Andrew Telegdi

[Technology Partnerships, February 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in May 1998 Industry Canada made a $5.7 million investment under Technology Partnerships Canada in Research in Motion, RIM, Advanced Wireless Technology to develop the next generation of RIM's two-way messaging products.

The result is the small hand-held device called the Black Berry. This device was selected as the ultimate mobile computing tool of 1999 by Info World magazine for providing easy and timely wireless access to e-mail.

RIM, founded in 1984 in Waterloo, is the world leader in wireless technology. RIM is a great example of Canadian companies that compete and win on a global scale. Not only do we get back the $5.7 million investment, we also get royalties. Technology Partnerships Canada also helped in the creation of hundreds of new jobs.

I congratulate Research in Motion and Industry Canada.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 18th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to have this opportunity on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to open debate on Bill C-16, the citizenship of Canada act.

To me and to so many Canadians from whom I have heard, citizenship is about truly belonging to this society. It is anchored in allegiance to the values which Canadians share. It is a concept with real meaning and it is a proud celebration of what it means to be Canadian.

That makes citizenship far more than just a piece of paper, more than just some box to be checked off on a form, more than a convenience for international travel. It makes the law on citizenship one of our most fundamental laws. Our citizenship law sets the ground rules for those who can truly call themselves Canadian. It captures the common understanding among Canadians about what it means to be one of us.

In 1947 a Liberal government introduced the status of Canadian citizenship in law for the first time. It was a legislative initiative driven by the vision and energy of Mr. Paul Martin Sr. We were the first country in the Commonwealth to take that step. That 1947 act took us through a 30 year period of immense change in Canadian society.

In 1977, with Robert Andras as Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Liberal government implemented a new Citizenship Act. That law reflected a growing sense of nationhood. It reflected the growing equality of women under the law. It drew on Canada's experience with our first Canadian Citizenship Act. That act has served us well over the past two decades of even faster evolution in our society.

However, the time has come for change, for modernization. The time has come for an act that fully recognizes the impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The time has come for an act that addresses the many legal questions and administrative issues that have emerged with experience over time. The time has come for an act that reinforces the value of Canadian citizenship. Bill C-16 does that.

First, let me point out that our core citizenship principles have stood the test of time. What Canadians thought citizenship should mean in 1947 is substantially what Canadians still think today. Children born in Canada will still be Canadian citizens automatically. Children born in other countries to a parent who was born in Canada still have a right to Canadian citizenship. Those who come to Canada later in life must be permanent residents before they can apply for citizenship. They still must prove their attachment to Canada. They must prove their knowledge of our society and our values. They must prove their knowledge of at least one of our two official languages.

I would remind members that the former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration introduced Bill C-63 during the last parliamentary session.

It was intended as both an attempt to modernize the Citizenship Act and to enhance the value of Canadian citizenship. It died on the order paper when the House was prorogued, but not before being the object of much discussion in this House and in committee.

This bill is substantially similar in its intent and its major provisions to Bill C-63. It reflects the broad consensus that was clear in debate last time.

However, this legislation is not identical to the bill which was before us in the last session. We have not simply slapped a new number on an old bill.

Let me cover some of the major changes. For example, while we still intend to strengthen the residency requirement, we have identified room for change in how the residency requirement can be met. Under this bill a permanent resident will have to be physically in Canada for at least three of the six years before applying for citizenship; not just an address, not visiting other countries for whatever reason, but physically present here. However, we have lengthened the period of time that people can use to count that physical presence from five years under Bill C-63 to six years in this bill.

We have also decided to reinstate a time credit for physical presence for people who had some other legal status in Canada other than that of a permanent resident. For example, someone who was initially here as a convention refugee, on a minister's permit or as a visitor will be able to use half of their time under that status for up to one of the three years they need to meet the residency requirement.

We have already made it clear that we want to give children adopted abroad much simpler access to Canadian citizenship. The courts have told us that we must bring down the disparities between adopted and biological children born abroad, and we want to do so.

However, we also want to respond to concerns raised about previous proposals. For example, we will clearly limit citizenship through adoption to minors only. We will make new rules retroactive to 1977. We will include a requirement which will ensure that an adoption is in the best interests of the child.

Let me turn to some other changes.

We still propose a new citizenship oath, slightly modified from the previous proposal. New citizens will swear to respect our rights and freedoms. They will promise to uphold the values of our democracy. They will continue to swear allegiance to Canada and to Her Majesty the Queen.

We will alter the proposed powers of annulment and revocation. While we still want to be able to annul the citizenship of a person who uses a false identity or who is involved in criminal activities under our citizenship law, we have dropped the requirement in Bill C-63 that a person wishing to oppose the minister's intent to annul is restricted to doing so in writing.

We also intend to make it clear that we can only revoke the citizenship of a person who knowingly sought to deceive us. Moreover, we will not seek to revoke the citizenship of children at all.

For all those significant changes it is important to underline that the major new directions to citizenship law that our government set out in 1998 are still valid. They are still in this bill.

We still intend to limit the number of generations of people born outside Canada who can claim Canadian citizenship and we still propose to clarify the conditions for those people to formally retain Canadian citizenship.

We continue to believe that moving citizenship decision making from a quasi-judicial process to one that is administrative makes sense in every way. We intend to support that change by the use of clear and consistent criteria and tests. We intend to rely mostly on citizenship officials to carry out that process.

We see continuous roles for today's citizenship judges, men and women who, by this bill, will be known as citizenship commissioners. They will have an increased role in promoting active citizenship in the community. They will advise the minister on citizenship issues and continue to preside over citizenship ceremonies. They will be ambassadors of citizenship in their communities.

The bill retains the proposals for streamlined review processes for people who want to challenge decisions. If the person thinks that there has been a simple error of fact, then he or she will be able to apply to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for a review of those facts in that decision. If the person thinks there has been an error of interpretation under law, he or she will be able to apply to the Federal Court of Canada for a review. Under the new system a federal court judge can require that it be reconsidered. All those proposals are still in this bill because they are sound and appropriate.

Let me conclude my remarks with these comments. The history of citizenship in Canada is one of evolution and yet enduring principles too. The 1947 act was anchored in its time. It reflected the relative status of men and women in those days. It reflected a world in which we saw our closest links to other lands in which people were British subjects.

By 1977 the evolution of life in Canadian society meant it was time for modernization. The 1977 act removed many inequities in the old act. It brought in more consistent and equal criteria for citizenship. It recognized that women deserved treatment and rights to citizenship that were no different from those enjoyed by men.

In this new millennium we need an act that is even more modernized, more streamlined, clearer and more consistent.

This bill meets those requirements. The new Canada Citizenship Act being debated today is going to enhance the value of Canadian citizenship.

This bill is going to modernize our Citizenship Act, modernize our processes. It is going to integrate the changes our society has undergone, as well as our modern legislative framework and our governmental processes.

It will remain true to the fundamental elements of what we understand citizenship to mean. The principles at the heart of our citizenship law have endured over more than half a century since the Hon. Paul Martin Sr. brought in Canada's first Canada Citizenship Act in 1946.

Under the leadership of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada had just proven its status as a country equal to any other on the globe. Canadians had fought as Canadians to liberate Europe from the evil of Nazi aggression. Other Canadians had fought in Asia and the Pacific to defend our values and our interests. Here at home Canadians had contributed in many ways to the war effort.

The creation of a unique citizenship to call our own was a fitting way to capture what our country and our people had just accomplished. It was a fitting way for Canada to give its people a sense of belonging rooted in this land and its people.

Canadians by birth and Canadians by choice all did their part to earn our place on the world stage back then. They all became citizens of this great country in 1947 for the first time ever. Canadians by birth and Canadians by choice are doing the same today.

The citizenship of Canada act will be about the values we share as were its predecessors. It will be a statement about belonging to this country as were its predecessors. It will link us all, whether we are Canadian by birth or by choice.

Some 350,000 babies are born in this country every year, and some 160,000 people apply for Canadian citizenship. Our Citizenship Act enables more than half a million people to become part of the great Canadian family as equals, as Canadians.

A new citizenship law will be a fitting way to help celebrate the new millennium. We look forward to the support of the House on Bill C-16.

[Immigration, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government transfers funds to the provinces under the health and social transfers. These funds cover related expenses to immigrants and refugees.

Let me further state that the three provinces are net beneficiaries of our immigration and refugee system. As a matter of fact our whole country is a beneficiary of immigration and refugees.

It is prebudget season. Last week the request was for health funding. This week it is for refugees. Next week it will be something else.

[Shipbuilding Act, 1999, February 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to point out that under the Immigration Act, immigration and refugee board members including the chairperson are appointed by governor in council.

As a result of the government's commitment to transparency a notice of vacancy for the position of chairperson was published in The Canada Gazette on June 26, 1999. The notice allows the opportunity for any qualified candidate to submit his or her resumé to the Prime Minister's Office.

Subsequently a selection process was initiated and the governor in council announced the appointment of Mr. Peter Showler as chairperson on November 29, 1999. I appreciate the vote of confidence of the hon. member in terms of Mr. Showler's qualifications.

Let me review some of them. Mr. Showler has extensive experience as an immigration and refugee law practitioner. He has initiated numerous public education programs and has developed law reform initiatives. Mr. Showler has taught immigration and refugee law at an Ottawa university. Previous to his appointment as IRB chair, Mr. Showler served five years as a member of the convention refugee determination division.

I can only say that this was a very good appointment and we expect that Mr. Showler will serve the country well.

[Minimum Sentences, December 14th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion.

Before I start, let me tell the hon. member, in all fairness, that the minister has been very active in this area. It is important for members opposite to know that we have a policy. When boats come to our shores, we detect them, we apprehend and detain the people and then they are put through the process of adjudication to determine if they should be charged with criminal activity.

Canadians are concerned about a growing international trade in human smuggling and trafficking. This motion helps to focus our attention on that, but it also focuses attention on our strategy of penalizing those who profit from human suffering.

It has become evident that a global movement of people has been accelerating. In spite of international efforts to eradicate poverty, the gap between have and have not countries is fostering a new wave of people who are desperately seeking the means to establish themselves in North America. The United Nations estimates that 125 million people are currently outside their home countries in search of an improved economic situation or a more stable political environment.

In conjunction with this international reality there is a growing effort by organized crime to exploit these people.

Canada is not the only country that is facing this problem. The United Nations estimates that annually four million people are smuggled across borders by a global business valued at $9 billion a year. Australia alone has seen 2,500 hopeful migrants arrive on 70 boats this year. Over 1,000 of these people were on 12 boats that arrived on Australia's coast in November.

The boats that arrived on our west coast during the summer are the most recent and visible manifestations in Canada of a larger international problem. Moreover, there is every reason to believe that people smuggling and trafficking will increase unless Canada, in concert with other nations, adopts effective measures to discourage it. The question is: Which measures?

It is important that we not react in alarm or haste. We must avoid simplistic responses which may compromise Canada's humanitarian traditions and its obligations under the Geneva convention. Such was the case with a senator's private bill introduced last month in the House. The bill proposed the use of legislation to direct away from Canadian waters a ship carrying suspected migrants. A measure to turn boats back, which recalls some of the darker moments in Canada's past, would run the risk of denying protection to people who could be determined, through our hearings, to be genuine refugees.

Some 60 years ago Canada, among other countries, turned back a ship full of Jewish refugees seeking to escape Nazi Germany. That these people were forced to return on the St. Louis to Germany and the horrors that awaited them remains a shameful episode in our past. In 1914, 376 East Indian immigrants were forcefully confined for two months aboard the liner Komagata Maru as it lay off Vancouver harbour. The B.C. supreme court eventually upheld a federal exclusion order and the boat, escorted by a Canadian warship, was forced to sail back to Calcutta. On arrival 29 people were shot and 20 eventually died. We must learn from these and similar mistakes.

Such measures would not deal with the root of the problem, which is the international trade in people smuggling. However, in my view, the motion currently before the House is closer to the mark because it focuses more directly on the real culprits, those who profit from this hateful crime.

In so doing, the motion anticipates but one aspect of a broader range of measures that the government is currently considering. What is needed to deal with this international problem is a multifaceted approach adopted by Canada and other nations in the context of an international solution.

For example, Canada is taking an active role in the development of two UN protocols concerning the smuggling of migrants and trafficking in women and children. A G-8 senior expert group on transnational organized crime is also addressing these issues. In this regard the Department of Citizenship and Immigration chairs a G-8 subgroup on alien smuggling and trafficking in human beings.

In addition, efforts are being made by Canada to deal with people smuggling and trafficking at the source by co-operating with other countries, including China, to combat crimes relating to the violation of border controls and illegal immigration.

Canada is committed to strengthening its worldwide intelligence and tracking systems to see that smugglers and traffickers are intercepted. These actions are proving effective. Chinese authorities intercepted six migrant ships this year, four of which are believed to have been destined for Canada, and over 6,000 people lacking proper documentation were prevented from getting into Canada last year alone.

However, the government is fully conscious that additional measures are necessary. In January of this year the government proposed several legislative directions to improve the integrity and effectiveness of our refugee determination system. These proposals are being reviewed to determine what additional measures should be taken.

We already have among the severest penalties in the world for people trafficking, up to 10 years of imprisonment and fines of up to $500,000. We are using these tools to prosecute the crew of the second boat to arrive in British Columbia last summer.

As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already signalled, we are reviewing a number of options to deal with migrant smuggling and trafficking in consultation with other governments and other departments and agencies of our own.

The minister has outlined a series of proposals which could include penalties for human trafficking at least as tough as our penalties for drug trafficking. We are also looking at taking more aggressive steps to seize property used in the course of such operations. The minister has also offered safety to anyone who will testify against smugglers as a way to keep smugglers from abusing our system.

Another proposal being considered is the imposition of a screening mechanism for criminality and security considerations at the very beginning of the refugee determination process to identify criminals earlier and prevent them from using the system for reasons other than protection.

We are also looking at clarifying our three existing grounds for detention to better deal with people smuggling and trafficking in Canada.

The Immigration Act currently permits three grounds for detention: inability to establish identity, reasonable concern for public safety, and warranted fear of flight.

The minister has proposed consolidating the refugee determination process to make it faster but fair.

Citizenship and immigration officials are currently consulting with their colleagues in the Department of Justice to determine, along with other anti-smuggling initiatives, if minimum sentences will be an effective deterrent against traffickers and whether such sentences will be in accord with the charter of rights and freedoms.

In the meantime, we have a commitment from the Immigration and Refugee Board to accelerate refugee hearings for those who arrived on our west coast this summer, providing a fair but accelerated process to determine who are genuine refugees and who are not. Legitimate refugees among them will be allowed to stay in Canada. The rest will be removed as quickly as possible.

Canadians can now be proud of our international record of tolerance and compassion toward genuine refugees from all parts of the world.

Over the decades since the 1950s we have honoured our commitment to the Geneva convention by welcoming and protecting Eastern Europeans, Asians from Uganda, Indochinese refugees and South Americans fleeing persecution, among many thousands of others.

This attitude of compassion continues, as shown by Canadians opening their hearts and their homes to the Kosovar refugee families earlier this year.

People who arrive in Canada seeking protection are now entitled to fair hearings to determine refugee status under our laws. Our sense of compassion and fairness is enshrined in our constitution, our charter of rights and freedoms, our immigration and refugee laws and our own judiciary.

Canadians will not be taken advantage of by those who would traffic in human misery.

[Conestoga College, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Conestoga College, the number one rated community college in Ontario and the city of Waterloo this week announced that they are in negotiations to build a new college campus on city owned land in northeastern Waterloo.

The partnership between the college and the city will offer students access to athletic and recreation facilities, opportunities for specialized educational programs, co-operative education placement opportunities and shared parking.

This partnership will strengthen Waterloo's reputation as a centre of excellence for higher education. It will provide a complementary educational facility for the high tech business community and a new upgraded nursing school. It will also serve as a potential site for a branch library, employment opportunities and economic spin-offs from housing and spending by 2,000 new students.

This is great news for my riding of Kitchener—Waterloo, Ontario and Canada.

I congratulate the city of Waterloo and Conestoga College for a new exciting educational project for the new millennium.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take the opportunity to describe how the Nisga'a final agreement deals with private property and land ownership. My comments will be particularly helpful to our Reform Party colleagues. It has become painfully obvious to the rest of us in the House that they have not read the agreement and do not understand it.

Members of the official opposition have suggested that individual Nisga'a citizens will not be able to own private property on Nisga'a land. They also suggested that members of Nisga'a governments will be unable to exert undue influence over Nisga'a citizens because of lack of security over tenure to their homes. This is simply not true. Let me take the opposition through what the final agreement really says.

Through the final agreement the Nisga'a will own their lands in fee simple, the highest estate in land known in law. No longer will the crown hold the Nisga'a land in trust. No longer will the minister of Indian affairs have to approve every use made of their lands. Nisga'a lands will not be lands reserved for Indians. The reserve system and the application of the Indian Act to the Nisga'a will end.

The Nisga'a will own their land and its resources, other than water, submerged lands, and the private properties which were excepted from Nisga'a land. If they choose to do so, the Nisga'a will be able to create private parcels of Nisga'a lands and dispose of them without the consent of either Canada or British Columbia. There is the essence of private property ownership.

As long as the Nisga'a meet the requirements set out in the final agreement, they will also be able to register these parcels in the provincial land registry system. This is something that Nisga'a leaders have indicated they wish to do once they have the legal means to do so, and the political direction from their constituency, the Nisga'a people. The owners of parcels registered in the land title system would realize all the advantages and securities of the system, just as private property landowners enjoy those advantages.

None of this is available to the Nisga'a people under the Indian Act, yet some members opposite would seek to prevent this significant advancement through nonsensical amendments which they have proposed. What is the purpose of this obstructionism? These same members purport to represent the interests of grassroots Indian people. Do they not want private property ownership rights for the Nisga'a people? Do they not want to end the application of the Indian Act and the Indian reserve system for the Nisga'a people?

Maybe the Reform members opposite should take the time to talk to Nisga'a people. The Nisga'a people in a clear and substantial majority strongly supported this agreement and would stand to benefit from being treated like other Canadians for the first time.

What some members opposite have missed is that through this agreement the Nisga'a will finally have responsibility for managing their own land. If their democratically elected government decides to do so, they can create parcels of fee simple land, register them in the land titles system, sell them to anyone they choose and allow them to be mortgaged. None of those opportunities exist today under the Indian Act. That is but one of the many reasons why the Nisga'a final agreement is such a significant step forward.

The official opposition has suggested that individual Nisga'a will not have private property rights and that Nisga'a governments will own the housing communally. The opposite is true. Appendices C5 and C6 list many hundreds of individual Nisga'a, in fact all the Nisga'a, who now have homes in four villages. Appendix C5 lists those Nisga'a who now have certificates of possession. Appendix C6 lists those Nisga'a whose current band council have allocated housing.

All those names in both appendices will receive the same private property rights to their homes. Those rights will include the right to exclusively possess and use their land, in effect individual ownership of land and improvements. This ownership right can be passed down through their estates and marital property settlements. These rights cannot be expropriated by Nisga'a government.

Therefore, it is not accurate to suggest that the treaty does not provide for individual property rights or that residents will be exposed to arbitrary decisions of Nisga'a government. In fact this agreement provides a new level of security for Nisga'a families and a range of opportunities for economic development of land which are not currently available to the Nisga'a.

The members of the official opposition have their own views of what is best for the Nisga'a people. That is the old way of doing business, to arbitrarily choose for aboriginal people what we think is best for them. The Reform Party is living in the past. This is the past that they claim to condemn but for which in fact they would have future generations condemned to repeat by virtue of a lack of vision and a lack of trust and the strength, spirit and capabilities of the aboriginal people.

The Nisga'a have chosen differently. That is their right. Through peaceful negotiations, patience, dedication and a spirit of co-operation and compromise, all three parties to this agreement have chosen differently. They have chosen to move forward in a responsible positive way that will benefit the Nisga'a people and respect the interests of all other Canadians.

It is time for everyone in the House to uphold this choice for a positive future by rejecting these motions and supporting Bill C-9.

The Reform Party has tabled nearly 500 amendments to the Nisga'a treaty. It is clear that they have no interest in seeing a conclusion to this most important treaty which would allow for self-government of the Nisga'a people. The Reform Party says it wants more time so it can do consultations. Let me remind the Reform Party that the Nisga'a people have been negotiating for 130 years to have the Nisga'a agreement brought to fruition. We see the sons, the grandsons and the great grandsons of the original negotiators that first tried to get justice for their people. One hundred and thirty years is a long time.

It is time for justice to be done. Most members in the House, with the exception of those in the Reform Party, rise to support the final agreement of the Nisga'a people. We will do so with pride. I am very proud to be in the House to partake in this.

[University Of Waterloo, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the University of Waterloo and its co-op education program.

According to this year's Maclean's university issue, in Canada the University of Waterloo pioneered experiential learning. It developed the country's first co-op program in 1957 and has now become an innovative and global leader, with 9,000 students in 80 co-op programs in partnership with 2,500 employers.

Co-op education is the educational model that combines and alternates formal academic learning in the classroom with practical learning received on the job. This type of program has nothing but winners. The students win since they get related work experience and the employer gets an enthusiastic and educated employee full of new ideas and a tremendous willingness to work.

University of Waterloo co-op students are placed in each and every province in the country and over 200 of them are employed internationally each year. Co-op education has been adopted by other Canadian universities and most high schools.

To all of the people involved in co-operative education in Canada, I say “well done”.

[Landmines, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, Ottawa hosted a conference whereby over 120 countries agreed to ban anti-personnel landmines. Those hidden killers that maimed or killed over 20,000 women, men and especially children each year are now being destroyed throughout the world.

Our Minister of Foreign Affairs led the world to this goal. Today he is honouring the creation of the Canadian Landmines Foundation whereby individual Canadians can contribute to the cause of ending hidden killers.

When I left Hungary as a child, I walked through those killing fields. Let other children today forever lose those fears that I felt that night.

[Crime Prevention, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo is a leader in crime prevention.

The Community Safety and Crime Prevention Council was established in the region in 1993. This community based organization committed to preventing crime was so successful that it was one of the models for the establishment of the federal government's $32 million per year national strategy on community safety and crime prevention of which the National Crime Prevention Centre is a part.

The recently announced partnership between the centre and the Insurance Council of Canada to reduce auto theft is welcome but not surprising. The insurance industry in my community has supported local crime prevention efforts for many years.

This joint initiative takes a particular interest in preventing children from being drawn into automobile theft. Currently 43% of convicted car thieves are between the ages of 12 and 17. With the rate of auto theft rising and the resulting $48 a year increase in insurance premiums for consumers, this initiative between government and property and casualty insurers in communities across the country is a logical and timely one. Well done.