Darrel Stinson

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 19th, 1999]

That is what we are on now and why patronage appointments exist. They are a gift to those who support the government. That is all they are and nothing more.

Let us look at the hypocrisy of the government and what is going on. It was not that long ago the Canadians census came out. Many people in my constituency, first and second generation Canadians, filled in a little section by putting in the word Canadian.

What happened when they did that? The government threatened to sue and imprison some of these people because they had the gall to write in that they were Canadians. They came to my office and said “Mr. Stinson, I came here to become a Canadian. I want to take on the nationality of a Canadian. My children are Canadian and we look upon ourselves as Canadians”. Yet the government has threatened them for saying they are Canadian. Even as a seventh generation Canadian I was not allowed to put Canadian on that census. What exactly is going on here? It goes beyond being a joke.

Let us look at some of the powers in clause 43. Under this clause Bill C-63 grants the minister far-reaching powers, unbelievable powers. The minister has the right to specify who may make an application under this act on behalf of a minor, fix fees and define who is a spouse for the purpose of the act. I only have to see that part to start wondering what is going on. The minister may define what constitutes a relationship of parent and child for the purposes of determining the entitlement to citizenship under any provision of the act.

As a Canadian citizen I demand a voice in this regard. I demand the people of Canada also have a voice in this regard and not just the minister. This is arrogance of the highest form.

If the minister really wishes to improve the Citizenship Act, she should be willing to bring some of these questions into the open, have a debate and hear from the Canadian people, not make these decisions behind closed doors where she is not accountable to anyone.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have just heard from an member from the other side. This is typical of what goes on and that is fine. They do not like it when we raise the idea of patronage appointments.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I assure you this does not throw me off topic.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-63. I am one of many Canadians who are very grateful that the hon. member for Wild Rose chose Canada as his home. Without members such as the member for Wild Rose we would certainly be further into a dictatorship than we already are now. I thank the hon. member for that.

I remind members of the House that I am from an agricultural background. Agriculture is very strong in my constituency. We all recognize, to put it politely, what load of fertilizer is when see it and smell it. When I look at the bill it certainly reminds me of that.

Some aspects of the bill go a very tiny way to addressing part of the problems in the country, but nowhere does it address the problems as it should. Whether or not members opposite like to admit it, they spent a great amount of time dealing with new citizens and the immigration laws in their daily work schedules. I want one of them to stand and deny this is true.

I have been a member in the House since 1993. Most of the concerns with regard to immigration and the downfall in citizenship come from first or second generation immigrants. They have an abundance of concerns about policy, where it is going and who we are letting into the country. They left their countries to come to Canada with great hope and expectations of creating a new life and new wealth for not only themselves but for their future generations.

Unfortunately they now live in a country where many live in fear because of immigration laws that allow the criminal element to come into the country, that allow the government to welcome them with open arms and give them the same rights as every Canadian citizen who has resided lawfully in Canada for their entire lives. Yet we have the criminal element coming into the country under the guise of some of the acts to create havoc.

People who have come to Canada to create a new life well recognize this. They had to put up with it in the countries they came from. This is one of the things they ran from to come here, and we are starting to embrace it here with open arms. That is just one aspect of what we have to look at.

Let us look at the blatant patronage aspect of the bill. One inclusion in the legislation is the continued tradition of so-called patronage appointments, namely citizenship commissioners. We do not have to be brain surgeons or rocket scientists to recognize exactly what the government means.

[Poverty, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last fall I wrote this government to complain on behalf of poor people, like the homeless who came here last week. They do not want handouts. Most just want the chance for a decent job, which can only come from the private sector now being strangled by high taxes. The minister responded, just as the new budget would make one fear, with a list of government programs.

One of the biggest flaws in programs cooked up by bureaucrats is that they do not work. For example, a couple of women in my riding heard about the budget's increase to the child tax benefit. They called to complain that their daughters received social assistance but have the whole amount of the child tax benefit deducted from their welfare cheques. The poor who need it most will not get a nickel.

The same is true for child support payments after divorce or separation. Fathers have called me to complain that they struggle to provide child support only to see provincial authorities deduct the amount from their wives' cheques.

I hope the lesson to be learned is clear. Not even the poor can rely on programs cooked up by the government.

[Child Pornography, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the first responsibility of government is to protect the safety and well-being of its law-abiding citizens. That responsibility is especially strong when it comes to the safety and well-being of Canada's children.

However, a judge in British Columbia has ruled that the rights of children to be protected are less important than the so-called rights of some adults who want to look at pictures of child pornography.

Such exploitation of children makes most Canadians sick but the government is saying there is plenty of time to send this judge's ruling through endless appeals in our backlogged courts. The judgment only affects courts in B.C. and not in the rest of Canada.

Can members imagine a parliamentary secretary making such a statement if the ruling had come down in Ontario or Quebec?

Canadians are fed up with politicians letting the courts make our laws instead of parliament making our laws. This House rams through legislation when it suits them. Why should it take any longer to act against child pornography?

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, after listening the my colleague's speech I would like to ask her if she agrees that as elected representatives of Canada our first or foremost responsibility is to the safety and well-being of the law-abiding and innocent people of this country.

[Petitions, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is also my pleasure to table a petition signed mostly by people in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap. The petitioners support Private Members' Bill C-304 from the member for Yorkton—Melville to strengthen protection of private property rights and specifically guarantee that everyone has the right to enjoy their property, the right not to be deprived of it without a fair hearing and just compensation, and the right to appeal to the courts if their property rights have been infringed upon.

[Petitions, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, today I have two petitions that I wish to table.

One petition is from residents of Vernon and Armstrong. The petitioners are asking parliament to preserve and protect the institution of marriage by enacting Bill C-225, to define by statute that marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[National Friendship Centres, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the first nations friendship centre at Vernon in my riding will host an open house on December 10, national friendship centre day.

Human Resources Development Canada has not included the friendship centre movement in its new aboriginal human resource strategy although half of Canada's aboriginals now live in cities. This leaves friendship centres without any way to address urban aboriginal employment and training. I toured the Vernon centre where people can get services like training referrals and help in preparing resumes.

I was impressed by the huge caseload these folks handle. For example, family support and crisis intervention averages 47 cases per month. Nationwide friendship centres also help develop feasibility studies and business plans to promote long term employment in such diverse ventures as catering and day care.

However the aboriginal urban initiative which the friendship centres run is scheduled to lose its funding on March 31. I urge my colleagues to support the national friendship centre movement.