Debates of Feb. 16th, 1999

Citizenship Of Canada Act

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that the tone of the debate from the other side of the House is less than generous.

The question asked was what if those immigrants were experts in a specialized field and we did not have a great number of them in Canada. What if they were great humanitarians? What if they were outstanding citizens? What if they were healthy people with no anticipated health problems? Even if they were, our society has many people with the same problems.

We are an accepting democratic nation. Why do we always have to look at it from an angle of negativity? Why do we set a negative premise?

Let us look at the aboriginal history of Canada. What if the aboriginal people of this country were not as accepting, understanding, trusting and sharing with regard to the in-migration of people from other countries? Then what would we have? What would we have had? If we had a closed door policy on immigration, would Canada be what it is today?

Why are we not more generous, more understanding and more accepting? Why are we not working together on this policy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member across the way that Canada could not be more generous if it tried. It lets in people with criminal records. It lets people who are known terrorists in the international scene. It is more generous than it should be.

My comments were about newly born children. I may be missing something, but I do not think a one or two week old child can be a professional or a business person. We are talking about children who were born and whose parents came to this country simply to give birth. They are not Canadian. They are not landed citizens. We are talking about people who plan holidays so that their children will be Canadian citizens.

The government can continue to turn its eye from the reality of the situation, but Canadians demand that it protects the integrity of Canadian citizenship. If it fails to do that, it will be letting down Canadians who proudly hold citizenship, either those who were born here or new immigrants who take on citizenship.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the last parliament the hon. member and I were members of the Standing Committee on Immigration and Citizenship for two years. We did not agree too many times then and I do not agree with her now.

My question is on the points she did not mention like the citizenship oath. Does the hon. member agree with changing the words in the oath? In discussions we had in 1994 she did not agree with the changes. Now we have the changes but she has not said anything. Does she agree with the changes or not?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question I disagree with the government. Like one of his colleagues, I believe the citizenship oath of this country should also include a pledge of loyalty to Canada and to respect the laws and institutions of Canada.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley. If somebody's parents come from two different countries and have been here for two and a half to five years and are still waiting for citizenship, what country should their children be national citizens of?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite accepted internationally that children have the citizenship of their parents and that when the parents make application for Canadian citizenship they include their children in that application.

What happens in this country often is that the parents assume their children automatically are covered under their citizenship application. The children find out when they are adults and want a passport or something that their parents had not made that application for them. They find out they are not Canadian citizens when they thought they were.

We owe it to the children in Canada whose parents were not born here and are now Canadian citizens to make sure they understand that they need to check to make sure they are Canadian citizens and not just expect it was done for them by their parents.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak today to Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.

I am also one of the members of the Reform Party who are immigrants to Canada. I was not born in this country. I came as a child and at that time was unable to obtain Canadian citizenship until I reached my age of majority, as it was called. I remember one of the first things I did when I turned 21 was to apply to become a Canadian citizen. I took a great deal of pride in attending the ceremony in citizenship court and taking a very heartfelt oath of allegiance. I felt very proud of my status as a Canadian citizen. I am a Canadian by choice.

I married a man who was also an immigrant to Canada and a refugee from eastern Europe, as one might tell by my name. As a refugee and immigrant my husband Tom also took enormous pride in being a citizen of this country. As well, my sister married an immigrant from Nigeria.

The whole area of citizenship and immigration is one that is very near and dear to my family, to me personally and to me as a representative of Canada and Canadians and a representative of many immigrants to Canada from my riding of Calgary—Nose Hill.

My records show that over half of the case work that comes into my constituency office is related to the area of citizenship and immigration. I say to the parliamentary secretary opposite that the citizenship and immigration system is not working in the best interest of immigrants and of many new Canadians.

The bill is a bit like an analogy where the minister has inherited a vehicle which is very unreliable. It does not serve the people who hope to ride in it and be transported by it. It is a danger to them in some cases.

What does the minister do? The minister decides to fill up the windshield wiper fluid container. That is about what the bill does. We have a system which people in the House have pointed out to the government is not working. It is full of very unfair, unworkable, even dangerous provisions, lapses and anomalies. Yet the minister has chosen to bring in a bill that just does a bit of cosmetic change.

Members of the House are trying to point out to the government in a responsible and thoughtful way that there are many areas of our immigration and citizenship system which need substantive addressing. The government is well aware of this. Its own committee dominated by its own members made it clear in the past to the minister and to the government that substantial change and improvement were needed.

Yet the best the government can do is a shoddy attack on people who thoughtfully point out there needs to be a better service for Canadians, and particularly new Canadians, in the system of immigration and citizenship that is presently in place.

The government was elected in 1993. It was to make an overhaul of our social system and of our immigration and citizenship act. When any change is contemplated there is a study, a commission or committee set up to advise the government looking at the issues and advise the government as to changes that should be made. In fact that was done.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was asked by the minister to advise the government on how the system should be overhauled. The committee did its work. We must bear in mind that the committee was made up of a majority of government members. The recommendations from the committee were not just from the opposition but from government members. They released a very thoughtful report. It was called “Canadian Citizenship: A Sense of Belonging”.

The committee did its work with commendable timeliness. The government was elected in October 1993 and in June 1994 the committee released its report, having made some months of thoughtful study.

I ask the House to calculate the amount of time from June 1994 to the present, February 1999. I am sure even the parliamentary secretary will acknowledge the truth of my assertion that it took nearly five years for the minister to put any legislation before the House. It was five years, not from the time the government said it would make some needed improvements to the whole immigration and citizenship act, but from the time the study and recommendations were completed.

What do we find in the bill? The bottom line is that the bill does not address almost all the recommendations of its own Liberal dominated committee. I do not know where that work, that study, that consultation with Canadians and that examination of the issues went. I do not know what good it did. I do not know that the hours of thoughtful, earnest and sincere work by government and opposition members on this matter were of any use because most of what was in the report has simply been ignored. The bill goes its own way and refuses to address many of the issues raised by the committee.

It neglects some of the critical areas that need attention and alters other recommendations in a negative way. The government and the minister have much to answer for in ignoring the recommendations of members of the House on these important points and issues.

The bill fails to fix some of the mechanical difficulties and some of the safety issues of the immigration and citizenship vehicle and stops at filling up the windshield wiper container. That is about all the bill does.

Under clauses 31 and 32 of the bill the duties of current citizenship judges will be handed over to Citizenship and Immigration Canada departmental officials. The citizenship judges with whom I have had the privilege of being associated in the city of Calgary, and particularly Judge Ann Wilson, had nothing but the deepest respect in the immigrant and ethnic communities of our city. Judge Ann Wilson, who worked tirelessly to cultivate good relations and communications with groups that represented and were representative of new Canadians, had a heart of welcome and of good will for new Canadians.

It was a pleasure to attend her citizenship ceremonies where she presided. This tangible link between the minister, the minister's department and new Canadians will now be severed. However, the Liberals, although they got rid of the citizenship judges they did not appoint, want to have the ability to reward their good and faithful supporters so they have set up citizenship commissioners. We are not quite sure what the commissioners are going to do. We understand they are going to promote active citizenship in the community, whatever that means.

A very good institution has been done away with under this bill substituting other patronage appointments under the Liberals. Again, what is being served other than Liberal political priorities?

I hope the committee will be asking some very tough questions of the minister and the departmental officials about this bill when it comes before it. I could make a number of other criticisms about the bill. Unfortunately 10 minutes goes very quickly.

The committee study should point out some of the obvious flaws of this bill. I hope to speak to it again at third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member that I came over in the same class as her husband in 1957.

The member mentioned that we do not have any legislation before us. We have this legislation before us and we are looking forward to getting it into committee to debate the various points and issues and then to bring it back to the House. Furthermore, once the committee discharges its duty in relationship to this bill, it will be engaging in a revision of the Immigration Act which will result in a bill being brought before the House.

I wanted to put that on the record to let members know that as soon as this bill clears the House a committee is waiting to study it clause by clause and call witnesses.

The member questioned why we were changing the citizenship judges to citizenship commissioners. Basically the courts have expressed a level of discomfort with having citizenship judges being called such since they are not graduates of law. It was therefore deemed that commissioners would be much more appropriate. However, that will be open to debate once it gets to committee.

The member also wanted to know what the functions would be of a citizenship commissioner. The function of a citizenship commissioner, as the government now envisions it, will be to very actively throughout the country promote Canadian citizenship. Clearly one task that should be embraced by all members of the House is to promote Canadian citizenship.

Let us get this bill to committee and we can get working on it clause by clause and then look forward to doing the revision of the Immigration Act.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's explanation of this whole change from citizenship judges to citizenship commissioners. If it is simply a name change why were the citizenship judges like Judge Ann Wilson who were so well regarded, well known, well respect and effective in the communities turfed out the door so that new appointments could be made by Liberals?

I do not think anyone has a problem with a name change, although we could quibble about whether it is really necessary, but when we take effective and knowledgeable people out of the community and out of their positions under the guise of a name change then there is a legitimate question being raised.

I urge the parliamentary secretary to think about whether this change is about a name change or whether it is about a politically motivated change. That is the way I see it.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary just made a big point about getting this to the committee and making sure the committee had the appropriate interaction.

I wonder whether we could ask the member from Nose Hill to please clarify for us why she thinks the government members decided not to act on the special committee that dealt with citizenship and immigration. Does she think or believe that in the new consultations on this act there will be any different reaction to the suggestions that might be made than was the case in the past?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kelowna makes a good point. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has already studied this problem. It forwarded a report in June 1994 which was ignored by the minister. It does seem a little amusing that the parliamentary secretary is so eager to have this matter brought back before the very same committee which his minister has already ignored.

From my experience as a member of five plus years in the House very little substantive change or real thoughtful debate and amendment does take place at committees. It is one of the frustrations I have with the way the House works. I think that all members of committees could make a real contribution to improving legislation. I urge the parliamentary secretary to ensure that, for a change, as the committee studies this bill this does happen.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.

I begin by congratulating the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on this initiative in her ongoing commitment to improving legislation for which she is responsible.

In 1968 I left behind my homeland and my family in a small village in Croatia in search of a better life. I found that life in Canada. I found a job. I met my wife with whom I have four wonderful children. Today I sit in the House of Commons representing the people of Cambridge, Kitchener, Ayr and North Dumfries.

I still remember that day in Waterloo, September 12, 1973, the day I received my Canadian citizenship. It was one of the proudest days of my life. From that moment on I joined the Canadian family. I became eligible to vote. I became eligible to stand for elected office. I became eligible to carry the most respected passport in the world.

Almost 26 years after becoming a Canadian citizen I often find myself at citizenship ceremonies in my capacity as a member of parliament. I can tell the House that welcoming new Canadians into our Canadian family is a part of my job which I enjoy. It is the look of pride and commitment on the faces of my constituents that reminds me of my swearing-in ceremony.

I took and continue to take my responsibilities as a Canadian citizen very seriously. I got involved in my community, I joined a political party, I ran for office and I always obeyed the laws of this country. I know the people I meet at citizenship ceremonies in Cambridge and Kitchener will take their responsibilities as seriously as I have taken mine.

We have a bill before us today that represents the first major reform with respect to citizenship in more than 20 years. The most significant amendment, in my opinion, is one that changes the oaths of citizenship to better reflect Canadian values and express clearer loyalty to Canada.

The most important element of the new oath is that it puts loyalty and allegiance to Canada above everything else. The oath also contains the promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to defend our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfill our duties and obligations as Canadian citizens. These words have greater meaning to new Canadians on whom the original oath to the Queen is often lost and is somewhat confused.

Bill C-63 proposes several other significant improvements to existing legislation. It gives citizenship at birth to all persons born in Canada except the children of foreign diplomats and it gives children born abroad to Canadian parents automatic Canadian citizenship. Second generation children born abroad will also receive citizenship at birth but will lose it if by age 28 they have not resided in Canada. Third generation children born abroad will no longer have any claim to Canadian citizenship. Children adopted abroad can no longer be treated as immigrants and will not have to meet medical or permanent residency requirements before being granted citizenship.

There are also changes to the residency requirements for citizenship. Now a prospective citizen will require at least three years of physical presence within Canada in the five years before applying for citizenship. I think that is the right way to go.

Those who obtain citizenship through the use of false identity or who withhold information about criminal activities abroad could lose their citizenship as a result of new ministerial powers contained in this legislation. The minister also refuses to grant Canadian citizenship where granting would offend ordinary Canadians. I firmly support these two amendments.

Everyone who comes to Canada as I did over 30 years ago must realize that citizenship in this country is not something that you automatically get after living here for a few years. Citizenship must be earned. To earn it one must obey the laws of Canada, respect Canada and contribute to Canadian society in a positive way.

If someone comes here and lies about who they are or what they did before they got here and then disrespect our laws, they do not deserve to become citizens. In fact, one has to question whether they should be allowed to remain in Canada at all.

Some members know I introduced a private member's bill several years ago which would speed up the deportation of non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in Canada. I introduced the bill in response to two tragic murders in the Toronto area, Georgina Leimonis, a young woman who was murdered at a Just Desserts cafe, and Metro Toronto police constable Todd Baylis. The accused murderers in both of these cases were non-citizens who had lived in Canada for some time and had lengthy criminal records.

People like them should not be allowed to stay in Canada. They should serve time for their crimes and then put on a plane out of here. We do not want them in Canada, nor should we ever consider giving them the privilege of Canadian citizenship. That is why I applaud this initiative which would allow the minister to refuse citizenship to anyone who is less than deserving.

With reference to my bill on deportation, Bill C-321, it was in committee when parliament was dissolved for the 1997 election and has yet to be drawn this session. I do have faith it will become law. The minister and her staff have been extremely supportive of this initiative and I expect that the necessary changes will be made in the near future.

Unlike many of you, I was not born in Canada. I chose Canada. I chose to become a Canadian citizen. I have lived in other countries and I have travelled to many countries. I can tell the House that the United Nation is right, Canada is the best country in the world in which to live.

Many Canadians who have not seen other parts of the world take for granted how truly lucky we are to live in this country. But those Canadians who are fortunate enough to travel abroad or who have come from another land know that Canadian citizenship and a Canadian passport give us instant respect at a border crossing or customs checkpoint and particularly with average people around the world.

Everyone we meet abroad loves Canadians. They all have friends or relatives who have moved here and all hope to visit some day. They recognize that although we speak the same language as our American neighbours, we are different. Our country is a mosaic and not a melting pot. When one becomes a citizen of Canada, one is not asked to give up one's roots, language, culture or history. One can still keep them and preserve them and share them with the rest of us. One is simply asked to embrace the language and history of the new country and to obey its laws. This is a very small price to pay for the privilege of being able to say “I am a Canadian”.

I chose this country. I am proud of this country. I am proud to serve this country and I would encourage all new Canadians to embrace the best country in the world.

In closing I leave the House with a few words from Judge Robert Somerville, the citizenship judge for Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo. By the way, he is not a Liberal and I do not care what party or colours he follows, he is a very good citizenship judge. In speaking to new Canadians he said “We have achieved a way of life and standards of living that are rare in the world. The honour and dignity of Canadian citizenship are yours. Please treasure it and be proud of it”.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for his strong feelings about this country and his citizenship privilege which I likewise received 30 years ago and can share that with him. I have a couple of comments and then a couple of questions for the member.

One thing he did say was he appreciated the minister's ongoing efforts to deal with citizenship and immigration. I would like to remind the member that this is the first piece of legislation I have seen since she has been minister which has been a long time so I do not think it is very ongoing. We need to speed up the process in the immigration and refugee areas.

I compliment the member for his private member's bill. He can count on my support once it is drawn. We are certainly thinking alike on that.

I wonder if the member is aware of the fact that there have been 20,000 deportation orders issued in Canada and there have actually been 4,000 deported, which means there are about 16,000 people who have not been deported. I wonder how the member feels about that and what should happen.

On his birthright statement, the member feels that any child born in Canada should have the privilege of becoming a citizen of the country. I would not debate that a great deal. In the case of a refugee claimant who may have given birth to a child here and the refugee claim is denied, then what should happen to the Canadian citizen, namely the child? What should we do? Does he not see something missing in this bill to deal with that?

Based on what I am getting on the changes of no longer having citizenship judges but having commissioners of citizenship, and judges already being released, I would hope that he would fight hard for the judge whom he believes so strongly in. I think the judge's job is very short lived if this bill passes. I think the citizenship judge will be gone and replaced with some patronage appointment.

I would like the hon. member's comments, please.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his future support of my private member's bill.

We are talking about citizenship. We are not talking about immigration. I am aware that there is a large number of refugees, people who should be deported. That is exactly what I am recommending in my private member's bill, to streamline the process and deport and save Canadian taxpayers money. I am aware that the hon. member knows that the Canadian Police Association supports this idea and I hope he will support it whenever that bill comes forward.

It would be much easier if there were only two countries on this planet, Canada and the rest of world. Then we would not have the question of whether the child born in Canada has the right to receive Canadian citizenship automatically. As the hon. member knows, we are a member of the United Nations and we have signed that declaration, that we do not recognize stateless people.

On citizenship judges, Judge Somerville is in his second term. He was appointed by a previous government. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and other area MPs including myself recommended Judge Somerville for reappointment. As I said in my speech, we did not ask Judge Somerville what colours he follows. We are aware that he was a member of the Conservative Party, but that does not bother me. He is a good citizenship judge. That is what is important. What are we going to call them? Are we going to call them judges or commissioners? In my opinion that is not too important. For me it is important that he is a good person who is doing an excellent job.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to commend the hon. member who just spoke on his passion for Canada and on his allegiance to Canada. I am glad he chose Canada. I am one of those who was born in Canada. I am always proud to think that there are people from other countries who have chosen to come to Canada to live and become citizens of this great and wonderful land. It makes me feel good and proud that others would choose to live in this country.

If it does not make any difference what is in a name, why bother changing it? If it is okay to be a judge and if it is okay to be a commissioner and they are now judges, why bother to change it? If it does not make any difference to him, why change it? Obviously somebody thinks it makes a difference or they would not be bothering to make the change. The change is only there in order to achieve something that somebody thinks is worthwhile. If it really is not important, then the legislation is unimportant and therefore we should not treat it with any kind of respect.

I am sure there is a fundamental error here in the judgment and the logic being used that it does not matter what they are called. If it did not matter, it would not be here. Could the member please explain that?

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, personally I have no problems with calling them judges or commissioners. The hon. member will have an opportunity to join the committee and to table an amendment on that issue. If the majority of committee members support it, the amendment will be accepted.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have another comment following the member's reply to my colleague.

I am not sure how many committees this member has sat on. I have been on many committees. I have see what comes in the front door and I have seen what goes out the back door. It is usually the same thing. There is very little in the way of changes.

The member has so much confidence in the committee I would like him to explain something to me. Four or five years ago the committee submitted a very comprehensive report. The committee did extensive work in getting public input and presented an excellent report on citizenship and what should be done. Liberal members contributed a great deal to the report. Where is that piece of work by the committee? It has disappeared. It has not been brought forward. There is no reflection of it in this bill whatsoever.

Committees on the Hill are not very functional. They do not accomplish a great deal because the attitude of the ministers is that they can do it better than committees. It is obvious that is what is happening. What happened to that good report which I know the member is aware of? Where is it at?

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that we have a process to follow. He will have the opportunity to participate in the citizenship and immigration committee. The committee could be as effective as the members are effective. The committee could be as progressive as the members are progressive. The member knows as well as I that we amend many bills clause by clause at the committee level.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to discuss Bill C-63 for the simple reason that nothing has ever given me more pleasure in an official capacity than to go down to citizenship court and shake the hands and congratulate people who have just received Canadian citizenship.

Part of my life and part of my studies have been dealing with citizenship in itself. I come from a part of Canada, a part of Saskatchewan, that enjoyed the benefits of massive citizenship and immigration, as the two are inseparable, from the spilling over from the Dakotas. At that time Canada adopted for itself, almost word for word, the American homestead act and these people moved to Canada and became citizens.

I have visitors here visiting me in Ottawa whose grandparents, if we go back far enough, came from France across the peninsula, the thumb, as they call it in Michigan, on into part of Saskatchewan. The remarkable thing about all this citizenship is when one goes through that great era, the last best west, I served as a justice for 25 years and I do not remember one single case of any of these gallant people ever becoming involved with the law or criminal activity.

I am also very proud to stand here and say that I have three adopted part Chinese sisters. If one takes their heritage and go back, they too were proud of their Canadian citizenship.

Speaking of particular roles of citizenship, in my lifetime I was always involved before I came to this institution in working with people. I have, up until the last few years, never once heard in the rural areas of my province of those people who came to this country and took citizenship, as the Chinese did, in any town that I worked, and there were a good many of them, ever becoming involved in a defamation of Canadians or their new country.

Maybe we should look at the past and ask ourselves what we were doing right then. We are not proud of our record in some cases of what we did to immigrants from Ukraine. By the way, the Ukrainian people are still the second largest ethnic group in Saskatchewan. We are not proud of what we did in World War I when we deprived them of citizenship and pushed them way up in Alberta and let them lose their land and virtually starve to death. We are not proud of that but it happened.

We are also not proud of what we did to the Chinese when they came here to get their citizenship. They worked on the railways and got less than average pay. When one died on the railway they just pushed him into the grade and covered him up. There was not even a decent burial.

Citizenship has to mean more than what it has meant in the last 25 years in Canada. We cannot be proud, as my hon. colleagues have mentioned, that at any one time we can have 16,000 to 20,000 illegal immigrants in Canada and the fact is that about 80% of them will stay here. Surrounding this court of citizenship, Canadians know what it is like. Canadians see it as a massive corruptive unit. Let us hope that this changes for good.

What steps will we look back at to see how we brought hardworking people to this country who contributed greatly to this country?

Today when I know of people I have assisted coming in 35 years ago and I try to get some of their family in, I get such reports as “Don't bother going to your MP. There is a good Liberal lawyer and he will pull the strings a lot faster”. This is a fact and a terrible thing but it happens.

Last week when I was home I was confronted by individuals who asked me how I was getting along with this case. They told me they had word that if they went to see a certain lawyer downtown he could speed the thing up.

Are we going to take legislation like this and, pardon the pun, liberalize it to that extent? I do not have too many immigrants coming. They are all leaving now. What happened here? What happens when we face a situation in this country where the majority of the people who are apprehended and with charges were illegal immigrants? Many of those people are still here. I believe we ought to exercise more care.

If Bill C-63 does just what I hope it will, then we will be going back to the golden era of the last best west days when we brought in people who had no criminal records. They had the ability to survive and work. They were welcomed in Canada and they made outstanding citizens. In the immigration and citizenship record in Canada, while I know many to come in have been fine people, we have opened the gates and many of those people are still here and will not be deported. While we do that we are denying at least 10 people I know who are hardworking, dedicated people, relatives here, and I am having one heck of a job getting them into Canada. Let us hope this bill changes that.

Above all, if we are to have a deep meaning for the oath, which the hon. gentleman talked about, things have to change in this department from the past five years.

How does this bill reverse the terrible records of this department in the last 25 years? What steps are being taken now to prevent illegal immigrants coming to this country? What steps are being taken to speed up the deportation of these people? These are the questions which Canadians want an answer to and I do not see the bill answering those questions. I wish I did but I do not.

We need to bring back some sanity to the immigration and citizenship portfolio. We need to truly look at bringing people to Canada who brought the same honour and glory of the last best west. These people are still with us. Some of the ancestors of these people sit in the House but we never had to deport one of that area that I remember. I wish I could say the same thing for the past 10, 15 or 25 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend opposite that we are dealing with Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.

The member talks about what we are going to be working on as soon as we deal with the issue of the immigration act. If we are interested in getting there quickly I suggest we get this bill into committee.

I think it is important for us when we talk about immigration to keep things in perspective. The vast majority of people who come to this country as immigrants and refugees are law-abiding. That is the history of this country.

We came here as immigrants. There were native people, the French, the United Empire Loyalists and people from all corners of the planet.

It is important that we keep that in mind. Yes, there is some criminality. We have to do what we can to make sure we deal with that as effectively as possible.

The member mentioned some of the terrible wrongs that have been done in this country to different ethnic groups. He mentioned the Ukrainians and the Chinese. There is a long history of that. So many people who have come to this country have found it difficult and at times have been discriminated against. Given that fact we ended up having a country that is very generous and is a beacon of civility in a world too often torn by ethnic unrest and wars.

As a bit of history for the hon. member, if he looks into the history of immigration to this country, at one point to make sure there were enough people in New France, Quebec, to increase the population, the king sent over his daughters, les filles du roi. Those people were not the most outstanding characters who came from France. To make sure these people were married off and that they would help populate New France, the governor—

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering whether this was a speech or is the member on questions and comments.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member is on questions and comments. I know he will either be bringing his comments to a close or asking a question very shortly.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is referring to what the member said. It is a commentary on what he said. It is important to look at history. Some of it is quite humorous.

There is no question that the member would have to agree me that the vast majority of people who come to this country, notwithstanding that some will be a problem and we have to do everything we can to get them out, as refugees and immigrants go on to make a great contribution to the life of our country.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will agree with the point that those people who come here for a purpose of establishing themselves make good Canadian citizens. The hon. gentleman knows my area of complaint. Canadians from coast to coast have pushed that complaint before this government.

I want to make one correction. It seems to me that immigration leads to citizenship. We are bringing in a new citizenship act when we should be bringing in the controls and everything else surrounding immigration and then go to the citizenship act. I am sure the government has a purpose in doing so but you do not sow your field in the spring before you have properly cultivated it. It seems like we should be dealing with immigration.

I am proud of those people I have worked with. I am proud to have worked with immigrants for years. I am proud to have their children within my educational institution. But we have a new responsibility to make sure those people who are coming to Canada do not fall into the 16,000 to 20,000 people we have in Canada now, and I do not know how many before that, who are still here but should be deported.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could stand today and not have to speak on blatant patronage. Unfortunately Bill C-63 contains blatant patronage.

Under clauses 31 and 32 the duties of the current citizenship judges will be handed over to Citizenship and Immigration Canada officials. The commissioners who will be replacing these judges will have only ceremonial responsibilities and the responsibility to “promote active citizenship in the community”, thus making this position completely irrelevant for any purpose other than a reward. When this legislation is passed the current judges will immediately be reclassified as commissioners, maintaining the same salaries, benefits, et cetera, until their contracts expire. The minister stated in her December 7 press conference that the salary for commissioners would be lower than that for judges, but she had no numbers to offer. Nor did she elaborate on how many commissioners she would be appointing.

We question the necessity of the duties that will be performed by them versus the undefined qualifications required of them. The problem is elevated by the fact that these commissioners will be advising the minister on methods of evaluation for potential citizens when there will be no formal evaluation for the commissioners to pass. The legislation does not state how this advice to the minister would be accomplished.

After the 1993 election—this is another case of a broken promise—the former minister vowed that the positions of citizenship judges would be eliminated and that no more appointments would be made. What we have now is a public relations job. A short lived promise indeed, a short lived Liberal campaign promise, but then that is not the only one we have ever run across.

We have a case of clear, blatant patronage. We have a case of vote brokering with our immigration and refugee boards. That is one of the major problems we have with the bill, but I will talk about a few more. We have a broken system and the minister is unable and unwilling to fix it. We have no substantive changes in this regard.

Blatant Liberal patronage continues to happen under Bill C-63 as happened previously. We have not seen any major changes in that regard. The government is not listening to its own members, people in the government caucus who have problems with the legislation and want to see some of these changes. It is not paying any attention or heed to them. Nor is it paying attention or heed to the citizens of the country who have problems with the bill.

We have heard today that people want to see vigilance. They think that vigilance is required with regard to some of these issues. They recognize that currently we have fraud in the system, that there is a lack of consultation and that there has not been public consultation with regard to the administration of the oath or the formation of the oath. We have a behind closed doors process with no parliamentary oversight.

I am sorry, but the whole thing smells of Liberal arrogance. We have Liberal dominated immigration and refugee boards. Like I say, we go back to this issue of patronage appointments. Whether immigration apparatchiks are called commissioners or citizenship judges the are still Liberal apparatchiks. There is no difference. We can change the name but a Liberal apparatchik smells the same. What it boils down to is clear vote brokering.

We have mention in the bill with regard to language requirements, that they speak one of the official languages, either French or English. Yet we have no form of testing for it. Will we allow people to simply mark down on a form whether or not they feel they are competent in either of these languages but not have any proper form of testing it?

One of my colleagues in the House today referred an ad that ran in a trade publication. I will read it because I think it is important for the folks back home to hear what it had to say. It ran in a publication called the Latin Trade Magazine and this is the way it read:

Guaranteed immigration to Canada. With the purchase of a fleet rent a car franchise, total investment of $50,000 Canadian

approximately $30,000 U.S., you are guaranteed immigration to Canada even with a criminal record.

The word guaranteed was underlined. It provided an address and a phone number to get a hold of somebody in Toronto.

This is not the only example of this type of thing. We heard of numerous examples of these types of ads being run in foreign publications. What type of representation does such an advertisement make of Canadians abroad or when there are Canadians serving as immigration consultants who try to swizzle money off people overseas? They advertise Canada as one of the countries with one of the most lax refugee requirements in the world. They go ahead and abuse the process such that even criminals are being advertised to go ahead and immigrate into Canada. What message does that send out to other immigrants? It is terrible.

The bill has a lot of other unsavoury aspects to it. One question we have to raise is with regard to those who will be seeking refugee status. If they bear a child while they are in Canada, what happens to that child? If the parent is to be deported, what is the status of the child? This whole issue of citizenship at birth is something we have to examine carefully because it has long range complications or implications.

The quality of immigrants determines the quality of citizenship in the country. If we advertise for criminals overseas and tarnish our image that way, we can only expect that to have a reflection on Canadian society as a whole. As a matter of fact, we have so many loopholes right now that other countries are used with their systems to filter or wash people who were criminals so they can wind up in Canada eventually. That is a lax system and we have serious problems with it.

We have a Liberal administration that spends money to keep criminals in Canada rather than to assist citizens with legal aid. I remember the case of Charles Ng that happened in Calgary, somebody who gained entrance into Canada. He was well known and convicted in the United States for all his heinous crimes. Yet the Liberal government spent good taxpayer money to keep him in Canada for years and dragged the process on with bureaucratic delays. When Canadians of sane mind see something like that and know how hard they have to work for their tax dollars, they are infuriated.

It is not as though the government has not had time to look at these things and to make appropriate changes. It has had four and a half years and yet we have not seen a real substantive solution to this issue. We have bureaucratic insertions in the bill and bureaucratic delays that are part and parcel and included in the legislation. Instead of penalizing the bureaucrats we are penalizing the applicants to the process. There is something warped about that and something only a bureaucrat could enjoy.

After four and a half years where are the bills on refugees and where are the bills on criminality and the problems with the system? We have not seen anything.

The auditor general reports that we have 20,000 people to be deported. Yet the records only demonstrate that 4,000 have actually been deported. Pretty simple math tells us that 16,000 people in the country are circumventing the system, of which 80% will probably go on to continue to stay here and become citizens. Talk about image tarnishing. That is a travesty. There are Liberal lawyers who are pulling the strings and making money off the system. The whole thing smells.

I know my time is coming to a close so I will include a few more facts for the folks at home. We had a high of 400,870 immigrants in 1913 and the low was in 1942 with 7,576. We are known because of some of these laxities as being the world's most accepting country for immigrants and refugees. We have all these issues with the criminality being advertised and everything else.

We want something that reduces the amount of discretion currently in the hands of immigration and visa officers but also encourages potential immigrants to prepare themselves better.

All I can say on citizenship at birth is that Australia requires at least one parent to be an Australian citizen or permanent resident for the child to qualify. It is something we should consider as well.