experience. The common experience has
demonstrated that mefloquine is a very effective prophylaxis
against malaria and has few significant side effects, although
minor side effects are common. As a result of the reviews, the
Australian, British and Dutch forces continue to use mefloquine
where appropriate and monitor personnel for side effects.
c) Health Canada did not undertake any formal investigations in
October 1997. In October 1994, there were media reports of
claims of involvement of Lariam in several incidents in Somalia.
Health Canada took immediate and repeated action by requesting
the manufacturer to provide all information and adverse drug
reaction reports as required under the safety monitoring study
(SMS) on the possible use by DND of SMS supplies of Lariam in
Canadian forces deployed to Somalia.
d) In October 1994, when Health Canada became aware that Lariam had
been administered to Canadian armed forces deployed to Somalia, the
department requested from the sponsor an accounting of all the
supplies provided to Canadian armed forces personnel by DND, and
a listing of adverse drug reactions observed during the course of
the use of the drug under the auspices of the SMS. DND indicated
to the manufacturer that it was their belief that Lariam issued
in Somalia was purchased separately from the SMS. Health Canada
concluded that the manufacturer had conducted the trial as per
the agreed upon protocol and had responded to the inquiries in a
timely manner.
e) The date of the insert in the Lariam (mefloquine) package
is December 12, 1997.
f) The date on the most recent product monograph which also
contains an information to the consumer section is December 12,
1997.
g) Health Canada has not undertaken a formal review of the
insert in the Lariam (mefloquine) package and the prescribing
information used in Autralia. However, prescribing information from
various countries (Australia, UK, US as well as
the Roche International Standard Prescribing Information) when
provided by the manufacturer and when examined has been found to
be similar to the Canadian labelling information.
h) Health Canada has not undertaken a formal review of the
insert in the Lariam (mefloquine) package and the prescribing
information used in the United Kingdom. However, prescribing
information from various countries (Australia, UK, US as well
as the Roche International Standard Prescribing Information) when
provided by the manufacturer and subsequently examined, has been
found to be similar to the Canadian labelling information.
i) Health Canada has not undertaken a formal review of the
differences in timing and content of the Canadian product
monograph as compared with the Australian and British product
monograph equivalents. Approval for marketing of a product in
Canada and the content of the product monograph is based on the
data submitted to Health Canada at the time of filing of the
submission by the manufacturer. The filing dates as well as the
data in support of the new drug submission may or may not be
similar to that submitted to other regulatory organizations.
j) Hoffman LaRoche.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When the bill was last before the
House the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette had the floor. He
has six minutes remaining in his allotted time.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): 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—
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The Reform Party continues to refer to this as the
Immigration act. I would like to remind the member from the
Reform Party that Bill C-63 is the Citizenship Act. Members of
that party have continually referred to it as the Immigration
Act.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member has made his
point, but I am not sure it is a point of order.
Mr. Grant McNally: 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.
1015
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—
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
relevancy. The member is not addressing the substance of Bill
C-63. Bill C-63 is about citizenship. We do not need members of
the opposition getting up and slandering immigrants to this
country.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member for
Dewdney—Alouette is coming to discuss the bill before the House.
I think he knows his remarks must be relevant to the bill. I
think the parliamentary secretary has made a point and I am sure
the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette will make his remarks
relevant to the bill before the House.
Mr. Grant McNally: 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—
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we
are dealing with Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian
citizenship. Reform has time and time again not talked about
this bill but instead goes off and talk about some other issues
related to immigration, not to citizenship. That debate is going
to come to this House at some point in time and then the members
opposite can address the issue. Right now they are irrelevant.
They are not addressing the citizenship act before this House.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you direct the member of the
opposition to speak about the citizenship act. Otherwise he
should not speak at all.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. member for
Dewdney—Alouette is about to make his remarks about the bill. I
invite him to do so at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Grant McNally: 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.
1020
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.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): 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.
Mr. Grant McNally: 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.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): 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.
Mr. Randy White: 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.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: 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—
1025
Ms. Val Meredith: 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.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, they seem kind of touchy
on that side and I can understand it, being a party that is
compassionately challenged.
Mr. John Duncan: 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.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: 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?
Mr. Grant McNally: 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.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): 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.
1030
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.
Mr. Grant McNally: 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.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): 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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
1035
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
1040
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): 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.
1045
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.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: 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.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): 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
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the
question from the hon. member of the opposition.
1050
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.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: 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?
Ms. Raymonde Folco: 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.
1055
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.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): 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”.
1100
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.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): 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.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I did not use the term
citizenship of convenience when I spoke. Wherever citizenship is
being used as a convenience or as a strategy or as an option, I
think that is something we should be concerned about. I was
addressing the fact that people seem to be able to buy their way
into the country and it is advertised blatantly that this is able
to be done. That is what I was expressing concern about.
The problem with this is not that it is fraud. The problem is
it seems that it is perfectly legal. We are not talking about
fraud here; we are talking about what is admissible in the
current system.
There may be all kinds of problems with fraud but that is another
matter altogether. That is not what I was addressing. I am
addressing the way the system actually works when it is working
according to the rules. That is what disturbs me.
1105
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to my friend
opposite, one must first apply in the investor program. One of
the criteria for the investor program is that one also has to be
ready to invest $250,000 into Canada, not $50,000, but $250,000.
My friend tells me there are consultants that create
misimpressions about what the policy is about. I do not disagree
with him. That is one of the reasons we have to review the act,
which we will do after we deal with the Citizenship Act. The
matter of consultants is one area we have to pay particular
attention to because all too often there are consultants who prey
upon people wanting to go to another country. We as a government
have to guard against that.
Is the member against the legitimate use of the investor program
to come into the country and is he against the entrepreneurial
designation as well?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I do not take any comfort
from the fact that it is not $50,000 but is $250,000. In some
ways depending on how we look at it, this only makes it worse.
It is still a problem. We are not making a distinction here
between a high priced brothel and a lower priced activity. It is
all the same. I think when we put a price on our citizenship, we
are prostituting the notion of Canadian citizenship and I do not
like it in whatever form it takes.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate having this opportunity to speak to second reading of
Bill C-63.
Representing the riding of Vancouver East has been a real
privilege. One of the real characteristics and part of what
makes my community unique is the fact that it has long been in
the history of Vancouver a place where new Canadians have sought
to come, to make their home and put down roots, for families to
raise their their children and to contribute to Vancouver,
British Columbia and to Canada.
I have had interaction and discussions with people in my riding
and organizations like Success, the Chinese Cultural Centre, the
Chinese Benevolent Association, Mosaic, and the Filipino
Association.
Whenever the government comes forward with discussion papers,
and we have had the immigration and refugee legislative review,
but whenever we have citizenship reviews there is always a lot of
concern. People in my community understand that very often the
issues of citizenship and immigration get cast about and thrown
about in terms of the prevailing political winds of the day.
In my community citizenship and immigration have been absolutely
integral in the development of the diversity and uniqueness of
east Vancouver. I think of my riding and the groups that are
represented from Asia, south Asia, the Philippines, Europe, from
all over the world and every part of the globe. It makes this
community very special. It contributes to the richness of what
we have. Vancouver is a great city because it is built on this
wealth of diversity and cultural experience which provide a very
strong economic base, a very strong cultural base and a very
strong multilingual base. That is something people are very
proud of.
I have attended a number of citizenship ceremonies and I know
how proud people are to become Canadian citizens. I know what it
means to them and I know what it means to me. I remember
becoming a Canadian citizen. I remember that day as a young
person and how it felt to become a citizen of a new country.
1110
Within that context I am glad to have the opportunity to speak
on this bill because the changes in this bill will have an impact
on what we do in the future in terms of citizenship. From
discussions I have had in my own community I know people are very
concerned that the provisions in this bill will send out the
message that Canada is not the welcoming place we read about and
hear about from government material, from the Liberal red book
and so on. The Liberal Party in government is not even meeting
its own immigration and citizenship targets as outlined in the
Liberals' red book. They fall far short of that.
Many MPs have probably had a similar experience with the system
and what we have to deal with and what people have to go through
in terms of the incredible bureaucracy. It is amazing when I deal
with individual cases and find out the experiences people have
had.
One problem is that the system is very often suspicious of
people. The amount of red tape and bureaucracy involved in
having a case sorted out and getting something through requires
an incredible amount of dedication and resources and often a
financial commitment. That contradicts other messages which are
sent out by the government that Canada welcomes new immigrants
and welcomes people to become citizens. These are issues we have
to be very concerned about in the legislation and policy changes
that come forward by the government.
There has been a lot of concern about the language requirements.
It is easy to fall into the trap that we should get into major
testing and that new immigrants should be fluent in one of the
official languages. I know from what takes place in my local
community and from the contributions made by my constituents that
language is not necessarily the issue upon which we can determine
whether or not someone is part of a community and is
contributing.
I think of the history of Vancouver East and neighbourhoods like
Strathcona, Chinatown, or Grandview Woodlands where Italians
settled. Many of the people who came to those communities were
not proficient in either English or French and they still made an
incredible contribution. They created jobs. They created new
businesses. They provided the cultural diversity which blossomed
within the city.
The focus on the language requirement, and what many perceive to
be a tightening of that requirement is causing very deep concern
within the community. Government members, particularly those who
represent ridings in which there is high cultural diversity,
should be aware of this. The signals being sent out concern a
lot of people.
As we go through these changes, and there are more to come, we
have been told continually by the government that there have been
mega consultations. The feedback I get from my riding is that
there is very strong concern about where this legislation and
other proposals in the works are leading to.
My colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona pointed out that there is
also a lot of concern about the head tax that still exists and
the fact that it is very discriminatory. There is still a lot of
concern about citizenship being based on the ability to pay
rather than on making sure our citizenship policy is based on
welcoming all kinds of people from different economic and social
classes. These are matters of serious concern.
What we want to do today is say to the government that this
requires a serious review to make sure that the message that goes
out is that Canada is a welcoming place, a place which does not
place onerous requirements on people and say “you have to fit
into this box in terms of language or in terms of money or where
you come from, or we'll make sure that depending on where you
apply to come in, you may or may not get through because there so
much discretion in the system”.
1115
Those of the kinds of things we want to get away from. We want
to get back to what I believe is a very strong historical role
for Canada, that this country was built on new citizenship and
built on the contribution of many different kinds of people. That
is what has made this country great. It is something I am very
proud of in east Vancouver.
I express those concerns to the government members, to the
Liberal Party, and say we have to proceed very cautiously in this
direction. People understand that the future of Canada in terms
of what kind of people come here, what kind of rules we have
hangs in the balance. I have no doubt that members have heard
those concerns expressed but we want to make sure that those
concerns are acted on and that Canada's policies for citizenship
are welcoming, open and fair.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to make a few comments on this bill today. Immigration
is a very important area of concern. It is an area in which all
of us as Canadians have a stake. Hopefully we can look at the
policies of the immigration department and conclude that they
have over the years served our country well. I think by and
large the policies have served us well for a number of years.
Now it is time to update the act so that these policies can move
us into the new millennium reflecting the concerns of prospective
immigrants and Canadians generally.
One point I would like to make deals with confirming that all
children born in Canada, except the children of foreign
diplomats, will automatically become Canadian citizens.
I want to point out to the minister of immigration that perhaps
this ignores the problem of someone entering Canada, making a
refugee claim, having a child while in Canada and then having the
refugee claim refused. What do we do with the child if the parent
has to be deported? Can we force the parent to leave knowing
that the infant Canadian citizen will either be abandoned here or
should such an infant accompany the parent even if the parent is
returning to an undesirable part of the world?
These are difficult questions. No doubt the courts or our
United Nations obligations will tell us the answers in due
course.
The new act treats children adopted abroad much the same as
children born here. I understand the minister's desire not to
put an undue stigma on adopted children, but Canadians should
understand as well that the change removes the requirement that
children adopted abroad have the normal medical and other checks
required of an immigrant.
My question here to the minister of immigration is are Canadians
generally aware of that change and would they support it if they
were fully aware of it.
The new citizenship act requires that to be eligible to become a
citizen on has to reside physically here for three years. Now it
allows one five years to accumulate these three years of actual
residence. That is something that we can all support, given the
highly mobile workforce we are into today in this global
economy.
1120
I think we can all accept that. However, I sincerely hope there
are bureaucratic mechanisms to check on the facts of residency.
Simply having a mailing address here in Canada is not enough and
that has been the case in some instances in the past. People
would apply for citizenship in Canada and simply have a mailing
address here.
I have no problem with requiring that a citizenship applicant as
opposed to a new refugee for example be required to speak English
or French, or have some working knowledge of English or French,
and some knowledge of Canada generally.
We need standardized testing or other mechanisms to ensure that
such knowledge and language skills are indeed real and not simply
something that will be seen on an application form.
I am pleased that so-called citizenship judges are being removed
from the decision making loop. Decisions on citizenship should
be made by professional civil servants who have training and who
have experience in the field.
I am sure all of us as MPs deal with immigration cases almost on
a daily basis. My experience as an MP dealing with actual cases
that come across my desk is that there are often inconsistencies
in treatment from one officer to another. Firm guidelines for
decision making are required so that there is a high likelihood
that a decision made on an individual in the Vancouver office is
consistent with the decision made on an individual in the Toronto
office. I am sure that in committee we have heard complaints
associated with that concern in the past.
As for the replacement of judges with commissioners, I am
wondering, and I think a lot of people would wonder, if these
people are really needed. Is it just another avenue for
government to make patronage appointments? If there is a public
role to be performed in promoting the value of Canadian
citizenship I suggest that the minister co-ordinate these efforts
with the heritage minister as was pointed out by a member of the
official opposition a couple of weeks ago.
Section 43 of the act makes provision for making regulations on
a host of issues. I have concerns about the widespread use of
regulations. Since regulations are made internally they can be
changed internally and not necessarily debated here in the House
of Commons or not necessarily be made available to the media for
full and open scrutiny.
Regarding the oath of citizenship, I have no problems with
swearing allegiance to the Queen since Canada is still a
parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy. We all
have to swear an oath to take our place here in the House of
Commons. As for the other parts of the oath there should be more
public consultation as to the wording of it. There is no problem
with the public being involved as long as the constitutional
bases are covered and indeed it would be beneficial to have some
kind of public consultation or debate on the value of Canadian
citizenship generally. It would be beneficial for all of us here
in the House of Commons and also for all Canadians to hear from
time to time the value of being a Canadian.
All the new laws in the world will not improve the citizenship
application and approval process if the proper systems are not
put in place. Many of the problems with the current system come
from the many inconsistencies in policy application and the lack
of financial resources to do the proper jobs.
The laws are no good if they are unworkable or if they are
totally unenforceable. What is needed first and foremost is the
political will to do a good job and the personnel and funds to
carry it out.
1125
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for St. John's East. It is refreshing to
have somebody stand and talk to the specifics of the act.
The member agrees with getting rid of citizenship court judges
but he wonders about the need for citizenship commissioners. One
of the problems we have in this country is that Canadians do not
know enough about our history, which is an incredible history,
and that we are not promoting Canadian citizenship the way we
should be.
The issues the member raised regarding the language requirements
will be a topic of debate in committee and we will get to
committee as soon as we pass second reading in the House. After
we deal with this act we will be returning with other acts.
The member raised a good question as it relates granting
citizenship status. To the Reform Party I say it really is
enlightening to have a pan-Canadian party, as the Conservative
Party is, instead of a regional party, which the Reform Party is,
stand in the House and seriously debate the substance of the
bill.
The member raised the concern about granting citizenship to
people born in this country. He raised the issue that it could
be a child of a refugee. He is concerned about the implications.
We are not aware of this being abused. Is the member aware of
some situation where it has been abused? If so we would like to
know about it.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
I am not aware of any particular instance where that clause has
been abused. One of the responsibilities we have as members is
to look for possible loopholes in the act. In going over the act
I find that to be a loophole that ignored the problem of someone
entering Canada, making a refugee claim, having the child and
then the refugee claim being refused. What happens in that
instance? What do we do with the child if the parent has to be
deported? That is a reasonable concern. Can we force the parent
to leave knowing that the infant Canadian citizen is here and
could be abandoned? Or do we simply force the parent to take the
child back to wherever the refugee came from, knowing it might be
an undesirable part of the world?
It is a concern. It should be raised in the House of Commons.
The minister should address the concern and bring an answer back
to the House.
1130
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to address Bill C-63. I want to concentrate on
several issues within it. I will be splitting my time. The
member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast will follow me, and all
subsequent members from the Reform Party will be splitting their
time.
It is necessary to look at the whole citizenship issue in terms
of the quality and quantity of citizens in Canada. We first have
to ask ourselves what comes first, the citizen or the immigrant.
As all of us know the answer is that the immigration system comes
first and it dictates the quality of citizens in Canada.
Further to that I think quality of life in Canada is dependent
upon the quality of all citizens regardless of their place of
origin. As we go along in the evolution of this country we have
to keep that in mind. For the six Liberals who are sitting in
the House today, not very many listening to their own bill, we
will try to make clear to them what the issues are.
Earlier one of our colleagues, the House leader of the NDP,
discussed the issue of an advertisement in the Latin Trade
Magazine. As a matter of fact I raised this issue some time
ago but I just want to further elaborate on it because I feel the
same way as he does. The very fact that ads like this are in
magazines in other countries does not bode well for this country.
The image is that one can get into Canada regardless of one's
status in one's own country. In fact that is quite true. The ad
states a person is guaranteed immigration to Canada with the
purchase of a fleet rent a car franchise for a total investment
of $50,000. It says in the ad that a person is guaranteed
immigration to Canada even with a criminal record.
One has to wonder what possesses people in Canada to advertise
this in other countries. A while back I had a little talk with
this company and I can assure members that what is in here is in
fact true. In fact this company takes money from individuals,
even if they are criminals; buys some cars and I am sure pockets
a good deal of the change; and marks up the value of those cars
enough to justify the individual coming into this country. It
has closed its doors since we raised this issue or at least its
phone calls have been relocated somewhere.
When asked whether or not a person from another country with a
criminal record could buy into it, the answer was: “You can get
into Canada with criminal records. In fact, if you go from this
particular country to Russia and then to Europe, you could
probably squeeze into Canada that way and through this
sponsorship program”.
I pursued it a lot further than that. The police actually
investigated the company. The file was forwarded to the
Department of Justice for a decision on whether to lay a charge.
Of course the Department of Justice did not lay a charge because
it thought there were the usual legal industry technicalities to
get away with it under the Immigration Act. It said it could not
push it because the Immigration Act was so flexible.
I read the Immigration Act which basically states that in the
Immigration Act or in the enforcement of its policies a person
with a criminal record in whatever country is precluded from
applying to immigrate to Canada.
1135
It also happens there are indications that this particular
company is connected to the Russian Mafia. Is this a surprise in
the House of Commons? Wrong. The Liberal government knows about
the ads. The Liberal government knows how this is working. Yet
the Liberal government allows it to continue. When government
brings an act into the House, a citizenship act, knowing full
well that ultimately those individuals will become Canadian
citizens, exactly what does it think those individuals will be
doing? Will they become ministers or engineers in Canada? What
does it think the citizenship will be after they arrive?
It goes to show that on the surface bills like this one look
great. Basically it is platitudes to the rest of us because
there is much more wrong with the system today than citizenship.
I have attended lots of citizenship ceremonies since I have been
an MP. I have attended lots of deportation hearings of
criminals. I have been an intervener in those hearings. Yet the
government fights harder and harder and spends more money for
criminals to stay here than it does for law-abiding citizens who
immigrate to this country to stay here.
I would like to tell the House about some of the individuals I
have dealt with. When I have be dealing with these individuals I
have wondered why the government is hell bent on keeping these
individuals in Canada, knowing full well that ultimately they
will become citizens. For the five Liberals in the House, I
would really like to get my message across.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford knows that it is improper to make reference
to the presence or absence of members in the House, particularly
the absence.
I have made speeches before too, and I know there is an argument
to be made that in referring to the number of members here you
are actually referring to the presence of members and not the
absence. I have found myself in difficulty in doing that in the
past and I know the hon. member would want to comply with the
rules in every respect and set an example for all members of his
party. After all, he is the House leader and therefore he would
want to comply with the rules in every respect. I think he knows
it is perhaps not quite in accordance with the standing orders to
refer to the number of members who are here, with the suggestion
that there is a bunch who is not.
Members have other responsibilities. He knows that. Perhaps he
could resume his remarks without those kinds of references.
Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I kind of
thought the House leader of the official opposition had some kind
of special privilege in the House to identify there were not that
many around on the other side to listen to the fact that Bill
C-63 was supposed to be an important bill.
Getting back to the difficulties I am having with this
contradiction of the Liberals, so to speak, on one side we are
funding through government dollars, through legal aid, to keep
criminals in the country, as well as allowing advertising
inviting criminals to the country. On the other side they are
saying that they are opening up the legislation for citizenship.
We only have to listen to a few stories like the 80-plus
Honduran gang in Vancouver that has been openly selling drugs to
our kids on the street. Not too long ago the police in Vancouver
arrested these thugs and yet not one of them has been deported.
They will very likely be staying in this country and will
ultimately become citizens.
1140
We have cases upon cases of individuals who are basically
undesirable in our country wreaking havoc among our citizenry,
selling drugs and whatnot. Yet the Liberals are hell bent on
determining that we should improve the system of citizenship to
make sure some of these people stay. That is wrong.
The Citizenship Act provides now for immigrants to come into the
country and be citizens. We are happy for that, but the front
end take of the immigration system is flawed. The patronage
appointment system to the refugee board and the immigration board
is flawed. I know members opposite do not want to hear this but
it is flawed. I have been through that more than anybody in the
House.
I wonder why, for instance, the refugee system is currently
entertaining an application from an American. Why is it that we
are entertaining a refugee application from an American? I tried
to be an intervener in that process and was cut off. The
individual applicant basically said “It is a matter of my
privacy and you cannot come in”. Now I have to fight that, get
on the inside and find out what the problem is.
A fellow by the name of Montenegro, a Honduran drug dealer with
numerous trafficking charges, has claimed refugee status. Why? To
beat a deportation certificate. I applied to attend the refugee
hearing but as soon as the refugee board got my application as an
intervener it gave him a hearing because it did not want the
spotlight on this individual. I told the board to make its
decision and let me know what it did with him. The board said
“No, that is privacy and we will not tell you what we did with
him”. I happen to know that individual is still in the country
and will ultimately perhaps become a citizen.
What is this citizenship legislation that so few Liberals want
to listen to? The front end of our citizenship program in this
country has to be immigration and the immigration system cannot
be flawed. My message to the Liberals is to concentrate on what
has to be changed, and that is a very flawed immigration-refugee
system.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I point out
to the hon. member that when people who are here on refugee
status get charged they are presumed to be innocent until they
are convicted.
If the member is telling the House that as soon as a charge is
laid we should then consider the individual guilty, I wish he
would stand in his place and say so because due process applies
to everybody in Canada. Mr. Sekora—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary
knows he will have to use the proper constituency name. I am
sure he is referring to the hon. member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. I hope that is what he meant.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly what I
meant.
That member said if someone is convicted, not charged but
convicted. I think it is important for the Reform Party to
understand the difference because it really determines the kind
of country we are living in.
There are countries in the world, on the planet, where once one
is charged one is deemed to be guilty. Maybe that is what the
Reform Party wants, but certainly the government does not want
that and most Canadians do not want that.
The member referred to the Hondurans who are charged before the
courts. I can assure the member that once a person is convicted
that is very much taken into account as to whether that person is
allowed to stay in this country. I would venture to say that
people who are convicted of drug offences will not find
themselves granted citizenship.
1145
Furthermore, if the member were to examine that he would notice
that in cases where people are applying for citizenship and they
are facing a criminal charge or if they are on probation, then
they will not get citizenship during that period of time. I
think it is important for the member to let Canadians know that
yes, we are very much concerned about making sure people who come
to this country and acquire their citizenship are going to be
contributing to this country, instead of focusing continually on
the small percentage of people who cause us problems.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, if this member ever came to
my community he would find out that this is not such a small
problem. The fact is these Hondurans are on film. They have been
selling drugs to our kids in Vancouver. They have every
opportunity and will very likely stay in this country because
this deportation system does not work.
The fact is there was a fellow in my riding, until I had him
removed to Laos, Boungan Inthavong, who got his refugee status
while in prison. It was given to him to block his deportation
after he had beaten a 17-year old to death with a bat in my
community.
I can cite dozens of examples like this. The problem is this
government has no clue whatsoever of how serious the problem is.
Individuals in this country convicted of crimes very seldom are
deported because this government has a policy of spending
taxpayer money to defend them at the same time it is spending
taxpayer money to deport them. It is the only government in the
world that fights itself and loses.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate today. It
was interesting to listen to the parliamentary secretary talk
about what is happening in this area. The citizenship bill was
brought to the minister by this House four and a half years ago.
We have had to wait four and a half years for legislation that is
not going to solve the problem of when people come to Canada
until they become citizens of Canada.
It is amazing to me to listen to the parliamentary secretary
talk about the Reform Party. I also heard the member for
Kitchener—Waterloo, a parliamentary secretary, and also the
member for Laval West talk about the Reform Party and our
position on immigration and how we do not like immigrants, how we
do not want immigrants in this country, and he is nodding his
head. It is a bunch of nonsense.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary, when he has some time
instead of sitting there in his political way looking at these
partisan issues, to sit down and talk to the member for
Edmonton—Strathcona in my party, talk to a man who was a
refugee, an immigrant to this country who is now a citizen and a
member of parliament; talk to the member for Dauphin—Swan River
who came to this country and is not only a citizen of this
country now but is also a member of parliament; talk to the
member for Surrey Central who came to this country as a refugee,
an immigrant, and became a citizen of this country and was
elected to the Parliament of Canada; talk to the member for
Calgary East who came to this country as a refugee, an immigrant,
and is now a member of parliament.
If the hon. member wants to talk about citizenship, he should
talk to the Reform Party. We are out there listening to people.
We have members elected by Canadians who know what immigration is
all about.
The parliamentary secretary can smile about that but we are here
to improve the country for Canadians. We like immigrants. We
know Canada is built on immigrants. That is why we have the
largest number of immigrants elected in this party right here in
this parliament than any other party. The member can check those
numbers out and find out I am correct.
We are talking ratios of our party to any party in this House. We
have more than all the other opposition parties combined. We
have done that because our party does go out and talk to the
immigrants of this country. We have talked to the people who are
building Canada. We are very proud of what we are doing and of
what we are doing in this House.
1150
This government wants to talk about citizenship. It has taken
four and a half years. Government members have talked about
penalties for bureaucratic delays. When I read that section of
the bill it made me smile. The current act allows an individual
whose application for permanent residence is approved to count
each full day of residency in Canada from the date they put their
application in. That makes sense. You are living here, you are
an immigrant to Canada, you are applying to become a citizen.
What does the government do in this bill? Bill C-63 removes
that provision so applicants will now be penalized for the
system's bureaucratic delays even when the delays are through no
fault of the applicant. What does that mean? I cannot believe
any responsible person elected to this House would allow this
section to be in the bill. It obviously could not have been read
by the minister, the parliamentary secretary or anybody else on
that side of the House. This is a bureaucratic insert in the
bill. I say that because bureaucrats like delays.
Let us look at the immigration department when it comes to
delays. Let us look at the L.A. office. A person from Hong Kong
applied through the L.A. office because they had been turned down
in Hong Kong. This party brought it to the attention of the
House. This party forced the government into having an
investigation of that application through the L.A. office. It
was party that got a person appointed to go down there to have a
look at it. The person came back with a report saying that it
was all a big mistake, there was no criminality but just a big
mistake. He should never have been approved there. Somebody
forgot to punch it in the computer to find out he had been
refused. He is now sitting in Canada. He is one of the biggest
crooks in the world and he is still in Canada, still in British
Columbia. He will probably get some citizenship somewhere along
the line because we will not have the guts to deport him.
That is what this bill is about, bureaucratic delays. We do not
need those bureaucratic delays. It was this party that brought
to the attention of the government that up to $200,000 went
missing in the L.A. office. That was well over a year ago and we
have yet to hear what has happened to that $200,000. We know the
RCMP was investigating. We know the police in L.A. were
investigating. We know somebody has taken off with the money but
where is it? We do not know and the bureaucrats do not want us
to know because they are afraid it might embarrass this
government.
Yet what do we have in this bill? A section that says
bureaucratic delays are taken away from your time when you are
applying to become a citizen. That does not sound to me like a
party that wants to create citizens in Canada. It wants to delay
your citizenship. That is in this bill. It is not a very good
section of the bill. It is really rather embarrassing.
There are a lot of other very upsetting areas of this bill. The
most upsetting part of all is that we have not really got to the
major parts of what is wrong with this whole department. Here we
have a minister who takes four and a half years after a
parliamentary committee makes a recommendation to make changes in
citizenship and other areas, and what do we have? We have a bill
on citizenship with loads of holes and loads of faults, one of
which I just mentioned.
Where are the bills on the refugee issue? Where are the bills
on the criminality? All we have seen from this minister in the
last year and a half is two big press conferences, big thick
books full of things she is going to do, and then she changes her
mind.
Where is the scanning process to make sure these illegal
refugees do not get in this country? That is an issue everybody
in the committee agreed on, even the Liberals who sat on that
side, yet it will not even be in the legislation according to the
minister's latest press release. She is not looking at that
problem because it does not suit her needs or her plans. This
minister has sat on her seat for four and a half years with no
legislation for immigration. We have a citizenship bill that is
full of holes but it is not the major problem.
Last year's auditor general's report talked about 20,000 people
being ordered deported from this country. How many have been
deported? Four thousand. When we asked the department where the
other 16,000 were, it was not quite sure. They probably
reapplied to get their citizenship. We want to talk about this
bill. Where are those people today? Probably still roaming
Canada somewhere although the department says that some of them
may have crossed the border and gone somewhere else. I doubt
that very much. It seems there is more crossing the border to
come into Canada than going the other way. That includes what my
colleague, the House leader, talked about with the Hondurans in
British Columbia. The member smiles on the other side and asks
if they have been convicted yet. Yes, a lot of them have been
convicted.
I was in Vancouver with a bunch of Vancouver police and some
RCMP immigration officers.
1155
We were looking down to the east side of Vancouver where a lot
of people come when they arrive in Canada while waiting to apply
for citizenship. We were talking to a young 17 year old fellow
from Honduras. He produced his papers for us. This young man
had been in the country nine days. He was wearing quite nice
clothes. The policeman said “You're mumbling. You have
something in your mouth. Spit it out.” So he spit out $1,700
worth of crack cocaine. This man was 17 years old from Honduras
and has been in downtown Vancouver for nine days. They just
kicked him in the pants and told him to disappear.
I asked the Vancouver police why they did not arrest him. As
members know, in British Columbia the police cannot lay charges.
Charges have to be laid by a crown prosecutor. Crown prosecutors
in British Columbia with a socialist government have told the
police they do not want so many people in jail so eliminate some
of the problems they have. It is not worthwhile to arrest this
fellow. These are the words of the Vancouver police. They are
frustrated over this whole issue.
I then turned to the RCMP officers and said why not at least get
his name and his landed immigrant or refugee file number. The
police cannot do that because he has not been convicted. This is
the magic word from the parliamentary secretary. Has he been
convicted yet?
What kind of society do we live in where we have to have a
conviction? I was there. I saw the man spit the crack cocaine
out. It is an illegal substance. We know he is peddling or
using it. He should have been taken in. At least we should be
telling the refugee officials this guy is in the drug business
and should be sent back to Honduras right now.
We should be rounding these people up, putting them on an
airplane and sending them right back to Honduras. It is not a
bad place to be. Certainly Canada is better but there is process
people must apply through to come to this country.
I mentioned people in my party who came here as refugees and
immigrants. Talk to the member for North Vancouver. He came
here as an immigrant and applied. The member for Wild Rose came
here as an immigrant and applied through the system. What is
wrong with the system?
What is wrong with the system is sections of Bill C-63 that talk
about allowing the bureaucrats to use the days of their delay to
delay the right of somebody to become a citizen in this country.
I want these immigrants to become citizens of Canada. We should
be encouraging it. The bureaucrats of this bill will be able to
take three, four, five, six years to allow people who are
legitimate refugees to become citizens of this great country.
We are as concerned as anybody regarding this situation of
immigration and citizenship. But this bill should not have been
the first bill in this House. The minister should get the other
legislation here that all Canadians want. I hope we can get this
section changed in committee.
No immigrant in this country should have their citizenship
delayed because some bureaucrat wants to sit on it for another 30
or 60 days. It should not be a penalty for them. We should
penalize the bureaucrats and give the immigrant a double day
bonus for every day the bureaucrats delay him or her. This bill
is wrong and we will oppose it.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
talked about what I deduce he believes are instant citizens. In
other words, once a person comes to this country that is the
automatic acceptance of their commitment to our country.
I know the process is established to ensure that the person
living here becomes familiar with our customs, our culture and
our history. I think that is very important and they can
actually prove they have taken the time and made the effort to
learn who we are as a people before they declare their
citizenship.
I was surprised at the member's cavalier attitude that once
someone is landed in this country we should suddenly grant them
citizenship. Is that the thrust of the member's argument?
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, it is not a cavalier
attitude. We have a process and we agree with that process. A
person has to be here for a certain period of time and study this
country.
I ask the member to read this bill, because I am sure he is
sincere, and the section concerning the legal amount of time to
become a citizen. I am sure the member, like I, would like every
immigrant who comes to this country to become a citizen of Canada
so they can vote and participate in what is going on.
But right now this bill says after the period of time the person
has been here, puts their application in, the days they have been
here after that do not count. They should count for the amount
of time they have been here. This allows the bureaucrats any
delays they want. They can delay citizenship as long as they
want with no penalties to the bureaucrats at all. I think that
is wrong and I think the member would agree it is wrong.
1200
Bureaucrats should not have that kind of control. Bureaucratic
delays should not be counted against anyone. I think everybody
in this House would want it. Anybody who comes to this country
usually wants to become a citizen. We should do what we can to
encourage them. I agree there are the three years they are here
which used to be five years. That is the time in which they
assimilate into the community and learn the Canadian ways. I
would hope we would encourage people.
I remember speaking with David Lam, who was lieutenant governor
of British Columbia when I was speaker of the British Columbia
legislature. He asked me to an ethnic dinner. He made a speech
about people not living with their own people when they came to
Canada. He advised Italians not to live in little Italy, and
Chinese not to live in Chinatown but to live in the community.
This was not me speaking. It was David Lam, an immigrant to
Canada who rose to the highest post possible in our province as
lieutenant governor. He was one of the greatest lieutenant
governors we ever had.
He talked about studying the citizenship papers. He advised
listeners to get their Canadian citizenship and become part of
the community. I believe deeply in that. We should be
encouraging people. We do not do enough of that. This is not
partisan politics now. No matter what party is in power we
should be encouraging everybody who comes here as an immigrant to
get those papers, study hard and become a Canadian, part of the
Canadian mosiac.
We spend more damned time on multiculturalism when we should be
spending it on Canadianism.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague has spent a great deal of time in politics.
He is very wise in the area of looking at a system and seeing the
problems and then looking for solutions that would make the
system better. I too had the opportunity to go to Vancouver and
witness the kinds of things he mentioned.
I know the parliamentary secretary and the government do not
really want to hear today about the problems with the system.
That has been shown in their attitudes here today. I would not
mind hearing from my colleague what it is that he believes the
minister should be focusing on rather than this particular piece
of legislation.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have already mentioned
the one fault with the bill. There is another issue which I am
sure my colleague from Burnaby will be speaking on. It is where
the minister will have the power to redefine the family in this
bill before the Parliament of Canada decides who should be
redefining the family. Those are two issues of the bill which are
of concern to me.
The main issue in this whole area is that the minister should be
looking at the refugee problem and how it is happening. How are
people getting across our border every day just by using the word
refugee, while legitimate people from other parts of the world
who want to come to Canada through the normal process are held
back?
I know the parliamentary secretary can go on and on but as the
auditor general said, 20,000 people were ordered deported last
year and only 4,000 were deported. The same thing happens every
year.
There are a lot of serious problems. This bill is not touching
one one-hundredth of one per cent of the problems with
immigration.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will split my time with the MP for Durham.
I am pleased to discuss Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian
citizenship.
Citizenship is an issue that is very important to me, both
personally and as a member of parliament. As an immigrant
myself, I chose Canada as my country where I would live, work,
raise a family and serve the community. As the member of
parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, I represent one of the most
ethnically and culturally diverse ridings in the country. I
represent constituents who immigrated to Canada from countries
around the globe, individuals from Italy, Portugal, Korea, Japan,
India, China and many others.
I understand well how important it is that Canada has
citizenship legislation that is up to date. We must clearly
reflect contemporary Canadian values. Bill C-63 aims to
modernize Canada's citizenship legislation.
1205
Before 1947 when the first Canadian Citizenship Act was
implemented, people born in Canada were considered to be British
subjects. Of course the concept of citizenship has evolved over
time. On the eve of the new century the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration has tabled the citizenship of Canada act. I
would like to explain some of the changes the bill outlines.
At the present time all children born in Canada are granted
citizenship regardless of the immigration or citizenship status
of their parents. Bill C-63 does not propose a change to this
policy.
Citizenship is also granted to children born outside the country
to Canadian parents. The implementation of this legislation
would mean Canadian children born abroad would be required to
meet residency requirements by the age of 28 in order to maintain
their citizenship. This proposed requirement reflects the
importance that Canadians attach to having strong ties to Canada
as a condition of citizenship.
As well, the act would end discrimination against Canadian
parents who adopt a child overseas. With the proposed changes,
adopted children would be granted citizenship without having to
go through the immigration process.
Bill C-63 would also make changes to residency requirements for
immigrants. The legislation proposes that individuals applying
for citizenship would live in Canada for at least three of the
five years. These residency requirements ensure that prospective
Canadians become familiar with life in Canada and demonstrate
their commitment to our country.
The legislation would also increase the chances for family
reunification. We understand that need and respect the wishes of
the Canadian family. It is important to have the family united
in this land.
The bill also makes changes to the roles and the
responsibilities of citizenship judges. Their title would be
changed to citizenship commissioner. Their responsibilities
would involve conducting ceremonies, advising the minister upon
request and promoting citizenship. The new rules would guard
against the abuse of powers or other offences committed in the
context of duty.
The bill also proposes changes to the oath sworn by new
Canadians when they obtain their citizenship. New citizens would
swear allegiance to Canada and loyalty to Canada's head of state,
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. New Canadians would commit to
respect Canada's laws, rights and freedoms. The new oath will
demonstrate attachment and commitment to Canada.
Canada depends on the commitment of people from diverse
backgrounds to build a future together based on the sharing of
such Canadian values as democracy, human rights and respect for
the rule of law.
As an immigrant I am proud to be a Canadian and I am proud to be
the member of parliament for Vancouver Kingsway.
1210
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was
interesting that the official opposition was concerned about the
numbers of government members in the House for this debate. I
was wondering about the arithmetic but I stand corrected, I
thought there was no opposition member where in fact there is
one.
It gives me great pleasure to enter this debate on Bill C-63, an
act to amend our Citizenship Act. I understand that the
Citizenship Act has not been amended since 1947.
It is an interesting day to have this debate because yesterday
was flag day to honour the 34th birthday of our great flag. It
was my privilege to be part of a number of celebrations that
occurred in my riding yesterday. It is something I have been
promoting. When this first came about, only one school in my
riding celebrated it and now about 10 schools are celebrating
flag day. Hopefully some day it will be a national holiday and a
national event for Canadians to celebrate another part of their
heritage.
Canada is a young country in the family of nations. At the same
time we are continuing to evolve and build our traditions. A
number of issues come out when I look at one aspect of the bill,
clause 34 which deals with the oath of citizenship.
When I was first elected I went to a lot of citizenship
ceremonies. Sadly there are not as many in my riding now because
the judge system has changed. It was a tremendous event. Young
and old people came to this country not because they were forced
to but through selection. They wanted to come here for a very
important reason. They wanted to leave possibly a poorer
lifestyle to come and share in our lifestyle, our culture and our
traditions. They wanted very much to be part of this country.
Those were great celebrations. There were people from all over
the world who had spent five years in this country and had taken
the time to study our history, our traditions and our culture.
It was such an important day in their lives to swear allegiance
to this country and to take their position along with the rest of
us, having no less rights and freedoms than anyone else in this
country. For anyone who has attended those ceremonies, it cannot
help but be an uplifting experience to see what a great country
this is. I sometimes think one of the problems is that not
enough Canadians go overseas to really appreciate what a great
country Canada is.
When I look at the oath of citizenship I see three themes.
Strangely enough, I have studied the oaths in other countries and
the themes are somewhat similar.
The first deals with respect for our democratic traditions.
Canadians have developed their own unique traditions. We have
certainly borrowed from other countries in the past. Notably the
British common law system and also the French civil law system
are a part of our culture. We have developed on that footing to
evolve our own democratic traditions and ideals which has taken
us over 100 years to do. What is important is that we have done
that within Canada, Canadians dealing with each other, making
comprises with each other and trying to understand each other and
evolving their political traditions.
Another theme seems to be rights and freedoms. Those same
people I talked about who came to this country very much
understand what it is like to have rights and freedoms. They may
possibly have come from countries that did not have those rights
and freedoms. Canadians developed their own charter of rights and
freedoms. In this place and in other legislatures in this
country we have developed a whole body of rights and freedoms
which we commonly respect.
The other theme seems essentially to be a respect for our laws.
In other words we swear an oath saying we believe that even if
the laws of the country are not just, we agree to abide by them
and try to work within the political system to change them.
However, at first blush we accept the laws of our country and we
will respect them.
1215
I have studied this issue of oath because it interested me. In
Carswell's Canadian Law Dictionary the definition is the basic
purpose of an oath is to bind the consciousness of the witness.
In other words, the conscience of the person who is taking this
oath tells him that he must respect the rights and freedoms of
these people. Canadians respect their laws and respect their
democratic values. This is a very powerful statement of people.
What I am alluding to is that section 34 does not quite address
what I think is an important aspect. That is Canadians have
developed all the functions of a legal framework. There have
been Canadians who have taken some of those traditions, evolved
them and made them into something unique.
As we face the next millennium which is months away it seems
appropriate that Canadians stand up and make their statement that
their oath of allegiance is to Canada. It partially says that
but it goes a little further. My colleague who just spoke
specifically mentioned the oath.
After the last election I made a certain point to go beyond the
so-called oath of the House of Commons. It is important because
it is more significant than the traditional oath. I said that I
do solemnly affirm my true allegiance to Canada in conformity
with the Constitution of Canada. Something to this effect is a
more appropriate oath for Canadians.
Some people will mention the monarchy. I am not opposed. I am
not an anti-monarchist. I am pro-Canadian. It is time for
Canadians to stand up and have an allegiance to their country
which does not involve the head of state of another country, that
of Great Britain.
What I suggest to the government is that we propose some sort of
amendment to this legislation that will recognize that the oath
of citizenship is to Canada only and to no other country. It has
always seemed absurd to me when I listen to some of these people
taking this oath of citizenship. Some of them did come from the
United Kingdom. I know what was going through their minds. What
they often asked me was what had they done. They thought they
were coming to a new country. They wanted to share in our
culture and traditions but they had to swear their allegiance to
the monarch they left. They did not understand what we were
doing as a country. I had to agree with them.
This is not anti-anything. A lot of people get involved in the
emotions of all this. Nobody can steal our tradition as a
people. We have had a linkage of history with the British
commonwealth as we have with France. I am not talking about
doing away with it. Canada can continue to be part of the
British commonwealth. But as a small token of the realization
that we are going into the 21st century we should as a minimum
change this oath so it clearly swears allegiance solely to
Canada, Canada's democratic traditions that Canadians have
developed of themselves, Canada's rights and freedoms that we
have developed by ourselves and those traditions that talk about
our loyalty to our laws and upholding the laws of Canada that we
evolved and developed.
1220
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian citizenship is worthy of
protection. Our citizenship is very highly regarded
internationally. I feel that Canadians expect and feel that this
government has a duty to protect Canadian citizenship and what it
means worldwide.
The citizenship and immigration committee reviewed this issue
back in 1994. It sent recommendations to the government four and
a half years ago. All I can say is this is typical of the
inertia of this department and of its ministry. At this rate we
can expect badly needed changes to the Immigration Act in the
22nd century.
The big question is if after four and a half years this is it,
this is the best the minister can come up with?
I had the opportunity of representing the official opposition as
a critic for the immigration portfolio. I can remember sitting
at committees where they were dominated by the Liberal
government. The citizenship and immigration committee four and a
half years ago was also dominated by the Liberal government. Yet
it had the courage to recommend to the minister of the day that
the laws that grant Canadian citizenship to any child born in
Canada should be amended. This minister chose to ignore that
recommendation.
I would like to examine why it is a concern to Canadians. There
are only two western democracies that automatically grant
citizenship to every child born in their country, the United
States of America and Canada. In the United States of America it
is because of the 14th amendment to the American Constitution
which was proposed by Congress in June 1866 in the aftermath of
the civil war. It was to ensure that the freed slaves in the
south were not denied their rights by state legislatures. The
14th amendment states: “All persons born or naturalised in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are
citizens of the United States and the state within where they
reside”.
However, because of this constitutional amendment the Americans
are faced with a situation today where pregnant Mexican women sit
on the south shore of the Rio Grande until they go into labour.
Then they cross the river and they have children in the United
States and are therefore United States citizens.
Earlier this morning we had Liberals talk about the long
tradition in Canada of granting citizenship to children born in
Canada. This long tradition started in 1977, not quite so long
ago. This change has led to foreigners specifically coming to
Canada to give birth so that their children will automatically
have Canadian citizenship.
In 1995 there were 500 births to foreign women in British
Columbia alone. That was more than 1% of the births in British
Columbia.
In the city of Richmond almost 30% of births at the Richmond
hospital were to foreigners. Despite the fact that these newborn
babies spend only one or two weeks in Canada before they depart
for their homeland, they possess an irrevocable right of entry
into Canada.
There has not been any great problem with this to date because
the eldest of these children would only be 22 years old. But who
is to say what problems might arise in the future? Some of these
returning Canadians might be members of organized crime.
They might be terrorists, they might gang members and Canada will
not be able to deny them entry because they will be Canadian
citizens. What if some of these individuals have significant
health problems? They will not be denied entry. They will have
full access to our health care system because they are Canadian
citizens.
1225
Regardless of the potential problems that will undoubtedly arise
over the next few years, the reality is there are thousands of
individuals around the world who are Canadian citizens but whose
only attachment to this country was the first two weeks of their
lives.
In the true Reform tradition I sought out the opinions of my
constituents two and a half years ago. I asked should children
born in Canada to parents who are neither Canadian citizens nor
landed immigrants automatically be considered Canadian citizens.
I received 3,685 responses. Only 341 people said yes. That was
only 9.25% of the respondents who felt that children born in
Canada should automatically be Canadian citizens if their parents
were not landed immigrants or Canadians.
If this is how Canadians and certainly my constituents feel why
is the minister leaving that clause alone? Why is she not
amending it as was recommended by the immigration and citizenship
committee that reviewed it four and a half years ago?
The second issue this raises is adoption outside Canada. There
is a clause in this new citizenship bill that will make it easier
for Canadian parents to gain Canadian citizenship for a child
adopted abroad.
It is interesting because this bill cautions that adoption must
create a genuine parent-child relationship and cannot have been
intended to circumvent Canadian immigration or citizenship law.
But during my time as a member of parliament my office has dealt
with two cases where an adopted child has subsequently tried to
sponsor their natural parents to Canada.
I suggest to the minister that if she sincerely wants to prevent
a circumvention of the immigration laws by adoptees, then she
must amend the immigration law that prevents adopted children
from sponsoring their natural parents.
I would like to share the contents of an e-mail with the House.
This is where a Canadian married a Romanian girl in Romania. I
received this e-mail in December 1998. This individual returned
to Canada in March 1998 and has been trying to get his wife to
Canada ever since. On July 1, 1998 his daughter was born in
Romania. Canadian immigration told him that Melissa, the
daughter, was a Canadian and could accompany his wife or come to
Canada earlier if desired. The daughter could come before the
wife.
Two weeks ago his wife finally received her clearance to
immigrate to Canada but was told that Melissa could not leave
until it could be proven that she was the daughter of a Canadian.
He was told that once his papers were filed it would be another
six month process.
It is ironic to me and to Canadians that here is a child born to
a Canadian who cannot come to Canada with its mother and yet we
are encouraging people to adopt children, who are going to become
Canadian just like that, without being landed immigrants first.
I suggest the process we have before this amendment in the
citizenship act is the appropriate one. The adopted child comes
to Canada as a landed immigrant and citizenship follows
thereafter.
Before I close I would like to bring up the business of
citizenship judges. I am very concerned that this government
continues the process of patronage appointments in the position
of commissioners. We had an excellent citizenship judge, Mrs.
Pam Glass, who served her people well in British Columbia and was
removed because she had one flaw. She was not a federal Liberal.
Although she was competent and doing her job extremely well, the
government has chosen to replace her with a political appointed
person. The citizenship act falls far short of what Canada needs
in terms of protecting the citizenship we hold proudly.
1230
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Was it the intention
of the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley to split
her time?
Ms. Val Meredith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that the
tone of the debate from the other side of the House is less than
generous.
The question asked was what if those immigrants were experts in
a specialized field and we did not have a great number of them in
Canada. What if they were great humanitarians? What if they
were outstanding citizens? What if they were healthy people with
no anticipated health problems? Even if they were, our society
has many people with the same problems.
We are an accepting democratic nation. Why do we always have to
look at it from an angle of negativity? Why do we set a negative
premise?
Let us look at the aboriginal history of Canada. What if the
aboriginal people of this country were not as accepting,
understanding, trusting and sharing with regard to the
in-migration of people from other countries? Then what would we
have? What would we have had? If we had a closed door policy on
immigration, would Canada be what it is today?
Why are we not more generous, more understanding and more
accepting? Why are we not working together on this policy?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the
hon. member across the way that Canada could not be more generous
if it tried. It lets in people with criminal records. It lets
people who are known terrorists in the international scene. It
is more generous than it should be.
My comments were about newly born children. I may be missing
something, but I do not think a one or two week old child can be
a professional or a business person. We are talking about
children who were born and whose parents came to this country
simply to give birth. They are not Canadian. They are not
landed citizens. We are talking about people who plan holidays
so that their children will be Canadian citizens.
The government can continue to turn its eye from the reality of
the situation, but Canadians demand that it protects the
integrity of Canadian citizenship. If it fails to do that, it
will be letting down Canadians who proudly hold citizenship,
either those who were born here or new immigrants who take on
citizenship.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last parliament the hon. member and I were
members of the Standing Committee on Immigration and Citizenship
for two years. We did not agree too many times then and I do not
agree with her now.
My question is on the points she did not mention like the
citizenship oath. Does the hon. member agree with changing the
words in the oath? In discussions we had in 1994 she did not
agree with the changes. Now we have the changes but she has not
said anything. Does she agree with the changes or not?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, there is no question I
disagree with the government. Like one of his colleagues, I
believe the citizenship oath of this country should also include
a pledge of loyalty to Canada and to respect the laws and
institutions of Canada.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for South
Surrey—White Rock—Langley. If somebody's parents come from two
different countries and have been here for two and a half to five
years and are still waiting for citizenship, what country should
their children be national citizens of?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, it is quite accepted
internationally that children have the citizenship of their
parents and that when the parents make application for Canadian
citizenship they include their children in that application.
1235
What happens in this country often is that the parents assume
their children automatically are covered under their citizenship
application. The children find out when they are adults and want
a passport or something that their parents had not made that
application for them. They find out they are not Canadian
citizens when they thought they were.
We owe it to the children in Canada whose parents were not born
here and are now Canadian citizens to make sure they understand
that they need to check to make sure they are Canadian citizens
and not just expect it was done for them by their parents.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to speak today to Bill C-63, an act
respecting Canadian citizenship.
I am also one of the members of the Reform Party who are
immigrants to Canada. I was not born in this country. I came as
a child and at that time was unable to obtain Canadian
citizenship until I reached my age of majority, as it was called.
I remember one of the first things I did when I turned 21 was to
apply to become a Canadian citizen. I took a great deal of pride
in attending the ceremony in citizenship court and taking a very
heartfelt oath of allegiance. I felt very proud of my status as
a Canadian citizen. I am a Canadian by choice.
I married a man who was also an immigrant to Canada and a
refugee from eastern Europe, as one might tell by my name. As a
refugee and immigrant my husband Tom also took enormous pride in
being a citizen of this country. As well, my sister married an
immigrant from Nigeria.
The whole area of citizenship and immigration is one that is
very near and dear to my family, to me personally and to me as a
representative of Canada and Canadians and a representative of
many immigrants to Canada from my riding of Calgary—Nose Hill.
My records show that over half of the case work that comes into
my constituency office is related to the area of citizenship and
immigration. I say to the parliamentary secretary opposite that
the citizenship and immigration system is not working in the best
interest of immigrants and of many new Canadians.
The bill is a bit like an analogy where the minister has
inherited a vehicle which is very unreliable. It does not serve
the people who hope to ride in it and be transported by it. It
is a danger to them in some cases.
What does the minister do? The minister decides to fill up the
windshield wiper fluid container. That is about what the bill
does. We have a system which people in the House have pointed
out to the government is not working. It is full of very unfair,
unworkable, even dangerous provisions, lapses and anomalies. Yet
the minister has chosen to bring in a bill that just does a bit
of cosmetic change.
Members of the House are trying to point out to the government
in a responsible and thoughtful way that there are many areas of
our immigration and citizenship system which need substantive
addressing. The government is well aware of this. Its own
committee dominated by its own members made it clear in the past
to the minister and to the government that substantial change and
improvement were needed.
Yet the best the government can do is a shoddy attack on people
who thoughtfully point out there needs to be a better service for
Canadians, and particularly new Canadians, in the system of
immigration and citizenship that is presently in place.
1240
The government was elected in 1993. It was to make an overhaul
of our social system and of our immigration and citizenship act.
When any change is contemplated there is a study, a commission or
committee set up to advise the government looking at the issues
and advise the government as to changes that should be made. In
fact that was done.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was asked
by the minister to advise the government on how the system should
be overhauled. The committee did its work. We must bear in mind
that the committee was made up of a majority of government
members. The recommendations from the committee were not just
from the opposition but from government members. They released a
very thoughtful report. It was called “Canadian Citizenship: A
Sense of Belonging”.
The committee did its work with commendable timeliness. The
government was elected in October 1993 and in June 1994 the
committee released its report, having made some months of
thoughtful study.
I ask the House to calculate the amount of time from June 1994
to the present, February 1999. I am sure even the parliamentary
secretary will acknowledge the truth of my assertion that it took
nearly five years for the minister to put any legislation before
the House. It was five years, not from the time the government
said it would make some needed improvements to the whole
immigration and citizenship act, but from the time the study and
recommendations were completed.
What do we find in the bill? The bottom line is that the bill
does not address almost all the recommendations of its own
Liberal dominated committee. I do not know where that work, that
study, that consultation with Canadians and that examination of
the issues went. I do not know what good it did. I do not know
that the hours of thoughtful, earnest and sincere work by
government and opposition members on this matter were of any use
because most of what was in the report has simply been ignored.
The bill goes its own way and refuses to address many of the
issues raised by the committee.
It neglects some of the critical areas that need attention and
alters other recommendations in a negative way. The government
and the minister have much to answer for in ignoring the
recommendations of members of the House on these important points
and issues.
The bill fails to fix some of the mechanical difficulties and
some of the safety issues of the immigration and citizenship
vehicle and stops at filling up the windshield wiper container.
That is about all the bill does.
Under clauses 31 and 32 of the bill the duties of current
citizenship judges will be handed over to Citizenship and
Immigration Canada departmental officials. The citizenship
judges with whom I have had the privilege of being associated in
the city of Calgary, and particularly Judge Ann Wilson, had
nothing but the deepest respect in the immigrant and ethnic
communities of our city. Judge Ann Wilson, who worked tirelessly
to cultivate good relations and communications with groups that
represented and were representative of new Canadians, had a heart
of welcome and of good will for new Canadians.
1245
It was a pleasure to attend her citizenship ceremonies where she
presided. This tangible link between the minister, the
minister's department and new Canadians will now be severed.
However, the Liberals, although they got rid of the citizenship
judges they did not appoint, want to have the ability to reward
their good and faithful supporters so they have set up
citizenship commissioners. We are not quite sure what the
commissioners are going to do. We understand they are going to
promote active citizenship in the community, whatever that means.
A very good institution has been done away with under this bill
substituting other patronage appointments under the Liberals.
Again, what is being served other than Liberal political
priorities?
I hope the committee will be asking some very tough questions of
the minister and the departmental officials about this bill when
it comes before it. I could make a number of other criticisms
about the bill. Unfortunately 10 minutes goes very quickly.
The committee study should point out some of the obvious flaws
of this bill. I hope to speak to it again at third reading.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I say to the
hon. member that I came over in the same class as her husband in
1957.
The member mentioned that we do not have any legislation before
us. We have this legislation before us and we are looking
forward to getting it into committee to debate the various points
and issues and then to bring it back to the House. Furthermore,
once the committee discharges its duty in relationship to this
bill, it will be engaging in a revision of the Immigration Act
which will result in a bill being brought before the House.
I wanted to put that on the record to let members know that as
soon as this bill clears the House a committee is waiting to
study it clause by clause and call witnesses.
The member questioned why we were changing the citizenship
judges to citizenship commissioners. Basically the courts have
expressed a level of discomfort with having citizenship judges
being called such since they are not graduates of law. It was
therefore deemed that commissioners would be much more
appropriate. However, that will be open to debate once it gets
to committee.
The member also wanted to know what the functions would be of a
citizenship commissioner. The function of a citizenship
commissioner, as the government now envisions it, will be to very
actively throughout the country promote Canadian citizenship.
Clearly one task that should be embraced by all members of the
House is to promote Canadian citizenship.
Let us get this bill to committee and we can get working on it
clause by clause and then look forward to doing the revision of
the Immigration Act.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
parliamentary secretary's explanation of this whole change from
citizenship judges to citizenship commissioners. If it is simply
a name change why were the citizenship judges like Judge Ann
Wilson who were so well regarded, well known, well respect and
effective in the communities turfed out the door so that new
appointments could be made by Liberals?
I do not think anyone has a problem with a name change, although
we could quibble about whether it is really necessary, but when
we take effective and knowledgeable people out of the community
and out of their positions under the guise of a name change then
there is a legitimate question being raised.
1250
I urge the parliamentary secretary to think about whether this
change is about a name change or whether it is about a
politically motivated change. That is the way I see it.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. parliamentary secretary just made a big point about getting
this to the committee and making sure the committee had the
appropriate interaction.
I wonder whether we could ask the member from Nose Hill to
please clarify for us why she thinks the government members
decided not to act on the special committee that dealt with
citizenship and immigration. Does she think or believe that in
the new consultations on this act there will be any different
reaction to the suggestions that might be made than was the case
in the past?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from
Kelowna makes a good point. The Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration has already studied this problem. It
forwarded a report in June 1994 which was ignored by the
minister. It does seem a little amusing that the parliamentary
secretary is so eager to have this matter brought back before the
very same committee which his minister has already ignored.
From my experience as a member of five plus years in the House
very little substantive change or real thoughtful debate and
amendment does take place at committees. It is one of the
frustrations I have with the way the House works. I think that
all members of committees could make a real contribution to
improving legislation. I urge the parliamentary secretary to
ensure that, for a change, as the committee studies this bill
this does happen.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-63, an act
respecting Canadian citizenship.
I begin by congratulating the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration on this initiative in her ongoing commitment to
improving legislation for which she is responsible.
In 1968 I left behind my homeland and my family in a small
village in Croatia in search of a better life. I found that life
in Canada. I found a job. I met my wife with whom I have four
wonderful children. Today I sit in the House of Commons
representing the people of Cambridge, Kitchener, Ayr and North
Dumfries.
I still remember that day in Waterloo, September 12, 1973, the
day I received my Canadian citizenship. It was one of the
proudest days of my life. From that moment on I joined the
Canadian family. I became eligible to vote. I became eligible
to stand for elected office. I became eligible to carry the most
respected passport in the world.
Almost 26 years after becoming a Canadian citizen I often find
myself at citizenship ceremonies in my capacity as a member of
parliament. I can tell the House that welcoming new Canadians
into our Canadian family is a part of my job which I enjoy. It
is the look of pride and commitment on the faces of my
constituents that reminds me of my swearing-in ceremony.
I took and continue to take my responsibilities as a Canadian
citizen very seriously. I got involved in my community, I joined
a political party, I ran for office and I always obeyed the laws
of this country.
I know the people I meet at citizenship ceremonies in Cambridge
and Kitchener will take their responsibilities as seriously as I
have taken mine.
1255
We have a bill before us today that represents the first major
reform with respect to citizenship in more than 20 years. The
most significant amendment, in my opinion, is one that changes
the oaths of citizenship to better reflect Canadian values and
express clearer loyalty to Canada.
The most important element of the new oath is that it puts
loyalty and allegiance to Canada above everything else. The oath
also contains the promise to respect our country's rights and
freedoms, to defend our democratic values, to faithfully observe
our laws and fulfill our duties and obligations as Canadian
citizens. These words have greater meaning to new Canadians on
whom the original oath to the Queen is often lost and is somewhat
confused.
Bill C-63 proposes several other significant improvements to
existing legislation. It gives citizenship at birth to all
persons born in Canada except the children of foreign diplomats
and it gives children born abroad to Canadian parents automatic
Canadian citizenship. Second generation children born abroad
will also receive citizenship at birth but will lose it if by age
28 they have not resided in Canada. Third generation children
born abroad will no longer have any claim to Canadian
citizenship. Children adopted abroad can no longer be treated as
immigrants and will not have to meet medical or permanent
residency requirements before being granted citizenship.
There are also changes to the residency requirements for
citizenship. Now a prospective citizen will require at least
three years of physical presence within Canada in the five years
before applying for citizenship. I think that is the right way
to go.
Those who obtain citizenship through the use of false identity
or who withhold information about criminal activities abroad
could lose their citizenship as a result of new ministerial
powers contained in this legislation. The minister also refuses
to grant Canadian citizenship where granting would offend
ordinary Canadians. I firmly support these two amendments.
Everyone who comes to Canada as I did over 30 years ago must
realize that citizenship in this country is not something that
you automatically get after living here for a few years.
Citizenship must be earned. To earn it one must obey the laws of
Canada, respect Canada and contribute to Canadian society in a
positive way.
If someone comes here and lies about who they are or what they
did before they got here and then disrespect our laws, they do
not deserve to become citizens. In fact, one has to question
whether they should be allowed to remain in Canada at all.
Some members know I introduced a private member's bill several
years ago which would speed up the deportation of non-citizens
convicted of serious crimes in Canada. I introduced the bill in
response to two tragic murders in the Toronto area, Georgina
Leimonis, a young woman who was murdered at a Just Desserts cafe,
and Metro Toronto police constable Todd Baylis.
The accused murderers in both of these cases were non-citizens
who had lived in Canada for some time and had lengthy criminal
records.
1300
People like them should not be allowed to stay in Canada. They
should serve time for their crimes and then put on a plane out of
here. We do not want them in Canada, nor should we ever consider
giving them the privilege of Canadian citizenship. That is why I
applaud this initiative which would allow the minister to refuse
citizenship to anyone who is less than deserving.
With reference to my bill on deportation, Bill C-321, it was in
committee when parliament was dissolved for the 1997 election and
has yet to be drawn this session. I do have faith it will become
law. The minister and her staff have been extremely supportive
of this initiative and I expect that the necessary changes will
be made in the near future.
Unlike many of you, I was not born in Canada. I chose Canada. I
chose to become a Canadian citizen. I have lived in other
countries and I have travelled to many countries. I can tell the
House that the United Nation is right, Canada is the best country
in the world in which to live.
Many Canadians who have not seen other parts of the world take
for granted how truly lucky we are to live in this country. But
those Canadians who are fortunate enough to travel abroad or who
have come from another land know that Canadian citizenship and a
Canadian passport give us instant respect at a border crossing or
customs checkpoint and particularly with average people around
the world.
Everyone we meet abroad loves Canadians. They all have friends
or relatives who have moved here and all hope to visit some day.
They recognize that although we speak the same language as our
American neighbours, we are different. Our country is a mosaic
and not a melting pot. When one becomes a citizen of Canada, one
is not asked to give up one's roots, language, culture or
history. One can still keep them and preserve them and share
them with the rest of us. One is simply asked to embrace the
language and history of the new country and to obey its laws.
This is a very small price to pay for the privilege of being able
to say “I am a Canadian”.
I chose this country. I am proud of this country. I am proud
to serve this country and I would encourage all new Canadians to
embrace the best country in the world.
In closing I leave the House with a few words from Judge Robert
Somerville, the citizenship judge for Cambridge, Kitchener and
Waterloo. By the way, he is not a Liberal and I do not care what
party or colours he follows, he is a very good citizenship judge.
In speaking to new Canadians he said “We have achieved a way of
life and standards of living that are rare in the world. The
honour and dignity of Canadian citizenship are yours. Please
treasure it and be proud of it”.
1305
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
compliment the member for his strong feelings about this country
and his citizenship privilege which I likewise received 30 years
ago and can share that with him. I have a couple of comments and
then a couple of questions for the member.
One thing he did say was he appreciated the minister's ongoing
efforts to deal with citizenship and immigration. I would like
to remind the member that this is the first piece of legislation
I have seen since she has been minister which has been a long
time so I do not think it is very ongoing. We need to speed up
the process in the immigration and refugee areas.
I compliment the member for his private member's bill. He can
count on my support once it is drawn. We are certainly thinking
alike on that.
I wonder if the member is aware of the fact that there have been
20,000 deportation orders issued in Canada and there have
actually been 4,000 deported, which means there are about 16,000
people who have not been deported. I wonder how the member feels
about that and what should happen.
On his birthright statement, the member feels that any child
born in Canada should have the privilege of becoming a citizen of
the country. I would not debate that a great deal. In the case
of a refugee claimant who may have given birth to a child here
and the refugee claim is denied, then what should happen to the
Canadian citizen, namely the child? What should we do? Does he
not see something missing in this bill to deal with that?
Based on what I am getting on the changes of no longer having
citizenship judges but having commissioners of citizenship, and
judges already being released, I would hope that he would fight
hard for the judge whom he believes so strongly in. I think the
judge's job is very short lived if this bill passes. I think the
citizenship judge will be gone and replaced with some patronage
appointment.
I would like the hon. member's comments, please.
Mr. Janko Peric: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member for his future support of my private member's bill.
We are talking about citizenship. We are not talking about
immigration. I am aware that there is a large number of
refugees, people who should be deported. That is exactly what I
am recommending in my private member's bill, to streamline the
process and deport and save Canadian taxpayers money. I am aware
that the hon. member knows that the Canadian Police Association
supports this idea and I hope he will support it whenever that
bill comes forward.
It would be much easier if there were only two countries on this
planet, Canada and the rest of world. Then we would not have the
question of whether the child born in Canada has the right to
receive Canadian citizenship automatically. As the hon. member
knows, we are a member of the United Nations and we have signed
that declaration, that we do not recognize stateless people.
On citizenship judges, Judge Somerville is in his second term.
He was appointed by a previous government. The hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and other area MPs including myself recommended Judge
Somerville for reappointment. As I said in my speech, we did not
ask Judge Somerville what colours he follows. We are aware that
he was a member of the Conservative Party, but that does not
bother me. He is a good citizenship judge. That is what is
important.
What are we going to call them? Are we going to call them judges
or commissioners? In my opinion that is not too important. For
me it is important that he is a good person who is doing an
excellent job.
1310
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I too
want to commend the hon. member who just spoke on his passion for
Canada and on his allegiance to Canada. I am glad he chose
Canada. I am one of those who was born in Canada. I am always
proud to think that there are people from other countries who
have chosen to come to Canada to live and become citizens of this
great and wonderful land. It makes me feel good and proud that
others would choose to live in this country.
If it does not make any difference what is in a name, why bother
changing it? If it is okay to be a judge and if it is okay to be
a commissioner and they are now judges, why bother to change it?
If it does not make any difference to him, why change it?
Obviously somebody thinks it makes a difference or they would not
be bothering to make the change. The change is only there in
order to achieve something that somebody thinks is worthwhile. If
it really is not important, then the legislation is unimportant
and therefore we should not treat it with any kind of respect.
I am sure there is a fundamental error here in the judgment and
the logic being used that it does not matter what they are
called. If it did not matter, it would not be here. Could the
member please explain that?
Mr. Janko Peric: Mr. Speaker, personally I have no
problems with calling them judges or commissioners. The hon.
member will have an opportunity to join the committee and to
table an amendment on that issue. If the majority of committee
members support it, the amendment will be accepted.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have another comment
following the member's reply to my colleague.
I am not sure how many committees this member has sat on. I
have been on many committees. I have see what comes in the front
door and I have seen what goes out the back door. It is usually
the same thing. There is very little in the way of changes.
The member has so much confidence in the committee I would like
him to explain something to me. Four or five years ago the
committee submitted a very comprehensive report. The committee
did extensive work in getting public input and presented an
excellent report on citizenship and what should be done. Liberal
members contributed a great deal to the report. Where is that
piece of work by the committee? It has disappeared. It has not
been brought forward. There is no reflection of it in this bill
whatsoever.
Committees on the Hill are not very functional. They do not
accomplish a great deal because the attitude of the ministers is
that they can do it better than committees. It is obvious that
is what is happening. What happened to that good report which I
know the member is aware of? Where is it at?
Mr. Janko Peric: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware
that we have a process to follow. He will have the opportunity
to participate in the citizenship and immigration committee. The
committee could be as effective as the members are effective.
The committee could be as progressive as the members are
progressive. The member knows as well as I that we amend many
bills clause by clause at the committee level.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to discuss Bill C-63 for the simple reason
that nothing has ever given me more pleasure in an official
capacity than to go down to citizenship court and shake the hands
and congratulate people who have just received Canadian
citizenship.
1315
Part of my life and part of my studies have been dealing with
citizenship in itself. I come from a part of Canada, a part of
Saskatchewan, that enjoyed the benefits of massive citizenship and
immigration, as the two are inseparable, from the spilling over
from the Dakotas. At that time Canada adopted for itself, almost
word for word, the American homestead act and these people moved
to Canada and became citizens.
I have visitors here visiting me in Ottawa whose grandparents,
if we go back far enough, came from France across the peninsula,
the thumb, as they call it in Michigan, on into part of
Saskatchewan. The remarkable thing about all this citizenship is
when one goes through that great era, the last best west, I
served as a justice for 25 years and I do not remember one single
case of any of these gallant people ever becoming involved with
the law or criminal activity.
I am also very proud to stand here and say that I have three
adopted part Chinese sisters. If one takes their heritage and go
back, they too were proud of their Canadian citizenship.
Speaking of particular roles of citizenship, in my lifetime I
was always involved before I came to this institution in working
with people. I have, up until the last few years, never once
heard in the rural areas of my province of those people who came
to this country and took citizenship, as the Chinese did, in any
town that I worked, and there were a good many of them, ever
becoming involved in a defamation of Canadians or their new
country.
Maybe we should look at the past and ask ourselves what we were
doing right then. We are not proud of our record in some cases
of what we did to immigrants from Ukraine. By the way, the
Ukrainian people are still the second largest ethnic group in
Saskatchewan. We are not proud of what we did in World War I when
we deprived them of citizenship and pushed them way up in Alberta
and let them lose their land and virtually starve to death. We
are not proud of that but it happened.
We are also not proud of what we did to the Chinese when they
came here to get their citizenship. They worked on the railways
and got less than average pay. When one died on the railway they
just pushed him into the grade and covered him up. There was not
even a decent burial.
Citizenship has to mean more than what it has meant in the last
25 years in Canada. We cannot be proud, as my hon. colleagues
have mentioned, that at any one time we can have 16,000 to 20,000
illegal immigrants in Canada and the fact is that about 80% of
them will stay here. Surrounding this court of citizenship,
Canadians know what it is like. Canadians see it as a massive
corruptive unit. Let us hope that this changes for good.
What steps will we look back at to see how we brought
hardworking people to this country who contributed greatly to
this country?
Today when I know of people I have assisted coming in 35 years
ago and I try to get some of their family in, I get such reports
as “Don't bother going to your MP. There is a good Liberal
lawyer and he will pull the strings a lot faster”. This is a
fact and a terrible thing but it happens.
Last week when I was home I was confronted by individuals who
asked me how I was getting along with this case. They told me
they had word that if they went to see a certain lawyer downtown
he could speed the thing up.
1320
Are we going to take legislation like this and, pardon the pun,
liberalize it to that extent? I do not have too many immigrants
coming. They are all leaving now. What happened here? What
happens when we face a situation in this country where the
majority of the people who are apprehended and with charges were
illegal immigrants? Many of those people are still here. I
believe we ought to exercise more care.
If Bill C-63 does just what I hope it will, then we will be
going back to the golden era of the last best west days when we
brought in people who had no criminal records. They had the
ability to survive and work. They were welcomed in Canada and
they made outstanding citizens. In the immigration and
citizenship record in Canada, while I know many to come in have
been fine people, we have opened the gates and many of those
people are still here and will not be deported. While we do that
we are denying at least 10 people I know who are hardworking,
dedicated people, relatives here, and I am having one heck of a
job getting them into Canada. Let us hope this bill changes that.
Above all, if we are to have a deep meaning for the oath, which
the hon. gentleman talked about, things have to change in this
department from the past five years.
How does this bill reverse the terrible records of this
department in the last 25 years? What steps are being taken now
to prevent illegal immigrants coming to this country? What steps
are being taken to speed up the deportation of these people?
These are the questions which Canadians want an answer to and I
do not see the bill answering those questions. I wish I did but
I do not.
We need to bring back some sanity to the immigration and
citizenship portfolio. We need to truly look at bringing people
to Canada who brought the same honour and glory of the last best
west. These people are still with us. Some of the ancestors of
these people sit in the House but we never had to deport one of
that area that I remember. I wish I could say the same thing for
the past 10, 15 or 25 years.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind my
friend opposite that we are dealing with Bill C-63, an act
respecting Canadian citizenship.
The member talks about what we are going to be working on as
soon as we deal with the issue of the immigration act. If we are
interested in getting there quickly I suggest we get this bill
into committee.
I think it is important for us when we talk about immigration to
keep things in perspective. The vast majority of people who come
to this country as immigrants and refugees are law-abiding. That
is the history of this country.
We came here as immigrants. There were native people, the
French, the United Empire Loyalists and people from all corners
of the planet.
1325
It is important that we keep that in mind. Yes, there is some
criminality. We have to do what we can to make sure we deal with
that as effectively as possible.
The member mentioned some of the terrible wrongs that have been
done in this country to different ethnic groups. He mentioned the
Ukrainians and the Chinese. There is a long history of that. So
many people who have come to this country have found it difficult
and at times have been discriminated against. Given that fact we
ended up having a country that is very generous and is a beacon
of civility in a world too often torn by ethnic unrest and wars.
As a bit of history for the hon. member, if he looks into the
history of immigration to this country, at one point to make sure
there were enough people in New France, Quebec, to increase the
population, the king sent over his daughters, les filles du roi.
Those people were not the most outstanding characters who came
from France. To make sure these people were married off and that
they would help populate New France, the governor—
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I was wondering whether this was a speech or is the
member on questions and comments.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is on questions and
comments. I know he will either be bringing his comments to a
close or asking a question very shortly.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, this is referring to
what the member said. It is a commentary on what he said. It is
important to look at history. Some of it is quite humorous.
There is no question that the member would have to agree me that
the vast majority of people who come to this country,
notwithstanding that some will be a problem and we have to do
everything we can to get them out, as refugees and immigrants go
on to make a great contribution to the life of our country.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I will agree with the point
that those people who come here for a purpose of establishing
themselves make good Canadian citizens. The hon. gentleman knows
my area of complaint. Canadians from coast to coast have pushed
that complaint before this government.
I want to make one correction. It seems to me that immigration
leads to citizenship. We are bringing in a new citizenship act
when we should be bringing in the controls and everything else
surrounding immigration and then go to the citizenship act. I am
sure the government has a purpose in doing so but you do not sow
your field in the spring before you have properly cultivated it.
It seems like we should be dealing with immigration.
I am proud of those people I have worked with. I am proud to
have worked with immigrants for years. I am proud to have their
children within my educational institution. But we have a new
responsibility to make sure those people who are coming to Canada
do not fall into the 16,000 to 20,000 people we have in Canada
now, and I do not know how many before that, who are still here
but should be deported.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
I could stand today and not have to speak on blatant patronage.
Unfortunately Bill C-63 contains blatant patronage.
Under clauses 31 and 32 the duties of the current citizenship
judges will be handed over to Citizenship and Immigration Canada
officials. The commissioners who will be replacing these judges
will have only ceremonial responsibilities and the responsibility
to “promote active citizenship in the community”, thus making
this position completely irrelevant for any purpose other than a
reward.
When this legislation is passed the current judges will
immediately be reclassified as commissioners, maintaining the
same salaries, benefits, et cetera, until their contracts expire.
The minister stated in her December 7 press conference that the
salary for commissioners would be lower than that for judges, but
she had no numbers to offer. Nor did she elaborate on how many
commissioners she would be appointing.
1330
We question the necessity of the duties that will be performed
by them versus the undefined qualifications required of them. The
problem is elevated by the fact that these commissioners will be
advising the minister on methods of evaluation for potential
citizens when there will be no formal evaluation for the
commissioners to pass. The legislation does not state how this
advice to the minister would be accomplished.
After the 1993 election—this is another case of a broken
promise—the former minister vowed that the positions of
citizenship judges would be eliminated and that no more
appointments would be made. What we have now is a public
relations job. A short lived promise indeed, a short lived
Liberal campaign promise, but then that is not the only one we
have ever run across.
We have a case of clear, blatant patronage. We have a case of
vote brokering with our immigration and refugee boards. That is
one of the major problems we have with the bill, but I will talk
about a few more. We have a broken system and the minister is
unable and unwilling to fix it. We have no substantive changes
in this regard.
Blatant Liberal patronage continues to happen under Bill C-63 as
happened previously. We have not seen any major changes in that
regard. The government is not listening to its own members,
people in the government caucus who have problems with the
legislation and want to see some of these changes. It is not
paying any attention or heed to them. Nor is it paying attention
or heed to the citizens of the country who have problems with the
bill.
We have heard today that people want to see vigilance. They
think that vigilance is required with regard to some of these
issues. They recognize that currently we have fraud in the
system, that there is a lack of consultation and that there has
not been public consultation with regard to the administration of
the oath or the formation of the oath. We have a behind closed
doors process with no parliamentary oversight.
I am sorry, but the whole thing smells of Liberal arrogance. We
have Liberal dominated immigration and refugee boards. Like I
say, we go back to this issue of patronage appointments. Whether
immigration apparatchiks are called commissioners or citizenship
judges the are still Liberal apparatchiks. There is no
difference. We can change the name but a Liberal apparatchik
smells the same. What it boils down to is clear vote brokering.
We have mention in the bill with regard to language
requirements, that they speak one of the official languages,
either French or English. Yet we have no form of testing for it.
Will we allow people to simply mark down on a form whether or not
they feel they are competent in either of these languages but not
have any proper form of testing it?
One of my colleagues in the House today referred an ad that ran
in a trade publication. I will read it because I think it is
important for the folks back home to hear what it had to say. It
ran in a publication called the Latin Trade Magazine and
this is the way it read:
Guaranteed immigration to Canada. With the purchase of a fleet
rent a car franchise, total investment of $50,000
Canadianapproximately $30,000 U.S., you are guaranteed
immigration to Canada even with a criminal record.
The word guaranteed was underlined. It provided an address and
a phone number to get a hold of somebody in Toronto.
This is not the only example of this type of thing. We heard of
numerous examples of these types of ads being run in foreign
publications. What type of representation does such an
advertisement make of Canadians abroad or when there are
Canadians serving as immigration consultants who try to swizzle
money off people overseas?
They advertise Canada as one of the countries with one of the
most lax refugee requirements in the world. They go ahead and
abuse the process such that even criminals are being advertised
to go ahead and immigrate into Canada. What message does that
send out to other immigrants? It is terrible.
1335
The bill has a lot of other unsavoury aspects to it. One
question we have to raise is with regard to those who will be
seeking refugee status. If they bear a child while they are in
Canada, what happens to that child? If the parent is to be
deported, what is the status of the child? This whole issue of
citizenship at birth is something we have to examine carefully
because it has long range complications or implications.
The quality of immigrants determines the quality of citizenship
in the country. If we advertise for criminals overseas and
tarnish our image that way, we can only expect that to have a
reflection on Canadian society as a whole. As a matter of fact,
we have so many loopholes right now that other countries are used
with their systems to filter or wash people who were criminals so
they can wind up in Canada eventually. That is a lax system and
we have serious problems with it.
We have a Liberal administration that spends money to keep
criminals in Canada rather than to assist citizens with legal
aid. I remember the case of Charles Ng that happened in Calgary,
somebody who gained entrance into Canada. He was well known and
convicted in the United States for all his heinous crimes. Yet
the Liberal government spent good taxpayer money to keep him in
Canada for years and dragged the process on with bureaucratic
delays. When Canadians of sane mind see something like that and
know how hard they have to work for their tax dollars, they are
infuriated.
It is not as though the government has not had time to look at
these things and to make appropriate changes. It has had four
and a half years and yet we have not seen a real substantive
solution to this issue. We have bureaucratic insertions in the
bill and bureaucratic delays that are part and parcel and
included in the legislation. Instead of penalizing the
bureaucrats we are penalizing the applicants to the process.
There is something warped about that and something only a
bureaucrat could enjoy.
After four and a half years where are the bills on refugees and
where are the bills on criminality and the problems with the
system? We have not seen anything.
The auditor general reports that we have 20,000 people to be
deported. Yet the records only demonstrate that 4,000 have
actually been deported. Pretty simple math tells us that 16,000
people in the country are circumventing the system, of which 80%
will probably go on to continue to stay here and become citizens.
Talk about image tarnishing. That is a travesty. There are
Liberal lawyers who are pulling the strings and making money off
the system. The whole thing smells.
I know my time is coming to a close so I will include a few more
facts for the folks at home. We had a high of 400,870 immigrants
in 1913 and the low was in 1942 with 7,576. We are known because
of some of these laxities as being the world's most accepting
country for immigrants and refugees. We have all these issues
with the criminality being advertised and everything else.
We want something that reduces the amount of discretion
currently in the hands of immigration and visa officers but also
encourages potential immigrants to prepare themselves better.
All I can say on citizenship at birth is that Australia requires
at least one parent to be an Australian citizen or permanent
resident for the child to qualify. It is something we should
consider as well.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have been listening to the debate today.
I guess I am a bit embarrassed on behalf of the House at some of
the things that have been said today.
1340
It is very easy to pick a case and to characterize all cases as
having the same characteristics. It is very easy to throw
numbers around and suggest that somehow a greater number of
people are engaged in a certain activity than in fact would be
the case.
As an example, the member used the auditor general's report and
the issue of some 20,000 applicants whose status appeals have
been denied and who are to leave. I understand from the member
that only 4,000 have left, which means there are 16,000 yet to be
accounted for. I wonder if the member would not also agree that
of that number it is very likely a substantial portion of those
people are no longer in the country. In fact, they have probably
left simply because of that.
I find the member's explanation astounding. I want him to
explain it to the House as I think it is very important. He said
those 16,000 people are in fact still here and that 80% of them
will go on to become Canadian citizens. They cannot have it both
ways. If they have made application under due process and have
been denied, I wonder if the member could explain to me exactly
how 80% of them will then go on to become Canadian citizens.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, if the member does not
understand that there are laxities and problems with the system,
I guess that is the Liberal member's own choosing. We all know
there are problems with the system. There are 16,000 people
unaccounted for. We have no exit controls and no way of knowing.
The member says he does not have any problems with the system or
he asks how we can go ahead and account for this and not play a
numbers game. I will throw another number at him if he is not
sick of numbers yet. In 1994 of the 230,000 immigrants entering
the country only 14% were selected using the points system.
The points system as people may be aware—and I will just go
over it quickly—evaluates incoming immigrants on education, job
training, experience, occupation, arranged employment, age,
knowledge of one of the official languages, whether or not they
have relatives in Canada and whether or not they are
self-employed. All these characteristics are used. Of the
230,000 we allowed into Canada in 1994 only 14% actually had
anything to do with the point system.
If we want to talk about numbers, I could point to the 14% of
230,000 or the 16,000 people that are unaccounted for that should
have been deported and tell the member that we have a numbers
problem. If he does not believe it, he can read them for
himself.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
is being somewhat irresponsible when he says there are 16,000
illegals in the country who have been ordered deported and that
80% of them will become citizens. That just does not wash.
How can the member say that about 16,000 people who probably are
not in the country? We do not have exit controls, but the fact
of the matter is that if people are deported they will not be
approved as citizens. For the member to say that is totally
wrong. Furthermore, to have him say that Liberal lawyers are
getting around the system is slanderous.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member about
outrage. Members across the way are challenging that maybe these
16,000 deportees, or should be deportees, are not on Canadian
soil. Yet I have members in my own caucus who have gone on tours
with police in the city of Vancouver where we all know—and we
saw it on TV with our own eyes—about problems with Honduran
gangs distributing drugs.
He saw with his own eyes a fellow spit out $1,700 of crack
cocaine from his mouth and he did not get charged. He did not
get convicted. He did not get deported. That is not even on the
record books. The ones we are talking about on the record books
are the 20,000 who should have been deported and had an actual
determination made. That fellow who spit out the $1,700 worth of
crack cocaine from his mouth into a police officer's hand did not
even get on the records.
1345
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr Speaker, we have
before us a bill entitled “an act respecting Canadian
citizenship”. The first statement inside is “This enactment
replaces the existing Citizenship Act”. That means we have
before us an act that we should first of all be discussing and
debating in principle. We should be dealing almost exclusively
with the principles that are involved in legislation of this
type. This creates probably the most significant function of a
Canadian citizen, of a Canadian person, than anything else they
can possibly do.
I am a Canadian. I am a Canadian citizen. We should be able to
say that with pride. We should be able to say with our hands on
our hearts “I am a Canadian”. There should be no question that
the number one concern here is that I am a proud Canadian. We are
proud of our country.
I remember so clearly being at an international conference in
Dallas, Texas. Twenty-five thousand people assembled in an
arena. Not a single person in that arena was not singing the
national anthem. Their hands were clasped over their hearts and
they were singing with pride.
In Canada I have witnessed Canadians singing the Canadian
national anthem with caps on their heads, slouching with their
hands in their pockets with absolutely no respect for the
national anthem. We should be proud to be Canadian.
I was born here. My grandfather was an immigrant to Canada. He
chose to come here. I am so happy that he did. It is because of
his citizenship in Canada that I today am a Canadian citizen.
What concerns me so very much is that the hon. minister chose to
ignore certain things that have happened in her discussions
across Canada. She was told across Canada that what we need to
have are people who are citizens, who are born of those people
who are Canadian citizens. What was her reply? The minister
stated that she made no changes in this proposed act because
there was no research done on how big a problem the citizenship
at birth issue really is.
This is not a statement of principle. This is a statement of
numbers. In other words, it does not matter whether it is a
matter of principle whether one is a Canadian citizen, it is
simply a matter of how many numbers are involved.
That seems to me to be the typical Liberal interpretation of
legislation. Test the winds to see how many people say a
particular thing and then the Liberals will do it; whether it is
right or whether it is wrong has absolutely nothing to do with
the issue at hand. I decry that kind of statement.
I will now move on to another part of this legislation which I
think is rather significant. Clause 6 states that an individual
shall be granted Canadian citizenship if they have a command of
one of the Canadian languages. I will now ask a whole series of
questions. I want to draw rather heavily, in fact in detail from
a presentation that was made to the committee as it travelled
across Canada by the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce.
These are the issues the chamber was concerned about. Who will
be doing the standardized language testing? Will it be the
federal government? Where will the testing take place? Is it a
part of the acceptance criteria and does it have to be done in
the country of origin? Will this be a major expense and
undertaking?
It is important to note that there is a big difference between
learning English in a country of origin and learning English in
the Canadian context in Canada.
There are tremendous cultural differences with respect to
language use. Immigrants learn so much about Canadian society,
language use and meaning through the first English as a second
language classes they attend.
1350
The chamber contends that as we understand it there is currently
no universal valid test of English abroad. Who is going to do
the language testing overseas? This will cause an even greater
backlog than there is now. We assume there will be additional
fees associated with taking these tests and that is okay with
them. Does the language proficiency being proposed include
labour readiness?
It appears as though the motivation behind the language
recommendations is to discontinue support for any type of
language training funding and to implement additional fees on top
of the existing fee structure. That training would be totally
payable by the immigrants. It is interesting that Canada will
train Canadians in either official language but it is not
considering investing in the training of immigrants in either
official language.
In many aspects of this report it appears that Canada is
purporting to put higher demands on immigrants economically and
socially than what it expects of its own people.
We need to be very careful to put in place the kind of testing
and validity that will give credence and acceptability to this
clause.
Clause 34 is a single sentence: “The form of the oath of
citizenship is set out in the schedule”. Is the oath of
citizenship so unimportant that it can be relegated to a schedule
of the act or is it as in the earlier part where the minister
shall grant citizenship if the person pledges allegiance
according to the oath? The minister on her own volition has
proposed the following oath:
From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to
Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I
promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to defend
our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil
my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.
The significance here is in what is left out of the current oath
that is asked of persons who wish to take Canadian citizenship.
What is left out of the present oath are the words “heirs and
successors”. It should be allegiance to the Queen followed by
heirs and successors. That has been eliminated in the proposed
oath. Why has that been eliminated? I can only speculate but
the question in my mind is, is this the beginning of an effort on
the part of the Government of Canada to eliminate the role of the
Queen of Canada? It looks like that sort of thing could be
happening here very subtly and very surreptitiously.
The oath adds a couple of very interesting phrases. It adds the
phrase “respect our country's rights and freedoms”. I would
like to ask the minister and all members opposite what exactly
are the rights and freedoms of a country? And who grants those
rights and freedoms? Do the citizens grant the rights and
freedoms to the country? Does the country grant those rights and
freedoms to itself? Does some other country grant those rights
and freedoms to another country? Does the United Nations do it?
Does the World Court do it? Who grants these rights and freedoms
to the country?
The second phrase is “to defend our democratic values”. I am
unalterably in favour of the values we hold as a democratic
society. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you as a Reformer and a
member of the official opposition based on one thing, that we
work from the grassroots up and not from the top down. That is
what we need to do. The defence of my values is the defence we
want to do as individuals and as a country. It is absolutely
imperative that it be there but this is done on an individual
basis. I must do that and I myself pledge to do that.
If that oath is as important as I believe it is, it should not
be relegated to the schedule in the back of the act. It should
be part and parcel of clause 34 in the act so everybody knows
exactly what they stand for. I am a Canadian, I am a citizen of
Canada, I am proud of it and I want everybody else to know that.
1355
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member on his intervention. The member has
presented his views and the views of Canadians very clearly
without resorting to anything else other than the facts. It is
very important that all members take that point of view. I
respect the member for that.
The member also knows that some statements have been made in
this debate. I would like to ask the member whether he agrees
with the statement that was made in the House by another member
that Canada is advertising for criminals with regard to
immigration. Would he support that statement?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I have just been handed
an ad: “Guaranteed immigration to Canada with the purchase of a
Fleet rent a car franchise. Total investment of $50,000 Canadian,
approximately $30,000 U.S.”. “You are
guaranteed”—underlined—“immigration to Canada, even with a
criminal record. For information write 5950 Bathurst Street,
Suite 1009, Toronto, Ontario, fax at Toronto, Canada (416)
667-1467”. I do not know who put that ad in the paper but I
know the ad exists.
An hon. member: Was that the Government of Canada?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: I do not know. I am not accusing
anybody of doing it. I know there is an official ad.
The point is that I do not want to advertise that sort of thing.
I also do not want to guarantee citizenship in Canada to anyone
other than someone who is prepared to accept the oath that I
mentioned earlier. We do not want people from a criminal
element. We do not want that in our society. We do not want to
advertise for them to come to Canada.
The Speaker: I see that it is almost two o'clock. The
hon. member still has three minutes of questions and comments.
If he wishes to handle them, he will have the floor at three
o'clock for questions and comments. In his absence of course I
will go to the next speaker who is from his party and they have
agreed to split the time.
We will now go to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is budget day 1999.
For more than 12 years parents have called for fair treatment.
Treat parents equitably and stop rewarding just institutional
daycare choices, leaving parents who choose other options out in
the cold. Thousands of families were represented on Parliament
Hill during the prebudget debate by the newly formed Family Tax
Coalition.
These families carried the message one more time but louder than
ever before. They called out again to give an equitable,
refundable tax credit to all parents and let them determine the
arrangements which best meet the needs of their families. The
Reform Party agrees.
The Liberals continue to tell parents that parental or extended
family care has no value. This is wrong. Canadian families,
through the Family Tax Coalition, are tired of being ignored.
This time the government must respond or it will pay the price.
* * *
CHINESE NEW YEAR
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to wish all members of parliament a happy new year.
Today is the first day of the year of the rabbit in the lunar
calendar. There are many events across Canada to celebrate the
new year. There are city parades, community celebrations and
family gatherings organized coast to coast. Children receive red
envelopes with gifts or candy.
It is also an auspicious day for the Minister of Finance to
announce the federal budget. The year of the rabbit will bring
prosperity, happiness and peace for all Canadians.
This Tuesday I am co-hosting with the Chinese federation of 21
Ottawa community organizations the very first celebration of the
Chinese New Year on Parliament Hill.
Xin nian kuai le. Happy new year.
* * *
EAST COAST MUSIC AWARDS
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the
winners from Sunday night's 11th edition of the East Coast Music
Awards.
1400
The gala awards show held in St. John's, Newfoundland honoured
all artists from Atlantic Canada in 19 different musical
categories, including jazz, country, pop rock, music in
both English and French.
Bruce Guthro brought home five awards, making him Sunday night's
biggest winner.
An event like the East Coast Music Awards is very significant in
that it gives artists in the music industry an opportunity to
showcase their talent and to be rewarded for their efforts. The
music industry on the east coast is vibrant and in constant
expansion.
Atlantic Canada region's music can be heard from coast to coast
and abroad and adds riches to the wide range of Canadian talent.
I would like my colleagues in the House to congratulate all those
artists, the winners and the nominees who took part in this great
music event.
* * *
LITERACY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is Freedom to Read Week and tomorrow is Literacy Action Day.
Books, newspapers and magazines are instruments of freedom.
That is why I urge all Canadians to celebrate Freedom to Read
Week and Literacy Action Day.
This year Freedom to Read Week will be celebrated in libraries,
bookstores and schools in Peterborough and across Canada in a
variety of ways. Libraries create displays of books that have
been censored or challenged over the years. Schools feature
classroom discussions on censorship.
The freedom of expression committee believes that freedom to
read is essential to the democratic way of life and essential to
the democratic process. To be able to read one has to be
literate. Literacy Action Day sponsors include Frontier College,
the Movement for Canadian Literacy and ABC Canada. The slogan of
one of its sponsors is each one teach one.
The efforts of these groups to promote literacy and reading are
particularly timely this year because of the government's efforts
to protect our publishers—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
* * *
PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general has now approved funding for counsel for
those complainants appearing before the RCMP public complaints
commission who were directly involved in confrontations with
police at the APEC leaders meeting held at the University of
British Columbia in November 1997. This follows a request by new
commission head Ted Hughes based on unique elements in the APEC
hearing as they had developed.
The minister's decision was made after receiving representations
from several government MPs. It is an exercise in good faith and
good constitutionalism.
* * *
CHINESE NEW YEAR
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today people of Chinese descent all over the world are
celebrating the year of the rabbit, Chinese New Year.
Canadians of Chinese descent work in their communities across
the country in finance, in the professions of law, medicine,
dentistry and teaching, in engineering and high technology,
various small, medium and large business ventures, in government
and even politics. Wherever they are in Canada, Canadians of
Chinese descent are making significant contributions, creating
jobs, participating in their communities and improving overall
standards of living.
To all Canadians I wish happiness and prosperity for this, the
year of the rabbit.
* * *
[Translation]
1949 ASBESTOS STRIKE
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, midnight
February 14, 1949 marked the start of the asbestos strike in the
Eastern Townships. This event, now 50 years behind us, had a
significant social, political and religious impact on Quebec.
The asbestos strike marked a total change in mindset.
From then on, major companies and government would have to
respect workers' rights. This struggle for the recognition of
Quebec workers was a difficult and complex one, for the
Duplessis government wanted to force the unions to their knees.
Nevertheless, the outcome of this strike in Quebec was a
transformation of labour relations in the workplace and an
enhanced public awareness of the importance of trade unions in
an industrial society.
* * *
WATER
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, according to the experts who met last week under UN
auspices, nearly one billion people will be threatened with a
water crisis if emergency measures are not adopted by all
countries, both rich and poor.
There is no doubt that this alert needs to be taken seriously.
The verdict is a direct and harsh one: by the year 2025, 970
million people could be facing a serious shortage of water.
What is more, according to the same experts, up to one-third of
humanity is liable to experience problems. The scientific
community also acknowledges these problems, so it is vital for
all governments to remain vigilant and to act as promptly as
possible in order to avoid this crisis, which is becoming a
constantly greater source of concern.
Why not deal with the matter immediately, instead of waiting for
a full-blown crisis?
* * *
1405
[English]
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday was an exciting day for the people of Nunavut and a
significant moment in Canada's history.
The residents voted in their first Nunavut territorial election.
The election took place on February 15 so that Nunavut will have
an elected government in place when the territory is formally
created April 1.
According to the chief electoral officer, voter turnout was 88%,
extremely high. This reflects the commitment that the people
have in shaping a government that is responsive to their wishes
and reflective of their culture and traditions.
This election is a very special moment not just for the 19
winners and voters but for all Canadians. Very few countries in
the world are able to create new governments in a democratic and
peaceful fashion. Canada is one of those countries and we all
have reason to be proud.
I congratulate the residents and all the candidates who
played a part in this historic event. This day marks the
beginning of a new chapter in our nation's history.
* * *
VETERANS
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during the second world war 26 Canadian airmen were slated for
execution at Buchenwald concentration camp.
This past December the Minister of Veterans Affairs responded
with a mere $1,098 and stated “I am delighted to be able to
close the chapter on this longstanding issue”.
Today Mr. Arthur Kinnis, spokesman for the survivors, has
requested I return his cheque. Across Canada virtually all
remaining Buchenwald detainees are doing the same.
Nearly 50 years ago these men fought against Nazi tyranny.
Australia and New Zealand have paid their Buchenwald survivors
over $10,000 each. Now Canada offers just over $1,000 to the 14
remaining survivors. This is shameful. This is an insult.
I urge the minister to revisit this matter immediately and
settle Canada's debt to the brave men of Buchenwald. It would be
a disgrace to allow these men to die without the recognition they
truly deserve.
* * *
[Translation]
PYROCYCLING OF BARK
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
call the House's attention to the opening of a pilot plant in
Jonquière using a new industrial process called Pyrocycling to
recycle bark.
This is a very promising initiative, both for the jobs it
creates and for the use it makes of the large quantities of
waste bark available in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region.
This new industrial process will use heat to decompose bark into
oils, charcoal, gas and water.
The oils will be used in the particle board and plywood
industry, while the charcoal will serve as a raw material in the
metallurgical and mineral industry.
But that is not all. The plant will also demonstrate a new
concept for producing electricity that will enhance Quebec's
role in the renewable energy sector.
We wish these innovative folks good luck and every success in
the future.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
our veterans went off to war to defend our rights, and it is
because of the sacrifices they made that we have our freedom
today.
November 11 is not the only day on which we commemorate these
sacrifices. Another important custom allows veterans to wear
their ceremonial dress at church funerals.
A recent directive prevented veterans from continuing to observe
this custom in certain churches in southeastern New Brunswick.
Many years ago, veterans took up arms to defend their strong
belief in the freedom of our country.
I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the efforts of
the president of the Richibucto Legion, Henri Pietraszko, and to
congratulate all the veterans and their families.
I also wish to thank Mgr. Ernest Léger for the understanding he
has shown these veterans. Clearly, this is a custom they hold
very dear.
Once again, congratulations, and a vote of thanks to Mgr. Léger.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present some facts about employment insurance in
Newfoundland and Labrador in response to comments by the hon.
member for Burin—St. George's earlier this month.
The hon. member vastly underestimated both the contributions and
the benefits to the people of this great province. The member
stated that EI contributions this year would total $107 million.
The member must have overlooked employer contributions which
would bring the grand total of premiums to some $257 million.
1410
The hon. member was even more in error concerning the level of
EI expenditures. His estimate of $75 million for the year
compares with actual benefit payments of $666 million to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in 1998. Fishing benefits alone
totalled more than $84 million in this province. Those are the
real facts.
* * *
[Translation]
NUNAVUT
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Nunavut held
its first general election yesterday. The new legislative
assembly has now been formed and will take up its duties on
April 1.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes Nunavut's MLAs and future premier a
productive and successful term in office.
A monumental task has been accomplished, but much still remains
to be done.
We are familiar with the legendary initiative and fighting
spirit of the Inuit who have, for thousands of years,
successfully braved a harsh climate and vast distances.
There is no doubt that Nunavut's Inuit will take up with pride
and dignity the wonderful challenge of governing themselves. The
Bloc Quebecois will be celebrating right along with them on
April 1.
* * *
[English]
CHINESE NEW YEAR
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, today marks the
beginning of Chinese New Year, the year of the rabbit.
As we celebrate this momentous occasion on the Chinese calendar,
I should note that on Saturday the Right Hon. Joe Clark and I
joined with 2,200 members of the Chinese Canadian community in
Toronto to support the dragon ball 1999, a benefit for the Yee
Hong Centre for Geriatric Care.
This event was yet the latest example of the invaluable
contributions made by Canadians of Chinese origin to our national
way of life.
Despite having encountered obstacles of racism and
discrimination in the past, Chinese Canadians nonetheless
comprise one of the most loyal, dedicated group of citizens in
this country.
In my riding of Markham I know firsthand the positive impact
brought about by the Chinese Canadian community.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I
would like to wish all Canadians of Chinese origin much luck,
prosperity and success in family and business.
Gung hai fay choy. Happy new year.
* * *
STRATFORD FESTIVAL
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Perth—Middlesex is the home of the world famous
Stratford Festival. As many members of the House can attest, the
festival is live theatre at its absolute best.
I invite all parliamentarians, indeed all Canadians, to visit
the 47th edition of the Stratford Festival.
Come and enjoy the magic of Shakespeare's The Tempest,
sing along with West Side Story or risk your mortal soul
with Bram Stoker's Dracula. The festival has these and
many other plays to delight and enchant theatre buffs.
I will soon be sending Stratford Festival programs to offices on
Parliament Hill. All Canadians can get information on the
festival by visiting its website or calling 1-800-567-1600.
I hope to see everyone at this year's Stratford Festival.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, the budget will be handed down today shortly after 4
o'clock.
There is a reason why the budget is handed down after 4 p.m. and
that is because Canadian stock markets close at 4 o'clock.
Historically it was felt that if the budget was handed down
before 4 p.m. certain individuals or corporations could gain a
commercial advantage as a result of advance information that
would be contained in the budget.
Last night CBC news reported as fact some items that might be in
the budget later this afternoon. In today's print media several
newspapers, including the Sun and the Globe and Mail,
are reporting as fact items which are to appear in today's
budget.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to review this matter to determine
whether the privileges of members of parliament have been
breached and also to ensure that ordinary Canadians are not
disadvantaged by—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Delta—South Richmond.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last September the auditor general advised the
government to more carefully estimate the value of lands and
resources being transferred under treaty.
His caution is especially relevant with regard to the Nisga'a
treaty, where a study I commissioned by a respected economist and
former member of the House, Robin Richardson, found the cost of
the treaty to be $1.3 billion, almost three times the value
placed on it by this government.
1415
In undervaluing the lands and resources, the federal government
burdens British Columbia with three-quarters of the cost of the
treaty. That is a downloading of $652 million of federal costs
on to the taxpayers of British Columbia.
There is no denying the inaccuracy of the government numbers.
They now admit to underestimating third party compensation. They
admit to placing no value on mineral resources, water resources,
fishery and wildlife resources in the treaty area. The list goes
on.
The Nisga'a deal is not a good deal when you do the numbers. The
deal is a good deal only for the Minister of Finance because this
government—
The Speaker: We will now go to oral questions.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
judging by the news apparently yesterday was budget day. But it
has done nothing to stop the Liberal Americanization of Canadian
health care.
Because of Liberal cuts thousands of Canadians have to go to the
States to buy treatment—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I guess the truth
hurts, the Liberal Americanization of the Canadian health care
system. Two hundred thousand more Canadians had to stay home.
They could not afford to fly south. They are the people in
waiting lines here. That is the Liberal legacy.
Can the Prime Minister guarantee today that no more babies, no
more cancer patients, no more MRI patients will be forced to go
to the United States to buy treatment?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we said in August that we want to have a budget
addressing the problem of health. I met with the premiers two
weeks ago to discuss that. In exactly one hour and 58 minutes we
will have the answer when the Minister of Finance reads his
budget.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is this, and it sounded from the government
benches that they know it. The Liberals are the sponsors of
two tier health care. It is under their watch that governments
have cut spending drastically. People are suffering right across
the county because of government cutbacks for years.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. This
government is the sponsor of a two tier health care system and
the proof is watching the news every single night. This
government has slashed funding to the provinces which are
responsible for health care year after year.
Can the Prime Minister guarantee today that no more Canadians
will have to fly to the States to buy medical treatment?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is helping provincial governments
financially to operate the health care system. The managing of
the health care system on a daily basis is done by provincial
governments. We work in collaboration with them. That is why we
had a very good meeting two weeks ago. Members will see in one
hour and 56 minutes what the government intends to do for health
care in the budget.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is not much surprise because the whole budget has been
leaked to the national press. We already know what is in it.
It is knowledge, it is common fact that this government has
forced Canadians to go on the longest waiting lines in history,
that health care has been slashed in funding to the provinces.
The Prime Minister can say he brought them here to Ottawa last
week to be good to them but everyone in Canada knows the facts.
How can $2 billion in health care spending this year undo the
damage that $16 billion in Liberal cuts have caused?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat that the figures the member is using are not
true at all. We have been obliged to cut everybody to make sure
we have a balanced budget. For the last two years we have had a
balanced budget. That is why Canadians and provincial
governments pay much less for the interest rates on their debts,
because we have balanced the books. That is why the Canadian
people are quite happy to have a government with a very open
process for budget discussion. It has been going on for six
months and—
1420
The Speaker: I would ask you, my colleagues, to be very
judicious in the choice of words that we use, words like “not
true at all”.
The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will tell you why he has a balanced budget. It is
because he has cut $16 billion out of health care since 1993.
There have been $16 billion in health care cuts and he has raised
taxes to hardworking Canadian by over $1,800 each since 1993.
This budget today is not a health care budget. It is not a
budget for hardworking Canadians. It is a budget for the finance
minister and his greedy tax collectors. That is what this budget
is for. He has gutted health care. He is sitting on a large
surplus. Why is he raising taxes again this year? Why?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 1.6 million Canadians have found new jobs in the last
five years. Of course these Canadians are very happy to pay more
taxes to the government rather than to be unemployed. Of course
we have more revenues because we have had growth in the last five
years and unemployment went down—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): I
think he is finished, Mr. Speaker. He can only go so far with
big whoppers. He should work at Burger King.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I would ask the hon. member to go
directly to his question.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, considering that the
government has raised taxes by $1,800 per taxpayer in this
country, why is it raising taxes again in 1999, in today's
budget? Why is the government doing it again? What is the
reason?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in an hour and 53 minutes we will know exactly what the
tax cuts are. But the opposition should know already that in
December we reduced taxes when we reduced the EI premiums by more
than $1 billion.
Hopefully, but I do not know absolutely, there will be a very
good budget again. What will happen is the budget will be a
success and the great meeting of this weekend will be another
flop for the Reform.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
coming days, the Minister of Finance will be making a grand tour
of the country touting the merits and the generosity of the
government. He is being generous with our money.
I would like to know whether the Minister of Human Resources
Development will go along with him on his tour to explain to
Canadians and Quebeckers that the unemployed pay for the
Minister of Finance's generosity.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not have the pleasure of
accompanying my colleague the Minister of Finance, because I
myself will be promoting the budget, which looks very
interesting for all Canadians and certainly for Quebeckers too.
The initial figures I have seen are very relevant to the
concerns of Canadians. This is true as well for Quebeckers, who
are very concerned about health care. I think there will be
good news for Bernard Landry.
We will see what the Minister of Finance does this afternoon,
but I think we will have a balanced budget. There are a lot of
good measures for workers, to help them return to the labour
market.
1425
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the Minister of Human Resources Development realize that the
more the Minister of Finance boasts today about being generous,
the more stingy the Minister of Human Resources Development will
have to be with the unemployed, because one funds the other, and
he is the Minister of Finance's cash cow in the name of the
unemployed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the leader of
the Bloc Quebecois is somewhat nervous. Even the CBC yesterday
was saying that the Government of Quebec and minister Landry
could meet their objective of zero deficit with some of this
afternoon's announcements. That must upset the Bloc Quebecois a
bit.
What I can say is that we are strict managers, that we have
implemented an employment insurance reform that is intended to
help workers remain in the labour market and the unemployed to
return to it. That is a good balance and sound management.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development
already has the 1998 employment insurance program performance
report in his hands.
We have been waiting for him to make up his mind to table that
report since last December.
What is the minister's explanation for not having made his
report public, if it is not that his buddy in Finance did not
want to see it released before today's budget?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the report
will be tabled as required by law within the first 30 days of
the 1999 session.
Perhaps it will finally enable us to have an intelligent debate
with the Bloc Quebecois instead of constantly having to settle
for anecdotes and elements of no particular interest.
I trust that this report will also enable us to examine the
great job creation figures for January, as 87,000 jobs were
created in Canada in January alone, 44,000 of them for young
people.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, by hiding this report on the problems with
employment insurance, is the Minister of Human Resources
Development not acting in complicity with the Minister of
Finance, he who is pillaging the employment insurance fund,
instead of fulfilling his duty to defend the unemployed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the House that
our government is working extremely hard to ensure that there is
as little unemployment as possible in Canada. In so doing, we
are fulfilling our duty as a government to create a sound
economy.
I can assure you that the employment insurance system has been
there for the large majority of unemployed persons who have been
working in recent months. We have work force integration
programs, a youth employment strategy to help young people to
get into the work force instead of being unemployed.
* * *
[English]
PENSIONS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The President of the Treasury Board is once again a compulsive
fund raider. After taking some billions of dollars from the
unemployment insurance account, the Liberal government now wants
to seize a $30 billion surplus from the public service, armed
forces and the RCMP pension funds.
I am giving the minister a chance to speak directly to the
358,000 public sector workers and tell them why he is taking $30
billion from their future pension benefits. Why is he doing
that?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am quite glad to give the explanation which by the way is
accepted by the actuaries, by the accountants, by the lawyers, by
the auditor general. It is very clear that the government
guarantees the outcome to its civil servants. The outcome is
that they will be paid a pension once they retire, and we
continue to guarantee these benefits.
The deficits and the surpluses which are in the accounts are
created by accountants. They do not belong there and in fact
have to go back to the taxpayers who paid for them in the first
place.
* * *
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, thousands of taxation employees spent the day at home
with full pay while table two blue collar workers walked the
picket line from coast to coast.
Last night in Halifax over 400 employees stated that the
economic discrimination policy known as regional rates of pay is
the number one issue. Instead of avoiding the workers and
prolonging the strike, will the minister commit today to sit down
at the bargaining table and once and for all negotiate the issue
of regional rates of pay?
1430
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have negotiated at table two. We have negotiated terms that
are equivalent to the terms accepted by 80% of civil servants.
I think Canadians will make their own judgment about the tactics
of the blue collar workers. Up until now these workers have
always accepted the fact that a member of parliament is paid
differently if he sits in Fredericton than if he sits in Ottawa,
in the same way plumbers and electricians have provincial rates
that apply because of local market conditions. These regional
rates will continue.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the solicitor general bowed to public
pressure and the urgings of Justice Hughes to finally pay the
legal fees of the student complainants at the APEC inquiry.
Although the government lawyers outnumber those of the students
by 25 to 2, at least after 12 days the solicitor general finally
read the writing on the wall. Delay and deny have become
trademarks of the Liberal government.
Will the solicitor general now indicate just how much the
government is willing to spend to ensure fairness? If he is not
willing to so indicate, will he tell us when he will?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, the payment
will be fair and reasonable. It will be done between my office
and the public complaints commission.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the government will claim that it has transformed
the APEC inquiry into a transparent truth seeking process.
However, with the greatest respect to Justice Hughes, a full
judicial inquiry would best accomplish this. The chair has
stated that he will go where the evidence leads, perhaps to 24
Sussex. He wishes to make it a true and open process.
The question that remains is simple. Will the Prime Minister
agree to testify under oath to his actions at the APEC summit?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague is well aware
that the public complaints commission is an independent body. For
me to indicate who would or would not appear would be totally
inappropriate. I do not intend to do that.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as has been pointed out, the solicitor general finally did that.
That makes the situation fair. The question is will it be
meaningful. It will be meaningful only if the Prime Minister
turns up. He said in this House that everyone in his office and
everyone in his government was going to be available for the APEC
inquiry. Does that everyone include the Prime Minister?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, the public
complaints commission is an independent body. Would my hon.
colleague and all members let the public complaints commission do
its job.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we get one step forward and two steps back. We get the funding
but then we revert to what the former solicitor general used to
say.
I remind the Prime Minister that it was he who said in this
House that everyone from his office and government were going to
be available. He says those words in this House but he sends
Ivan Whitehall, his lawyer, to Vancouver to make sure he does not
have to go. Why? What are we supposed to believe, the Prime
Minister's words or his actions?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has indicated, he
and his ministers will co-operate fully with the public
complaints commission. What I would ask my hon. colleague to
please do is to let the public complaints commission do what it
is to do.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in
response to our questions, the Minister of Human Resources
Development accused the Bloc Quebecois of taking a backward step
in their desire to protect the unemployed against his incessant
attacks.
I would ask the minister whether he considers criticizing
someone who plunders the employment insurance fund and uses the
money for purposes other than that for which it was intended
means taking a backward step?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been no
misappropriation. Everything is in the books very clearly. The
Auditor General of Canada made a decision in 1990, which we
respect. We comply with the law, there is no problem in that
regard.
1435
However, when I say the Bloc Quebecois wants to take us a step
backward, it is because they simply want to keep people
unemployed, because they want the unemployed to remain so as
long as possible. They do not even take umbrage at the fact
that, in January 1999, we created 87,000 jobs in Canada while
Quebec lost 1,500.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by cutting
benefits to women, is it not the minister who is taking a step
backwards and returning the protection afforded women to 1970s
levels?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, quite the opposite. By
implementing a program based on hours, we have in fact liberated
women who were prisoners of the 15-hour trap because they only
worked part time and could not accumulate 15 hours.
We also provided a family income supplement specifically for the
greater benefit of low-income women, which is now a part of our
employment insurance reform.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has finally agreed that the RCMP
Public Complaints Commission is an independent body by agreeing
to fund all participants in that hearing.
Mr. Hughes has also proven his independence by asking and
demanding that these people get their funding.
Will the government now guarantee that whomever Mr. Hughes asks
to appear before that inquiry will appear at that inquiry from
the government, including the Prime Minister?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a number of times, the
public complaints commission is an independent body. I wish my
hon. colleagues would let the public complaints commission do
what it is in place to do.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we have been asking this government to let the
public complaints commission do what it wants to do for the last
six months.
It has finally agreed to fund everyone in that hearing. It is
the government that has to listen to this independent inquiry.
Will the government just give us an answer, yes or no? Will it
agree that whomever Mr. Hughes requests to appear will appear at
that hearing, including the Prime Minister?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated many times in this House,
the commission is an independent body that has a job to do. All
I would ask my hon. colleague to do is, please, let the public
complaints commission do the job it is in place to do.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION FUND
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
not content to pocket the huge surpluses in the EI fund, the
federal government now wants to get its hands on its employees'
pension funds.
Can the President of the Treasury Board tell us why he is now
preparing to raid his own employees' pension plans, after
dipping into the pockets of unemployed workers?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the pension
fund is a legislated fund. It is important that my hon.
colleague understand this.
The government guarantees that public servants will receive
their pension whatever the state of the economy.
When pensions were indexed, it cost the government close to an
extra $10 billion, a bill it footed alone. The government did
this because what it guarantees are pensions and it is therefore
clear—and once again, this is borne out by lawyers, actuaries,
the auditor general, and every other authority—that the surplus
in the fund belongs to the government.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
will the President of the Treasury Board not agree that the
employer's contributions to the pension fund are part of
employees' overall remuneration and therefore do not belong to
him?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, I
think it is very clear. It is a legislated fund, with the
government guaranteeing to pay pensions.
1440
Employees pay a set proportion. It was 7.5%. The government
paid any deficits that arose and any additional amounts in the
fund therefore belong to taxpayers.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
since the Liberal government has come into power it has cut over
$7 billion from the defence budget. We see the results. Today
all the Sea Kings were grounded again and are unable to fly. The
minister has known about this for some time.
My question is for the defence minister. Time has run out. When
are you going to replace the aging Sea King helicopters?
The Speaker: Order, please. Please address the questions
always through the Chair.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is coming from a party that in the
election campaign wanted to cut another $1 billion from defence.
What the government has done is invested in new search and
rescue helicopters. It has invested in new submarines and life
extension programs for the CF-18s. It has bought new armoured
personnel carries. This is to make sure that our troops have the
tools they need to do the job.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
if the minister were to look at Reform's proposal we wanted to
include $1 billion in the defence budget and they have cut it.
Our pilots are taking undue risks flying old equipment. They
only do it out a sense of duty to the country, which is more than
what I can say for the minister of defence.
When will our pilots, their crews and their families get new
helicopters?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been told many times
that we are developing a procurement strategy with respect to the
replacement of the Sea King helicopters. We are in the final
stages of doing that.
The government is very anxious to make sure that our troops have
the tools they need to do the job and that they are able to have
safe equipment to operate.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we have lost count of the number of cases of harrassment of
visitors from France and we know the propensity of some customs
officials to treat those passing through customs arrogantly.
My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Beyond the figures showing that, in statistical terms,
everything appears normal, is the minister not concerned about
the ever increasing number of cases of harrassment and the
misuse of the discretionary powers of her officials?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are no cases of
harrassment. Immigration officers at both Dorval and Mirabel
comply with the Immigration Act, and everyone arriving in this
country must have permission to enter it. This is why the
officers conduct their checks, which are perfectly normal under
the circumstances.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
Poor social conditions, lack of housing and high unemployment
rates are at the root of what plagues northern communities,
especially those in the Eastern Arctic.
What is the minister doing to ensure that these Canadians have
access to shelter and the basic services they need to create a
brighter future?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last night Canadians
witnessed history in the making as the people of the Eastern
Arctic elected the 19 men and women who, come April 1, will
represent the first parliament of Nunavut.
As my colleague points out, their challenges will be many. They
will fight to bring government and the decisions of government
closer to the people of the Eastern Arctic. That will include
ensuring the stabilization of economic development opportunities
that currently exist in the Eastern Arctic and forging new
relationships with Canadians who live in the south and those in
circumpolar nations around the world.
* * *
1445
KOSOVO
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of National Defence is planning an end run around parliament over
the decision to send Canadian troops to Kosovo.
Apparently he does not think Canadians should be consulted and
does not intend to hold a full parliamentary debate on the
matter. This is a slap in the face to democracy and an insult to
Canadians.
Will the minister commit to a full parliamentary debate before
sending troops to Kosovo.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this
afternoon at 3.15 is a meeting of House leaders at which this
very item is on the agenda, and he has known it since last week.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the truth
is the government does not intend to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Red Deer
has the floor.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, the government does not
intend to tell us about the plan until after the fact. It does
not want to debate the plan in the House.
The Minister of National Defence gave parliament the salute in
classic Trudeau style yesterday when he said that he did not
think it was necessary to hold a full parliamentary debate over
the deployment of troops to Kosovo.
Canada is not a dictatorship. There should be an open and frank
discussion about it before the decision is made. I ask again—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of
National Defence.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I never said such nonsense at all.
I talked about parliamentary consultation when we are going to
deploy troops. If we are going to deploy troops it is something
we would continue to want to do.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
official navy plans reveal that the Minister of National Defence
submerged the real costs of acquiring four British Upholder
submarines.
Now additional costs have resurfaced totalling at least $1.27
billion. If we add that to the listed price, the submarines will
cost Canadians over $2 billion. Canadians are forced to budget
in their own lives but the minister evidently cannot find his own
periscope.
When will the minister provide the House with an accurate
accounting of the price of this purchase?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the last questioner and this questioner
has one thing in common. People believe things they read in the
newspapers which are not necessarily the case. In this case it
is not true. The $750 million figure we gave is the correct
figure.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Foreign
Affairs.
The United Nations development program reported last year that
the world's 225 wealthiest people have a combined wealth that is
equal to the annual income of half the population of the world,
the poorest half, and the gap is growing.
Instead of wasting money on submarines and a new star wars
missile defence system, will the minister support the call of the
Jubilee 2000 Campaign to cancel the outstanding bilateral debt
owed to Canada by the 50 poorest nations of the world and will he
increase our foreign aid significantly?
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation and Minister responsible for
Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to date, the government has
written off over $1 billion for the poorest countries, and the
government will continue to do so for them.
We have also set aside $145 million for countries like those in
Latin America so they may buy food or equipment in the area of
the environment. This is another way to help the poorest
countries.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development speaks of
co-operation and consultation in Indian affairs but actually
works in secrecy.
It is obvious in the media coverage of the case of the proposed
Caldwell Indian reserve near Blenheim, Ontario, that she has not
even consulted with the local Liberal MP. It has also been
suggested that the minister is negotiating this contentious
reserve with a chief who was not democratically elected.
Could the minister tell the House if Chief Johnson has stood for
election within the last two years?
1450
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are making good on a
claim that was presented to us beginning back in 1973. This
refers to the 1790 treaty where many first nations in
southwestern Ontario ceded a vast tract of land to the crown in
return for reserve lands and money.
The government has committed itself to settling outstanding
claims and we will do that.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
not surprised that the minister has chosen not to answer the
question. Ministers who do not follow their own guidelines are
usually wiser not to admit that in the House of Commons.
My next question will be simpler. There was no consultation
with local agricultural groups and no consultation with the local
municipal council. Why is the minister willing to further
alienate these groups by forcing a reserve with a non-contiguous
land base in an agricultural area that depends upon co-operation
between its farmers?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say that I have been
down to Chatham—Kent. I have met with these agricultural
groups. I have talked with them about their legitimate concerns.
In fact, over the course of the next three months we will
continue to work with them to explain the importance of settling
this claim and the method by which we hope we can all do so.
* * *
[Translation]
AQUACULTURE
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Secretary of State responsible for Agriculture and
Agri-Food and for Fisheries and Oceans.
Could he tell us about the latest developments in aquaculture?
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Agriculture and
Agri-Food)(Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
promised in the 1997 elections, on December 18 we hired an
aquaculture commissioner, in the person of Yves Bastien.
He was selected in a competition involving 172 applications. He
will have an operating budget of $2 million annually to help the
aquaculture industry develop in harmony with the environment and
grow in this country of Canada.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is now the middle of February, less than two weeks
away from the deadline for employers to file T-4s with Revenue
Canada.
Due to a strike at a warehouse in Vancouver, T-4s, the northern
residents deduction and other tax forms are unavailable to
British Columbia businesses.
My question is for the revenue minister. Last year a filing
extension was given to the victims of the ice storm. Will he
extend the same courtesy to western Canadians who have been
adversely affected through no fault of their own by this work
stoppage?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
There has been a disruption in the T-4 slips. As a result, this
morning we announced alternatives where employers could use the
website to take the form that is on there and send that in. In
addition, they can also send in 1998 on a normal piece of paper.
We have given two alternatives to our employers. Certainly, if
we need to take further action, we will take that under serious
consideration.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here we are on
the eve of a budget whose redistributed surpluses will come in
large part from the employment insurance surplus.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Does the minister understand that employment insurance can no
longer be a tax on employment disproportionate to the benefits
provided and that he must return to contributors the plan they
pay for?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Mercier will have
to wait another hour and 22 minutes for her answer.
I too am impatient to discover what vital investments the
Minister of Finance will announce in human resources across the
country.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
dozens of community groups in Vancouver have come together to
form the Vancouver Community Safety Coalition to work on
community based crime prevention initiatives. They are seeking
support from the community mobilization program. Many people are
also very concerned about the rise in home invasions.
What is the justice minister's government doing to support this
community initiative and what response has she given to recent
letters from B.C.'s attorney general to keep people safe in their
homes?
1455
The Speaker: Order, please. I am very close to the
member and I had a hard time hearing her.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may know,
we are working very closely with a coalition of community groups
to deal with a number of the problems facing the city of
Vancouver, and in particular on Vancouver east side. In fact we
are very hopeful that through partnership and collaboration we
will be able to make a joint announcement in relation to some of
the challenges there in the very near future.
The hon. member then asked a second question in relation to home
invasions. Last week I had the opportunity to talk to my
colleague, the Attorney General of B.C., Ujjal Dosanjh, who
informed me he was writing to me with options that he would
suggest for amendment to the code and I informed him—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, as
we speak there is a news conference taking place in Shearwater
regarding ignition problems with our 35 year old Sea Kings. There
have been seven engine failures in a month, six on start-up and
one on taxi. This is the same engine of the ill-fated Labrador.
How long will Sea King crews be stuck with this unreliable,
aging aircraft before the government puts lives before budget
dollars and orders new maritime helicopters?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have made it very clear on a number of
occasions that we will not allow any aircraft to fly unless it is
safe to fly. To the Canadian forces and to the government the
safety of our air crews is of the utmost importance.
In this case there have been start-up problems with the engines
when they start them on the ground. That matter has been
identified and it is in fact being rectified. Meanwhile, as I
indicated earlier, we continue in the final stages of our
procurement strategy for replacement helicopters.
* * *
ROAD SAFETY
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Transport.
The recent storm in the Toronto area demonstrated that snow can
make for difficult and unsafe driving conditions. What is our
government doing to make winter driving safer?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is not just a concern to people in the greater
Toronto area but to all Canadians, given the fact that this is a
winter country.
On February 1, I was pleased to approve a new and comprehensive
standard for snow tires that has been developed by Transport
Canada in consultation with the North American tire manufacturing
industry.
This standard will ensure that Canadian consumers can identify
and purchase tires designed to provide a higher level of traction
in Canadian winters. This shows how the government in particular
is concerned about road safety.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, recently the mayor of Toronto fell ill and had to go to
the emergency department.
Mr. John Cannis: He's full of shit.
Mr. John Nunziata: He called ahead. A bed was reserved
for him. Specialists were called in from home to treat him. In
short, he was given preferential treatment.
If a professional athlete needs health care, he is able to jump
the health care queue—
Mr. John Cannis: You're a liar.
The Speaker: Order, please. I direct myself directly to
the member for Scarborough Centre. Did you use the word liar? I
would like you to withdraw it.
Mr. John Cannis: I am sorry. I take it back.
The Speaker: We are going to hear the question from the
member for York South—Weston.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in short, the mayor of
Toronto was given preferential treatment according to the
hospital. If a professional athlete falls ill he or she is given
preferential treatment.
1500
What does the government intend to do to ensure that there is
not one health care system for the rich and famous in Canada and
another health care system, an inferior system, for ordinary
Canadians?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the principles of the Canada
Health Act are clear. The government has stated very clearly our
support for Canadian style medicare and our opposition to an
American style system as the Reform Party would have.
Further, in the budget that will be announced within the hour
the member opposite will see our commitment to health care in
Canada.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of my brother Speaker, Mr. Toomas Savi,
President of the Parliament of the Republic of Estonia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I know you keep a close tie on the House with regard to
parliamentary language and you have already asked the member for
Scarborough Centre to withdraw his words calling the mayor of
Toronto a liar.
But I think all members in the House heard him say the mayor of
Toronto was full of shit. It is appropriate that the member for
Scarborough Centre withdraw those words as well.
The Speaker: To say the least, this was a rather loud
question period and I know we are anticipating the budget. We
have the House leader for the Reform Party saying that a member
used words which are unparliamentary. He has asked me to ask the
hon. member for Scarborough Centre about this. Did the hon.
member use the terms that the hon. House leader referred to in
his submission?
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
you asked me on a point of order to withdraw the words, and I
did.
Let me clarify. It was not in reference to the hon. member for
York South—Weston. It was more so to the articles in the
newspaper following—
1505
The Speaker: That matter is behind us. I address myself
to the hon. member. Did the hon. member in the course of
question period use the words that the House leader of the Reform
Party said he used? And if he did, will he please withdraw them.
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, absolutely, as I did
earlier.
The Speaker: We have settled this matter.
Sometimes in question period the microphones are open close by
and that all comes through the system. I ask you, my colleagues,
during question period while a member is putting a question or
another member is answering or attempting to answer a question,
please pay attention. I would hope that tomorrow we will keep
these things in mind so that we can carry out our
responsibilities as members of parliament.
The hon. member for Scarborough Centre wishes to seek the floor.
If the hon. member is going to refer to the two issues which I
have just accepted his withdrawl on, I would ask him to cease and
desist. If it is another point I will hear it.
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, my reference was not to the
hon. member for York South—Weston—
The Speaker: Order. I consider this matter closed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-63,
and act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the second time
and referred to committee.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have heard lots of rhetoric today about how good Bill C-63 will
be. I am a Canadian by choice. I was 23 when I decided I wanted
to come to Canada, be a Canadian and enjoy what this country had
to offer and hoping in some small way I could make a contribution
back to this great country.
I am concerned about Canadian citizenship and the things we hold
dear about our country. They have started to get watered down.
1510
I think of some bills that have been before this parliament
recently. In the last parliament, for example, Bill C-49 dealt
with the amendments to quite a large number of boards and
committees, largely government appointed. We sometimes refer to
them as patronage appointees. I picked one dealing with the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which is the guardian of our
culture in many ways, subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer to $700
million or $800 million a year.
One would think that this protector of Canadian culture would be
a truly Canadian institution. However, section 38(1) of Bill C-49
states:
A person is not eligible to be appointed or to continue as a
director if the person is not a Canadian citizen—or a permanent
resident within the meaning of the Immigration Act.
Permanent resident were the words that were added.
I talked about this bastion of Canadian culture. Now we find
that one does not have to be a Canadian citizen to sit on the
board of CBC. In this parliament, because that bill died on the
order paper, Bill C-44, section 38(1) dealing with the CBC now
reads that directors of the corporation are deemed to be
employees for the purposes of the pension plan and makes no
reference whatsoever to Canadian citizenship, lack thereof or
qualifications thereof. I presume we could now have foreigners
sitting on the board of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
trying to determine what is Canadian culture and how to develop
Canadian culture. It is this type of attitude from the government
that tends to debase the concept of Canadian citizenship.
I also want to take up the point that the auditor general raised
last year and which the public accounts committee dealt with, the
problem of immigration and refugees coming into this country. In
response to the auditor general's report at the committee meeting
on February 5, 1998 Ms. Janice Cochrane, deputy minister of
citizenship and immigration, made the following statement to the
public accounts committee:
The auditor general's report identified some important areas
where the refugee determination system is not performing up to
our expectations. The report questioned the efficiency of the
current system. It raised concerns about the level of
communication between CIC and the refugee board. It also
expressed some doubts about our ability to remove individuals who
do not belong in this country.
I do welcome these observations. They are consistent with some
of the conclusions that we ourselves have reached at CIC.
Those were the words of the deputy minister of citizenship and
immigration when the auditor general pointed out that their
policies and procedures were much less than perfect. Hopefully
they are now doing something about it but at that time they were
not.
I also quote from the auditor general's opening statement
to the committee meeting on February 5, 1998 dealing with the
removal of illegal refugees and immigrants:
The issue of removals also warrants particular attention. At the
end of our audit, the department was able to confirm the
departure of only 4,300 of the 19,900 persons who were to have
left the country. In short, the process does not grant
protection quickly to those who genuinely need it. Furthermore,
it does not discourage those who do not require or deserve
Canada's protection from claiming refugee status.
Furthermore, we noted that no one in the federal government
monitors the overall progress of the claims.
We have heard today how we are dealing with citizenship and not
immigration and refugees. However, the point I want to make,
again referring back to the auditor general's report of December
1997, paragraph 25.41, is he talks about the huge backlog of
26,000 refugee claims. He points out in paragraph 25.44 that 60%
of the people who arrive on our shores claiming refugee status
have no documentation of any kind.
1515
I am sure every member in the House knows that when travelling
to Canada people do not get on the plane without having a
passport or travel documents. Yet 60% of refugees who come off
the plane have no travel documents. There was an admission before
the committee that sometimes illegal refugees who have been
sponsored by couriers and illegal organizations have a passport
to get on the plane. A courier is on the plane, picks up the
passport and is long gone through customs. They are left with
nothing. Now they are here illegally with no documentation.
Canadians are being taken for a ride.
Then the whole refugee process kicks into place. It is
overburdened. It is not monitored or administered properly. There
are backlogs. It takes two and a half years or more to determine
that these people are illegal refugees. They are given a
deportation order. Then they say that if they are sent back to
where they came from, they might get hurt or they might be thrown
in prison. An appeal process kicks in and the whole system starts
again to determine whether there is a risk in sending them back.
During that time the person gets married, or they have a child.
Then they claim they want to stay here under humanitarian
grounds. Remember Bill C-63 says that children born in this
country are automatically Canadian citizens. Imagine Canada
deporting the parents of a Canadian who may be a few months old
or one, two or three years old. Absolutely not. They are
automatically granted permanent Canadian status on the basis on
humanitarian grounds because we took far too long to process the
claim.
Clause 10 of Bill C-63 says “The minister may, for the purposes
of this act, deem a person who is in Canada and who has resided
here for at least 10 years to be or to have become a permanent
resident” of the country.
If people want to get into this country by the back door and at
the same time have a legal process, they come in and apply for
refugee status even though they do not qualify. They work the
system and drag it out. They go for the appeal. Then they go
for the risk assessment. Then they go for the humanitarian
appeal because by this time they have started a family. They
wait a few more years and Canadian citizenship is there for the
asking. They have totally end-run the entire system.
By virtue of Bill C-63 we are now granting these people
automatic entry into Canada. When that gets out we can see a
flood of people coming into this country, none of whom would
qualify under the rules. Yet Bill C-63 grants them Canadian
citizenship after 10 years.
This government by its inability to manage the process properly
is subverting and debasing the value of Canadian citizenship. I
would hope it would take that seriously, stop it and stop it now.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member makes the assertion that the parents of somebody who was
born in this country are allowed to stay in Canada because their
child has been given status as a Canadian citizen. That is not
the case. The member should know that.
People who are set for deportation will be deported. The fact
that their child has Canadian citizenship status does not stop
deportation. The child at that point has the choice of going
with his or her parents. So far they have gone with the parents.
Citizenship is granted to people born in this country. That is
not something new. It has always been the case. I would hope
that the hon. member would recognize that.
1520
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather
laughable that a two-year old child or a child who is just a baby
would have choices that it could intelligently make. Let me quote
the auditor general. December 1997, chapter 25, paragraph 129:
Despite the lack of departmental statistics on the number of such
claimants, from our analysis we were able to determine that of
the 31,200 individuals who applied for refugee status between
1993 and 1997 and had their claims denied, approximately 2,300
were granted permanent residence on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds. Most of these individuals were given
favourable decisions because they were married to permanent
residents or Canadian citizens.
Right there, the auditor general confirmed it to us.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question for my colleague relates to the burden that
is placed upon the system when we end up with refugee claimants
who have actually departed from a location with identification
and have arrived without it.
We have a strong recommendation that we use digital technology.
We all know that with the new digital technology we can take
pictures at one end, plug them into a computer and pull them off
anywhere in the world. I have done that with things as simple as
getting pictures in Ottawa of my son playing hockey in Victoria.
I know it works even though I am fairly illiterate technically.
That simple bit of technology added to the immigration and
refugee system at all major points of departure for Canada seems
to me would reduce the huge burden on the immigration and refugee
system. Would my colleague like to comment on what he knows about
that and what the cost might be?
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly
what the cost would be on that type of system, but let me just
tell the hon. member what is going on.
The supreme court has said that as soon as somebody sets foot in
this country the charter of rights and freedoms kicks in. Let us
not argue with that. That is the case. Therefore, we know that
when the illegal refugees, and I am talking about the illegal
ones not the ones who have a genuine right to be here, arrive in
this country, sometimes on the odd occasion the people from
immigration will go right on the plane and inspect the passports
before people get off. Apparently that is before the charter
kicks in because they have not touched Canadian soil at that
point in time.
Yet when questioned they said even though that proved and
identified illegal refugees who could be sent right back on the
next plane, they did not follow that policy. They were far more
willing to allow the people to enter into Canadian customs and
allow the charter of rights and freedoms to kick in. This would
then give them several years of appeals and lawyers and ongoing
opportunities to run up huge costs for the Canadian taxpayer.
During that time if they develop a family in this country, on
humanitarian grounds they then qualify for permanent residence.
Then according to clause 10 of Bill C-63, after 10 years they are
home free, a Canadian citizen with a Canadian passport. They have
not qualified under a point system, under a refugee system or any
system for that matter and they are in all the way.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we move on in
debate, I should inform the House that we are past the five hours
of debate with questions and comments. We are now into 10
minutes, no questions or comments. Resuming debate, the hon.
member for Mississauga South.
Ms. Maria Minna: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
clarification. I would just like to know if we are debating the
Citizenship Act or the Immigration Act. I am not sure. The
opposition seem to be talking about something else.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member has
a question of relevancy. It is always apropos to raise it. It may
cause people to consider whether or not their remarks are germane
to the debate at hand. In my opinion the debate so far today has
been germane to the bill at hand.
1525
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few comments with
regard to Bill C-63, sponsored by the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.
The hon. member who just raised a point of order is quite
correct. I have followed the debate. I think that the member
for St. Albert stated that the bill deals with citizenship, not
with immigrants or refugees. In fact, Mr. Speaker, prior to your
entering the chair this afternoon it had reverted to a litany of
negative rhetoric with regard to immigrants and refugees. It is
unfortunate that has happened but it is probably a good thing in
the context that it shows Canadians what the fundamental values
are of those who are suggesting certain things and making
representations. It leads straight to credibility.
Credibility in this place is a more important asset than any
other I can think of. When members rise to speak and to present
information, their word is on the line. So I want to address a
couple of the words that I heard from the Reform Party during the
last three or four hours of debate.
One direct allegation was that the Government of Canada was
advertising to bring criminal immigrants to Canada. I raised it
with regard to a member who was here during the debate and heard
the comments and asked that member if he would agree with the
statement that had been made. He was given a piece of paper
which he read into the record which said to the effect that you
can get into Canada if you have a certain amount of money and
this is what you do, et cetera.
The statement and the sheet were not prepared by the Government
of Canada, by the Parliament of Canada or by any of the agencies
of the Government of Canada. It was a flyer which was not
attributed to anybody. It just happened to be a flyer which had
these words, yet it was presented to the House of Commons as
indicating the Government of Canada was advertising for
criminals.
The members who presented that information have not been fair
with the House by presenting information which is not
substantiated by the information they have. If they feel that
strongly about it I would certainly ask that they table the
document in the House of Commons so that it can be shared by all
members of parliament and dealt with. If it is not true, if it
is a false document and a false allegation, I do not expect a
document to be tabled.
The members of the Reform Party in expressing their values
referred often—
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
The document to which the hon. member has just referred was from
the publication Latin Trade. I would seek unanimous
consent of the House to table the document as requested by the
hon. member.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the House give
its unanimous consent that the document as referred to be tabled?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I have the same document in
front of me. It refers to an address on Bathurst Street in
Toronto. It is not a government office. It is not the Government
of Canada. This happens to be—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, if members do not want to
listen, I am going to continue to present the facts as I know
them because I think that the credibility of the issue is
extremely important.
1530
The document is available to all members. I see all members are
reading it now, just to satisfy themselves that in fact all of
the representations and allegations that have been made today by
the Reform Party with regard to this document have been totally
false. They have been incorrect by attributing them to the
Government of Canada and it is unfortunate.
From another standpoint, as I mentioned as I began my comments,
it is always important to know exactly what the value system and
credibility level are of speakers in this place. I think they
have accounted for themselves very well. The Canadian people
will know exactly the credibility index of the Reform Party.
There were also substantial references to the auditor general's
comments regarding 20,000 immigrant applicants who have been
denied and were ordered to be deported, that 4,000 of them had
been in fact deported and that there were 16,000 yet to be
accounted for.
The Reform Party would have us believe that there are 16,000
people roaming around Canada hiding away when in fact it is
unquestionably the case that the vast majority of those people
really are no longer in the country.
An hon. member: How do you know that?
Mr. Paul Szabo: That is right. Nobody really knows, but
people who do not have landed status will not get into the
country. They will not wait around until someone decides to
invite them to leave. They can do it on their own because they
have made an application and it was denied.
I wanted to ask a question of the member earlier when he was
talking about illegal immigrants. For the life of me I do not
know what an illegal immigrant is. It is a contradiction of
terms. It may be an alien who has made application for
immigration, but someone who would sneak into the country and is
here as an illegal alien I understand. That is not an immigrant
or a refugee. A refugee as I understand is someone who has come
to Canada and sought refugee status and made application.
I raise this issue because when we are sloppy with the
terminology and we start talking about illegal immigrants and
illegal refugees, when we are not talking about immigrants and
refugees in fact, it is a slight against those who have chosen
Canada to be their home and those who were successful in
achieving landed status but who still consider themselves to be
immigrants.
The member for St. Albert was an immigrant. We have to be
careful not to slander immigrants and refugees, whether they have
been successful or not. We understand that in the vast majority
of cases people have come here for very honourable reasons. They
are looking for an opportunity. With regard to refugees there is
no question. We have a social responsibility to do our share.
To slander them and to somehow characterize all those who come
to Canada for immigration purposes as being somehow illegal and
all criminals is really unfortunate. I make those comments
simply because we have to recognize that they are human beings.
If anything, the House should recognize that Canada has always
been recognized internationally as being the champion of human
rights.
Our process allows for the respecting of those human rights
regardless of their status. We have a system in place. It is an
honourable system and members should reflect in their comments
that by and large the majority of the system is dealing with
human rights issues and they should respect human rights.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to join my fellow members in addressing
Bill C-63, but I cannot say I am terribly impressed with what we
have to work with in the bill.
It has become typical of the government to spend months and
years responding to a report and then drop a band-aid piece of
legislation in our laps that it claims to be in great rush to
push through.
In this case we have a bill that tinkers with some definitions
and procedures but completely ignores what really needs to be
addressed in this country.
1535
Our immigration system has been in crisis for years. It is in a
tailspin. It has been abused by groups and gangs from around the
world because they have found they can manipulate our system
while legitimate refugees and law-abiding new citizens wait in a
bureaucratic limbo to have their cases heard, reheard and
deferred for months on end.
Thousands of known criminals walk our streets with impugnity
after brushing off the most cursory examination at border points
while mysterious legions of organized criminals and drug fuelled
gangs set up shop in our cities, apparently beyond the reach of
our Canadian securities.
What does the government have to respond to all this? At least
these people still have to swear allegiance to the Queen at
present, but it should be expanded to include Canada as well.
Since we are here to deal with what little the government has to
offer by way of a legislative agenda, I will point out where I
believe the government has gone off the rails.
If a woman in this country has a baby then we confer upon that
child the blessing of citizenship, and that is how it should be.
However, if a woman comes here from another country to have a
baby we have a bit of a problem. The Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration recommended that the child only be
considered a citizen if one or both of its parents were a
permanent resident or citizen. There should be some leeway for
refugee claimants who have been accepted, but the idea is that
for Canadian citizenship to mean anything it should be held up to
a certain standard.
We should ask people who are coming here to observe our laws and
accept our requirements. Simply having a child here, then
claiming that it would be unfair to be deported because one is
the mother of a Canadian citizen is nothing but twisted logic and
an abuse of that child.
What does Bill C-63 say to that? It says in clause 4 that the
government is not prepared to lay down the law but apparently to
wait for the supreme court to make up the law as it sees fit. We
all know where this perverted logic led recently.
Unfortunately where the Liberals do not want the courts to rule
they put the authority to interpret into the hands of the
minister. In a perfect world we could all assume the minister
and all her heirs would rule with a benevolent hand and never let
politics or special interests affect her judgment. Of course in
a perfect world we would not have people taking advantage of the
generous nature of Canadians by trading off their children in
this manner.
There are no fewer than 16 paragraphs with a number of
subparagraphs describing what the minister might arbitrarily
decide behind closed doors about how this act will work. Most
are administrative and no doubt there is a sensible rationale for
applying them, but I cannot help thinking that the more such
clauses we have, the more open ended the law is and the more open
it is to abuse or incompetence. We know how difficult it is
already for opposition members and their constituents to get
satisfaction from a government department after a case has wound
its way through the labyrinth it must follow.
There is also a clause in the bill that the minister can
delegate her authority. Once again maybe this is necessary to
keep this creaky thing rolling along day to day. I do worry,
though, that the minister saw fit to include the phrase “without
proof of the authenticity of authorization”. That is kind of an
open ended statement. That comes from subclause 44(1). I hope
this is not intended to be some sort of escape clause for future
screw-ups but it certainly would not be the first time.
The minister has given herself the authority in the bill to
decide what the criterion is for people to have an adequate
knowledge of our official languages. There is no definition of
what adequate is. It surely leaves open an opportunity for some
cracker jack immigration lawyer to appeal on those grounds.
We see a clause that says that potential immigrants cannot use a
translator to take a language test. This would be a laughable
inclusion if it were not so sad that the Liberals never thought
of this before.
The minister has given herself the authority to define what
constitutes a relationship between a parent and a child for the
purpose of determining entitlement to citizenship. We have to
wonder why this relationship has to be defined at the door when
we are thinking of letting somebody into the country. There is
already a reference to adoption outside the country in clause 8,
and aside from being the birth parents we are left with a big
question of how this authority might be applied.
Maybe subparagraph (i) hints at the many possibilities for
relationships the minister may have in mind. She has taken upon
herself to define who is a spouse for the purposes of this act.
As is its usual practice, we know the Liberal government has left
it up to the courts to allow some special interest groups to
redefine what constitutes spouse.
We can interpret this subparagraph to be anticipating that court
case or, if we are generous, we might say that the minister will
simply decide if a couple is married or not. I find that a
little hard to swallow. This clause is wide open for the social
engineering which many Liberals favour and of which Canadians
have repeatedly made clear they are not in favour.
The minister's powers are even more frightening when we move on
to grounds for refusing citizenship.
Clauses 21 and 22 suggest that the minister can decide
arbitrarily what constitutes the public interest and having
disqualified someone under this heading can refuse that
individual an appeal.
1540
Ironically members opposite build their careers on the
insupportable assertion that this party wants to keep immigrants
out. That is not the case. However this clause puts incredible
power in the hands of the present minister to do that very thing.
The problem is not that the minister may keep criminals out,
something they do not seem to be terribly good at now, but that
this act does not define what this or any future minister might
decide is public interest. Might this one day apply to someone
who holds opinions contrary to some accepted government wisdom?
It is not clear here where the guidelines are.
It is likewise with the term national security which appears in
clause 11(f). The minister may grant citizenship to someone who
has not been convicted of an offence against national security.
The problem is that there is no specific category of offence in
the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act or the Criminal
Code here.
There is merit in prohibiting people who constitute a risk to
the country or who have demonstrated that they cannot behave
according to the laws of this land or any other for that matter,
but it is weak legislation that leaves this concept open to
interpretation to abuse. It leaves the country open to dictates
by the courts, and that is not why our constituents have sent us
here.
One of the flaws in Canadian politics is the difficulty in
dealing with subjects such as immigration, as if to raise the
issue itself were tantamount to questioning its benefits, the
place of immigrants or the value of a certain category of
immigrants.
This kind of unspoken censorship has been a chronic problem for
politicians for years. 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
all those who elect to settle in this great country.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
share with the House a story that I recently heard on CBC radio
as I was driving through British Columbia.
It came on in late afternoon. A doctor was being interviewed by
a CBC reporter, a doctor who I believe was working in Vancouver
in an emergency ward in a major hospital. She was called into
the emergency room to assist a young man who was having severe
difficulties. The young man appeared to the doctor to be in good
health. That is the way she related the story. However, he was
having a great deal of difficulty breathing and she determined
immediately that he needed mouth to mouth resuscitation or mouth
to mouth assistance in breathing if he were to survive.
She had made some inquiries before going into the emergency room
and found out that this fellow was a recent immigrant to Canada
from Honduras and had only been in Canada for a very short time.
I think it was in the neighbourhood of about six months.
Naturally the doctor assumed that being a recent refugee
Immigration Canada would have checked his health status and would
have found anything that might have been wrong.
The doctor assumed wrong. Much to her horror she found out that
she had made a terrible assumption because, as she later found
out, this young refugee who was lying in a hospital emergency
room, who looked and appeared to be healthy and who was a recent
immigrant to Canada, only having been here a few months, was in
fact a fellow who had full blown AIDS and active tuberculosis.
The doctor made a life and death decision and assisted or
attempted to assist him with mouth to mouth resuscitation. She
found out later the patient was infected with the AIDS virus and
tuberculosis. She had herself checked out when she found out
what the patient's medical history really was. Thankfully she
did not acquire the AIDS virus, but she did test positive for
tuberculosis and now she is very concerned she may develop that
disease at some time in her life.
I know members opposite think it is funny, but I do not think
most Canadians find it funny. Frankly I know the doctor involved
did not find it funny at all.
1545
How could it happen that a young fellow recently admitted to
Canada as a refugee could be admitted to an emergency room and a
doctor treating him not knowing his medical history? How could
this individual be in Canada with these very serious diseases
that he had obviously had for a long period of time and
immigration not even check?
What the doctor discovered and what she related to radio
listeners that day was that immigration does not routinely check
immigrants for serious diseases as they are accepted into Canada.
They do not check immigrants to Canada for contagious diseases.
They do not put public safety as a first priority when accepting
immigrants into Canada.
There is something very wrong when Canada does not take these
kinds of precautions to protect its citizens. Our citizenship and
immigration department is so caught up with optics, spin and
being political correct that it is willing to jeopardize public
safety for the sake of being seen as politically correct. This
is apparently the case because I have in my hand an advertisement
that was recently found in a foreign publication which I will
read verbatim into the record: “Canadian immigration to Canada
with the purchase of a Fleet rent a car franchise, total
investment of $50,000 Canadian, approximately $30,000 U.S. You
are guaranteed immigration to Canada even with a criminal
record”.
This is an ad that was placed in a foreign publication. How can
our immigration department be so obviously skewed and so
incapable of doing its job that Canadians are recognizing that
there is financial opportunities in attempting to entice
criminals from other countries to come to Canada and guaranteeing
them access to Canada if they have the ticket price to pay the
$50,000 or $30,000 U.S.?
How can anyone watching the debate feel the government has as
its first priority the public safety of Canadians? How can
anybody watching this debate believe the government has its
priorities in order? Refugees are not screened for serious
illness and disease. There are ads to attract criminals into
Canada. Canada needs to totally revamp its immigration policy and
put as its first priority the health and safety of Canadians. In
both these examples we see the government does not have its
priorities right and it is not putting the health and safety of
Canadians as its first priority.
The next priority the government should have with respect to
immigration is to encourage immigrants who are ready, willing and
able to make a positive contribution to our economy and to our
country. Immigration has always been an extremely valuable and
positive force in this country from its inception until now. I
can speak with a bit of knowledge on this because I come from a
community in northwest British Columbia, Kitimat. Kitimat was
largely created during the 1950s when Alcan built a huge aluminum
smelter and the community and the country at that time were
accepting refugees from all over the world.
We had at that time people from Portugal, Italy, Germany and
people from all over the world who came to our community. It was
considered a melting pot. It was considered an exemplary
community at that time. At that time we had an immigration
policy that made sense. We had an immigration policy that looked
to potential immigrants in terms of what kind of positive
contribution they would be able and willing to make to our
country.
Sadly the priorities of government have changed over time. Sadly
we have a government that puts as its first—
1550
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member on debate.
Unfortunately I have been listening for the last little while and
I am lost as to the subject matter of the debate. Are we
debating the citizenship bill or are we debating the white paper
on immigration?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are debating the
immigration bill. During the time I have been in the chair it
has been a fairly wide ranging debate. The hon. member for Skeena
was addressing an ad, which in my opinion was relevant. I am sure
the hon. member for Skeena is cautioned by the intervention by
the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul.
Ms. Maria Minna: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say this to
you, but you just said we are debating the immigration bill. We
are debating the citizenship act which I think would be important
to everyone. I do not understand why we are talking about
criminals constantly. It seems that is the only thing the
opposition is interested in. It is talking about irresponsible
companies—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The point by the
member for Beaches—East York is very well made and I would ask
the hon. member for Skeena to touch on the bill at hand.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I got their
attention. The reason we are talking about criminals, for the
hon. member's edification, is the fact that we have a government
and a policy which invite criminals to come to Canada and become
citizens here. We have a government—
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think you will find unanimous consent to table the document
that has been referred to in the debate today, which will show
clearly that this is not a Government of Canada document.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Mississauga South has requested the unanimous consent of the
House to table a document that has been referred to by both sides
in debate. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I see that we really are
making some progress here this afternoon and I am grateful for
that.
The hon. member is quite right. This is not the Government of
Canada that is doing the advertising, but it is the Government of
Canada that is facilitating this charade. It is the Government
of Canada's policy that allows Canadians and others to advertise
in foreign publications and say bring us your criminals. You are
a bank robber, come to Canada and if you get caught in Canada we
have a criminal justice system that will not deal with you
anyway. It is a haven for criminals.
I cannot understand why the hon. members do not understand. We
are talking about priorities. We are talking about what is in
the best interest of Canadians and what is in the best interest
of Canada. Certainly when we see an advertisement like this in a
foreign publication we are hard pressed to believe that the
government's priorities are in the best interest of Canada and
Canadians.
We are hard pressed when we hear this terrible story of this
doctor working in an emergency ward in Vancouver that the
priorities of this government are for the health of Canadians.
This doctor was exposed to a serious contagious disease as a
result of immigration's failure to screen people coming into this
country as immigrants, to screen people coming into this country
who desire citizenship here.
It is really disappointing to see that from all the noise on the
other side they still do not get it. Canadians are not satisfied
with this. They want something better. They want a better set of
priorities. They do not want criminals and people who are
infected with serious contagious diseases coming into this
country and threatening the health and safety of Canadian
citizens.
I wish the members on the other side would get it. Obviously
they are spending more time talking than listening.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-63, an act
respecting citizenship.
This legislation has been a long time coming. For years
Canadians have been waiting for improvements to the citizenship
act. As far back as 1987 the government announced plans to bring
in needed amendments.
1555
Even when this government was elected in 1993, it announced its
intention to overhaul our citizenship laws. It asked for advice
from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and
its report, “Canadian Citizenship: A Sense of Belonging”, was
presented to this House in June 1994. This government has now
taken almost five years to study and consult some more. What do
we have? A few of the key recommendations of the standing
committee. We have a bill that fails in many respects.
We all know of the difficulty our courts have with the issue of
children born in Canada while their parents are here illegally.
Does this legislation put a stop to this abuse by illegal
immigrants using this loophole to gain entry to the country? No,
it does not. As things stand, we can have terrorists enter this
country fighting deportation, perhaps even extradition, and
during their time here they can conceive a child. Under section
4(1) of the bill the child acquires citizenship at birth if born
in Canada.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule but they are limited
to children of foreign diplomats, etc. The exceptions definitely
do not cover the children of illegal immigrants, whether refugees
or otherwise. This is fundamentally wrong. But just why is it
wrong?
It is wrong because it creates a loophole big enough to drive a
truck through because the child, when born in Canada,
automatically becomes a Canadian citizen. That child has the
right to remain in this country. The parents may well be in the
country illegally. They may even be highly undesirable. They
may even be dangerous criminals or terrorists with dark
objectives either within Canada or elsewhere. But when these
parents have a child while they are in Canada, they gain an
important lever toward their fight to remain here.
Because their child is designated as a Canadian citizen with the
right to remain in this country, it is extremely difficult to
deport or extradite the parents and thereby deprive the child of
those parents. There is usually and quite understandably much
public sympathy.
Instead of addressing this obvious problem in the legislation,
the minister has chosen to ignore it and hopes it goes away. It
will not go away. The problem will continue to plague our courts
and the immigration system. Besides being a complete abdication
by this government in its responsibilities, it creates unfairness
in and severe criticism of our immigration process. All
immigrants become tarnished because some are able to beat the
system and gain entry through this loophole.
Some potential and highly desirable applicants for citizenship
have to wait in line or perhaps are denied entry because these
queue jumpers fill our quotas prematurely. It makes much more
sense if we limit citizenship to children born in Canada to
lawfully landed immigrants. Those children born to parents of
questionable status should take the citizenship of their parents
at least until the status of their parents is resolved.
I will now comment on section 6(1)(b) of the legislation. It
states that citizenship shall be granted to persons who have been
lawfully admitted and have been permanent residents residing in
Canada for at least 1,095 days. But there is no legislative
scheme to measure how to determine whether the 1,095 requirement
has been met.
We are all very aware of various examples whereby immigrants
enter the country to set up residence only to almost immediately
return to their country of origin. They spend little time here
as they have significant interests in their home country. They
merely want to obtain Canadian citizenship to gain all of its
advantages. They want to reserve their Canadian citizenship in
case they eventually wish to take up residence in the country.
Once again the legislation fails to address this loophole.
Certain individuals are able to take advantage. The result,
once again, is that all immigrants become tarnished by the
shenanigans of a few. Once again some immigrants fail to gain
entry and citizenship because others are able to jump the queue
with little intention of taking up permanent residence in the
near future, if at all. Again, this is wrong and the minister has
closed her eyes to the problem. She must be held accountable.
In more recent years the courts have been fairly inconsistent
over this residency requirement. Some judges held that actual
physical presence was not necessary. Applicants only had to show
a significant attachment to Canada through bank accounts,
investments, club memberships, driving licences, etc. Other
judges held much stricter adherence to actual residency in the
country. This uncertainty in the law seriously impacted the value
and validity of our citizenship process. With respect, the
amendments as proposed through Bill C-63 do little to address
this concern.
I will speak only briefly to section 31 of the legislation. I
note that infamous creature known as the governor in council will
continue to appoint citizenship judges and commissioners. The
government wishes to retain positions with which to employ
Liberal party members, benefactors and volunteers. They must be
paid off through patronage appointments.
The function of a citizenship commissioner is a relatively
simple endeavour at a relatively handsome remuneration.
Appointments for a period of up to five years are also very
attractive. It almost makes me think about becoming a Liberal
but in case anyone misheard me, I said almost.
I will now move on to section 43 of the bill. Again we see
powers of the governor in council. There was once a time that
members of parliament made the laws of Canada. We now appear to
be moving closer and closer to merely authorizing the governor in
council to take over our responsibilities. We are also moving
closer and closer to concealing our laws from our citizens.
1600
Have members ever noticed how much easier it is to research our
statutes than it is to research the regulations? Statutes are
available individually. They are available through the revised
statutes. They are available through the Internet, on CD-ROM and
they are in most major libraries. They can be tracked all the
way through the legislative process to see just how they are
developed.
Regulations are another matter. They come out in the Canada
Gazette and they can come out at almost any time and as many
times as the governor in council decides. They may come out
without any comment or input from Canadians. There is not the
same public disclosure and participation that occurs with
legislation developed through parliament.
Let us look at some of the powers that the minister has reserved
for the governor in council. In section 43(b) the governor in
council can specify who may make an application under this act on
behalf of a minor. Surely this could have been set out within
the statute. It would likely include the mother, the father and
it would likely include the official guardian if the parents were
no longer alive or caring for the child and perhaps it would
include other family relatives who are acting in place of the
parents. Why do we leave it to the governor in council to make up
the rules on who may act on behalf of the child?
In subsection 43(i) it will be up to the governor in council to
define spouse for the purposes of the act. Can we not define
spouse within the legislation? Do we need it done behind closed
doors so that the Canadian public does not see just where this
government has decided to take our laws?
There are 301 members of parliament with a budget to operate our
parliamentary system that is quite staggering. But here we are
merely reallocating our legislating powers to the governor in
council. No wonder judges across this land are often eager to
step into our jurisdiction and do more than just interpret our
laws. When we continually exhibit our disregard for our mandated
responsibility, should we expect anything different?
Section 43(j) leaves it up to the governor in council to define
what constitutes a relationship of a parent and a child for the
purposes of determining entitlement to citizenship. Once again I
have difficulty accepting why we cannot be making this
determination in parliament. Why does it have to be reserved for
the decision of others and why does it end up becoming law
through regulation, which does not attract the same level of
public scrutiny, comment and participation?
It is for these reasons that I am unable to support this
legislation. We have a citizenship act that has been long
overdue for change to rectify many of its inadequacies. This new
version of the citizenship act does not do that. It is being
sold as being new and improved, but I see little in the way of
addressing our present failings. The minister should be sent
back to try again, but that will not happen.
Far too often we in this place continue to follow the dictates
of the Prime Minister's office and pass legislation that does not
address the interests and concerns as raised by our citizens, and
that is a shame because as time goes on the voice of the people
grows weaker and weaker in this place.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would find
unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, on February 17, 1999, the House shall not adjourn at 6.30
p.m., but at that time a minister of the crown shall propose a
motion:
That this House take note of possible Canadian peacekeeping
activities in Kosovo and possible changes in peacekeeping
activities in the Central African Republic.
That during the debate thereon, each member may speak for no
more than twenty minutes, with a ten minute period for questions
and comments, provided that two members may split one such time
segment as provided in the usual practices of the House and
provided that the Chair may receive no dilatory motions, demands
for quorum or requests for unanimous consent to propose motions
or waive rules and, when no members rise to speak, the House
shall adjourn to the next sitting day.
(Motion agreed to)
1605
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, at the request of the hon. member for
Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, I would ask that you seek unanimous
consent that the order for consideration of Bill C-226 in the
name of the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert be
discharged and that the said bill be withdrawn. I understand the
member no longer wants to proceed with this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)
* * *
CITIZENSHIP ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, an
act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I did not intend to speak on Bill C-63 until I had the somewhat
unfortunate experience of listening to some of the nonsense that
is being perpetrated on the Canadian people by speakers
particularly in the Reform Party.
I also serve on the citizenship and immigration committee—
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. With the greatest of respect to the hon. member, I think
you would find it unparliamentary to refer to the submissions
made by opposition members as nonsense.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That would certainly
be debate and not a point of order.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, even the points of orders
seem to be nonsensical. I rest my case in that regard.
As a member of the citizenship and immigration committee, we
spent several months in meetings trying to agree on an agenda
that we should deal with knowing full well that Bill C-63 was
coming before the House. I would add that this is a bill
entitled an act respecting Canadian citizenship, not immigration,
not criminal activity and not the kind of fraudulent activity
members opposite have spoken about. It is about citizenship.
When I sit in this place and listen to the fearmongering and the
absolute unadulterated nonsense being spouted by these people it
makes my blood boil.
Let me share with this House a couple of facts. First of all,
the advertisement the hon. member referred to which stated
guaranteed immigration to Canada whether you are a criminal or
not was in a Latin trade magazine in Miami. The phone number
listed in Toronto is no longer in service. How interesting. It
apparently is some kind of scam by someone who is trying to get
money perhaps out of Latin Americans or Cubans who are refugees
in the United States. Who knows?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Surrey Central has a point of order on relevance. We would ask
the hon. member for Mississauga West to touch on the bill at
hand.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken more about
Bill C-63 in about two minutes, having been interrupted twice,
than all these people all day today. All they want to talk about
is things they can perpetrate as being accurate when they know
full well they are not.
I will talk about the bill. This is what the Canadian public
should know about this bill on citizenship. It is intended to
give citizenship at birth to all persons born in Canada. Is the
Reform Party opposed to that? The Reform Party does not want to
allow that to happen. This bill gives the minister new authority
to annul, cancel, wipe out citizenship in cases where it has been
obtained through the use of false identity or where the person
was subject to criminal prohibitions under the act. This is
exactly the point we hear them pontificating about in some
self-righteous manner to try to paint all immigrants as
criminals, to try to paint all immigrants as a burden on Canadian
society.
1610
That is the Reform mantra. That is what Reformers believe.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am trying to hear the comments of the hon. member. I am
having difficulty understanding how his comments relate to Bill
C-63. Could he address those comments?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that
all they want to do is stop me from making these points. I am
reading right off the summary. It is the summary of the
citizenship of Canada act. It is not something I am making up,
unlike members opposite who are talking about disease
transmission and criminal activity. It is the act.
The bill sets out new prohibitions and offences and increases
penalties, something the Reform Party wants to happen in every
facet of life in this country. It strengthens the integrity of
the act and addresses more modern issues. That is relevant to
the act, unlike the nonsense we have been hearing. It will
restrict the transmission of citizenship by derivation of first
and second generation children.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Speaker: I think this is a good time to take a break.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.12 p.m.)
1615
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 4.15 p.m.
The Speaker: Order, please. It being 4.15 p.m. the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Ways and Means
Proceedings No. 19 concerning the budget presentation.
* * *
THE BUDGET
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved:
He said: Mr. Speaker, on this the first day of the Chinese New
Year, I am tabling the budget documents, including notices of
ways and means motions, in both official languages. The details
of the measures are contained in the documents and I am asking
that an order of the day be designated for consideration of these
motions.
[Translation]
I am also announcing that the government will be introducing
bills at the earliest opportunity in order to implement the
measures announced in this budget.
[English]
Let me begin, on behalf of the government, by expressing our
appreciation to the Standing Committee on Finance and to many
committees and caucuses for the valuable work they have done in
the lead-up to this budget.
Let me also express our gratitude to the great number of
Canadians who have come forward to present their views. The
sense of civic responsibility they have shown now falls to us to
respect, to balance the sound perspectives they have advanced, as
we prepare together for a new century.
It is an inescapable fact of life that a budget always brings
with it its own special vocabulary. We talk in the languages of
rates and ratios, of percentages and decimals, of accounting
methods and measures.
What all of this obscures is what budgets should be about.
It is to make the lives of Canadians better. It is to improve
their standard of living.
It is to build today for a better tomorrow. For budgets are
about more than entries in the books of a government; they are
chapters in the progress of a people.
[Translation]
Canadians have always understood that the turnaround from the
excesses, the high indebtedness of the recent past would not be
as fast as any of us would like; that the challenges posed by
rapid change are substantial, and that the bar set by
globalization is very high. Canadians knew, therefore, that a
long-term plan was needed.
Five years ago, we put that plan in place. Today, it is working.
And thus our responsibility is clear. It is to build on the
success of previous years. And with this budget, we are.
This budget demonstrates that the finances of the nation are now
in better shape than they have been in a generation, and that
further progress lies ahead. It is a budget that acts strongly on
the highest priority Canadians have, strengthening their system
of health care for today and tomorrow.
It is a budget that continues to equip Canadians to succeed in
the 21st century.
And it is a budget that for the first time in many years offers
tax relief to every taxpayer and it does so without using
borrowed money.
1620
[English]
The past year has been one of extraordinary economic
uncertainty, a volatility that has demonstrated that no country
today can shield itself fully from global turmoil.
However, the past year has proven as well that the steps that
Canada has taken to strengthen its finances and its economy are
paying off.
There is no doubt we have felt the effect of the storm. As a
result of the Asian crisis and its repercussions, our growth
slowed from the robust pace of 1997 and early 1998.
Canada's west, particularly our forestry, energy and farming
sectors, has suffered.
Yet it must also be recognized that overall the damage has not
been as severe as it might have been, as severe as it would have
been only a few years ago.
For example, job creation has been very strong. More than
450,000 new jobs were created last year, the large majority full
time and in the private sector, exceeding even the impressive
pace set the year before. No other G-7 country, not even the
United States, has matched our record.
This strong job performance has continued in 1999, with 87,000
jobs created in January alone. This pushed the unemployment rate
down to 7.8%, still too high but its lowest level in almost nine
years.
Furthermore, job prospects for young people have improved
significantly. Over the past 12 months youth employment grew by
10%, over 200,000 jobs, the best performance in over 25 years.
[Translation]
This year, in terms of economic growth, both the IMF and OECD
expect Canada to be among the top performers of the G-7.
This is not to say there are no risks. Very clearly, there are.
The world is a long way from having the kind of architecture
that will prevent or minimize economic crises in the future. We
may have a global market. But we do not have a global framework
to make it work for people. For Canada, putting this framework
in place is a priority.
At home, the priority is also clear.
We must equip Canadians to succeed in what remains an insecure
world.
[English]
As we continue to implement our plan, it is important to
reconfirm the principles that underlie it, the values that we
seek to sustain and strengthen.
First, the government's deficit may be eliminated but we must
never eliminate frugality from government.
There will be no rewind to the reckless spending of other
people's money.
We must and we will govern as if every dollar counts because
every dollar does.
This budget demonstrates that. Program spending as a percentage
of the economy will decline from 12.6% this year to 12% by the
year 2000-01, its lowest level in 50 years.
Second, we must never lose sight of the need to be balanced in
our approach.
A successful society does not run on one cylinder. We must
respond to the reality that success on one front requires action
on several.
Third, we must never shy away from the need to make choices. A
government with too many priorities is a government that has
none.
That is why, for example, health care, knowledge and innovation
constitute fully three-quarters of the new spending announced in
this year's and last year's budgets, the first two in the era of
balanced books.
Fourth, we must set aside any notion that acting in isolation is
a sign of strength. It is not. In today's world, power lies in
partnership. Canadians have the right to expect that their
governments will work together.
1625
Therein lies the importance of the social union framework signed
by the Prime Minister and the premiers two weeks ago.
Fifth, we must focus on the longer term. Some of the greatest
problems of the past arose when governments gave in to short term
pressures that threw them off course. If we are not to lose our
way, we can never lose sight of the far horizon.
Finally, and most important, we must always be fair. If, at the
end of the day, it is said that the books of Canada are better,
but the lives of Canadians are not, we will not have succeeded.
The test of good government is not to protect privilege for the
few. It is to provide opportunity for the many.
Our country has finally left the era of deficit financing
behind.
Last fiscal year, the federal government recorded its first
budgetary surplus in over 28 years.
As this fiscal year draws to a close, this March 31, it is clear
we will again balance the books or better.
This will mark the first time in almost half a century that the
federal government will have recorded two balanced budgets or
surpluses, back to back.
Moreover, this budget confirms that we will balance the books or
better next fiscal year and let me announce today that we will
also balance the books or better in the year 2000-01.
This means four consecutive years of budgets in the black. This
is only the third time this has happened since Confederation.
[Translation]
Of even greater significance, we will enter the new millennium
as a country no longer saddling generations to come with a
legacy of ever-increasing debt.
[English]
For well over a generation, Canada's debt to GDP ratio rose
relentlessly. However, two years ago, as a result of both our
action on the deficit and an economy that was growing, it began
to fall meaningfully.
Last year, Canada's debt to GDP ratio recorded the largest
single improvement in over 40 years, falling from 70.3% to 66.9%.
This year and next year, we expect it will fall still further
and by the year 2000-01 our debt ratio will be under 62%.
Looking beyond that, our commitment is to keep it on a steady
downward track year after year after year.
Now, all of this may well sound arcane, some statistical
addiction of economists, or perhaps even finance ministers, far
removed from the day to day concerns of Canadians. But nothing
could be further from the truth.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Paul Martin: It certainly is beyond those who do not
understand it.
It is Canadians who pay the price when government is forced to
spend so much of each tax dollar simply to pay the interest on
the national debt that it is unable to respond to their needs.
Three years ago, when the debt to GDP ratio was at its peak, 36
cents out of every revenue dollar, more than one-third, went to
debt interest.
1630
This was money Canadians could not use to prepare for the future
because their governments were too busy paying for the past.
Last year, with the debt ratio dropping, the portion of each
revenue dollar servicing the debt also dropped to 27 cents.
This means the beginning of a new flexibility, a new freedom to
strengthen health care, to provide needed tax relief, to fight
child poverty, to protect the environment and to invest in a more
productive economy.
In short, balancing the books means a new strength to build
today for a better tomorrow.
But it means as well that we cannot stop the debt fight now. For
there is something deeply wrong when the largest program the
federal government has is paying interest on its debt, more than
$41 billion this year alone. To put this in perspective, that is
almost twice the size of our next largest expenditure, pensions
for Canadian seniors.
Therefore the debt repayment plan that we announced in the last
budget will remain in place.
First, we will as we have done again today, present two-year
fiscal plans based on prudent economic assumptions.
Second, we will continue to build into our financial plans a
contingency reserve, a buffer against the unexpected.
Third, if the contingency reserve is not needed, it will
continue to go directly to paying down the debt.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, following this course, not only have Canadians
secured a financial victory that is remarkable by domestic
standards. They have secured a victory that is remarkable by
international standards as well.
The accounting method Canada uses to calculate its debt
repayment is considered among the most rigorous in the world.
Many other major economies measure only the debt that is owed to
markets.
On that basis, Canada's debt to GDP ratio is around the 52%
level.
Last year, we paid down $9.6 billion in market debt. This year,
we expect to pay down a similar amount, for a total of almost
$20 billion in just two years.
We are one of the few countries in the world that is actually
paying down its debt.
[English]
So far, so good. But does this mean that all of the challenges
are behind us? The answer is clearly no. The deficit may be
eliminated but our debt ratio still remains the second highest of
the G-7.
Furthermore, the Asian crisis remains with us and events in
Brazil highlight the fragility of the world's economic recovery.
We are weathering the storm much better than most. However,
Canada's economists have cut their growth projections
substantially from where they were at this time last year.
Despite these realities, as we prepared this budget, there were
those who said we should take the risk that things would turn out
vastly better than anticipated, that therefore we should spend
more or that we should cut taxes more; in other words that it was
time to cease being careful, being cautious with the finances of
the nation and that we should now revert to the habits of the
past.
Here is our response to those who hold those views.
We have always believed that the odds of reaching our goals must
be better than a mere flip of a coin.
The very reason we are still on track to balance the budget or
better in each of the next two years, the very reason we are not
back into deficit despite a degree of global economic turmoil
that literally no one foresaw a little over a year ago, all of
this is the result of the cautious approach we have applied to
our finances from the very beginning.
[Translation]
Furthermore, our careful approach has also ensured that we have
the resources to respond to other unanticipated events, while at
the same time safeguarding our financial health.
In 1996 and 1997, it gave us the capacity to provide assistance
to those who suffered from the Saguenay and Red River floods.
In 1998, it allowed us to respond to the ice storm. This year,
it has enabled us to support Canada's farmers who are in
difficulty.
To those who believe we can play Russian roulette with the
nation's finances, let me simply say no. We will not squander
the opportunity Canadians have before them.
1635
[English]
That speaks to our nation's finances. However, it does not by
itself speak to our nation's future. Taking care of the needs of
our people does not end with taking care of the books. A nation
is not a corporation.
Markets do many things and they do them well. But there are
many things that markets cannot do.
[Translation]
Markets cannot provide quality health care to all of us when we
are sick.
They cannot prevent the gap between rich and poor from becoming
an unbridgeable gulf.
[English]
Markets cannot deal with the root causes of homelessness or of
violence against women.
Markets deal as they should in services and goods. They do not,
however, deal with the common good. Therefore, we must.
We are not here to sit back and simply build up surpluses or pay
down debt. Our purpose is not just to build a better bottom
line. It is to build a stronger nation.
That is why, among other initiatives, we have provided new money
for the youth employment strategy, expanding it by 50%, an
initiative that has helped more than 100,000 young people each
year gain valuable work experience.
That is why in this budget we are following through on our
commitment to implement Gathering Strength, Canada's action plan
for and with aboriginal peoples.
That is why in this budget we are devoting new resources to
overseas development assistance and why we are taking a
leadership role in the international community to deal with the
issue of crippling debt in developing countries.
That is why in this budget we are devoting significant new
resources for youth justice, replacing the Young Offenders Act,
protecting the public from the most violent and introducing new
community based programs to help others change their behaviour.
That is why in this budget we are improving the compensation and
the benefits of the men and women of the armed forces. Let it be
said that the men and women of the armed forces are Canadians who
put their lives at risk every single day around the world. They
are Canadians who have demonstrated uncommon dedication here at
home helping their country cope with a series of national
disasters.
That is why in this budget we are making the largest, single
expenditure we have ever made in any area since taking office:
strengthening health care for the future.
Over the decades, Canadians have made a series of defining
decisions. They were decisions about much more than some
government program. They were decisions about what kind of
country we wanted to be. They were the decisions that led to
medicare.
Today it falls to us to take the steps necessary to safeguard
that great legacy, to sustain and strengthen our health care
system now and for the future.
1640
Canadians do not need to be convinced that health care is a
priority. They worry about crowded emergency rooms, about
understaffed wards, about waiting lists for tests and treatment.
They worry about the costs of paying for services and drugs that
are not covered.
[Translation]
The short-term pressures and problems in our system must be dealt
with.
At the same time, we must plan for the longer term. The
Minister of Health has put it very well “What we must strive for
is a people-centred system in the truest sense, one that ensures
the right care by the right provider at the right time in the
right place, at reasonable cost”.
That is why the first major investment we made when it was clear
that deficit elimination was at hand was to raise the annual
cash floor of the Canada health and social transfer, the CHST,
from $11 billion to $12.5 billion.
[English]
Today with the books balanced we are able to do even more. As
the Prime Minister wrote last month in response to a letter from
the premiers:
Our collaborative work on a renewed health partnership and on a
new social union partnership more generally along with increased
health funding, will reassure Canadians that governments are
working together to address their health and other social needs.
Today we are announcing a significant increase in transfers to
the provinces to support health care and a number of other
initiatives which strengthen the federal government's
contribution to Canada's health system.
Over the next five years we will invest an additional $11.5
billion through the Canadian health and social transfer. Two
billion dollars in new cash will be received by the provinces in
the first year, continuing into the second. In the third year
this will rise to $2.5 billion and will remain at that higher
level for the fourth and the fifth years.
This means that cash transfers under the CHST will increase from
the current $12.5 billion to $15 billion within three years, by
2001-02. This will bring the health component of the CHST to the
level it was before the period of restraint in the mid-1990s.
Furthermore, flexibility will be given to the provinces to
determine the timing of when they receive these funding increases
over the first three years to enable each province to best
determine the particular health needs of their citizens.
1645
The $11.5 billion in additional cash together with the value of
tax transfers which will also grow over this period means that
total CHST transfers will reach a new high by the year 2001.
Furthermore, while this is a substantial investment it is by no
means the end of the story. As our financial flexibility
increases in the years ahead, health care will continue to be
very much one of the key priorities for further action.
In addition to the new funding that we have just announced we
have worked with the provinces and the territories to renew all
major fiscal arrangements for five years and to do so on a fairer
basis.
[Translation]
We are renewing and strengthening the equalization program.
This program reflects the shared commitment of all
Canadians.
It provides provinces that are less well off with the resources
they need to provide reasonably comparable public services,
including health care, to their people.
That is why equalization was one of the few programs left
totally untouched when virtually all other spending was reduced
as we grappled with the deficit challenge.
Two weeks ago, legislation was tabled to renew the program
with improvements.
Over the next five years, equalization payments are projected to
total more than $50 billion. This is considerably more than the
provinces received over the past five years, in fact, $5 billion
more.
Moreover, official estimates at the time of the last
budget indicated that we would be providing the provinces with
$8.5 billion in equalization this year.
However, the latest
data indicate that payments this year will now total $10.7
billion, $2.2 billion more than projected in the 1998 budget.
And next year, equalization payments will be $600 million higher
than projected.
[English]
In summary, as a result of the increased CHST funding and higher
equalization more money will be available for public services,
including health care, throughout the country. For example, from
now to the end of the next fiscal year, a period of some 13
months, as a result of the increases in the CHST and the higher
equalization payments $4.2 billion in new cash will be made
available to the provinces.
The continued vitality of equalization depends on the
willingness of Canadians to share Canada's prosperity. This
requires that all Canadians be treated fairly and equally. In
1990 the previous government limited the growth in transfers to
Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia for social assistance and
social services. This has meant on a per capita basis the
residents of those provinces have not received as much as
residents of other provinces from the CHST.
In 1996 we began to address this disparity. Legislation was
passed that would cut the per capita differences in half in four
years time.
Today we are moving much further and much faster than that. We
are announcing the full restoration of equal per capita
entitlement for all provinces, and this will be completed in
three years.
1650
Let me put today's decisions in context. They are about much more
than dollars and cents. They are about a fundamental choice that
Canadians have made about the kind of society in which we want to
live. What we must always make clear is that the circumstances
of the many, not the advantages of the few, will guide our
decisions.
For each and every Canadian this means good health must never
become captive to good fortune. Our health care system is blind
to income so that its eyes can focus on need. It must, and it
will remain so. The fact is that in response to the health care
challenge some have said that the answer is easy. Some have said
eliminate equal access. They have said make wealth status, not
health status, the ticket to quality health care. For those who
hold those views let me say on behalf of this government, no, not
now, not ever.
As the Minister of Health has said, “We spend $80 billion a
year as a country on health care, and it is astonishing how
little we know about what we get for that money”. Canadians
have the right to know how their health dollars are being spent.
They have the right to know if the quality of their health system
is improving. Furthermore, health care providers need the best
information possible if they are to provide high quality care for
their patients.
Governments as well need to know what is working, what is not
and why.
[Translation]
This budget announces four major initiatives that will
significantly improve the health information made available to
Canadians.
These initiatives flow from the understanding on health and
the social union framework, and will be implemented in a manner
consistent with both.
First, we are making an investment that will lead to valuable
annual progress reports to the Canadian people. One will provide
insight on the health of Canadians. Another will look at the
health care system itself, for example, the situation with
regard to waiting lists, the most effective treatments available
and the best use of resources.
Second, this budget provides funding to build a national
health surveillance network.
This network will be able to identify the outbreak of serious
illness, from salmonella to flu to tropical diseases, so that
preventive measures can be taken to manage and minimize their
impact.
Third, the Canada health network is being established on the
Internet. Canadians everywhere will have direct access to
objective, reliable and up to date health information across the
board, from nutrition to breast cancer, Alzheimer's to diabetes.
Fourth, this budget provides funding for an important
initiative to apply up to date information technology to the
delivery of health services.
For instance, this will include telehealth, which holds
extraordinary potential for the ability of doctors and nurses in
rural and remote areas to communicate with the best specialists
anywhere in the country.
1655
[English]
As I just mentioned, Canadians who live in rural and remote
areas face unique problems. Innovations in community based
services are being developed across the country in response to
their needs. This budget provides $50 million over the next
three years to continue developing with the provinces promising
strategies for rural and community health.
Next, we tend to focus, as we must, on care and cure once we are
sick. The question is do we focus enough on the other half of
the equation, on preventing sickness in the first place. As has
been said, health is more than health care.
This budget provides $287 million over the next three years for
several initiatives relating to the prevention of illness.
For example, the Canada prenatal nutrition program works to
improve the health of women at risk to ensure that they have
healthy babies. Pregnancies put at risk by alcohol or drug
abuse, family violence or other factors can have serious effects
on children's lives.
Today we are announcing a substantial additional funding for
this program over the next three years to enable it to reach the
majority of women at risk.
Next, a healthy environment with clean water and safe food is
critical to our health and well-being. It is recognized that the
programs we have in place to deal with toxic substances are far
from adequate. This budget provides Environment Canada with the
resources it needs to deal with that problem.
It also allocates additional resources to help ensure food
safety in Canada.
Finally, diabetes is a chronic health condition facing a great
many Canadians, in particular aboriginal peoples among whom it is
three times more prevalent. This budget devotes important
resources to addressing this serious situation.
In addition, health services for first nations will be upgraded
through a separate $190 million over the next three years.
Research is at the core of a quality health care system.
Better research is about better health for Canadians. It is
about our hope that with improved care and treatment, prevention
certainly and hopefully a cure, that a mother will overcome the
tragedy of breast cancer, that a grandfather will be spared
permanent memory loss, and that a son or a daughter will regain
nerve functions following a devastating accident or injury.
We must provide Canadians with the best medical research
possible for the 21st century, for if we are to improve one of
the world's finest health care systems, we must be a world leader
in health research as well.
This begins with good research infrastructure. That is why in
1997 we announced the creation of the Canada foundation for
innovation, the CFI, whose purpose is to modernize the equipment
and facilities necessary to develop and test new ideas.
Already exciting projects supported by the CFI are underway.
For example, at the University of Manitoba researchers are
working to reduce the 30% rejection for kidney transplants.
Researchers at Carleton University and the Kingston General
Hospital are co-operating to upgrade MRI machines so that they
are able to detect breast cancer earlier than they now can.
In only two years the CFI is becoming an essential building
block for health research in Canada. Approximately 45% of the
awards granted in 1998 went to health related infrastructure in
hospitals and universities. As we will say later in the budget,
its funding will be enhanced.
Nurses have borne a great deal of the brunt of the changes in
the health care system.
1700
They are working under tremendous stress. There are predictions
of a major shortage, yet it is impossible to imagine a quality
health care system of the future that does not include a much
larger role for nurses in the community, in clinics, in hospitals
and in the home.
The Canadian Nurses Association has proposed that we create a
$25 million research fund in order to enhance the leadership role
that nurses deserve to play in the health care system of today
and tomorrow.
This budget does just that.
Finally, the nature of modern health research has changed
dramatically. It now spans a wide variety of disciplines, from
genetics to nutrition, from microelectronics to the social and
economic determinants of health, each of which can contribute
greatly to the other. Based on that reality, over the past year
Canada's health research community under the leadership of Dr.
Henry Friesen, president of the Medical Research Council, who is
in the gallery, has come together to develop an exciting new
approach.
They have proposed to create the Canadian institutes of health
research.
Through a series of networks the CIHR would bring together the
best researchers, regardless of where they live in Canada,
specializing in areas such as aging, arthritis, women's health,
cancer, heart disease and children's health.
[Translation]
The institutes would consist of networks which would draw
together scientists across the full spectrum of health research,
from basic science to clinical research.
The CIHR would build on Canada's strengths, the dedication
of our biomedical researchers, the leading-edge work of our
social science researchers, the high quality of our research
facilities, the excellence of our national health care system.
It would transform those strengths into an even stronger
coherent whole.
[English]
Researchers have only been rarely called upon to explore
solutions together to national health challenges. Through the
CIHR, our health research capacity across various disciplines and
specialities will now be linked more productively to the major
health issues facing the country.
Furthermore, the CIHR reinforces Canada's capacity to become a
world leader in new breakthroughs across the medical spectrum.
It would begin to reverse the drain of those who leave to seek
greater opportunity elsewhere.
Finally, rather than relying on imported discoveries Canada
would capture new economic benefits, the new jobs that come from
bringing such breakthroughs to world markets ourselves.
Therefore we are setting aside $65 million in the year 2000 to
support the launch of the new Canadian institutes of health
research, an amount we are prepared to increase to $175 million
the following the year.
As well, $35 million has been provided this year to the Canadian
Health Services Research Foundation to support its participation
in the CIHR.
In order to provide immediate new support to advanced health
research and to bridge the transition, we are also announcing an
increase of $50 million in each of the next three years in the
budgets of the three granting councils, the National Research
Council and Health Canada.
Together, the increased funding for existing federal research
organizations and the money being set aside for the CIHR will
effectively make $225 million of new resources available for the
objectives of the CIHR by the year 2001.
1705
In summary, the combination of all the initiatives just
announced is to increase the funding for health research by $550
million over the remainder of this fiscal year and the next three
years.
[Translation]
Let me summarize the resources being devoted to health care in
this budget.
Over the next five years, the provinces will receive $11.5
billion in new cash through the CHST for health.
$6.5 billion of that will be made available over the next three
years.
During that same period, an additional $1.4 billion will be
invested in health research and other means through which the
federal government contributes to Canada's health system.
This means almost $8 billion in new resources will be spent over
the next three years on health care, the largest new investment we
have ever made.
The fundamental economic challenge before us is to complete the
task of putting in place the framework for a stronger economy,
an economy where incomes are growing, where employment continues
to increase, where the Canadian standard of living and quality
of life are on the rise.
As the Prime Minister has said, and I quote “Implementing a
strategy to achieve a higher standard of living for all
Canadians always comes back to dealing squarely with the same
deeply rooted challenge: enhancing Canada's long-term
productivity”.
[English]
Greater productivity is about one thing, how to bring our human,
natural and financial resources together to produce higher
incomes, better jobs and an enhanced quality of life for all
Canadians.
The fact is much of our economic challenge can be summarized in
two words, knowledge and innovation. These are the new raw
materials of the 21st century economy.
They are the key to a country that can race forward when the
global seas are calm and ride out the rough weather safely when
they are not. Knowledge and innovation are two sides of the same
coin, the true hard currency of the future, the sources of
sustained growth.
Education is critical, for it equips Canadians with the skills,
the aptitude and the attitude to seize the new opportunities the
future has to offer.
That is why in this budget we have invested so much in
supporting those engaged in post-graduate research. However, what
we seek is not simply knowledge for the few but for the many.
That is why in the 1998 budget we launched the Canadian
opportunities strategy, a seven part plan to improve access to
skills, training and higher education.
Let me simply describe the results of one of those initiatives since
its inception one year ago, the Canada education savings grant,
a cash contribution from the federal government put directly
into registered education savings plans, established to help
families save for a child's future.
This program has become a huge success in its first year alone.
In the 25 years since their inception in 1972 through to 1997
there was a $2.5 billion net accumulation in RESPs. However, in
1998 alone, with the introduction of the Canada education savings
grant, the total soared to $4 billion.
This and the other measures in last year's and this year's
budgets are anchored in a very straightforward proposition, that
every Canadian who wants to learn should have the opportunity to
do so.
1710
But as we work to develop that opportunity, let it also be clear
that Canada's challenge begins well before the age of formal
schooling. Our children will only seize the opportunities to
learn if they are nurtured from the very earliest age to develop
a readiness to learn. That is why in previous budgets we
bolstered the community action program for children. It is why
we are investing in aboriginal head start. It is why, in this
budget, we have expanded the prenatal nutrition program and it is
why, as we will see later, we are increasing the child tax
benefit for low and middle income families. Going forward, we
must build on these initiatives still further.
[Translation]
Earlier, I referred to knowledge and innovation as the flip
sides of the same coin. Let us now turn the coin over.
From lab bench to factory floor, from farm to forest, innovation
is the engine that creates jobs.
Over the past several years, we have put in place a new
framework for innovation, a strategy that we have implemented step
by step in each of our budgets.
That strategy has three parts, the creation of knowledge, the
dissemination and sharing of knowledge and the application of
knowledge, its commercialization, getting ideas out into the
market.
This budget takes further action in each of those three areas.
[English]
In terms of the creation of knowledge, breakthroughs do not just
happen. They require a sustained investment.
As mentioned earlier, in 1997 the Canada foundation for
innovation was created with an $800 million investment whose
purpose was to fund new and modernized research infrastructure at
our universities, colleges, research hospitals and not for profit
research institutions.
Through partnerships, the federal investment in the foundation
will translate into $2.5 billion in world class facilities and
equipment needed to make world class discoveries, discoveries
that will open the door to exciting commercial opportunities and
jobs down the road.
Based on its very clear success and the crucial role it is now
playing, this budget allocates a further $200 million to the
foundation.
Research and access to knowledge support one another. Therefore,
building on the increased funding announced in last year's
budget, the government's granting councils and the National
Research Council will be provided more than $120 million in
further support, over and above that announced for health
research, over the next three years.
Finally, many believe that Canada has the capacity to become
even more of a world leader in the field of biotechnology, one of
the fastest growing of all new technologies.
This has huge potential applications ranging from agriculture
and forestry to manufacturing and medicine. As a result we are
committing $55 million over the next three years to support
biotechnology research in science based government departments.
[Translation]
In terms of the dissemination of knowledge, we have set a goal
of making Canada the most connected nation in the world by next
year.
Thanks to SchoolNet, we are on course to see Canada's 16,000
public schools and 3,400 public libraries connected to the
Internet by March 31 this year. Up to 10,000 rural and urban
communities will be connected through the community access
program in two years.
Building on these efforts, and following the advice of a blue
ribbon panel announced by the Prime Minister last year, this
budget provides $60 million over the next three years to fund
smart communities demonstration projects.
Smart communities use information technology in new and
innovative ways to empower their residents, institutions and
region as a whole. Our goal is to establish at least one of
these projects in each of our provinces, in the North and in an
aboriginal community.
1715
In addition, this budget provides $60 million over five years to
build GeoConnections to ensure that Canada stays at the
forefront of mapping and its applications.
This initiative has tremendous potential for a whole range of
industries and services.
[English]
In terms of value added job creation, we must accelerate the
furtherance of innovative technologies in all sectors of the
economy.
The networks of centres of excellence have been a successful
part of this endeavour. They now link more than 900 researchers
in 60 universities with over 400 companies across Canada.
In this budget, we are increasing their funding by $30 million a
year, an increase of more than 60%.
[Translation]
In 1996 we established technology partnerships Canada to support
industry in turning promising ideas into successful products.
These investments focus on aerospace, environmental
technologies, and enabling technologies such as advanced
manufacturing and materials.
Today, we are announcing that the funding for technology
Partnerships Canada will be increased by $50 million per year.
We are also providing $50 million to the Business Development
Bank of Canada to strengthen its ability to lend to small and
medium size businesses in knowledge-based export fields
[English]
In summary, the measures we have announced today, above and
beyond health research, amount to a cumulative total of $1.8
billion in additional resources over the next three years for
knowledge, innovation and support for youth and other employment
programs.
These investments are all directed toward a single overarching
goal, and that is to provide Canadians with a more diversified,
more innovative economy in which to accomplish their goals.
The fact is, as long as we are too dependent on ideas developed
in other countries, our economy will remain unduly dependent on
those countries. If we are to have a stronger, more innovative
private sector, we must generate more knowledge and demonstrate
greater initiative here ourselves.
Ours must be a country that excels in turning ideas into the
value added jobs of the future in rural Canada as well as urban
Canada, everywhere and in everything we do. Ours must be a
country that has excellence as its goal for that will be the
route to a higher standard of living and a better quality of life
for all Canadians in the 21st century.
Let me now turn to the next part of our plan, reducing taxes,
which is also part of our productivity agenda.
Let there be no doubt. We want to reduce taxes as quickly and
as broadly as we can.
As begun last year, now that the books are in balance, we will
get taxes down. We will do so in every single budget, and we
will do so without prejudicing the soundness of our finances or
the security of our society.
Our goal and our commitment is to ensure that Canadians keep
more of the money they earn. After all, they worked for it. It
is theirs.
The principles of our tax policy are clear.
First, our tax system must be fair. Tax reductions must benefit
first those who need it most, low and middle income Canadians.
Second, broad based tax relief should focus initially on
personal income taxes. That is where the burden is greatest.
That is where Canadian taxes are most out of line with other
countries.
Finally, because our debt burden is so high, broad based tax
relief should not be financed with borrowed money.
1720
We want tax relief to be permanent, not temporary. The worst
thing we could do would be to provide structural tax relief one
year, only to have to rescind it in the next as a result of the
country going back into deficit.
In our last budget, with deficit elimination finally secure, we
were able to put in place overall tax relief directed at low and
middle income Canadians.
We said then that we would build on those measures in future
budgets as resources permitted, that as soon as we could afford
it tax reductions would be broadened and deepened. In this
budget, we are following through on that commitment, building on
the initiatives taken last year.
[Translation]
First, personal tax credits ensure that no tax is paid on a
basic amount of income. They make the tax system more fair.
Last year, we increased the amount of income that could be
earned before paying one penny of tax by $500 for singles, and
$1,000 for couples and families.
As a first step, this measure was targeted to benefit low income
Canadians. The full amount of the benefit started to be reduced
at about $8,000 of income and was completely gone at $20,000.
In this budget, effective July 1, 1999, that tax relief is being
extended to all taxpayers.
Next, effective July 1, we are increasing the amount of income
that Canadians can receive without paying taxes by a further
$175.
As a result of these measures, the amount of income all
Canadians can earn tax-free will now be $675 higher than before
the 1998 budget.
This more than offsets the effect of inflation on the basic
credits since 1992.
[English]
While all taxpayers will benefit from these measures, the
largest proportionate benefit will go to low and modest income
Canadians.
For example, due to the measures in last year's budget, 400,000
lower income Canadians no longer pay income taxes. The measures
just announced will ensure that 200,000 more Canadians will also
be removed from the tax rolls.
In 1986, the previous government introduced a 3% general surtax,
a tax on tax, in order to help bring the deficit down.
Last year, with the books in balance, we began to eliminate that
surtax, starting with taxpayers earning less than $50,000, and
reducing it for those earning between $50,000 and $65,000.
This year, we complete the job. As of July 1, the 3% surtax
will be eliminated for each and every Canadian taxpayer.
We have spoken about the support we are providing low income
Canadians through reducing their taxes, but there are many other
ways in which we can provide and are providing assistance to
families with children.
Through the creation of the national child benefit system, the
federal and provincial governments are embarked on a major
co-operative effort to support families and reduce child poverty.
The purpose is to ensure that children in this country are always
better off when their parents join the workforce.
In 1997, we announced the first federal contribution to this
national endeavour, $850 million which began flowing last July,
increasing financial support to over two million children and
their families.
In the 1998 budget, we announced that a further $850 million
would also be allocated, following consultations with the
provincial and territorial governments.
1725
These discussions have concluded in agreement. We are
announcing, therefore, today that the Canada child tax benefit
for low income families will be increased by a further $350 per
child beginning July 1, 1999 and July 1, 2000.
This means, for example, that a family with two children that
earns $20,000 will receive an increased benefit of $700 for a
total of $3,750 per year.
Taken together, our two previous budgets provided $1.7 billion
for the children of low income families.
Today, building on this effort, we are announcing that a further
$300 million is being allocated to enhance the Canada child tax
benefit for modest and middle income families.
As a result, 100,000 more families will become eligible for all
or part of the base benefit.
Let me illustrate the impact of the 1998 and 1999 tax measures
on typical Canadian families.
Consider the impact on a middle income family, a family of four
with two incomes totalling $50,000.
That family received $183 in tax relief as a result of the 1998
budget. This budget provides an additional $373 to that family,
$189 through the increase in the base credits and $184 in
increased Canada child tax benefit payments.
Putting last year's budget and this year's budget together, that
means $546 more for such families, a 15% reduction in their net
federal tax, and this does not include consequential reductions
in provincial income taxes.
[Translation]
Consider as well a one-earner family of four earning $30,000.
That family received $145 in tax relief from the 1998 budget.
As a result of today's budget, that family will receive $353
more—$169 through the increase in personal credits and $184 in
increased Canada child tax benefit payments.
In fact, when the GST credit is included, this means that
as a result of measures in this and the last budget, such
families will now pay no net federal income tax whatsoever.
[English]
In closing this section, let me summarize the combined impact of
the tax measures set out here.
Tax relief of $16.5 billion will be provided over the next three
years, $7.7 billion of which results from actions in this budget.
For the two budgets together, that is tax relief of $3.9 billion
in 1999-2000, $6 billion in 2000-01 and $6.6 billion in 2001-02.
Low and modest income families will benefit the most. Compared
to the situation before the 1998 budget, 600,000 additional
Canadians will now pay no federal income tax.
Finally, all 15 million Canadian taxpayers will receive tax
reductions.
In addition, as a result of the reduction in employment
insurance premiums announced in December, employers and employees
are now paying $1.1 billion less for employment insurance.
Relative to the premium rates that prevailed in 1994, employees
and employers are now paying $3.5 billion less.
The tax measures we have announced today are important and they
are fair.
1730
But our action to reduce taxes will not end here.
Let me be clear. As resources become available, the personal
income tax burden in Canada will be further reduced. This will
occur year after year, each budget building on the progress made
before.
[Translation]
First, when we came into office, the deficit and debt burden
were rising relentlessly. The finances of the nation were out of
control. Our response was immediate. We eliminated the deficit.
Then, last year, we began to get our debt burden down.
Second, in this budget, we have moved to strengthen the
confidence of Canadians in their health care system and we have
further strengthened the sinews of an innovative, productive
economy.
Third, we lowered taxes.
And so, as our financial health has improved, we have moved
forward, focusing first on those least able to pay. And in this
budget, tax relief has been provided for each and every Canadian
taxpayer.
[English]
From rising deficits to balanced books. From an increasing debt
burden to one that is declining. From years of difficult cuts to
an era where needed new investments are being made. From a tax
burden that was rising to a time where it is falling. That is
the summary of this budget.
Looking ahead, there are two dangers that a responsible
government must avoid.
First, a government that pretends it can be everything to
everyone is a government that will do nothing for anyone.
Government must focus on those areas where it can really make a
difference. That is what we have done and that is what we will
continue to do.
The second danger on the other hand is to become fixated on one
major issue alone and as a result leave every other pressing
problem to fester.
A focus only on new spending to the exclusion of everything else
would put us back in the red. A focus on tax reduction alone
would leave us unable to respond to the core needs of Canadians.
A focus on debt reduction alone might make the books look better,
but it would also make everything else look worse.
We can never lose sight of the need to take a balanced approach.
For the social and economic needs of our country are not
separate. They are not in conflict.
[Translation]
As a new century beckons, we can now say with confidence that a
new beginning is truly at hand.
We are freer than we have been for a generation to chart a new
course for ourselves.
[English]
In the early days of this century, Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke of
our prospects as a people. He said that the 20th century would
belong to Canada. Some since have scoffed at those words
pointing to great powers, great empires and great conquests. They
have said he was wrong.
Well, Laurier was right. Not according to the cold calculations
of might, but because of the quality of our life. Not because of
any single value we have pursued but because of the many values
we have advanced together. The value of tolerance, of fairness.
The value of working together, the peace we enjoy and the
openness we show to each other.
Our opportunity today is to see our future as Laurier did, a
country that refuses to set limits on what it can do.
There is so much we must continue to build. There is so much
that lies ahead to accomplish. There are barriers we must bring
down, of circumstance and of privilege, and there are new bridges
that we can all cross together.
1735
The story of this century may be over. But the story of Canada
is not; it goes on.
It is time to imagine a day when we have fully met the challenge
of an aging population, when we have met our obligations to the
young and when we have met our responsibility to the environment.
It is time to take the steps now that will take us closer to
that destination.
It is time to take on the world and win. Some may say that this
is too ambitious. We say that there is no ambition that is too
great for this country.
Let there be one thing coming from what this government has
done. Let us come together, all of us, and make a pledge of
common purpose that we will do everything in our power today so
that the generations of tomorrow are able to say not only that
Canada belongs to the 21st century, but that the 21st century
belongs to Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in about three minutes I will formally move adjournment
of the budget debate until tomorrow. Before doing so I would
like to thank the Minister of Finance for his speech and also for
the improvement in his vocabulary. After much tutoring from the
opposition he has finally learned how to say tax relief.
Using the words tax relief and delivering tax relief are two
different things. If we cut through all the verbiage and the
spin doctoring, if we cut through the shell game that announces
modest tax reductions with great fanfare but says nothing about
all the other federal taxes that are inexorably taking more money
from the pockets of Canadians, if we cut through the inflated
announcements about $11 billion in health care spending but
forget to talk about the $20 billion in health care cuts that
have been taken—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, if we do all that, if
we say all the things these members do not want to hear, we get
to the bottom line and that is that Canadians are paying more and
getting less. They are getting less health care and less social
services. In a word, this is a pay more, get less budget.
1740
It reminds me of the time in old England when King Richard the
Lionhearted was away on a crusade. He left a relative, Prince
Jean, in charge of the kingdom.
To quote a rhyme from that period, “He wanted to be known as
John the First, but he ended up known as John the Worst”. Why?
Because with the aid of his henchman, the sheriff of Nottingham,
he taxed his people to death. Under his regency the government
got richer but the people got poorer. They paid more and got
less, until a green clad reformer named Robin Hood created the
united alternative, but that is another subject which I will save
for another day.
I close by suggesting that King Jean and the sheriff of
Nottingham retire to the castle for a night of revelling while
Reformers will retire to Sherwood Forest to plot our plans for
the next day, and that we return here tomorrow to debate the only
real question this budget poses. Why should Canadians pay more
and get less?
I move:
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2) the motion
is deemed adopted. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 5.42 p.m.)