Debates of Feb. 16th, 1999

Citizenship Of Canada Act

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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—

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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.

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?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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.

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

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.

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.

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.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

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.

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—

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

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.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

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.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

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—

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

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.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

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.

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.

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

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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)