One day in jail?
House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.
Immigration December 6th, 1996
One day in jail?
Immigration December 6th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, talk is cheap. What Canadians want is action.
In April, immigration officers arrested a man for smuggling four Chinese refugee claimants into Vancouver airport. When the case went to court, the smuggler received a sentence of one day in jail. One day in jail is not going to be a deterrent for anybody in the multibillion dollar industry of trafficking of people.
I ask the parliamentary secretary if the government is prepared to introduce tough new penalties that would deter these criminals from trafficking in human beings?
Immigration December 6th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that in the three years the government has been in power, 5,000 illegal immigrants have been smuggled into Canada from the Netherlands. Dutch police have expressed their surprise at the reluctance of the Canadian officials to do anything about this situation.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, what if anything is the government planning to do to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into Canada?
Canada Elections Act November 25th, 1996
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was a slight bit of confusion. I stood when you were calling for debate. You were looking over to the side and did not notice me. I appreciate you recognizing me.
I would like to speak on behalf of British Columbians and I do not necessarily agree with my colleague.
This bill proposes to stagger the times that the polling stations are open. I do agree with my hon. colleague who just spoke that staggered times would not be conducive to the voter in British Columbia if the polls are closed at seven o'clock as opposed to eight o'clock.
Most of the people who live in the constituency of Surrey-White Rock-South Langley work in Vancouver. The commuting time from Vancouver to Surrey-White Rock-South Langley is anywhere from one hour to an hour and a half. Many people work in businesses which are open from nine to five. However, some people work until 6.30 p.m. or 7 p.m. to miss the rush hour traffic. They would not have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote. It would be terribly unfair to the constituents in my riding who commute to Vancouver. Closing the polls an hour before the normal time would be an undue hardship to them.
I know some allowance was made in the bill to change the number of hours, but I believe it was to reduce the number of hours that an individual could take off from business to make sure they were back at their place of residence for voting. On that point I would agree with my hon. colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands. However, I do not think the object is to count the votes the next day. It is unfair to Canadians to expect them to vote and then wait for 24 hours before finding out the results of their voting privilege.
I do feel that allowances can be made to stagger the hours, keep the voting hours in British Columbia with the polls closing at eight, but perhaps the votes could be counted at a later date. With modern technology in voting where the votes are actually counted at the same time as the ballot is deposited, or at least they were in the municipal election, there is no reason why the results of those votes taken could not be released at a reasonable time in the evening even though the polls might close at eight o'clock in British Columbia.
Perhaps opening the polls later in the morning in the maritimes would not be as a great a hardship to the voters as it would be closing the polls earlier in British Columbia.
The cost of having an enumeration will be there, whether it is done in April or laterally when the election call comes. I think it is important to have a permanent voters' list for convenience sake and even just for accuracy. This is a very important issue that has to be addressed.
If the time is taken at enumeration to clarify the people who have the right to vote and are duly Canadian citizens is followed through on a permanent list, the end result is that people who have a legitimate right to vote and who are Canadian citizens and exercise their vote would probably clarify a lot of confusion come election day across the country.
In my riding, election day poses numerous problems because of the large number of new immigrants who are coming to the lower mainland area. They do not understand that in order to exercise their right to vote they must be Canadian citizens.
I also believe that having a permanent voters' list will make it much easier for new immigrants who do take Canadian citizenship to be added to that voters' list in a manner that is efficient and up to date. That would certainly solve a lot of the confusion that happens when we try to rush through citizenships in order to allow people to have the vote. That process is often looked on with a little bit of misunderstanding and sometimes suspicion.
If we have a permanent voters' list, one that has been updated in a routine fashion, those kinds of situations where one brings to question why things are being done would not be quite so blatant.
The concept of a permanent voters' list is a good one. Staggered voting hours are reasonable but the times could be put into effect that would respect the needs of the various regions of the country. I certainly believe this legislation goes in the right direction but still could be improved.
Canada Elections Act November 25th, 1996
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak.
Canada Elections Act November 25th, 1996
On debate? Is it questions or comments?
Canada Elections Act November 25th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Aboriginal Peoples November 22nd, 1996
What a shame.
Citizenship Act November 21st, 1996
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-223 put forward by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. His bill calls for amending the oath of Canadian citizenship.
The current oath reads as follows: "I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen". Bill C-223 would replace that oath with the following: "I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada and the Constitution of Canada and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen".
The bill replaces the oath of allegiance to the monarchy with an oath of allegiance to Canada and the Canadian Constitution. Although this bill only changes a handful of words, it is actually a very significant change in the very essence of what it means to be a Canadian.
I will review what it means to be a Canadian citizen. As every Canadian schoolchild knows, Canada became a country on July 1, 1867. Many Canadians may be surprised to learn that while Canada has existed for over 129 years, Canadians have existed for less than 50 years. That is right. There was no such thing in law as a Canadian citizen until January 1, 1947. We were considered to be British subjects residing in Canada. When travelling abroad we had to use British passports. The first Canadian citizenship act did not exist until 1946 when It was presented in the House. It received royal assent in July 1946 and came into effect January 1, 1947. Given this history it is not surprising that many Canadians are at a loss to explain what it means to be a Canadian citizen.
I recall speaking to an immigrant from Pakistan who was proud to recently become a Canadian citizen. However, he commented that when he took the oath of allegiance it was an oath very similar to the one in the country he had left and had very little to do with his commitment to his new country.
I believe that most Canadians would accept the idea of amending the oath of Canadian citizenship to include an oath of allegiance to Canada. The controversy is should that oath be allegiance to Canada in addition to the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty or should the oath of allegiance to Canada replace the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty?
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has chosen the second option. He has replaced reference to Her Majesty with an oath of allegiance to Canada and the Canadian Constitution. However, he does state that it is understood that Her Majesty is an integral part of the Constitution of Canada. I wonder if most Canadians would accept that. Do most Canadian accept that Her Majesty is an integral part of the Constitution of Canada? I think not.
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce was a member of the House in the early 1980s when the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution was drafted and as a member for Quebec is is painfully aware that the Government of Quebec never consented to the repatriation of the Constitution, as the members of the Bloc Quebecois point out on a regular basis in the House.
Would an oath to the Constitution of Canada mean any more to the average Canadian than the current oath to Her Majesty? After all, there are 47 different constitutional acts and documents that relate to Canada. Of these 47 acts and documents, 30 are mentioned in the schedule of the Constitution Act, 1982. I doubt that very few of us in the House know which 30 constitutional acts and docu-
ments appear in the schedule of the Constitution, never mind the average Canadian.
To the average Canadian the Constitution of Canada and the subsequent Meech Lake accord of 1987 and the Charlottetown accord of 1992 were all deals made by a few men in back rooms. As the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown accord demonstrated, when the people have a say on constitutional change, it is not necessarily the same one that the politicians have.
In my riding the vote against the Charlottetown accord was 71 per cent. That was not to say that people were happy with the current Constitution, but rather that they were unhappy with the entire process of constitutional amendments.
The Constitution of Canada does not belong only to members of this Parliament and the provincial legislatures. It should belong to all the people of Canada. If that were to happen, if we could develop a Constitution adopted by the majority of Canadian citizens, then the oath of Canadian citizenship as proposed by the hon. member from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce would have true meaning.
For us in the House to change the oath of Canadian citizenship without consulting with Canadian citizens would be wrong. And I do not just mean having a few hand picked advocacy groups appearing before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I mean letting all Canadians have a say. In true Reform Party tradition I did that earlier this year.
In a householder survey that was sent out in May, I asked the following two questions: (1) should the oath of Canadian citizenship be amended to introduce an allegiance to Canada in addition to allegiance to the Queen? or; (2) should the oath of Canadian citizenship be amended to introduce an allegiance to Canada replacing the allegiance to the Queen?
I asked my constituents that if they agreed that the oath of Canadian citizenship should be amended, which one of these two options would be preferable? Almost 95.5 per cent of the 3,209 constituents who responded to my survey said the oath should be changed. Of that total, 40.6 per cent said there should be an allegiance to Canada in addition to the allegiance to Her Majesty. But 54.8 per cent of respondents agreed that an allegiance to Canada should replace the allegiance to Her Majesty.
I do not know if the majority of my constituents would agree with the wording of Bill C-223. However, it is clear that the majority of my constituents agree with the sentiment of the bill.
Canadians have a lot to be proud of about our country and our past, but the fact that Canada existed as a country for almost 80 years before Canadians existed as a people is not something to be proud of.
Canada has reached the stage of maturity as a nation that we must now have a new oath of allegiance to our own country. However, whatever that allegiance is, it should not be left only to the 295 members of the House and those patronage appointees of the other place to decide. We need to let all Canadians participate in determining what Canadian citizenship really means. We have to trust the common sense of the common people.
I congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce for putting this important bill before us. It is a shame that it was not made a votable item. It reflects poorly upon this House that it was not. Sooner or later, and I hope it is sooner, there should be and will be an oath of Canadian citizenship in which people actually pledge their allegiance to this great country of ours.
Questions On The Order Paper November 21st, 1996
Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration provide statistical breakdown by classes, for the last five years ending March 31, 1996, of all applicants who have been granted entry visas without oral examinations?