House of Commons Hansard #185 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.

Topics

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, my next petition contains 25 signatures which supports Motion No. 33, parental rights and responsibilities which I introduced in 1997.

Petitioners call on the government to reassure Canadian families and reaffirm written statements made by the government on June 9, 1998 that the convention on the rights of the child undermines the role of parents as unwarranted and concerns that the government intends to remove section 43 from the Criminal Code are unwarranted. These citizens recognize that the family is the fundamental unit of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of the children and that it should be protected.

I have two petitions containing 353 signatures from Canadians from coast to coast who support Motion No. 478 which I reintroduced on October 7, 1998. It proposes to add parental rights, responsibilities and liberty to the charter of rights and freedoms.

The petitioners call on the government to amend section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms to recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I also have the privilege of presenting a petition containing 176 signatures from Canadians concerned about the protection of the institution of marriage as it has always been known and understood in Canada and that this institution be preserved and protected.

My petitioners pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I also have the privilege of presenting a petition containing the signature of 560 constituents from the riding of Yorkton—Melville, Saskatchewan who express rejection of the recommendations of the MacKay task force pertaining to entry of banks into the casualty and property insurance markets.

These constituents affirm that independent insurance brokers account for approximately 60,000 jobs across rural and urban Canada and that banks' ability to retail property and casualty insurance will have a negative impact on this industry and the many thousands of employees it represents.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, the last petition I have the privilege of presenting is one containing some 730 signatures from Canadians from coast to coast who are calling on parliament to strengthen property rights in federal law.

These petitioners support Bill C-452 which would strengthen the protection of property rights in the Canadian Bill of Rights and guarantee that every person has the right of enjoyment of their property.

These citizens are calling on parliament to guarantee that this most fundamental right and freedom is protected.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to be able to present a petition under Standing Order 36 that has been signed by hundreds and hundreds of Canadians from every part of this country. It is very timely because it pertains to the question of medicare and the ability of this government to preserve the principles enshrined in the Canada Health Act.

The petitioners call on this government to not only preserve the principles under the Canada Health Act but to enhance our ability to address patient needs and concerns in every aspect of our health care system.

The petitioners call for a commitment from this government to live up to the principles of universal coverage, accessibility, affordability, comprehensive coverage and federal funding.

Finally, they call on this government to work to ensure that national standards are put in place to guarantee quality publicly funded health care for every Canadian as a right by virtue of belonging to a civilized community.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of the citizens of the great city of Kamloops who point out many concerns they have regarding a number of our international trade agreements. They fear that they obligate the transfer of bulk water from Canada to the United States and northern Mexico.

The petitioners are simply asking the House to re-examine these agreements to ensure that is not the case.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. The first one requests parliament to reassure Canadian families and reaffirm written statements made by the government on June 9, 1998 that concerns that the convention on the rights of the child undermines the role of parents are unwarranted and concerns that the government intends to remove section 43 from the Criminal Code are unwarranted.

I have another petition that asks parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's Criminal Code as it is currently worded.

The third petition requests parliament to support a motion introduced by the member for Yorkton—Melville which asks parliament to recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state and recognize the fundamental right, responsibility and liberty of parents to direct the upbringing of their children and urge the legislative assemblies and the provinces to do likewise.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition from my constituents who are concerned that Canada does not effectively screen out those who become involved in criminal activities, including terrorism and drug trafficking. They note that these individuals pose serious threats to the health, welfare, safety and well-being of Canadians and that these individuals unduly burden our justice system, our immigration and refugee system at taxpayer expense.

The petitioners implore the government to take action and have the Canadian status of these individuals revoked and that they be deported.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today with 25 names on it from Ardrossan and Sherwood Park in my riding and a few others.

The petitioners are concerned about the state of marriage in Canada and its definition by government. They are asking that we define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Ottawa—Vanier Ontario

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On March 11, back in 1998, I placed Question No. 284 on the order paper asking how many violent crimes have been investigated by the RCMP and how many involved the use of registered and unregistered firearms.

In accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for a written answer within 45 days. My constituents have now been waiting 335 days. The commissioner of the RCMP wrote me a letter on July 6 referring to his answer to Question No. 84. The RCMP gave its response to the government 218 days ago.

I raised this matter in a point of order on October 28, on December 7, and again on February 9. The parliamentary secretary said the question was being finalized. Question No. 84 is the oldest unanswered question on the Order Paper. For the fourth time, when is the government going to give my constituents the RCMP's answer to this important question?

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to consider this. By not giving an answer to this question, my work as a parliamentarian is being restricted.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have not been responding to the previous points of order by the hon. member but he has my commitment that this point of order will be taken under advisement. We will look into this and provide an answer as early as possible.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Shall all the remaining questions stand?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

When debate was interrupted, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca had the floor. He has two minutes remaining for his remarks.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Reform

Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up my remarks on Bill C-63.

We in this House have the responsibility to do the best that we can in all of our endeavours. For four and one-half years this government has been told about the mismanagement and problems within our immigration system.

Immigration, as members have mentioned, has been a pillar and a building block of our country. Many of us are immigrants and were grateful to come to Canada. But the failure of the government to deal with the structural problems within our immigration system has done a huge disservice not only to Canadians, but also to immigrants who have come to this country and people trying to get into this country.

The problems have been articulated. The solutions are in front of us. Focus on the independent class of immigrants. Make sure that the family reunification class truly appeals to those who are immediate family members, not people who are further removed. People who come to this country cannot simply come here, have a baby and the baby automatically becomes a Canadian citizen. Children who are born in this country should retain the citizenship of their parents and once the parents become Canadian citizens, the children will become Canadian citizens too. One of the scams used by some people who come to Canada is to have a child and the child automatically becomes a Canadian citizen.

In the oath of citizenship the minister should have put specific and explicit references to the responsibilities a Canadian has to our country. That is very important. We have a lot of rights but we do not talk about the responsibilities.

There are enormous problems faced by immigrants. Immigrants go through the hoops. They try their hardest yet because of bureaucratic gross mismanagement they are forced to pay for the problems of the ministry. That has to end.

I implore the minister to listen to the constructive suggestions that have been put forth today. Listen to them, implement them and build a good system for all of Canada.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to Bill C-63.

Mr. Speaker, although I may not be talking specifically about Bill C-63, I can assure you that all of my remarks lead into that document most thoroughly. I hope members on the other side of the House do not get their noses out of joint too quickly and will pay close attention to where this is going.

I am especially pleased to speak to this bill because I am a citizen, a new citizen who came to Canada in the late sixties.

I came to Canada with the intentions of fulfilling a contract to teach in a school in Sundre, Alberta, my hometown. It was only supposed to be for a year. I came here in the sixties with my wife and small child and it only took a few months for us to fall in love with the country and the people.

I particularly liked the school system at that time in comparison to the one from where I had come. The schools in the United States were leaning toward some very serious social engineering. Problems were starting to develop and discipline was disappearing. I was disappointed that was occurring down there. When I came to Canada and saw what a fine system was in place and how it was being run, I had a strong desire to become a citizen of this country.

I made application to extend the contract. It was agreed that it would be extended if I would take out landed immigrant status, which I did, and if I would agree to become a citizen when I became eligible, which I agreed to do and also did. Upon entering the country my wife and I and our one-month old child had to go through some very stringent medical exams. I had to go through a lot of security checks. I was checked strongly in that whole area. Financial obligations had to be met.

My wife and I did not object in the slightest bit to all of those things. A number of immigrants who came in at that time and who even lived in the same town felt as I do, that all that was fair and right. They felt the government needed to do a thorough screening of the people who come to this land seeking to become residents and future citizens.

I do not know where we have gone and why we have gone the way we have in regard to immigration policy or where we are at with the refugee policy. It is really disgusting. I will not go into any great detail on that because members who spoke prior to me have done a very thorough job of explaining where we are coming from in that regard.

I will talk about the early years. After four or five years I became eligible to become a citizen. Then I saw things starting to come into the education system and I did not understand why. I commented to some of my friends and people associated with education as to why they were allowing some of these things to happen in the school system. They had already been tried in the United States and they had failed desperately. It was not good for any education system to go in that direction. A lot of them did not know because these things were just happening.

The great white towers of government were bringing down mandated things that were going to take place. Nobody in any community on any scale was ever conferred with as to what kind of school or community they wanted. Things just started happening. Mr. Speaker, you will remember the era of Mr. Trudeau, the prime minister in the early seventies. That is when things started taking place that did not make a lot of sense to me.

I am not arguing with whether the metric system is good or bad but I remember when it was decided to go metric. I had not yet become a citizen so I did not want to be too boisterous in my feelings. Down south there were signs up to think metric and all kinds of things were being done to promote the metric system. The people south of the border in the United States spoke strongly and were heard by their government. The United States did not go metric because the people did not want it.

I searched around my community for quite a while and I could not find anybody who wanted to go metric either. Most of the people said no. I thought surely there would not be any problem since the people did not want it but lo and behold, we woke up one morning and now we have the metric system in this country. I asked people “Why did you let that happen? You people pay the bills, you are the taxpayers, why do you let these things happen?” They said that they could not do anything about it. That is just the way things are.

Then lo and behold up comes a certain bill that was being debated very strongly but apparently nobody across the land was very fond of it. They did not like the bill and did not want it to come into being. That was the language law. It seemed that the country was operating pretty well before all of that. There was a lot of debate and they said no, let us not do it. But lo and behold, we woke up one morning and we had to go through the process of changing signs because we now existed under the language law.

Once again I asked “Why did you let it happen? Why do you let these things go on? You are the taxpayers. You are supposed to be the boss. The members of parliament are supposed to be your servants, not your dictators. Why do you let it carry on?”

I can give example after example clear up until the mighty GST. I could not find a person anywhere who supported the GST. In a massive way people tried to illustrate it through petitions asking that parliament not implement the GST, but guess what? They got it.

Before that, I decided that if I was going to be a citizen in this country then I would have to get involved. I would have to speak out. Because I remembered what the country was like when I came here as an immigrant and I suddenly saw where it was going and I thought good grief.

Out comes the charter of rights. It was not debated to any great extent. Only a few of us noticed at the time that there was not an inclusion of property rights. I asked people “Do you realize what you were getting into? A document that does not have the freedom of property rights in place. Are you sure you want this?” I said “Mark my words. With some of the clauses in there, there will be a day down the road when you will have courts, judges and other judicial bodies making decisions that will affect your lives”. It became law.

Lo and behold, the most blatant example we could have is a judge in British Columbia saying that it is okay for a fellow to have child pornography in his home. He declared that, so that is the way it is. And we are supposed to sit back and say that is the way it goes, this is Canada.

A government of the people, by the people, for the people. The best description of democracy I have ever heard. I have yet to see it occur. We continually allow those things to happen.

Then along comes Bill C-63. I also remember a House of Commons committee that was put together four and a half years ago. It came up with some proposals and some ideas of what we should do to put together some corrections to immigration, to refugees and to citizenship. The recommendations were brought forward by the people of Canada through an extensive consultation program. The people stated loud and clear what they would like to see.

This piece of legislation comes out and it does not reflect one thing that the Canadian people said they wanted in this document. Not one. Why? Because those people over there always know best: “Those poor Canadian people out there do not understand. We are the smart ones. We have been elected and put in this place. We will solve all their problems”. They are supposed to sit back, shut up and take it.

Being an old sheep herder back in my farming days, if I was moving sheep from one place to another and I wanted to get them across some water to the other side, I had to drag one through the water and it would be bleating, screaming and kicking. I would sit it on the other bank. One was not enough so I would drag another one across and there would be two over there. Once I got three sheep on the other side, the rest of the sheep would say, “There are three sheep over there. As bad as we hate water, we are going to plough through it”.

And what do I see here? Bills like this one. We know it is going to pass because two or three here have crossed the water and all the rest of the sheep will rise to their feet and vote in favour of the legislation because those guys know best.

Stop the dictatorship.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Reform

Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-63. I am one of many Canadians who are very grateful that the hon. member for Wild Rose chose Canada as his home. Without members such as the member for Wild Rose we would certainly be further into a dictatorship than we already are now. I thank the hon. member for that.

I remind members of the House that I am from an agricultural background. Agriculture is very strong in my constituency. We all recognize, to put it politely, what load of fertilizer is when see it and smell it. When I look at the bill it certainly reminds me of that.

Some aspects of the bill go a very tiny way to addressing part of the problems in the country, but nowhere does it address the problems as it should. Whether or not members opposite like to admit it, they spent a great amount of time dealing with new citizens and the immigration laws in their daily work schedules. I want one of them to stand and deny this is true.

I have been a member in the House since 1993. Most of the concerns with regard to immigration and the downfall in citizenship come from first or second generation immigrants. They have an abundance of concerns about policy, where it is going and who we are letting into the country. They left their countries to come to Canada with great hope and expectations of creating a new life and new wealth for not only themselves but for their future generations.

Unfortunately they now live in a country where many live in fear because of immigration laws that allow the criminal element to come into the country, that allow the government to welcome them with open arms and give them the same rights as every Canadian citizen who has resided lawfully in Canada for their entire lives. Yet we have the criminal element coming into the country under the guise of some of the acts to create havoc.

People who have come to Canada to create a new life well recognize this. They had to put up with it in the countries they came from. This is one of the things they ran from to come here, and we are starting to embrace it here with open arms. That is just one aspect of what we have to look at.

Let us look at the blatant patronage aspect of the bill. One inclusion in the legislation is the continued tradition of so-called patronage appointments, namely citizenship commissioners. We do not have to be brain surgeons or rocket scientists to recognize exactly what the government means.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Far be it for me to interrupt the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap, but if other members in the House want to carry on private conversations, they can do so somewhere else.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Reform

Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Mr. Speaker, I assure you this does not throw me off topic.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, what am I to make of an invitation for the member to come outside?

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?