Carolyn Parrish

[Government Responses To Petitions, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the government's response to 12 petitions in both official languages.

[Canada Information Office, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that members of the Bloc Quebecois are concerned about this issue.

These programs are being used in Quebec. They are being used to inform Canadians across the country as to what is being done with government services, what we are spending our money on. We are informing Canadians of how the government works for them and I am surprised that he would object to that.

[Canada Information Office, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada uses advertising to inform Canadians about government programs and priorities, so many of the programs that are financed through this program are in co-operation with other governments.

As far as detail as to how much is spent and in what direction it goes, I cannot provide that at this time as the Deputy Prime Minister suggested.

[Canada Post, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians now have access to another innovative online service from Canada Post.

First there was ePost, then eParcel, and now PosteCS. With PosteCS Canadians can send documents of any size around the world instantly and securely. PosteCS is more secure than regular e-mail and it features delivery tracking and an electronic postmark. It is an affordable alternative to costly courier service.

PosteCS is further evidence that Canada Post is becoming a world leader in providing innovative, physical and electronic delivery solutions.

The government is determined to make Canada a world leader in the field of electronic commerce with innovative online products such as PosteCS.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this series of amendments would considerably increase fines and penalties for citizenship related offences. They are very consistent. They would all do the same thing.

Bill C-16 already increases the penalties rather appreciatively. The new penalties are also in line with penalties proposed for existing offences within other federal legislation, including the criminal code.

I am going to resist the urge to editorialize on the propensity for the party opposite to look for incarceration as its punishment of choice. Filling our jails and building new ones would probably be very good for the economy, but not particularly good for the people involved.

Therefore, I would suggest that the government oppose this series of amendments.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against both of the proposed amendments.

First, Motion No. 9 concerns the guidelines for ceremonies celebrating passing the citizenship test. We have to remember that is what these ceremonies are for, a celebration. The testing has been completed. Participants at those ceremonies are there to be celebrated and not to be politicized. They have passed a test. They are there with their families. I have attended many of these ceremonies. They are very joyous occasions particularly for people who have come from countries where there has been heavy persecution and they have had a very difficult time getting here.

The materials for distribution go through the local offices and they are very flexible. No one says that the Government of Quebec cannot, particularly on application for the citizenship test, be aware of this and make sure that the materials are distributed. We do not have any objections to that.

The other thing I would point out is that residents have to live in Quebec for three years before they are able to go through a ceremony. Therefore, there are three full years to make sure that they understand how valuable the French language is and how valuable the culture of Quebec is, and I do not disagree with that.

We cannot force the Quebec government, the Ontario government or the Manitoba government through federal citizenship laws to make sure they have an official at a ceremony that is strictly federal.

I do not think a ceremony of celebration is the place to bring in political debate. I do not think it is the place to try to force other levels of government to attend. We have a hard time in many cases getting MPs to attend some of these ceremonies so we are not in a position to order other governments around and I do not believe the member opposite would want that.

As far as Motion No. 23 is concerned, I am sorry the member for Wentworth—Burlington left because the third part of it is a very interesting proposal. His amendment is much like a smorgasbord; he has too much in there.

I agree with the member opposite that this is not the place or the time to debate the relevance of the monarchy. Many of the people who come to this country come from Commonwealth countries and would not be the least bit surprised to pledge allegiance to the Queen. She is still a very significant part of our Canadian psyche. Regardless, as I said, this is not the appropriate place to get into a debate on that.

Concerning the relevance of God, I also agree with the member from the Tory party who suggested that people have a vastly different image of God. There are many titles for a superior being and 20% or 30% of people who come from other countries actually do not believe in God. The concept that an oath can be sworn to an individual's own God within his or her own heart is very much a part of the ceremony. It is nothing to be excluded. Both of these amendments will not be supported by the government for very good reason.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and I will agree to disagree as we do on many things.

I wish to go back to my point. Revocation of citizenship is a very serious matter that the federal government does not take lightly. A pillar of parliamentary tradition is the principle of responsible government. A decision to revoke citizenship should remain with cabinet which itself is accountable to the Canadian people through parliament.

Further, adding appeal rights or giving exclusive power to the judiciary to decide revocation will lengthen the revocation process of suspected war criminals and terrorists, people who were never entitled to Canadian citizenship in the first place.

Let me also add that the revocation process under Bill C-16 guarantees due process for persons undergoing revocation of citizenship and many opportunities to state their case. The motions before the House would also allow any revocation done under the 1977 or 1947 acts to be appealed to the court of appeal or the supreme court.

If that appeal results in a finding that the person did not obtain citizenship by misrepresentation or concealing material circumstances, the revocation would be deemed to have not occurred, that is the decision of the governor in council would be overturned. This would be a radical shift in the way citizenship revocation is done.

Now is not the time to make a radical shift in citizenship revocation. Now is the time to pass the new citizenship act which has been 15 years in the making. It has been reviewed extensively across the country. There has been much consultation, particularly with immigrant groups. Again I would like to state that the government does not support these amendments.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is with great respect for my colleague on this side of the House and his poignant remarks on our history and his personal experience that I reluctantly stand.

I do not support these motions. I want to correct the member opposite who just spoke. In fact the Liberal government is not sponsoring these two amendments. They are being sponsored by the Canadian Alliance.

I speak as one who has a riding of 40% immigrants. Those immigrants are law-abiding, hardworking, productive members of society. I also speak as someone who does not have the story my colleague beside me has, but I come from immigrant stock from eastern Europe. My grandmother chose to be a Canadian by coming from Poland in a cattle boat separated by one thin wall between the cattle and herself in the bottom of the boat.

I have read the amendments carefully and I do not support them. I would like to give my reasons.

I would like to speak on behalf of the almost 100%, as just pointed out, of legitimate immigrants who would not support citizenship for those who have entered this country through stealth, or acquired citizenship through lying or any other means that were other than honest.

I am going to use the previous immigration critic's own words. I find it passing strange that his party supports lengthy court referrals. He talked about it as being a paradox and a contradiction. He has in the past, and so has his party in one of its previous incarnations and its current incarnation, not supported putting too much power in the hands of the courts. As a matter of fact this has been a hue and cry of that party.

Now members of that party are talking about putting power back into the hands of the courts and taking it out of the hands of parliament. They also railed against too many lengthy procedures when the Chinese boats arrived off the shores of Vancouver. They were most vociferous that those people should be deported immediately. Therefore, I am again finding this whole argument coming from the opposite side of the House passing strange, a paradox and a contradiction.

Let us be clear about what the motions would do. The motions would make citizenship revocation solely a court proceeding. The revocation process under Bill C-16 is the same process that has been government policy for over 20 years, tried, true and reinvestigated. The federal court makes a determination of facts, deciding whether the person obtained citizenship by misrepresentation or by concealing material circumstances. Following that determination the minister makes a report to the governor in council and the governor in council decides whether to revoke citizenship.

The motions before the House would remove the roles of the minister and the governor in council and would leave the decision of fact and of whether to revoke citizenship to the courts. Again, the party opposite has constantly said that we are giving too much power to the courts.

Revocation of citizenship is a very serious matter that the federal government does not take lightly, but a pillar of parliamentary tradition—

[Housing, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would not mind at all.

Canada's national housing agency, CMHC, works closely with industry and its team Canada partners to promote the participation of the Canadian housing system in foreign markets. CMHC brings down housing barriers, gathers market intelligence and supports the housing industry's export promotion, new trade shows and other missions.

In fact, I was able to join the team Canada mission to Poland last year which saw a lot of contracts signed. Joint ventures were entered into that enriched both economies.

Opening new markets and increasing the number of Canadian firms involved in exports is at the heart of Canada's international business.

[Canada Book Day, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that on April 27 we will be celebrating Canada Book Day. Canada Book Day is an initiative of the Writers Trust of Canada in support of World Book Day. It has taken place annually since 1995. Canada Book Day is the largest single day celebration of reading and book buying in Canada.

This year Public Works and Government Services Canada is playing a major role in supporting this event. A quarter of a million items have been distributed to Canadians through our department's active network of over 700 bookstores. Today there is a promote a book table in the rotunda of Centre Block to display key government publications and to distribute additional promotional items.

I encourage all members to take time out of their busy day to visit the display in the rotunda.