House of Commons Hansard #102 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-16.
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, could the member tell us one of the many groups that made presentations on revocation of citizenship which was satisfied with not having a right to appeal a decision of one federal court judge?
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, people are satisfied that it has been illustrated and demonstrated quite clearly that there is a right to appeal at every stage of the revocation of citizenship, all the way to the highest court in the land.
I indicated that people are satisfied and comfortable with that. When it came forward that there may be an alteration in Bill C-16, or an amendment to the act that would change the access to the appeal process, a number of groups were concerned. The issue was raised.
It was clarified by the department heads of citizenship and immigration that nothing in Bill C-16 threatened the right to appeal in the case of revocation of citizenship. In fact there is a right to appeal at every stage of the process. It is an exhaustive, some would say even ponderous, appeal process that can take years. As we well know, there are classic cases in Canada that went on five, seven or nine years before people were ultimately issued a deportation order or had their citizenship revoked.
Having looked at the charts, graphs and tables of how the appeal process would take place, we are comfortable that there is an exhaustive appeal mechanism inherent in Bill C-16 and inherent in the citizenship and immigration acts. I do not think there is any cause for concern. Those groups that did come forward with those concerns have had them allayed.
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that it is a great honour to speak today to Bill C-16 and what it means not only for the country but especially people who want to make Canada their country, and certainly those who have been here.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. He made many valid points. Certainly the one which I wanted to echo was that the committee, having listened to and heard witnesses, has now been able to make decisions which are appropriate to the matter at hand.
Citizenship, as all members of the House and all Canadians know, is of great value to individuals and their families. It bestows upon them great honour and responsibility as well as rights which are inherent under the charter and the constitution of this great country of ours.
I think back to my great-great-grandparents. They came to this country in 1827 via Bucks County, Pennsylvania having first come from Europe. Over the years we have cherished those things which we hold near and dear, that is, being citizens of this great country of ours.
By way of history it is amazing to think that prior to 1947 Canadians were still not Canadians as we know them but rather were British subjects. It is interesting that the Prime Minister himself was 12 years old before he actually had Canadian citizenship given to him. We were British subjects until that point. Having said that, citizenship and all that goes with it is something which Canadians now value greatly in terms of what it means to be a Canadian. It is important that we celebrate and cherish that which we hold near and dear to us. In 1947 the Liberal government of the day under Prime Minister Mackenzie King ensured that Canadians would have a status which we cherish to this day, being a citizen of Canada.
Citizenship is a concept in our culture which goes back to the city states of the ancient Greeks. For them the life of a citizen meant deep involvement in the life of a city. It meant the widest possible rights and privileges. It was also a very restrictive status, something which we no longer have. For example, no woman or newcomer could hope to be a citizen in those days.
While that restrictive status continued over the centuries, it has finally been washed away. In a sense we still see it today in countries which restrict their citizenship and those people who are part of a traditional ethnic group. Unlike Canada there are many countries where citizenship is not an opportunity to welcome people. It is not an opportunity for newcomers to declare that they are ready and willing to become a full part of their communities as citizens.
The point is clear that Canada has been different in that regard. We welcome newcomers. We grant full citizenship to all our people in a manner consistent with the charter and the constitutional prerogatives, as well as the rights that Canadian citizens no matter where they live in this great country of ours have come to expect and deservedly so. It is important that we keep that in mind.
When Canadians travel abroad it becomes apparent how great our citizenship is and what a great country Canada is. It is important that we value and cherish all that goes along with what it means to be Canadian.
Let me be clear in terms of what that 1947 act did. I offer that by way of background because it is important. That act treated men and women differently when it came to issues such as marrying a non-Canadian and keeping Canadian citizenship if they lived abroad, passing citizenship to their children if they lived abroad, and finally, how soon the spouses of men and women could become citizens. That was part and parcel of the 1947 act, yet for all the faults we have seen in retrospect, that act was an important starting point. It set us on the course which had led us to where we are today with Bill C-16.
It is important to note that what has never changed is a sense that citizenship is about joining the Canadian family, and a great family it is. It is about sharing in the values, traditions and institutions which define us as a people and unite us as a nation and which have made us the finest country in the world according to the United Nations Human Development Report for six years in a row. That is no coincidence. It is because of who we are and what we represent and the citizenship of Canadians is part of that greatness that is ours.
When new Canadians take the oath of citizenship outlined in the bill, they will speak about what it means to be Canadian. They will pledge their loyalty and allegiance to Canada and to our Queen. They will promise to respect Canada's rights and freedoms and uphold the constitution. They will vow to uphold the democratic values that allow us to debate some very important issues in the spirit of openness, transparency and accountability which we do in this great democratic system of ours in Canada. They will promise to do what we should do, to observe our laws and fulfil the duties and obligations of what it means to be a true citizen of this country.
These are not just words. Those words get to the heart of what citizenship is all about. They are about agreeing to accept the basic rules of how our society operates. They are about agreeing to play a full role in the life of our society in terms of what it means to help others to care and to share and to use the kinds of values in a meaningful way for Canadians wherever they are in this country. It also means acting at the ballot box, on a jury or just in the day to day debate among fellow citizens. It means ensuring that we vote, that we fulfil our duties as citizens in meaningful and tangible ways and in a way consistent with the values that are part of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I want to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Cambridge.
There are countries in the world that essentially sell their citizenship. People in parts of the world actually do that for money. They buy passports which can be used to go elsewhere. Some travel documents might be part of that as well. It is selling hope, false hope in many cases, in volatile parts of the world, and it is most unfortunate. But it will never, never give a person what Canadian citizenship does, and that is what we have here. Those passports of convenience that are sold never announce to the world that a person is part of a great family the way our citizenship does. A person is never linked to the men and women from all over the world who regardless of birth share in the pride of being citizens of this country.
That is what citizenship is all about. That is what it means to be Canadian. That is what it means to have the kinds of values that unite us as a people in that sense and ensure that we carry on in a meaningful way consistent with that which our forefathers and foremothers did, including that which newcomers to this country also add. That is important so we can build on the foundations of the past with vision, insight and foresight. We project into the future with confidence knowing that we have one of the finest, and I would argue the finest, country in the world. We need to celebrate that.
In closing I state simply that Bill C-16 helps to reinforce that which we take for granted so many times in this great country of ours and especially our citizenship. Having said that, I move:
That the question be now put.
Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, the question I have is why would the hon. member pull such a sneaky manoeuvre to try to ride over the former parliamentary secretary of this particular portfolio? The former parliamentary secretary put his position on the line because he took a stand on principle. The government, by going ahead and trying to pull some of the sneaky manoeuvres as it has done, is punishing and restricting his ability to do the duty that his constituents have given him.
I would like the hon. member to tell us why he is sticking a knife in the back of the former parliamentary secretary who has been working very hard on this bill.
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I need not take lessons from the member opposite when it comes to being sneaky and sticking knives into backs. He is the expert on the reformed alliance side of the House. He is part and parcel of what those people over there repeatedly do in terms of the kinds of things they are prepared to do every which way. I am speaking of some of the egregious things that I have witnessed the hon. member do. I think of the debate about Mr. Thompson and the Senate when the member was leading members of his party with mariachi bands and sombreros and tacos were dripping in the marble halls of this great institution.
When it comes to those kinds of things, I need not take a lesson from the member opposite. He should hang his head in shame, quite frankly, in terms of the kinds of things he has done.
This is the normal process in terms of the kinds of things we are doing to expedite the government and what we need to do in the great Parliament of Canada. We are moving the government agenda along and I am pleased to be part of it.
Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that any of the commentary I have done in the past with regard to the Senate is party policy and something which a lot of Canadians support.
The hon. member has in a sense violated the privileges of a member of this place, a member of his own party, someone who stood up on a point of principle, someone who for the sake of his constituents did what he thought was right in resigning his position as parliamentary secretary. He is trying to do the best he can for his constituents.
The member has gone ahead and done something to deprive the former parliamentary secretary of acting on the will of his constituents. This is one of the most lowdown, dishonourable things the member could do. He deprived one of the members of this place who has lost a position because of his stand on principle the opportunity to put forward a question on this issue. The member across the way can go ahead and make aspersions on me, but how he can justify backstabbing one of his own on something he has personally suffered for in order to advance the cause of his constituents, is reprehensible.
Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is quite simply wrong. There has been no violation in terms of what the process is here today. It is a standard process. We are moving along to expedite a very important bill that Canadians wherever they live in this great country of ours feel strongly about.
When it comes to the reformed alliance people, those extremists who sit opposite, they stir the pot and stab each other in the back. Look at what is happening in the leadership race and the extremist positions they are taking and the monkey business in terms of voting and stacking votes. Look at what happened at their convention not so long ago. I think 1,200 people were registered yet 1,600 people voted.
When it comes to lowdown tricks, when it comes to egregious mechanisms, those people opposite, those extremists, those reformed alliance people, have not only written the book, but they have kept chapter after chapter going for the rest of us. Only they know the kinds of things they do repeatedly. It is outrageous what they do and Canadians see through it every time. Canadians see through those extremists for who they are and for what they represent.
Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, certain words have been used to define certain people on this side of the House, and those words are not innovative. They have been used before.
The hon. parliamentary secretary is being denied the right to speak. If this motion were to carry it would really be very difficult because he would not be the only one prevented from speaking.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has used similar words to describe Canadian Alliance members on this side of the House. I find it rather difficult, in a sense, to support the hon. parliamentary secretary in the position he has taken. However, he has taken it correctly and I support him in that. On the other hand, the hon. member from Wellington should recognize that he is going beyond the boundaries of truth and decency.
Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I must say that it has been rather unpalatable to see the Liberal Party backstab its own members who stand on a matter of principle. It is a sad thing to witness. Hopefully Liberals watching in their offices will hang their heads in shame. I hope the former parliamentary secretary has a chance to make his case before caucus and that he is able to sway some opinion.
Today we are debating Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian citizenship. Bill C-16 does not constitute a major or modern reform as it says it does. It falls short and that is unfortunate. Its critical areas have been neglected, while others have been altered in a negative way.
The minister received recommendations from the government dominated Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in 1994 and the government has taken over five years to prepare legislation which still does not address the committee's key recommendations. Once again we have a case of the government writing the recommended reforms and not carrying them forward.
One of the areas I would like to deal with specifically is that of citizenship at birth, which is referenced in subclauses 4(1) through 4(4).
Canada is setting itself up for a problem. We have a provision which allows citizenship at birth, which makes sense for people who are born here of Canadian citizens. However, that provision also applies to people who are visiting our country, landed immigrants and others.
Australia has noted this problem. Because of this incentive structure, parents who are not Canadian citizens will bear a child in Canada and that child will become a Canadian citizen. Then the child is, in a sense, used as a bargaining chip for that family to remain in the country.
In the United States people cross the border from Mexico to Texas via the Rio Grande. Pregnant women muster themselves as best they can to cross the border because they know that if they can make it across, even if they hurt themselves in some way, if they bear their child within the boundaries of the United States it will become an American citizen.
Canada, with all the boats carrying migrants that we are expecting to receive on our shores this summer, is creating the same scenario. Women from other countries will make the assumption, because of this part of our law, that by hook or by crook they will make their way, whether it is good for their health or not, in rusty buckets of boats so they will have the chance to bear a child on Canadian soil. That would give the child Canadian citizenship and, therefore, it would give the mother a bargaining chip to remain in Canada. The sick thing is, that provides an incentive for pregnant women to make that arduous journey in the worst of circumstances. It is poor public policy for the government to set up an incentive whereby pregnant women will put themselves and their children at risk so the child may be born on Canadian soil. I say shame on the government.
Australia was responsible enough when it made changes to its law. It deemed that at least one parent had to be a citizen of Australia. As a result, there was not this use of children as bargaining chips for the sake of immigration.
The bill has dealt with conditions for granting citizenship on presence in Canada. Once upon a time, in and around 1977, a residency period of five years was necessary to gain Canadian citizenship. Then the Liberal government of the day reduced it to three years. It used to be three years out of five. However, the government has determined in its wisdom, even with all the problems we have with refugee status, with people claiming things illegally, with sham marriages and all the numerous things that are problems with our immigration system, to move it to three years out of six to make it that much easier for people to qualify.
The problem is, there is no stipulation for what is residency. In the law there is a provision which says that it is based on physical presence in Canada. However, the problem is that it does not provide any mechanism for determining when applicants arrive in Canada and when they leave, and there is no plan to develop one. There is no ability to check.
As a result, people will come to Canada and say “I am now qualifying for my residency with my physical presence in Canada”. They are then able to leave through one of the unmanned border posts, catch a flight from Seattle to wherever they are from and stay in that country. Meanwhile, Canadian records report them as having been here. They can return, at their convenience, after having lived abroad for a few years, at which time they may automatically be granted Canadian citizenship, even though they were not actually physically present. The government says there is a provision for physical presence, but in terms of actually delivering, there is not. It does not have any way of checking.
I am aware of, for example, Koreans flying out of Seattle because of unmanned border posts. They come to Canada, apply for citizenship, the residency clock starts to tick, they leave through an unmanned border post, go to Seattle, fly back to Asia, do business, continue to conduct their affairs over there, many times evading Canadian tax, and then come back at their own leisure. After a couple of years, even though they are working abroad, they are granted Canadian citizenship. That is a serious problem which the government has done nothing to address.
With regard to clause 8 of the bill, concerning adoption outside Canada, once upon a time if people were coming to Canada they would have to undergo a medical. The government is watering down this whole provision of giving medicals to people coming to the country. As a result, people will be able to adopt children with all sorts of ailments and illnesses, things that previously would have been screened in medicals. Who pays for it? The Canadian taxpayer.
Once again the government has opened Canada to more problems, despite the fact that it has seen all of the problems we have been dealing with so far and for which it has been taking a lot of heat. What does it do? Rather than fix the problems it opens us up to more.
There is blatant patronage in the bill. Clauses 31 and 32 deal with citizenship judges and citizenship commissioners. The sad thing is that patronage appointments were the problem when the last changes were made. When Barbara McDougall was minister the Progressive Conservatives created citizenship judges. Of course, all sorts of loyal party hacks got these jobs and got paid good money to sing the Canadian national anthem and have people take the oath of office.
The Liberals recognized there was a problem. Parliamentary committees reported that lack of merit in these positions was a problem, so the government just changed the name. It is almost like big brother 1984. Instead of calling them citizenship judges, they will now be called citizenship commissioners. It is still the same thing. The same party hacks are going to get the jobs. Those patronage positions are still there. It was probably just too juicy a plum to leave alone.
Clause 6 concerns the language requirements to gain citizenship. Once again there has been a watering down of the language requirements. The government only requires that people have an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada. What is an adequate knowledge? It is very vague. The government knows exactly what it is doing.
I would like to refer to a recently published book by Charles M. Campbell, entitled Betrayal & Deceit: the Politics of Canadian Immigration . Mr. Campbell was a vice-chairman of the Immigration Appeal Board for a number of years. He points out that Australia had the political courage to deal with a number of these situations and made the necessary changes. The Australians recognized that there were people who were engaging in sham marriages, who had poor employment prospects, and all the rest of these things, just as we have in Canada today.
What were some of the provisions that Australia implemented? One was that in order for someone to be deemed effective in the English language they had to be able to demonstrate four things: they had to be able to read English, speak English, understand English and write English. Of course, in Canada that would apply to both English and French.
In Bill C-16 the government has stipulated that people should have an adequate understanding, an adequate knowledge. Adequate in no way implies that they be able to read one of the official languages, be able to speak one of the official languages, be able to understand one of the official languages, or be able to write in one of the official languages.
Australians knew they had a problem to fix. In Canada we have not fixed it. As a result, we are spending all sorts of money to teach people the language once they come here. That puts a burden on Canadian taxpayers. It is something that could have easily been remedied by actually having provisions for those four skills with regard to understanding the official languages, but the government failed to do that.
There are other things which Australia had the courage to deal with which this government did not. The Australians also had the skill level restricted to those occupations that require a trade certificate, a degree, a diploma or an associate diploma. As well, the qualifications must have been obtained at least three years before the application to immigrate was filed. That is very pertinent. In Canada we have a lot of people who are immigrating who have particular skill sets, but when they come to Canada, because they do not meet the qualifications here, they cannot work in their area of expertise. As a result, we have a number of well educated people driving cabs. That is part of the problem with what the government has done.
Australia also dealt with age. We all know that we have a huge aging population. We have a demographic bubble that is going to burst in 2017, which will probably bankrupt and destroy the Canada pension plan. Nonetheless, this government is continuing to allow itself to take on more and more unfunded liabilities and responsibilities with regard to social programs and pensions for people who immigrate.
Australia had the courage to say that the ideal age criteria for a new immigrant were people who were over the age of 21 and under the age of 35. People over the age of 45 would not be acceptable. Australia recognized that the pension and health care obligations would be too burdensome. The Australians recognized that it would be a burden to allow people from other countries to immigrate without pension and health care systems such as we have in Canada. It would a burden for them to enter under an easy guise and receive those benefits without actually having provided much of a benefit to the country in terms of having worked there productively during their prime earning years. Australia had the courage to deal with these things. However, once again this government totally shied away from any of those important considerations.
My party and I would support an immigration and citizenship policy that would require children born in Canada to take the citizenship of their parents. Children born in Canada to landed immigrants, therefore, would assume Canadian citizenship. However, people who come here, putting their child and themselves at risk in order to bear their child in Canada, should not be given citizenship. We are creating an incentive for those women to put themselves at risk.
The citizenship oath, clause 34, had very little public input. The minister, in a sense, prepared this oath on her own. There was no debate and the citizens were not involved in creating the new oath of citizenship. It would have been an ideal opportunity for a nationwide patriotic debate on the matter but that was not done. The minister decided to develop this on her own behind closed doors. Now we will have whatever the minister deems fit as a citizenship oath rather than what the country could have decided.
Once again I reiterate that there were many things the government could have done and failed to do. For example, with regard to spousal considerations, spouse will be a very loose term. As a result, spouse will include not the idea of just a marriage between one man and one woman but it will also include common law relationships. Goodness knows, we have sham marriages that are arranged already, but imagine if we allow people in on common law relationships.
It gets even better. There is the allowance for the whole idea of same sex provisions. For example, a person could pick up a lover some place where they do not have the same type of medicare provisions for AIDS research and whatnot. They could bring those people back here and because they would be considered a same sex partner they will be able to charge those medical bills to the Canadian medicare system. When does the silliness end?
I want to wrap up with what I consider to be basically the summation of the points. We used to have citizenship based on five years of actually living in the country. It has now been whittled down to three out of six. There is no provision whatsoever for checking on whether or not they are physically present.
On top of that, it took the government five years to come up with what it has, which is very little compared to what it could have had, and it was done behind closed doors. It kept in all the provisions that dealt with patronage and continues to violate the recommendations that were put forward by its own standing committee and the recommendations that were put forward by the CIC department, the official opposition and what many Canadians themselves would support.
As a final point, I want to let the House know that as a result of these things and because of what the former parliamentary secretary was attempting to do with the bill, he believes, as do many, that the government should not be acting as a prosecutor. Right now we have people who are going before a political court, that being the governor in council, and are being stripped of their Canadian citizenship despite the fact that they have been in the country 20, 30, sometimes 40 years.
I want to table the following amendment, “That after the word “that” the following be substituted therefor: Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian citizenship be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for the purposes of reconsidering clauses 16 and 17 with due regard for the fact that Bill C-16 continues the current system of revocation which has been in place since 1920, allowing the governor in council on a report by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to revoke a person's citizenship and, the arguments put forward by groups and individuals, such as the German Canadian Congress, the B'nai Brith Canada and the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that citizenship should be a decision of the courts and not be decided by politicians”.
I believe a subamendment will be coming forward as well. The amendment basically deals with the whole idea that the government can act as prosecutor against people who have been in the country for decades.
While we want to be able to deal with these things expeditiously, we cannot have the cabinet acting as the judge and stripping people of citizenship despite the fact that they have been here 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. That is not fair to them and it is not fair to their families.
Obviously, Madam Speaker, you can hear the catcalling across the way. The Liberals know they have back-stabbed their parliamentary secretary and I am sure are feeling guilty about it, as they should. I have seen some rather dastardly things pulled here today. Hopefully, they will take that into consideration and in their caucus meeting on Wednesday they will be able to debate it and figure out the right thing to do so they are not depriving people.
I want to ask for unanimous consent to replace the motion by the member for Waterloo—Wellington, which is now before the House, with the following amendment, “That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following therefor: Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian citizenship be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for the purposes of reconsidering clauses 16, 17 and 18 with due regard for the fact that Bill C-16 continues the current system of revocation, which has been in place since 1920, allowing the governor in council, on report by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to revoke a person's citizenship, and the arguments put forward by groups and individuals, such as the Canadians Alliance, German Canadian Congress, B'nai Brith Canada and the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that citizenship should not be a decision of cabinet, and those threatened with revocation of citizenship should have access to full judicial appeal”.
Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Is there unanimous consent?
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Madam Speaker, it seems to me that every group that appeared before the committee and spoke on the issue of revocation of citizenship said that there should be a right to appeal the decision of the federal court judge, trial division. The problem with the way we have set it up is that the federal court judge who makes that very important decision is not accountable for his finding to any other court. The bill does not touch on the judicial review.
I am sure I heard every witness and I read all the submissions. Every group that made a comment said that there has to be a right to appeal. The way it is puts the judicial process in disrepute. Could the member comment on that?
Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB
Madam Speaker, the former parliamentary secretary is right. Every group that appeared before the committee cited problems with citizenship revocation and recognized that allowing this to be a decision by the cabinet would put it in political hands. They did not feel it was fair that people who had been here for 20, 30 or 40 years could have their citizenship stripped without what they considered to be a fair process.
The parliamentary secretary listened well to all those people who appeared before the committee. I know he has put a lot on the line by going ahead and standing up for what he believes is right in this case. He has listened to the will of his constituents on this matter.
We had many groups appear before the committee. The Canadian Alliance had representatives on the standing committee. We had the former parliamentary secretary who has lost his position as a result of his stand on this. I am sure his own constituents and many people across the country have cited problems with the citizenship revocation provisions in Bill C-16 which would go ahead and unfairly strip citizenship from people who have been in this country 20, 30 or 40 years without due process.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Madam Speaker, it would appear that we are having the real debate on this legislation when it is too late to make substantial changes, at least in the House of Commons.
I congratulate the hon. member on his speech. He pointed out some very important things with respect to the bill. He also touched very briefly on the oath of citizenship and the fact that the amended version of the oath in the legislation was created by the minister herself or some bureaucrat in her ministry. However, he made an error in his presentation. He said that there had been no public debate about the content that a new oath of citizenship could take. He is wrong about that.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration considered the citizenship bill in 1993 and 1994. I was part of that committee at that time. We heard extensively from citizens and new Canadians who wanted to talk about how wonderful it was to come to this country and become a Canadian, and how they felt very strongly that there should be some kind of declaration of citizenship which expressed the values of being a Canadian and the values of Canada in some manner that was more eloquent than what exists in the present oath. They talked of values like democracy, freedom of speech, equality of opportunity and the rule of law, things that do not exist their countries.
What has happened, despite all that input, is that we now have in Bill C-16 a revised oath and none of us know who wrote it or where it comes from.
Would the hon. member opposite not feel awkward, as I will feel awkward, to see new Canadians taking a new oath of citizenship for which this parliament has had no debate? There has been no debate in the standing committee about the content of the oath of citizenship that is now before the House and to which new Canadians will be required to swear.
What kind of country is it that would leave something so important and so sacred as the oath of citizenship to some unidentifiable bureaucrat and not have the courage to stand up in the House and create a version of the oath of citizenship that belongs to this House and this nation, and not to some contracted out, invisible person?
Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB
Madam Speaker, like the hon. member across the way who just spoke, I think it is a shame that we have not been able to debate more of these things in depth. We were not given the opportunity as Canadians to have a vote on this. There was no great patriotic debate across the country.
I know the hon. member cares deeply about the oath of citizenship and had his own thoughts on the matter. Unfortunately, some members in his own party have pulled some sneaky manoeuvres to go ahead and stifle the amount of debate on this particular topic and the ability of the former parliamentary secretary to make amendments as best as he could so that he could try to make positive changes to the bill.
It is a sad day when we cannot have a fair debate on an oath of citizenship and the revocation of citizenship. A nation that does not control its borders and cannot have a serious debate on who and who is not a citizen and what that requires, where is that nation headed? That is a nation in big trouble. It is a real shame when things like that are left to the bureaucrats without any fair public debate.
I want to once again mention that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Calgary Centre. Did I mention that before?
Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I am afraid that the hon. member has spoken for much longer than 10 minutes. There is no question at this point of splitting his time. Right now we are in the 10 minute question and comment period and 8 minutes have already passed. There are two minutes remaining for questions and comments.
Paul Forseth Reform New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC
Madam Speaker, I certainly observe across the way what is sometimes more a concern about the unseemly internal Liberal manoeuvres than what really may be needed in the country. Instead of what Liberals want, what do Canadians want? What about a real political mandate to act? The parameters of citizenship go to the heart of how Canadians define themselves as a country.
A question was just asked about what kind of a country Canada is. In many respects it is a Liberal ruled country whose governance is quite out of date in attitude.
When we talk about citizenship, immigration and those kinds of things in general in my riding there is not a lot of confidence in the system. People just wag their heads in disgust. They throw their hands in the air and ask what can be done because it is a bureaucratic system that is detached and out of touch with how they would define their country.
We are looking today to restore some basic confidence in the system that someone is minding the store. When people in the community say they are immigrants, it should immediately bring elements of respect because we know of the good system of credits and merits they have come through. That attracts confidence in the system rather than the direct opposite.
I would ask that we speak today of some points on how we can be positive in fixing the system instead of always defending the old status quo.
Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB
Madam Speaker, it is a fitting comment to wrap this up and say that there is no better example of how out of touch the Liberal government is. It will not allow a debate on the oath of citizenship. It will not allow a debate on citizenship revocation. It will not allow its own parliamentary secretary, who sacrificed his job in order to stand up for his constituents, to address these issues.
The government is so fearful of having public debate and even scrutiny by some wise members on its own benches that it will leave it all up to the bureaucrats, cover it over and hope it just goes away.
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Madam Speaker, let me say to members of the House that the debate is not over. The debate has just started. The issue is that the government can put the bill through and probably will, but the debate has started across the country within groups of Canadians who are citizens by choice.
I talk to them about this issue. I am already getting some complaints from members on this side. They are not very happy. We have started a petition which is addressed to the House of Commons. We will come back here with many petitions. I also have a website set up under www.telegdi.org.
In the next year we will be having an election. I said to all my colleagues in the House that before they vote on the report stage amendments they should think of people close to them who were not born in this country.
They should ask themselves if they would want them to have the due process of law with the right to appeal. Would they want them to have that right? Do they not believe it is the courts rather than politicians who are in the best position to make that determination?” I tell all my colleagues that they will be asked those questions. Maybe at that point in time they will get it.
I have received many calls from people across Canada. I think it is proper to put some of those communications on record. The first one I received was from the Aboriginal People's Commission of British Columbia which wrote to the Prime Minister with copies to members of the citizenship and immigration committees as follows:
The Aboriginal People's Commission of British Columbia has grave concerns regarding the revocation of citizenship sections of the proposed Citizenship Act, Bill C-16.
As members of Nations throughout Canada who trace their ancestry to the creation of this land, we feel our generational acceptance, welcoming and assistance to immigrants to our respective homelands gives particular weight to our deliberations and conclusions. We therefore respectfully submit the following motion passed unanimously by the Executive of the Aboriginal People's Commission in B.C. at our May 25, 2000 meeting:
“That we call upon Parliament to amend the proposed Citizenship Act to guarantee that the courts, not politicians, will decide revocation of citizenship, and;
That there is a provision for appeals from a decision of the Federal Court Trial Division to the Federal Court of Appeal and/or the Supreme Court of Canada, with the leave of those courts, in both existing and new cases involving revocation of citizenship”.
As descendants of the First People of this land who welcomed and aided the ancestors of a majority of Canadian, and as Liberals we pray that you will guide your members to revisit the clauses in Bill C-16 with the same spirit and hope that founded this Country.
That was signed by Kim Recalma-Clutesi, president of the Aboriginal People's Commission of British Columbia.
I have already received communications from the Liberal Party of Nanaimo—Alberni saying similar things. It is signed by Mr. Joe Dodd, a Canadian citizen by choice. I have further received communications from other Liberal members out west who say that like me they are immigrants. The idea of not having the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada if their citizenship were challenged is, to say the least, frightening. They are dismayed and disappointed that the government would take such a step. No doubt this decision will haunt the Liberals in the next election.
The amount of information I get goes on and on and on. I can tell members that this issue will not die with the passing of this act because we are entering the new millennium with second class citizens in this country.
One communication I received, and I have received numerous, was from people who were in concentration camps and had been deported from their countries. Members should think about a Sikh Hindu living in Pakistan. Many of them were deported to India. They came here from there. Members should think about all the displaced persons after the war. They were shuffled out of various countries in the world and came to this country. They take their citizenship rights very seriously.
Part of my mother's family moved from Germany to Hungary about 500 years ago. My natural father was Hungarian. My stepfather who adopted my brother and I was born in May 1919. He is a Jew. The day he was born Hungary was passed over to Romania because of the Versailles Treaty so he had a jump in his citizenship. Surviving for a Jew in Transylvania in Nazi occupied Europe was a horror, but survive he did. Since he was a Jew he could not attend university in Romania. He went to the University of Paris where he obtained a degree in architecture and town planning.
He changed his name. I only found this out a couple of years ago because I do not have a whole lot of family. I received an e-mail from Texas giving the same last name as mine and wanting to know if we were related. I quite excitedly phoned him to talk to him about it. Then he told me the story. He changed his name because he wanted to survive Nazi dominated Europe.
My sister, who is in the gallery with us today, did not know that she was part Jewish until she was 12 years old. We came out of Hungary as refugees. We stayed in a refugee camp for Jews because of the anti-Semitism that existed.
On my mother's side they suffered terribly under Soviet occupation, as did my father. Things happened in Europe that were just horrid. If there is any person who is guilty of war crimes or crime against humanity, I want to be right there to make sure he or she is brought to justice. It is wrong for us to exclude more than five million Canadians from the benefits of the charter of rights and freedoms or the due process of law in defending something that is very valuable to them such as their citizenship. It is something that will change.
I am disappointed in my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party, its predecessor and the labour members of the Winnipeg council led the fight to stop massive deportations from the country for people who were not guilty of anything more of a crime than being unemployed during the depression or perhaps being involved in organized labour. The process is called D and D: denaturalize and then deport. We have done this to tens of thousands of Canadians.
The unveiling of the tomb of the unknown soldier yesterday represents so much that many immigrants to this country come to find. I read Mark Bonokoski's column the other day. He asked us to imagine who the person could be.
I do not know if members of the House know that we had soldiers in the first world war who were immigrants. They came back wounded to this country and needed care in hospitals. Many of them were deported because they were on relief. Let us think about it. Many soldiers that fought for this country in the first world war came back wounded and were deported because they needed relief and hospitalization. No wonder the veterans associations are very active in trying to stop these deportations.
I spoke about the dark period in our immigration history. I recommend that all my colleagues read the book Whence They Came written by Barbara Roberts which deals with deportation from Canada. It contains a wonderful foreword by Irving Abella He talks about how the department of immigration was controlled. He talks about a small group of government officials who desperately strove to send off offensive people operating to a large extent outside the control of parliament and the courts.
I have sympathy with what my colleagues are putting forth with regard to Bill C-16. It would have been a great millennium project to have had contests in communities and schools across the country to come up with an oath that we could truly call Canadian versus having it done in the shadows by bureaucrats and consultants.
This bill came out of the bureaucracy. If we think about it, it is trying to wrest back control. How? The citizenship court judges I know have done a fantastic job. I am thinking of Mr. Somerville, a present judge, and Lorna van Mossel, a former judge. The judges do a fantastic job but they are a problem to the bureaucracy. They are independent and the bureaucracy does not want too much independence given to judges.
The Liberal government got suckered when we came into this place in 1993. Sergio Marchi, the minister at the time decided to get rid of citizenship court judges. It was a big mistake. The judges were replaced by the downgraded position of commissioner. I suggested that perhaps they should be magistrates to give more pomp and ceremony to the office, but that was turned down. This was totally, completely, utterly driven by the bureaucracy, the same bureaucracy that has fought any meaningful answer to parliament and the courts.
Bill C-63 would not only take away the citizenship of the person who arrived here fraudulently, but also the citizenship of the person's dependants. Consider my case had that bill passed. My mother is dead so I do not know what anyone could find on her, but let us suppose that she arrived here fraudulently. At 54 years of age I could be deported. Think about that. My wife and daughter were born in Canada. They have no great inclination to go to Hungary, if Hungary would take me, German being part of my ancestry. Think about what this does to families. That was another area where the bureaucrats tried to extend their clutch.
Under clause 18 a person's citizenship can be annulled without an appearance before a judge. It is bogus and not right. Clauses 16 and 17 are a disgrace and I believe they bring our sense of justice in Canada into disrepute.
I am a Liberal and I am ashamed that my party, the party that brought Canada its charter of rights and freedoms, does not believe enough in citizens by choice to let them enjoy the protection of the charter of rights and freedoms for something that is so valuable to them.
I admired the Progressive Conservative Party particularly under John Diefenbaker and his bill of rights. I am surprised at how the party voted on this issue. I am greatly disappointed in the New Democrats. I am disappointed, because of my earlier comments, of how they have led the battle for social justice, to hear the member from Winnipeg, the party's critic, stand and defend the right not to have appeals.
I was at the committee to hear all the witnesses and I read and reread all their submissions. Every person said there needed to be a right to appeal. There needs to be a right to appeal because Canadian citizenship is important enough that we do not want to rely on one judge who is not infallible, one judge who is not judicially accountable. We certainly do not want revocation of citizenship to continue in the star chamber of cabinet where the people are not judges. The Prime Minister is not a judge; he is a lawyer, but he is not a judge.
Think about it. A refugee claimant in our country has the protection of the charter. A visitor to our country who commits a serious crime has the protection of due process all the way to the supreme court. But for Canadians by choice those options are not available. This will go into the streets. It will go across the country and many people will demand a change to this archaic and draconian law.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Madam Speaker, the member for Waterloo—Wellington and I resonate on this issue because my concern with respect to Bill C-16 is the fact that the oath of citizenship has essentially failed to meet its obligation to describe what it is to be Canadian. I proposed as a result of input received from new Canadians to the standing committee in 1993-94 that we incorporate in a citizenship oath or a citizenship declaration the five principles of the charter of rights, one of which was to uphold basic human rights.
What do the member of Waterloo—Wellington and I have to whine about when we have a citizenship oath before the House now that simply tells us to obey the laws of Canada and to faithfully fulfil the duties of being Canadian but talks of nothing about basic human rights or upholding them? It seems to me that we are on the same wavelength because we have a situation, and it is not just government, it is parliament, where we are missing an absolute opportunity to say that as Canadians we are not about simply obeying the law, whether it is a traffic law or the criminal code, we are about upholding basic principles of human rights, which is what the member for Waterloo—Wellington is talking about.
But we do not say that. We say Canadians are simply people who obey the law. I say to the member for Waterloo—Wellington the government has decided that the law will be such and such, that it will not provide an appeal process. With the oath that is in Bill C-16, one can be a good Canadian and obey a bad law.
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Madam Speaker, I ask my hon. colleague not to do me the dishonour of calling me the member for Waterloo—Wellington. I am the member for Kitchener—Waterloo.
What the member just said is really the essence of what a citizenship bill should be about. He talked about this country being governed by law. About a week and a half ago, the Prime Minister was in one of the neighbouring ridings to mine. He was quoted in the newspaper as saying that the one key thing in the life of a nation is to make sure that the rights of its citizens are protected by the courts in the land and not subject to the capricious elected. It was the recognition by the Prime Minister that if a person is charged with an offence he or she would not be judged by politicians but would have the due process of law.
I can say to my colleague that many new Canadians and Canadians born here have a problem with this bill. The biggest problem with the bill is the process that got it here. It is the closed process that has operated in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for decades. It has got more restrictive. Parts in the bill make revocation easier. Parts have been put into the bill which will remove interference by such people as the citizenship court judges.
I will tell the hon. member about a citizenship court judge a number of years ago when I was on city council and president of the multicultural centre in my community. We tried to have a citizenship ceremony on Canada Day. We could not have it because it happened to fall on a long weekend and the bureaucrats in the department did not want to break up their long weekend. On Canada Day there should be citizenship ceremonies right across the country. We should tell new citizens that we value their citizenship enough that if anyone tries to remove it they have the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and they have the protection of the courts.
Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Madam Speaker, I could not help but notice that the hon. member made reference to the disconnect between the bill and what went on in the committee process. I am reminded of committees I have been involved with, the joint Senate-Commons committee on custody and access, the committee that was launched by the finance minister on fair family taxation, and other committees that bring forward a suite of pretty good recommendations. There is a consensus among members in the House, witnesses are heard and recommendations come forth. Yet we see either no action, as in the case of custody and access, or policies that ignore the recommendations based on the fair family taxation committee. This seems to be what happened here.
I did not have the privilege of sitting on the committee that examined this bill, but I am on a number of other committees. When I look at the bill and read the short version of what came out of the committee there seems to be a real disconnect. Would the hon. member speak to the differences between what went on in committee and how well this bill reflects the witness presentations at committee?
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Madam Speaker, it is sad for me to say that on many occasions the recommendations of the witnesses were not incorporated. The most telling one was on the right to appeal. Not one person said that the status quo should be maintained. Everybody appearing before us wanted to put in their right to appeal because they believed that would increase the value of citizenship for people like myself and other Canadians by choice.
Janko Peric Liberal Cambridge, ON
Madam Speaker, with only a minute left I will not ask a question of the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo. I will take this opportunity to commend my colleague. Both he and I are so-called newcomers to this country. As well as having similar pasts, being almost former neighbours from Europe, we are neighbours now in the Waterloo region. I want to commend him for his courageous stand, his principles and his beliefs. I have been honoured to work with him very closely on this important issue which is very close to both of us as well as to over five million Canadians.
At the same time, I am disappointed that one of our colleagues, whom I should call the delivery boy, would take that kind of stand and position and talk in the House when he has no clue what it means to be a new Canadian and what it means to get Canadian citizenship.
I want to thank my colleague again.