Leon Benoit

[Petitions, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with taxation.

Because taxes have increased 30% under this government and because high taxes kill jobs, the petitioners call upon parliament to reduce taxes by 25% in the near future.

I fully support this petition.

[Petitions, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table. The first petition deals with illegal migrants from China and illegal refugee claimants.

Because of the hardship which these individuals cause to genuine refugees, the petitioners state that the law must be changed to allow for the quick deportation of those who come to our country illegally to abuse the system.

I support this petition.

[Criminal Code, February 18th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-433, an act to amend the Criminal Code (search and seizure without warrant).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table this private member's bill on search and seizure without a warrant.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that if during the process of a search and seizure property is damaged or lost, the people who own the property will be compensated for that loss. It makes sense. In the existing law there is a provision that the judge who issues the warrant must be presented with the date of the search and seizure, a description of what was seized and the extent of the search. This bill would add to that a report on any damage done for compensation purposes.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 18th, 2000]

Some hon. members call for more, Madam Speaker. I could go on all day pointing out how nonfunctional our immigration system is in the area of refugee determination and in the area of independent immigrants being allowed to come to our country and reuniting very quickly with their families. It is a broken system.

I will get back to the citizenship bill that we are debating today. We should be debating changes to the Immigration Act. I would be happy to do that. I am ready for it. Canadians think it is many years overdue, but here we are.

I will talk specifically about three different areas of the citizenship bill. The first is clause 6(1)(b) in relation to residency. This was an area where there were a lot of concerns expressed at committee. I know my colleague, the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette and my other colleague from Calgary, who were both on the committee at times throughout the debate on this bill, know that there was a lot of concern expressed about residency.

The intent was good. Bill C-16 defines the term permanent resident more concisely than does the current act. The existing legislation may be loosely interpreted. Some individuals have been found to be residing in Canada because they have a bank account here or own property in the country without actually having ever lived in Canada. Redefining that is good.

Bill C-16 calls for 1,095 days, or three years, physical presence in Canada before someone is eligible to apply for citizenship. However, Bill C-16 does not provide any mechanism for determining when applicants arrive in Canada or when they leave, nor is there any intention to develop one. The proposed change is a good idea and I support that change, but there is no way expressed, or in fact even in testimony from the various civil servants who appeared before the committee, of plans to enforce the law.

It is of great concern to me when the government puts forth law that cannot be enforced. It admitted to that. I have several quotes here. I will not read them all because I have a few pages of quotes from witnesses at committee, including the civil servants who deal in this area, where they admit that, no, they cannot really enforce it. One quote says that they will enforce it when they really want to. In other words, this allows them to target people they want to target, but it will not ensure that people really have had physical presence in the country three years out of six. A physical presence in the country for three years out of six is a good idea. I think that is an appropriate goal, but that is all it is in here, a goal, because there is no way of really enforcing it.

The minister of immigration at the time, on March 3, 1999, expressed the following:

Our primary goal is to ensure that people who obtain Canadian citizenship have a deep commitment to their adopted country. We believe that such a commitment is possible only if the person is physically present in the country.

I think that makes sense.

I understand that many newcomers need to travel extensively, either for business or personal reasons. Many maintain strong economic and social links with their countries of origin and Canada benefits from these links. That is why, in Bill C-16, we provide these permanent residents with the flexibility to travel outside the country by extending the period during which they need to meet the physical requirements. It has been extended to six years now, three years out of six. I believe that is a fair accommodation.

That is important because we are truly part of a global economy. That is a huge advantage for Canada because we have people from almost every country in the world who speak the languages of probably all countries on the face of the earth. It is great for doing business. They know the culture. They can speak the language. It gives us an incredible advantage over many nations that do not have that diversity. This is a good change. The intent is good, but why do we have a law that we cannot enforce?

This change is in response to a committee report from 1994. That is a six year time lag. In the committee report of 1994 the government dominated Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration recognized the problem being dealt in this clause in point 6 on page 12 of the report where it says that residency should be defined in the new act so as to require physical presence in the country on an application for citizenship.

However, my main concern is that the very next recommendation in the same report, recommendation No. 7, states that measures should be introduced to enable accurate monitoring of the periods of time that permanent residents are absent from Canada.

That government dominated report recognized not only the need for the change but the need to be able to enforce the law. Unfortunately it is not there. I have pages of quotes. I know I cannot go through them all today, but I have some quotes to which I will refer. The member opposite has expressed an interest in hearing more, so I will certainly give a little more.

Greg Fyffe, assistant deputy minister of policy and program development, when questioned by me and others at committee on how he was going to monitor the physical presence, said that it was obviously a serious concern.

Norman Sabourin, director of citizenship and citizenship registrar, during the same meeting agreed with Mr. Fyffe when he said that there was no question that without any regimented border controls in place in Canada there would always be a challenge in assessing whether or not a person was in Canada. Mr. Sabourin claimed that the department had developed a lot of expertise in assessing documentary evidence that supported and outlined whether or not a person was in Canada. These include passports.

In terms of passports, how many people who cross the border, for example from Canada to the United States, ever have a passport? Of course a non-Canadian will have one, but how many have them stamped? I have travelled to about half a dozen countries in the last four years and only once had my passport stamped, and that is when I asked to have it stamped. The passport is not a very reliable document to use when trying to determine physical presence in the country.

Mr. Sabourin went on to explain some other methods the department would require individuals to employ in order to verify whether they are physically present in Canada. They include whether or not a person has been attending school or has been in a job, or whether or not someone can vouch for that fact. There is some merit to that.

Mr. Sabourin, the departmental official, explained how they would monitor physical presence by saying that finally, and maybe the most important part of equation, they have in place a quality assurance program which allows them to verify the quality and integrity of information provided by applicants. As part of this program they randomly target applicants to verify the information they provided and to explore in detail whether or not the information is accurate. They are also able to develop profiles based on indicators of certain types of applicants who might be less enthusiastic than others in providing a complete picture of their presence in Canada. It concerns me that this clause will allow the department to target certain types of applicants.

It appears that the department will be picking the types, stereotyping, and relying on luck in many cases to implement the change which it feels is so important and which I believe is so important. I contend that based on the promise of random quality assurances that nothing is in place to allow this physical presence to be properly monitored. I have to skip over the rest of my commentary on that clause. There are other valid points that should be made but I understand that time is limited.

Another concern is the area of retroactivity. People who have applied under the current Citizenship Act will be made to meet the law set out in the new citizenship act when it is passed. That type of retroactivity is not acceptable. Subclause 55(2) stipulates that when the application has made its way to the point where a citizenship judge is considering it, the application will be considered under the old act. The department has stated that processing time may vary between eight and twelve months.

However, we have been informed that the real processing time is more like 17 months under the current act. There should not be two different paths that applications follow depending strictly on the speed with which the department currently processes. People will be penalized if the department has stalled their application, or if it is moving slowly through the process for whatever reason. People should not be penalized and made to qualify under the new act just because they have not reached the final stage where a judge is about to declare them citizens.

That is very unusual under law and I do not think it is appropriate under this law. One Liberal member of the committee, the member for Scarborough Southwest, stated on April 28, 1999, in relation to this clause that he took the position of the traditional historic pattern of the Liberal Party of not having retroactive legislation. If this citizenship law passes as it is, as he understood it, notwithstanding that someone has been making his plans in anticipation of the law as it currently exists he will lose his one year credit and will have to wait for no apparent reason other than the change in law to apply for Canadian citizenship.

To him that is retroactivity; it is taking away from people who have relied on an existing law and it is un-Liberal, whatever that means. That came from a member of the Liberal Party at the committee who showed great concern about this clause. Generally the committee did not like it and here we have it again in Bill C-16.

Other penalties which are of concern relate to bureaucratic delays as well. This is the last point I will to talk about today because I see that my time is drawing to a close. People being punished for bureaucratic delays concerns me. It is something that is unacceptable. It is something which is in this bill. It is allowed to happen as a result of this bill in different areas.

Subsection 6(1)(b)(i) of the current act allows individuals who claim refugee status to count each full day of residency in Canada from the date of application as a half day toward the total needed for a citizenship application. If there is a delay for whatever reason in getting the application through then a half day credit will be allowed toward residency in Canada. That will be completely taken away under the current bill. If there are bureaucratic delays, under the bill no time will be granted. People will be punished for the time it takes the civil service to deal with the application.

Therefore refugees who want to become citizens will be punished because of the slow process of the bureaucracy. Does that make any sense? We and several other witnesses have called for leaving in place something like what is under the current act. If the process is slowed down by the bureaucracy, at least part of that time will be considered to be time when the applicant is physically present in Canada because the person is physically present in Canada. That makes sense. Many witnesses said that it made sense, but we do not find that change in the legislation. To me that is a great concern which must be fixed.

I have several other areas I will talk about in future readings of the bill. My colleagues will talk about some of the changes they want to see in the bill. We presented many of these arguments when Bill C-63 was before the House. We heard many of the same arguments from witnesses at committee. The government heard some of them. It did not deal with them very well, particularly in terms of residency, but it heard them. Maybe we can fix them in committee but many of them have not even been acknowledged by changes in the new piece of legislation.

For that reason I cannot support the legislation. I cannot speak for all my colleagues, but I believe they are unlikely to support this piece of legislation unless we get some of the key changes required to make it a good piece of legislation.

We want a new citizenship act. The old one is outdated. Does the new piece of legislation provide for a new citizenship act that will work for Canadians and for people who are aspiring to become Canadians? No, I do not believe it does. For that reason we will not be supporting this piece of legislation but I certainly look forward to the arguments, the discussion presented by all opposition parties and by the government in the House and at committee. Hopefully we can make some changes that will make it work.

That is what I am looking for. It is not a bill that should be partisan. I do not believe that it will be treated as a partisan piece of legislation. We are talking about Canadian citizenship. We all feel the same about Canadian citizenship. We take the same pride in Canadian citizenship. We realize what a valuable asset Canadian citizenship is. All we want is a good piece of legislation.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 18th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to talk about Bill C-16 which will replace the current Citizenship Act, if and when it passes. There are some things about the bill which I support and others which I do not and I will get into that during my presentation. However there are other issues which have to be mentioned today.

It is a clear error in judgment on the part of the government to bring in legislation to replace the current Citizenship Act before legislation which will overhaul the Immigration Act has been passed by the House. The government has been saying for the last four years in particular but really for the six years since I have been here in Ottawa that it is going to bring forward legislation which will provide a massive overhaul of the Immigration Act immediately, next year. The government always says it will be later this year or next year but this has been going on for six years. It has not happened and it is very hard to explain why.

The Citizenship Act changes should not come in until the changes to the Immigration Act are made. The Citizenship Act refers to the Immigration Act in several places.

I will talk about the unfortunate order of events and why this has happened. The government does not seem to be willing to make the necessary tough decisions to change the Immigration Act so it has gone ahead with changes to the Citizenship Act so it can say it has done something. I understand that but I do not think it is acceptable.

As my colleague opposite has said, citizenship is something we are all extremely proud of. Canadian citizenship is seen by many people around the world as something they would like. Many people cherish the thought of becoming a Canadian citizen. It is not only Canadians who see Canadian citizenship as something of great value, as I know all Canadians do; others would like to become Canadian citizens.

As we put in place a new citizenship act, which this bill will do, it is important that it is done right. The government presented Bill C-63 in the last parliament, which was its idea of doing it right. The government dropped that legislation because it was so flawed and the government could not see putting it through. That became very clear in committee.

Bill C-16 is the government's response to the problems seen in committee. This is good, except the government has not dealt with a lot of the problems which were pointed out again and again in committee. I will talk about some of those things. I cannot pretend I am going to touch on all of them but I will focus on three or four of the main areas.

We went through the whole committee process on Bill C-63 in the last parliament. Witnesses suggested many changes. Many excellent suggestions were made. The government listened to a few but not nearly enough of them. That is not acceptable for an act which governs something as important as citizenship, something which we are all so proud of.

I would love to see a citizenship bill which I could support. This is not it, unless changes are made at committee which would make it something Canadians and I could support. It is not that important what I support as one citizen, but it is important that the Canadian public generally support the legislation. I do not believe this legislation is something that Canadians can support.

This bill is the second attempt and there have been some changes, a few changes which are beneficial but not that many.

With reference to the previous legislation, I want to make it extremely clear that it was not only witnesses but members of the immigration committee which reviewed that legislation who pointed out very strong concerns with Bill C-63, the predecessor to Bill C-16. They expressed their desire for change.

A few changes were implemented, but very few. In fact, there were only three changes from Bill C-63 to Bill C-16, yet the government dropped Bill C-63 because it was flawed. I do not understand why it did not fix the bill before it brought it back as Bill C-16. The bill has been re-tabled, and I say re-tabled because there have been only three or four changes made.

There are some good changes. For example my colleague from Dewdney—Alouette can express some claim to victory for the change that was proposed at committee by the Mennonite community. It requested that the new law contain measures to facilitate the acquisition of Canadian citizenship for the people in its community who still wished to return to the country or who had already done so.

In essence clause 57 allows a three year period for individuals born to Canadian parents outside of Canada between 1947 and 1977 to acquire Canadian citizenship upon application. Members of the Mennonite community explained that very well at committee. It was supported by the member for Dewdney—Alouette. That is a good change. That is a committee working as it should.

One other change is that the part of Bill C-63 which allowed bureaucrats or the minister without approval of parliament to redefine spouse has been withdrawn from the bill. A couple of weeks ago when I saw this bill I thought that was a positive move. That was something my colleagues and I called for quite strongly during the debate on Bill C-63. It was something some Liberal members on the committee called for. It was withdrawn and I thought we had made some progress.

Then last week Bill C-23 was tabled in the House but not in a way that is acceptable. I then understood why that clause was taken out of the citizenship bill. It was no longer required as a result of the omnibus bill which would give same sex benefits in several pieces of legislation. The modernization of benefits and obligations act tabled by the justice minister amends 68 federal statutes, affects 20 departments and agencies and extends benefits to same sex couples on the same basis as common law opposite sex couples.

The government has chosen to extend benefits based on a person's private sexual activity while excluding other types of dependent relationships. I fail to see why it would do that. Why would it extend these benefits on the basis of sexual activity rather than on a relationship of dependency? That is exactly what has happened.

The change was made to the citizenship bill which took the power away from civil servants or the minister to make a change. That was the right thing to do. The government has brought the changes it is proposing to deal with that before parliament, which is the right thing to do. However it has been done in a way that is unacceptable to Canadians. It has been done on the basis of sexual activity.

Former Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau said that the government had no place in the bedrooms of the nation yet that is what Bill C-23 does. The official opposition believes that any discussion of extending benefits should be accompanied by an affirmation of the definition of marriage.

There was no definition of marriage in Bill C-63. Was that too much to ask for? An opposition day motion was passed in the House with support from all political parties which ensured that the current definition of marriage would be retained, yet the government has not seen fit to have that included in this new act.

I point that out that the unacceptable part of the citizenship bill, the former Bill C-63, was taken out, but it has not been properly dealt with in this new citizenship bill. It is way off target. That debate is taking place in the House as we debate Bill C-23. I will not go into it in any great depth. The problem has not been solved. It has been shuffled off to another piece of legislation and the response by the government has been inappropriate.

My colleagues and I have talked and will talk about that in great depth as we debate that piece of legislation. That is a positive thing that is not included in this bill. The reason for it not being included does not leave me with a very positive feeling.

I will get into more particulars about the bill, but I want to talk a little more about something I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. It is unfortunate that the citizenship legislation came before the House before those major changes were made to the Immigration Act. It is clearly in the wrong order. The changes to the Immigration Act may well require more changes to the Citizenship Act in the very near future. It is in the wrong order because the Citizenship Act does refer to the broader, more encompassing Immigration Act in several areas.

Beyond that, there are so many reasons that the Immigration Act changes should be before the House today rather than the Citizenship Act. There are serious issues facing Canadians today regarding immigration. These issues have been pointed out by Canadians across the country, and certainly by us here, but there has been no response to them.

It has been recognized by various parties, including CSIS, the RCMP and American officials who recognize and talk about the problem, that Canada is a haven for terrorists and criminals and is a favourite destination for people smugglers. Is that something that makes us proud to be Canadian? I do not think so. It is something that points out the need for changes to the Immigration Act, changes which should have come before this bill.

Polls show that immigration has become one of the top concerns for Canadians today. They want it fixed. Why is it not being fixed?

Farrell Research reports 71% of greater Vancouver residents believe the refugee system is too lax and 76% believe that Canada has been made an easy target for people smuggling. That is no big surprise. Canadians across the country feel like that.

Additionally, in 1998 an Environics survey revealed that 69% of Canadians agree that many people seeking asylum in Canada are not real refugees. That has been borne out by some of the things we have seen over the past year where even the refugee determination system has determined that many people making claims are not genuine refugees. Unfortunately, many are finding their way into our country anyway. Even if they are not accepted they are allowed to stay.

Our formal acceptance rate for refugees is 44% which is more than double and triple other countries that are comparable to Canada, like the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Forty-four per cent is high, but our acceptance rate is more like 80%. I have explained that in committee and there is no argument, even from officials. Only 20% of those who claim refugee status are actually ever known to leave the country. That means that the other 80% are allowed to stay. Many just abandon their cases, withdraw their cases or are refused status and just stay in the country. The end result is the same: They are allowed to stay in our country, illegally in many cases.

We have an effective acceptance rate of 80%. The 44% who are chosen through the system are, hopefully, genuine refugees. However, the other 36% who make up the 80% are not. Clearly they are not because they have never been accepted. Many have been rejected by our system and yet they are allowed to stay. So in effect we have that 80%.

The refugee determination system is badly broken. Why was this not dealt with before the Citizenship Act was presented to parliament so the Citizenship Act would be based on and fit in with or mesh with an Immigration Act which has been overhauled? Canadians recognize the need for that. The government recognizes that.

For four years now the government has been saying “Maybe this year or next year we will bring in major changes to the Immigration Act. It has really been saying this for six years but it has been an open promise for the last four years. Not one change has been made. It is completely unacceptable that this would be put forward now before those changes are made.

There is another side of the Immigration Act that demonstrates very well that our system is not working. People who come under the independent categories have to wade through a bureaucracy that is unimaginable. They have to go through a process that can take up to two and a half to three years, and many times much longer. Often the process takes so long that people who are needed in this country by businesses and by the country, people who will add to our economy immediately, give up. They go to the United States, to Australia or somewhere else because the process there works a lot better. That is unfortunate because we are losing good people. Why was that not fixed before we got to the citizenship bill? It is very unfortunate that it was not.

I have heard dozens and dozens, probably hundreds, which is not an exaggeration, of heart-rending stories of families begging to be reunited that just cannot be reunited. These are families of people who have qualified under the independent categories. They will add to our economy right away. Of course they want to bring their husbands or wives and their dependent children. Who would not want that? Canada would expect that would happen. Often, even after they are accepted, it takes years and years to reunify the family. That is shameful. It causes uncalled for pain. Once somebody is accepted as an immigrant, why on earth would the process to bring their families in not be almost immediate? Why would it not be a matter of a few months not years? Commonly and most often it takes years. Why is that not fixed?

Let us look at an example. Let us talk about Leticia Cables, a nanny who was taking sanctuary in a church in Edmonton. She is a Filipino nanny who worked hard and was honest but who is presently being deported by the government. She is being forced out of this country by this government right now.

On the one hand, we have an unquestionably hardworking and honest nanny who made a mistake but who will be given no consideration by this minister to allow her to stay. That is shameful. On the other hand, we have a Honduran who has been arrested 20 times for drug trafficking, as I have heard from the hon. member for North Vancouver, who is in our country illegally. He is allowed to stay and has been set free. Does that make any sense?

Where is the good management of this government? Where is the good judgment of this government? This is the government that will not allow this nanny to stay. She admits that she broke a rule but that she did not know she had done wrong. Why are we not giving her special consideration when 1,300 criminals in 1998 were granted ministerial permits to stay in this country? Of those 1,300 criminals, 350 were violent offenders, murderers and rapists. Those 350 criminals were allowed to stay under ministerial permit, but the minister will not give this nanny a permit to stay in this country. She is chasing her out. For what? The nanny broke a rule. I do not believe she knew she was breaking the rule. She said that she was given the advice by one of her employers who was a lawyer and someone she trusted, yet this minister is chasing her out.

Where are the precedents of the government when it comes to immigration? Why does it not fix that up? It could then fix up the Citizenship Act, because I agree that it needs fixing as well. I cannot go on any longer about the problems with the Immigration Act as we are dealing with the Citizenship Act.

[Petitions, February 16th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the second petition has to do with child pornography and the problem which we still have in the country with the possession of child pornography being legal in British Columbia.

The petitioners call on the government to rectify the situation immediately.

I fully support this petition as well.

[Petitions, February 16th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the first petition I would like to present concerns taxation. The petitioners, mostly from the Cold Lake area, call for the government to lower taxes because it has increased taxes 30% since it became the government, it has not honoured the promise to scrap the GST and high taxes are job killers.

The petitioners call on the government to reduce taxes by at least 25% over the next three years.

I fully support this petition.

[Indian Act, February 16th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-431, an act to amend the Indian Act (election of chiefs and councils).

Madam Speaker, I am honoured again to table this private member's bill which would be an amendment to the Indian Act to put in place monitoring by Elections Canada of all elections of chiefs and councils.

In speaking with aboriginal peoples in my constituency and across the country one thing I have heard is that they want accountability and certainly accountability in elections will come if Elections Canada monitors all elections. We can be pretty much assured that we will have fair elections. That is what the bill is about. I cannot imagine anyone not supporting it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Income Tax Act, February 16th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-429, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of mechanics' tool expenses).

Madam Speaker, once again I am honoured to table a private member's bill which would allow mechanics to deduct the cost of purchasing tools under $200 or the capital cost allowance on tools valued at over $200 when it is a job requirement to purchase these tools. It is long past time when this should be implemented into law.

I am proud to introduce the bill and encourage the whole House to support it when it comes up for debate.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Human Resources Development, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the human resources minister pretends she is compassionate. However, compassion is when we recognize that Canadians are dying in hospital waiting lines and we do something about it. Compassion is when we recognize that families are being strangled by excessive taxation and that we be as prudent as possible with their hard-earned tax dollars. Cold-heartedness is when we blow a billion bucks and we could not care less.

Is it that the human resources minister is cold-hearted or is it that she just does not care?