Gordon Earle

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have found as well that there have been many bureaucratic problems with respect to assisting people to come to Canada. The example the member spoke of with the doctor is one example. I could cite many others as well. Part of the problem seems to be that we have a bit of a separation between the Canadian authorities and the visa officers in the country of origin. Far too often it is almost like never the two shall meet.

We allow a certain amount of independence to the party in the country of origin to make his or her decision and sometimes the accountability aspect of why the decision is made and how it is made is not always there. It is like “We have no control over that decision, that is made by this person here”. If that person gets up on a bad day and does not like the look of the person who is applying for the visa or whatever, the applicant may never get here. Those are issues that we have to work on.

With respect to getting people here to work in various jobs, as the member mentioned with regard to the farm industry, we have to be mindful of the cultural differences as well because it may be that a person coming from another country needs a cultural adjustment before working in a given type of operation. As I mentioned, quite often people coming from another country will have training for a certain profession and ideally it would be nice if work could be obtained in that profession. Those are areas we have to work on.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak, along with my colleagues from Winnipeg Centre and Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, to this very important topic of citizenship.

It has been mentioned that citizenship is something which all Canadians hold very dear to their hearts.

A number of problems come through my constituency office around immigration issues and the difficulties people have in coming to Canada. Quite often there are a lot of bureaucratic entanglements before they can get here.

I think of one situation in particular of a young man who had married a young lady from his home of Lebanon. He had been separated from his bride for almost a year and was still encountering difficulties in bringing her to Canada. I was able to get involved in that case and help move it along to the point where she eventually was admitted to Canada.

Shortly after that, he and his wife and their family invited me and my wife to a party they were having to celebrate this occasion. It was a wonderful experience to be in the midst of the party with so many relatives, young children and older people, all having a wonderful time. They were enjoying the hospitality and friendship of each other. My wife and I looked at each other and thought it was a shame that people have to go through such difficulty before they can come together to enjoy each other.

That is why it is important that the whole issue of immigration and citizenship be looked upon very seriously and dealt with in a way that will show respect for our fellow human beings and enable us to enjoy each other's company.

With respect to the bill, some of our concerns have already been mentioned. I want to touch upon a couple of issues concerning citizenship which I think are very important.

Clause 21 of Bill C-16 would introduce a new power to permit the governor in council, upon a report from the minister, to deny a person's citizenship “where there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not in the public interest for the person to become a citizen”.

We have some concerns about that. That power would not only be new, it would also represent somewhat of a conceptual change from the present law. Under the present law citizenship is seen pretty much as a right more so than a privilege. It is a right which all people should have, provided that the objective criteria have been fulfilled. The new provision would put the whole question of citizenship into the area of a privilege which would be conferred upon people. The question of the definition of public interest is not really clarified in the legislation. We do not know what is meant by public interest and what will be used to deny citizenship to an individual.

In order to trigger this section of the bill the minister would be required to provide the person concerned with a summary of the contents of the proposed report to the governor in council. The person would then have 30 days in which to respond, in writing, to the minister. If the minister proceeded with the report and the governor in council agreed, the latter would order citizenship to be denied.

The decision of cabinet—and this is the part we want to look at very carefully—would not be subject to appeal or review by any court and would be valid for five years. This order would be conclusive proof of the matters that were stated in the report.

We have a situation where cabinet could decide, for various reasons which are not clearly amplified in the bill, that in the public interest someone is not fit to be granted Canadian citizenship and there would be no appeal. That gives a very big power to refuse citizenship on the basis of a public interest which could be defined in any way, shape or form. We have a lot of concern about that.

We are also concerned about the citizenship commissioners. The new bill would introduce a major change in the way citizenship applications are dealt with. Many citizenship judges are doing an excellent job and I commend them for their dedication to their task.

I have had the opportunity to attend in my riding many of the citizenship courts and to witness firsthand the excellent job which these citizenship judges do in imparting to the new citizens the joy, responsibilities and obligations involved in being a Canadian citizen. I want to commend the many citizenship judges throughout our country for the fine work they do.

Under Bill C-16 we find that these judges would be replaced by citizenship commissioners. Their duties would be full time or part time and they would be appointed by the governor in council during pleasure. Again, the words “during pleasure” cause us a bit of concern. That is something which should be looked at very closely. We really should not make change for the sake of making change if there is no rationale behind changing the citizenship judges and the fine job they do to a new system. I am not sure we would be moving forward in a very positive way.

It is also not clear how the advisory side of the commissioner's mandate would be accomplished under the bill, nor why the commissioners would be particularly well suited to provide such advice. Again, this is something that causes us concern and we feel it should be looked at very closely.

There are a number of things upon which I could elaborate, but I would conclude by emphasizing that from my experience the whole process of a person coming to our country, having the right to citizenship and going through the process which moves them into that status is very, very important.

I have seen many new citizens who exude a sense of pride and a sense of happiness when they are declared Canadian citizens. I have been at the ceremonies where tears fall from the eyes of many of these people as they are welcomed into Canadian society. As we do that, we are certainly saying something about our society, about the openness of our society, about how we feel that people have an obligation to share one with the other and about how we have an obligation to support these people. That is an aspect I would want to emphasize as well.

When we look at citizenship we cannot just dwell on the responsibility of those who are receiving citizenship, we must dwell upon our own responsibility to provide the kind of support mechanisms that are necessary to new Canadians.

When I come to Ottawa and I get in a taxi to drive to the House of Commons, many times I am being chauffeured by someone who is a new Canadian, someone from another country. When they tell me about their background, their experience and their qualifications in their home country, I ask myself why they are driving a taxi. Why are they not working as an engineer, a lawyer or a doctor? We have to look at that aspect of citizenship as well, as to how we treat our new citizens.

The other day I had a young man, who was originally from Africa, talk to me about the difficulty he is having getting a job in Nova Scotia. As we talked it became very clear that this young man had a university degree from one of our own institutions, yet he was having difficulty getting a job.

We have to look at some of the barriers that we place in the way of our new citizens who have obtained the desired status of Canadian citizenship.

We all have an obligation and a responsibility to work on this matter in the best interests of each and every one of the new citizens and to do the best we can to make them truly welcome and truly proud to be Canadian citizens.

[Racial Discrimination, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw attention to the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which was declared officially by the United Nations in 1966. Subsequently, Canada was one of the first countries to show its support.

In the Halifax regional municipality this day will be celebrated by the 5th Annual Harmony Brunch, an event held to reflect on the problems created by racism and to look ahead to the elimination of racial discrimination.

Over two years ago the Halifax regional council adopted a community and race relations policy to ensure that residents from the many diverse communities in the area had equal opportunity to develop their potential.

Today may we all reflect upon the importance of eliminating racism, not only by policies and actions on the part of all levels of government but also by the attitudes and actions which we take individually as we interact daily with each other.

[Foreign Affairs, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the 51st state of the U.S., according to a top U.S. defence official. The U.S. is preparing to deploy a national missile defence system, violating the anti-ballistic missile treaty and angering and provoking other powers, and it expects this government to play ball.

Will the government say no to another arms build-up, no to supporting the U.S. missile defence system and insist that this entire matter be brought before the United Nations? Or, is the government indeed comfortable with being called the 51st state?

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's comments regarding our motion and the health care system.

He talked about the importance of pharmacare, home care and community care. I would be the first to agree that those are very important aspects of our health care system. I am wondering if the hon. member has any comments as to why the government would not have given something very concrete in providing assistance or resources for those areas of concern.

I realize the budget has indicated that further down the road there will be discussions with the provinces around some of these issues. Knowing that the budget was coming up and knowing that health care was the number one priority of Canadians right across the country, I am wondering why we are looking further down the road. Why could there not have been some leadership taken prior to the budget to establish a very clear indication of the resources that would be available to assist provinces with these very important areas of concern?

It sounds as if this is an afterthought, something left hanging out there, something that is up to the provinces to initiate. I would suggest that the federal government has the responsibility to show leadership and make sure there is a good national standard of health care right across the country. Leadership should be taken by the federal government to ensure that those kinds of programs are put in place and are properly resourced.

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the health care system was not just about dollars, that it was about more than dollars, that it was about the value Canadians hold. This motion is about the value of our publicly funded health care system. I am sure many Canadians right across the country were looking to the budget to support that system and to give some real meaning and input into it.

I had the honour of meeting with several people in my constituency last week regarding mental health issues. There was quite a cross-section of people representing various interests including the police, young peoples associations, community mental health workers, doctors and so forth. The one common concern that came out of this meeting was the lack of resources to provide adequate health care for those suffering from mental illness.

When we refer to the values that Canadians hold, they can be of no value unless we attach value to the health care system and support it with the proper resources. What would be the hon. member's comments in this regard?

Many of our seniors have difficulty with the high cost of drugs and dental care. A gentleman asked me the other day if I could get the federal government to provide some kind of dental care program so seniors could meet the high cost of having their teeth looked after. These are small things to people, but they are all part of Canadians taking control of their lives. People feel they have lost control and that control is being put more and more into the hands of the private for profit corporations and companies. Would the hon. member comment on my remarks?

[Senate, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in October I raised the issue of the terrible situation facing visible minorities in the federal public service. I pointed out at the time that the Canadian Human Rights Commission noted that there was a decrease of 501 visible minorities in permanent public service jobs in 1998. Of the 28 executive positions filled from outside the public service, a grand total of zero were visible minorities.

The minister responded by claiming that the government had been “working for years to increase the number of people of visible minorities working in the public service”. It is now four months later, and we have still seen no action.

This month is Black History Month. The Liberal government has taken no major concrete action this month or since its election to address the representation of blacks or other visible minorities within the federal public service.

In about one month from now I expect the task force on the participation of visible minorities in the federal public service to table its report with the President of the Treasury Board. On behalf of all Canadians seeking fairness, justice and equity, I challenge the Liberal government to act quickly and with integrity when the report is tabled. The report may very well call for specific quotas and targets to be met in the short and medium term.

While there are legitimate concerns with quotas, I fear that the Liberal government has let racism and discrimination in the federal public service become so out of control that such short term measures are the only way to begin to address the extent of the crisis.

I am appalled that the government has chosen to exclude those designated as permanent residents who are not Canadian citizens from the available rate established for visible minorities. Our Canadian community includes visible minorities, many of whom are permanent residents but not yet Canadian citizens.

It is outrageous and inexcusable that the Liberal government treats these people as statistical pawns in an ill fated effort to make the numbers look better. The Liberal government can also take action to improve the current accountability mechanisms used by departments with respect to staffing and equity.

While the Canadian Human Rights Commission does very good work, it should not fall upon it to undertake employment equity audits or complaints investigations. Surely simple logic would suggest that the government has an obligation to people of colour and to all Canadians to ensure there is accountability that works.

The accountability mechanisms must ensure that non-complying departments and agencies can be dealt with and forced to comply. Will the government also ensure that the increasing number of hirings done through acting appointments and secondments are subjected to the same scrutiny and considered part of the analysis of hiring shares which are used by the government to determine participation rates from various sectors of society?

I also encourage the Liberal government to no longer hide from the issue of the participation of visible minority women. I challenge the government to develop concrete plans out in full view of the public to increase the participation of visible minority women in non-traditional occupations. Is the government even aware that the proportion of visible minority members entering the female dominated administrative support category is at 40%?

In closing, should the Liberal government finally agree to meet the challenge posed by racism and discrimination in the public service by actually coming forward with a plan, I encourage the government to work closely with its elected employee representatives.

[Black History Month, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to celebrate Black History Month and to extend congratulations to Brad Barton, a fellow black Nova Scotian who will be receiving the Order of Canada.

The history of Nova Scotia and all Canada reflects the tremendous contribution by black Canadians from all walks of life and often against incredible odds.

Black History Month, also know as African Heritage Month, has been celebrated in North America since 1926. These celebrations mark the contributions made by black Canadians through exhibits, informative lectures, cultural events, political activities, recognition ceremonies for distinguished black Canadians and many other events.

I encourage as many people as possible to participate in black history and African heritage events wherever they occur throughout the country.

I was pleased recently to attend an event to honour African-Canadian veterans and other blacks in uniform. I am looking forward to participating in an upcoming discussion forum on the state of anti-racist education in Nova Scotia public schools.

I hope the government seizes upon the spirit of Black History Month to address the serious shortcomings in the role of blacks in the federal public service so that we may have even more—

[Committees Of The House, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. It is very important that the government reassess its objectives for our Canadian military. I am sure we have to look at our role internationally. However, I have various concerns about our role in NATO and how we quite often blindly follow what the U.S. proposes for NATO.

At the same time, I feel it is very important that our military have proper resources and that there be sufficient funding to support the quality of life issues in terms of housing and pay issues, which our committee looked at and strongly supported. We know we have asked them to go further and further abroad into missions but when they come back home there is not the kind of support they need, particularly when they are suffering from medical ailments.

Does my hon. colleague not feel it is very important that there be sufficient funding for the military to support those quality of life issues and support the acquisition of badly needed search and rescue equipment so that our military will be able to properly perform most functions, both domestically and abroad?

[Veterans Health Care, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise tonight to speak to this motion, which I think is a very important motion. I want to commend my hon. colleague from Edmonton East for bringing forward his concern for the well-being and the health of our veterans.

We in the NDP support the motion. We think it is very important that there be national standards for veterans' health care.

National Defence, as we know, comes under federal jurisdiction and we feel that the federal government must not abandon its responsibility to ensure that those who defend our country receive quality health care.

Unfortunately, this is not happening at present. We all know the many stories, and we see them coming forth daily, of our military personnel who are returning home from missions abroad: the gulf war, Somalia, various other missions. These people are ending up suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, depleted uranium and so forth.

What we see is a state of denial by DND with respect to even giving these veterans the benefit of the doubt that their illnesses may have in fact been caused by something that happened while they were overseas.

I will speak for a moment on depleted uranium. I attended a briefing today where DND again attempted to indicate that there was no real serious concern about this material, no danger in this and that there was no evidence to support this. However, this seems to fly in the face of the very real evidence that we see from the people who are suffering and have been exposed to this material.

I will remind the House of what Dr. Rosalie Bertell, a famous epidemiologist, had to say about depleted uranium. She said:

DU is highly toxic to humans, both chemically as a heavy metal and radiologically as an alpha particle emitter which is very dangerous when taken internally.

Upon impact, the DU bursts into flames. It produces a toxic and radioactive ceramic aerosol that is much lighter than uranium dust. It can travel in the air tens of kilometres from the point of release, or settle as dust suspended in the air waiting to be stirred up by human or animal movement.

It is very small and can be breathed by anyone from babies and pregnant women to the elderly and the sick. This radioactive and toxic ceramic can stay in the lungs for years, irradiating the surrounding tissue with powerful alpha particles. It can affect the lungs, gastrointestinal system, liver, kidneys, bones, other tissues and renal systems.

She goes on to say:

It is most likely a major contributor to the Gulf War Syndrome experienced by the veterans and the people of Iraq.

We know that after the war Iraq experienced explosive rates of stillbirths, children born with defects, childhood leukemia and other cancers and, in particular, near the Basara region where these shells were fired.

I think we have to look seriously at the situation concerning depleted uranium and not put our heads in the sand and try to pretend that it does not exist.

However, we do see that there is a constant state of denial by the department to connect any of the symptoms experienced to depleted uranium or to the missions that our soldiers have been on.

Now, after a lot of pressure, a lot of studies and so forth, the government has finally agreed to do some testing of the veterans for depleted uranium. Even then, I have some concern that the testing may not be as thorough, as impartial and as complete as one would like because the talk today was only about the testing of urine. However, if we want to have any faith restored in our military and in the capability of the government to support our men and women when they return home, we must take an impartial look at this whole situation.

Another example of why we need some high standards of health care for our veterans is the case of the former Sergeant Kipling, a veteran with 26 years experience. Eight years ago he refused to take a vaccine when it was administered before the gulf war conflict. What did he get for this refusal? He got a court martial. He refused the vaccine because he was concerned about his health and about the effects of the vaccine, which has not been approved in Canada for general use. He had many questions surrounding its safety and his well-being, yet rather than getting support, he was court-martialled.

Let us look at those individuals who do not come under military health care. Those of us who come under the provincial health care system do not find ourselves faced with these problems. We do not have to accept medicines or vaccinations that we do not want to take. However, this is the case in the military.

If the federal government does institute national standards for health care with maintenance and special needs provisions, as indicated in the motion, it may indeed have a problem having such standards agreed upon by all the provinces, particularly if the federal government does not restore the funding that has been cut from the health care system. If there is going to be a standard of health care there has to be sufficient funding to meet that standard.

We all know that there have been billions and billions of dollars cut from the health care system to the point that even our provincial health care systems are struggling today. People are waiting in long lineups in hospitals. People are not able to get the kind of care that they should get because of the funding crisis in the health care system.

Even if we did agree to national standards for our veterans, there is still a problem in that regard if there is not sufficient funding coming forward.

The motion talks about having these standards agreed upon by all provinces before devolving responsibility to any province for any portion of care. I would point out that the federal government is extremely good at devolving responsibilities to other levels of government or to other parties without first putting the things in order that should be put in order.

Let us look at the example of the Halifax International Airport. That airport was eventually passed down to the Halifax Airport Authority without the federal government first accepting responsibility and cleaning up the environmental hazard due to the pyritic slate in the area. This was a very important issue that should have been resolved before the transfer took place. However, the federal government put the authority in a position that it had to take it or leave it in the final bargaining. The authority had to finally accept what should have been the responsibility of the federal government, which was to clean up the hazard before devolving the airport down to the authority.

Again, I would have that kind of concern with national health standards for our veterans. We should work these things out in such a way that we do not leave the provinces with any responsibilities that should rightly be carried by the federal government.

We can see from the massive cuts that have taken place in our health care system that we are now slowly moving toward a two-tier American style health system. It is time for Canadians to take back control of our country, to take back control of the things we should control.

I recall back to 1993 when the federal government decided to get out of the housing program and pass the responsibility over to the provinces. We now see the results of that where we have many people without homes who are dying on the street. Why? It is because the federal government withdrew from the social housing program. It devolved and put this responsibility down to the provinces and again did not provide adequate funding to maintain adequate shelter for our citizens.

We must be very careful when we talk about the devolving of responsibility and passing it down. The federal government seems to be good at wanting to privatize things, to put them into the hands of the private sector as if they can do so much better than public control.

This is a very important motion that has been brought forward concerning the health of our veterans. It is very important that Canada supports and looks after those who have gone off to defend our borders, to fight in places where perhaps we would not even want to go ourselves, and to carry out jobs that many of us would not want to do. The least we can do is make sure that when they return they are well looked after and that we give them the benefit of the doubt when they are suffering.

I will wind up very quickly by saying again that I commend the member for bringing forth his concern in this motion. I certainly feel that all of us in the House should be concerned about the well-being of our veterans and do everything we can to ensure that their health and safety are carried forward in a very positive way. We should also remember the effect not just on those veterans but on their families, their wives, their children, and the communities in which they live.