House of Commons Hansard #99 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was information.

Topics

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

You are a separatist.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am going to remain calm, as otherwise I shall have to ask you to use your authority to allow me to express myself properly in this House.

So, this is inclusive citizenship. Bill C-16 gives us that opportunity. It must be kept in mind that there was legislation in place which dated back to 1977 and needed to be remodeled, updated, modernized, in order to take into consideration a number of elements that apply to new trends.

This bill is precisely the means of carrying out an in depth review of citizenship. It has provided us with the opportunity.

As I said, I was in favour of the principle of Bill C-16 a few months ago, but the more we looked at it, the clearer it became that a number of elements encroached, to all intents and purposes, on areas of Quebec jurisdiction.

I will look in particular at clause 8 of the bill, which deals specifically with the whole issue of international adoption. Under the Civil Code of Quebec, adoption is a provincial matter. In many respects, our system operates differently from that of the rest of Canada.

Under Quebec's legislation, adoption takes place after the arrival of the child in Quebec and in Canada. In addition, the adoption process is complete when there is a decision by a Quebec court. What Bill C-16 is proposing is that adoption be completed in the country of residence of the adopting citizen. Citizenship could therefore be granted to a child even before he or she arrived in Quebec.

This has important repercussions. First, it could be called discriminatory to a certain degree towards Quebec parents intending to adopt. In a note sent to the committee on April 11, the Quebec department of health and social services clearly indicated that there was a very definite risk of major interference in Quebec's jurisdiction.

Even though there have been a number of multilateral negotiations with the Government of Quebec, it took the intervention of the Bloc Quebecois in committee before bilateral negotiations could begin between Quebec City and Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, may I point out to you that there is only one member listening to me in the House?

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

An hon. member

I am not listening.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont, QC

He is not listening. That is the worst of it.

Out of respect for what I am saying, is it possible to call a quorum count? There is only one member listening to me in the House. That is about it.

And the count having been taken:

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

We do not have a quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

We now have a quorum.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am not doing this to disrupt the proceedings of the House, believe me. I am doing this in a very constructive fashion.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont, QC

Some members think that what I just said is funny. There was only one member in the House and all of a sudden there are several. That makes me happy.

It took the filing of a note by the Bloc Quebecois, on April 11, with the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, to get bilateral negotiations started between Quebec and Ottawa, on the issue of international adoption.

I said clearly, as members will see if they read the committee proceedings, that if the government clarified clause 8 to make sure that Quebec's jurisdictions are not encroached upon, I would agree with the government's arguments and, to a certain extent, I would be able to support the bill. But nothing was done.

Until the very morning of consideration of Bill C-16 at second reading, while public officials were negotiating, I stated my intention to keep an open mind about this issue. Unfortunately, the negotiations failed.

The Quebec minister responsible for relations with the public and immigration sent me a letter on May 9, which is very recent.

On April 11, the Minister of Health clearly indicated in Ottawa that Quebec's adoption secretariat had stated its dissatisfaction. Public officials were present and so were the minister's assistants.

On May 9, the minister responsible for relations with the public and immigration wrote to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicating clearly, and I quote, that:

This bill as it is written will not only cause prejudice to parents and children, but it does not respect Quebec's jurisdiction in the field of international adoptions or its system of civil law.

With the members opposite calling at the top of their lungs for the adoption of a motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, I think it is quite clear that this bill comes nowhere near to recognizing the distinct nature of Quebec, far from it.

The amendments introduced by the Bloc Quebecois simply proposed to clarify the situation. What did the Bloc Quebecois amendment say?

Motion No. 3 provided the addition of the following to clause 8:

(2) For greater certainty, the Province of Quebec shall continue to have full jurisdiction in respect of international adoptions, including the acceptance of any psychosocial assessment of adoptive parents and the issue of a letter of no objection to the adoption of a child.

The Bloc Quebecois simply wanted the possibility of amending clause 8 to make sure that Quebec's jurisdiction in respect of international adoptions be honoured. That is all we were saying. The government opposed this motion by the Bloc Quebecois, which wanted to clarify the situation and avoid meddling in the field of international adoptions.

It is impossible to talk one way and vote another. If the government had wanted to be consistent with its own policies recognizing Quebec as a distinct society and recognizing Quebec's Civil Code, it would have voted for this motion.

There is another important aspect and that is the whole matter of the assessment of medical examinations. On a number of occasions, we have explained that we want the reports on medical examinations and the health of the child to be given to the parents prior to the adoption proposal.

The Government of Quebec called upon the department and the minister, on April 11, clearly indicating that it wanted to see these aspects reflected in the regulations. This is one of the problems with this bill. We would have liked to have seen it include clauses addressing this situation, but all that the government has done is to state, under “Regulation” in clause 43: a ) respecting the evidence to be provided for applications and notices under this Act, including medical evidence to establish parentage, and the times when those applications and notices must be made;

There is, therefore, nothing specific about transmitting information on the child's health status. We would have liked to see this transmitted at the same time as the proposal is made, not after processing of the application has begun.

It is not only the Bloc Quebecois and the Government of Quebec which were calling for this to be taken into account in the bill. I took the trouble of looking up the minutes of the Standing Committee on Immigration and Citizenship from when it examined Bill C-63, which is to all intents and purposes the bill we are looking at today, Bill C-16.

When the committee was addressing Bill C-63, one of the witnesses was the Association des parents adoptants du Québec. That association provided some clarification as well as expressing dissatisfaction with the inappropriateness of the current regulations.

This is what the association told the committee:

In order to improve our knowledge of children's health status, we would like immigration services to encourage medical examinations for children when a match is proposed.

Through François Auger, a member of the board of directors of the Fédération des parents adoptants du Québec, they added that:

Parents could then make an informed decision about their ability to take care of a child with a particular handicap. This information should be provided when the match is proposed, and not when a passport is issued, when the adoption process is practically over and parents have already become attached to their child.

Why does the government not accept these arguments? I remind the House once again that, on April 11, the Government of Quebec indicated that this needed to be taken into account, that this obligation should be taken into consideration when regulations were drawn up.

I think that this is important, because the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is saying that it is not possible to inform parents about children's health state at the time of the adoption proposal. The department says it is impossible to require a medical examination before a match is proposed to parents, citing the best interests of the child.

That is precisely what we are talking about—the best interests of the child. How can a parent properly meet the best interests of the child if he is unaware of his health status?

The parents' ability to meet the needs and, therefore, the best interests of the child actually depends on the child's health status when the proposal is made. We asked that this be taken into consideration. We would have liked to see it in the bill. Still, we hope that the regulations will take into account that rather important issue.

Another important aspect is the whole issue of the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois regarding the time of the oath. I submitted that amendment, of course, as the critic on these issues, with the support of my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, the former Bloc Quebecois critic for citizenship and immigration. The amendment, which was rejected by the government party, reads as follows:

The Commissioner presiding over a citizenship ceremony shall, during the ceremony and in the presence of a representative of the Government of Quebec, give to every new citizen residing in Quebec a copy of the following documents and an explanation of their purpose: the Charter of the French Language (R.S.Q., c. C-11); the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (R.S.Q., c. C-12); the Election Act (R.S.Q., c. E-3.3); and the Declaration by the Government of Quebec on Ethnic and Race Relations, signed on December 10, 1986.

Why give these documents at the time of the swearing in? This in fact answers the other definition to which I alluded earlier when I said that there was of course a legal citizenship, but also a broader one, based on collective identity. It is because Quebec is a receiving country and an open society that we wish the arrival of new Quebecers to conform to the reality of Quebec.

The Quebec Charter of the French language expresses the desire of Quebecers to be able to continue to live and work in French. Why? Because Quebec, and the francophones of Canada as well, are in a precarious situation, representing only 2% of the population of North America, because we are a fragile society, a French society within North America, we want the message to be clear: Quebec is a country, a province in which people relate to each other in French. We hope that new Quebecers will be able to come to know that reality, which is well represented in the Quebec Charter of the French Language but also in the Quebec Election Act.

Quebec's election legislation is a source of pride to us, because it was the outcome of a consensus, a desire to involve the greatest number of people possible in a democratic society. Citizens are equal and have the right to clear expression. In many ways, the Quebec Election Act constitutes a model of which we are proud. We would like to be able to inform new Quebecers of their right to be able to express themselves democratically within the electoral process.

I would point out, if I may, that the proposal which aroused the ire of the hon. members across the way was not the position of the Bloc Quebecois alone. The reaction could have been “Oh yes, it is those Quebec separatists who want to see these documents provided”. No, I would like to remind hon. members of some of the stakeholders from Quebec who decided to support this motion.

Members will see that the represent a number of groups in Quebec civil society. There is Antoine Dorsaint, the spokesperson for the office of the Christian community of Haitians in Montreal, representing one of the largest and most dynamic communities in Montreal. He supported the motion of the Bloc Quebecois to have the documents given during the swearing in ceremony.

There is Claude Corbo, whom many of you know well, among others, the minister who is the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. Mr. Corbo is a former rector of UQAM, political science professor and author of a number of papers on the Quebec condition. Mr. Corbo cannot be called a sovereignist. This motion makes a lot of sense and it demonstrates the desire of Quebecers to live democratically, with French as their common language.

I have other names. There is the Greater Quebec Movement, which decided to support this motion. These people decided to say “Yes, Quebec is a democratic society. Yes, in Quebec we want things done in French, we want to work in French, live and grow in French. We support the motion by the Bloc Quebecois”. This is the decision a number of stakeholders made.

I was rather in favour of the principle of the bill. Yet, the more I studied this bill both in committee and with colleagues, consulting members of the community, the more I understood clause 8. I find it unfortunate, because we gave the government a fine opportunity. It could have ensured that clause 8 will not encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction. With this amendment, we gave the government a wonderful opportunity. It guaranteed respect for Quebec's jurisdiction with respect to international adoption. The federal government refused to recognize this principle in our motion.

The door is wide open for the federal government to barge in. Even though this government introduces motions in the House recognizing the distinct character of Quebec, the fact of the matter is that this is just lip service when it comes time to pass bills that will have the force of law. This government has shown no openness to an amendment to clause 8, even up to the end of consideration at report stage. This bill discriminates against parents in Quebec.

I can tell the House today that it will be difficult at the end of this months-long process, which began with Bill C-63, to vote in favour of Bill C-16.

I am warning the government. Recently, I discussed the interpretation of clause 8 with a number of constitutional experts. They told me that there had certainly been a case for calling this clause unconstitutional. The government should listen up. It cannot shut its eyes and blunder into provincial jurisdictions. It should be careful because there could be repercussions and the government should be ready.

I conclude my speech so that I will be better prepared to debate another bill later, that being the bill to amend the immigration act and the refugee determination process. If there is a problem, it will be in this bill as well. We must look at this closely because the system is not working.

There are waits of 13, 14, 15 or 16 months for an IRB ruling, because it is a slow machine, a lax machine, a machine that is illogical and the cause of real human tragedies.

We have all had someone come to our constituency office to tell us of an intolerable situation caused by the system for granting refugee status.

Not only are more resources needed, but as well the length of time the board takes to reach a decision must be looked at. I believe six months would be acceptable. Someone arriving here and seeking refugee status should not have to wait 18 months for the board's decision. What message is being sent to the person who has settled in this host country, in the meantime? Sometimes, after 18 months, he is told that he does not meet the criteria of the United Nations Refugee Convention.

The matter needs to be looked at in order to ensure that Quebec and Canada continue to be a host country that respects people's rights and also respects the desire of communities to express themselves as freely and democratically as possible.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

David Price Progressive Conservative Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saint John.

I am pleased again to speak to Bill C-16, the citizenship of Canada act. We had 23 amendments before us last night in the House, which familiarized many of the members with the issues in this bill. I hope to speak about some of the amendments that we voted for plus, of course, Motions Nos. 4 and 5, the controversy over revocation. I will speak about the positive points in the bill as well as some of the areas this party is concerned with.

If there is an active department in the government these days, it would be the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. There are presently two bills before parliament, this one and Bill C-31, the immigration and refugee protection act. It is worrisome to note that the present acts, with the exception of a few amendments, date from the late 1970s. These pieces of legislation should have been updated prior to now.

As I stated in my first speech on Bill C-16, the importance of citizenship cannot be questioned. It allows for the ultimate sense of belonging, belonging to a state, a society. Human beings have a need to be accepted and recognized.

The importance of citizenship was not lost on the over 1,000 delegates who attended the Progressive Conservative National Policy Conference in Quebec City. Our policy task force travelled across Canada gathering views from over 23,000 Canadians. Our party and its members realize that Canada was built on immigration, from which citizenship naturally follows.

One of our guiding principles is:

Citizenship is a very sacred status, which places duties and responsibilities on every Canadian to safeguard the integrity of Canada and to uphold the values and institutions of the nation as enshrined in the Constitution and laws of Canada.

When in government, our party took this seriously. That is obvious by the significant increases in immigration numbers we accepted in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Numbers prove the benefits immigration and citizenship bring. One recent study has found new immigrants have accounted for more than half of Canada's population growth and 70% of the growth in our labour force. This is not insignificant.

The minister introduced Bill C-16 in November of last year. The minister seems to adhere to our principle of the sacredness of citizenship. Overall, Bill C-16 should maintain the integrity of Canadian citizenship. I am glad the minister has borne in mind the importance of citizenship. I hope the bill is effective but it is certainly not perfect. I wish to speak about some of the drawbacks we do have with the bill.

I am pleased that the minister incorporated many of the recommendations of the standing committee which were done last spring when Bill C-16 was then called Bill C-63.

One example is residency requirements. The committee recommended that a person be physically present in Canada for three out of six years instead of three out of five. I hope the minister continues to seek advice from the committee as the new immigration bill is deliberated and makes its way through parliament.

One area of concern for this party is proof of residency. An individual must be a permanent resident in Canada for three out of six years or 1,095 days. Naturally a person must be able to prove that he or she has been in the country for that period of time. We do not have exit controls in this country, and considering that we have a border that is very long, such controls would be difficult if not impossible.

This also raises the question of individual rights and privacy from the state. When we learned in the news today, and we talked about it in the House, that the government has detailed information on all Canadians, this does cause concern. In any case, exit controls will not be here any time soon.

However, the question remains: How will citizenship officials determine whether or not an individual has met his or her residency requirements? The answer we were given was “cheques, receipts and utility bills”. This simply does not suffice. We must attempt to root out fraud and falsification wherever possible. While most individuals may be honest and provide accurate information, some do not, and no promise is offered in this bill to check the information provided.

Appointments at Citizenship and Immigration Canada have caused concern for quite some time. This party wishes to ensure that competent, able officials are named to positions within the department. This party fought on this in the last election and we have been unwavering ever since.

In last night's motions, the governing party voted against any intent to ensure that competent individuals be appointed at Citizenship and Immigration Canada. It is interesting to note also that the first party even voted against Motion No. 7. The motion stated that no one would be appointed as a citizenship commissioner if that individual had been convicted of an offence under sections 39 and 40 of the bill. I find it intriguing, if not disturbing, that the governing party would not see fit to accept this motion. Indeed, I now really worry about the kinds of appointments that will take place in Citizenship and Immigration.

One area of controversy with this bill has been the revocation of citizenship. Revocation of citizenship is no small matter. It is very serious. This issue has attracted a lot of attention recently, especially since the parliamentary secretary voted against his own government and then resigned from the position.

This party is comfortable with the provisions that are in the new legislation. If a revocation occurs, the individual is free to appeal all the way to the supreme court. On the other hand, our parliamentary traditions are respected. We feel an individual's rights in dealing with the state will be protected.

As I said at the outset, this is a busy time for Citizenship and Immigration. We have been dealing with two pieces of legislation making their way through the House and through committee. Citizenship and immigration go hand in hand. Citizenship is dependent on immigration, so it is hard to discuss one without discussing the other. If it were not for immigration, there would not be much need for citizenship, so allow me to address a couple of issues in immigration.

The need for a new immigration bill has been known for quite some time also. It is something we should have looked at a long time ago. There are serious issues around immigration. The Canadian public seldom receive assurances that criminals are being kept out of the country. Border control is an issue. Newspaper articles just a couple of weeks ago were talking about more undocumented arrivals from China. One article said that we could possibly expect another 1,200 arrivals by boat on the west coast.

I realize that in the new immigration bill, the minister has raised fines and penalties and is trying to secure better relations in these matters with China. Fines and punishment work well, but there is only one problem: A lack of both human and financial resources means these people are not being caught. CIC officials are strapped as it is. Now, with added pressures to recognize and catch criminals, it will be very difficult. I hope the government has acknowledged the predictions of more arrivals and has a sufficient contingency plan in place.

I can speak with some experience about our border officials. I have seven border crossings in my riding and these crossings are understaffed. Officers work alone and unarmed. How are they supposed to handle potential security threats to themselves or the country? Furthermore, these officials do not have the training in immigration matters required to deal with the technical refugee or immigration cases.

The department will receive increased funding over the next few years but I do not think much will be left for enforcement. A lot of money has been spent already and desperately needed new computer systems will cost over $200 million. Add to this the deficiencies the auditor general highlighted in his report last month with regard to medical and criminal records, and we find a department that is totally strapped.

The minister must address these issues. I am not satisfied that Bill C-31 will do that. There are no guarantees for continuing funding and no commitment to take photos and fingerprints of new arrivals to Canada.

To come back to Bill C-16, this party will be supporting the bill. We are content that the minister took the views of the committee into account last year. As I did say there are a few problem areas and we will be watching carefully to ensure that citizenship is kept sacred.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about the issue of revocation of citizenship and about some of the amendments that his party voted against yesterday.

These amendments were supported by the official opposition, by members of the Bloc and by groups that presented to committee. I would suggest that the member has selective memory when he says that the issues which were brought to committee were dealt with in this bill, particularly on such an important issue as the issue of revocation of citizenship.

The B'nai Brith, in a press release yesterday, and the German Canadian Congress have made it very clear that they thought these motions should have been supported and that they would have improved the bill in a way that was needed. They stated that the motions designated as Motions Nos. 4 and 5, Group No. 2, at report stage, made the bill more just. They said that the motions would have modernized, simplified and expedited the process of revoking or not revoking a person's citizenship. They said that the motions would not only have made it more just—

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Could I ask the member to come right to his question? We have bells at 5.30 p.m. and we need to give the member a moment to respond.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, in light of those comments and comments made by the Canadian German Congress and others, how can the member support the bill when revocation of citizenship is left in the hands of cabinet rather than the courts.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

David Price Progressive Conservative Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think that is very easy to say and the member for Lakeland said it himself. He said that in both letters that he had the people understood. I do not think that is very clear, which is part of the problem. If we look at all the others who did not agree with the motion, the Canadian Jewish Congress being one, the minister has first say on it, yes, but then it does go through the court system. The other way, it goes through the court system first. It has to go all the way through the court system and then the minister has the say at the end.

That is not the logical way. I have no comfort with that part at all. I have no problem dealing with it as it is now.

The House resumed from May 16 consideration of Bill C-276, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative option marketing), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 16, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on Bill C-276 under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members. Before the taking of the vote :

Competition ActPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 1319Private Members' Business

May 17th, 2000 / 6 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare Motion No. 1 lost.

Division No. 1319Private Members' Business

6 p.m.

NDP

Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as having been opposed to the motion.

Division No. 1319Private Members' Business

6 p.m.

Liberal

Roger Gallaway Liberal Sarnia—Lambton, ON

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

Division No. 1319Private Members' Business

6 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Division No. 1319Private Members' Business

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Division No. 1319Private Members' Business

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Division No. 1319Private Members' Business

6 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour of the will please say yea.

Division No. 1319Private Members' Business

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.