Val Meredith

[British Columbia, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government professes to be concerned about the unity of federation, yet when a B.C. senator commented on the topic last week the minister responded with disdain.

Today the Vancouver Sun reports that almost 70 percent of respondents support Senator Carney's comments, including her suggestion that B.C. should not rule out separation.

Could the minister explain why he and his government are so insensitive to the concerns of British Columbia?

[Speech From The Throne, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is no great surprise to me that Ontario does not feel cheated by Confederation when it seems to control the country. Unless it happens in Ontario it seems that it does not matter.

How does the member expect to understand what British Columbians are thinking when he does not even listen to what they are saying? Seventy per cent of the people in B.C. who responded to a survey said that secession should be on the table. Is it because you do not want to hear this message or is it because you feel that if it is good for Ontario, it is good for all of Canada?

[Speech From The Throne, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be here this week and also to congratulate you on your appointment to the Speaker's chair. It is with great delight that I see you there.

I would also like to take time to thank the voters of South Surrey—White Rock—Langley for allowing me to continue as their member of Parliament. I am honoured to have the opportunity to serve them for another term.

I am delighted to lead off the debate today for the official opposition which will focus on the issues of national unity and parliamentary reform. These two issues are directly related. If we are ever to resolve Canada's unity problem we have to make significant changes to the way Canada is governed.

My Reform colleagues who will also be speaking today will be examining various aspects of these issues in more detail. I would like to reinforce the Leader of the Opposition's response to the throne speech of last Wednesday. The throne speech contains a great deal of rhetoric and platitudes about the value of Canadian society.

Most Canadians know that Canada is a wonderful country to live in. The international community knows that Canada is the best country to live in, but the reality of today is that the majority of federal and provincial politicians from Quebec want to leave Canada. Yet there is very little in the throne speech on how the Liberal government intends to address the threat of separation from these Quebec politicians.

In the throne speech the government makes a commitment to work with the provinces and territories to advance the progress made in Calgary two weeks ago toward the full recognition of diversity inherent in the federation, including the unique character of Quebec society. Unfortunately the Liberal government chose to ignore other parts of the Calgary declaration, which recognize the equality of citizens and provinces. The government also chose to ignore any mention in the throne speech of the premiers' pledge to involve the public before advancing their proclamation.

If it is the intention of the Liberal government to pursue its national unity strategy by promoting the concept of Quebec's unique character while ignoring the equality of Canadians and provinces and the commitment to involve the public in the process, its strategy will not work, nor will the official opposition support such a strategy.

Our support for the Calgary declaration as a starting point on unity discussions was based on the total package, not just one item out of seven. In the past, discussions that centred on the unique character of Quebec have been met with suspicion in British Columbia and other parts of the country.

The two major concerns expressed by British Columbians have been that such recognition will provide Quebec with special rights, powers or privileges that are not available to other provinces, and second, that such recognition would diminish the notion that all Canadians are equal and all provinces are equal. The Calgary declaration explicitly acknowledges these two concerns, but if the government continues to promote the unique character of Quebec while ignoring the equality aspect of the declaration, British Columbians are apt to become even more suspicious of the federal government's motive.

British Columbians, indeed all Canadians outside of Quebec, will have the opportunity to express their feelings about the Calgary declaration over the next few months. After these public consultations, the premiers are then expected to introduce resolutions in their respective legislatures. I am sure the wording of these resolutions will reflect the sentiment of the various public consultations that have occurred in their provinces.

But will these resolutions make any difference? The Bloc Quebecois says no. The Parti Quebecois government also says no. Both of these parties say that the Calgary declaration is worthless and does not come anywhere close to addressing Quebec's grievances. They claim it is irrelevant, as was the Liberal government's Motion No. M-26 in the last Parliament. Some people may remember when the government quickly passed a motion to live up to the prime minister's promise to recognize Quebec as a distinct society.

The Calgary declaration does not involve constitutional change and as long as there is a separatist government in Quebec, any constitutional initiatives are futile. Not only would we have a repeat of the constitutional discussions of the early 1980s but in another ill-advised piece of legislation passed by the government in the last Parliament, the separatist government in Quebec now has a veto over any constitutional amendment. No matter how beneficial another proposed constitutional amendment may be, it is extremely unlikely that the Parti Quebecois government would ever endorse it. Thus the Calgary declaration is not aimed so much at the Quebec government but for the Quebec people. Pollsters and pundits have been filling the airwaves and newspapers with their take on the reaction of the people of Quebec and they will continue to do so even after all the provincial resolutions have been tabled.

We hear today of a poll out of Quebec suggesting that the majority of Quebeckers do not believe that the Calgary declaration is sufficient to address their concerns. However, the first real tangible evidence of the feeling of the people of Quebec may appear in the next Quebec provincial election which is expected some time next year.

Will the Calgary declaration and the resulting provincial resolutions convince Quebeckers to turf out their separatist government? On their own it would appear not, but hopefully these initiatives will be viewed as a starting point to convince Quebeckers that Canadians from all across the country are prepared to resolve the country's unity problem within Confederation.

As the Prime Minister stated in the throne speech debate at page 43 of Hansard :

The day may come—I hope it will, and it will if Quebec ever has a government willing to work for those Quebeckers who wish to remain a part of Canada and they are the majority—when there is a legal and constitutional text to consider as such. The words from Calgary are an attempt to express worthy Canadian values and that is how they should be welcomed.

After the next Quebec provincial election we will be faced with one of two prospects: one, a federalist government in Quebec which will require that Canadians be prepared for another constitutional initiative or two, a separatist government which will require Canadians to be prepared for another separatist referendum.

I will address both of these scenarios, but I will first address the more desirable scenario, one that will enable a strong and united Canada to live up to its potential in the 21st century.

If Quebeckers recognize that they are not the only Canadians who reject the status quo and opt instead to elect a provincial government that is committed to renewing and revitalizing the federation, then Canada will undoubtedly enter another round of constitutional negotiations. If Quebeckers show enough faith in Canada to elect a federalist government, that faith must be rewarded. However, while this constitutional debate should address Quebec's concerns about the federation, it cannot deal exclusively with Quebec's concerns.

Any attempt to have a Quebec only round will result in widespread opposition, especially in British Columbia. While Quebec is naturally a key to any constitutional negotiations, I can assure the House that B.C. will also play an equally pivotal role in these discussions.

In accordance with the Calgary declaration, the B.C. government will hold public consultations with its citizens like the other provincial governments with the exception of Quebec. While I would never be so presumptuous as to assume that what the people of British Columbia will tell their government, some of their sentiment on the issue is becoming more public.

Last week a senator from B.C. made national headlines by stating that British Columbia should renegotiate its role in Confederation and that secession should be on the table. In response to these comments the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs almost blew a gasket in condemning the senator. Was the senator reflecting the mood of British Columbians? I believe she was.

I will not ask the House just to believe what I think. The House should check with the people of B.C., just like the Vancouver Sun did with its readers. They asked British Columbians if B.C. should renegotiate its place in Confederation and if it should, they asked if secession should be on the table. The Vancouver Sun had 1,010 responses to these questions. Out of 1,010 responses 800 of them said yes, British Columbia should be renegotiating its role in Confederation.

As for the more controversial aspect of including secession in these renegotiations, 700 respondents said yes, it should be there. That is right. According to the 1,010 people who responded to the Vancouver Sun's question, 70 percent said yes, secession should be on the table.

The senator was just reflecting the extreme frustration that British Columbians feel. If that is not a wake-up call for this minister and this government, then I do not know what is.

The task ahead does have some bright spots. British Columbians desire many of the same changes in Confederation that Quebeckers do. One of these issues is the rebalancing of powers within Confederation.

I have often heard members of the Bloc Quebecois talk about how federal policies prevent Quebeckers from becoming masters in their own home. A rebalancing of powers by defining which issues should be within the provincial government's jurisdiction and which should be in the federal government's jurisdiction would certainly go a long way to resolving many of the concerns of Quebeckers and British Columbians.

One issue that is more of a concern to British Columbia than it is to Quebec is revamping federal institutions, especially Parliament.

British Columbia is the most under-represented province in both this House and the other place. In the Senate there are 104 senators. Using the 1996 census population figures, that works out to a Canadian average of 277,373 citizens per senator. When we look at the per capita representation on a provincial basis, there is only one province which is near the national average, Quebec, with 297,450 people per senator.

At the low end we have Prince Edward Island with only 33,639 citizens per senator; New Brunswick with 73,813 people per senator. At the opposite end of the scale we have Ontario, with 448,065 per senator, and Alberta with 449,471. At the top of the scale is British Columbia, with 620,750 citizens per senator.

There is no equality in the other place now, either on the basis of equality of citizens or equality of provinces. What we have is an upper chamber which reflects the reality of over 100 years ago. Unfortunately there has been a litany of Liberal and Tory governments, dominated by central Canada, which have been quite happy to keep things just as they were back in the 19th century. We are about to enter the 21st century. It is time to bring representation up to date.

Of course I would be remiss if I failed to mention the illusion to Senate reform referred to by the Charlottetown accord. That is the accord that the prime minister always hides behind when he is asked about Senate reform. He claims that westerners had the chance for Senate reform but voted against it.

That accord called for Quebec and Ontario to give up 18 of their senators so that each province would end up with six senators. Did Ontario and Quebec give them up out of the goodness of their hearts? Absolutely not.

Under the terms of the accord those 18 senators would be resurrected as 18 new members of Parliament each for Quebec and Ontario. Thus British Columbia's under-representation in this House would be even more significant. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of British Columbians rejected the accord? Did they really think we were that stupid?

There is another piece of information for the prime minister's attention when he says that the Charlottetown accord would have elected senators. It is true that the accord allowed for the election of senators, but clause 4 of the accord, which amended section 23(2)(a) of the Constitution Act of 1867, allowed for the indirect election of senators by provincial legislatures. In other words, instead of being appointed by the prime minister they would be appointed by the premiers.

As we approach the new millennium any rules that permit the appointment of any representatives are archaic and should be forever consigned to the 19th century, not to the 21st century.

Returning to the numbers in the Senate for a moment, these numbers are assigned on a regional basis which, as in the Constitution, recognizes four distinct districts or regions. Yet when this government passed Bill C-110 in the last Parliament and handed out vetoes it recognized five regions. It finally acknowledged that British Columbia is unique from the prairie provinces.

How can this government recognize four regions in the Constitution and five regions in parliamentary legislation? It is an inconsistency that this government must address.

The Calgary declaration acknowledges the equality of all citizens and all provinces. If this declaration is to mean anything there must be true equality in Parliament. In the Senate, the equality of provinces should be recognized and in this House the equality of citizens should be recognized. To accomplish this equality we must have true representation by population in the House of Commons.

Earlier I mentioned British Columbians' under-representation in the Senate. B.C. is equally unrepresented in this House. Using the population census in 1996 the Canadian average is 95,836 people per MP. Once again, only Quebec comes close to that with 95,184 people per MP. The range in representation goes from 33,639 in Prince Edward Island to 109,544 in B.C. Is this equality? I do not think so. It is due to a little heralded constitutional amendment made in 1985 that guaranteed that no province would ever lose seats in redistribution. What that means is today we have six provinces that have this constitutional protection. Six provinces have an average of 73,900 people per MP. Meanwhile, three provinces are significantly under-represented in this House and they average 105,366 people per MP. With the 1985 amendment, this inequity is likely to be permanent unless the Constitution is changed again.

One thing that B.C. will likely be asking for is to be treated equally, nothing more, nothing less.

Just in case members are wondering why this is important to B.C., we happen to believe that if we had our due representation in Parliament then maybe we would not have a government that handles foreign overfishing off the Pacific coast by taking the B.C. government to court. Maybe we would not have a government that closes the only military base on the mainland of British Columbia which just happens to have the highest risk for a major earthquake in a populated area. Maybe we would not have a government that gives Quebec over $3,000 per immigrant while giving B.C. barely $1,000 per immigrant. Maybe we would not have a government that immediately gives Quebec millions of dollars when it receives a large number of refugees, yet when British Columbia receives a large number of out of province welfare claimants the government not only fails to provide any additional funds, it penalizes the B.C. government for taking steps to deal with this problem on its own.

Before I conclude my comments I would like to briefly mention what will happen if Quebecers opt to re-elect the Parti Quebecois, the separatists. I am certain that the people of British Columbia, as well as members of the official opposition, will want to make certain that Quebecers know the consequences of what a vote for separation will mean.

First and foremost, I would like to dispel the myth that separatists like to spread that after separation there would be a friendly equal partnership between Quebec and the rest of Canada. I would like to inform the Quebec separatists that there is no such thing as the rest of Canada. The separatists have no idea what shape the remainder of Confederation will be in after a yes vote. If Quebec votes to separate rest assured that British Columbians will review their options.

Do not get me wrong, British Columbians love Canada and will do everything in their power to have it remain united. However, we expect that when Canada enters the next millennium it will be a country where all Canadians and all provinces are treated equally, fairly and with respect. British Columbians are asking for nothing more and will settle for nothing less.

[British Columbia, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is unparliamentary language for me to quote what he was reported to say on TV last night.

When foreign overfishing threatened Atlantic fishing stocks in 1995 this government responded by seizing a foreign trawler. This year when foreign fishing threatened Pacific salmon stocks this government responded by taking the British Columbia government to court.

Why is this government taking such a hard line approach toward British Columbia?

[British Columbia, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when a senator from British Columbia commented on renegotiating British Columbia's role in Confederation the intergovernmental affairs minister responded with comments that cannot even be repeated in this House.

While this minister has worked extremely hard at accommodating Quebec's desire to renegotiate its role in Confederation, he responds to the concerns of British Columbians with the verbal equivalent of the Trudeau salute.

What will the minister do to assure British Columbians that he will be as sympathetic to their concerns as he is to Quebecers?

[British Columbia, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last week Statistics Canada released the numbers from the 1996 census and revealed what British Columbians have known all along, that B.C. is home of the biggest population boom in Canada. B.C. grew by 13.5 per cent between 1991 and 1996.

In 1951 the first census that included all 10 provinces showed that B.C. had only 8.3 per cent of Canada's population. Today it has 12.9 per cent. Another indicator of B.C.'s growth is a comparison with the second largest province, Quebec. In 1951 B.C. had 25 per cent of Quebec's population. Today it has 52 per cent.

Despite these numbers B.C. gets only one-third of the amount of federal dollars that Quebec receives for each immigrant. It gets only 28 per cent of the money that Quebec got from the government's infrastructure fund.

It is time for Ottawa to realize that Canada is changing and to start acting like it is 1997, not 1951.

[Citizenship Act, April 16th, 1997]

moved:

That Bill C-84, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 5 with the following: Remuneration and expenses

"(3) The appointed person shall be paid, for each day that the person performs duties under this Act as, such"

Amendment agreed to.

[Citizenship Act, April 16th, 1997]

moved:

That Bill C-84, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 3 with the following: Remuneration and expenses

"(3) The appointed person shall be paid, for each day that the person performs duties under this Act as, such"

Amendment agreed to.

[Citizenship Act, April 16th, 1997]

moved:

That Bill C-84, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 2 with the following:

Remuneration

and expenses

"(3) The appointed person shall be paid, for each day that the person performs duties under this Act, such"

(Amendment agreed to.)

[Citizenship Act, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-84. Although the bill is very simple and straightforward, it concerns the Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act.

The bill would allow a retired judge to review cases where SIRC is deemed incapable of fulfilling its responsibilities. While the bill is very straightforward its history is not. Before landed immigrants obtain Canadian citizenship their backgrounds are reviewed. Some individuals applying for a Canadian citizenship have involved themselves in activities that can be deemed to be a threat to the security of Canada. Therefore, there is a process in place to prevent these individuals from becoming Canadian citizens, as there should be.

Sections 19 and 20 of the Citizenship Act define the procedure that is to be followed. These procedures are: If the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant for Canadian citizenship will engage in activities that will constitute a threat to the security of Canada, the minister may make a report to this effect to the Security Intelligence Review Committee or SIRC as it is more commonly known. Within 10 days of making this report to SIRC, the minister shall notify the applicant of the report. SIRC is then required to conduct an investigation. The applicant is sent a statement of circumstances that sets out the grounds that give rise to the minister's report.

Following its investigation, SIRC then reports the results to the governor in council. The governor in council may then make a declaration that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will engage in activity that constitutes a threat to the security of Canada.

Such a declaration precludes the applicant from being granted Canadian citizenship but only for a two-year period. The applicant can then make another application. What constitutes a threat to the

security of Canada and how SIRC conducts its investigation is all laid out in the Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act.

Section 48(2) of the CSIS act states that during the course of the SIRC investigation, the applicant, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and CSIS may all present evidence and make representation either personally or by counsel.

I would like to refer to the Zündel case. This case which has inspired C-34 concerns the application of Ernst Zündel. Mr. Zündel has obtained enough notoriety that I do not believe that it is essential to repeat his claims to infamy.

Suffice it to say that Mr. Zündel immigrated to Canada on September 2, 1958. On October 24, 1993 he applied for Canadian citizenship. On August 5, 1995 he was notified by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at that time that the minister had made a report to SIRC pursuant to subsection 19(2) of the Citizenship Act. The letter informed Mr. Zündel that there were reasonable grounds to believe that he would engage in activity that constitutes a threat to the security of Canada. The letter also stated that the minister made his determination based on information and advice provided by CSIS.

On August 31, 1995 the executive director of SIRC, Maurice Archdeacon wrote to Mr. Zündel advising him that SIRC had received the minister's report concerning his application for citizenship. The letter also advised that SIRC would send Mr. Zündel a summary of information available to SIRC to permit him to be as fully informed as possible of the circumstances giving rise to the minister's report.

On October 30, 1995 SIRC sent a letter to Mr. Zündel advising him that a review committee was conducting an investigation and included a statement of circumstances that gave rise to the minister's report. The letter advised that the activities which CSIS believed he would engage in were those described in paragraph 2(c) of the CSIS act which defines threat to the security of Canada to mean "activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state".

On November 22, 1995 counsel for SIRC and others met with Mr. Zündel and his lawyer to explain the investigative process and answer any questions.

In a letter dated December 11, 1995 Mr. Archdeacon wrote to Mr. Zundel's counsel to advise him that SIRC was prepared to proceed with the hearing part of the investigation. A number of adjournments postponed the hearing phase of SIRC's investigation, but then in a letter of February 26, 1996 Mr. Zundel's counsel requested another adjournment so he could file an application for judicial review on the grounds of a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of SIRC.

The basis of Mr. Zundel's allegation of bias was a report written by SIRC entitled "The Heritage Front Affair". In a letter dated February 28 Mr. Archdeacon refused the request. On March 21 a motion was brought before the Federal Court of Canada seeking a stay of proceedings concerning the SIRC hearing that was scheduled for March 25 and an order for an expedited hearing ofMr. Zundel's application for judicial review.

Madam Justice McGillis refused to grant the stay of proceedings but she granted the motion for an expedited hearing. On June 10 and 11 the application for judicial review was heard before Justice Heald of the federal court in Ottawa.

After dealing with a number of procedural motions the court got down to the narrow issue of the case to decide if SIRC should be prohibited from carrying out the proceedings mandated by section 19 of the Citizenship Act. First the court had to determine what test for bias was applicable to the case while acknowledging that all administrative boards owe a duty of fairness to those whose interests they must determine. The courts have recognized that the duty of fairness varies depending on the nature and function of the particular board.

For example, a board that performs policy formation should not be susceptible to a charge of bias just because it expresses opinions prior to its hearings. On the other hand, administrative boards that are primarily adjudicative in their functions are expected to comply with the standard applicable to the courts. In arguments before the courts counsel for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration argued that SIRC's role is closer to a policy formation board, while Mr. Zundel's counsel argued that it was primarily adjudicative and therefore attracted the higher standard of impartiality mandated by the informed bystander test.

In determining where on this broad spectrum SIRC's function fell, the judge reviewed SIRC's mandate under section 19 of the Citizenship Act, which in the words of SIRC's executive director was to conduct an investigation to determine whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that Zundel would engage in activities that constituted a threat to the security of Canada.

The judge noted that while the applicant, the minister and CSIS could make representation, SIRC's investigation would be conducted in private. Once SIRC completed its investigation it would make a report to the governor in council. It is the governor in council that upon SIRC's report decides whether or not to declare there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr, Zundel would engage in activity considered a threat to the security of Canada.

The court pointed out that while it is not disputed it was the role of the governor in council and not SIRC to make the final decision,

SIRC's role could not be understated. It is SIRC that conducts the hearing at which it assesses the witnesses and weighs their evidence. It is SIRC that receives the submissions of the interested parties. It is SIRC that takes all the available information and issues the report.

Since Mr. Zundel could not make representation before the governor in council, the only opportunity for him to challenge the allegations against him was in front of SIRC. The court determined that while SIRC was not the ultimate decision maker as to whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Zundel would engage in activity that constituted a threat to the security of Canada, SIRC played a vital and paramount role in that determination.

In the judge's view the function of SIRC at least in relation to section 19 of the Citizenship Act came closer to the adjudicative end of the function. Thus it attracted the standard of impartiality that was required by the informed bystander test. Once the federal court came to this conclusion it was then faced with the process of applying the informed bystander test for bias to the Zundel case.

Mr. Zundel claimed that the view of SIRC in the Heritage Front report gave rise to reasonable apprehension of bias against him. While the court ruled that the accuracy of the content of the Heritage Front report was irrelevant to the issues, it was important to note that SIRC offered the report and made the statements contained therein. In other words the court did not have to decide whether SIRC's findings in the Heritage Front report were valid. What was important to this case was the fact that SIRC made those findings.

Having been involved for over 19 months in the study of the Heritage Front report, it was very evident to me that SIRC had made statements about Mr. Zundel which were very biased in their nature. The court quickly found that the statements of SIRC in the Heritage Front report were extremely similar to those used by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in another incident. It is not terribly surprising because CSIS is a source of information both for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and SIRC. It was evident that the conclusions in the evidence given by SIRC from the information received from CSIS led to the bias in the report that was reported.

The Reform Party believes some individuals have landed immigrant status in Canada who should be denied Canadian citizenship. Bill C-84 is an attempt by the government to undo the difficulties created by the Security Intelligence Review Committee overstating in the report and being too political in its discussions and deliberations. It has placed the government in the position where it has to protect Canadians and Canadian citizenship by tightening the rules and regulations to allow a retired judge to take the job that SIRC should have been able to do on its own.