Debates of Feb. 5th, 1999

Committees Of The House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Competition Act

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about accountability. Today we are talking about people who have been victims of deception, the citizens and the taxpayers of this country and particularly those people in the province of Newfoundland who are going to the polls on February 9.

A previous premier of that province, Clyde Wells, recognized that a Senate election would allow for people to stand and represent the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador in the Senate and not be beholden to the Prime Minister and not be appointed by the Prime Minister.

A strong voice for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is needed in the Senate. They need somebody who is going to point out the problems with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans not giving them the straight goods. They need somebody who is going to say that the federal mismanagement of the fisheries has been a travesty and has resulted in the elimination and the wipeout of the cod stocks and the groundfish in Newfoundland and Labrador. They need somebody who is going to say that provincial rights should be paramount with regard to the fishery and that the province should have a say.

They do not need more bellyaching from a premier who has not been able to demonstrate much or come through with much, despite the fact that he sat in the federal cabinet, despite the fact that he is a good buddy and chum of the Prime Minister. They need somebody who is going to be accountable to the people of Newfoundland and not the Prime Minister of Canada.

That is what we are talking about regarding victims of deception with regard to the Senate, with regard to Bill C-20, with regard to whistleblowing. They need somebody who is going to be an effective whistleblower for the people of Newfoundland, not just a bellyacher.

Today we have also heard people talk about advertising and pricing. Recently we have heard the Senate go on about how the senators want to have cameras in their committees because people are not seeing them do their work. No surprise as they only sit 68 days of the year. It is pretty tough to see them when they are only there 68 days. And some of them only sit for two days of the year. It is pretty tough to notice somebody if they are only there two out of 365 days a year. It is pretty tough to notice.

It would be a good idea to bring cameras into the Senate committees and advertise their proceedings so people can see what goes on in that chamber. In terms of pricing it is going to cost a few million dollars. The Senate would love it for those committees that operate. They would love to get their mugs on TV and try to justify their $64,000 a year salaries. That is what I say to advertising and pricing.

We have also heard people talk today about competition. I am a big fan of competition as are a lot of people in the country. They want to see public choice. That is why they want to get rid of the system of appointments.

People want to move toward elections because with elections there is competition. Candidate X, candidate Y and candidate Z can say what they want to do for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, what type of things they want to institute, what policies they want to change, what status quos they want to overthrow. That is the type of thing we want to see from a Senate election.

That is the type of thing we had in Alberta in 1998 when we held the second and third Senate elections in Canadian history. We did it once before when Stan Waters was elected to the Senate. There will be others, mark my words, because it has come time for change in the Senate.

We heard people talk about contempt today. Indeed there is great contempt in the land for politicians in general, but no more contempt is there than that for the Senate. That is why we have politicians in this place—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I know the hon. member has had more than his fair share of interruptions but I think it only just to point out to him Standing Order 18 which states:

No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House—

I know that the hon. member will want to be very judicious in his choice of words when he is discussing the other place. We do have freedom of speech in this House and he is entitled to say what he wants, subject to the standing orders. The standing orders are quite explicit in what he can say about the other place.

I would invite him to watch his language and try to ensure that he complies with the standing orders in every respect.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that you have raised this whole issue of offence because there are people who are offended. They are taxpayers and they are citizens.

We talk about offence and we talk about contempt. There is so much offence and so much contempt in this land that there are those in this very chamber, in our House of Commons, who are advocating for the abolition of the other place.

I do not advocate for the abolition of the other place. I recognize that there are things part and parcel of this House of Commons that are present today that are in a sense a sickness and a disease upon our body politic in this country because we do not have an effective other place.

The reason there is contempt, the reason there is offence, the reason there are cries for abolition of the Senate—

[An hon. member]

Even from Liberal members.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

That is right, Mr. Speaker, even from Liberal members, those who benefit wholesale from having the appointment process right now, those who hope to be able to wind up in the favoured books of the Prime Minister and to sit in the other place.

The reason there is such contempt, the reason there are such calls for abolition is that we do not have accountability. Individuals are not accountable to the people who elect them. They are not accountable to the regional interests as was set out in 1867. They are not accountable to the interests of the provinces. These are serious problems.

People talked today about Bill C-20. The Bloc Quebecois industry critic talked about public interest advocacy and weakening competition. I share the member's concerns with regard to these two issues. I believe that having a change in the Senate will advance this idea of strengthened competition and will advance public interest advocacy.

Senators have a difficult time speaking on behalf of the public and advocating on behalf of the public interest when they do not represent or have not been elected by the public. When they are appointed by the Prime Minister, the process by which they are appointed, that very deed itself taints what they otherwise would do.

Today I heard the Tory industry critic talk about Bill C-20. He said that the intent of whistleblowing legislation is good. Beyond just intents the member also talked about proper scrutiny, more consultation and wanting to have an active Senate. Nobody more than I would like to see an active Senate.

The Senate sits 68 days a year. I would like to see the senators do more scrutiny but in order to do that, I need them to attend. When there are people who attend only two days of the year and senators who only show up for 10% of their meetings, I raise these concerns because I want to see an active Senate. I want to see an effective Senate. I would like to have all of the people in the other place in attendance every single one of those 68 days of the year. I would like to see them there more than that but if we could at least see them all there for the days they are required to show as it stands right now, I would feel we had a more active and effective Senate.

I believe in consistency. My Tory colleague talked about consistency in the law. I want to see consistency. I remember the Liberal campaign promises in 1968. They were before my time but I read about them. Pierre Elliot Trudeau campaigned across the land that he wanted to see changes to the Senate, but in 1968 the election came and went and we did not see changes to the Senate. The Liberal leadership in 1990 promised to see changes in the Senate. We did not see them then.

I want to see consistency as much as anybody. So for all these reasons I agree with my colleagues. I want to see more scrutiny. I want to see more accountability. I want to see a better whistleblowing institution. The Senate must be reformed.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary West spoke at great length about the Senate and very little about Bill C-20. I guess there is obviously a relationship because the amendments made to Bill C-20 came from the Senate and some people would find that objectionable, that an unelected body would have any legislative power or ability to influence bills.

My question gets back to Reform's idea about the elected Senate and the need for Senate reform. I have often found it a sort of an irony when many of us worked so hard to get the Charlottetown accord put through, the constitutional amendments, which actually would have given what the Reform Party has been asking for, elected senators, Senate reform along the lines the hon. member seems to feel are necessary. Our party, as the hon. member suggested, believes the Senate should be abolished, not reformed to be elected. He is accurate in that.

I would be interested in hearing the hon. member's views about how the Reform Party justified working so hard to sink the Charlottetown accord, the constitutional amendments, when it is actually the position of the Reform Party that it wants the elected Senate which it would have had if the Charlottetown accord had gone through.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct something the member said, that the Reform Party quashed the Charlottetown accord. It was not the Reform Party. We were merely the vessel for people who had concerns across this land with regard to Charlottetown and the provinces.

There were people across this land who got out to the polls in that October. I remember it well. I remember there were people in provinces right across this land, including Quebec, who voted against Charlottetown. It was the people of Canada, the people of the respective provinces of Canada, who got out to the polls in October 1992 and rejected Charlottetown because they rejected the process. That was the problem.

The Reform Party served as a vessel for those people who saw problems with the quotas inherent in Charlottetown and who saw problems with the special deals that were part and parcel of Charlottetown. It was the people of this country from coast to coast to coast who rejected Charlottetown, not just the Reform Party.

Thank goodness the Reform Party was there to serve as a conduit for all those who saw the problems, the fallacies and the inherent contradictions in Charlottetown. If the Reform Party had not been there I do not think we would have had a public referendum. I think Brian Mulroney would have gone ahead and simply imposed that law without having consent.

One of the reasons I stand in my place today is as a youngster of 10 years old in grade five I remember well the patriation of the constitution in 1982. My father and I and many others had problems with the idea that the charter of rights and freedoms was based on collective group rights rather than the rights of the individual. As a result of that I understood at that tender age that it was important to be active in politics because my father and many others like him, the people of this country, never had a chance to vote on the patriation of the constitution and the structuring of the charter of rights and freedoms.

In 1992, 10 years later, we did have a vote and I am going to argue that were it not for the Reform Party the people of this country would never have been able to cast a ballot and make their own decisions for their own constitution.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is really refreshing and enlightening to see a young member of parliament get up and give us some real history. It is a credit to the Reform Party and the first reformers who came here that honesty and truth were number one in our party policies.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Calgary West what really is the problem that when taxpayers or voters tell the House what they want it does not get accomplished. The member mentioned the Premier of Newfoundland that he has realized all of a sudden that to deal with the federal government is not a simple as he thought before. We have seen it through history time and time again. One very prominent Liberal recently told me that in two national Liberal conventions they passed a motion that would promote a triple-E Senate. The Liberal conventions have recognized that there should be a change in that other place but it has not happened.

Can the hon. member tell me what kind of vehicle do we need to get the wishes of taxpayers and voters accomplished in the House instead of being ignored?

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, time and time again people in this country raise a cry for changes. They raise a cry for changes to the Young Offenders Act and they raise a cry for changes to the Senate. We look at polls across the country for the last several decades there have been cries for a return to capital punishment.

I look at all these issues. Yet even though there have been free votes in the House of Commons on these issues, the will of the people has not been reflected.

There is a profound problem with our democracy when the will of the people, the will of the clear majority in this land, cannot bring forward law and have it enacted. There is a profound sickness and problem with what we have as an institution. That is why we need to see more free votes.

We are talking about real free votes. That means we do not have the government whips and the Prime Minister's office come down on the backs of the backbenchers in the governing party, the Liberal Party of today, and tell them that the government will fall because of having a free vote, because they cast their ballot, they vote nay or yea as their constituents would want them to vote.

That is why it is important that we bring forward a formal vote of non-confidence. That way if a money bill or any other bill falls, the government does not fall. There would have to be a formal vote of non-confidence in order for the government to fall.

That would free up backbenchers not only on the government side but in every party to vote the wishes of their constituents. That little change would help advance democracy.

Another one would be for us to have initiative so that taxpayers, citizens, constituents could go ahead with a petition and sign up their neighbours door to door. With that process they would be able to put on the ballot in the next election, to save taxpayer money because people have brought up the costs of democracy, a question of whether they want to see a return to capital punishment, whether they want to see an elected Senate, whether they want to see substantive changes to the Young Offenders Act or the faint hope clause, section 745. On all these types of things there has been vast public outcry.

With more free votes, with a formal vote of non-confidence, with recall legislation to get rid of a member of parliament who does not represent their will, with initiative all these things can be accomplished. We need also to reform the Senate.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we were talking about Bill C-20, although that seems like a long time ago after what we have just been through.

Bill C-20, in a nutshell, is about two things that we need to deal with today. The whistleblowing aspect for telemarketing fraud is first and foremost. Second is an issue we have not heard talked about much today, the prenotification of mergers process, the attempts to strengthen and simplify this process.

The reason I raise this is that it is a matter of record. The NDP did not vote in favour of Bill C-20 when it came up last spring and that was our reservation about the bill.

We applauded the effort to clean up telemarketing fraud and to implement whistleblower protection for employees. That certainly is in keeping with our policy. We are very pleased to see any reference to whistleblowing raised.

We could not vote in favour of Bill C-20 due to this other aspect, the prenotification of mergers process with which we simply were not comfortable. The reason we are dealing with Bill C-20 today is that it went through third reading. It went to the Senate and came back to us with amendments, the key amendment being the elimination of any reference to whistleblowing.

This is a great disappointment to us. We are very much of the mind that it is time to recognize whistleblowing protection in our public service and in the private sector. We believe good managers would welcome whistleblowing because it helps to alert them to wrongdoing of any sort throughout the enterprise over which they might have jurisdiction.

Certainly in the public sector our managers could use an improved level of whistleblowing to alter them to, for instance, the misuse of funds within their own government agencies.

Whistleblowing is an issue we have been hearing a great deal about in labour circles. The trade union movement has recognized for a great deal of time the need for whistleblowing protection because actually in common law the obligation of loyalty to the employer is paramount.

If an employee blows the whistle on some sort of wrongdoing and causes some inconvenience for the employer, discipline is actually justified in that case, especially if the employee is mistaken, even if they turned in the circumstances without any malice and with the best of intentions.

If the employee was wrong without any saving clauses in legislation to back them up, they could be disciplined and even discharged from their workplace for pointing out these wrongdoings.

Whistleblowing is key and paramount to backing up workers and helping them feel comfortable with alerting the public or their employer about wrongdoing of any kind. Telemarketing fraud, we heard today, a $100 million a year problem, lends itself to this kind of manipulation of employees or intimidation or coercion.

These are often poorly paid employees working in a call centre of some type. If the employer is an employer who would willingly undertake fraudulent enterprises or criminal activity, chances are pretty good they are not a very good employer either. They are the type of employer who would intimidate, coerce, harass the employees for blowing the whistle on them or for even threatening to or for even revealing to the public the true nature of the fraudulent enterprise that is going on.

I believe we need to do everything we can to clean up the telemarketing industry. I think it is actually rife with fraud. Frankly, the direct marketing people welcome any legislation that would help improve the image of that industry.

I do not think there is a lower form of animal than the telemarketing fraud practitioner who would take advantage of often seniors or shut-ins or people who are vulnerable and incapable of making good judgment about the products they have been asked to purchase.

I have a personal experience with this. An elderly relative of mine was in her late nineties when she started being harassed by unscrupulous telemarketing companies which by the way seem to share lists.

Once one gets its hooks into a senior citizen, the others seem to come in like vultures. It seems a whole series of sales people have started to harass this elderly relative of mine and have taken her for most of her life savings. For instance, absolutely fraudulent work has been done to her home. One salesman told her on the phone that her chimney looked like it was pulling away from her house. Being in her late nineties she was not able to go outside to see whether or not it was true. They sold her a $5,000 fix-it job to reattach the chimney to her house.

Being in the building trades, when I went to visit her next and learned of this I went outside to look at the chimney and found that it had never been leaning away from the house and had never been fixed. It is absolute, blatant fraud. They realized that they had a live one on the wire because she was a single woman in her late nineties living alone and with only home care.

We have an obligation to do everything in our power to try to stop that kind of activity. I compliment aspects of Bill C-20 if there is anything we can do to limit this type of activity.

I said this was the lowest form of animal in my mind, the person who would deliberately defraud vulnerable people or shut-ins. Frankly I have more respect for somebody who would mug than somebody who would cheat in this fashion. I have more admiration for somebody who sticks someone up and steals a wallet. At least they can see it coming; the person is being forthright about it. However this kind of stealth is a reprehensible problem.

We would stop more of these people if we had this whistleblower protection and employees who have been engaged, and often against their will, in sucking these people would feel comfortable in blowing the whistle. If there were some wrongdoing going on we would be able to stop more of them.

It is a coincidence that today I plan on handing down to the journals branch my own whistleblowing legislation in the form of a private member's bill. It is very thorough and comprehensive. It deals with the Public Service Staff Relations Act. I am hoping that other members of parliament will see fit to support it. As I say, good managers welcome whistleblowing because it points to all kinds of opportunities for savings or efficiencies within the system.

Bill C-20, as we expect, will go through. The NDP is pleased to say that we can support the motion made by the Minister of Industry today. I listened to the minister's remarks and I found that I could associate myself with them quite easily. It is quite honourable that we are trying to do something about the fraud that exists in that industry.

One of the biggest issues is the reporting of price fixing. This is one aspect the minister pointed out. We believe the Direct Marketing Association, as I mentioned, is eager to have the reputation of its industry improved, and it will be done through this regulation. I should point out that it is not a heavy-handed regulation. It is not interference in the free market by any stretch of the imagination. This is regulation for consumer protection and for the well-being of this rapidly growing industry.

I am pleased to say that the NDP will be voting in favour of the motion. I am also pleased that there will at least be some reference, even without the kind of penalties that we would like, in Bill C-20 to whistleblower protection.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from February 3 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 Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Wentworth—Burlington. I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for proposing a much needed update of the Citizenship of Canada Act.

The minister has put forward a series of initiatives to update citizenship and immigration legislation and procedures. These efforts represent a very welcome change in some Canadian institutions that will play a key role in our country's future.

Our existing citizenship act was well suited to the time when it was last revised in 1977. However, with all the changes we have seen over the past couple of decades and with the wide array of interpretations the term resident has been subjected to, it is time to revise our legislation to reflect today's social, political and economic realities.

It is also important that we include changes to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. As an immigrant to Canada I have a keen sense of this great value as do my family and millions of other Canadians who are grateful for the chance they have been given to become citizens of this country.

The new act is a step in the right direction for all of us since it helps to promote the great value of Canadian citizenship. That is important for those of us who already possess this valuable asset. It is just as important for those who want to become Canadian citizens.

As we all know we owe a lot of our global prominence to new Canadians, their hard work and their contacts. An increasingly global outlook is one of the keys to Canada's future as are new Canadians and their initiatives and the new Citizenship of Canada Act.

I will reflect with my fellow members of parliament on the history of Canadian citizenship, which is about people coming from all corners of the planet to build a country characterized by tolerance, generosity and compassion, a country that represents a beacon of hope in an often troubled world torn by strife, wars and intolerance. Citizenship is about people and nation building. Its evolution represents the very essence of our collective identity as a people.

Nation as a concept relies in large measure on citizenship and the evolution of citizenship represents the very essence of our collective identity as a people.

As many of us will remember, the creation of Canadian citizenship was an initiative of Paul Martin Senior who served at the time as Canadian secretary of state. At the end of World War II, as Mr. Martin walked among the graves of soldiers in Dieppe, France, he recognized the names of several soldiers from his hometown. He was struck by the fact that despite the different ethnic origins of their names they were all Canadians. He decided it was high time to work toward recognition for Canadian citizenship.

The Citizenship Act of 1947 marked the beginning of a new era in our history. To emphasize its importance Prime Minister Mackenzie King was the recipient of the first certificate of Canadian citizenship. After World War II Canada experienced an unprecedented increase in its population. As the population of our country grew and changed and our Canadian identity gained in stature worldwide, the concept of citizenship evolved leading parliament to review the original Canadian Citizenship Act. A revised act came into effect in 1977.

More than 21 years have passed since the last major amendments were made. Over that time Canada has changed. The world has changed. It is important and necessary for our legislation to reflect those changes and strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship.

I point to the features of the new act that contribute to strengthening the value of our citizenship. New criteria for attribution of citizenship are certainly a big step in that direction. By proposing clearly defined precise requirements we can now rely on a more effective decision making process. These criteria guarantee that new Canadian citizens will be deeply committed to our country and its values.

In the case of children born to Canadian parents who no longer reside in this country, the transitional citizenship is limited to the second generation. This means that the second generation of Canadians born abroad will obtain citizenship at birth but lose it at the age of 28 unless they live in Canada before that time. The residency requirement is three years of physical presence within a five year period. Successive generations of Canadians born abroad cannot obtain Canadian citizenships unless they meet the same requirements as any other participant.

These new requirements have been established because we strongly believe that to preserve the value of Canadian citizenship we must ensure that all people who are Canadian citizens develop and maintain real links with Canada.

It is also with this in mind that we have introduced important changes in the requirements for permanent residence. Under the new act applicants for Canadian citizenship have to prove that they have spent three years out of five years in the country. This requirement is a good way to ensure applicants are well acquainted with Canadian society, our lifestyle and our values. By meeting the requirements these future Canadians will demonstrate their commitment to participate fully in the life of our society.

At the same time, as the minister pointed out, the new act also introduces a more flexible framework for application of these conditions by giving them five years instead of four to go through this requirement. Furthermore, applicants will be expected to have sufficient knowledge of one of the country's two official languages. They will have to be familiar with values of Canadian society and demonstrate that familiarity without the help of an interpreter. With these well defined criteria the decision making process will be simple, clear and effective.

Currently over 90% of citizenship applications are straightforward. Each application must nonetheless be approved by a citizenship judge. This process is long and costly. With the new act decisions will be based on criteria already set out in law and will therefore be more expeditious.

Another way to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship is to promote it actively. With a more effective decision making process in place our citizenship judges will now be called citizenship commissioners and will have more time to promote the values symbolized by citizenship across the country. Not only will they continue to be ambassadors of citizenship within the context of citizenship ceremonies, but they will extend that role to other community events in order to reach more people and make Canadian citizens more aware of the responsibilities and advantages of being Canadian.

The appointment criteria for citizenship commissioners are defined in the new act. We believe they will foster consistency and ensure the commissioners are outstanding citizens with solid track records. Our new commissioners will be Canadians who have been publicly recognized for their important contribution to civic life and have demonstrated their attachment to the values embodied in Canadian citizenship.

The new act also includes measures to enhance the protection of Canadian citizenship. The vast majority of applicants for citizenship are law-abiding individuals who contribute greatly to our country, to daily life and to the growth of Canada. In the pursuit of our objective to be properly prepared to face the occasional difficulty we have added new measures.

The proposed act sets out a new prohibition. This includes the power to refuse citizenship in the public interest. The proposed act also gives the minister new authority to cancel citizenship in cases where it was obtained by using a false identity while the individual was not entitled to citizenship due to a criminal offence. It has more severe sanctions for offences.

As the minister mentioned, we are also proposing to revise our oath of citizenship. Like the other modifications we are suggesting that this proposal evolve from extensive consultations.

Canadians say they want our oath to reflect our contemporary values. They also want clearer references to loyalty to Canada. Our existing oath has not been updated since it was first introduced over a half century ago. The oath clearly states our allegiance to Canada and its values as well as our allegiance to the head of state. The words express a strong commitment to these values. I would also like to remind all my colleagues that the citizenship act is the result of extensive efforts initiated by the minister to respond to Canadians and their concerns.

The act is the result of a lengthy consultation to modernize one of our most valuable assets, our Canadian citizenship, with full respect for our Canadian identity, values and traditions.

As can be appreciated, the changes proposed in the new act are designed to strengthen this most valuable asset, Canadian citizenship. Therefore I ask all members of the House to support the new citizenship act.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually nervous about speaking to Bill C-63. I, who have spoken in the House perhaps 60 to 70 times without notes, am nervous this time. It is because of the nature of the subject.

First of all the circumstances of my speech. I learned that Bill C-63 was on the order paper just late Wednesday morning. I hurried over for question period to get a copy of the bill and to study it, because I had not looked at it before, just in time for the opening ceremonies on Wednesday which involves, as the House knows, the singing of O Canada. I came in here just on time. I was not on House duty, but the others were gathered on the other side and I stood next to the member for St. John's and sang with her. In O Canada is “God keep our land glorious and free”.

Then I sat in my place as question period unfolded and the Prime Minister answered questions from the opposition on various subjects. I read the proposed oath of citizenship that my colleague has just mentioned that has been put forward with Bill C-63. My heart sank.

I am sorry I do not share the view of the parliamentary secretary that this oath of citizenship really does reflect what we are as a country. The parliamentary secretary explained to me subsequently that it was something created by consensus, by consultation.

I suggest that sometimes consensus and consultation is not the way to go and where really one has to come to that place and to those people who deal every day with what it is to be a Canadian as part of their lives, as part of their professions perhaps to get an idea of what an oath of citizenship should be all about.

The oath begins: “From this day forward I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada”. Loyalty and allegiance are synonyms. They are the same words. So we begin the new oath to take us into the next millennium with a redundancy.

It goes on: “We pledge allegiance to Canada, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada”. This is another redundancy. When I pledge allegiance to Canada I pledge allegiance to all Canada's democratic institutions. I pledge allegiance to this parliament. I pledge allegiance to the Queen. So long as the Queen is the Queen of Canada I pledge allegiance to the Queen whenever I pledge allegiance to Canada.

In other words, I am a monarchist. It is just that I am not so sure that we need in this part the Queen along with pledging allegiance to Canada, because I feel it is something of a redundancy.

The oath goes on: “I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms and defend democratic values and faithfully observe our laws and fulfil the duties and obligations of a Canadian citizen”.

This does not capture what it is to be a Canadian. These are generalities. Yet in this place every day we debate very fundamental values that drive this country. One cannot be a member of parliament for more than a week or two before one realizes the five real principles that drive this country, that make this country free, that make this country Canada.

Those five principles are equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law.

That day in question period we dealt with all those issues because always, in a country like Canada, the issues that have to be dealt with in parliament are the issues where we try to balance those five principles, where we balance the rule of law with basic human rights.

On that day in question period we dealt with hepatitis C, the problem of a ruling on child pornography and similar things. All these things deal with this balancing act on the five principles of Canada and Canadian freedom.

My biggest disappointment when reading the new oath was that there was no reference to God. Do members realize that among all the major nations that accept new citizens, we are the only country that has dropped God from our oath of citizenship. Australia has “under God” in its oath. Great Britain has “Almighty God” in its oath. New Zealand and the United States have “so help me God” in their oath.

We did have it at one time, 1976 I think it was, but for some reason it was decided that “so help me God” was not important in Canada's oath and it was dropped subsequently.

I am not a deeply religious person but I believe there is an eternal presence, there is something more, some higher authority, a higher authority than parliament, a higher authority than the country. We have reason to count our blessings as Canada. Those blessings emanate from a higher presence, from God.

I am a member of a village church, the United Church of Canada. I am not a terribly regular churchgoer but I do go. The stained glass window is yellow. As the minister may be speaking or the choir singing, that window lights up with sunlight. I sit in my pew and think how grateful I am to be among my people, my community, how grateful I am to be a Canadian where there are no wars and no strife, where I can feel at home with people who love one another. I know that is a heck of a thing to say but that does happen in church. That is what church is all about.

During the referendum crisis in 1995 the Liberals had a lot more seats than now and there was an overflow on the opposition side. I had a seat on the opposite side, right next to the opposition, that faced toward the Prime Minister.

One of my most moving memories was during that debate on the referendum crisis to see the Prime Minister attempting to defend the country he believed in, in the most crucial moment of his life trying to defend Canada against what was a real questioning of whether Canada should stay united.

I could see the Prime Minister trying to find the words and trying to speak and he would look over my way because I suppose the camera was directly behind me and he could address the Canadian people. I could look into the Prime Minister's eyes as he spoke and I knew the passion he was feeling.

In the context of that I could look up to the northwest window, the Ontario window, and the sunlight would invade the glass of that window. That window is comprised of trilliums and at the very top the three maple leaves of Canada. The trillium of course is the trinity and the trillium that was chosen for that glass is not all white. It is stained red.

When we make these associations we realize there has to be a bit more than just words, more than just things, there has to be something that is greater than all of us that does give these blessings that make us Canada, that make us Canadian.

I have to think that 99.99% of new people coming from anywhere in the world come from cultures where there is a god. It may not be the God of Christ. It may be the god of another great religion but still there would be a god and I think they would expect to see an oath of citizenship that contains the word god, an invocation to God.

I sat here today among my colleagues with the encouragement of the members for Brampton West—Mississauga and for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey. I made an effort to write a new and different oath of citizenship. I wrote it right here. This is not a prop. This a piece of paper on which I jotted my notes during question period. This is what I wrote.

I wrote “In pledging my allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second”, and the next part was difficult because I did not want to say promise. I did not know what words to use and then it occurred to me with the encouragement of my colleagues: “I take my stand, I take my place among Canadians”, and the rest of it flowed very easily, “united before God whose sacred trust is to uphold five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law”.

It flowed so much more easily in French:

En prêtant allégeance au Canada, je me compte au nombre des Canadiens qui sont unis par leur foi en Dieu et leur attachement à cinq grands principes: l'égalité des chances, la liberté d'expression, les valeurs démocratiques, le respect des droits de la personne et la primauté du droit.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for a very good speech.

I have often wondered about these same things, how we can possibly detach ourselves from any anchor in our society. That has happened to a great extent.

While I am also a Christian believer, one who believes in the Scriptures and the teaching of the Bible and tries to the best of my ability to follow those instructions given and to worship God and lead my family in that, I have a very serious and practical question. It is one with which I have battled.

When it comes to matters of faith belief we ought to be in a mode of persuasion and not of coercion. I am aware that to a degree when one gives an oath if one does not want to minimize the meaning of it it has to be one that people can freely respond to in sincerity. I think of the oath we take in becoming members of parliament. I do not want to cast any aspersions against any of my colleagues here but there were some members of the House whom I do not really see how they could in sincerity give that pledge and that oath. How do we balance the coercion and the temptation to insincerity in giving the oath with actually having the oath in place as he suggests?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that God is excluded from very few people. I think the god that we refer to in any oath that emanates from this parliament or from this country is a god of all people in all religions, or all religions and all people, if you will.

In this sense, even the atheist has a place with God and it is appropriate for any of us to acknowledge that there is something higher than humanity. We may define it in many different ways, but there is something higher than humanity. We know that when we see things beautiful. We know that when we see our freedoms.

The mistake that has occurred in the past is that people thought when they put God into oaths it was a god of some particular religion, but it is not. It is the God eternal.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-63. Before I begin I would like to compliment my colleague from Wentworth—Burlington for his very passionate and heartfelt speech and for his willingness to be open to share some of himself with us. Often we do not take the time to do that and I appreciate it.

I would like to frame my comments toward this bill in the context of what I see to be a major problem within the current immigration system. I make that comment very clearly, once again, with the immigration system, not with the concept of immigration. Immigration is a positive contribution to Canada. Canada is a country built on immigration. No one disputes that fact. That is a part of our great history.

I would say that there are some serious and very glaring problems within our immigration system which need to be addressed. They have been brought to the attention of the minister and the government, not just by opposition members but by many different groups from around the country in a number of different areas. In fact, I would be so bold as to say that the immigration system is broken and it appears as though the minister is either unwilling or unable to fix it.

I make those comments not flippantly and not in a rhetorical manner. I have had the opportunity to study the system over the last year and half and it has come to my attention that there are some very serious problems which need to be addressed that have not been addressed.

When we see a problem, when we see a concern with something, when we know there is a problem and yet we fail to take action, then we also fail to take the responsibility for that lack of action and the consequences which flow from it.

I would say that there are some serious consequences as a result of many inactions within our immigration system.

I will move on to address some of the information that the minister has shared with us in the tabling of the bill. I would first point out that the current minister has been the minister for three years and this is the first substantive legislation she has brought forward. I have some questions as to why it is that this would be her first piece of legislation when there are many other issues at hand right now. I am not saying that this is not important legislation, but in my mind and in the minds of many of my colleagues, we do not see this as being the top priority. There are some glaring concerns that need to be addressed which simply are not addressed through this legislation.

The problems within the immigration system are most strongly felt by those individuals who are part of the immigrant community and who have come to Canada recently. The comments they share with me are that if the government is concerned about fixing the system, why is it that it does not do anything when it sees a problem?

In essence, the individuals within the immigrant community are then painted with the same brush as the very few individuals who would cause problems within the system. They want the abuses to the immigration system to be addressed and fixed. They are, in many ways, finding their concerns falling on deaf ears.

I would like to point out one situation. This is an issue that has been brought up by opposition and by many people across the country, by lots of different groups. It is a situation that is happening in the Vancouver, British Columbia area right now having to do with people who are abusing the system because of a loophole.

Some individuals have come to Canada and have claimed refugee status falsely. As a result of that, they have abused the system. That is not the only problem. Many of the individuals who have falsely claimed refugee status have been selling drugs on the streets of Vancouver. Again, it is a small number of individuals.

This is a serious problem and it is having a huge impact in the downtown east side of Vancouver. It is spreading into the suburb areas around Vancouver, to the areas of New Westminster, Surrey and elsewhere. This is a concern that has been brought up over and over again. There appears to be very little response coming back in any substantive way from the minister.

Again I make the point that when someone knows something is wrong, when someone knows there is a problem, when they can see it staring them in the face and they can see the effect it is having on individual lives, on individual people, on the young people and others living in these communities, and yet they fail to take action, it is a dereliction of responsibility.

That is exactly the position that the current minister is in. There are individuals who are calling for changes, calling for something that I have suggested, which is an expedited process for those individuals who have been charged with drug trafficking.

Many of these individuals, prior to or upon their arrest for dealing drugs, have claimed refugee status. In our current immigration system they go into the mill. They go into the waiting line with all the other individuals to have their refugee status determined.

The problem is that there is no differentiation between those individuals who are flagrantly abusing the system and those individuals who are genuine refugees in need of Canada's protection. They all go into the same grouping.

It could take up to a year and a half or two years before anything is done to settle the claim the individuals have made. A simple answer to that problem would be to have an expedited process where those individuals who were brought up on these drug charges would be processed quickly to see whether they are truly refugees and then removed from the country if it is found that in fact they have made a false claim.

Why not do it quickly? Why not deal with the issue and solve the problem? It is something that the minister could do today. It is something she could do today if she had the willingness to do it.

I can only conclude that it is her lack of action, her lack of responsibility in moving on this issue and others that points to the fact that she is either unable or unwilling to make that change.

There are many other areas that fall into that same category, where there are individuals who are abusing our system, abusing the goodwill of Canadians, without any action being taken. Again, it is a small number of individuals who are causing the problem, the people who are abusing the system.

Word is out on the street internationally that Canada is an easy place to get to. Canada is an easy place to make a false claim. When a refugee claim is made, the claimant is entitled to all the rights of a citizen, apart from being able to vote. They have access to free medical care, welfare payments and legal aid. What is very insulting about this current situation is that these individuals are taking advantage of Canadians. They are taking advantage of us. Something could be done, but it is not being done, and that is unacceptable.

They are talking advantage of legitimate claimants. They are taking time and resources from the immigration department which could be used to deal with individuals who are truly refugees. Those resources are going to process individuals who are undeserving of our protection, who have committed criminal acts, who have made a false claim and who are not in need of the protection of this country. They are here for sometimes two or three years. I have heard of cases where individuals have been here for five to ten years. That is unconscionable and something needs to be done about it.

When we bring up these issues we are rebuffed by the government in a harsh manner. We are told that we are not supportive of immigration, which is patently false. I cannot emphasize that enough. The fact that we want to fix the system shows we care about immigration. We will fix the system, given the chance to do so, while government members sit idly, twiddling their thumbs, in the face of these issues. We will bring positive change. We will bring those things that need to be addressed and fixed to the forefront and deal with them quickly because they are of great concern.

A couple of government members have made statements like the following when we have brought up this issue. It is a glaring issue. There seems to be a contradiction. The Liberal member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, in a recent letter to his constituents, stated “I happen to believe that by deporting refugee claimants convicted of dealing drugs we would be taking a major step forward in the fight against the illegal sale of drugs. They should be deported immediately, with no review or appeal allowed to drag things out”. It seems a bit extreme to me that a government member would be suggesting that.

Other members of the government have said in committee that the official opposition does not support immigration. I cannot agree with that. It is patently false. We want the minister to move forward with positive change. If she is going to sit idly by and do nothing when these problems continue to happen over and over again, let her stand aside, let her government stand aside, because we will do the job. We will move forward with positive change and we will take care of the issues that Canadians are asking be dealt with, rather than having a government that sits idly on its hands and watches these things happen over and over again with absolutely zero response. That is unconscionable.

We will move forward in a positive manner and make the changes necessary to address not only this department but other departments in need of great change.

I could go on at length and name those areas but I do believe my time has drawn to a close.