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.

Topics

Point Of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Point Of OrderRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 11 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the third time and passed.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

May 29th, 2000 / 3:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

When the House broke for question period the hon. member for Calgary Centre had the floor. He has six minutes remaining in the time available to him for questions and comments.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, before question period I was responding to a question which had to do with what it meant to me and others in my riding to be a Canadian and how Bill C-16 addresses that.

I can quickly say that the meaning of being a Canadian cannot be captured in a brief comment. For me it means that I have to respect the laws of the land. I have to participate as a citizen. There are a tremendous number of rights, but there are also a tremendous number of responsibilities which we have as citizens, to work to improve our country, to represent our country and to obey the laws of the land.

My concern about some aspects of this bill is that although it deals with citizenship, it appears to move us in the wrong direction. It does not make it clear, in my estimation and in that of many members of the committee, as to exactly who qualifies. That seems to be watered down and left to regulation and bureaucrats to determine.

The language requirement is not clear as to how proficient a new citizen needs to be in either or both of the official languages. It is very unclear. In fact, one could argue that a new citizen under this bill might not even need to understand much, if any, of either languages, because it allows for interpretation assistance, et cetera.

Under citizenship-type certifications and assessments with regard to family, it is unclear who qualifies under familial relationships, whereas it is clear in Canadian law. This bill moves in a different direction and leaves total discretion to the minister and her bureaucrats.

Then there is the very grievous concern about potentially revoking citizenship for those who have chosen to be Canadian citizens, leaving them to appeal. There is no real appeal process available through the bill for those who may have had their citizenship challenged. Of course, the citizenship judges have been gutted of any real responsibility and are really window dressing. We have again deferred to the bureaucracy to make assessments on people's lives, who they are, their nationality and their citizenship.

Yes, it means a lot to be a Canadian citizen. Unfortunately, this bill moves a lot of the significance, the administration and the firm statements as to how important it is out of law and into the hands of the whims of a bureaucracy and regulation.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, certainly defining who is a Canadian when we are so diverse as a people would be a very complicated task. But on the face of it, and allowing for the fact that just in the question and comment period the hon. member will not have a lot of time to think of his response to the question I am going to put, nevertheless, would he not feel, though, that the one thing that does unite us all as Canadians, no matter where we are from, whether we are new Canadians or Canadians here by birth, is a mutual respect for the principles of the charter of rights?

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would say that is accurate. I think the hon. member has done some work in this regard and I think that is accurate. Where there might be need for a greater discussion is how those principles are applied and administrated in the land. However, in general I would say yes.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Janko Peric Liberal Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga West.

I am pleased and honoured today to speak to Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian citizenship. There is a handful of members in the House who could probably share the same life experience as myself and the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo. This issue is very close to me and I would like to share my experience with my hon. colleagues and the nation.

As a young boy in Croatia I dreamed about Canada. I dreamed about a huge country. In 1968, in Vienna, when I applied and went through the process to come to this country, I was honoured and I was privileged. I was only 18 and a half years old at that time.

I chose this country. I came by myself, on my own. Three years later I applied for Canadian citizenship and I received Canadian citizenship two years after that.

In that citizenship courtroom in Waterloo, which was held in an old post office building on King Street, I still remember watching the faces of many people similar to myself, their special feelings and the smiles on their faces.

When I go to citizenship courts today as an elected member of parliament the judge usually asks me to make comments. When I make these comments I tell new Canadians that they are equal members of the greatest society, the Canadian family, and equal to anybody who was born here or those families who came 300 or 400 years before them. Just recently, I found out that I was wrong.

I do not know if I could go again to that same citizenship court and tell new Canadians that they are equal. According to Bill C-16, they are not, which is really sad. It is really sad that I am not as equal a member of Canadian society as my own children. Over five million Canadians are in the same position.

The Canadian government and the Canadian parliament promote equality, especially abroad. Under this legislation there is no equality. Under this legislation I am treated as a second class citizen. In no other department does the minister have the right and the power to overrule the Supreme Court of Canada, but this legislation would provide that power. That is wrong.

I know many new Canadians who probably did not tell the whole truth for many reasons. Perhaps they came from a country where their lives and their freedom was not protected by the laws of that country, so they used every means available to get out and become members of the greatest family.

Canada is a party to the international convention on civil and political rights adopted by the UN general assembly on December 16, 1966. This United Nations covenant says that a person who has lived in Canada for 20 years or more, whether or not he or she is a citizen of Canada, can consider Canada to be his or her own country. For the purposes of articles 12(4) and 13 of the covenant, such a person cannot be expelled from Canada. If the person leaves the country on vacation, he or she cannot be prevented from re-entering. It is clearly stated in these articles that even non-citizens under the UN convention have more rights than what is proposed in Bill C-16.

Let us say that a person, of whatever nationality, somewhere in Moscow, is stepping on the property of the Canadian embassy, and someone else is stepping on the property of the Canadian embassy in Beijing. Those two individuals are protected by the charter of rights. They are not even landed immigrants and they are not even citizens, but Canadian citizens under Bill C-16 are not equal members of Canadian society. That is wrong.

Can we imagine how many different nationalities there are in my riding of Cambridge? I could start with Croatians, Serbians, Portuguese, Indians, Punjabis, English, Irish, Scottish, Hungarians and Poles. All those people came to this country by choice but are not equal members of our society.

I was surprised on listening to the member from Winnipeg this morning to learn that he and the NDP caucus are fully supporting Bill C-16. Let me quote Alistair Stewart, an MP from Winnipeg, a CCF member, in debate on April 3, 1951. The debate was similar to this one today. He said:

The minister has the right to decide, and it is no reflection on the minister when I say that all of us who are elected members of parliament know what it is to be the victim of political pressure and political urges. While I am content to leave this right with the minister, I am not content to leave with him the right to have the last word. We suggest for the earnest consideration of the minister, partly as a safeguard for himself and partly as a safeguard for those who might be accused, that the individual should have a final right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada...That court is impartial. Let that court decide whether or not the individual should suffer the most grievous penalty of losing his citizenship. Were we to do that, then I think we would be restoring some of that equality for all which we desire. I hope that the minister will give this suggestion his most earnest consideration.

We are giving that same power to the political side to make that decision instead of to the supreme court in our judicial system which should be and is impartial. That is completely wrong.

It is not right for five million Canadians who by their own choice adopted Canada as their homeland. I am one of them and I am proud of Canadian society. I hope members of the House will realize how dangerous it is to leave that power in the hands of the politicians instead of our judges.

I do not know what my feelings will be next time when I am called to participate in the citizenship courts. I should not say no but I cannot mislead or lie to people. I cannot go over there to congratulate those who just became second class citizens. I do not know how my colleagues will feel about that, but I feel disappointed and dishonoured as the member representing Cambridge riding. I hope my colleagues will do the right thing when we vote at third reading.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Reform

Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB

Mr. Speaker, first let me commend the hon. member on his speech. I also want to commend the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo on his commitment to honesty, transparency and to ensuring that we are treated as equal Canadians.

Today has been a very educational day for me. I did not realize that the legislation would create two classes of Canadians. I like my former colleagues who have spoken have chosen this country as my homeland. I have been here for 45 years. Little did I realize that all of a sudden we are at the brink of the possibility that I will no longer be a first class Canadian like the rest of my colleagues who were born and raised in this country. If what I hear is true then I believe the government needs to examine the legislation a lot closer and to ensure that Canadians across this great land are not divided, whether they were born here or immigrated here by choice.

My question is for my hon. colleague. If amendments are not made to the bill, does he anticipate any backlash to the legislation from Canadians?

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Janko Peric Liberal Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member as well as other members in the House and I who chose Canada feel the same way as any of the five to six million Canadians. It is a sad day for us because we are not as equal as our own children.

We have to strive to improve that and to create legislation that will unite us as Canadians regardless of what seniority we have, whether it be five days or 500 years. If we want to create an even stronger and better society we have to be treated as equal members of our family.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleague. He expressed his sincere sentiments and I congratulate him for that. It is indeed a tribute to our democracy in the country, epitomized in the House of Commons.

He spoke about second class citizenship because of his feeling that there is not enough of a judicial role when citizenship may be revoked. Let me remind my colleague that citizenship at birth may not be revoked. Therefore we cannot compare citizenship by birth with citizenship acquired. By definition, what is given may be taken when the basis for it being given is proven to be false, fraud or illegal under the laws of Canada.

The reason citizenship by birth may not be revoked is that he or she is not a citizen of any other country. The naturalized citizens of Canada who have been shown, on investigation or determination by the Federal Court of Canada on the recommendation of the minister, to have violated the very laws of our country may have their citizenship revoked because there was no basis to grant it to begin with. It was done under false representation and under fraud. We must not lose sight of the presumption and the basic tenet of revocation that is based on fraud and false representation.

One cannot say that it is second class only because the process starts with the recommendation of the minister. I am a naturalized citizen of Canada and I thank Canada for the benefits given to me personally and to my family. I have four sons with my wife and they are all Canadian citizens by birth.

I would like the hon. member to consider this and comment on the fact that there is a distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship that is acquired. In terms of treatment by the court system, the leave to appeal should be available right up to the level of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is a question of trust and I will not belittle the noble calling of politics.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Janko Peric Liberal Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right when he says that we should have the right to appeal. I do not see that in Bill C-16. That is the problem with the bill. I would be the first one to deport those who obtain citizenship under false statements or by hiding some criminal history, but we should let the individual have the right to appeal the process directly to the supreme court. We should not leave that in the minister's hands.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul for his intervention dealing with the issue of equality.

This should actually be a celebration. I am vice-chair of the committee and sat on the committee when we dealt with the controversial Bill C-63. A lot of people appeared and talked to us about their concerns. All issues were raised and put on the floor. Unfortunately the bill was ready to go as Bill C-63 when the House prorogued and it fell off the agenda. When the House came back the bill was brought back in as Bill C-16.

This should be a celebration of the fact that the committee had tremendous input and impact with the minister and the ministry to convince them that there are some things which should be done to increase the value of Canadian citizenship. Instead of celebrating we find ourselves embroiled in a debate over the issue of supposedly creating two classes of Canadian citizens.

I absolutely respect the passion and the strongly held views of my colleagues, but the danger is that we are sending a message to the new Canadian community, to immigrants. When they stand in a citizenship court along with their families, let us say on Canada Day, not too far in the future, and receive their Canadian citizenship which they believe is of tremendous value, we are sending a message that somehow it is devalued compared to someone like me who was born in this country. It is not fair to send that kind of negative, frightening message to people who look forward to celebrating what is for many a rebirth.

I heard that earlier today statements were made in this place that people cannot know what this is about unless they are immigrants to this country. The implication is that those born in this country do not understand the value of Canadian citizenship.

In a former life I stood as a parliamentary delegate to monitor free elections in Croatia for the first time since the war. I saw people with tears in their eyes lining up on the streets to cast their ballots. I could feel their pain. I could feel their enthusiasm, their excitement. I could feel their fear that somehow by the time they got to the ballot box the right would be stripped away, that Tito would jump down from the picture over the ballot box or that the soldier with a gun would prevent them from casting that ballot. The right to vote is one of the benefits of citizenship. I saw firsthand how important it was to those people who had gone through war and terror and hate. I think I can understand that, even though I happen to have been lucky enough to have been born in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada.

My wife is an immigrant who came to this country from England. It was not under duress, although she might say she was trying to get away from her parents. She came here to seek a better life. She came here as an 18 year old girl, wide eyed and excited about coming to this great country she had heard about. She became a Canadian citizen by choice. If anything, people who choose this country are more special.

If we want to talk about two classes of citizens, it is a little like the statement parents make to their adopted children when they find out that mom and dad are not their biological mom and dad. The statement is always “We chose you. You are very special”. To new Canadians coming to this country, whether from wartorn societies or from places like the U.K., I say thank you for choosing Canada. It is what has built this country.

The bill says that those who come here under false pretences, those who lie, those who knowingly withhold information to whom we in Canada have given this citizenship right, our appreciation of its acceptance and the help to build our society, if we are deceived we must have a mechanism to take back what we consider to be a document and a place in the world of utmost importance and value. Is that a double standard? As my friend has mentioned, we cannot take away a right of birth. To compare the two is not fair.

There are some horrible people. Think about it. Paul Bernardo is still a Canadian citizen. Who would not want to strip that evil person, if we had the power to do so, of Canadian citizenship? But we cannot because he was born here. There are countless others such as Clifford Olson, and we could go on. There are countless people who are bad people and who remain Canadian citizens.

The only option we have is if someone arrives here who it turns out was a war criminal or had committed crimes against humanity. I can imagine the outcry of the Canadian public if the government were held powerless to revoke that person's citizenship, if the government had to rely on a judge to make the decision instead of the duly elected people who represent the people who bestowed Canadian citizenship on the individual in the first place. Canadians give citizenship. Canadians must have the ability, if they have been cheated, to revoke that citizenship.

The second thing that is unfair and which sends a frightening message to the immigrant community and to those applying for Canadian citizenship is the idea that there is no appeal. Let us be clear. The process has five different steps and provides at least three opportunities to ask the federal court to judicially review the decisions being taken during these steps.

I do not want to play semantics but a judicial review is different from an appeal. Here is how it works. The minister issues a letter because the minister has evidence and is satisfied with that evidence that the person has fraudulently obtained Canadian citizenship. The minister will serve notice on the individual. That individual then has an immediate right to ask the federal court trial division to appeal the minister's letter. That court will call witnesses. That court will listen to evidence. That court will not just look at whether or not the minister has erred in some legal way.

That is the difference. Judicial review tends to look at the process and the specifics of the process, whether or not there was an error in law, whereas one could argue that an appeal basically appeals a decision, making it wide open, introducing new evidence and everything else. Clearly when the federal court trial division holds a judicial review of the minister's letter and notice to the individual, it must and will call witnesses, look at all the evidence and attempt to decide whether or not the decision is a fair one.

This is very interesting because if the court decides that the letter should not have been sent and that there is no problem with the individual, in other words if it finds that the individual did not commit fraud, then the process is over. I hear members opposite and a few on this side saying that is not fair either and that the government should have the right to appeal. We want to walk both sides of the street on this deal. If the government continues to have the right to appeal, there could be a very strong case for harassment.

I just do not understand how one can argue on the one hand that one wants to protect humanitarian rights, and I will come to the humanitarian and compassionate issue, and then on the other hand that we should give the big bad government the right to appeal the decision of a judicial review by the federal court trial division that says there was no fraud. If that happens it is case over, door shut and that person stays as a citizen. It seems to me that is protecting the rights of that individual.

I find it more interesting to have the alliance reform party, or whatever it is called, in opposition to this for these stated reasons. Its members think the power belongs more appropriately in the hands of the judges and not the politicians. We all know that when one wants to denigrate a particular issue the best place to start is by denigrating those who are politicians. We are all a bad lot. We all make decisions with ulterior motives and we cannot be trusted. We hear that.

But I ask those members, what was the position of the opposition in this place when the supreme court in B.C. ruled in favour of that individual who was promoting child pornography? My goodness, how could a judge make such a decision? How could a judge make such a decision? What is their solution? Their solution is simply to invoke the notwithstanding clause, smack the judge over the hand and reverse the decision. By the way, none of us like that decision. In fact we decided to appeal that to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I did not realize I was out of time. I hope we can have further debate on this in a positive, substantive way which will allow for the positive benefits of Bill C-16 to be put forward to the Canadian people.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, no one is asking for anything special. What is being asked for is the protection of the charter, for the right to defend one's citizenship. What is being asked for is the due process of law.

My friend may not like it but the due process of law is having the right to appeal a finding of fact to the supreme court. It happens in our courts each and every day. The problem with the bill is it denies Canadians by choice the charter. It denies them the due process of law.

We do not want political decisions on citizenship revocation. We want the courts to make those decisions because they are not a political body.

A week and a half ago the Prime Minister was visiting a neighbouring riding to my own. He said that the one key thing in the life of our nation is to make sure that the rights of the citizens are protected by the court in our land and not subject to the capricious elected. The Prime Minister had it right. The principle being referred to was holding the judges politically accountable.

When someone's rights are involved it should not be a popularity contest because justice is blind. That is how the law is applied. It is not how powerful one is, how weak one is, but we try to treat everyone equally as much as possible.

Every legal group that came before us, including the B'nai Brith, including Mr. Narvey from the coalition of synagogues from Montreal, concerned about war crimes, crimes against humanity and the Holocaust, said that there should be a right to appeal. Is my friend saying to me that he is going to tell Canadians by choice that they do not have a right to appeal the judicial decision? That is exactly what he is saying. If he does not know the difference between judicial appeal and the review of that decision, then he has a problem.

There is a memo in my friend's office from Mr. Kenneth Narvey taking the six reasons that have been given by the government and debunking each one of them.

Surely to God the member does not want to deny the due process of law and the charter of rights protection to people who are citizens by choice. If he does, let me tell him I will debate with him in his riding.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is the most disgusting threat I have ever received. If the member wants to come to my riding any time, any place, anywhere and debate me on anything, I would be delighted to have him do so. This should not be about personal attacks, that member trying to intimidate or threaten me.

I did receive Mr. Narvey's memo but I did not receive it from Mr. Narvey. I received it from the member for Kitchener—Waterloo telling me that I should simply agree with everything Mr. Narvey said. Well, I have read it and I do not agree with it.

Let me also say these are the facts. Does the member want to talk about appeal? Does he want to talk about protecting rights? Someone is over the top on this. The process has five different steps and provides at least three opportunities to ask the federal court to judicially review the decisions that are being taken during these steps. The decisions that come out of these judicial reviews can themselves be appealed to the federal court appeal division and to the Supreme Court of Canada with authorization, with leave. That represents a possible total of nine reviews and appeals to the courts, not including the initial judicial review by the federal court at the very beginning of the revocation process.

Some members are over the top because they are allowing emotion and irrationality to influence what they are doing on this bill. As I said before, this should be about celebrating not about personal attacks, threats or intimidation by any member on any side of the House against anyone.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, oh what an opportunity has been lost, because, as the member for Mississauga West has just said, here it is the year 2000, here we are debating a new citizenship act for the new millennium and here we are in a debate that has fallen into discord on some very fundamental issues. We have lost a golden opportunity and I really do feel sad about it.

My problem with the legislation has to do with the oath of citizenship. I would first like to comment very briefly on the issue raised by the member for Kitchener—Waterloo. After all the debate and the rhetoric are over, what we are really dealing with in this issue from the member for Kitchener—Waterloo is one set of due process for one group of Canadians and another set of due process for another group of Canadians.

I agree with the member for Kitchener—Waterloo that there is something fundamentally wrong with that, and it can be tested. As the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul said, he justified the difference in due process to the fact that some Canadians are born here and their citizenship cannot be revoked because they have nowhere else to go to. He then made the assumption that new Canadians, who have come from other lands, can have their citizenship revoked because they can go back to their original land if it is found that they have entered Canada and sought citizenship under false pretences.

What I would point out to the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul is that if people from India, where they cannot have dual nationality, come to Canada and take out citizenship in Canada, they lose their citizenship in India. What we are basically talking about here is that if citizenship is revoked from this category of new Canadian who is from India, then they cannot go back.

What I suggest is that Bill C-16 does not provide for that, and in fact should provide for that, but if it is going to provide for that it will have to create a new category of Canadians who will have to be treated under a different due process. That, fundamentally, is what is wrong with the legislation as it stands now with respect to setting up a different regime for revocation of citizenship, a different judicial regime than would exist for other Canadians faced with similar contraventions of the law. I think the member for Kitchener—Waterloo has a very important point.

My difficulty with the legislation though, Mr. Speaker, is different but very closely related. My problem with Bill C-16, the citizenship bill as it is presented, is that it proposes a new oath of citizenship that has never been debated in the House. It proposes a new oath of citizenship that I do not think reflects what it is to be Canadian, that does not reflect the principles of being Canadian.

It is a new oath of citizenship, Mr. Speaker, that has been created in the shadows of the government. It has been created by a bureaucrat or a bureaucracy somewhere. For that matter, Mr. Speaker, for all we know it may have been contracted out. We do not know the pedigree of the oath of citizenship that is now in Bill C-16. On something so absolutely, vitally important as the oath of citizenship, we should know and we in the House should have participated. Unfortunately we did not.

The debate on the oath of citizenship has a real history that I have actually been involved in. When I came to parliament for the first time as a new MP in 1993, the very first committee that I served on was the citizenship and immigration committee in 1993 and 1994 in which we were analyzing what needed to be done to upgrade the citizenship legislation to make it current to the new millennium. Every witness who came before the committee as a new Canadian was asked to express what it meant to be a new Canadian. Of all the committees I have served on that was the most inspiring.

We heard from people from Croatia, like my friend from Cambridge. We heard from people from southeast Asia, the Caribbean and the United Kingdom. They all said essentially the same thing. They said that Canada was admired the world around, that it was a magnet for people all over the world because of its principles.

Canada is admired the world over because of the principles that are enshrined in the charter of rights, the rule of law, our adherence to democracy, our freedom of speech and our adherence to basic human rights. We heard this theme time and again.

When it came down to our report, the committee decided that there should be a declaration of citizenship. We thought it would be really wonderful to enshrine these principles that are basically expressed in the charter of rights in a declaration that would go in the preamble of the citizenship bill.

As far as the oath was concerned, and I should actually mention the oath, the committee unanimously agreed that the oath needed to be revisited. I want to read the oath that exists today and that will be amended in Bill C-16. The oath that was before our committee in 1993-94 simply said:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

I think just about every new Canadian who came before the committee said that oath was inadequate. They said that when they came before their citizenship hearings they were disappointed, not just because of the reference to a foreign monarch but because they felt the oath did not captured what it was to be Canadian.

The committee came out with its report called “Belonging Together”. I stress that we heard from new Canadians and from people who were born in Canada. The recommendations of that report were, first, that a declaration of Canadian citizenship should express the vision Canadians share for their future and the importance they attach to their citizenship.

Second, that the declaration should reflect the core values of our concept of citizenship.

Third, that the government should consider calling on the writers of Canada to contribute to the drafting of this declaration. We wanted the poets. We wanted everyone in the country involved in expressing what it was to be a Canadian in terms of a few lines that could capture that spirit.

The fourth recommendation was that the declaration should be drafted in a language that is noble, uplifting and inspires pride in being Canadian.

What happened? Five years later Bill C-63, now Bill C-16, was tabled in the House of Commons. I was here at my place when it was tabled. What we got was no declaration of what it is to be a citizen. There was no change in the preamble of Bill C-16. What we got instead was a warmed over oath of citizenship that bears no relation whatsoever to what new Canadians were telling us when they came before our committee. The amazing thing is that we did not even know where it came from. It suddenly appeared in the legislation without prior debate, without debate in the second citizenship committee. I will read it. It says:

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.

Who wrote that? Who had the temerity to write those words without consulting Canadians? Who had the temerity to write those words without actually fielding them in parliament where we could debate them. What words are they, from the very beginning? The words are “I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada”. That is a redundancy. Loyalty and allegiance, in English anyway, mean the same thing. If we analyze the history of the oath we can see where that came from. It came from was the French version of the current oath which says “Je jure fidélité et sincère allégeance à Sa Majesté la reine”. It is a direct English translation of the French version of the existing oath, and it is a bad translation. Any English or French teacher would reject it at the public school level.

It goes on to say “I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms”. We are bigger than that. It is not just our country's rights and freedoms. We as Canadians respect everybody's rights and freedoms. This is a fundamental difference and this is what makes us Canadian. This confines it selfishly to Canada alone, and that is unacceptable.

It then says “to uphold our democratic values”. Democratic values are a matter of perception in terms of the country in which we happen to be living. People from East Germany will recall that the name for East Germany was the German Democratic Republic. The full name for the Congo is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where they are busily killing one another as fast as they can. Right now there is a little civil war going on in Fiji and the government is being held hostage. That is the Sovereign Democratic Republic of Fiji. And so it goes. The Democratic Republic of Korea is really North Korea.

In other words, we cannot simply pledge allegiance to the democratic values of the country to which we belong. We have to pledge allegiance to democratic values in the abstract because the danger is, as we experienced in Germany during the 1930s, which led to the second world war, that a dictatorship is very fond of perverting democratic values and becoming a dictatorship under the guise of democracy. No. If we are going to pay respect to democratic values it must be democratic values in the abstract.

The final words are “to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a citizen”. That applies to every country in the entire world. Of course a citizen is required to obey the traffic act, the criminal code or whatever. That does not make us different as Canadians.

When that oath appeared before the House of Commons, I and several of my colleagues reacted very negatively. We tried very rapidly to capture the essence of what we heard in that committee in 1993-94. What I proposed in the House at that time—and I seem to be about the only one debating the oath of citizenship—was that the oath of citizenship should be rewritten in a way that would capture the five principles of the charter of rights, which is what makes us unique as Canadians. Those five principles are equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law.

The reason the member for Kitchener—Waterloo is agonizing over in his place is that he feels that the rule of law is not being respected because we have two different sets of due processes for two different sets of Canadians. I would suggest that the member for Kitchener—Waterloo probably has it correct; we cannot have two standards for Canadians. Canadians must always be treated the same way.

I just want to make a quick comment on those five principles. I have to say that when I proposed that in the House I did have some positive response but there was no opportunity to debate it other than me standing here and speaking for the length of time that I had.

However, what I will point out is obvious: Equality of opportunity is really what being Canadian is all about. We are all different in many ways. What is essential for every one of us individually is to have the chance to compete equally for the good things in life, so it is a matter of providing those equalities of opportunity. That is why we as Liberals believe in medicare. We believe that people cannot begin to compete unless they have equality in health.

The second point is freedom of speech. Many of the new Canadians who came before us came from countries where there is no such thing as freedom of speech. The first thing that is done in a democracy that wants to be a dictatorship is to suppress the press. Even though it is sometimes very hard for us on the government side to bear the attacks that we see almost daily now in our national press, it is nevertheless part and parcel of democracy and it is absolutely vital. Freedom of speech is absolutely essential.

I have already commented on democracy.

Basic human rights are not just things we stand for as Canadians for ourselves; they are things which we stand for around the world. We are genuinely concerned about what happens in Sierra Leone. We were genuinely concerned about what happened in Bosnia and Rwanda. That is what being Canadian is all about.

Finally, there is the rule of law. It is not obeying the law that is so important; it is appreciating the law. One of the reasons we have such a strong democracy is that we have, sitting opposite of me, members of parliament who are separatists, who believe the country should be broken up. Yet I am proud of the fact that they see that outcome only by means of the rule of law. They are as good parliamentarians as I am on this side of the House. I am proud to be in the same Chamber with them, even though I reject their fundamental premise. The fact is, they believe that if it is to be achieved, it can only be achieved by due process, by the rule of law. I am proud to be in the Chamber with people who feel that way.

I proposed that oath. Not too surprisingly it was rejected by the House. One of the things that disappointed me was, when I proposed my version of the oath that contained these five principles, I asked that there be a free vote in the House, and there was not. I noticed that not just my side, but the NDP, the Conservatives and certainly the Bloc Quebecois voted as a group. There was obviously no attempt to consider the possibility of a made in Canada oath; an oath that, whatever its merits or demerits, at least expressed the principles of the charter of rights. If they did not like anything else, if they did not like the fact that it dropped the Queen, or if they did not like the reference to God, fine. But it captured what it is to be Canada in terms of the charter of rights, which is freedom of speech, democracy, rule of law, equality of opportunity and basic human rights. That is what it is to be Canadian. Any new Canadian who comes to this country knows that.

To say I am disappointed hardly captures it. I hate to use the word, but I think it was basic cowardice on the part of the government and even parliament to allow an oath of citizenship to go out that does not reflect the spirit of being Canadian, at least in terms of the House. It has not been debated in the House. We have an obligation. This House is the repository of everything that it means to be Canadian. This is the focus. We should have debated that. To not have done so is reprehensible.

Like the member for Cambridge, what am I going to do when I go to my citizenship courts, when these starry eyed new Canadians come before the citizenship court commissioner now, instead of a judge, put their hand up and quote an oath of citizenship that the government and parliament never debated or never had the courage to even consider the content of?

In my view, this is the time when we need the Senate. I believe that the House of Commons failed in its duty when it allowed an oath of citizenship to go out that has no heritage, no patrimony, no connection to what it really means to be Canadian. It is simply an oath that was created somewhere behind the curtains. We do not know where. We are expecting newcomers to Canada to use that oath, not only to understand Canada better, but as a commitment to being part of Canada. That is unacceptable.

I propose that the Senate very carefully look at this legislation. If it cannot come up with an oath that captures the principles of being Canadian, then please reject the oath that is here. It is absolutely unacceptable to have a new oath, an elaborately revised oath, go before new Canadians when we ourselves have never been a part of its creation; when we parliamentarians, when we Canadians have never participated in the creation of that oath. It is now up to the Senate.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments and congratulate the member for expressing with passion his belief on the legislation before us.

I have a copy of a press release from B'nai Brith Canada which says that if we adopt Motions Nos. 4 and 5 they “would make the bill more just”. B'nai Brith Canada is very careful. It believes that there is justice in this bill and that if these motions were adopted the bill would be given additional strength. I congratulate B'nai Brith Canada for giving that kind of reasoned argument and leaving the vote on this issue to the honest belief of members of parliament. There is no threat whatsoever.

I call to the attention of the House another press release from a group headed by Mr. W. Halchuk, which states that Bill C-16 is discriminatory and is based on race. It further states that if support is given to Bill C-16 consequences will be suffered and losing our seats will be more expensive than “having your nomination papers not signed”. Press releases like this from people proclaiming to champion Canadian citizenship and at the same time risking the freedom and liberty of democracy in debate could make us afraid to think. That is the very threat to Canadian citizenship.

I am an adopted citizen of Canada. I am a naturalized Canadian. My loyalty to Canada is undivided. But I believe that the proposed citizenship act, if passed, as the member for Mississauga West indicated earlier in this debate, would be a day to celebrate.

I cannot help but comment on this threat to members of parliament made by Mr. Halchuk. I would like members to listen to one more comment: “Citizenship is too important to be left up to the politicians”. What does this individual think of politicians? Like it or not, the Government of Canada and the country itself will continue to be run by politicians and we had better believe in our profession, the noble calling of politics. Threats infuse fear and they have no role in the Chamber of democracy, the House of Commons.

The member for Kitchener—Waterloo said earlier that if there is a charter violation a cost must be paid if a provision of the charter of rights and freedoms is violated. This law already exists and is subject to review by the Supreme Court of Canada. We cannot take it away. No act of parliament can take away the right of the Supreme Court of Canada to hear argument on a violation of the charter of rights and freedoms. To inject fear that it may happen is just that. It is creating a slavery of fear.

It has been argued that there is no room for appeal. Subclause 18(4) at page 8 of the bill states:

On making an order under subsection (1), the Minister shall inform the person who is the subject of the order that the order has been made—

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul is addressing his comments entirely to the earlier speech given by the member for Kitchener—Waterloo. I spoke just prior, and if he has some constructive things to say about my speech, would he please do so.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The point of order is well taken. The hon. member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul is on questions and comments on the speech of the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington. I know he will want to make his comments relevant to that speech.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, because the member alluded to that issue as well, it is in order that I address that component of the debate. Since I have not finished my debate, he was premature in judging that I would not address the other component of his debate. Only time may limit me in addressing that issue, but I intend to do it.

Let me continue my speech, Mr. Speaker. Before I was interrupted—

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I must remind the hon. member that he has gone on for almost five minutes of the ten minutes available for questions and comments and there may be other members who want to ask a question or make a comment. I think he ought to terminate his remarks quite soon.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make comments, which is part of our parliamentary procedure. In fact, I am not even compelled to ask a question. Be that as it may, I respect your advice, Mr. Speaker.

Subclause 18(4) states: “On making an order under subsection (1), the Minister shall inform the person who is the subject of the order that the order has been made”—and I would like to underscore this—“and advise them of their right to apply for judicial review under section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act”.

The rule of law is fundamental, as the member from Wentworth has alluded to. That rule of law requires that no immigrant wanting to be a Canadian citizen may knowingly breach that rule of law.

There is a breach of the rule of law if there is false representation and there is fraud. That is the very essence of a breach of the rule of law, not to respect the law itself. The member from Wentworth said, yes, we must have not two standards but one standard for citizenship. I agree that the bill has only one standard. That is the standard for revocation of citizenship. Therefore, we cannot imagine another standard for Canadian citizens born in Canada because we do not create another standard for a situation where there will be no instance for revocation of citizenship, which is citizenship by birth. Therefore, to compare the two is definitely against logic.

To the point that the member from Wentworth alluded to about his proposed amendment to the oath, I support in principle his amendment that we are united as a people under the supremacy of God. That statement, may I remind the Chamber, is already in the statement preceding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I feel, while it may be reiterated in this instance, to me it is already in the highest fundamental law of the land. That is my position on that point.

On the position of taking away the allegiance to the Queen, in all sincerity, honesty and forthrightness, I believe in the heritage of Canada.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, there are two things. On the member's first point, it is still one set of rules for one set of Canadians and another set of rules for another set of Canadians. I do find that it does seem to contravene the whole basic principle of equality before the law and I have a lot of difficulty with that. When it boils down to that, then I think the member for Kitchener—Waterloo has a very important and compelling point, and I hope the Senate will look at that as well.

As to the other, I thank the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul. I appreciate the support he has given for what I am trying to do with the oath. I will make the point that the Queen is not the real issue. The real issue is that the oath should actually capture for newcomers to this land what it is to be a Canadian and what are the basic principles of the charter. That is the more important thing.

Whether the Queen is in a new oath or not, I think in the long run it does not matter half as much—and I believe there should be a reference to God certainly—but more than anything else, we should enunciate for those newcomers to our land the basic principles of the charter. I will say them one more time because I really do believe they unite us, we Canadians, as a people. They are: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law. They are not just for we Canadians. We should be upholding those principles for the world. That is what it is to be Canadian.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Reform

Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that the member for Kitchener—Waterloo is certainly correct that this country cannot tolerate two classes of citizenship. He is correct to say that we all need to be equal.

It is astounding that I would sit here in the House today and listen to this debate as we begin a new millennium. The United Nations for years has indicated that Canada is the country to which others in the world want to come, to become Canadians and to live here in prosperity, in peace, in harmony and to be treated equally which they may not have had from where they came. To sit here today and listen to the debate among members of the government side has really opened my eyes.

As I indicated earlier, I immigrated to Canada from a wartorn country in 1955 when I was six years old. After living here for 45 years, to debate whether my status as a Canadian citizen is the same as that of my son or my wife who were born in this country is almost unbelievable.

Just this debate alone is grounds to do something about this bill, for the committee to look at it and to make the appropriate amendments. I do not think the country can tolerate the point that was raised by the member for Kitchener—Waterloo that in essence we will differ because of the due process that is to be followed by Canadians that are born in this country and Canadians by choice. If it differs, then we must do something about it. I believe it will certainly not unify the country.

We applaud and brag about this being a multicultural nation. There is no doubt in my mind that this is going to be a very divisive issue. As I say, I cannot believe I am sitting here today hearing this debate on citizenship and what the bill means to our citizenship.

I would like to quote from the Canadian Alliance policy on our respect for the equality of all citizens before and under the law. Policy number 61 states:

We affirm the equality of every individual before and under the law and the right of every individual to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.

In other words, if we attain the status of a Canadian even if we were not born in this country, then we are treated like Canadians one hundred per cent. There are not two classes. We are all first class Canadians who all get the same rights. This is the debate that this occurring in the House today.

The legislation will repeal and replace the current Citizenship Act passed in 1977. Bill C-16 has been tabled with very few changes from previous Bill C-63. The legislation makes several changes to the current act with the intention of providing more clearly defined guidelines, updating sections, replacing current procedures, adding a new administrative structure and increasing the minister's power to deny citizenship.

Bill C-16 has been touted as the first major reform with respect to citizenship in more than 20 years and an attempt to modernize the act in order that it might better reflect the true value of Canadian citizenship. However, while some parts are more clearly defined than in the previous act, Bill C-16 does not constitute a major modern reform. As I said earlier, if it were a modern reform, we certainly would not be debating the status of citizenship as indicated in the bill. Critical areas have been neglected while others have been altered in a negative way.

The minister received recommendations of the government dominated Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in 1994. Again I reiterate from former debate and as members of this House have indicated, the witnesses that came before the committee made many recommendations that were not taken up in the drafting of this bill. In fact the government has taken over five years to prepare this legislation which still does not address the committee's key recommendations.

On citizenship at birth, clause 4(1) of Bill C-16 states in effect that all children born in Canada, except children of foreign diplomats, will continue to automatically acquire Canadian citizenship regardless of their parents' immigration or citizenship status.

On that point, there are many countries which Canadians come from that have only one status. They do not have dual citizenship. On a personal note, I asked China whether it had dual citizenship and it does not. In other words, if I ended up getting booted out of this country, where would I go? Actually I do not know.

On the conditions for granting citizenship, the presence in Canada is covered in clause 6(1)(b). Bill C-16 defines the term permanent resident more concisely than does the current act. The existing legislation may be loosely interpreted. Some individuals have been found to be residing in Canada because they had a bank account or owned property in the country without having actually resided on Canadian soil.

Further to that point, in the debate we heard about people who were unwanted, who perhaps had criminal records and came into Canada in a dishonest manner. I do not think anyone objects to getting rid of those people. That is not really the issue here. The question being debated is citizens, outstanding citizens, law-abiding citizens who have made a contribution to this country. Their rights need to be respected.

Bill C-16 calls for 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada in the six years preceding application for citizenship. Bill C-16 does not provide any mechanism for determining when applicants arrive in Canada and when they leave nor is it planned to develop one.

Penalties for bureaucratic delays are found in clause 6(1)(b)(i). The current act allows individuals whose claims for refugee status are approved to count each full day of residency in Canada from the date of application as a half day toward the total needed for their citizenship application. Bill C-16 removes this provision so that applicants will now be penalized for the system's bureaucratic delay even when delays are no fault of the applicant.

On the issue of adoption outside Canada, clause 8 of Bill C-16 will reduce the distinction between a foreign child adopted by a Canadian citizen and a child born in Canada. Currently a foreign child adopted by a Canadian citizen must first be admitted to Canada as a permanent resident before citizenship can be granted. It is currently ensured that the child is sponsored and undergoes medical, criminal and security checks. This bill will remove these requirements. The new legislation will make it easier for adopting parents to gain Canadian citizenship for the child if the adoption occurs outside Canada.

Bill C-16 stipulates in order to allow citizenship to be granted to the minor, the adoption must create a genuine parent-child relationship, be in the best interests of the child and cannot have been intended to circumvent Canadian immigration or citizenship law. Under clause 43(1) defining the terms of this relationship are left to the minister's discretion. The clause “in the best interests of the child” was added to Bill C-63 at the last minute, although it had not been recommended or requested by any witness and retained in Bill C-16.

On the issue of redefining the family, clause 43 of Bill C-16 grants the minister the power to specify who may make an application under the act on behalf of a minor and to define what constitutes a relationship of parent and child for the purposes of determining entitlement to citizenship under any provisions of the act.

On the issue of patronage, clauses 31 and 32 of Bill C-16 maintain the tradition of patronage appointments. All citizenship judges will be reclassified as citizenship commissioners, however, all but their ceremonial duties and other duties as requested will be taken over by departmental officials.

On the issue of language requirements to gain citizenship, clause 6 of Bill C-16 states that the applicant will have an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada. No provisions are included on how this is to be judged or by whom.

Clause 34 deals with the citizenship oath. There appears to be little public input on the content of the new oath in Bill C-16. The minister prepared the oath on her own. This could have provided an ideal opportunity for a nationwide patriotic debate. I agree with many of the members who have said that it is a very significant, historic family occasion when people make their oaths of allegiance to the country. This is probably the biggest thing that will happen in their lives outside of getting married and having a child. It is very, very important and Canadians need to have input.

The minister's first legislation should have been aimed at fixing a failed immigration system rather than citizenship, especially considering that the Citizenship Act refers to the Immigration Act in several places. More than five years after the Liberal controlled standing committee made its recommendations on citizenship, the minister re-tabled legislation which delivers little of what was recommended.

The legislation reconfirms that any child born in Canada, except to a diplomat, is automatically a Canadian citizen. This is contrary to what the standing committee, the CIC department, the official opposition and many Canadians support. The minister has shown arrogance and lack of respect for parliament by proposing that critical changes be made by her behind closed doors and by retaining patronage appointments even after job positions are eliminated.

Bringing this piece of legislation before the House at first reading when it had reached report stage in a previous session is an admission on the part of the government that Bill C-16 requires further examination. However, the minimal changes that have been made to the bill easily could have been made during report stage. The minister should focus on fixing our immigration system.

In conclusion, the debate I have heard today certainly tells me that a lot of work needs to be done on the bill. The big point which I need to re-emphasize, and the member for Kitchener—Waterloo made this a key point, is that this country cannot tolerate two classes of citizenship. We all want to be first class. There is only one status.

Citizenship Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Health; the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Health.