Sergio Marchi

[Citizenship Act, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to hold Canadian citizenship is our greatest honour and responsibility. It is also recognized around the world as a symbol of opportunity, equality, freedom, fairness, and above all hope.

If we are to move forward as a nation Canadian citizenship must be strengthened and appreciated even more.

Next week is National Citizenship Week, a time when all Canadians are encouraged to reflect on the principles, rights and responsibilities of our citizenship. Therefore this is a most opportune time for me to make two announcements on behalf of the government and the people of Canada.

First, I am pleased to announce plans for the development of a new Citizenship Act. We have had a proud history of citizenship legislation in the country, a history of generosity and progressiveness, but the Citizenship Act as it exists today is almost 20 years old and we have rarely amended it in any serious fashion.

I wish to propose far-reaching changes to citizenship legislation that will be part of the renewal of our identity as Canadians-changes to strenghten the ties that hold us together-whether we are Canadian by birth or by choice.

There are compelling reasons to undertake this initiative at this time. It actively addresses an issue important to all Canadians, affirming a sense of pride in ourselves and confidence in our nation.

We also require a new Citizenship Act both to respond to the realities of our changing society and to guide us into that future. We need a dynamic act that underscores the significance of an active, aggressive, enthusiastic citizenship. We need a Citizenship Act that also ensures fairness and integrity, one that removes certain discriminatory aspects of current legislation, eliminates inconsistencies in the granting of Canadian citizenship and improves the process of acquiring that citizenship and that Canadian passport.

These important issues need the input and deliberation of Canadians and the careful consideration by members of Parliament in this Chamber.

That is why I am pleased to say that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will be examining the principles, rights and responsibilities which are fundamental to the Canadian concept of responsible citizenship.

I have asked the committee to consider the reciprocal obligations inherent in the relationship between Canadian citizens and our society.

I hope the committee will make recommendations on ways to enhance the value and visibility of Canadian citizenship. I am hopeful that a report can be completed by June and make way for preparations of a bill to come to this place in the fall.

Creating a new vision of citizenship for all Canadians is vital but it is not enough. Too many of those who are currently entitled to become citizens and desperately want to do so are blocked by an administrative system which has become overburdened and unable to cope.

Denying would-be citizens the chance to participate in and contribute to the life of our society is unacceptable for this minister and this government.

In Toronto, for instance, people have had to wait as long as two years to get their citizenship after meeting all the basic requirements and criteria of being landed immigrants for three years. That is unacceptable as well.

There are a number of serious bottlenecks in the system. We are one of the last countries, one of the last jurisdictions, for instance, to grant citizenship through a one on one interview basis conducted by citizenship court judges. In essence we are saying yes too slowly and at too high a cost because 95 per cent of all applicants get accepted. Why make them wait and why do

taxpayers have to pay the price for that process to take shape? Clearly there is a better way.

That brings me to the second announcement. I intend on the part of the government to streamline the system by eliminating the role of citizenship judges and replacing them with a more efficient and effective administrative process. However we will not wait until legislation is passed in order to do away with the position of citizenship court judges as a way of enhancing the processing of time.

We will move instead immediately on a series of administrative and regulatory changes to speed up the process today. This includes increasing the daily number of hearings, establishing group hearings to test knowledge and language requirements, encouraging applicants to file by mail rather than the long administrative process they have to go through today, extending business hours to evenings and Saturdays for citizenship courts which is also more convenient for the working public, as well as inviting distinguished Canadians to preside at citizenship ceremonies.

These measures will speed up the process. They will also strengthen the fairness of the system and ensure that all citizenship candidates meet the essential requirements that we as Canadians would want. My ultimate goal and that of my government is that applicants obtain citizenship six months after applying for this privilege.

Our judges have done a fine job and we are indebted to them for their work. Let us be perfectly clear. The political and partisan appointments of citizenship judges will become a thing of the past. As vacancies arise new citizenship court judges will not be appointed. Current judges will become part of the new administrative process and help us in this transition until the expiry of their terms.

Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this issue with my hon. colleague the President of the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I am pleased to say that these changes are in step with the initiative taken by government to streamline its agencies and commissions, and to reduce to a minimum the number of order-in-council appointments.

I propose to ask eminent Canadians, for instance, those who have received the Order of Canada, to preside over citizenship ceremonies. I also intend to move more of those ceremonies out of the citizenship courts and into the heart of all of our communities, the heart of Canada, so that citizenships can be celebrated in school gymnasiums, in cultural auditoriums, in community halls, in church basements where many more people from the entire community can join in honouring and welcoming the new members of the Canadian family and where all of us, young and old, can be reminded of the importance of our citizenship. Sometimes the things we value most are the things we take for granted. We must start to view citizenship as more than just the aspirations of immigrants and newcomers to Canada. We must come to celebrate citizenship as a bond among all of us.

I am counting on the members of the House of Commons, the members of the committee and my parliamentary secretary, whom I wish to thank, to help make this initiative truly meaningful and inspirational.

I will also work closely with my colleagues, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and others in the development and promotion of our new Citizenship Act.

A country's citizenship act should be a proud, bold and enthusiastic statement of its history, its hopes, its principles and its dreams. A revitalized citizenship act should be a symbol of what we hold to be important as Canadians.

There is an appetite across the country for us to strengthen those symbols and to articulate the vision that ties us all together as Canadians, irrespective of the fierce loyalty we feel for our regions, our provinces and our own backyards.

We need a symbol that unites us, east to west to north. I invite all hon. members to join with me and the government in this exciting endeavour and to seize this opportunity for progress and renewal of the Canadian spirit.

[Immigration, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member is missing the boat completely and he is all wet.

If the hon. member looks at the immigration plan we presented to the House just a few weeks ago, he will note that we increased, as per the red book, the number of independent skilled people. Canadians, including I am sure members of his own party, have wanted to take advantage of skilled individuals who can find an economic niche.

All I am saying is that the proportion of people with independent skills coming from Great Britain and the rest of Europe will increase over 40 per cent in keeping with the increase in our independent skill levels.

No, the government does not create policies based on the colour of one's skin, or religion or creed. We base policies on sound facts and we try to not divide people but bring them together in unity.

[Immigration, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House is having some degree of difficulty in trying to understand the nature of the question.

On the one hand the hon. member is talking about the legitimate promotion of our immigration program through Europe. On the other hand he talks about a program in terms of ethnic or cultural lines.

The fact of the matter is we have a balanced program. We have a number of doors through which individuals can apply to enter, whether it be the refugee stream, humanitarian, family class, independent skilled, or business.

When I was in the London, England office which is our biggest office in Europe, I on behalf of my government suggested that the perception in Europe that our doors are closed is wrong. I believe we need to promote immigration from that part of the world and also to target it with respect to business class and independent skilled. Many trades, such as aerospace, are overheating in Great Britain. We could certainly do with those skilled tradespeople coming over.

There is nothing incompatible in saying that we want to have independent, skilled and business applications coming in, and at the same time maintaining our family and humanitarian programs which have been a hallmark of this country for a long time.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is rather unfair that the hon. member tried to categorize this government as being unfair with this case or another.

One of the realities of this portfolio I am trying to correct is I am trying to improve the system by pulling back the system from the hands of government and the minister. Right now all negative refugee claims whether they are through members of Parliament, NGOs, church groups or the media, land on the desk of the minister. I do not subscribe to the policy that the minister knows best.

When we get thousands of cases, how do we begin to intervene and make it rational and fair across the board? Do I react because an issue was simply in the pages of Le Devoir or the Toronto Star ? Keep in mind there are 700 other cases that could not get on the front pages of Le Devoir or the Star . Do I react when someone goes on a hunger strike? Do I move when

someone seeks refuge in a church? Or do we try to have a policy that is fair for one and all and that provides adjudication more by the system rather than the minister? I have the commitment from my caucus and cabinet colleagues to do just that.

The member touches on another issue. Largely speaking Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are seen as our chief magnets for immigrants and refugees. One of the challenges we can address is that if immigration is positive, then it flows logically that some of the economically depressed regions could certainly use the advantage immigrants bring. The challenge is how to encourage immigration to those parts of the country and balance that with the mobility rights they obviously enjoy under our charter. It is a challenge I hope we come to grips with.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the member raises an interesting point. The whole matter of immigration and refugee migration is a very emotional subject to start with. Some members have accused me of being over-emotional at times. I suppose I am at times but that is the nature of this federal public policy area.

I would go out on a limb and suggest it is probably the most emotional area of federal public policy. It deals with people wanting to come here. It deals with people being denied the chance. It means there is only room for so many individuals and family reunification individuals feel that very emotionally.

On the one hand the issue is emotionally charged. On the other hand the hon. member is right. Our challenge as government and as a Parliament when dealing with immigration and refugee migration movements whether it is to Canada or internationally is to divest ourselves as much as we can of our emotionalism and to talk about it rationally. That is very much the object of the exercise I launched on March 6 and 7.

What did I say when we announced the immigration levels for 1994 back in February? In addition to the numbers, we talked about a new way of consulting and engaging Canadians. It was not an attempt to superficially massage the issue. Rather it was to go beyond that and to engage Canadians on the facts and numbers and on what the member referred to as the mathematical or scientific equation of immigration refugee and migration. I welcome that thinking because that is what those consultations are about.

I was accused today for example during Question Period of calling people ignorant when they perhaps had a thought that did not agree with mine or with government policy. I made no such categorization of individuals. I repeat what I have said in this place before. It would be too easy to dismiss individuals who have concerns and we should not because those concerns are genuine.

I am not suggesting that we assume and accept any perception people have about immigration or refugee or migration movement. There is a middle ground. In a sense we can try to get to that common ground and try to learn from each other and allow the facts to be distilled. Let us put emotion, perceptions, myths and fiction to one side and let us talk hard numbers. I do not fear that kind of debate. That kind of debate brings to the fore the true values which have shaped immigration in the past. I am confident of that.

If I have one negative criticism of my predecessors in the last 10 years of Tory administration it is that they legislated on fiction rather than fact. They led with the negative only. They did not talk about the positive.

Sure there are problems and of course there are concerns. For example, it drives Canadians up the wall when a convicted murderer makes a refugee application at a Kingston penitentiary. It drives this minister up the wall too. There is due process. I am trying to make the system fairer but I am also determined to close the loopholes which make our tolerance the object of ridicule and undermines those who seek to come here legitimately.

I welcome a discussion based on fact and not fiction, one that is rational and not emotional. We would be doing honour to the subject matter at hand.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the last few moments of debate. I believe Canadians are proud of the country's role on the international stage. They see it as a role of an honest broker, as a role of a middle power, as a role of a force of goodwill and civility. It is also a symbol that has acted as a beacon of hope to those who unfortunately find themselves displaced. We are particularly proud of the role our immigration and refugee policies have played in helping to establish our international reputation along the way.

Canadians have historically had a humanitarian response to people fleeing persecution, whether it was the open arms that Canada extended to the United Empire Loyalists or Hungarians fleeing communism, whether it was the innocent families escaping a murderous dictator in Uganda or most recently the helpless Vietnamese boat people who were cast adrift.

In a world of dramatic change, however, we can no longer view immigration and refugee policies simply as a sporadic domestic response to occasional international crises. Migration and refugee issues must be at the forefront of our foreign policy concerns for Canada and on the foreign policy initiatives agenda of so-called developed countries.

In addition, I believe we need to come to grips with and create a coherent international population policy to address the important issues and challenges raised on the floor of the House of Commons today.

I believe this foreign policy review is a very welcome initiative. It coincides with a national consultation on the future of our immigration program which we had occasion to launch on March 6 and 7. I believe that these two initiatives should not run on a parallel playing field, but rather at some point converge into one through the many inextricably linked issues.

It is very true that immigration programs must be developed with an eye to both domestic priorities and domestic concerns. That goes without saying. It must take stock of world conditions, world pressures and world changes. We cannot isolate our national programs from our hope for a saner, more gentle international community.

We also need a wide breadth of vision in recognizing that whenever we try to extend help to humanity in some corner of this globe, we are at the same time putting in the first footings of the foundations of bridges that will one day transport more than just goodwill, but be transformed into social and cultural and economic advantages for both countries.

I believe that in eastern Europe where the Berlin wall has come down that immigration can be one of those bridges, not to try to have a brain drain when those countries are trying to find a footing and develop a dynamic and exciting new society, but rather to try to meet some of the aspirations of those people who wish to immigrate to Canada where there is already a history and a proud tradition of that. I believe that it goes beyond just immigration.

With respect to eastern Europe and some of the countries therein, we need to show our support now during this difficult transition time and not later on in the next generation when obviously we will be seen to be trying to reap the rewards of a consuming society.

What steps then must a democratic, pragmatic, fair-minded country like Canada take to help find new answers in a new world? Recent years have seen a sharp rise in the number of global migrants. There are as many as 100 million migrants on the move around this globe. There are almost 19 million refugees, double the number in 10 years. There are almost 20 million individuals displaced in their own countries, including some four million individuals from the former Republic of Yugoslavia. Therefore, there are many root causes for all the migration. We need to understand and analyse the forces at play that mobilize this colossal movement of humanity.

My hon. friend from the other side touched on some of these: civil wars, deep and persistent poverty, mass violation of human rights, environmental degradation, lack of solid, viable long term economic opportunities, globalization, uncontrollable urbanization, better communication and easier transportation and, of course, the global recession that has touched both developed and developing countries.

There are some who would close their eyes and others who would want to close their borders. I suggest that neither of those actions will stop the problems nor the solutions from coming forward. As a modern society we cannot afford to have an international corridor of locked doors. We know that to be the case. An international corridor of locked doors will only reroute the traffic through our back doors and through our side windows.

Of course Canada cannot solve the problems alone. However, by working in co-operation with other countries, clearly we can help to find international solutions to what is an international phenomenon, that of migration. We as a country can offer that leadership because we are truly an international country if we stop to think about the kinds of exciting characteristics that define Canada.

We are an international country. Canadians have roots in every corner of the world. Therefore we should take heart about that dynamism and ask ourselves what country is better poised in this new global village to try to seek to mobilize the leadership for such an international consensus. We should not sell ourselves short. One of the criticisms that we sometimes hear is that we are too meek on the international stage. Yet, on this issue of global migration, we have offered leadership. It is there, it is documented and it is a source of pride.

In my few remarks I do not wish to try to predetermine the outcome of the foreign policy review as it deals with migration pressures. Rather, I would like to raise some serious questions and issues which I hope will receive the careful reflection of this joint committee and of the speakers subsequent to my deliberations.

For instance, while Canada has been a forceful advocate of individuals' "right to leave oppressive regimes", can we go one step further and become a forceful advocate of people's right to stay in their homelands? What can we do to make emigration a matter of choice and not simply a matter of desperation and lack of options? How can Canada help strengthen the role of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees that is looking for assistance to strengthen its resolve?

When most refugees selected by our western world happen to be men, what can we do to recognize and balance the reality that most refugees in the world overwhelmingly are women and young children? How can we encourage international co-operation to address the root causes of involuntary migration? Can we find new means of fostering economic development, human rights, conflict prevention, population planning and environmental sustainability?

What role can international fora such as the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, the OECD, or the G-7 play in developing a much needed integrated population policy which currently has gone by the wayside and which leaves a large, large vacuum?

What role can and should our trade policy play in the reduction of migration pressures? What role can Canada's immigration program play in helping developing nations strengthen their own countries and develop their own human resources to the fullest of their potential?

What is the role that technology can play in this equation of migratory pressures? Have we reached the point where we must consider migration impact like environmental impact questions in the development of our foreign and aid policies?

These are some of the questions and issues that I would like to put on the table for further discussion because in the red book in the last election campaign we pledged as a party to adopt a more comprehensive strategy toward national and international security, including sustainable development, global economic prosperity, support for democracy and solving problems through multilateralism.

As Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I increasingly see how critical our success in developing such a comprehensive strategy will be to the future manageability and success of our own domestic immigration programs.

I believe and I urge that migration issues and migration pressures must be a central focus of Canada's foreign policy agenda as we move together toward the next century. They will be on the agenda, for instance, at an important United Nations conference which will take place this September in Cairo, entitled the United Nations Conference on Population and Development.

At this particular forum, and at gatherings subsequent to this forum, we need to search and find new kinds of world-wide co-operation to ensure that migration is a positive force, not a destructive force, and an engine of development serving the interests of migrants as well as the aspirations of both the sending and the receiving countries alike.

We must seek co-operation to establish stronger international regimes and strengthen an international resolve to address the force of world migration, to encourage conditions to permit people to remain in their homelands and to ensure that when people are forced to seek refuge that there is an international community that is not oblivious or indifferent, but receptive to their plight.

It is through this working partnership to achieve this objective that Canada's foreign and immigration policies can indeed find common cause and common ground.

If one looks at public opinion surveys, and I think a few minutes ago my colleague touched on this nerve, Canadians are looking for symbols, institutions and initiatives that give a sense of pride, meaning and purpose to our country called Canada. I think the element of this debate is such a useful exercise because an exercise such as this, that goes beyond our own domestic borders and looks internationally abroad and talks about the dreams that the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke about earlier, is the vacuum that Canadians want us to fill. It is a unifying force.

We may have differences in how we approach these individual international problems, but it is a force that unites us as opposed to a force that divides. It is a reputation that not only would give us a sense of pride but would reinforce the reputation that we have developed as a caring and compassionate country. Those are not empty words or empty rhetoric when one tries to fashion a domestic policy that is in keeping with an international dream

or a more gentle version of a world that sometimes is more filled with disorder than order.

Every time we make a ripple in the world it sends out a signal and an example to other countries. That is what multilateralism is all about. What we seem to be doing on this issue is not only important domestically, but given that we have had a track record and a leadership role it becomes doubly important. What we do in this area, speaking quite modestly, can have an impact on how other countries view the problem.

It is not a question of trying to preach or lecture to other countries or try to say that we preach from a pulpit of perfection where we have a monopoly on virtue. Not at all. Some Canadians would say that we have our challenges from within. The poor, ravaged by the recession, would argue: "Why are you spending a day in Parliament talking about problems that seem so far away? Why do we not take care of the problems here at home first?" Other voices would suggest: "Why are we allowing the doors to still remain open for those seeking refuge when there are individuals here who are not meeting their own dreams and never mind the dreams of a very complex, confused world?"

We hear those voices. Those are tough questions. Those tough questions do not always have easy, ready made answers do they? I think we feel and we sense as members of Parliament that on the one hand we need to listen to those concerns because without being rooted in that reality we are lost in this place. This place means nothing unless this debate becomes realistic and people out there connect with us and through us.

In the other sense, we also feel that when we come together as members of Parliament in the institution of democracy in Canada and where our constituency all of a sudden becomes national, we have a responsibility to go beyond our riding boundaries and also consider the international plight of our fellow brothers and sisters. Do we not? Our work as members of Parliament would be less if we simply thought of what could be good parochially speaking for each of us or each of our ridings.

We have to go beyond that. We have to try to broaden and elevate the debate to see that the world's problems are really problems for us indirectly. We can reach out and build those bridges and seek those solutions. If we stop to think selfishly for a moment it is beneficial for this country as well.

Linkages in the world today are absolutely vital. McLuhan talked about the global village and it is certainly here. The rapidity of technological and communications change links us whether we like it or not.

The global marketplace will belong to countries that are forward thinking, that are creative in trying to come to grips with old problems. It will belong to countries that seek the pioneering work which is very difficult but reaps benefits.

As fellow human beings we owe it to the world to try to make it a better place. Most of those people on the move would rather not be. Most immigrants to Canada, including my parents, would rather have stayed where they were. However they were compelled and forced to pack their bags and move without really knowing where the train would take them.

However ask those individuals today what the best decision was in their lifetime. Nine out of ten will say it was packing those bags. As painful as it was then, the best decision was to pack their bags and to adopt a new country, Canada. Those individuals are prepared to line up to defend and to stand on guard for thee.

We should not forget that because those movements still exist. Individuals look to Canada, look to the United States, look to Australia, look to New Zealand and other countries that ought to be in this group for a beacon of hope.

I hope this foreign policy debate will view immigration and refugee policies as an extension of that foreign policy, in how we deal with those people on the move and how we position our country for the future.

[Immigration, March 15th, 1994]

Although the member did say that education ought to continue, in another quote from the Toronto Star the hon. critic concluded: ``Immigrants seem to be just like anybody else''.

That is what he ought to do. Rather than take one snapshot of one poll at one time in the history of our country, let us engage fellow Canadians; let us go beyond the superficiality of simply one poll and understand the forces at play.

[Immigration, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will not retract because that is exactly what I did not say. If any member ought to go around retracting statements it ought to be that member for the things he said in metropolitan Toronto.

[Immigration, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member back from his educational journey through metropolitan Toronto. I find his statement today at variance with something he told residents of metropolitan Toronto. The Toronto Star quoted the hon. critic as saying: ``I don't see our immigration policy as out of line with the opinions that I have heard in the last few days''.

I caution the member to take one snapshot of a public opinion survey and therefore deduce that we ought to make policy on the fly. If he were to look at how Gallup has tracked unemployment and Canadians' feelings on immigration in the last 25 years, he would find that in 1982 almost the same kinds of levels were reported by Ekos Research. At the same time in 1988 and 1990 there was a record 65 to 70 per cent support for more immigration.

We cannot ask people about immigration like we ask them about their favourite flavour of ice cream. It is more complex than that.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 15th, 1994]

Under the family reunification program:

(a) Preliminary data for 1993 shows that 109,765 immigrants landed in Canada under the family reunification program.

(b) There are three major categories under the family reunification program: spouses, dependent children, and parents and grandparents. The principal applicant may bring with him/her dependents as specified in the regulation. Of the 109,765 immigrants, 50 per cent landed under the spouses category, 12 per cent under the dependent children category and 38 per cent as parents and grandparents.

The average age for principal applicants in the spouse category was 31 years. Ninety per cent of the dependents of spouses were under 19 years and nine per cent were between 19 and 30 years old.

The average age for immigrants in the dependent children category was 16 years.

The average age of principal applicants in the parents and grandparents category was 64 years. Fifty-three per cent of dependents in the parents and grandparents category were under 30 years, 20 per cent were between 31 and 50 years old, and 26 per cent were over 50 years old.

(c) The immigration plan for 1994, which was tabled on February 2, 1994, announced a level of 111,000 family class immigrants for the 1994 calendar year.

No immigration levels for 1995 or later have been identified. On February 2, 1994, the minister also announced that he was launching a new public consultation process that will help shape Canada's immigration policy for the next decade. The process will culminate this coming autumn in a new, 10-year strategic framework for immigration policy, within which new five-year immigration plans will be set.

Levels of immigration for 1995 and after, including family class immigration, will be announced after the consultation process is complete.