Debates of Feb. 10th, 2005

Citizenship Act

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill should not be here because it is such a ridiculous set of circumstances that has brought the bill before the House. The issue should have been taken care of by the government quite a long time ago. I will set the scene. I have no doubt that the bill will pass because we are in a minority government situation and all of the opposition parties are in support of the bill. It is going to pass at some stage in the process.

The issue that is addressed in the bill has existed since 1977 and has been identified repeatedly since that time. The amendment is very brief. It is an amendment to one section of the Citizenship Act. It will provide for citizenship for people who should have citizenship in this country. Because of amendments to the law over the years, there are gaps in the law, which have been identified for quite some time. This has had the effect of denying citizenship to individuals who have every right to claim that citizenship in this country.

When the problem was identified, it was corrected going forward. That occurred back in February 1977, but the problem pre-existed and a number of people whom I believe are Canadians, who should be Canadians and who should be recognized by this country as Canadians, from 1947 to 1977 were excluded. The effect of the bill will be to make the provisions that are in the law now retroactive for anyone who falls into one of these categories from 1977 onward.

We ended up with the anomaly that individuals who were born in Canada were denied their citizenship. The almost unbelievable nature of our law surfaces. Children who were born of Canadians who were outside the country, that is the children were born outside the country, those children were entitled to Canadian citizenship and rightfully so because of their birth to Canadian parents and equally and obviously rightfully so it seems to me should children born in Canada but who were moved by their parents to another country. Those children lost their citizenship if the parents took out citizenship in the other country. It was a unilateral act of their parents which resulted in the children losing their citizenship.

There is a real tragedy in a number of cases. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration heard some of those stories as it took evidence from a number of witnesses.

In my own constituency in Windsor, which is right on the border, a number of people fall into this category unbeknownst to them in a large number of cases. In Windsor over the years a large number of families have moved to the U.S. side of the border, oftentimes within a stone's throw of the border but they are living on the American side for employment purposes.

A woman who came to see me was almost in shock when she found out that she was not a Canadian citizen. She had been born in Canada but had been moved by her parents to the United States, to the state of Michigan, for a relatively short period of time. It was less than seven years. She was back in Canada by the time she was seven years old. Her parents' marriage had broken down and her mother had moved her and her siblings back to Canada.

One of her siblings was born in the United States. She lived in Canada for the rest of her life. I do not want to identify her but she became a very strong contributor to our society and when she applied for her old age pension, she was advised by the authorities that she was not a Canadian citizen. Her sibling, who was about two years younger than she but was born in the United States, was a Canadian citizen. When she turned 65 she qualified for her pension.

It makes no sense at all that we have that situation under our existing law.

I am sure that anybody listening to this address and the others we will have this evening will ask why we would do this. When we consider some of the comments from the civil servants who were called to testify in previous hearings before the standing committee, and listen to the parliamentary secretary who tried to give some explanation in this last round, there really is no explanation.

We are told that there may be a large number of people and we should be concerned that they would all drift back across the border at one time and swamp our services, health services, pensions and whatever else to which they may be entitled. The first answer to that is that if they are Canadian citizens, they are entitled to those benefits. They are not going to be denied those benefits by the arbitrary nature of the existing legislation.

Again, it is gross discrimination just because a person was born after 1977. It is not an issue. People are Canadian citizens if they are born here, but if they were born in that 30 year period and then moved with their parents to another country, they are denied citizenship. It is extremely arbitrary. It is outright discrimination. It makes no sense at all.

One case that was used was a woman whose family has been in Canada for almost 300 years. Her father actually was a judge in Canada. She was told, again fairly late in life that she was not a Canadian citizen.

The evidence we heard at the committee was that a civil servant went to her, told her she would be given her Canadian citizenship but she would have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. As much as she wanted to be a Canadian citizen, she refused. She said that is not what Canada is about. She knew more about what Canada was about than the person who was making the offer to her, and she left the country. She was a woman who had contributed greatly to this country but was forced to leave because she was not a Canadian citizen.

People are running into problems at the border when people who think they are Canadians travel outside the country and when they come back are told they are not Canadian citizens. This has become more of a problem since September 11, 2001. People who come into the country are being more closely scrutinized. Often they find out to their severe dismay that they are not Canadian citizens.

The amendment would correct this. It is an amendment that should go through. All the opposition parties are in favour of it so it will go through eventually. One final point I would make, unlike some of the other private members' bills that might get stalled in the other house, this one has already passed the other house. This is going to become law. It is one of those occasions when we can point to a minority government and say that a number of majority governments have not dealt with the issue, but democracy will reign on this case and this injustice will be ended once and for all.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak to Bill S-2, a private member's public bill before the House.

Bill S-2 seeks to amend Canada's Citizenship Act by completely eliminating the residence requirement for a certain group of people who lost their Canadian citizenship as minors and now wish to resume it. These people ceased to be citizens at the time they were minors because their responsible parent or parents in some cases acquired citizenship of another country. The contention is that this was not fair, that the minor had no choice in the matter at the time, and that therefore no residence requirement should now exist for people in this situation.

The truth is that parents make decisions on behalf of their children on many different occasions, including in situations which have important consequences. The bill before us today is therefore less about rectifying a perceived wrong than it is about simply changing the consequences of a choice made under the legislation that was in effect, which reflected the time when the decision was made.

Allow me to clarify an important issue. Canada's current Citizenship Act has a provision for people who wish to resume Canadian citizenship. To qualify to resume citizenship a person must demonstrate a commitment to Canada through residence. It is quite simply a commitment demonstrated by actually living in this country under Canada's current act. A person in this situation must become a permanent resident under immigration law and must reside in Canada for one year immediately before making a citizenship application. That is Canada's current law.

All former Canadians, whether they lost citizenship as minors or as adults, can resume citizenship in the same manner. We ask that all who lost citizenship, whether as minors or adults, are treated equally and that we keep our current citizens and residents safe.

What is being proposed in Bill S-2 is that there is no residence requirement at all, at least for a small number of individuals whose parents opted for citizenship in another country. We can all appreciate the desire to obtain Canadian citizenship, particularly if one has obviously lost it. Citizenship in this country has value and worth. Obtaining it has requirements. These requirements cannot be waived simply because a decision made by a responsible parent or parents in the past is perceived today as having been a bad decision.

I do not believe that it is appropriate to give further consideration to certain former Canadians, particularly when the circumstances of their loss involve actions of their parents. These minors lost their citizenship because their responsible parent or parents chose to immigrate and acquire another citizenship, not because of a distinction based on gender, family status or other such equality issues.

Nor do I believe it is responsible to vote in favour of a bill that would negatively impact the government's ability to manage access to Canada and protect the safety and security of Canadians. Bill S-2 does this by essentially bypassing, for certain individuals, Canada's processes that would normally check for serious criminal convictions overseas. The citizenship process presupposes that this step has been followed. It works in tandem with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to ensure that persons seeking to return to Canada are in fact admissible.

Let me be clear. This bill could allow serious criminals to reacquire Canadian citizenship and return to Canada once released. All Canadian citizens have the right to enter and return, and remain in Canada. We are opening the door to persons who stopped being Canadians many years ago, who have lived in another country, and who have committed serious crimes. This bill would allow them to resume citizenship.

A reasonable provision already exists to resume Canadian citizenship for people who wish to do so, in a way that allows the government to maintain the integrity of the program and to keep Canadians safe. I am therefore opposed to Bill S-2 or any special provision that will eliminate the residence requirement altogether for one particular group of people, and potentially place the safety and security of Canadians at risk.

[John Reynolds, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk to my hon. colleague who read the government position. I would say to him that in the next few days before the bill gets to committee we look at the present law. It does exactly what he says is so wrong for people prior to 1977. Anybody since 1977 has dual citizenship. If individuals are born in Canada, they are Canadian for the rest of their lives, even if their parents take them to the United States and make them American for a while. They will have dual citizenship. That has been done on both sides of the border by Americans and Canadians.

However, to say we will be allowing serious criminals back into this country is scaremongering. I could give the hon. member a list of Canadians who came before the committee, people like Don Chapman, who has been denied his citizenship. They are said to be former Canadians. Don Chapman is not a former Canadian. He was born in this country and he is a Canadian. His parents took him at a very young age to the United States. His father became an American. Because of the war and what he was doing for the government, he had to be an American. It should not prevent Don Chapman from being a Canadian.

This man's family has donated millions of dollars to Canadian universities and thousands of dollars to community events inside Canada. He has a home in Canada. Yet, the hon. member is telling him he has to become a landed immigrant to get his Canadian citizenship back. I think that is shameful and so do the majority of the members of the House, including many Liberals in the House.

The government bureaucracy, through the parliamentary secretary and the minister, hoodwinked the people across the way into believing what Canadians should be. We are proud of this country. What amazes me is that the parliamentary secretary who became a Canadian citizen is denying people who were born here their Canadian citizenship. That is shameful. We pride ourselves in being Canadians and anybody who was born here should never, ever lose that birthright.

I am proud that the Senate, all parties including independents, voted for the bill. I will be very proud when we get it to committee and it comes back here for a vote one night when the majority of members of the House will vote to pass the bill to ensure that all those Canadians who were born here can be proud Canadians for the rest of their lives.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 16, 2005 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 6:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Paul Forseth, Conservative, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 6, 2004 I posed the following question and the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration answered. I asked:

Mr. Speaker, about the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, we have heard the minister's excuse about compassion. We have seen her ruse of the Ethics Commissioner. What seems clear is that a specialty loophole was used for exotic clubs because of inside political access. Nearly all of the dancers came from just one country, revealing that there was a special deal.

She has been the minister for a full year and yet it took the human resources minister to shut it down. Why did the minister defend the program for so long when thousands of desperate cases of people in real need have been waiting for years?

The present immigration minister replied:

Mr. Speaker, the member has already heard the answer on many occasions. The minister made her decision and has referred the decision to an independent officer of the House, the Ethics Commissioner. The opposition has also referred the matter to the Ethics Commissioner.

Perhaps opposition members would like to get an answer from the Ethics Commissioner before they jump to a conclusion.

We are still waiting to hear from the Ethics Commissioner and we have a new minister. Some 70% to 80% of my community casework is about this dysfunctional immigration department. My deep concern is that the government is not capable of solving the serious problem of the department. The cover-ups do not change the reality on the ground. The minister is supposed to be accountable.

In view of such poor results, one can understand why I asked my particular questions. We were talking about it yesterday and the parliamentary secretary accused me of just using rhetoric, yet I gave her and the department all of my comments in advance so that I could get a substantive answer and I did not get it.

Immigration is in a crisis and the Liberals are responsible for the mess. Change begins with the admission that a problem exists. I do not think the government gets it. If it does, it is still in public denial. We can only hope that with the new minister there will be a meaningful change process and a huge commitment to clean up the department.

Change was a long standing promise of the Prime Minister and Canadians expect no less. There is talk about a six point plan. It should be explained to Canadians. What are the financial commitments? How many extra people are going to be hired to deal with customer needs? What are the published wait time reductions? When will the wait times come into the 21st century of normal business standards?

It looks like it will never be a reality on this party's watch. How are the rules and regulations going to be streamlined? How is the flawed basic law going to be reviewed and fixed? When will the department communicate comprehensively in a timely manner with its clients? When will the department stop losing files? When will the department treat people in its purview with respect and basic human dignity? This department and its minister must be more accountable as the operational results are not up to standard. The Federal Court of Canada says so on many occasions.

We heard today of another instance where the minister really does not know what is going on. The advertised family reunification program is being administered harshly and unfairly. Then on another issue, people are being deported to Iran regardless of the risk. Canadians want action, not denials. They want results, not more excuses.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to repeat a lot of what I said yesterday when I responded to the hon. member's questions because really none of it has changed.

What I did was give the facts. The hon. member accuses me of not answering the questions and only accusing him of rhetoric. That is not true. The hon. member should go back and look at and read the answer I gave him. I gave him many substantive points.

What I did say, and what we did admit, is that there are problems in the system. Anybody who is an MP knows there are problems with the system. That does not mean the system is falling down around our ears.

Of the 245,000 people who come into this country every year under immigration and refugee status, 80% of them have no problems. They come in, they come in easily and they begin to build their lives. They have settlement services, et cetera. Twenty per cent do have problems. Those problems, as I told the hon. member yesterday, are not necessarily and only of the department's doing.

The hon. member and his party across the way have always accused us of letting anybody into the country. They always accuse us of not taking the time to look up criminal records and find out who these people really are. During 9/11 they accused us of letting in all sorts of terrorists and so on.

We do have to follow through with due diligence in finding out more about the people who come into this country. It is not easy to get information in some countries and that is one of the causes of the time lag. Also, the department has many cases, and with family class reunification being expanded to grandparents and dependent children under 21, it is now inundated with more.

Each one of those cases needs to have verification of data, of fact, of birth, of simple things. In Canada and certain other countries someone presses a button on a computer and can get all of that data. In some countries, that data is stored in a village in such a way that we have to get somebody to find it. It takes time. Twenty per cent of the people who seek to come to this country need to get that kind of information followed through on and that often takes time.

We are aware that we could do things better and obviously everyone is trying to do that. I said to the hon. member yesterday that we would love to have his party's input into what are the very positive and creative ways in which we can make the system work better.

This is an evolving system. It does not stand still as more people come in from different countries where there are challenges with getting data from some of those countries and where there are a lot of difficulties. That puts a greater burden on the system.

How do we deal with those increasing burdens? That is a valid question. Instead of the hon. member being negative and constantly casting innuendo, I would like to hear him suggest some important and creative things that he and his party think we should be doing to deal with an extremely complex situation that involves very complex processes and finding very complex solutions.

[Paul Forseth, Conservative, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I raised my concerns because immigration is important to Canada. I know the member opposite wants the same thing. But change begins with the recognition that a problem exists. I am sincere when I plead for the serious re-evaluation and major overhaul of immigration.

From our side of the House, I think what we would say is that the government's legislative agenda is pretty thin right now. Why does it not dig in and do something meaningful and fix the problem staring us in the face before we have another need for a big judicial inquiry that will look back to see who is to blame for some big disaster?

We understand that the immigration department, with all its responsibilities, including its separate refugee determination process and the various means by which a person can come to Canada, is very complex. There are always many decision points and at those decision points where there is discretion there can be errors.

We really have an issue here that the department is in somewhat of an organizational mess and we really need to fix it. We want government committed to re-evaluate the process.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no doubt that the hon. member's intentions are good and that he is sincere in his questions, but I will repeat the answers because I probably have not been saying them clearly enough.

We know there are problems. We hear about them. We are endeavouring to set up a way of dealing with them. The current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said very clearly that it is our government's priority and that he has a six point plan of action to speed up the process, to change some of the processes, and to ensure that the department and the processes are more efficient and more effective. Having said he has a six point plan, the minister cannot wave a magic wand and suddenly make it so. That only happens in Star Wars , as far as I know.

What we are really talking about are complex processes. It takes time to put machinery into gear. It takes time to do this. In the meantime, we would be delighted to get some very positive and creative solutions out of the member and his party opposite.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to once again raise an issue which is a primary concern in my riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission. It is the problem of the growing use of methamphetamine, or crystal meth, primarily by our youth and young adults.

Experts say that crystal meth is one of the most addictive street drugs and one of the hardest to treat. Addiction counsellors say the relapse rate of 92% is worse than that for cocaine. Crystal meth users do not recover. The drug is unforgiving. It is a drug that destroys families, destroys communities and destroys lives.

In November, I asked the Minister of Justice if he had any programs or plans in place to combat the growing use of this insidious narcotic. He indicated that he did not and said that this was a matter for Health Canada. Frankly, I was shocked that the Minister of Justice did not think he had a significant role to play in combating this drug, which is destroying lives right across this country.

The communities in my riding are not waiting for the federal government to get its act together. In Maple Ridge a task force has developed a comprehensive action plan to combat crystal meth in that community. I have been a member of that task force and I am proud of the work that we are doing to make our community a better place. In Mission, a similar task force has begun work to combat the problem there.

Members of the RCMP in my riding have expressed frustration with the light sentences handed out to producers and distributors of crystal meth. Clearly the federal government has a role to play in beefing up our laws so that drug pushers who prey on our children receive serious deterrents, including serious jail time. Instead, if they are prosecuted at all, many receive nothing more than conditional sentences. More and more Canadians are calling for mandatory minimum sentences for these criminals. I agree with those sentiments.

Provincial governments are taking action. In August 2004, my province of British Columbia released a five point strategy to combat crystal meth. The report states:

Methamphetamine use is a serious and growing problem in the province. Problematic substance use of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs affects a large proportion of the population both directly and indirectly. These harmful impacts may include loss of productivity and wages, disability and death due to overdose, as well as enforcement, social and health costs. These detrimental effects to the health and well-being of individuals, families and communities can be prevented and reduced.

The B.C. government can be commended for its comprehensive, integrated approach to combating crystal meth.

In Alberta, a cross-ministry working group has called on the federal government to review existing laws with a view to recommending ways to strengthen and enhance legislation related to methamphetamine drug enforcement.

Just yesterday the government of Saskatchewan released its strategic plan for dealing with crystal meth. The report states:

Many communities are grappling with the side effects of crystal meth use. Along with the human cost on addicts and their families, police in those communities report crystal meth use has spawned increases in both poverty and violent crimes and has contributed to increased suicide rates.

Let me repeat that: crystal meth causes increases in poverty, violent crimes and suicide rates. That statement alone should compel all members in the House to demand a response from our federal government.

Once again I have a question for the minister. What is the federal government doing to address this problem? What is its integrated plan of action? Where are its programs to assist communities that have been shocked by the speed with which crystal meth has invaded their towns? Where are the federal laws and regulations which will deter production and distribution of crystal meth? What is the government doing specifically to address the growing problem of crystal meth? Continuing to ignore the problem is no longer an option.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe everyone in this House is familiar with the expression crystal meth or about the meth problem. I would like to take a couple of minutes to inform hon. members about this problem.

Meth, which is short for methamphetamine, is a synthetic drug in the family of amphetamines. It is similar in chemical structure to its parent drug of amphetamines but causes more damage to the central nervous system. The ingredients are household chemicals and solvents combined with ephedrine from cold medicine, and supplies are readily available in our retail stores. Local clandestine drug labs manufacture the drug in makeshift labs. The fact that it can be manufactured locally separates it from other drugs, such as cocaine which has to be imported from another country.

Meth is known by various street names such as “crank” and “speed”, but crystal meth is also known as “ice” which refers to the smokeable form of methamphetamine.

Meth comes in the form of crystals resembling pieces of ice, shaved glass slivers or clear rock salt. It also comes in a powdered form. The drug is sometimes sold in tablets or capsules that can be swallowed or emptied for smoking.

Meth is taken through smoking, injecting, snorting or swallowing, with smoking being the most common method. Members should know that any substance that is smoked goes directly to the brain in about eight to ten seconds. It is the most addictive way of using the drug. The smokeable form was developed in the 1980s but is more potent now than it was in the past.

Many young people are, of course, reluctant to use needles. This may well be their first hard core drug, and to many young Canadians smoking is familiar. It is generally smoked in glassware that can be heated.

Crystal stimulates the central nervous system by pumping up the levels of neurotransmitters such as dopamine. At low doses, it boosts alertness and blocks hunger and fatigue. At higher doses, the drug can cause agitation and bizarre behaviour. Physical effects include increased heart rate, blood pressure and body temperature. The serious psychological effects attached to the chronic use of meth include anxiety, emotional swings and paranoia. Symptoms increase with long term use and can involve paranoid delusions and hallucinations. Violence and self-destructive behaviour are common. Overdose is also a risk with the use of crystal meth. Symptoms include fever, convulsions and coma. Death can result from burst blood vessels in the brain, triggered by spikes in the blood pressure, or heart failure.

Meth use takes a toll on both individual health and well-being, as well as community safety because of its effect on behaviour. The agitation and paranoia can lead to aggressive and violent behaviours, and those behaviours have an impact on family members and the community.

An additional safety concern is the meth labs themselves. Making meth produces odourless toxic fumes which can explode, posing a danger to those who are living in or visiting the abode, socially or professionally, and those within close proximity. Many of the chemicals are flammable and highly reactive. Spending time in an environment where there is this phosphene gas, a by-product of meth production and a poisonous gas, can make people ill. The toxic waste produced by these labs, which winds up in ditches, sewers and dumpsters, poses another public safety issue.

Clearly, crystal meth is a concern.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while the parliamentary secretary's response was informative, it did not give me much hope that the government was doing anything to solve the problem of the proliferation of crystal meth in my riding and elsewhere in Canada.

In the United States a bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced the combat meth act, which would make it harder to get materials used to produce the drug that the hon. member has described. Governments across North America are taking this seriously.

Would the parliamentary secretary not agree that the Government of Canada has been slow to respond and that it must do much more in order to win this war against crystal meth?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, methamphetamine is currently classified under schedule 3 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. As a result, the maximum penalty for possession is three years and the maximum penalty for trafficking is ten years.

In contrast, the maximum penalties for drugs in schedule 1, such as cocaine or heroin, are seven years for possession and life imprisonment for trafficking.

The responsibility, as has been previously mentioned, for the administration of the CDSA and specifically the listing of these substances is with the Department of Health. Health Canada is aware of the views expressed by the courts, prosecutors and the police that higher penalties should be available for trafficking in these methamphetamines.

Starting in March of last year, officials of the Department of Justice have met with officials of the office of controlled substances at Health Canada to discuss the issue. Justice officials will continue to work with their counterparts at Health Canada in this process.

As the minister mentioned today, at a recent federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers meeting in January of this year, a working group was set up that will forward with this and bring forward recommendations as to how we may better combat this problem that the hon. member raises.