Andrew Telegdi

[February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on an issue of citizenship, which has very much been in the news in the last number of weeks. It is an issue that we have been discussing in the House for over 10 years. It truly is unfortunate that we are still discussing it instead of actually taking action.

I said earlier this week to the minister:

Mr. Speaker, the current fiasco could have been avoided. In the last Parliament all parties recognized the urgency to update the current, archaic and discriminatory Citizenship Act that does not recognize people married in religious ceremonies abroad and considers their children illegitimate. Had it not been for the defeat of the previous government, Canadians would now have a new Citizenship Act.

Will the Conservatives keep their promise to update the Citizenship Act in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as they promised when they were in opposition?

That question was fairly straightforward and called on the government not to discriminate against religious marriages. That is exactly what is happening and it is having quite an impact on quite a few Canadians. I find it passing strange that a party, which supposedly promotes religious freedoms, would discriminate against them.

The minister responded to me by saying:

Mr. Speaker, the interim policy on same sex marriage has been annulled and Parliament voted on that issue. That is the law of the land and we believe it should apply equally to everyone.

I am pleased that the Conservatives have recognized same sex marriage, finally, but I am left wondering if they also recognize common law marriage. Why would we discriminate by taking citizenship away from people who were married in a religious ceremony?

What is even more disturbing is that we are talking about a young man 27 years old who lived in this country since he was a few months old and because his great-grandparents were married in a religious ceremony and did not have a civil ceremony, he had his citizenship denied because he was born out of wedlock. How ridiculous can we get?

I find it incredible that this allegation would be made in particular against the Mennonite community that has the highest of morals and is very much traditionalist on this.

We can fix this and we can fix this if the Conservatives keep their promise, in the last government and previous governments, that they would bring in a citizenship act that was in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In closing, I want to commend the work of CBC Radio on this issue. I encourage Canadians to engage in the debate because it is a critical debate. It impacts on hundreds of thousands of people, or even millions of people, who are Canadian citizens.

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague that we have to utilize alternative energy resources.

When Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, was asked why she disliked the leader of the NDP so much, she responded very directly. She said it was because he conspired with the Conservatives to bring down the Liberal government on the eve of the climate change conference that was being managed for Canada by the present Liberal leader.

Would my colleague not agree with me that 2006 was a total waste for the Kyoto protocol because the NDP was instrumental in bringing down the Liberal government?

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to commend my colleague on his speech and particularly on the fact that he talked about this being a worldwide problem.

We know how the Conservatives said in the last election campaign, and even before that, that they were going to work on a made in Canada solution, but when we are dealing with a world problem, we have to get the whole world onside.

I am glad that instead of being Kyoto climate change deniers, the Conservatives are trying to paint themselves as Kyoto climate change disciples, but before they get there, they really are going to have to do penance. They have to stand up and explain to Canadians why they were confusing them and why they were using the issue of stopping Kyoto to raise money. I think that is very important in terms of getting back Canadians' confidence in the government. The Conservatives have hard work to do.

I want to touch on another issue, but I do not think I will get an answer to it. Let me ask my colleague about it. The Conservatives are always saying the Liberals did nothing for 13 years. I think my colleague would agree with me that in the 13th year since 1993, with the 13th year belonging to the Conservative government, nothing has been done on climate change. The government delayed the implementation of Kyoto by a full year and for that it--

[Citizenship Act, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the current passport fiasco could have been avoided. In the last Parliament all parties recognized the urgency to update the current, archaic and discriminatory Citizenship Act that does not recognize people married in religious ceremonies abroad and considers their children illegitimate. Had it not been for the defeat of the previous government, Canadians would now have a new Citizenship Act.

Will the Conservatives keep their promise to update the Citizenship Act in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as they promised when they were in opposition?

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is talking about an artificial number in terms of the number of refugees we accept. We can accept a lot more than we are accepting. There are tens of thousands of variants that can happen within our immigration package, in our total numbers. It is the same as the situation with the refugee numbers.

I thought it was unfair of the member previously in trying to compare the misery of various groups. I am essentially saying that really it would cost us very little. We could do it very quickly, and very quickly the refugees would be contributing to the Canadian economy, making our communities stronger economically and socially.

However, I really have a problem when we start comparing misery over here with misery over there. The fact of the matter is that the problem has been solved to a large extent. There were 2,000 to start with. That number is down to 150. Other countries did their part. This gives us an opportunity to do our part, close the chapter on that particular experience and continue to work with the refugees we can take in.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2006]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that we can do that, and we can do a lot more. One of the problems we have, and which we do not talk about when we talk about refugees and immigration, is that we are not doing it just to be charitable or just to be nice. The fact of the matter is that immigration is the economic lifeblood of this country. It has been in the past and it helped build the country, and it is going to continue to be in the future.

I see a time when we will not be getting all the numbers that we think we can because we are in competition with other countries. We are going to find out that some of the practices we now have will impair our future ability to meet targets. We are going to lose out to other countries, particularly for the ones we really go after, because those other countries do a much better job of attracting immigrants.

The fact of the matter is that refugees contribute to this country. These folks could be absorbed very quickly into the economy. It just does not make any sense in terms of the amount of time we have spent debating this issue. We should have made it happen a long time ago, but this is an opportunity, and I hope the government listens.

As for the 152 people, I love the comparison to the Christmas season. I think it would be a wonderful gift, wrapping up this story of the Vietnamese boat people and giving a real present to the Vietnamese Canadian community in terms of a victory that they so richly deserve, and we would all win.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is there are always more people ready to provide private sponsorships than there are refugees who are allowed into the country. This has been a problem over the years. The community said that they would come forward and they would deal with the sponsorship on those.

I am glad that the member asked that question because we really have to push the government, and he is in the governing party, to ensure that we meet the numbers. We only do about half of what we could in terms of the number of sponsorship groups out there.

The other issue is about the previous government starting on it, but it not finishing it. However, if we were still government, our members would be pushing very hard to ensure that was done.

The member should go forward in caucus, raise this issue and try to push the minister and the Prime Minister by saying this is something that he would like to wrap up. Hopefully that will happen. I know the member was involved in this whole movement on the Vietnamese refugees, as were all the communities. It would be nice if we could wrap this up, make it happen and win one for the refugees instead of the bureaucrats.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in joining this debate, I would like to respond to the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock who spoke for the government.

Having been on the citizenship and immigration committee since 1998, I recognize speeches written by bureaucrats, who are exactly the people who wrote that speech. I refused to give some of those speeches when I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of citizenship immigration because I believed that as a member of Parliament I had an obligation to the House, as well as to my constituents, the country and my fellow members of Parliament.

The member made the comment that it was disingenuous for people on this side to criticize the government because we were in government before. The record will show that in previous Parliaments when the Liberals were in government, we supported settling this question about the Vietnamese boat people. I might also say to the member that the Conservatives also supported it.

When the bureaucrats came to the committee, Daniel Jean spoke to the committee and said that the government would try to deal with this. I remember the critic, the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill, saying the following:

Thank you, gentlemen, for your information to the committee.

The committee is pleased, I believe it's fair to say, with this reversal by the government of their long-standing objection to resettling these Vietnamese who were without status in the Philippines. However, the devil is always in the details, isn't it?

We are finding out that is the case. The point I want to make is that the Conservative members of the committee supported it, as did the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Bloc. There was general support in the committee to make this happen.

I have another issue I want to focus on. We often talk about cooperating with our allies or other folks to make things happen. We started off with 2,000 people who needed to be resettled. Australia, a smaller country than ours, took in 256 people. Our allies to the south took many more. The United Kingdom took some and Norway resettled some.

We are talking about a relatively small number but the significance of it is huge. It is huge because we would get to wrap up the adventure we began back in 1975 when we dealt with the Vietnamese boat people, as well as people from Cambodia and the Laotians. Canada did a very admirable job. It took in over 20% of all the Vietnamese boat people, Cambodians and Laotians who needed to be resettled. This is an opportunity for us to wrap it up. We are talking about 125 plus 27 who were born in the Philippines and who have a mixed heritage of Philippine and Vietnamese.

I have been here since 1998 and the only consistent thing has been the department's opposition to some of these issues.

The situation is fairly simple. The minister has all the power to make this happen. It does not take a lot. He can sign off on it very quickly. He could go through the criminality and health checks to satisfy himself that these people would meet those criteria. All it takes is a little political will.

Unfortunately, and this I find has been a problem, immigration and citizenship is not a big priority for the government. It had a very able candidate for the position in the member for Calgary—Nose Hill, who was their critic. She understood the department. The Conservatives also had a number of members, such as the member from Edmonton, who served on the committee for a long period of time. They had expertise to put in the position as minister.

The Prime Minister chose not to do that. He picked a member who had absolutely no exposure to citizenship and immigration issues. He may be a fine member, but he was put in charge of a department without any prior experience in the portfolio. The same thing is true for the position of parliamentary secretary.

We have the Prime Minister appointing people to the position of minister and parliamentary secretary, people who have no previous experience in the department. Why would the Prime Minister not give priority to something as important as citizenship and immigration, which affects so many Canadians in the country?

I want to get back to the 152 people about whom we are talking. There is absolutely no excuse. If the government had not changed the members of the government on the committee, the committee would not be parroting the line handed to them by the bureaucrats or by their whip. They would be still pushing to resettle this group of people, where we only have 152 people left out of a group of about 2,000.

Let me get back to the previous Liberal government when it dealt with this issue. I mentioned that the committee members, and the member for Burnaby—Douglas will know this, oftentimes did not go the way that the parliamentary secretary would have gone or the government might have wanted to go. The members on the committee used their best judgment upon hearing the evidence, keeping in mind they were parliamentarians. When we sit on committees, it is our job to hold the bureaucracy accountable as well as the government.

This is one area where I am sad to say the Conservative government has really been failing. If we check the minutes of the committee meetings and if we look at the voting pattern of the members on the government side, it is unanimously one position. We can tell this by the way the parliamentary secretary votes.

In the previous Parliament, when the Liberals were in government, the parliamentary secretary did not dominate the committee in terms of speaking time. The time then was shared by all the members. Now we have a parliamentary secretary who essentially dominates the speaking time on behalf of the government. Instead of allowing committees to work, we have a situation where the government line is put out and pushed. This inhibits the committee from doing its job either holding the government or the bureaucracy accountable. That is unfortunate.

The Vietnamese Canadian community is a very viable one in Canada. One of the real pleasures one gets being in committee is hearing presentations from Canadians from across the country. We all have members of the Vietnamese Canadian community in our ridings. My colleague from Winnipeg said that he would like to have them all go to his riding.

When we travelled across the country and talked on the issue of immigration and citizenship, one of the things we heard, universally, was that we needed more immigrants. When we were in the Maritimes, we heard that undocumented workers seemed to be a problem to the government, that it was trying to get rid of them on a daily basis. They wanted them to relocate there because they were desperate for people to settle in their communities. Canadians have recognized that immigration population growth leads to more economic activity and prosperity. This has not been happening.

As I mentioned, we have a very viable Vietnamese community. I hope it keeps pushing this issue in the communities. Governments being unresponsive and making decisions of this type have to be held accountable.

When I came here in 1993 as a new member of Parliament, I sat on the government side of the House and Reform Party members sat on the other side. They said that they came here because they wanted to do what was right by their constituents. They said that they wanted to vote the way their constituents instructed them to vote. Sadly, that bit of innovation has disappeared. We now have the Conservative Party and members vote the way they are told. If they dare vote their conscience, or for that matter vote as instructed by their constituents, they quickly find themselves out the door. I think the public is fast becoming aware of this flip-flop.

The reality is we are dealing with a small issue here. We are talking about 152 people and wrapping up the whole Vietnam boat experience, which was a traumatic event in many of our lives. We could also give closure to those Canadians of Vietnamese background who went through that experience. They see that the people in the Philippines are suffering. They are stateless and cannot settle anywhere. They are often harassed by the police. They are shaken down for bribes.

For the psychological well-being of our Vietnamese Canadian community, we need to wrap this up. We need to do our part with the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway and Australia. Right now we are not doing that. It will not take any great deal of work on the part of the government to make this happen. The minister could very easily sign one piece of paper saying we want these people. This is exactly what we should be doing. We should be wrapping this up if we want to maintain our reputation.

In 1975 we did great work with the boat people and the Vietnamese community. We did it because the Canadian public in many ways demanded that we do it. About this time 50 years ago, the Hungarian revolution wound down and people were displaced. They went to Austria. It was the reaction of Canadians that drove the government to action.

We have to recapture the spirit of those times because, ultimately, not that many things have to divide us when it comes to humanitarian activity. I think we would find overwhelming consensus across the country that people would want to see this chapter closed, that they would want those people to be given an opportunity to come to Canada and, as I said, close the book on that chapter. It would not take very much at all.

[Frank Morgan, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate, on a day when we will be defeating a motion that promotes exclusion, to pay tribute to a man whose life was about teaching and practising inclusion.

Reverend Frank Morgan, Minister Emeritus of the Trinity United Church in Kitchener, and faith columnist for The Record for nearly three decades, passed away on November 29 with his wife of 63 years, Helen, by his side.

Frank was fearless and forthright in discussing the tough issues of faith and encouraged others to do the same. The late pastor's unflagging support for the disadvantaged, including immigrants, the poor, women and homosexuals, earned him many fans.

In recent years, Morgan turned to his typewriter to challenge fellow Christians to soften their interpretation of scripture. He endorsed and celebrated same sex marriage.

Frank was a principled and a humble man who enriched one's life just from having known him. He will be missed.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the matter of rights, I do not care if the numbers are 10 to 1, I will stand by my conscience and I will vote for what I believe is the charter.