Rick Borotsik

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting no on all the motions.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting yes on this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Firearms Registry, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said today that he will keep the gun registry running because he believes in protecting society. What he does not believe in is ministerial and financial accountability. There is absolutely no proof that gun registration is working for Canadian society.

If it can be proved that the gun registry has no benefit to public safety will the minister cancel the gun registration right now?

[Firearms Registry, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Auditor General's report once again put the spotlight on the government's ill-fated gun registry program. In the report she highlights the “astronomical cost overruns” and the government's “failure to report to Parliament”.

It is not at all surprising to see that the government has once again mismanaged Canadian taxpayer dollars.

Let us not forget who was the architect of this fiasco: the current Minister of Industry. There seems to be a dark cloud that follows the minister wherever he goes. Who can forget his legacy: the Airbus blunder, the hepatitis C controversy and the Cipro affair.

However, the biggest and most expensive Christmas gift of all was the $1 billion gun registry program. It is costly, inefficient, confusing and, above all, legislation that is prepared to make honest people criminals and criminals, like the Hell's Angels Maurice “Mom” Boucher, a registered gun owner.

The way the Kyoto accord is going, the minister must have had his hand in that one too.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from across the way spoke glowingly about all the work that has been done between his government and the provinces for the past five years, which I think was the length of time. I wonder if he could tell me why, after all the energy his government put toward its position and toward working with the provinces, that only two provinces are actually in agreement with ratifying Kyoto at this time. Why is that all provinces, not only the eight that have not agreed to it but the other two, still do not know what the implementation plan is going forward from this ratification? Why is it that the provinces are totally opposed to ratification at this time?

[Citizenship Act, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I too congratulate the member for Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot for his sincerity and certainly his passion, not only in bringing forward this piece of private member's legislation but also for his interest in and his passion about the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I am not a member, but I do know of his input into that committee. I know that is certainly agreed to by most members of the House, both government and opposition, so I thank the member.

I am not going to lecture the member, as perhaps has been done just recently with respect to Bill C-18 and other legislation and perhaps on some other deficiencies of the government. If that were the case, I would stand here for hours to lecture this member on the deficiencies of his government, but I would like to deal with the issue at hand, which is that of the oath of allegiance.

Before I get to the oath and to this resolution specifically, I do know that it is a non-votable item. I do know, from sitting on a committee that deals with private members' business, that there will be an opportunity to have votable items come forward in the future. Each member will have that opportunity, so perhaps this member may well wish to again bring forward a similar type of resolution or bill at a later date when it would be votable. I personally wish it were votable, but since it is not we will go from there.

I have had the opportunity of taking part, as have most members of the House, in citizenship courts in this country. I must say that the opportunity to attend is the most moving experience that I as a member of Parliament have had. To see citizens of other communities, cultures and countries coming forward, making applications to become citizens of our great country, giving up passports and citizenship in other countries and embracing the democratic rights of Canada is one of the most moving experiences that I have had. I have to say that after quite a number of these ceremonies, I too went through the process and reaffirmed my Canadian citizenship simply because I felt so strongly about it. In fact, I did take the oath of allegiance that currently is in the Citizenship Act.

I say that because it was not so much the oath of allegiance itself, but certainly the indication or the understanding of what it meant to be a Canadian and to have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at my disposal as a Canadian citizen. I was very pleased to be able to do that as an individual. I believe that we as a country would be much better off if all our citizens, each and every one of us who take for granted our citizenship in this great country, not only went and observed the citizenship court, but after seeing that had the opportunity and the ability to exercise this oath of allegiance or reconfirm our oath of allegiance to this great country.

The oath, as we recognize, goes back to previous legislation. As a matter of fact, it is worth noting that before 1947 all citizens of Canada were British subjects, a common status shared by all citizens of the British Commonwealth. Any person in Canada applying to become a British subject accepted without question the oath of allegiance and references to the sovereign Crown. After the end of World War II, immigration to Canada increased dramatically, mainly from the British Isles and continental Europe. Of course during this period the Canadian Citizenship Act had come into force.

Unexpectedly, many new residents applying for Canadian citizenship have over the years expressed their concern when it came to the point of swearing the oath of allegiance. British subjects from other parts of the Commonwealth expressed surprise at being required to subscribe to the oath of allegiance. They believed that they already had given allegiance to the Crown and expressed their concern that they were required to take an oath of allegiance to the head of another country. Commencing in 1967, the government announced its intention of introducing revised citizenship legislation.

Among other things the legislators noted that the phrasing of the citizenship oath was a point of difficulty with some citizenship applicants. Following interdepartmental legal discussions with the Department of Justice and the Privy Council Office, the title in principle was accepted, together with the proposal that the new oath clearly indicate, to avoid further misunderstanding, that Her Majesty, by title, is the Queen of Canada, hence the 1977 oath for affirmation of citizenship.

We would think that after three tries the government would finally get citizenship and immigration right. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Hon. members may remember Bill C-63 and Bill C-16, which are no longer on the Order Paper and were put off. They have now been replaced by Bill C-18, which, I am told, not having been to committee, has its own difficulties, its own flaws and its own deficiencies.

The reason I mention it is that those flaws and deficiencies can now be corrected in committee if the government and the committee on citizenship and immigration are prepared to take open, honest direction, not only from members of the opposition but from members of the government.

I would ask the member who has tabled the bill, this change of oath, to go back to that committee and not only ask for, but perhaps even insist, that his changes to the oath be incorporated in Bill C-18 and also that other flaws and deficiencies of Bill C-18 be amended in committee so that it comes forward as a much better citizenship act for this country and for the people it is administrating.

We as citizens of this country should stand each day and be very thankful for the rights and privileges that we are given as Canadian citizens. I accept the fact that the member certainly believes very strongly in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I, as a Canadian and a part of the House, congratulate him for bringing this forward. Excuse me for my voice, as I do have a bit of a cold, and otherwise I could go on for a longer time and probably more passionately as well. If nothing else, the member has allowed us to stand and think about what our citizenship means to us. That in itself is worth everything that the member has done.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much to the member and to the House for allowing me to speak.

[Infrastructure Program, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, infighting within the Liberal government has prevented the Prime Minister from keeping a commitment his government made in the September throne speech.

Yesterday, mayors from across Canada met in Ottawa to seek the federal government's help in dealing with issues such as affordable housing, transportation and urban infrastructure, issues that affect every Canadian.

Put simply, there is a functional disconnect between revenues and responsibilities in Canada. Clearly the provinces and municipalities need a greater share of the existing fiscal pie. For municipal governments, that means access to new sources of funding. Canada's municipal leaders will tell us that solving these issues takes a commitment from all levels of government.

This fall the federal government committed to meet with municipalities to put in place a 10 year infrastructure program. Like many throne speech commitments, the government has backed away from that promise.

Provinces and municipalities are very important partners in this Confederation. The government should treat them as equals, not just as inconveniences.

[Petitions, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition from my constituents that deals with child pornography.

It seems that the last time the government responded, it was to 119 similar petitions. Many petitions of this type have been presented to the House. It is a well-organized legitimate movement. We can see that from coast to coast our constituents, the citizens of this country, have a serious concern when it comes to child pornography.

The petition obviously speaks to a changing of the laws in a way which makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment. I am happy to present this petition on behalf of my constituents.

[North American Free Trade Agreement, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been burying its head in the sand for far too long. It has been very slow to react to almost every trade issue.

There is another dark cloud hanging over the Canada-U.S. trade issues. The decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission to continue its investigations into alleged dumping by the Canadian Wheat Board is the most recent in a long line of Canadian products to come under attack by American producers, who are more interested in playing politics than adhering to the North American Freed Trade Agreement.

The impact of this decision could have immediate consequences for Canada's grain farmers. If interim tariffs are imposed on U.S. imports of Canadian wheat and durum by next March, they could be as high as 34%.

The government was aware that the devastating tariffs would be placed on Canadian lumber and it waited until it was way too late. It sat idly by and watched as P.E.I. potatoes were unfairly banned by the U.S.

The government should pull its head out of the sand and start dealing with these trade issues of Canadian wheat now before it becomes a very serious problem. The government must toss out its wait and see approach to serious trade issues. The government needs to deal with the problem now before its too late.

[Question No. 28, November 20th, 2002]

Can the government provide information regarding the fiscal impact on net farm income, of increased on-farm use of ethanol and bio-diesel, reduction of green house gas emissions, as well as trading in carbon credits?