House of Commons Hansard #95 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was death.

Topics

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:45 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 36 minutes.

The House resumed from May 10 consideration of Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Group No. 3.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

David Price Progressive Conservative Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the Group No. 3 amendments to Bill C-16, the citizenship bill.

Motion No. 6 refers to the review committee and the appointment by the governor in council of retired judges. The amendment asks that opposition parties have a real say. In other words, the opposition parties should have the chance to consent, not simply for the government to consult them, as happens most of the time. We hear about what is going on, but in the end it ends up being a partisan appointment, hopefully of a qualified person, but that is not always the case.

Granted this position will be rarely used, since it would only be in the case where the review committee cannot come to a decision. I will be supporting this motion.

Motion No. 7, concerning clause 31, is an amendment that is totally logical. It states:

“(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.”

It seems so logical that I wonder why it has to be there. However, with the cases we have seen in the past it is probably a good idea.

Motion No. 8, referring to clause 32, is again an amendment that would give some input to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. In a good democracy that is the way it should be.

Motions Nos. 15 to 20, referring to clause 43, would bring the work on regulations back to the committee and the House. I agree, and that should be adopted also.

Motion No. 21 comes back to what all opposition parties have been saying probably forever, that the committees concerned should have a real and positive input, especially after all the time that is spent in committees reviewing, interviewing witnesses and doing their best to get the views of ordinary Canadians. The committees have to be more involved.

I will be supporting all of the motions in Group No. 3.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address the motions in Group No. 3, put forward by various parties seeking to amend Bill C-16.

I think it is worthwhile to start by pointing out what a great level of community interest there has been in Bill C-16 and the issue of citizenship. When the bill was first introduced as Bill C-63, over 37 groups and organizations made representations before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I would say there was an overwhelming amount of public interest demonstrated by Canadians who feel very passionately about the whole concept of citizenship.

I believe the reason these people were so motivated is because the whole idea of being a citizen of Canada hearkens to the idea of national pride, of being part of something great, like the country of Canada, where the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

What we saw was a great outpouring of emotion. These people said to the committee, to the House of Commons, that when we amend the citizenship and immigration legislation we must ensure that the changes reflect accurately how much we value our citizenship, not just as a right, but also the duties, obligations and responsibilities that come with citizenship.

We found it necessary to move many amendments to Bill C-63, the predecessor to Bill C-16, and we were pleased when most of the recommendations, amendments and details that we found necessary to raise were incorporated into Bill C-16. In fact, the NDP caucus is now satisfied that Bill C-16 accurately reflects what Canadians told us. The changes we asked for were incorporated into the new bill, so we were quite pleased to see the new Bill C-16 in its current form. It is something that we can support as it goes through the House. In fact we hope for its speedy passage.

I note, though, that many of my colleagues in opposition parties and even some on the Liberal side are moving amendments. Group No. 3 deals with six or seven different clusters of amendments. I will comment on some of them and point out whether our caucus will be able to support them.

Motion No. 6 we would support. It was put forward by the immigration critic for the Canadian Alliance and it simply seeks to have all appointments ratified by parliament. Appointments of citizenship judges or any other type of appointment made by order in council should really come to parliament or at least to the standing committee where parliamentarians, elected officials, can approve and ratify those appointments. It is something that most Canadians would support and our party recommends supporting the motion.

Motion No. 7 seeks to amend the legislation so that a person cannot be a citizenship commissioner if that person has been convicted of the crime of defrauding immigration or smuggling or trafficking people, or any type of crime under the Citizenship Act. This is only common sense. I would like to think that the powers that be would have come to that conclusion already without having it stated in legislation. I cannot imagine anyone appointing a citizenship commissioner who had been convicted of fraud under the Citizenship Act. We support that amendment put forward by the Canadian Alliance as well.

Motion No. 8 states that the standing committee must approve the appointment of citizenship commissioners. Again we support this idea. We believe that there is a role for the standing committee to ratify and approve appointments to ensure that these appointments are not some kind of political patronage and to ensure that the right people occupy these important positions.

Motion No. 15 is clustered into this group as well. We oppose this motion put forward by the Canadian Alliance. We believe that either there was a typographical error or it simply makes no sense. The words “alternative” and “affirmative” seem to be mixed up in the way it is written. It is absolute gibberish and not worthy of anybody's support. It was either an error or the drafters were deliberately putting it forward as some kind of nuisance motion.

Motions Nos. 16, 17 and 18 are similar in nature.

We support Motion No. 20. I would rather dwell on the motions that we see fit to support rather than oppose because I think that warrants more comment. This motion, again put forward by the Canadian Alliance, would allow the governor in council to define public interest for the purposes of the act. It would actually mandate the governor in council to define what is meant by public interest. There is a whole section of articles regarding public interest in the act and we believe that it does need further clarification, for transparency if nothing else. It could be that lawyers can glean from the current act what the intent of the act is in terms of public interest, but we see no harm in further clarifying that definition so that the general public can also easily and readily see what is truly meant by that term.

We see that Motion No. 21 is also clustered into Group No. 3. We support this motion. Some of the things raised by my colleague in the Canadian Alliance are legitimate points of view that would improve and enhance the act. This particular motion seeks to make the standing committee responsible for the approving of any regulations that pertain to fixing fees for any services offered by the department, whether it is citizenship papers or whatever. We believe the standing committee should have a role in setting fees. It is the opinion of our party that the fees are far to onerous currently.

We would like the opportunity to bring forward at the committee level that the fees should be adjusted and adjusted down. It is the same as the hated head tax. We should abolish the head tax on all immigrants and refugees. We note that the government has seen fit to listen to us and has recently abolished the head tax on refugees. However it has not abolished the other service charges associated with being a refugee. It has abolished the $975 head tax but it has not abolished the many other fees which add up to more than $500.

I think that Motion No. 21, which would give the standing committee the opportunity to have some input into the fixing of any fee schedule, would be very appropriate.

I want to raise a point that I think has not been raised enough in the House of Commons. The whole concept of citizenship is tied directly to the whole concept of the nation state obviously. We are proud to be Canadian citizens because of the borders that define our geographic country.

The whole concept of the nation state, democracy and citizenship are intertwined in an inexorable way. We believe that all three of those things are jeopardized by the globalization of capital and the demise of the nation state in that free trade agreements do not recognize borders. Capital does not recognize borders. The free movement of goods, services and capital ignores borders and often ignores freely elected governments.

I raise, as a cautionary note, that as we give more and more international authority to the WTO, to the MAI, to NAFTA and to liberalized trade agreements, we diminish the authority that citizens enjoy in their democracy within their nation state. I think there is a growing awareness of this issue. We saw the battle in Seattle recently where young people were raising this very point. They were sounding the alarm that they would not tolerate this idea of diminishing democracy by diminishing the nation state and the citizen's role in controlling their own economic sovereignty.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The recorded division on Motion No. 6 stands deferred.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties and I think you will find agreement, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), to defer the recorded divisions if requested on report stage of Bill C-16 until the end of Government Orders on Tuesday, May 16, 2000.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

We have not reached the end of the deferrals yet. That may or may not happen today. Does the hon. member want to move her motion now or does she want to wait until we have completed all the groups? We still have Groups Nos. 4 and 5 to do.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, a recorded division has just been requested. I suppose we can do it en masse at the end for any that are requested.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

As long as the hon. member is going to be here, perhaps we could leave it until we have completed Groups No. 4 and 5. Once the motions in those groups have been deferred, I will be able to defer them further. This might be more convenient.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, there may be a way to speed things up on this bill. When no other member rises to speak to any of these groups, the question would be deemed put and a division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday at the end of Government Orders.

If there is unanimous consent, we could speed through this relatively quickly. We would not have to do the standing and the yeaing and the naying. We could just assume they are all deferred and divisions requested.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it agreed that divisions have been deemed demanded and deferred on each of the motions in Group No. 3 and that the same will happen when we get to Groups No. 4 and 5?

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Once we get to the end of Group No. 5, the recorded divisions will take place on Tuesday, May 16 at the conclusion of Government Orders. Is that agreed?

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.