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.