Debates of May 10th, 2000

Citizenship Of Canada Act

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-16, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 2 with the following: a ) the person is born in Canada of a father or mother who was a citizen or a permanent resident at the time of the birth; or”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-16, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 22 on page 4 with the following: a ) beginning on the day on which the person claimed Convention refugee status under the Immigration Act and ending on the day before the person became a permanent resident, or”

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-16, in Clause 8, be amended a ) by replacing line 11 on page 5 with the following:

“8. (1) Subject to section 8.1, the Minister shall, on application, grant” b ) by adding after line 24 on page 5 the following:

(2) For greater certainty, the Province of Quebec shall continue to have full jurisdiction in respect of international adoptions, including the acceptance of any psychosocial assessment of adoptive parents and the issue of a letter of no objection to the adoption of a child.

8.1 The Minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to a minor child adopted outside Canada by a citizen domiciled or ordinarily resident in Quebec, although the adoption procedure has not yet been completed in accordance with the laws of Quebec, if ( a ) the adoption is not intended to circumvent the requirements under any enactment for admission to Canada or citizenship; and ( b ) the adoption proposal has been approved by the administrative authority designated for that purpose by the minister of the government of Quebec responsible for international adoptions."

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-16, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 22 with the following:

“sections 8 and 8.1 have been met;”

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-16, in Clause 55, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 38 on page 27 with the following:

“55. Proceedings in relation to an application made under the Citizenship Act, chapter C-29 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, pending on the day on which section 72 of this Act comes into force, must be dealt with under that Act.”

[The Deputy Speaker]

With regard to Motion No. 4, notice was given by the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park but there were other movers. Is the hon. member for Lakeland moving this motion?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-16, in Clause 16, be amended a ) by replacing lines 5 to 12 on page 7 with the following:

“16. (1) Where the Federal Court—Trial Division, on a proceeding commenced by the Minister under prior legislation or an action commenced by the Minister under this section, or the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of an appeal or appeals, has finally decided, on a balance of probabilities or by default, that a person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed citizenship by false representation or fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances, the Court shall make an order revoking the citizenship of that person or the renunciation of citizenship by that person if it has not already been revoked under prior legislation.” b ) by replacing line 14 on page 7 with the following:

“that the Court specifies in the” c ) by replacing line 16 on page 7 with the following:

“(3) For the purposes of this Act and prior legislation, a person”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-16, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 43 on page 7 and lines 1 to 8 on page 8 with the following:

“17. (1) A decision by the Federal Court—Trial Division under subsection 16(1) and a decision by any person, body or court performing similar functions under prior legislation, that a person has or has not obtained, retained, renounced or resumed citizenship by false representation or fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances, may be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal with the leave of the Federal Court of Appeal.

(2) Where citizenship or a renunciation of citizenship has been revoked under prior legislation and the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada finally decides, on a balance of probabilities or by default, on an appeal with the leave of that Court, that the person in question did not obtain, retain, renounce or resume citizenship by false representation or fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances, that revocation shall be deemed not to have occurred.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-16, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 43 to 48 on page 11 and lines 1 to 6 on page 12 with the following:

“24. (1) With the consent of the Prime Minister of Canada, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the leader in the House of Commons of each party having at least 12 members sitting in that House, the Governor in Council may appoint a retired judge of a superior court for a period of three to five years to perform the duties and have the powers and functions of a Review Committee described in subsections 23 (4), (5) and (6).”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-16, in Clause 31, be amended a ) by replacing line 22 on page 15 with the following:

“31. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the Governor in Council may” b ) by adding after line 25 on page 15 the following:

“(1.1) The Governor in Council shall not appoint a person who has been convicted of an offence under section 39 or 40 as a Citizenship Commissioner.”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-16, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 16 with the following:

“32. Subject to the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to citizenship and immigration, the Minister may designate a Citizen-”

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-16, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 21 with the following: b ) subject to alternative resolution of the House of Commons, specifying who may make an applica-”

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-16, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 22 with the following: e ) subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons, providing for criteria to determine”

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-16, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 22 with the following: i ) subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons, defining what constitutes a relationship”

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-16, in Clause 43, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 22 the following: i .1) subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons, defining the expression “best interests of the child”;”

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-16, in Clause 43, be amended by adding after line 40 on page 22 the following: j .1) defining the expression "public interest" for the purposes of section 21;”

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-16 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 23 the following new clause:

“43.1 The coming into force of any regulations made by the Governor in Council under paragraph 43( c ) is subject to approval of the regulations by the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to citizenship.”

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-16, in Clause 33, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 17 the following:

“(2.1) The Commissioner presiding over a citizenship ceremony shall, during the ceremony and in the presence of a representative of the Government of Quebec, give to every new citizen residing in Quebec a copy of the following documents and an explanation of their purpose:

(i) the Charter of the French Language (R.S.Q., c. C-11);

(ii) the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (R.S.Q., c. C-12);

(iii) the Election Act (R.S.Q., c. E-3.3); and

(iv) the Declaration by the Government of Quebec on Ethnic and Race Relations, signed on December 10, 1986.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 23

That the oath of citizenship in the Schedule to Bill C-16 be replaced with the following:

“In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by God whose sacred trust is to uphold these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights, and the rule of the law.”

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-16, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 19 with the following:

“not more than $60,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than seven years, or to”

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-16, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 19 with the following:

“more than $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both.”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-16, in Clause 39, be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 19 with the following:

“$60,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than seven years, or to both, if the person”

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-16, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing line 44 on page 20 and line 1 on page 21 with the following:

“not more than $150,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than ten years, or to”

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-16, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 21 with the following:

“more than $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both.”

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise at report stage debate on Bill C-16.

This bill has come up twice before, having started through the process and having failed for various reasons. It was started in this parliament again at first reading which was a surprise. It had been through committee once before but there was need for a lot of change. Unfortunately not nearly enough change was made to the bill to make it acceptable.

Many of the motions I propose today will improve the bill. If they are all accepted, they will improve it to a point where maybe we could support the bill. It is certainly in need of change. I start by speaking to the Group No. 1 amendments.

Motion No. 1 deals with the issue of citizenship at birth for people born in Canada. For the past several years any child born in Canada automatically becomes a citizen. Whether or not one of the child's parents was a citizen, whether or not one of the child's parents was a landed immigrant, it did not matter. If someone was just here on a visit or in our country illegally, it did not matter; if the child was born in Canada the child automatically obtained Canadian citizenship. This remains in the new act in spite of many concerns raised which I will talk about. Any child born in Canada, even if born of a person who is in our country illegally, will automatically become a citizen.

This concern has come up several times before. I deal with this concern in my amendment. My amendment would ensure that a child would only become a citizen if one of the parents was either a landed immigrant or a citizen. My proposal will ensure that the child will take the citizenship of a parent. Most Canadians see that as being reasonable.

Most Canadians understand that there is a lot of abuse of the current system. People come to our country as visitors or come here illegally and have children born in our country knowing that those children will automatically become Canadian citizens. That has an impact in particular because of the Mavis Baker case to which I am going to refer in detail. Due to court rulings and the inaction of the government, there are situations where people claim that because they have a child who was born in Canada, even though they were here illegally at the time the child was born, it would be wrong to remove the parent from the country because the child is a Canadian citizen.

This issue was taken to court by Mavis Baker last year and the courts ruled on it. Mavis Baker was in the country illegally for years and had been ordered to leave the country on several occasions. She had children born in Canada. These children became Canadian citizens. In spite of all that, the court ruled that Ms. Baker would be allowed to stay in Canada. One of the main considerations was that her children were Canadian citizens. The court did not seem to consider that Mavis Baker could return to her home country, that the children would be citizens of that country and that they could live together as a family in the country of origin. The court did not consider that.

As a result and because of inaction on the part of the government, this situation will lead to a lot more abuse in the country. More people will come to our country illegally, have children and then use the argument that because they have a child who is a Canadian citizen they should be allowed to stay. I do not think anyone would deny that argument has been used for being allowed to stay in the country when people otherwise would not be allowed to stay. It is a problem.

I only have to refer to a recommendation of the House of Commons standing committee in 1994. Of course since 1993 House of Commons standing committees have had a majority of government members, as did that committee. The committee recommended that children born in Canada should be Canadian citizens only if one or both parents is a permanent resident or a Canadian citizen.

Did the government listen to the recommendation of that committee back in 1994? It was a very strong recommendation. The committee strongly encouraged the government to take it to heart and put it into law. That was in 1994. Here we are six years later and the government has ignored what the committee recommended.

That was not the only group that was really here at the will of the government. Again, that committee had a majority of government members. In voting the committee said that it wanted the law changed so that a child born in Canada would only be a Canadian citizen if he or she was born to one parent who was either a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant.

Also, the Immigration Legislative Review Advisory Group was set up by the government in 1997. In its report “Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration”, it made a comment on this issue. This is a quote from page 40 of the LRAG “Not Just Numbers” report which stated:

In our consultations across the country we heard concerns about the abuse of the provision of the Citizenship Act granting automatic citizenship to children born on Canadian soil. The government should collect data, study the real effects and determine whether current policy should be changed.

That was three years ago, and still the government has not taken this recommendation to heart and put it in legislation. I think this change is long overdue and will remove some of the abuse in our immigration system.

Back in 1998 during a press conference on Bill C-63, which was almost the same legislation as Bill C-16, the bill we are now debating, the former minister of immigration said that she made no changes to this clause because no research was done on how big the problem was. They had not done the study after six years and they would not make the change because they did not really know just how big the problem was. She knew that the committee was set up on behalf of the government and that the committees have said there was a problem. She did not know how big the problem was so she would not make the change.

That change was not made, which is very unfortunate. That is why I brought this amendment before the House today so that the change would be made and we would respect the will of Canadians expressed through various consultation processes.

The government has a terrible reputation for ignoring consultation when it consults. That is a sad commentary. People become very cynical about government when they see that time after time the results of its consultations are completely ignored. That is what has happened here.

The former minister acknowledged that this was a problem. On May 12, 1999, during a committee meeting discussing the legislation, Greg Fyffe, assistant deputy minister for policy and program development, was questioned on how long it would take to gather the data needed. He replied:

We're looking now at a pilot project with the provinces to see if we can collect the data properly. I think when we discussed this we were talking in terms of approximately three years, plus or minus, before we would have enough data to make a declaration on this

Here we are in 1999 and the minister and her department are saying after six years since the House of Commons committee reported, three years since the commission set up by the government reported and both recommended change, that they will establish a study to see just how big a problem it is. This is shameful.

The government should have made the change and then do the study. If it felt it had made the wrong change, if need be it could change it. Canadians supported the change so I doubt it would be wrong. I certainly do not believe it would be wrong.

There are several more motions in this group to which I would like to speak. However I will count on other of my colleagues to cover these issues since my time is up.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-16, particularly as we begin the debate on the motions in Group No. 1.

First of all, I deplore the fact that we are here debating this bill at report stage while the minister is appearing before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. There is something rather odd about that. But, as parliamentarians, we must be flexible and we will adapt to these realities.

Several members of this Parliament, like my colleagues on the committee, will remember the battle I led in committee with regard to clause 8, particularly on April 11, 12 and 13. Those who read the minutes of proceedings from the committee will notice that I raised a number of concerns about clause 8, which deals with international adoption.

Legal counsels for the Department of Immigration were present at the time. They had the opportunity to provide their interpretation of the impact of clause 8, but I expressed a number of reservations.

Why so many reservations when it comes to international adoption? There are, basically, two reasons, three even. The first is that it must be kept in mind that this is primarily a provincial area of jurisdiction, particularly in Quebec. The entire issue of international adoption comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec. I had indicated at that time in connection with this that, as long as there was no amendment to confirm Quebec's jurisdiction, it was clear that we would be bringing in amendments to clause 8.

At that time I said that I was concerned enough to think twice about supporting Bill C-16. On April 12, I raised my first question and expressed my first concern.

The second concern I expressed to the Immigration Canada legal adviser involved the specific nature of Quebec and one of the things that distinguishes it, namely the Civil Code, which is not, unfortunately, taken into consideration in Bill C-16, particularly in clause 8. I therefore expressed a second concern: the fact that the bill did not take the Civil Code into consideration.

My third area of concern was the discrimination I feel will affect Quebec children, and of course Quebec parents, during the processing of the adoption.

I must point out first of all that, under its legislation, Quebec is responsible for adoption, which is allowed only once the process is complete. The process is complete when the child arrives here in Canada, and more specifically on the territory of Quebec, and when a Quebec court hands down a decision. That is part of the system, of the reality and of the distinct nature of Quebec.

However, the bill, as it is worded, states that the adoption will be complete once the following criterion has been met, that the adoption “was in accordance with the laws of the place where the adoption took place and the laws of the country of residence of the adopting citizen”.

Clause 8 of the bill has a direct effect, because we think it discriminates to some extent against the children and the parents of Quebec. We also feel that there is some loss of benefits for the children and the parents. It is clear, moreover, that Quebec parents will not benefit, as will parents in the rest of Canada who decide to adopt abroad, from the same rights and benefits.

This amendment is fair, because I had already made the committee aware of it, on April 13. The deputy minister was in attendance at the hearings, and I was assured there would be bilateral negotiations, that Quebec's views, the Civil Code and Quebec's jurisdiction in the area of international adoptions would be respected.

The department's legal counsel went even further addressing this issue of bilateral work. It was not new. I remind the House that the international adoption secretariat, especially for Quebec, had made requests. It had indicated that it hoped bilateral work would be undertaken so that Quebec would be consulted in the various stages of the process, before the federal government granted citizenship.

It is not new. The minister woke up and her officials woke up two weeks before the passage of this bill, when the Bloc Quebecois said in committee that there was a problem. So things had to be activated and negotiations initiated.

Quebec gave negotiations a chance. As late as yesterday, the deputy ministers were talking. They wanted amendments to be made, they wanted the government to respond to the wishes expressed by the Government of Quebec so that Bill C-16 could conform to the Quebec Civil Code and the Quebec reality.

Now, close to 12 hours after these negotiations have failed, we have no other option. In committee, I told the minister that I would be patient and that I would not propose amendments. I said we would give bilateral negotiations a chance.

As members know, it is sometimes better to have a negotiated solution than direct proposals. Today, we have no alternative but to present this motion at report stage. That motion, which seeks to amend clause 8, reads as follows:

For greater certainty, the Province of Quebec shall continue to have full jurisdiction in respect of international adoptions, including the acceptance of any psychosocial assessment of adoptive parents and the issue of a letter of no objection to the adoption of a child.

We also proposed the following:

The Minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to a minor child adopted outside Canada by a citizen domiciled or ordinarily resident in Quebec, although the adoption procedure has not yet been completed in accordance with the laws of Quebec, if a ) the adoption is not intended to circumvent the requirements under any enactment for admission to Canada or citizenship; and b ) the adoption proposal has been approved by the administrative authority designated for that purpose by the minister of the government of Quebec responsible for international adoptions.

The amendment that we are proposing has already been submitted to the deputy minister. It was also communicated to the Minister of Immigration very recently, on May 9, in a letter from Minister Robert Perreault.

It is our hope that, even though negotiations have failed, the government will support this amendment, which only seeks to ensure respect of Quebec's Civil Code.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments in response to the motions brought forward by my colleague from Lakeland with respect to Bill C-16, beginning with Motion No. 1, which would amend clause 4.

While the intent of the motion seems to be reasonable, the reality is that the member is calling for quite a shift from the way Canada has been doing things for over 100 years and what many democracies around the world have been doing.

I do not understand the motivation for his motion, which would deny a child born in Canada the right to citizenship. The member is indicating that there is a problem. Aside from the very few cases that have been reported in the media, I do not believe there is a problem.

Many people were born in Canada while their parents were visiting or on a diplomatic assignment to our country. When these individuals returned to their home countries, many of the children turned out to be people who held high positions in their country's government and they became very good friends of Canada.

On many occasions when I served as a parliamentary secretary I came across people who were very successful in their own countries. The only link to Canada which these individuals had was the fact that they were born here, and they are very good friends of Canada.

Many Canadian diplomats and tourists travel abroad and give birth to children in foreign countries. Their children require citizenship in those countries.

This issue cuts both ways and I do not see it as being a problem. I do not consider it to be a major issue that we need to be concerned about. I hope to God we do not spend a lot of money studying the magnitude of this issue because I believe it is not a major problem.

I also want to make reference to Motion No. 2, which would amend clause 6 of Bill C-16. If a refugee claimant claims refugee status in Canada, he or she would be required to wait up to 365 days for citizenship.

I believe that what we have in place at the present time is fairly efficient and fairly good. A claimant who has already been accepted as a convention refugee can accumulate that period. I do not think that amendment to the legislation would make any sense at all.

I find that the two amendments put forward by my hon. colleague are a bit odd, a bit out of place and just do not fit into the bigger picture.

The member indicated in his first amendment that a child would have to be born to a person who is either a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant. What would happen in the situation where someone is a convention refugee and his child is born here? Would that mean we would have to start a process for the child in order to process the child through the system? That would create a huge amount of unnecessary paperwork and unnecessary complications.

It is my hope that the House will not support those two motions.

With respect to Motion No. 3 brought forward by a member of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Rosemont, new clause 8(2) is unnecessary because provincial jurisdiction over adoption is already provided for in the Constitution. The Citizenship of Canada Act in no way interferes with Quebec's authority in this regard. In addition, clause 8( c ) stipulates that citizenship may not be granted until the adoption is in accordance with the laws of Quebec.

If we were to approve the motion, citizenship would then be granted even though an adoption was not in accordance with the laws of Quebec.

In addition, the motion introduces the new concept of “domiciled or ordinarily resident”, which is incompatible with the definition of residence in the Citizenship of Canada Act, which requires physical presence.

The proposal does not take into account the criteria in clause 8, which were developed so as to cover both the best interests of the child as well as international adoption fraud.

Clause 8 has been drafted in such a way as to treat the provinces and territories on a equal footing, while ensuring that their respective adoption laws are respected without interference from the federal government.

We note the difference between the “laws of the country of residence” in the English text and “lieu de résidence” in the French. The English is the equivalent of the French. The applicable law involves all of a country's adoption legislation.

The term is general and was chosen because it was also necessary to take into account the adoption of a child in another country by a Canadian resident.

For Canada, “laws of the country of residence” can only refer to laws of the provinces and territories, because the Constitution has expressly given them full jurisdiction over adoption.

For all these reasons, the government will not be supporting this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that Canada is a country of immigrants. I too am one generation from an immigrant in that my American mother was born in Missouri. My oldest brother was born in North Dakota. At that time, of course, when immigration was taking place in the west, we did not experience many difficulties. We did not have all of these rules and regulations that we are discussing today.

It is of interest to know what we would do to our own citizens under this act. I refer to a border area where there are a lot of marriages on each side of the border. A lot of people move to the U.S. and are married by a justice of the peace. By necessity, a lot of people rush to hospitals in the U.S. because they are closer than the hospitals in Canada. Therefore, when they give birth in the U.S. the child is automatically a Canadian citizen by birth. There are problems.

We penalize our young people in this country who marry someone, particularly from the United States. It is more difficult perhaps in other areas. Let me cite two cases which I have had to deal with.

There is a young girl who lives not too far from where I live and she is going to a special school. As young people do, she fell in love. There is nothing new about that. She decided to get married. The complications that this girl faces in moving to the United States are unbelievable. It is a story book in itself, not just from the Canadian side but from the American side as well. There has to be a better way.

Let me give the House an example of the most recent case. There is a young fellow who has found a girl, I believe in Wisconsin. They fell in love. Guess what? They want to get married. Immediately the young fellow living in this country applied to bring his fiancée to Canada.

When I got married I was not asked how much money I had. If I had to measure up to Immigration Canada today I probably never would have been married because I never made that much money. When this young fellow applied to bring his spouse to Canada, the Department of Immigration said “No, your T-4 slip says you are not making enough money”. That was bad enough, but the young fellow had to put up $500 or $600 with his application. When he obtained proof that in the year 2000 he would be making considerably more money, Immigration Canada said he would have to resubmit his application. That represents another $500 or $600.

What I am saying to the House and to people across Canada is that when we mention the words citizenship and immigration they have bad connotations in many areas. People think of refugee status, the smuggling of refugees and people smuggling, and the inability to deport. Yet when it comes to our very own citizens, people of high quality, young people, we impose restrictions on them that should not exist.

I wish we could become more amenable to the idea of looking at people and their character and why they want to marry and live with their spouse without having to be married and then separated for a period of almost a year. That happens. That ought not to happen. There is no reason for that to happen. I have dealt with a case in which it took a man over a year to bring his wife to Canada, and there was no good reason for the delay.

We can discuss this bill all we like, but we have to look at what is happening within our country. All of the motions, all of these things, will not mean too much if we do not deal with reality. I am speaking particularly of our young people who choose a spouse outside Canada.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the amendments in Group No. 1 to Bill C-16 put forth by the critics for citizenship and immigration. I am not our party's critic for immigration. The critic for our party is the member for Compton—Stanstead, but I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments.

In dealing with the motion put forth by the member for Lakeland, our party does not agree that either the father or the mother should have to be a citizen or a permanent resident for a child to have Canadian citizenship. Citizenship in this country is precious and should not be thrown around frivolously. However, if someone is born on Canadian soil, he or she should be recognized as Canadian. It is for this reason that we have a problem with this amendment.

Concerning Motion No. 2, we do not feel that an individual should claim time toward permanent residency status after having made a refugee claim. When an individual makes a claim there is not even a guarantee that he or she will achieve refugee status. We support the present provision in the act, which states that a person begins claiming time toward permanent residency status once he or she has been determined to be a convention refugee.

With respect to Motions Nos. 3 and 17, the hon. member for Rosemont has been quite concerned about the adoption provisions for some time. The amendments he proposes solidify the fact that adoption is a provincial area of jurisdiction. We support the autonomy of the provinces in their areas of jurisdiction and would gladly support the hon. member for Rosemont; however, he specifies only jurisdictional powers over adoption for the province of Quebec. If the motion had specified all of the provinces in Canada we would have supported it.

We support Motion No. 22 put forward by the hon. member for Lakeland. During the course of debate on Bill C-16, this party raised concerns about the coming into force of this act. It stipulates in the bill that all citizenship cases will fall under the new act once it is proclaimed. We did not like this. What kinds of extra paperwork and headaches will this cause for cases which are smoothly making their way through the system under the current act? There should be some sort of cut off point for cases presently going through the system. Perhaps there could be a period of one year to give the department and applicants alike time for adjustment.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of the bill on which I must insist, and it concerns international adoptions.

Under this bill, an adopted child could be granted citizenship even before arriving in this country. This goes against current practice under the Quebec Civil Code.

What worries me here is not current practice in Quebec, which could be changed since the Quebec National Assembly has full power over its Civil Code. What I find troubling and even shocking here is to see a federal bill that goes completely against a practice under the Quebec Civil Code.

Quebec has the indisputable right to decide upon it own legislative practices under the Civil Code. It has always exercised that right. It is free to change its legislation as and when it sees fit. It does not have to follow dictates set out in federal legislation.

This is the fundamental problem I see with this bill. It is not the substance of the bill as such, but rather the tone of this federal attack on Quebec's civil legislation. With this bill, the federal government is interfering in an area that is beyond its jurisdiction. Ultimately, this bill, if passed, could even be challenged on this point in the courts, because it oversteps the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Provincial governments have rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and by tradition. The Civil Code, the content and form of which were recently revised in Quebec, forms a longstanding tradition going back two and a half centuries to an undertaking given by the British crown to the French crown that it would respect the French civil legislation known as the Napoleonic Code.

The rights enjoyed by Quebecers today are acquired rights dating from two and a half centuries ago, rights over their own civil legislation, and their own Civil Code, which differs from the British common law applicable in other provinces. These rights were agreed to by the British crown at the time of the conquest; they are rights which continue to apply, rights which the Confederation has guaranteed, rights which, to all intents and purposes, are constitutional.

What we are seeing today with this bill is an intrusion in a jurisdiction that belongs to Quebecers and to the National Assembly of Quebec.

My problem is with the approach, not with the issue of adoption itself. This approach is unacceptable. If this bill, as it stands, were to be passed by a majority of the members of this House, which would not include us, it would clearly leave itself open to a court challenge. We certainly do not want this for adoptions.

The Government of Quebec, in correspondence of May 9 to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration signed by the minister of public relations and immigration, Robert Perreault, proposed amendments that, without changing the essence and merits of the bill before us, would permit it to respect Quebec jurisdictions and avoid potential legal problems.

If this bill were to be passed, clearly Quebecers wanting to adopt a child abroad would not be able to take advantage of the measures otherwise available to them.

I appeal to the common sense and good judgement of this House. Whatever is necessary will have to be done to ensure that this bill honours the constitutional rights of the National Assembly of Quebec and the rights of the citizens of Quebec, my rights.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again speak on immigration issues. It has been some time I dare say since I held the portfolio of immigration critic.

I suppose, when we analyze it, not a whole lot has changed as far as cleaning up some of the problems within the immigration ministry as it reflects down to the immigration offices located in the various regions of the country, right down to the communities.

The first group of motions deal with a burning issue for a lot of people in our country, both for immigrants and those who were born here. Many of those immigrants who arrived years back, and even some more recently, struggled to reach the level required to be admitted into the country. While they were happy to have been accepted, they continued to struggle to meet the requirements of citizenship.

Another issue that has always been of concern to both them and others who have been established here for a long time, is the issue of children being born to visitors in our land and being granted citizenship at that point.

The minister is well aware of that particular issue. She was aware of the issue when she took office. The previous immigration minister was also aware of the issue when she took office, and so on down the line. I could go all the way back to when Sergio Marchi was the immigration minister. He was very well aware of the issue of children being born in Canada to parents who were not Canadian citizens but visitors. Each one claimed that they would look at the issue. They also agreed that it was an issue to a degree, but that they needed to know how important it really was.

When I served as the immigration critic, the matter came forward and the immigration minister at the time was going to examine the problem to see how significant it was; in other words, collect some data and make a decision. That was good because that was the way it should be done. In his two years in that portfolio he did absolutely nothing. I do not know if he even collected any data even though it was not very difficult to collect that kind of data. That has been the case with every Liberal immigration ministers since I have served in the House.

It is shameful to think that a minister or ministers procrastinated, stalled, refused and ignored those requests raised by both the opposition and Liberal backbenchers. I am sure there are members in the government who have raised this issue with their specific ministers. I do not think that is the response that should be coming from a minister.

I know the present minister stated that she made no changes to this clause because there was no research done on how big a problem the citizenship at birth issue really was. She further stated that hospital records do not request the nationality of parents and changing this would require provincial co-operation. Why does the minister not take a little trip over to the city of Vancouver? It is well known that a hospital there is a target for those visiting this country to do that very thing, to register their births in that hospital and with the province. One hospital in particular handles a number of them.

If the minister was truly concerned about collecting data, and I believe that the data is already there, she would make that effort and do it forthwith. Obviously, she does not want to do that. She does not want to question status quo immigration policy.

I have a problem with that. We must question status quo immigration policy. We have an immigration document or an immigration code that gets thicker every year. We bring in more and more legislation but none of it really corrects the problems that exist. If it is poor legislation or inadequate legislation, why are we here? Is it just so we can add to the immigration act year after year?

I have to shake my head at the ministers sitting across the floor who do not seem to want to correct some of the major or glaring issues of the day, specifically the immigration policy which is often generated from legislation. This is a great shortfall and there are series of flaws in the process and in the legislation. That it does not address serious problems concerns a number of Canadians. I will make the reference again. When I say “a number of Canadians”, I mean those who have come here as immigrants and have had to wait and wait in line and those who were born here.

I am in a quandary on how to get a point across to that side of the House on very significant issues which have been expressed time and time again and are of concern to Canadians in general. There has been no action taking place over there in spite of the fact that it has been raised numerous times. We have had five immigration ministers since 1993, the length of time reform and now the alliance has been in the House.

The government pointed out that it likes consultations. I can remember as an opposition critic for immigration that we were involved in consultations. The consultations consisted of dropping around to various spots in the country and talking to people in the department, to advocacy groups, to lawyers and to consultants.

We had consultation after consultation. Yet shortly after all the consultations took place, lo and behold an interdepartmental survey landed on the desks of several opposition members. That survey clearly outlined all the problems within the immigration department and even recommendations on how to fix them. There were not only serious breaches of policy but serious flaws within the act and how it was carried out.

I rest my case. The bill before us is inadequate. The issues of concern to most Canadians will not be addressed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen: