Andrew Telegdi

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to join in the debate. This is an issue that has been supported by members of Parliament from all parties. One of the strongest proponents we have in the Liberal caucus is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport who wants to open up the process.

Who are we talking about? What is at issue here so Canadians can put this in proper perspective? We have six million Canadians in the country who were not born in Canada. My colleague, the critic of the New Democratic Party, has mentioned that he has a Kleenex box in his office for when he has those heart-rending cases that come to his office and he cannot assist them. That situation exists with all members of Parliament.

So people understand what we are talking about, I will use the example of a young couple in their early thirties with two young children who came to Canada from India. They came to my constituency office. They had just purchased a house and were working at jobs that did not pay a whole lot of money, but they were managing. The wife was diagnosed with brain cancer and she had a very short time to live. As her last wish, she applied to have her mother and sister come over from India for a visit. She died within a month, and the visas for those people were turned down.

Imagine a young family with no extended family in Canada. The wife, husband and the children were going through a very tragic time. What did she want for her last wish? It was for her mother and sister to come and visit her before she passed on. That is the issue about which we are talking. I mentioned that the issue has been raised by all members of Parliament.

Bill C-219, which was introduced in the House on March 17 by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, spoke to this issue. The member for Surrey North had a motion on the issue. I look at the minutes of the parliamentary committee of December 2, 1998, Madam Speaker, when you spoke on opening up the visa process because too many people were rejected.

Let me conclude by saying that in 1993 we had a rejection rate of 12.9%. In 1997, according to officials, we had a rejection rate of 10%. In 2003, according to the notes from officials, we had a rejection rate of 21.4%, 143,058 people.

What is being proposed in the bill will not fix the system. It is not in its final form. However, I have listened to all the critics in this chamber. Let me make it clear to all members that the opposition combined on a committee has seven members, the government has five members. Therefore, the will of the House expressed by all the critics from the opposition parties is the majority will of the House.

There are many members on the Liberal side who have fought for some kind of improvement in the system which can be so heartless that it can deny the final wish of a young woman who is dying. That is in my riding. I also have a box of kleenex in my office and I have it particularly for cases like this. When the system fails, some Canadian gets hurt.

In terms of the justice system, a surety process is in place where provincial courts and other courts deal with this situation every day. It is time for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to start to come up with solutions that will serve Canadians.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend my colleague, the critic from the NDP, on the issue of immigration and citizenship, and the member for Burnaby—Douglas on his initiative, as well as the member for Winnipeg North who has been working on this over the years.

When we look at Canada, there is no question that we are a nation of immigrants. More than 50 members who sit in the chamber came to Canada as immigrants and, of course, there are all sorts of other members whose parents or grandparents came to this nation. We are a nation of immigrants.

Ironically, what we really are talking about is giving recognition to the extended family. In some sense we are talking about family values, which is an important component that we have to put into our immigration policy.

The present cutoff is 60% economic and 40% other. There is nothing magical about those numbers. I think the department and the government should be re-examining them. The reason I say that is, as we know, our immigration policy on the economic side is heavily tilted toward credentials and higher qualifications.

A number of years ago when the shift was made in the point system, we demanded more qualifications from people coming into this country. It has not always been successful because we have not given recognition to the fact that in many cases the country is not ready to absorb all the professionals that we are bringing in. All one has to do is witness the fact that we probably have the highest qualified taxi driving force in the world, and it does not reflect upon us very well.

The other issue I want to touch on is the whole issue of settlement. It seems to me that it would make sense to Canadians that when people come here who have ties to this country, such as relatives, they will have an easier time settling. Settlement is a real challenge for us. I think it is important that we put a focus on that whole issue.

Getting back to immigration itself, it is not something that we do because we are a humanitarian country. We do it because immigration represents the lifeblood to this country. As was mentioned before, if we look at the demographics of this country, any growth in the workforce in the next decade will come through immigration. In terms of immigration itself, we have to recognize that the way we have the point system structured we do not pay enough attention to things like skilled trades. We pay too much attention to university degrees. As I mentioned before, we have the problem with brain waste that occurs.

I can tell the House that when someone comes to this country who might be a high tech worker, that person is going to drive services, such as housing, which involves tradespeople who do not necessarily qualify under the point system. It also triggers demand in the service industries.

It seems to me that the whole issue of family reunification would serve the purpose of enabling success for the new immigrant in terms of settlement, enhancing the quality of life of Canadians in this country by providing them with an extended family, and certainly it is an issue that we very much want to get to committee to have extensive debate on. The policy we set in terms of immigration to this country will determine the future of this nation.

I think this is a win-win bill and it is something that we in the committee could work with to enhance our Immigration Act and immigration practices.

One of the points I want to make very strongly is that just because a policy exists, it does not necessarily make it right. I only have to point us to what happened when we changed the point system on immigration. What happened was the committee strongly recommended against it. The bureaucrats pushed it forward and the government stayed in that position.

I can say that once the appeals started going through the courts, the unjust process by which we were judging immigrants coming to this country, was turned around but was not turned around because of any will of Parliament. It was turned around because the courts said so.

In closing my address on this particular issue, I think it would really enhance our debate on immigration. It would really be helpful for the quality of life of citizens in this country who have families who could come here to make a contribution.

[Ukrainian Canadian Restitution Act, December 7th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette. I agree with the thrust of his private member's bill. It is important for Canadians to put this issue in context. What is so important for us as members in the House and for Canadian society to understand is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not come to us out of a vacuum. It is based on injustices that occurred while our country evolved, which is why we have come to the kind of society that we are today.

When we look specifically at the question of what happened to the Ukrainians and the internment during the first world war, it is important to understand some of the history. Ukraine was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, an unwilling part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, I might add. Many Ukrainians left Ukraine and came to Canada because they were not particularly happy with the subjugations they were put under in Ukraine. They came to Canada to find a new life, to become Canadians and to be part of Canadian life.

However, then the first world war comes along and we introduce the Enemy Alien Act where people who were from the Austro-Hungarian Empire were forced to register and something like 5,000 people were interned, most of them of Ukrainian descent.

One can just imagine how disquieting it would be for new arrivals, new immigrants to this country, to all of a sudden find themselves, because of something that is happening somewhere else in the world, to be interned by us. As the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette said, if people were interned they then had to register with the police on a weekly basis.

How do things like that happen? They happen because at that time there was racism. We had superior races and inferior races. It did not only happen to the Ukrainians. As the member said, it also happened to Canadians of Japanese ancestry who suffered the same horrors during the second world war. We also know that as part of our history we had the Asian Exclusion Act and the Chinese Head Tax. We discriminated against all sorts of minorities. It was a fact of life at that time.

However, I think it was the suffering of all those groups, including the Jews, who, during the second world war, when they were looking for refuge to escape Nazi Germany, were turned away. Given all the suffering in the past, we now have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The member talked about doing a more general kind of redress. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes that, which is why we have it. The charter is our guidance for the future so we do not repeat those mistakes.

[Gerhard Hess, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life of Dr. Gerhard Hess of Kitchener, Ontario, who passed away on November 19. Dr. Hess was an outstanding person whose caring and compassion will be fondly remembered by those who knew him and the community that surrounded him.

Dr. Hess was born in 1926 and came to Canada at the age of 12. He was a veterinarian who served with the KW Humane Society.

I would also like to mention that Dr. Hess was one of the founders of the Black Ribbon Day committee, which dedicated its time to fighting for human rights behind the Iron Curtain.

As we all know, 14 years ago the Iron Curtain came down, but with what is happening in Ukraine, we are reminded that we must always be vigilant to make sure that human rights are protected.

[Citizenship Act, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the issue of citizenship arouses passion among members of the House. Citizenship is something very emotional. It is not just an intellectual exercise. It is something that is very much a part of our being. Certainly, in my case it has taken me on very interesting journeys.

As was mentioned by the critic for the New Democratic Party, I had the privilege of tabling a bill in the House today on the issue of a new citizenship act. We had great cooperation from members of all parties, the Conservatives, the Bloc, the New Democrats and members of my party.

Some of the comments I made this morning are very pertinent to this debate. One of my comments was that citizenship should be seen as a right for those who qualify rather than a privilege. We are talking about a right.

When it came to the issue of the lost Canadians, the committee was very strong in its recommendation. It recommended that any persons born in Canada who lost their Canadian citizenship as a child because their parent acquired a nationality of another country should be eligible to resume their citizenship without first becoming a permanent resident or without having to meet a residency requirement. The committee said that because what happened in a historical perspective was simply wrong.

It was mentioned before that what we are trying to do is to right a wrong. I am so gratified to see the near unanimous support that this concept has.

The bill was debated in the Senate and was passed twice unanimously by all the senators. The majority of members in the Senate are Liberals and yet the bill passed twice unanimously.

In previous studies of the Citizenship Act a number of proposed citizenship amendments failed: Bill C-63, Bill C-16 and Bill C-18. We heard testimony continually on those three bills and the feeling in committee in all cases was that this issue should be addressed.

I can give a fairly simple example to show how ridiculous the bill was. We have persons who were born in Canada between 1945 and 1977. If they were a minor and their father took out citizenship in another country these people automatically lost their citizenship.

I came to Canada in 1957. My wife had our daughter in 1986. Given the year my daughter was born, had I left the country after having become a Canadian citizen and gone elsewhere, let us say Hungary, she would be a Canadian citizen without having to have set one foot into Canada. Furthermore, my grandchild would also be a Canadian citizen.

Surely we can understand the frustrations of the lost Canadians. Surely we can understand their passion for wanting their citizenship back. Surely we can understand the feeling Canadians have that we want to right a wrong.

It was mentioned that Mr. Don Chapman put his case forward to the committee time and time again. He sought every opportunity to do that because he is very passionately a Canadian, never ceased to be a Canadian and still considers himself a Canadian. What we want to do is right that wrong. Charles Bosdet is in the same kind of situation of having his citizenship unjustly taken away from him and wanting it back.

However something good is on the horizon. The report that we tabled in the House was done at the request of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It was done so we could produce a new citizenship act that would get through the House of Commons. I commend the minister for asking for the committee's input. The committee was very strong on a number of issues but none stronger than on the issue of lost Canadians. The message is very clear. We want this fixed and we want to fix it quickly.

The minister has said that she will bring the bill back to us some time in February of next year and we as a committee look forward to making sure that the injustices that exist in the current act will be addressed.

I want to salute my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast who I saw at the committee many times. Even though we are on different political parties, we are all on the same side of the issue when it comes to Canadian citizenship.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on citizenship issues entitled, “Updating Canada's Citizenship Laws: Issues to be Addressed”. This report was done at the invitation of the minister to help her department in drafting a new modernized Citizenship Act as was promised in the throne speech.

To arrive at its recommendation, the committee reviewed testimony given for the previous three proposed but failed citizenship acts. The committee calls on the government, in drafting the new citizenship act, to respect the following general principles: there must be equal treatment of Canadian born and naturalized citizens; there should be no probationary citizenship status; the legislation should enhance English and French as the official languages of Canada; Citizenship should be seen as a right for those who qualify rather than a privilege; no one should be deprived of Canadian citizenship if doing so would render them stateless; all determinations under the act should be made by an independent decision maker in a judicial process free from political interference; and, rights come with citizenship but also responsibilities.

In conclusion, I will highlight four of the committee's recommendations. First, there can be no question that revocation of citizenship engages section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the new citizenship act must adequately address this important issue.

Second, it would not be appropriate to include a security certificate process for citizenship revocation.

Third, any person born in Canada who lost their citizenship as a child because their parent acquired a nationality of another country should be eligible to resume their citizenship without having to meet residency requirements.

Fourth, there should be extensive public input in drafting both the citizenship oath and the preamble to the new citizenship act.

[Ukraine, November 24th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, tonight's debate represents the very best in the House of Commons. In spite of our partisan differences, we have come together to stand up for what we see as human rights and human rights abuses that are taking place.

There was a debate in this chamber almost 48 years ago which centred on the Hungarian revolution. Unfortunately, at the time that the debate took place, the Hungarian revolution was already crushed by Soviet tanks. The person leading the debate was the Hon. Jack Pickersgill, the minister of citizenship and immigration. Some 25,000 people were killed. Hundreds of thousands were wounded and 200,000 people fled Hungary.

Having come to Canada as part of 40,000 refugees that were admitted to this country, I spent a good part of my adult life fighting for human rights, not just in Canada but also behind the Iron Curtain. I was part of a group called the black ribbon day committee. We were dreamers. We were people who came from former Iron Curtain countries and we dared to dream that some day the wall would come crumbling down.

That happened 14 or 15 years ago. Every one of us remembers the crumbling of the Berlin Wall. Everyone remembers when Ukraine gained its independence. Canada was the first country to officially recognize it and it is only proper that in this dark hour of the assault on democracy we as Canadians are at the forefront in fighting to set right what is taking place in Ukraine right now.

We all learned some Russian words. I know when I was a student I had to learn some and I hated it, but I loved hearing the Russian words: perestroika and glasnost. They meant the falling of the Soviet Union, where the system opened itself up, and emptied its gulags where it got rid of its political prisoners.

What we are seeing happen now is a return to the past. This is a test for all the nations in the free world, indeed the world itself. As we speak in this chamber, it is the middle of the night in Ukraine where it is getting close to morning. There are hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating with their orange colour hoping beyond hope that the world will not let their evolution into a democracy be crushed.

The government said that we will not recognize the results of this election. We will no doubt take whatever appropriate action is necessary. I cannot emphasize enough that we are not just going to take action against the Ukrainian government. We must challenge the Russian government itself because it has interfered in this election. Russian troops are at the borders. Russian troops have crushed revolutions in the past. This is a real test for the free world, a test for Russia itself on whether perestroika and glasnost still exist in the former Soviet Union.

We are speaking in concert with the rest of the free world. Everyone in the free world has condemned the elections. Beyond calling for investigations, we must ensure that the will of the people of Ukraine to elect their own government is respected. It means that we, in alliance with our western allies, as a member of the OSCE, as a member of NATO, and having friends in the European Union and the United Nations, must seize this opportunity to fight for democracy that will so much define the 21st century. If we fail, I despair not only for the people of Ukraine but for all those places that are still struggling to realize the fruits of democracy.

Our hopes and prayers are with the Ukrainian people. We are a country which has an abundance of people who have fled dictatorships. Many of them have come from a Soviet dictatorship. We stand in solidarity with our fellow Ukrainians in Canada. We stand in solidarity with Ukrainians in Ukraine.

I have learned that tomorrow at 3:00 there will be a demonstration on Parliament Hill and it will end with a march to the Ukrainian embassy. It will be calling for free democratic elections that are respected. This burden is not the burden of Ukrainians alone. This is a burden for everyone who believes in human rights, who believes in freedom, and who inhabits this very fragile planet.

[Ukraine, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in the Ukraine is critical.

Glasnost and perestroika, which the world celebrated 15 years ago with the destruction of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, is under siege.

The will of the Ukrainian people to choose their own government must be respected. The Russian government must not interfere in Ukraine's internal affairs.

I call upon the Canadian government to use all international forums, such as OSCE, NATO, the European Union and the United Nations to defend the right of the Ukrainian people to democratically elect a government of their own choice.

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005. The report is respectfully submitted.

[Contraventions Act, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as being opposed.