Debates of Feb. 16th, 1999

Citizenship Of Canada Act

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

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.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

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?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

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.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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.

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”.

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.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

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.

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.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

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.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

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.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

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.

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.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

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.

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.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

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.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

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.

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.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

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.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

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.

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.

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.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

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?

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

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.

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.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

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.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

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.

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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.

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.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

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.

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.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

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.

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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Was it the intention of the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley to split her time?

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.