Val Meredith

[Border Security, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this morning U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft made it clear that strong borders make good neighbours.

Clearly the Americans do not trust the government's commitment to security, which is why they are strengthening their border measures to the detriment of all Canadians.

Has the government been advised as to what specific concerns the Americans have about our lack of security?

[Citizenship of Canada Act, November 7th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I take it from the question that she, like myself, has run into cases where constituents assume that they are Canadian and then find out down the road, when they are an adult, that they are not because their parents did not put them on their application. There needs to be some provision for that.

I would suggest that a child in that case has more right to be a Canadian citizen than the child of a foreigner who comes to Canada, gives birth to that child and then takes the baby out of the country at four days old, never to live in Canada. A child raised in Canada from the age of whatever, whether the child is two months old or even six years old, who went to school, went to university, got jobs and worked in and contributed to Canada, has a far greater right to be a Canadian than a child who was merely born here.

I would certainly support an amendment acknowledging that there might be some other things we would want to work into it to ensure that there are some definitions regarding how that would be handled.

However I am interested as to why it would only be landed status and not Canadian citizenship, if it could be proved that he or she was brought over as a child and the parents were both Canadian citizens. I would argue that probably there should be some allowance for that child to become a Canadian citizen rather than just have permanent status.

[Citizenship of Canada Act, November 7th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

I am pleased to be speaking on Bill C-18 regarding the replacement of the Canadian Citizenship Act. The bill covers a number of issues regarding citizenship: who is a Canadian citizen, especially those born outside Canada; how people can be denied citizenship or how they can be stripped of their citizenship; changes in the citizenship application process; and a new citizenship oath. The bill is certainly an improvement over Bill C-16 from the second session of the 36th Parliament and is the government's third attempt to revise the Citizenship Act.

The legislation introduces a number of good things, but I still have concerns about a number of areas and I know other Canadians have concerns about them too.

I will start by saying that citizenship is a privilege. Canadian citizenship is a privilege and not necessarily a right. Given the right of automatic citizenship for any child born in Canada, it can cause problems. I will raise the issue of what has occurred on the west coast of Canada. Foreign individuals come to Canada specifically to give birth. They are here for the amount of time that it takes to deliver the baby and then they depart.

Those babies are Canadian citizens and can return to Canada at any time under any circumstances because they were born in Canada. Even if they have spent only the first few days of their life here, if they as adults have committed serious crimes, if they have become well known criminals or even terrorists, they cannot be denied access to Canada because they are Canadian citizens. This may not be a serious problem, but we have had very few years in which to monitor the situation. The oldest citizens under this provision would be 25 now. We do not know what kind of long term implications this will have. I think there should be some consideration of these loopholes that still exist.

Another concern I have is that children born to Canadian citizens who live abroad automatically become Canadian citizens. Not only do they, as a second generation, become Canadian citizens, but their children, the third generation, become Canadian citizens even if they have not been born in Canada. The new law proposes that for the third generation those children must reside in Canada for three years in the six years prior to the application for the retention of their Canadian citizenship.The government's reason for introducing this concept is to ensure that future Canadians have a strong link to Canada. This is why the government has done this.

One has to wonder, though, about the second generation. When those children, born from Canadian parents who live out of the country, do not have to live in Canada for any part of their life and still retain their Canadian citizenship, we have to ask ourselves how this ensures that future Canadians will have a strong link to Canada. I would suggest that instead of having just third generation children having to spend three out of the last six years here, the second generation of children should also have to meet that requirement. The bill should be amended to include the second generation of children. If the goal is in fact to ensure a stronger link to Canada, then there should be some onus on that second generation, as there is, I believe, in the present legislation we are changing. There should be some onus on that second generation of Canadians to also spend some time in the country for which they hold citizenship.

The new legislation gives clear details and more details about how citizenship applications would be handled. One of the new ways is that the bill is more specific about the time somebody applying for Canadian citizenship would have to spend in Canada.

Now it is suggesting that for acquisition of citizenship new applicants would be required to live in Canada three years or 1,095 days during the six year naturalization process. I have a concern with individuals who meet the minimum requirements, receive their citizenship and then leave the country when there is no commitment to the country itself. They get a citizenship from this country with no expectation to live here or contribute to our Canadian society.

Specific days will make it easier for those who make the determination to say people do or do not meet the requirements. However I still have problems with the requirement itself. We are basically saying to people they can get Canadian citizenship for expediency's sake or for convenience but we do not have any expectation of them being Canadian and contributing to our society.

Cabinet now has the power to deny citizenship to persons who have demonstrated a flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying the free and democratic society. I know there are some in the House who have a problem with that.

I think there are examples of individuals who have shown that they have no regard for a free and democratic society and that they do not believe in the principles under which this country operates. If they chose to come to this country from somewhere else because of our free and democratic society and all those things that support a free and democratic society, then one has to question whether we should give citizenship to somebody who has chosen Canada for the very reasons that they refuse to accept, or even worse, work against?

I do not have quite the same concern that some of my hon. colleagues have. I do have a concern that they have just process and that they are able to address the charges and whatever through our courts. There needs to be some kind of an appeal but I do not like appeals that last for four and five years. There can be something that is more expeditious than that.

One of the bigger questions is to have individuals who we can prove have a serious disregard for the principles and values. If we are hesitant to give them citizenship, then we have to ask ourselves why these individuals are allowed to remain in Canada as permanent residents. If they cause this concern and if they are working against our free and democratic society, why are they here as permanent residents in the first place?

The revocation process that this bill would bring in is a good one. Revoking of Canadian citizenship would have to go through the courts. That is something about which we can feel good. We are taking it out of the political realm and putting it into a judicial realm. It is a very good change.

The act would allow an accelerated removal process for persons accused of terrorism or organized crimes. It would allow the government to utilize protected information which disclosure would endanger the safety of people or compromise our national security. These are deserved and good improvements. However there needs to be more emphasis on the need for this information at the immigration stages to be dealt with before it gets to the citizenship part.

There are some improvements. An oath to our country is something of which my constituents are very supportive. They think that if people get Canadian citizenship they should make an oath to Canada. That again is another improvement. I am glad to see the government moving on that.

There are some concerns I have with this new legislation and there are some improvements that we need to acknowledge.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the bill will make a tremendous difference in our relationship with the United States in that all concerns will be erased and it will be just perfect but quite frankly, on reading the bill I do not get that feeling at all.

I get the feeling that some minor administrative changes have taken place where bureaucrats have tightened up some of the loose ends of legislation. There are 22 pieces of legislation covered in the bill. They deal with all kinds of issues from immigration and airline security to hazardous products and the Food and Drugs Act. It really is a catch-all to tidy up loose ends in a number of different areas.

It does not concentrate on those areas that are of concern to the security of Canada, that will reinforce a feeling of confidence by the Americans that we have looked after our own security to protect ourselves from those who would be a threat to our national security and therefore also a threat to the security of the United States of America.

Quite frankly, the bill does nothing to address that. It will make no difference at all to the fact that the Americans by their new policies at the border obviously are still concerned that Canada does not take seriously the threat of national security to ourselves, to our own country, let alone to the United States by our being its closest neighbour.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to debate Bill C-17, which is probably the third and perhaps fourth time that I have debated this legislation. It is interesting that in its third reincarnation it is getting better and that the government is bringing in some changes that have been identified, largely by the opposition. However, it is a concern to me, and I assume it is a concern to others, that this could have been dealt with a lot quicker had the government shown a willingness to let committees have meaningful input into legislation.

The transport committee, which I was sitting on at the time, gave great study to the issue of air safety and transportation safety and came up with some tremendous recommendations to the minister, who for the most part ignored them. We then saw a bill introduced that was nothing like the committee report.

The other concern I have is with the timing. At the time the bill was considered to be an emergency and sections of it were put in there because it was an emergent reaction to the disastrous events which occurred in the U.S., in New York City and Washington D.C., last year on September 11. Had the government been willing to allow members of the committee and even members of Parliament, through the committee process, to amend the existing legislation, the bill could have been put through the House months ago, before the House prorogued.

The government, through its insistence that only it and it alone will create legislation, has created a situation where this reaction to an emergency is no longer appropriate.

It is quite evident that the bill has been largely written by bureaucrats for bureaucratic reasons. It has put into an omnibus bill the purpose of which is no longer there. The agenda of the House is not that heavy. Therefore there is no reason why the bill could not have been broken down into appropriate sections and put before committees to be dealt with in an appropriate manner. This whole Keystone Kop approach to this legislation does not bode well for Canada.

I would like to show just how ridiculous it is by pointing out that on page 59, under the National Defence Act, section 16(1) is not even completed. It is missing some of the legislation. It ends with a sentence, which basically says, “the maintenance of a component of the Canadian Forces, called a special force, consisting of”, which is not complete. It is quite obvious that this legislation was written in haste and has not been edited properly as there are parts which seem to be missing.

One has to really question the reason why this omnibus bill is before us and why it has not been broken down into appropriate sections to be placed before the appropriate committees. I have to support my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam who has put a motion before the House to have the bill broken down. It makes a whole lot of sense. It should certainly be passed by the House so that it can be dealt with in the appropriate manner that will find obvious errors because it has not been completed.

I would like to deal with some of the issues that are of concern.

One change made covers the concern raised by the opposition members on the 90 day or three month period where a minister could make an interim order which would not be checked by anybody. It is nice to see that has been reduced to 14 days to at least make it a little more current. However there is still a concern regarding the lack of accountability. There is no accountability for why the minister would make that interim order, that special order, and the reasons behind it to justify having done so in the first place.

Regarding controlled access for military zones, the government is limiting it to Halifax, Esquimalt and Nanoose Bay rather than the open-ended wherever it wants to designate those zones.

In looking through the legislation at least a couple of times, I do not see any specific reference to that. I do not see where that is itemized.The committee when it deals with this bill will have to go through it with a fine-toothed comb to make sure that what we are being told is in the legislation is actually there and is not left up to orders in council and other means to fill in the blanks.

The other aspect which I must say I am pleased to see in the legislation deals with reservists and how their jobs would be protected if they were called into action in the military. That is long past due and it is nice to see it.

Another aspect that is nice to see deals with air rage and hoaxes. These are concerns that should have been dealt with 13 months ago. These are important issues that could have been dealt with had the government handled the legislation in a more appropriate manner.

I have to say that the government only has itself to blame for its negligence in seeing that this bill was handled properly and written properly the first time. I would suggest that the government should depend less on bureaucrats to create public policy and should allow Parliament to be more involved in the process. It is Parliament's duty to create public policy. It is not the duty of the bureaucrats to create public policy.

It has to be reinforced time and again that it is in this House where public policy is created. It is in our committees created by the House where the flaws and the imperfections are identified so that legislation creating public policy can be made that much better. It has to be taken into account that we have allowed that process to be removed from the House of Commons.

Quite honestly, I will lay the blame where the blame must be laid. My colleagues on the backbench of the Liberal Party are the ones who have allowed Parliament to lose its right and its purpose of writing public policy. It is the Liberal backbenchers who have allowed the government to renege on its responsibility and to pass it on to the bureaucracy.

The legislation before us today is a prime example of what happens when the issues that are dealt with are not the issues of concern to the Canadian public, and that the way in which other issues are dealt with is certainly not the way in which Canadians would want them dealt with. The concerns of infringements on the rights of individuals, the concerns of the restrictions in the practice of our rights, the lack of accountability; all of these issues are a reflection of how a bureaucracy sees things differently, how it likes to protect itself from the scrutiny of the citizens and the politicians.

We have to get back to having the House of Commons more involved in the process of writing public policy and to having the bureaucrats administer the public policy that is written here in the House. One of the fundamental concerns I have is that this particular piece of legislation is definitely a reflection of how we have moved away from that.

I used one example of how there is a clause in this legislation which has not been completed and is missing information in it. How is that possible? How is it possible that a legal document, a piece of government legislation, a bill is brought before the House without even being completed, with missing sections and missing sentences?

My hope is that the government, through its small attempt today to democratize this place, will see that an important part of it is to allow the committees to do their work. Opposition members as well as government members should be allowed to bring in amendments to improve legislation, rather than the administrative branch of the government having to be the one to write and complete all legislation without amendments.

I hope the message will get through to the administrative branch of the government that change is not bad necessarily and that committees should be allowed to make the changes that are necessary to improve the legislation before them. I will end on that note with all the hope in the world that today we will see changes in the attitude of the administrative branch of the government.

[Immigration, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last month when I asked the Deputy Prime Minister about the Americans' lack of trust in his government's commitment to security, he said that he had never heard an American official or politician raise any doubts about Canadian security. The only thing worse than the Deputy Prime Minister denying any concerns raised by the Americans would be the fact that they chose to leave him out of the loop before introducing these new measures.

If the Americans are not concerned about the government's commitment to security, why are they clamping down on Canadians at the border?

[Immigration, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in connecting Canadian values and worrying about the American regulations at the border, the government allowed 600 people with criminal records to enter Canada on ministerial permits. Another 11 individuals, believed to have been engaged in terrorism, espionage and subversion by force, were welcomed with open arms by the government.

Will the minister stop allowing terrorists, spies and subversives into our country and alleviate the Americans' concern about legitimate residents of Canada?

[Petitions, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to represent 89 constituents who want to be recorded as calling upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

[Health Care System, October 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, certainly the fact that the Liberal government cut the health care budget by billions of dollars did not help matters. However putting more money into the system to pay the existing people higher salaries will not solve the problem. It will not open up new beds and it will not open up new training facilities to get more doctors and more nurses into the industry.

I take real exception to a socialist who feels that dumping more money in to support his labour colleagues is the answer. It is not. It is going to take a commitment from absolutely everybody to make this thing right. He has to understand that Canadians support a health care system. They support the national insurance program that we have. However that does not mean that we cannot have a mixture in delivery of the service. We have a national health care insurance program. Nobody is arguing that and nobody wants to change that.

What we are saying is that there has to be a better way of delivering health care services so people are not dying while on a waiting list to get the surgery and the treatment they need. That is what is happening right now. Canadians are dying while on the waiting list. That should not happen. It is happening because we are trying to maintain the status quo and the status quo is not working.

[Health Care System, October 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that the government has to set priorities. I know with Canadians, health care is their top priority. The government has to identify that as its top priority and allocate the funds, which are already there for health care, within the budget. Instead of subsidizing and giving grants to businesses, corporations and special interest groups, it could be diverting that money to the health care system.

I have a friend who is very involved in the administration of a not for profit hospital in the United States in Washington State. They get many Canadians down there using their own money and money from our health care insurance policies to subsidize the American public health system. We in this country had better figure out a way to keep that money in our own country to support our own public health system instead of supporting the American health system.