Leon Benoit

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the question does not relate to the presentation I gave, but I am all too happy to respond to it.

What I would like to say is that the Reform Party for five years now has been proposing solutions to this problem. We are not going to solve the problem with more programs which may help to deal with the problem after it has developed. We are going to solve the problem by allowing aboriginal people to give themselves more control over their own destiny. Until that happens this problem will never be solved.

It starts with proper accountability, on the reserves in particular; proper accountability by chiefs and councils on the reserves, some of whom are abusing the trust given to them by people on the reserves. We have a list of well over 100 reserves across the country that have very serious problems with accountability. The money that goes to the aboriginal people is not going to the people who desperately need it. There is very little being done to help develop the economy, for example, so that these people can dig themselves out of this problem which has gotten worse and worse over the last 30 to 40 years.

Until we deal with the cause of the problem we are not going to be able to do anything in an effective way to deal with the problem of too many aboriginal people finding their way into our prisons.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question because it gives me a chance to clear up what I did say.

I want to make it very clear that the problem is not immigrants, nor is the problem legitimate refugee claimants. This government and this minister have allowed our system to continue to be completely ineffective. In five years there has not been a bit of legislation to help solve the problem.

It is a few. We do not know how many because no stats are kept, or at least they are not allowed to be released to the public. The 15,000 or 16,000 that I mentioned are only a small part of the problem. It is not the immigrants or refugees generally; it is bogus refugee claimants, the people who abuse our system, who come here with less than honourable intentions in mind.

The problem is that the system is so lax that it allows in too many people who come here to commit crimes. I am not only talking about local crime, I am also talking about organized crime. It has become a huge problem. I am talking about terrorism which is growing in this country to the point that the head of CSIS says that Canada is a country which harbours more terrorists than any other country except the United States. It is a big problem.

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion today. We have heard members from the official opposition and other parties present their case in several areas.

What I want to talk about today is the problem we have with crime and how it relates to problems in the immigration system. When we look at the warnings and the variety of people who have commented on the problem, we will see it is quite a wide problem.

Ward Elcock, director of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, CSIS, and the attorney general for British Columbia have made some very strong statements on the problems with criminals finding their way into our country through our immigration and refugee system. We also have statements from several previous officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I will use some quotes from some of these people.

We have statements by law enforcement officers about the problems they have in dealing with the crime that is caused by bogus refugee claimants who come into our country under less than honourable terms. We even have Liberal members of parliament who have made some very strong statements on the weaknesses in our immigration system and how that leads to crime. I will quote from one or two Liberal members later.

Who pays the price for the problems in our immigration system and for the crime that comes to our country as a result of a broken system? Canadians pay the price. It is Canadians who are having their lives destroyed due to drug abuse. They can find a ready supply of drugs from, for example, bogus Honduran refugee claimants on the streets of Vancouver.

Many times it is new Canadians who are intimidated and forced to pay protection from the criminal element that finds its way into their communities from their country of origin. These are the very people from whom new Canadians have escaped by leaving their homelands. These people are now here in our country and the same type of organized crime has followed them.

New immigrant communities pay a price in another way. We have all read story after story about problems with our immigration and refugee system which allow criminals to get into our country so easily. As we hear, read and see those stories on television, we know that it reflects negatively on the new immigrant population as a whole. I think that is sad. The new immigrant population is tarnished because of a small percentage of criminals who find their way into our country so easily through our immigration system. Canadians right across this country are victims of this problem and it must be dealt with.

I mentioned the problem with the drug trade in Vancouver, in particular the problem with Honduran people who come to Canada claiming refugee status which are bogus claims. That they are in our country is a problem in itself. How did they get to our country? We do not have proper resources up front to screen and so on, but I will talk a bit about some of the solutions at the end of my presentation. However, there is no doubt this is a problem.

I quote the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam who stated recently that refugee claimants convicted of dealing drugs should be deported immediately with no review or appeal allowed to drag things out. That is from a Liberal member who has recognized the problem.

We do not have the proper resources upfront. Therefore, people are finding their way into our country who should not be here. They should be screened by the process.

Our process is lenient and dragged out, and we allow so many appeals that we cannot get people who have been targeted and named as undesirables by the immigration department out of the country. That is what led the Liberal member to make the statement that they should be deported immediately, with no review or appeal allowed to drag things out.

The attorney general for British Columbia has stated “If you are abusing the hospitality of Canada by committing crimes, you should be deported forthwith”. He is very frustrated with this problem, in particular, but he is also frustrated with other problems, some of which I will touch on later.

A Vancouver staff sergeant stated recently that people who come in, flaunt our refugee system and sell poison to our children should be deported immediately. This again is frustration speaking. He goes on to say “I am disgusted that the system did not take action long ago”. Many of us have heard quotes like this. It is not really a quote that stands alone. This is a problem that we should not ignore.

When it is narrowed down, the most visible drug problem is that of the Honduran drug dealers in Vancouver. However, there are many others involved in organized crime which I will touch on a bit later.

Members have to be even more concerned when they find that the immigration minister and her department came down on a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who made statements that are completely honest on this issue.

What happened a couple of weeks ago was that RCMP Constable Mark Applejohn suggested that refugee claimants be fingerprinted and detained until their prints are run through police databases for criminal checks. He stated that immigration laws are lax and cumbersome, allowing claimants who have broken the law to stay in Canada while their claims continue.

How does the immigration department respond? Chris Taylor, who is head of western services for the immigration department, said “I consider these comments to reflect breaches of the code of conduct and the oath of allegiance of the RCMP”.

Instead of the department attacking the problem, it attacks RCMP officers who are frustrated. They do not have the tools they need to deal with the problem. The immigration department and the immigration minister are too weak to do something about it. In five years we have had no legislation whatsoever to deal with the problem.

The frustration is bound to show. This RCMP officer should not be criticized and attacked by the head of western services, backed up by the minister in the House and in committee. Instead of attacking the police for making statements that are completely correct, the government should attack the problem. I think it is sad that has not been done.

Another issue that has become huge is people smuggling. The former solicitor general spoke at a chiefs of police conference a couple of months ago. He said “This study estimates that between 8,000 and 16,000 people arrive in Canada each year with the assistance of people smugglers”. This estimate is probably very low. He said “The human costs are staggering when we consider that these people are vulnerable, often exploited, socially isolated and sometimes forced to engage in criminal activity just to survive”. This is a problem which not only causes severe harm to this country, but also to the people who are exploited.

Often people smuggling is done by organized crime groups such as the triads and most recently Russian organized crime that has found its way to this country.

There are some common solutions to the problem. Some of them have been set out by police. For example, when all refugee claimants are fingerprinted, why do we not simply cross-check these fingerprints with our internal police forces first and then with the police forces from other countries, including the country of origin.

Many other solutions have been proposed and I would be happy to talk about those at some future time. I appreciate the time I was given to make a few comments on this issue.

[Prime Minister, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend a leaked letter from the Prime Minister divulged that he ordered his caucus to let the Senate's request for a 6% increase pass without resistance. The Liberal sheep will probably comply.

This is only the latest in a long string of anti-democratic dictates by this Prime Minister. For example, in the last two weeks alone the number of times this government has closed down debate has reached 49. The Prime Minister ordered his MPs to vote against a motion that would quickly end child pornography in British Columbia. Today he will probably order his MPs to vote against the bill that would correct the injustice of higher taxation for families with one stay at home parent.

What is wrong with this picture? What is wrong is that the Prime Minister considers Liberal MPs to be his MPs and not the representatives of the constituents they are supposed to represent. What do the Liberal MPs do about it? Nothing. After all, it is only the democracy of this country that is being threatened and being destroyed. Obviously they do not believe that is worth fighting for.

[Division No. 327, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the amendments to Bill C-55 brought forth by the member for Dauphin—Swan River. I support these amendments because I oppose the bill for three good reasons.

The first is that on this issue the government and the heritage minister are wrong. In fact they are breaking our trade agreements. The United States in this case has every right to bring action against Canada if the legislation should proceed and be put into law. Canada is wrong in this case. The heritage minister is wrong and the government is wrong. The United States would be completely justified in doing that. That brings with it some very serious problems.

The first problem is that it would do an awful lot of damage to businesses and to workers in this country. We do not know exactly where the Americans would choose to hit. I will talk a bit about that in just a couple of minutes.

The second reason I oppose the bill is that it is not supported by Canadians. The very basic question is who supports the bill or the legislation. When we ask that question we realize it is an awfully short list. It pretty much boils down to a list of large publishing companies. That is who supports the legislation. It is not supported by most Canadians. It is not even in the top 10 list of what Canadians feel are important issues to them right now.

We know that health care is at the top of the top 10 list as is tax fairness for families. Why are we not debating legislation that would deal in a proper and meaningful way with either of those issues? We would support those issues and legislation that would make things better in those areas, but we cannot support the legislation. It just is not supported by Canadians for several reasons, but I think the main reason is that they recognize the harm that would be done to businesses and the number of jobs that would be killed in this country should the bill proceed.

Both major economic houses in the United States government have come out and very clearly said “If you pass this bill, if it becomes law, we will take action against Canadian industry, Canadian businesses”, and that will have an impact on Canadian workers.

We have a real problem with the legislation. Members of the Reform Party are not willing to allow a piece of legislation to pass which is wrong, which is not supported by Canadians, and which is a real threat to the jobs of Canadian people.

Members of parliament in the House who support the bill and do not support the amendments will have a lot of answering to do to the people in their constituencies and across the country when some of them lose their jobs because of action taken by the Americans, action which is proper, action which the Americans are completely justified to take under our trade deal.

I have a big problem with the bill. I have a problem with the heritage minister bringing forth the legislation. I will continue to oppose the legislation, no matter what squealing there is across the floor, and there is plenty of it right now.

I could talk about the steel industry, one industry the Americans have indicated they might target. The heritage minister is from Hamilton, the steel city. I could take the attitude that if action were taken against steel workers and it hurt that minister, why should I feel bad about it? In fact I would feel bad about it because we are talking about real people and real jobs.

Even to get at the heritage minister, to make her wear the shame that she should wear for bringing forth the legislation, I am not willing to sacrifice the workers of this country. It would be a real shame and wrong if steel workers end up suffering for the actions of the heritage minister and the government in the bill. I cannot support it for that reason.

I want to talk about the people back home. I am a farmer and many of the people in my constituency are farmers. Most people in the House from all parties understand the very serious situation that farmers are in right now. Most of the harm and difficulties they are facing right now are not of their own making. Farmers, above people in any other industry, have done what they should have done to be able to deal with a downturn in their industry, but what they did not count on were unfair trade practices being aimed at them.

That is what is killing their businesses and driving their commodity prices down more than anything else. It is unfair trade practices in Europe. Because of these unfair trade practices in Europe the United States has put in unfair subsidies to counter them. We also see unfair import restrictions into Asian countries such as Korea and Japan. Those too are causing severe harm to our farmers.

In my area probably 25% of hog farmers will go broke. They either have gone out of business in the past three months and will in the next six months. Over that nine month period 25% of hog farmers will be out of business. Very little of the reason is of their own making. Much of the reason is due to unfair trade on the part of other countries.

It is the same situation for alfalfa producers. Subsidies in Spain, for example, are higher than the price that our alfalfa producers receive for their commodity. That cannot be right. That is wrong and it is unfair. These unfair trade practices have to end.

For grain farmers in western Canada prices have been hit dramatically due to unfair trade practices in other countries. That is the reason. It is not poor management. It is not the inability to market their commodities well. It is not that at all. It is unfair trade practices.

Just imagine that we add to the existing problems of our farmers action taken by the Americans due to this ridiculous piece of legislation the heritage minister is bringing forth. It seems like everyone in the Liberal government, in that caucus, is willing to support it.

I am bitterly disappointed that members of the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party will support this piece of legislation. They are willing by supporting the bill to see our farmers suffer even more than they already have through reduced commodity prices and through borders being shut off. They are willing to see that suffering for a piece of legislation which will help very few people. Most of the people it would help are large publishers that do not need the help, quite frankly.

I do not understand the minister's idea that Canadian publishers cannot do well in an open and free trading environment. I have more confidence in them than that. They have done well and they will continue to do well. They do not need this piece of legislation. If they did need it and if it were unfair, if it went against the trade deal, I still could not support it. They would have to find a way of working through it.

It makes it that much easier to oppose the bill and to support the amendments knowing that in fact they are not needed. They will not help, quite frankly. Those who support the bill are saying with their vote that they are willing to see steelworkers, people from other industries and farmers who have already been hit so hard by unfair trade take another hit. I cannot allow that to happen.

Every member here had better consider the answering they will have to do to their people back home should they support the bill and their people become the ones targeted by the American trade action.

[Immigration, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week Chris Taylor, head of the western division of the immigration department, came down hard on the RCMP officer who works on the very serious problem of Honduran refugee claimants who deal drugs on the streets of Vancouver. At committee this week the minister of immigration fully supported the actions her minister took against the RCMP.

Incredibly, instead of attacking the problem, the minister and her department have chosen to attack the RCMP officer who has spoken out about the problem. Immigration officials have launched a formal complaint against the RCMP officer involved, when all he did was tell the truth about the problems in immigration law and in the enforcement of those immigration laws.

Why does the minister not focus her efforts on attacking the problems in her department rather than attacking the RCMP for speaking out about these problems?

[Taxation, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Arthur Friedrich of Calgary and his family are carrying out a very effective tax revolt. They are packing up and moving to the United States. He was a Liberal supporter and worked on the heritage minister's election campaign but sadly, he is now giving up on Canada because of taxes.

He comments that if he were cynical he would say that the government's attitude is to punish success. Mr. Friedrich and his wife scrimped and saved to build professional careers and security for their family but found that they were bludgeoned with more taxes every time they got a pay raise.

He said “I see my investments and pension evaporating before my eyes and the government doesn't seem to care. As a former Liberal, the decline of Canada is a bitter pill to swallow. I deeply wish things were different. I like Canada and I had really wanted to stay, but I no longer see any future for my children in this land”.

Does that not say it all.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to get clarification regarding a comment the member made. She said she and her party certainly would not support redefining a spouse as a same sex spouse. The member was referring to the leeway the minister has for her to change that definition on her own if this legislation passes.

On CBC radio this morning a report was that all parties except Reform supported the changing of the definition. That comment was with regard to the bill of last night of the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's presentation with interest but I have some questions as a result of his presentation.

He expressed a concern that he cannot really tell what the minister means in the legislation about the language requirement. He is concerned that the requirement might be a little too difficult and may set up a requirement that is unreasonable for some people who are new immigrants wishing to become citizens.

I have heard from people of new immigrant communities who have made that point to me. They are concerned from that point of view. I have also heard from others who say they think it is only a reasonable commitment on the part of somebody who wants to become a Canadian citizen to speak with a fair degree of capability in one of the official languages.

Does it not concern the member that when he reads the legislation he really cannot tell what the minister has in mind? The legislation is so vague that it is impossible to tell what the minister has in mind. If I were a new immigrant concerned that the requirements might be set at too high a level I would be concerned that it is not in legislation. The member said he would ask the minister at committee and find out what she has in mind. That is not good enough for me. That is not good enough for new Canadians who want to know what the requirement will be. It should be in the legislation.

I see that problem with almost every proposal made in the legislation. There is not enough information to determine what the minister has in mind. Is the member not concerned about that issue? Is it good enough for him just to hear the minister's answer and then assume that is what will happen?

The second issue concerns the need to promote citizenship. He is supporting that concept, that there is a need for government to promote citizenship. The heritage department already does what it claims is promoting good citizenship with several different programs. I wonder why that is going on. The member had expressed his support for that concept.

Does he believe that local community groups somehow are not capable of promoting good citizenship, that service and cultural groups in the community somehow are not capable of promoting good citizenship? Does he feel there actually has to be a government bureaucracy whose job it is to promote citizenship? Does he have that little faith in the local community to do that?

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate the minister was not willing to entertain questions at this time. I certainly have a lot of questions for her.

This piece of legislation, an act to replace the current Citizenship Act, is dealing with the very important subject matter of citizenship. It is a very personal issue and an issue that most of us feel very strongly about.

It is especially important for new immigrants so that they sense the pride in accepting Canadian citizenship, the feeling of new opportunity that comes with being a Canadian citizen, and the commitment that taking citizenship means and demonstrates to our country, Canada. For new Canadians particularly citizenship is something that is very personal and very important. For that reason the subject matter of this piece of legislation is also very important.

In the time I have been immigration critic for the official opposition I have heard touching personal stories from new Canadians about what it means to be a Canadian citizen. All of us who are not new citizens of the country could be reminded what it really means by listening to our newest citizens. I know many of us feel strongly about being a Canadian citizen, but a reminder from time to time would do none of us any harm.

I will begin by giving a little background material to the bill. The government's stated purpose has been presented by the minister. Bill C-63 was tabled by the minister on December 7, 1998. It is intended to replace the current Citizenship Act. Bill C-63 will be the new Citizenship Act when it passes, hopefully with many amendments about which I will talk in the future.

Bill C-63 has been touted by the minister as the first major reform of citizenship in 20 years. It is an attempt to modernize the act, as we have just heard the minister express. While some parts appear to more clearly define parts of the act than they are defined in the other act, Bill C-63 certainly does not constitute a major modern reform. Critical areas have been neglected while others have been changed in a negative way. I will refer to a few of those in my presentation today.

I congratulate the minister on two points. First, I congratulate her for finally after three years as minister presenting some legislation in her area. Clearly the first piece of legislation should have been major changes to the Immigration Act because the Citizenship Act refers to the Immigration Act in several cases. Because the Immigration Act is clearly in a state of collapse we need new legislation in that area immediately. That should have been the first area dealt with, but I sincerely congratulate the minister for finally bringing forth a piece of legislation.

Second, I congratulate the minister and her department for making the bill an easy bill to read. I am very sincere about this point. Some pieces of legislation are very difficult to work one's way through. This one is not. It is presented in a very clear way. That allows anyone reading the legislation to very quickly recognize that there are many things missing from the legislation. I will talk about some of those.

In way of a general response to the bill, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration tabled its report in 1994, four and half years ago. It was the only committee report that has dealt in a substantial way with citizenship. Many others have dealt with various components of the Immigration Act, but it was the only one that has dealt with citizenship.

Four and a half years later we finally have legislation dealing with the act, but unfortunately it does not deal with many key issues proposed by a committee which is a Liberal dominated committee. With a majority of Liberal members we would think the minister would listen and pay some attention to what the committee put forth.

This unwillingness to change integral parts of the act will result in several things, and there are some very negative things. The court system will ultimately make law in several areas which should be made by the House of Commons and by parliament.

What is left out of the act will in effect neutralize some of the good proposals that are put forth in a very general way by the legislation. In other words, it has been put forth in such a general way and so much has been left to regulation that it is virtually meaningless in many cases. The regulations that will be put forth by departmental officials will determine the impact of the act.

An increase in power is given to the minister in many areas of the legislation. To be fair, I recognize that authority is necessary in some places. I will talk a bit later about one of those areas. Too much power is being given to the minister without the checks and balances required to make sure that no individual will be discriminated against in an unfair way. I am very concerned about that.

Along the same line and by way of general comment, the legislation contains clauses which were incorporated not as the result of an initiative on the part of the minister but due to court cases.

The old legislation was so loose, the court in effect made law, and the minister decided she should at this time incorporate the court decisions in law which she is required to do. An example of a case which is worth talking about shows the extreme unfairness of parts of the old act which led to one of the changes in this bill.

Until recently there remained within the Citizenship Act a discrimination between men and women. Before 1977 certain children would not have qualified for citizenship and under the current act, such children are required by the act to make an application for citizenship and undergo a criminal security check. Children born abroad before 1977 to a Canadian mother would not automatically obtain citizenship but children born abroad before 1977 to a Canadian father need only register their births.

Clearly this was an unbelievable discriminatory aspect of the old bill. Unfortunately, rather than government changing that before 1977 it was changed by the courts and incorporated here by the minister.

For these general reasons and some very specific reasons, the official opposition must oppose this bill unless there is substantial willingness on the part of this minister and this government to accept some substantial and broad amendments. I would hope that kind of co-operation is there between the official opposition and the government and that the government will look at some very substantial amendments that we will be proposing in committee and at report stage.

If those amendments are accepted, then we would only be too happy to support this legislation. However, at this time we clearly cannot accept this legislation in the way it has been presented to us.

I would like to get into the specifics of the act. One of the very serious flaws of Bill C-63 deals with citizenship at birth. Bill C-63 states that all children born in Canada, except those born to diplomats, are automatically citizens at birth regardless of whether either of their parents has citizenship status as a landed immigrant or as a permanent resident.

Recommendation No. 12 of the 1994 committee report states “Children born in Canada should be Canadian citizens only if one or both parents is a permanent resident of Canada”. This statement was made in a House of Commons committee report, a committee dominated by Liberal members of this House, yet the minister refused to accept that recommendation.

It was not only the House of Commons committee that recommended change in this area. In 1997 the LRAG report, the legislated review advisory committee report, outlined the government's awareness of the problems that this clause was causing. It said “In our consultations across the country we heard concerns about the abuse of the provision of the Citizenship Act granting automatic citizenship to children born on Canadian soil”. It was recognized by that committee as well.

Finally, this is the position of the official opposition, and I am going to quote directly from Reform policy. “Reform supports an immigration and citizenship policy that requires children born in Canada to take the citizenship of their parents. Children born in Canada to landed immigrants would assume Canadian citizenship”.

Clearly, there is support from several groups and from many Canadians to not automatically grant citizenship to children born in this country.

During her press conference tabling this bill in December, the minister stated that she made no changes to this clause because there was no research done on how big a problem citizenship at birth really is. She stated that because hospital records do not request the nationality of parents and that changing this would require provincial co-operation, her hands were basically tied in terms of collecting data.

This minister has been the minister for immigration for three years now. Why has the necessary background work not been done so that the minister could have presented in this bill those changes that Canadians are asking for. Her story is that she cannot do anything about it because the research has not been done. It has been four and a half years since the committee reported. Why on earth has the research not been done? I hope the minister will answer that somewhere along the way.

On several occasions the minister has made it clear that she really does understand the abuses that result because of this automatic granting of citizenship. She knows of the case of Mavis Baker which is before the supreme court now. In this case Mavis Baker who came to this country legally and has three children was ordered to be deported by the minister's department.

Because the legislation is so loose and based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child among other things, her lawyer stepped in and said that Mrs. Baker could not be deported. Her deportation order by the department is being overturned by the court. We have not heard the results of this case yet.

I would not be the least bit surprised that because this law has been left as it is, the minister's neglect in this case, that the courts could well determine based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that these children be automatically granted Canadian citizenship due to the law the minister chose to leave the way it is. Because the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child does not allow separation of a mother from her children, the court could determine that this woman cannot be deported.

That kind of law in effect being made by a court is completely unacceptable. Let us have laws in this country made in the Parliament of Canada. It is only loose legislation, improper legislation that allows the courts to make laws the way they have been doing for so long.

The second issue that has been dealt with in this bill and which I want to talk about concerns the requirements for granting citizenship. There are some recommendations in this bill that look good on the surface.

Clause 6(1)(b) of Bill C-63 defines the terms of permanent residence more concisely than does the current act. This was incorporated in response to recommendation 6 of the committee report. The existing legislation may be loosely interpreted. Some individuals have been found to be residing in Canada due to a court case. The courts determined that they were residing in Canada because they had a bank account in this country or because they own property here. Either one of these things would indicate that they were residing in Canada.

The minister said the right words in the bill. She said that we were going to plug that hole. What will be required is 1,095 days or three years of physical presence in this country within a five year period to meet the conditions for applying for citizenship. That change was made. Sadly this change is rendered virtually useless because the minister did not implement recommendation 7 of the House of Commons report.

Recommendation 7 said that measures should be introduced to enable accurate monitoring of periods of time that permanent residents are absent from Canada. There is nothing that provides any mechanism or any rules that would allow for the tabulation that would be necessary under this law.

In effect this piece of legislation is rendered completely useless because the follow-up step has not been done. What will follow will be done behind closed doors by the minister's officials. The minister will approve as she sees fit without any requirement that it be passed by this House. In effect, even a change that sounds good and looks good is rendered virtually useless because it is so loose it is meaningless.

I also want to talk about the blatant patronage. It goes another step that we have not seen for some time. Let us look at the blatant patronage which has been promoted in regard to citizenship judges. Probably one of the most contentious issues of this bill is the continued trend of patronage which has now been put at a new level.

Under clauses 31 and 32 the duties of the current citizenship judges will be handed over to departmental officials at Citizenship and Immigration Canada. We have called for that for some time. That is a good move.

The citizenship judges who are patronage appointees will no longer determine citizenship. That will be done within the department. We have supported that because it should reduce costs, allow some streamlining and lead to some consistency in the rulings among the people who are determining citizenship. That is good.

Instead of just ending the patronage appointments entirely, the minister has created the new position of commissioner. What is the role of these commissioners? They will continue to get paid at the same rate until their terms are up and then they will be reappointed at the minister's will, or some new friends will be appointed. What is their role? Listen carefully because it is unbelievable that this kind of patronage appointment would be put in place. Their role is to promote active citizenship in the community.

Talk to the member from Hamilton, to the Canadian heritage minister about that because that is one of the stated purposes of her department. They had better get it straightened out between the immigration minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage and decide which department will do this.

Most Canadians would say it is not necessary for any department to do this. It is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. Let us stop wasting money in the citizenship and immigration department. Let us stop wasting money in the Canadian heritage department and let the local residents and local community groups promote good citizenship. I know of so many groups that do such a good job of that.

Let us cut this spending entirely. I can sure see the Speaker is agreeing with this completely. That encourages me.

I was going to make several more points about citizenship judges but I think I have made the point. I will go on to the next section which is the granting of citizenship, clause 6(1)(b)(i).

The current legislation allows individuals whose application for permanent residence is approved to count each full day of residency in Canada from the date of application as a half day toward the total needed for citizenship application. That is the way the current act reads.

Bill C-63 removes that provision. As a result applicants will be penalized for bureaucratic delays in the department. Even if these delays are caused through no fault of their own, because of the removal of the provision they will be given no credit whatsoever toward their three year requirement for residency in the country before they are eligible to apply for citizenship.

It is disgusting. Few things disgust me more than when a department acting inefficiently can put that kind of burden on someone who wants to apply for citizenship in this country.

Clearly people who want to become Canadian citizens should not be denied the opportunity to do so in a timely fashion just because of bureaucratic holdups. It is a very sad commentary on this part of the bill.

There were some changes made regarding adoption outside Canada. Some of these changes seem to be a move in the right direction but they are so loosely defined and the regulation will really determine whether they are effective or not.

Bill C-63 will reduce the distinction between a foreign child adopted by a Canadian citizen and a child born in Canada. Currently a foreign child adopted by a Canadian citizen must first be admitted to Canada as a permanent resident before citizenship can be granted. That is the way it is under the current act. It is currently ensured that the child is sponsored and undergoes medical, criminal and security checks. That is the way the act is now.

This bill will remove those requirements as long as the adoption occurs outside Canada. That causes me great concern. I just cannot wait to get the minister's explanation as to why that has been put in the bill.

The new legislation will make it easier for adopting parents to gain Canadian citizenship for the child, which is good, but Bill C-63 stipulates that in order to allow citizenship to be granted to the minor, the adoption must create a genuine parent-child relationship. This is in response to some abuse we have seen across the country. It is not general abuse but specific people abusing the system by claiming they are adopting while they have other reasons for wanting the young person to come into the country.

Section 43 puts the regulation in place. The concern is that section 43(f) leaves defining the terms of this relationship to the minister's discretion. This legislation fails to provide more specific guidelines and terms with regard to exactly how this will be determined. The legislation is so loose that regulation could make some changes that appear to be positive have no positive impact whatsoever.

There is another area of great concern in this bill. Should this bill pass as is, authority will be given to the immigration minister to redefine the Canadian family if she so chooses. I am referring to clause 43 which grants the minister quite far reaching powers including the right to “specify who may make application under this act on behalf of a minor”. This is not defined in the legislation. It is left to the bureaucrats and the minister.

Clause 43(c) refers to fixed fees. The level of the fees could have a great impact on how this act works. Clause 43(i) defines a spouse for the purposes of this act. It is left to the minister's to define what a spouse is. Should this legislation pass the minister could choose to define a spouse in any way she wants. If the minister feels a change should be made, that change must be made by parliament. It should be made neither by the minister nor by the courts. This legislation opens it up so the minister can freely define what a spouse is.

It is of concern to me that the minister is free to define what constitutes the relationship between a parent and child for the purposes of determining entitlement to citizenship under the provisions of this act. Allowing these issues to be determined by the minister behind closed doors without the oversight of parliament is clearly a very arrogant and insulting thing to do to the Canadian population. I call for the minister to quickly reject this part of the act. I hope it is something she missed as she was reviewing the legislation put together by her department. If changes are needed in these areas and the minister wishes to make them, those changes should be done in parliament and not behind closed doors.

Reform Party policy supports restricting sponsorship privileges to the immediate family members, including spouses, minor dependent children and aged dependent parents. All others should apply for entry through the normal selective process. That is what we and I think many Canadians are calling for.

I will read both citizenship oaths. This is the oath under the current act:

I swear [or affirm] that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

This is the proposed oath contained in this legislation:

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to defend our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.

Am I objecting to the new oath? No. I do not think the new oath is probably all that bad. What I am objecting to is the way this oath was arrived at. This minister is so arrogant that she puts forth her oath and thinks her oath is what the Canadian population should accept. That is arrogance that Canadians will not accept. I believe the minister will be chastised by the Canadian public for doing that.

Clearly the minister has missed an opportunity here. She has missed a tremendous opportunity to have a patriotic debate across this country such as presents itself rarely. She could have called for a debate across the country in this House where Canadians would have the input on the oath and the oath then would truly be the oath of Canadian citizens. It would be an oath supported by citizens across the country.

But no, the minister in her infinite wisdom has determined that she can change that oath unilaterally and to heck with what Canadians want. I am concerned about that.

There will be now a debate on the process of entering this oath and on the oath itself, but it will not be as a result of what the minister has done.

On the language requirement in clause 6(1)(c), the minister stated in her presentation that she has put in place language requirements for those who wish to become Canadian citizens. The clause in question states: “The minister shall on application grant citizenship to a person who has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada”. Further clause 31(7)(3) states that the new commissioners “will be responsible for providing advice and recommendations to the minister on appropriate methods to evaluate citizenship applicants about their knowledge of an official language of Canada and of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship”.

At least the minister will let these citizenship judges who will no longer be judges have their say on what they think the language requirement should be, but clearly the legislation should contain a definition of what the minister believes are reasonable language requirements. The minister has once again ignored her responsibility to make a decision on this issue. She is going to have that made behind closed doors by her departmental officials. Parliament will have absolutely no say in what adequate language requirements are.

While the move sounds like it may be a good move, I have heard from some new Canadians that they do not support the new language requirements or any new language requirements. But probably a majority do.

While this change could have been so positive because nothing has been defined, because everything is left up to regulation, we have not a clue what the minister really means about that. I think that is too bad.

This is the second reading of this bill and we are looking at very general comments. I have kept my comments quite general. There are several other issues I will talk about as we get to report stage. Other members of the official opposition will talk at third reading and in committee as well.

I sincerely hope this minister will pay attention to what she hears at committee, to what she hears from Canadians from across this country. Because the minister did not listen before she presented the legislation, she should now listen to what Canadians really want in this area of citizenship. It is an area that is extremely important to Canadians, a very personal issue and an issue which should be dealt with by Canadians and not by the minister behind closed doors.

I look forward to future debate on this issue from all political parties and hopefully we can make the changes necessary to make something out of this bill, something that Canadians will be able to identify with.