Debates of March 10th, 2016

Citizenship Act

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, this morning I talked about this being a policy choice, equating the moral blameworthiness of taking away citizenship for fraud, for immoral acts committed abroad, but now removing it for committing such acts at home for three narrow provisions.

Could the hon. member, as a lawyer talk, about this as a public policy choice? Treason was a ground for revocation under three Liberal prime ministers. That policy choice has not been explained. Could the member comment?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has alluded to this very well. This is a policy choice that is counter to other provisions that revoke citizenship or have done so historically, including for things that are similar to or even less important than this. Therefore, let us make sure the law is on all four squares and on the best ground. I think that is a better road to go.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I usually start by saying it is an honour to participate in this important debate. However, I have to say that this is a particularly important debate, one of the most important we have had thus far in the House, because we are talking about what Canadian citizenship means and the core aspects of Canadian identity.

I want to start by articulating what I see as three central principles of Canadian citizenship. I believe that Canadian citizenship should be accessible, should be valued, and should express collective values.

The first principle is that citizenship should be accessible. We take for granted that we are a country where citizenship is not only something people can be born into, but also that people can receive by coming here and becoming citizens. They can be from elsewhere originally, but then buy into our collective values and become part of Canada. Our citizenship is accessible, which is part of our strength—being able to draw on the knowledge and experience that come from other parts of the world.

I was recently in the United Arab Emirates, and that is not the way things work there and in some other countries. People can live there for decades and never have an opportunity to acquire citizenship. Therefore, the way we do it in Canada is special, is important, and provides us with a unique value. I believe there is consensus on this principle of accessibility.

The second principle is that citizenship ought to be valued. It ought to be the sort of thing that we understand means something. To paraphrase Kant, it should never be treated as merely a means, but be valued as a good in and of itself.

For many of the new Canadians I have talked to in my riding and elsewhere, they have a particularly sharp sense of the value of Canadian citizenship. If it is something they did not start out with, if they had to come here and then acquire it, they have a particular appreciation for the value of that citizenship. New Canadians and all Canadians want us to ensure that citizenship is not just a tool to achieve some other end, but is regarded as a thing of value by those who hold it.

The third principle is that citizenship ought to express collective values in some sense. Of course, that does not mean that we have to agree on everything, or even on most things, but it does mean that there is some set of values that we can identify as being centrally Canadian.

Not everyone who breaks the law in any sense steps out of this essential values compact, but there are cases, and we have seen them, of people who clearly voluntarily make a very strong clean break with anything we would understand to resemble Canadian values.

I would argue that if we allow people who are involved in treason, terrorism, or fighting for foreign genocidal powers against Canada, people who clearly do not buy into any semblance of our collective values, to keep our citizenship, then we devalue that citizenship. All members here understand the importance of Canadian citizenship, but it ought to be valued as an end, not merely as a means, and it ought to express something about our collective values, not just express the fact that someone went through a particular process. That is what citizenship is about. That is what it should be about.

Here in Canada we have put these two critical ideas together. On the one hand, we have sought and effectively built a very diverse country ethnically, culturally, religiously, and linguistically. However, in the context of that, we have also sought generally to insist on the importance of common values, on the meaning of our citizenship, and on expressing some kind of collective values. At first blush, this might seem like a difficult combination, diversity on the one hand and common values on the other. Indeed, in most of the world's history, these things were not seen as going together. Most of the world's history has been populated either by small republics or big empires: on the one hand, possibly societies that are relatively small and homogenous and are held together by collective values, and, on the other hand, societies that are larger, more diverse, and controlled centrally.

However, the Canadian ideal was a unique political experiment in world history, and it is one that has worked. It was the idea that we could build a society that was both diverse but also expressed common values, and did so democratically.

We have all heard the expression, “having your cake and eating it too”. This was really our attempt to have our cake and eat it with ice cream and a glass of wine. We have done it and we have built a great society.

However, to have a cohesive democratic society that is diverse, we always need to have and maintain that idea of common values. There is a point at which someone goes too far and steps outside of those common values. This is what we are fighting for, and this is something that we on this side of the House believe is worth fighting for, the idea that citizenship must at some point entail common values. As we have seen, this is an idea contested by members opposite.

The Prime Minister recently told The New York Times that “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.... Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state.” It is deeply troubling that the Prime Minister of Canada would spout, respectfully, such nonsense. This is a bastardization of a great Canadian political experiment, a troubling wrong turn in thinking, and it comes at a time when, frankly, Canada is at a high point in terms of its diversity and collective values. We have to maintain them. People come here because of our diversity, but not just because of our diversity, but also because they want to buy into a set of shared democratic values in that context. The vast majority of people who come here have no interest in our allowing terrorists to retain their citizenship.

I want to say as well that this bill is important to me personally. As the son and grandson of immigrants, I was always raised with this particular appreciation of the value of Canadian citizenship and the way it expresses our collective values. My grandmother grew up in a country that did not believe she had basic human dignity because of her race. My mother was born in Venezuela when her father was working on an energy project there. She is, in fact, a dual citizen. My father's parents arrived from Malta just a couple of months after he was born, and he liked to tell us that he had been made in Malta. Since my father is also an obstetrician, we were never in doubt about what that meant. It may be the case that I am the first Canadian MP of Maltese descent and this no doubt marks a major step forward in our social evolution. My wife's family members were immigrants to Canada from Pakistan, where they faced increasing persecution because of their Christian faith. Because of a history of ethnic and religious persecution, both of our families really understand what it means to be in a country like Canada, why our citizenship is valuable, and why we need to fight for those common values against the attempts of the current government to de-emphasize them and to allow convicted terrorists to remain citizens.

I want to conclude my speech today with a few points of refutation to what we have heard in the debate so far. I must say that we have heard some very good speeches from the government side, but we have heard many speeches that just simply repeated the same slogans over and over again about the importance of diversity, as if that were actually a subject for debate. Listening to this debate, I have to say that there is no party with a monopoly on respect for diversity, but there does seem to be one party with a monopoly on sanctimony. Let us put the sanctimonious slogans aside and talk about the issues. Let us talk about the content of the bill, because it is simply too important to get lost in repeated sloganeering.

We have heard a lot of misinformation. We have heard members of the government say that new Canadians are worried that they might lose their citizenship just because they choose to reside outside the country. It is very clear that those people who are citizens are not required to live in Canada, but we do ask and should ask for an affirmation that people intend to reside in Canada. That does not preclude anyone who is a Canadian from living abroad at certain times, but it aligns us with a basic principle that if they just come here to get their citizenship and then plan on leaving right away, it does not really reflect an understanding of the value of Canadian citizenship.

We have heard this strange assertion that this violates the rule of law. Of course it does not. Citizenship is revocable in every country in the world. It would remain revocable in Canada after this bill passes, and these changes have not been required by the courts. Of course, the current elected government has a right to propose these measures, but to suggest that they are required by some principle of the rule of law reflects a misunderstanding of the way the law works. It is the invention of an artificial principle of law.

The Liberals have sought to skew the previous government's record, a record that includes the highest sustained immigration levels in the country's history. This is a critical discussion, so I ask the government members to put aside the slogans, put aside the talking points and misinformation, and let us have this discussion in a serious way. Canadian identity is too important.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think my friend opposite has defeated his own argument, proving there is no monopoly on this side on sanctimonious speeches.

I want to thank him for relating his family history. I happen to know his aunt. She is a very good friend of mine and, much to his chagrin, a big supporter of mine. I send her regards.

We are talking about revocation of citizenship. We all agree on the importance of Canadian citizenship. We all agree on the importance of immigration. There is a difference in revoking someone's citizenship on the basis of fraud, because that means they were not entitled to it in the first place.

The hon. member is talking about giving someone Canadian citizenship and when that person is convicted of a crime, then sending him or her somewhere else so they can do it again. That does not represent Canadian values. Does the hon. member agree or disagree with this point?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the regards from my wife's aunt. My in-laws would tell voters during the election, “Don't worry, we checked him out much more than you ever will.”

When it comes to the issue of sending people to other countries, let us be very clear about the revocation of citizenship. There are many cases that could be involved here, or someone might already be in another country.

There was a case discussed yesterday of someone who set their passport on fire and then shot it. That person was already in a different country. That person should not have the benefits of Canadian citizenship. It should be understood that person like that has clearly established their separation from the principles Canada stands for, from Canadian values, and voluntarily stepped outside of the Canadian family.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill before the House will create two-tier citizenship. The current law, law as amended by Bill C-24, levelled the playing field of citizenship. It meant that whether or not an individual was native born or an immigrant who became naturalized, both of those types of citizens could have their citizenship revoked if they had another nationality, or held dual citizenship, and had committed certain acts.

The bill will create two-tier citizenship because it will remove the right of the government to revoke citizenship for native-born Canadians, but keep it in place for those immigrants who come here and become naturalized Canadian citizens. That is two-tier citizenship.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the great work of this member on this issue. He is absolutely right on this point.

In addition to the underlying philosophical problems with the approach the government has taken, it is clear that there are a lot of strange contradictions in the bill. The Liberals seem to say on the one hand that citizenship ought to be irrevocable, but the bill maintains the possibility of revoking citizenship. They talk about two-tier citizenship being a bad thing, but then, at the same time, the bill brings in a two-tier citizenship, because under the bill now there is no case in which someone born in Canada could ever lose their citizenship, but someone who moves to this country could.

The government members use slogans in this debate, but need to dig into and actually understand the content of the bill. I encourage all members of the government to do so. Do not just vote for the bill because the title sounds nice, but dig into it and understand its provisions and its implications. They should make their own decision on it.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I just want to quickly refute a few of the arguments.

First, it is not two-tiered. For anyone who legitimately receives their citizenship, it cannot be revoked. The second point they made is that there will be still be revocation. There will not still be revocation for an individual who has legitimately achieved their citizenship.

On the common values, as the Conservatives have correctly pointed out, of all the terrorist and other acts they are talking about, most have been done by Canadian citizens. I cannot believe they want to revoke all of those citizenships. As for horrendous crimes, once again, they are saying it is two-tier if the crime is committed in Canada versus somewhere else. They are saying there is a difference in that regard in the bill. There is not a difference. If you do those horrendous crimes in any country, including this one, before you gain your citizenship, you will not be allowed to become a citizen.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Could the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan please give a very brief answer?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it will be at least as brief as the question.

The member said, “Oh, no, in our bill, Canadian citizenship cannot be revoked—unless”. That is exactly the point. We do not believe Canadian citizenship can be revoked unless there is fraud or terrorism involved.

They changed one of the unlesses, but there is still an unless. That is the point. They still do not believe citizenship should be irrevocable; they believe it should be revocable, as it is in every country in the world and as it always has been here.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

Unfortunately, the member will not have a lot of time to get into his speech, but he will have a few minutes to begin it and he can continue it after question period.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by noting that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

During the time leading up to the election on October 19, 2015, I heard many concerns from residents of Cloverdale—Langley City about the changes that the previous government had made to the Citizenship Act, and since this government was elected on October 19, with part of our election platform being to make changes to the Citizenship Act, I have heard from many constituents inquiring as to when these changes will occur.

The bill represents an important reminder of this government's commitment to a diverse and inclusive Canada. It recognizes the contribution that new Canadians make to this great country each and every day.

The proposed changes in Bill C-6 would provide greater flexibility for applicants trying to meet the requirements for citizenship. It would help immigrants obtain citizenship faster and it would repeal provisions of the Citizenship Act that allow citizenship to be revoked from citizens who engage in certain acts against the national interest.

I can tell members that citizenship is an issue of critical importance to my constituents in Cloverdale—Langley City, many of whom are immigrants who have achieved citizenship and are exceedingly proud of their status as Canadians. They are proud of what being a Canadian means for them and their families.

I have heard from recent immigrants about their fears of losing their Canadian citizenship. They saw how the rules of citizenship could be changed by a stroke of the government's pen. Members of diverse communities were horrified, even terrified, that they would be targeted for deportation by their own government.

In May 2015, under the previous government's Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, legislative changes were created to allow citizenship to be revoked from dual citizens. The legislative changes allowed citizenship to be taken away for certain acts against the national interest of Canada. Convictions for terrorism, high treason, treason, spying offences, or membership in an organized group engaged in armed conflict with Canada were grounds for revocation. Citizens felt threatened and under attack by these changes.

I also heard from Canadians who have been Canadians for decades but who still hold citizenship from other countries and had passed this dual citizenship on to their children. They too are horrified, even terrified, that not only they but their children could be targeted for deportation by their own government under the rules set by the previous Conservative government.

Bill C-6 would repeal these grounds for deportation. This government believes that the Canadian justice system is fully capable of administering justice, protecting the public interest, and holding individuals accountable for their actions.

However, the value, the strength, and the iconic symbolism of Canadian citizenship would remain intact under Bill C-6. The bill would continue to provide the ability to revoke citizenship when it was wrongfully obtained. False representation, fraud, or knowingly concealing material circumstances remain grounds for revocation.

Madam Speaker, I will continue my speech after question period and will share my time, as I have mentioned.

Heritage Day in Newfoundland and Labrador

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador was honoured this past Heritage Day when the minister responsible for Parks Canada announced a number of historical honours bestowed on sites and people from our province.

On this, the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel, I draw the attention of the House to Thomas Nangle. “Padre”, as he was affectionately known, was Roman Catholic chaplain to the beloved Royal Newfoundland Regiment. He enlisted following the tragic losses of Beaumont-Hamel and succeeded in having Newfoundland's efforts in World War I commemorated both in Europe, with the Trail of Caribou, and in St. John's, with the National War Memorial.

On behalf of St. John's East, I thank Parks Canada for its work and encourage everyone to learn more about the sites, events, and people of national historical significance at the Parks Canada website, including our dear padre, Thomas Nangle.

Saskatoon Volunteer

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of my constituents. Born in Prud'homme, Saskatchewan, Denise Hounjet-Roth has brought zeal to everything she has touched in life.

As a teacher in the Saskatoon Separate School Division, she brought passion to her mission of teaching students. It was, however, during her time at university that she first became known for her passion for defending human life.

Denise is known for volunteering countless hours working with Campaign Life Coalition and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, praying in front of hospitals and organizing demonstrations to support the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. This passion has also led her to an active role in politics, first with the Liberals for Life campaign and then later with the Conservative campaigns in Saskatoon.

Denise was married to Louis Roth in 1982 and is mum to Gregory and Jonathan, mum-in-law to Elizabeth, and grandma to four-month-old Olivia. Family is central to her life.

Denise, by God's grace, we pray that everything goes well with your current battle. We will see you again this year, curling, politicking, protesting, and praying in the way that only you can.

Make a Difference Campaign

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week I was fortunate enough to visit St. Elizabeth elementary school in Thunder Bay, which is the same school I attended growing up. There I met Mr. Cameron's grade 5 and 6 class and learned about the Make a Difference campaign, otherwise known as MAD, which encourages individuals of all ages to give back to their communities.

The students have been making a difference in the city of Thunder Bay through acts of kindness, such as shovelling driveways and volunteering at our local homeless shelter.

Today, in honour of the dedication shown by Mr. Cameron's class, I pledge to join MAD by consciously choosing to perform acts of kindness in my community.

I invite the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and all my peers in the House of Commons to join us as we set out to prove that a kind gesture, great or small, can make a world of difference.

Infrastructure

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, last month I was visited by a delegation from the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. I thank those representatives for taking the time to visit me. Their issues were very familiar to me as a northern resident.

To participate in Canada's economy, rural and remote northern communities require access to diverse markets, access to services, access to training and educational programs, and access to the Internet and cellphone services.

We in the north learned to adjust to life without services and employment. However, northern and remote communities are integral to Canada's economic prosperity.

In the spirit of ensuring fair and equitable distribution of wealth, I am committed to working hard to help our rural and northern communities to reach their potential. This means pushing the government to increase infrastructure spending and create jobs. After years of Conservative cuts, it is time for the government to invest in our northern communities.

Pierre Bergeron

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during a ceremony on February 12 at Rideau Hall, Gatineau resident Pierre Bergeron was awarded the Order of Canada, Canada's highest civilian honour, for his contributions as a champion of Canada's francophonie.

This past Saturday, Mr. Bergeron also received the Prix Richelieu Fondateur Albert-Boyer, which is awarded annually to people who have made outstanding contributions to the francophonie.

Originally from Saguenay, Mr. Bergeron began working for Le Droit in 1975. Throughout his career, as he himself has said, he chose to provoke without harming, inform without distorting, and raise people's awareness without dulling their sensitivity.

By choosing to take sides instead of remaining impartial as the publisher of Le Droit, Mr. Bergeron played a major role in saving the Montfort Hospital and helped francophones on both sides of the Ottawa River flourish.

Mr. Bergeron also contributed to his region as a member of many boards, including the United Way's, and was also involved in the Michener Awards Foundation.

It is a privilege for me—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

Caledon Chamber of Commerce

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Caledon Chamber of Commerce on its 30th anniversary.

This chamber has been the voice of good business in Caledon by consistently providing excellent programs and services to its members since 1986, as well as always being a strong advocate on behalf of the business community to all levels of government.

The chamber has also been an engaged and active member of the larger Caledon community. It has done this through events such as the annual Caledon Home and Lifestyle Show, which showcases many outstanding local businesses while providing residents with the opportunity to discover and support these local businesses, which benefits our community immensely.

On behalf of the residents of Dufferin—Caledon, I would like to sincerely thank the Caledon Chamber of Commerce for its countless contributions to our community and wish it another 30 years of business.

Status of Women

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on March 5, 2016, I hosted an International Women's Day town hall at the Donway Baptist Church in my riding of Don Valley East.

The event was well received and was attended by a great number of women and men. The participants were pleased to learn about our Liberal government's initiatives in the areas of economic equity and gender parity.

I would like to thank Rev. Darrell Maguire for reminding us that it is women, our mothers, who nurture society. His example of his mother and the influence she had on his life was uplifting.

It is important to recognize the achievements of women and know that there is still so much to be done to promote gender equity in Canada and across the world. On my behalf and on behalf of all those who participated in the event, I would like to thank Rev. Maguire and his team for their wonderful hospitality.

I look forward to working with all members of this House as we move towards greater empowerment of women and girls here in Canada.

Governor General's Caring Canadian Award

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize and congratulate a young student from the Nickel Belt riding.

Sophie Ménard is a grade 10 student at École secondaire Hanmer. On February 23, His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnson, Governor General of Canada, presented Miss Ménard with a prestigious honour, the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award, for her many hours of charity efforts within her school and the community.

Sophie Ménard has been one of the OUICare charitable club's pioneers since its inception and works tirelessly to help the youth group thrive. Sophie played an active role in the We Stand in Silence campaign, Coldest Night of the Year, WE Day, and many local and international fundraisers. She has also worked with Free the Children, Maison Vale Hospice, and the Samaritan Centre.

I am very proud of Miss Ménard and all young Canadians who are dedicated to helping others. Their commitment and enthusiasm are truly inspirational.

Workplace Safety

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of this House to an explosion and fire at one of my region's largest employers, the Quesnel West Fraser mill in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George.

Thankfully no one was injured in last night's explosion, but the unfortunate truth is that we are no strangers to loss of life in the Cariboo region. In 2012, in my riding and that of my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, we experienced and mourned the loss of four lives on two separate occasions due to mill explosions in Burns Lake and Prince George. Numerous others suffered from injury and continue today to deal with the healing process, both emotionally and physically.

It was these very communities that banded together in a time of terrible tragedy that exemplified the pioneer spirit that has come to define our character in the north.

To my friends and family back home in Quesnel, my thoughts and prayers are with them today. I ask that all members in this House take a moment to remember those who have lost their lives in a workplace incident and the families that continue to carry forward their memory.

Arctic Winter Games

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a big shout-out to Team NWT athletes, coaches, and mission staff who have been in Nuuk, Greenland, since March 6 participating in the 24th Arctic Winter Games.

What started out in Yellowknife in 1970 with competitors from Yukon, Alaska, and the NWT has turned into the largest multi-sport and cultural event for youth athletes from many of the world's arctic regions. There are now over 2,000 participating athletes from Nunavut, northern Alberta, Nunavik, Russia, Greenland, and Scandinavia.

These athletes are competing in 15 different sports, from cross-country skiing and hockey to traditional Dene and Inuit games. Attending the games is a great achievement for all these youth. It will show them that hard work and perseverance pays off. These young athletes have developed skills and will gain experience that will serve them well in life.

To all the Arctic Winter Games athletes, good luck and have fun.

Tibet

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 57th anniversary of the Tibetan national uprising. On March 10, 1959, thousands gathered in front of the Potala Palace, in Lhasa, to rise up against injustice in Tibet. That year, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, an honorary citizen of this country, and 100,000 other Tibetans, became refugees.

His Holiness and thousands of other Tibetans are now seeking a path of return. They are pursuing an approach called “the middle way”. The middle way seeks nothing more than greater autonomy for Tibet within China. It is an approach that would peacefully resolve the issue of Tibet and bring about stability and co-existence between the Tibetan and Chinese people based on the concept of equality and mutual co-operation.

It saddens me greatly that in a desperate attempt to raise more awareness about the cause of Tibet, 151 persons have self-immolated. Those deaths should never have been necessary.

On the 57th anniversary of the 1959 uprising, it is up to all of us to focus on raising awareness about the Tibetan cause.

Antoni Jedlinski

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 16, the community of Chatham-Kent—Leamington lost a great citizen, Antoni “Tony” Jedlinski. Tony was born in Augustow, Poland in 1940. He was the beloved husband of Carolyn, and loving father of Katie, Lisa, and Monica.

He was an active member of Our Lady of Victory Church and the Polish community. He served as president of the Chatham Polish Canadian Club for over 30 years. He was a denturist, and owned and operated Chatham Denture clinic.

I met Tony 45 years ago. As a new Canadian, he would gas up at my father's Shell station and teach me my first Polish words.

I saw Tony most recently at the 75th anniversary celebration of the Polish Canadian Club. Tony worked tirelessly to preserve the language, culture, and traditions of the Polish Community. In fact, the club traces its roots to an original group of pioneers who settled in Chatham in 1940.

I take this opportunity to give my deepest sympathies to his loving family and friends. He will be truly missed.