John Reynolds

[Citizenship Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-343, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. This is the second incarnation of the bill, which unfortunately on its first introduction did not make the draw. I am grateful that due to the reform in the manner we treat and vote on private members' bills and to the assistance of my colleague, the member for Okanagan—Shuswap, the bill can now make it to the floor of the House for debate.

Reform of private members' business has been a long-standing initiative of the Canadian Alliance. We believe that giving more power to individual MPs in the development of legislation would make this institution much more vital and more democratic. Allowing for all private members' bills to be votable adds further impetus and meaning to the role of a member of Parliament, ending the lottery approach to getting a worthwhile and enlightened bill before the House.

Let me point out that Bill C-343:

is designed to remedy the situation where a person has, as a child, been deprived of their Canadian citizenship as a result of the operation of section 18 of the Canadian Citizenship Act, chapter 15 of the Statutes of Canada, 1946. That provision, which was in force until February 14, 1977, provided that a minor child ceased to be a Canadian citizen upon their responsible parent becoming the citizen of another country. This enactment makes it easier for such a person to regain their Canadian citizenship as they will no longer have to be established as a permanent resident in order to do so.

Further, if Bill C-18, introduced in the second session of the 37th Parliament and entitled Citizenship of Canada Act, receives royal assent, then section 19 of that act is amended by adding the following after subsection 19(2):

The requirements set out in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) do not apply to a person who ceased to be a Canadian citizen as a result of a parent of that person acquiring the citizenship or nationality of another country before February 15, 1977.

Let me put the intent of the legislation in more fundamental terms. Between 1947 and 1977, thousands of Canadian families left Canada, often in the pursuit of jobs south of the border. In many cases the father had to become an American citizen to get the job. Unbeknownst to many of the families, under the immigration law Canada adopted in 1947, wives and children were considered the property of the fathers. When the fathers renounced their citizenship, their wives and families automatically lost theirs.

The law was changed in Canada in 1977 to recognize dual citizenship, but the new rights were not made retroactive to those who lost their citizenship between 1947 and 1977 through no fault of their own and through no conscious decision of their own. I see this as not only unfair but discriminatory.

A person born in Canada today has the right to citizenship for the rest of his or her life, but there are thousands of older people who are caught in this 1947 to 1977 trap who do not have that same right. I believe it is time to recognize the wrong and make it right. I want to correct this injustice and thus I first introduced the bill in early 2002.

The issue and the injustice were brought to my attention by an individual who spent 30 years struggling to have his Canadian citizenship re-established. In 1961, Don Chapman, a Canadian who was then seven years old, forfeited his Canadian citizenship because his family moved to Seattle and his father took out American citizenship. In 1972, Mr. Chapman began applying to have his Canadian citizenship returned. He was rejected. In 1977, he tried again, only to be turned down. Here we have an individual whose family lineage in Canada goes back to the Fathers of Confederation. In fact, his family goes back five generations in Canada.

Here we have an accomplished and successful individual of impeccable credentials who has purchased a home in my riding, where he would like to settle his family as Canadians, but is deprived of this right because he lost his citizenship prior to 1977 through no fault of his own. He has no criminal record and is even prepared to pay Canadian taxes; that should indicate how serious this man is about having his Canadian citizenship returned.

I would like to add today that I spoke to Mr. Chapman last night. He is an airline pilot. He has been flying 747s and has taken time off his regular job with United Airlines in the last number of weeks to fly into Kuwait, taking soldiers to the war. I wish to congratulate him for doing such a great job and for heroic efforts on behalf of the country he is a citizen of now, but also he wants to be a Canadian. I am very proud that a man like that would want to become a Canadian citizen again.

Mr. Chapman is not alone in this plight. Since I took on this injustice, I have had the opportunity to meet and assist another individual who, through an even more bizarre twist of circumstances and interpretation of our Canadian Citizenship Act, not only lost her citizenship but may not even be a citizen of any country at all. To make matters worse, her two sons find themselves in the same situation despite the fact she, her parents and her sons all live in Canada.

In January of this year, before committee hearings on Bill C-18, Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr provided moving and compelling testimony on the injustice perpetrated on her and others who lost their Canadian citizenship between 1947 and 1977.

Since 2001, Magali spent $20,000 of her own money on lawyers trying to remedy this wrong. Last June her case made it to judicial review but the judge ruled that more precise work had to be done by both sides and she sent them back to their respective sides to prepare further, which, of course, means more legal expenses for Magali. The entire situation is not only unfair, I believe it would even be ruled unconstitutional if it made it to the Supreme Court. It is a shame we are putting people, who are obviously Canadians, through this unnecessary process by asking them to go through the landed status route.

Officials suspect that there are thousands of others caught in the citizenship morass, including another individual, Mr. Charles Bosdet, whose case was also brought to my attention by Mr. Chapman. I worked on this file for five years and made representation to successive ministers of citizenship and immigration on behalf of the grieved parties. I am moved by the passion and desire of these Canadians to return home. It is their diligence in this cause and their love of this country that prompted my intervention and my private member's bill. I believe their case for re-establishment of their Canadian citizenship is legitimate.

In January, following Mr. Chapman's and Ms. Castro-Gyr's testimony before the citizenship committee, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicated to me that he was sympathetic to the situation of these individuals and that he would consider using his powers to restore their citizenship. I am grateful for this acknowledgement by the minister and thank him for his consideration of these cases on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. The minister talked to me last Thursday and mentioned that he will be bringing something to the committee, I hope in the next couple of weeks, that could solve this problem.

I appreciate, and I know all members of the House do that maybe, once and for all, we can solve this problem. I remember hearing the Tory Party and I think someone from the government side talking about security checks. We have no problems with that. Issues like that can be discussed at committee. However if the minister brings something to the committee that will solve the problem we will all appreciate it.

Each year Parliament dedicates a week to recognize Canadian citizenship and what it means to be a Canadian citizen. It allows us an opportunity to reflect upon the values of Canadian citizenship and its rights, privileges and responsibilities. During that week all Canadians are asked to reaffirm our commitment and loyalty to Canada. This year will mark the 56th anniversary of the Canadian Citizenship Act. Since 1947 Canada has opened its arms to millions of immigrants and conferred citizenship on over 5 million people. Canada has recognized the talents and diversities these people bring to our nation. Last year's Canada week theme “We all Belong” is fitting testimony to the nature of our country and our people.

I believe the Don Chapmans, the Magali Castro-Gyrs, the Charles Bosdets and the thousands of others, who in my mind never really left the collective soul of this nation, also belong.

I thank all members of Parliament who have listened to this injustice at committee hearings and through the private members' process. We look forward to having a vote and moving this on to committee.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I respect the hon. member who just asked the question. I respect the things she has done in the House over the years.

However I do not respect her new leader, who is not in the House, who will stand next to somebody who is burning the American flag. That to me is anti-American. That is not good for Canada. It is not good for this Parliament. I do not respect her new leader who would lead parades where people burn American flags and curse President Bush.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2003]

I answered the member's question fully. I said I am a friend of the member for LaSalle--Émard. He is a good member of Parliament, but he should get in here and tell us what he thinks.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, that Canada should speak with one voice traditionally is a position we would all take, but in this situation the Prime Minister has made a decision that is not good for Canada and is not supported by a majority of Canadians anymore.

If we look at Prime Minister Blair who fought all the odds, at one point 10% of the people supported his position and now a majority support his position because he had the strength to deal with and treat his allies as friends, neighbours and supporters.

The member for LaSalle--Émard is a friend of mine. He is a member of the House. He wants to be prime minister of the country. Canadians have a right to hear him speak in this place to see if he has the same opinion as the Prime Minister and the government of the land. He is not a member of the government inside the cabinet anymore. He is a private member. We have a right to know what he thinks, what he would do if he were prime minister of Canada to cure these sad relations that have been created by the government, the worst we have seen in many years between us and our American neighbours.

We are proud to say that we support President Bush and his troops in Iraq. We are proud to say that we support Tony Blair and his troops in Iraq and all the other coalition partners. We are not trying to hide.

We have troops in that war and the government tries to hide behind technicalities. How many lawyers has it hired to give it the right answers so it is not misleading us about what is going on? We are in the war. We are active in that war. We support those troops. We support those families in this country who are supporting those troops. The government is hiding behind technicalities. It should be ashamed of itself for getting into this position.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague that the comments made by the assistant to the Prime Minister, comments made by a backbench Liberal, comments made by a Liberal cabinet minister have not helped Canada-U.S. relationships. I think my colleagues on the other side would agree with that also.

Governments can take positions and they may be tough ones but certainly the words that were used by members of the House and the leader of the New Democratic Party to attack Americans are unacceptable. The Americans are our friends. They are our allies. They are our traditional friends who joined with us, as I said, in the first world war and the second world war. Many Canadians joined them in other wars, whether it was Korea or Vietnam. We have let that slide in the House. That is unfortunate and it is causing problems.

No matter how anyone wants to put it, the members on the other side try to blame us because we are bringing the issue up. Do they expect us to stay silent? We are here to defend freedom of speech certainly, but not careless speech in the House of Commons.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue on with my comments to the government House leader that Marian Meinen, our candidate for Perth—Middlesex, will certainly enjoy the speech I am making. I know she is looking forward to being in the House with all of us and she knows how important this debate is today.

All Canadians have seen the motion that we put before the House and will not understand if there is even one member who votes against this motion because it is such an important part of what is happening in Canada today.

Canadians are understandably confused as to why it should be necessary for the official opposition to endeavour to tell our American friends that the vast majority of Canadians want to remain friends. It worries Canadians that the present Prime Minister, as lame a duck as he is, is still capable of throwing more strain upon our enduring friendship.

Canadians are as bewildered as they are confused. They are wondering why the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, is not speaking out against those who hurl insults at our American friends and their administration in Washington. We all know he so desperately wants to be Prime Minister that he will say anything anywhere if it will win him one more delegate vote. He will promise anything to anybody and then hit the dirt when the controversy arises. Canadians wonder why he will not at least speak out on the way his party has turned its back on our American allies. Is becoming leader of that party just too important for him to find the courage to speak out?

The member for LaSalle—Émard reminds me of a recent cartoon in the New Yorker magazine. I believe the caption beneath the cartoon describes perfectly the former finance minister's approach to politics. The caption reads, “It could go badly or it could go well, depending on whether it goes badly or well”. It sounds like something the present Prime Minister would say. Does that not capture in a few words the former finance minister? For that matter, would it not be an appropriate caption to stick under a photo of the present Prime Minister?

All of us in this party believe that the reckless statements of certain members of the House have strained our relations with the United States and we regret that. We can assure our friends to the south that the rabidly anti-American New Democratic Party does not speak for or even draw the attention of the majority of Canadians. I think they should know in the United States that the majority of voters in ridings held by Liberals are not rabidly anti-American; it is only their Liberal members of Parliament who are.

I do not think Americans have to be reminded, and the Liberals and New Democrats should remember, that in World War I 35,000 Americans joined the Canadian army. They joined before America entered the war in 1917. Again in World War II approximately 30,000 Americans joined the Canadian Forces before the U.S.A. entered the war. They came voluntarily because they wanted to do what was right. They wanted to fight for freedom against fascism. They wanted to help their good friends and neighbours who were going overseas to fight for democracy and freedom.

No matter how controversial it was and became, there were Canadians who went south to join the American military in the war in Vietnam. And who will ever forget what Canadian diplomats did to help six Americans escape from Iran? Ambassador Kenneth Taylor received the congressional gold medal for that from the president at the time, Ronald Reagan.

We know how the present Prime Minister likes to boast about how he takes no nonsense from the Americans. We just wish he had waited until he was long gone from office. Surely he could have spent his retirement years boasting instead of doing it now in public when some media still listen to what he says.

Here is another question for the member for LaSalle—Émard. The Prime Minister and so many of the member's leadership supporters in caucus believe that the Bush regime is illegitimate. Does he agree or does he disagree? It is time the former finance minister came out of the closet. Is he anti-American like so many of his supporters and the Prime Minister? Or does he agree with us that the Americans are not just our closest neighbours by virtue of our geography, but also our closest friends and allies by virtue of our history?

Mr. Speaker, I should mention that I am splitting my time with my colleague.

One would think that the ancient mariner might find time to let Canadians know what he thinks. If he ever does become prime minister, Canadians might like fair warning so they can develop new investment strategies. They will need those new strategies if the rabid and venomous anti-American rhetoric continues to spew from his supporters.

I think we want him to clear the air so we know that he has at least one opinion on our relations with the United States. Surely it is not too much to ask of a man who wants to be prime minister to have at least one opinion.

Then we have the incredible hulk of the New Democratic Party. He is one who thundered that the American administration is killing babies. We thought that party had decided to give that sort of foolish rhetoric a rest back in the 1960s. Of course, that is a party that never really left the 1960s and most of its members do not know there have been a few new books written since then.

Why are we concerned on this side? We think supporting our allies in a fight against brutal tyrants is the right thing to do, but we are also concerned abut the impact that Liberal anti-Americanism will have on Canadians and Canada.

Anecdotal evidence is coming in already. We are hearing of conventions being cancelled or preliminary discussions on conventions being halted. We are hearing of small businesses that do business in the United States getting the cold shoulder from longtime clients and friends.

We hear that hunting and fishing lodges are either getting cancellations or far fewer inquiries from the United States than in previous years.

We hope Canadians will remember it was the Liberals backed by their kissing cousins in the New Democratic Party who did not care what the economic fallout might be. They have vowed they will never join our allies and will continue hurling insults at them.

We hope Canadians employed in the auto manufacturing industry remember it was the Liberals and New Democrats they will have to thank for the disappearance of their jobs.

In my beautiful province, people involved in the softwood lumber industry are already feeling the pain and are wishing the Liberals and the New Democrats would zipper their lips.

Of course there are others, the victims of Saddam Hussein who are trying to understand why Liberals and New Democrats are siding with him instead of those who would run that brutal tyrant out of Iraq.

The business community is wondering why the natural resources minister is still in cabinet after his criticism of President Bush. They are certainly wondering why there has been no apology.

If the Liberals just once in their history would listen to Albertans, and I know that would be difficult for them, they would hear how much the comment of the natural resources minister concerns them. It was totally inappropriate and the Prime Minister knew it and knows it now. His problem is he does not have any other loyalists left to elevate to cabinet. It must be embarrassing for the Prime Minister just as it is for all Canadians. It would embarrass anyone to have to admit that they could not demote a cabinet minister because they did not have the talent or the loyalty in the rest of the caucus to produce a replacement.

We should also let the parents of the brave sons and daughters who are with the American military in Iraq know that Liberals and New Democrats do not speak for all Canadians. We in the Alliance share the worry and the grief of those American parents and our hearts go out to them. We cannot forget either that there are Canadian parents with children in the American military. Our prayers and thoughts are with them as well.

It is unfortunate that the present Prime Minister and the ones who aspire to replace him all share the same anti-American sentiment. It is not just unfortunate, it is shameful.

We have done our utmost on this side to let our American neighbours know that the anti-Americanism is not as rampant on this side of the border as the government would paint. We want them to know that it is only rampant among Liberal and New Democratic Party members of Parliament.

We apologize for that on behalf of all Canadians who cherish our friendship with the United States. We apologize to them as well that one of those parties has already elected an anti-American leader and that all of the candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party are anti-American.

We insist that Americans understand one thing and bear it in mind: Canadians are not anti-American. It is only Liberals and New Democrats who are and we hope Canadians will remember that and remedy it in the next election.

[Business of the House, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to ask the government House leader about the business for the rest of this week and next week. I would also ask him when he is going to bring in the legislation so that murderers will not be able to vote in the byelection in Perth—Middlesex that we are so looking forward to because we expect that Marian Meinen--

[Canada Elections Act, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this minister should go to Stratford and tell the people there that murderer Joe Willemsen will be voting with them if the Prime Minister ever gives him the right to vote in that byelection.

Their democratic right to choose their member of Parliament is being delayed by this Prime Minister. He should tell the people of Stratford that the man they call “the Stratford Slasher” will be voting with them in all elections to come, if he has to serve his sentence of over 10 years.

How does the Prime Minister explain, while the victims rights are taken from them for eternity, their murderers enjoy all of the democratic rights of Canadians no matter how many murders and how many years?

[Canada Elections Act, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government can apologize by voting for our motion today. That would sort of be a good start.

The government has promised a review of a Supreme Court decision granting murderers the right to vote in federal elections. The Supreme Court gave that right to murderers even though the victims lost all of their rights. Most decent, law-abiding Canadians were disgusted with that decision. As usual, the government sided with the criminals while ignoring the hurt it caused the loved ones of the murdered victims.

Having promised a review, having done nothing, are Canadians right to assume that the government has no intention of bringing in legislation denying the murderers the right to vote?

[Points of Order, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be fairly brief but I have to make some comments after the government House leader made comments about long speeches. He forgets about the GST debate in the House. It is amazing how one changes one's mind when in opposition versus being in the government.

There were many irregularities at that committee. For example, a government member, on a point of order, moved the previous question. Marleau and Montpetit at page 456 states:

The previous question cannot be proposed by... a Member who has been recognized on a point of order.

On page 456 it is also stated that:

The previous question cannot be moved... in any committee of the House.

The rules of the House were breached, Mr. Speaker, two times on one item. Further, the chair pointed out that such a motion could not be moved. This is where I disagree with my hon. colleague. He talked about the chair being in favour of what was going on. The chair moved that the motion could not be moved. The committee overturned his decision. The ruling was not an interpretation of the rules. It was enforcing the rules.

Therefore, in my opinion, the committee went beyond its power, to overrule the chair, whereas if we listened to the government House leader we would think the chair was on the same side as the other people.

The procedural tactic of asking for a ruling and then overruling the chair is dangerous and risky. For example, what would stop a member from asking the chair to rule whether or not the committee could skip the clause by clause consideration of a bill and have it deemed adopted and reported back to the House? The chair would of course rule that such a procedure could not be followed without a motion. The member could move to overrule the decision and the motion could carry. Instantly the government would get the bill adopted without debate because a motion to overrule the chairman is not debatable.

Mr. Speaker, you must review the transcripts of that committee, because the abuses are such that it requires your intervention. I am aware that the Speaker would not normally rule on a committee's proceedings; however, in extraordinary situations the Speaker has a duty to get involved.

The other matter at the committee was that insults and verbal abuses were exchanged and the chairman had much difficulty maintaining order. I understand that not only was there the language quoted by the Bloc member, which is accurate, but also a very personal threat was made against a member of that committee. It is a total abuse of the privileges of the House when a chairman makes a personal threat to somebody in a meeting of a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I think this deserves your attention. It is not something we should treat lightly. It is a committee that has gone amok. It is an example of this government, which has problems with its leadership, but we should not have to put up with that as members of the House. The way the government is running the committee needs your personal intervention and rulings so that this never happens again. Certainly there should be apologies to the member of the House who had the personal insults and threats made to him in committee.