Val Meredith

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question I disagree with the government. Like one of his colleagues, I believe the citizenship oath of this country should also include a pledge of loyalty to Canada and to respect the laws and institutions of Canada.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member across the way that Canada could not be more generous if it tried. It lets in people with criminal records. It lets people who are known terrorists in the international scene. It is more generous than it should be.

My comments were about newly born children. I may be missing something, but I do not think a one or two week old child can be a professional or a business person. We are talking about children who were born and whose parents came to this country simply to give birth. They are not Canadian. They are not landed citizens. We are talking about people who plan holidays so that their children will be Canadian citizens.

The government can continue to turn its eye from the reality of the situation, but Canadians demand that it protects the integrity of Canadian citizenship. If it fails to do that, it will be letting down Canadians who proudly hold citizenship, either those who were born here or new immigrants who take on citizenship.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian citizenship is worthy of protection. Our citizenship is very highly regarded internationally. I feel that Canadians expect and feel that this government has a duty to protect Canadian citizenship and what it means worldwide.

The citizenship and immigration committee reviewed this issue back in 1994. It sent recommendations to the government four and a half years ago. All I can say is this is typical of the inertia of this department and of its ministry. At this rate we can expect badly needed changes to the Immigration Act in the 22nd century.

The big question is if after four and a half years this is it, this is the best the minister can come up with?

I had the opportunity of representing the official opposition as a critic for the immigration portfolio. I can remember sitting at committees where they were dominated by the Liberal government. The citizenship and immigration committee four and a half years ago was also dominated by the Liberal government. Yet it had the courage to recommend to the minister of the day that the laws that grant Canadian citizenship to any child born in Canada should be amended. This minister chose to ignore that recommendation.

I would like to examine why it is a concern to Canadians. There are only two western democracies that automatically grant citizenship to every child born in their country, the United States of America and Canada. In the United States of America it is because of the 14th amendment to the American Constitution which was proposed by Congress in June 1866 in the aftermath of the civil war. It was to ensure that the freed slaves in the south were not denied their rights by state legislatures. The 14th amendment states: “All persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state within where they reside”.

However, because of this constitutional amendment the Americans are faced with a situation today where pregnant Mexican women sit on the south shore of the Rio Grande until they go into labour. Then they cross the river and they have children in the United States and are therefore United States citizens.

Earlier this morning we had Liberals talk about the long tradition in Canada of granting citizenship to children born in Canada. This long tradition started in 1977, not quite so long ago. This change has led to foreigners specifically coming to Canada to give birth so that their children will automatically have Canadian citizenship.

In 1995 there were 500 births to foreign women in British Columbia alone. That was more than 1% of the births in British Columbia.

In the city of Richmond almost 30% of births at the Richmond hospital were to foreigners. Despite the fact that these newborn babies spend only one or two weeks in Canada before they depart for their homeland, they possess an irrevocable right of entry into Canada.

There has not been any great problem with this to date because the eldest of these children would only be 22 years old. But who is to say what problems might arise in the future? Some of these returning Canadians might be members of organized crime. They might be terrorists, they might gang members and Canada will not be able to deny them entry because they will be Canadian citizens. What if some of these individuals have significant health problems? They will not be denied entry. They will have full access to our health care system because they are Canadian citizens.

Regardless of the potential problems that will undoubtedly arise over the next few years, the reality is there are thousands of individuals around the world who are Canadian citizens but whose only attachment to this country was the first two weeks of their lives.

In the true Reform tradition I sought out the opinions of my constituents two and a half years ago. I asked should children born in Canada to parents who are neither Canadian citizens nor landed immigrants automatically be considered Canadian citizens. I received 3,685 responses. Only 341 people said yes. That was only 9.25% of the respondents who felt that children born in Canada should automatically be Canadian citizens if their parents were not landed immigrants or Canadians.

If this is how Canadians and certainly my constituents feel why is the minister leaving that clause alone? Why is she not amending it as was recommended by the immigration and citizenship committee that reviewed it four and a half years ago?

The second issue this raises is adoption outside Canada. There is a clause in this new citizenship bill that will make it easier for Canadian parents to gain Canadian citizenship for a child adopted abroad.

It is interesting because this bill cautions that adoption must create a genuine parent-child relationship and cannot have been intended to circumvent Canadian immigration or citizenship law. But during my time as a member of parliament my office has dealt with two cases where an adopted child has subsequently tried to sponsor their natural parents to Canada.

I suggest to the minister that if she sincerely wants to prevent a circumvention of the immigration laws by adoptees, then she must amend the immigration law that prevents adopted children from sponsoring their natural parents.

I would like to share the contents of an e-mail with the House. This is where a Canadian married a Romanian girl in Romania. I received this e-mail in December 1998. This individual returned to Canada in March 1998 and has been trying to get his wife to Canada ever since. On July 1, 1998 his daughter was born in Romania. Canadian immigration told him that Melissa, the daughter, was a Canadian and could accompany his wife or come to Canada earlier if desired. The daughter could come before the wife.

Two weeks ago his wife finally received her clearance to immigrate to Canada but was told that Melissa could not leave until it could be proven that she was the daughter of a Canadian. He was told that once his papers were filed it would be another six month process.

It is ironic to me and to Canadians that here is a child born to a Canadian who cannot come to Canada with its mother and yet we are encouraging people to adopt children, who are going to become Canadian just like that, without being landed immigrants first.

I suggest the process we have before this amendment in the citizenship act is the appropriate one. The adopted child comes to Canada as a landed immigrant and citizenship follows thereafter.

Before I close I would like to bring up the business of citizenship judges. I am very concerned that this government continues the process of patronage appointments in the position of commissioners. We had an excellent citizenship judge, Mrs. Pam Glass, who served her people well in British Columbia and was removed because she had one flaw. She was not a federal Liberal. Although she was competent and doing her job extremely well, the government has chosen to replace her with a political appointed person. The citizenship act falls far short of what Canada needs in terms of protecting the citizenship we hold proudly.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have to suggest that this person is totally off topic. He is not making any relevant comments to the bill.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague who has tried on two occasions to address the issue if he could maybe point out for the benefit of the government members who do not seem to see a connection between immigration and citizenship and perhaps very succinctly explain to them how the relationship is there between immigration and Canadian citizenship.

[Petitions, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House with 245 signatures from British Columbia.

The petitioners are calling upon parliament to take immediate steps (a) to provide a significant contribution toward homeowners affected by the residential construction crisis (b) to ensure that the cost of all qualified repairs are deductible from income retroactively and in the future (c) to repeal and refund all GST on qualified repairs and (d) to permit registered retirement savings plan or RRSP funds to be used to undertake qualified repairs without penalty and to permit previously withdrawn RRSP funds used to pay repair specialist assessments to be income tax rebated.

[Health Care, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, while the health minister tries to put the blame on everybody else, over the past 15 years the federal share of health care has been cut in half in British Columbia.

This translates into 1,000 fewer hip and knee replacements, 1,000 fewer heart surgeries, 3,000 fewer cancer operations and 7,000 fewer long term hospital beds.

Why is the minister blaming every province in the country when the federal government is responsible for the crisis in health care in Canada?

[Health Care, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to those under the Canada health and social transfer that there are three provinces in this country that pay more.

I remind the Prime Minister that the first principle of the social union that he signed a week ago was to treat all Canadians with fairness and equity. Why is the Prime Minister so willing to put that aside one week later?

[Health Care, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, under the new health care accord that the Prime Minister and the health minister mentioned this afternoon, three provinces may end up paying more than they receive. If the additional health care funds are transferred under the existing formula, the citizens of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia will pay more than they receive.

In the interests of fairness and equity, will the Prime Minister commit to transfer the additional funds for health care on a per capita basis?