Andrew Telegdi

[Citizenship Act, June 5th, 2001]

, seconded by the member for Dauphin—Swan River, moved for leave to introduce Bill C-373, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (revocation of citizenship).

Madam Speaker, the bill would remove from cabinet, made up of politicians, a task for which they are unqualified of acting as a court of appeal on questions of fact and law, and transfers that task to the actual courts of appeal where they belong.

If the bill is passed it would enhance citizenship rights for nearly six million Canadians who are citizens by choice, not by birth. As the Prime Minister stated on May 18, 2000, there is one thing in the life of a nation and it is to make sure that the rights of citizens are protected by the courts in our land and not subject to the capricious elected.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Division No. 119, June 4th, 2001]

I am voting in favour of the motion, Mr. Speaker.

(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 111, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes to the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Privilege, May 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank all members of the House for their restraint and understanding in not attacking me on the recent controversial statements attributed to me by the media. Members have allowed me an opportunity to explain myself. I sent all members a media release dated May 8.

As many members know, I am a Hungarian refugee who fled the Soviet oppression through minefields as a 10 year old boy with my parents, my 12 year old brother and 3 year old half sister. My mother, a Roman Catholic, and my stepfather, a Jew, suffered terribly under both Nazi and Soviet dictatorships. I loathe everything those regimes stand for. This is very much part of my family's legacy and forms my frame of reference.

Recently some comments I made were misunderstood, misinterpreted and misstated. It was not my intention to imply or suggest that our country or our judiciary is in any way to be compared with Nazism or Stalinism. I meant no offence to any group or individual. If my lack of clarity caused any hurt or discomfort, I apologize.

I have always worked to bring people and communities together to create a stronger Canada, and I have a lifetime record of fighting for justice. That will continue.

I resigned as parliamentary secretary because I believed then, as I believe now, that the charter of rights and freedom should apply to the six million Canadians who are citizens by choice. Revocation of citizenship is a matter for the courts, not a matter of political decision.

My concern is for the principle of fair and proper treatment for everyone, whether born in Canada or, like me, a Canadian by choice.

[Order Of Canada, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize two distinguished people from my community who will be receiving the Order of Canada tomorrow. They are Mr. Howard Dyck and Professor John English.

Howard Dyck is the conductor and artistic director of the Kitchener-Waterloo philharmonic choir. He is in demand as a clinician, lecturer and adjudicator. As host of CBC Radio's Saturday afternoon at the opera and Choral concerts , he ignites in his fellow Canadians enthusiasm and curiosity about the broad spectrum of vocal music.

John English is a professor of history and political science and director of the Centre on Foreign Policy and Federalism at the University of Waterloo. He has, through his writings, contributed to the knowledge and understanding of our rich cultural heritage.

Besides reporting on history, Professor English was an excellent member of parliament for Kitchener from 1993 to 1997. His contributions and collegiality are greatly missed by his former constituents and those of us who worked with him.

On behalf of this House, I congratulate Howard Dyck and John English on their induction into the Order of Canada.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of the motion.

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I congratulate you and your fellow Speakers on your appointments. The positions that you occupy are of paramount importance for decorum in the House. Some 301 representatives debate the issues of the day and try to ensure that Canada remains one of the best countries in the world in which to live.

I thank the electors of Kitchener—Waterloo for the great honour they have bestowed upon me by electing me as their representative to the Parliament of Canada for the third straight time since 1993.

I thank all the volunteers who assisted candidates of all political parties in the last election for involving themselves in the democratic process which has resulted in the 37th parliament. The volunteers in Kitchener—Waterloo who assisted in my re-election as their representative to the Chamber give a deeper meaning to the democratic process for me. I am certain these sentiments are shared by all candidates in the last election with respect to the thousands of volunteers across Canada who worked on their behalf.

I would be remiss if I were to forget to mention the support of my wife Nancy and my daughter Erin who have been my partners on this journey.

I give my first speech in the 37th parliament with a sense of humility for the privilege of being a member of the Chamber and with a new sense of collegiality and respect for all members who are here representing their respective constituencies.

While I will vigorously debate the points or differences of my colleagues based on differences in policy, I hope I will do so with respect, in recognition of the fact that we have all been sent here by our respective electors as temporary guardians of the public trust. We are here to serve our constituents to the best of our abilities and to contribute to building a strong and united Canada, a Canada that works for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

When I was first elected to the House in 1993 the fiscal challenges we faced as a national were most daunting. We had a $42 billion deficit, the highest in the nation's history, coupled with an ever increasing national debt in excess of $500 billion. These fiscal circumstances threatened the economic sovereignty of our country. Due to the hard work of Canadians and the sound fiscal management of the government, the deficit has been eliminated and the debt is being paid.

Because we have put our fiscal house in order, we have been able to cut taxes fairly. This will serve us well in meeting present economic challenges. By having effectively addressed our fiscal reality we have struck the right balance of investing in health care, families and children, investing in protecting the environment, and investing in research and innovation.

My riding of Kitchener—Waterloo is a good example of what is entailed in the new economy: innovation, research and development, and investing in Canadians through higher education and skills training. The economic profile of my community is based upon insurance, education, high tech companies, many medium size businesses and the service sector.

In the area of insurance we have the head offices of Clarica, Equitable Life, Lutheran Life, Economical Mutual and the Canadian headquarters of Manulife.

Since my time is limited I will focus on the importance of post-secondary education, skills training and research and development from the perspective of my community. I want to share with the House how education benefits my community at the local level and how it contributes to our national economic well-being.

Conestoga College, the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University are all in my riding. The excellence of our post-secondary institutions is well known worldwide. They are the engines of our economic growth. They provide occupation opportunities to Canadians and contribute to the economic output at the local, provincial and national levels.

The work of the visionary pioneers in Kitchener—Waterloo who invested their time and effort in starting up our post-secondary institutions has resulted in great contributions to and are at the core of the community's cultural, social and economic life.

When the University of Waterloo was started in 1957 in a farmer's field, it inspired a book titled Of Mud and Dreams . The university established the first co-operative engineering program. The pioneers who started that co-operative program were called heretics, as one did not take a professional program like engineering and debase it with a blue collar component such as work terms. Co-operative education, which offers an academic term matched by a work term, is now common practice throughout Canada and the world.

Since its inception, the University of Waterloo has also embraced computerization. It now has the biggest computer and mathematics faculties in the world and is world renowned.

The three post-secondary educational institutions in my riding are equipping Canadians with the cutting edge skills and learning that they will need to prosper. This will enable them to realize their unique potential and through lifelong learning to succeed in the new digital economy.

This government's record of supporting achievement in education is reflected in our having developed the Canada millennium scholarships, the Canada education savings grant, the Canada foundation for innovation and increasing the education tax credit. All of these will build upon our goal of having at least one million more adults take advantage of learning opportunities during the next five years.

The economic spinoffs from our post-secondary institutions are found in the association of Canada's Technology Triangle and Communitech.

I recall how the Atlas Group, representing the largest information technology companies in my community, made its first visit to Ottawa in the fall of 1994. Today the group has evolved to over 200 member companies of the technology industry within Cambridge, Guelph, Kitchener and Waterloo. Counted among its members are software developers, system integrators, telecommunication companies, Internet companies and more.

Names such as Research in Motion, Open Text, Dalsa, Descartes and Mitron are just a few of these companies, and they are world renowned

I remember visiting the company Research in Motion in Waterloo with the Minister of Industry in 1994. The company had just 40 employees operating out of rented space. Since then, it has received two Technology Partnership Canada loans totalling less than $40 million.

Today Research in Motion employs over 1,000 people in high paying jobs, owns its facilities, has produced two billionaires and hundreds of millionaires in my region. Its product is the blackberry, a wireless e-mail device that many of my colleagues in the House now use.

The Prime Minister sent his first e-mail on the device, and the new Minister of External Affairs was the first cabinet member to have one. The blackberry is the favoured communication tool of people such as Bill Gates of Microsoft, Michael Dell of Dell computers and former vice-president Al Gore.

Research in Motion is a world leader in wireless communications. Besides creating a tremendous amount of wealth and providing employment opportunities to a large number of people, it has also given back to the community.

Two former Research in Motion employees, Louise MacCallum and Michael Bamstijn, donated $12 million to the community foundation in the Waterloo region and $1 million to the Waterloo Regional Museum. This was to celebrate their retirement at the ages of 39 and 41 respectively.

Some $100 million was donated by Michael Lazaridis, along with $10 million from Jim Balsillie and $10 million by Douglas Fregin, for a total of $120 million to establish a world class research institute for theoretical physics. It is believed to be the largest private donation in Canadian history.

More important at the time, much criticism was made of research in universities being driven by company priorities. Here we have a record donation made by Research in Motion, with no strings attached, to expand the boundaries of pure research. In establishing the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Mike Lazaridis, Jim Balsillie and Douglas Fregin from Research in Motion more than met the challenge issued by the Prime Minister for corporate sponsorship of research.

In the new economy, knowledge and technological innovation are the cornerstones of new prosperity and better quality of life. Research and development are the lifeblood of innovation.

As one of the founding members of the Liberal caucus on post-secondary educational research and development, I am excited that we will at least double the current federal investment in research and development by 2010. That will strengthen the research capacity of Canadian universities, government laboratories and institutions. I also strongly endorse our commitment to ensure access to affordable post-secondary education and to work toward making Canada a country that embraces lifelong learning.

[Access To Information Act, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington, the author and sponsor of Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act. Normally the member would be speaking himself at this time, but as it is the third hour of debate on this bill, and as the member spoke during the first hour of debate, he is not allowed under our standing orders to speak today. Therefore, I will reflect the thoughts of the member.

Much has happened between the first hour of debate and this final one, a mere two days before Bill C-206 comes before the House for its second reading vote. During the first hour when the member for Wentworth—Burlington described his bill there was optimism and excitement. After 13 years of failed attempts, at last a bill was going forward that would substantially reform the Access to Information Act, the legislation that was intended to guarantee the right of Canadians to those government documents they should be entitled to see, but that over the years has become more an instrument of secrecy than of disclosure.

For over a decade the public, the media, members of parliament, parliamentary committees and the former information commissioner himself have clamoured for the overhaul of the act, but never has any government come near to presenting legislation that answered the urgent calls for reform.

An impasse arose from the fact that it has been impossible to get consensus on how to amend the Access to Information Act from all the ministries of government that would be affected. Added to this was the problem that the justice department writes all government legislation and, being comprised principally of lawyers, naturally tends to think in terms of increasing confidentiality and secrecy rather than of increasing openness.

After three years of trying to get the justice minister to undertake reform to the Access to Information Act, the member for Wentworth—Burlington undertook to write appropriate legislation himself. As a former journalist, author and now politician, he was uniquely qualified to undertake this task and, with the help of expert legislative counsel, Bill C-264, now Bill C-206, was presented to the House in October 1997.

The reforms proposed in Bill C-206 were sweeping, but almost all of them were taken from the recommendations of the parliamentary committee that proposed improvements to the access law, or from the 1993-94 report of the Access to Information Commissioner—almost all of them, save for the very first amendment, which proposed that the name of the Access to Information Act be changed to the open government act.

From the very beginning the member for Wentworth—Burlington tried to make it clear to opposition parties and the government alike that he would listen and act on all concerns and criticisms expressed about Bill C-206. He has never pretended it to be a perfect bill and has asked only that it go through second reading to committee where witnesses can identify its flaws, propose improvements, answer concerns and amend it wherever necessary. In other words, the member for Wentworth—Burlington only asked that Bill C-206 go through the same legislative process as any other bill.

Opposition MPs in their speeches to Bill C-206 have raised legitimate concerns, one of the more important being that they are afraid to give government institutions the power to consider multiple requests frivolous.

This particular amendment was an attempt to address a problem identified by the information commissioner in one of his reports, but if Bill C-206 deals poorly with this issue or, worse yet, if the amendment gives power to the government that is not intended, then it should be changed or struck from the bill at report stage. The member for Wentworth—Burlington would support any such change.

The member has said repeatedly the same thing to government, and for two years received favourable comment from officials in various ministries and active help from justice department officials, leading to a revised and more polished version of Bill C-206, and even encouragement from cabinet ministers, notably the justice minister and the foreign affairs minister.

Thus, it was with surprise and some dismay that the member for Wentworth—Burlington was called to a meeting this past Monday before the Deputy Prime Minister, the justice minister, the treasury board president and the government House leader to be confronted with accusations that Bill C-206 contains major flaws. Even though he was given no advance notice of criticisms, the member gave full answer then and in writing by noon the next day. Meanwhile, the justice minister undertook to provide a full analysis of all that was supposedly wrong with Bill C-206.

On Wednesday the government announced to Liberal members of parliament that it would not support Bill C-206. On Thursday, that is, yesterday afternoon, the member for Wentworth—Burlington received the justice department critique of Bill C-206 and a formal letter rejecting Bill C-206 from the Deputy Prime Minister.

It is too bad that the justice minister has to rely on staff who could produce a document so inept as that which attempted to demolish Bill C-206. They could not even get the clauses under discussion correct, or cover them all, or find merit in any that increased openness, no matter how minor. Their criticism of clause 26 in Bill C-206 is completely wrong. This clause would extend protection of memoranda to cabinet, not diminish it.

The arguments in the Deputy Prime Minister's letter had more substance, but none were sufficiently compelling to warrant killing the bill.

What is a vote at second reading all about anyway? It seeks agreement in principle, that is all. All legislation is regarded as requiring close examination, correction and improvement after second reading. If this process is not successful, then a bill is killed at third reading, but not at second reading before it has had public airing before committee, not at second reading when all that is being sought is agreement in principle.

What is the principle? The first amendment of Bill C-206 would rename the legislation to the open government act. The second amendment would establish that it is the government's duty to release as much information as it reasonably can to the public.

Will the Prime Minister vote in principle against such a bill? Will the Minister of Justice or the Deputy Prime Minister? Cabinet always has the option of killing the bill at third reading or in the Senate, but to oppose such a bill at birth?

Perhaps the member for Wentworth—Burlington has indeed failed to be sufficiently accommodating. The one single area of Bill C-206 that he has said he will not budge on is the amendment that would bring crown corporations like the CBC, Canada Post and the National Capital Commission under the legislation. Crown corporations spend billions of taxpayer dollars. They should and must be subject to better public scrutiny.

Surely that is not cabinet's reason for opposing Bill C-206. Surely cabinet should want debate on how to make all government more open.

Many of us first came to this place in 1993. The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington has certainly been a man of parliament, a man of this House.

What is being proposed in Bill C-206 would help every member of parliament to do their job. It would also help make transparent the workings of government to all Canadians.

I commend the member for Wentworth—Burlington for his efforts, his initiative and his perseverance in attempting to give all members of parliament the equipment to do a better job and to have more open and transparent government.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the member for Dauphin—Swan River on his speech. I can tell him that the legal issues we are dealing with are fairly difficult and it took a while to get through them. At some point when I saw the charts and was trying to put them all together I identified the lack of appeal process that is available everywhere else ends at the Supreme Court of Canada. We make that available to visitors who come to this country and commit a serious offence because we believe in due process.

The member and I have had some similar experiences coming from different countries. No one argues that if someone commits serious offences coming to this country, or is a war criminal, or has told major lies to get here, we recognize that people who apply for refugee status to get to Canada often have to do it by stealth. We recognized that when we had the policy of none is too many for Jews. People had to misinform to get into this country. We applaud that they got through and wish that more had.

It seems to me the member had it right. The charter of rights, the due process of law and the presumption of innocence should apply to everyone. What scares me in this whole process is that we can slander people by saying they are guilty of this or that and then fail to prove it in court. If someone is being accused, we have a due process for defending the accusation which should apply to everyone, certainly to citizens by choice.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 29th, 2000]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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