Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was farmers.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as NDP MP for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar (Saskatchewan)

Lost his last election, in 2004, with 36% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Environment March 30th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, a ship called the Wan Lay is on its way from Japan to the port of Vancouver. It is carrying 90 tonnes of toxic military waste containing PCBs and they are bound eventually for northern Ontario.

This waste is from an American military base in Japan, but the Americans will not touch it in the United States because it is too toxic. The Government of Ontario has made it clear that it does not want it in its province either.

Will the Minister of the Environment intervene to stop this shipment of toxic waste from being unloaded at the port of Vancouver?

Hudson Bay Route Association March 28th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Saskatoon I spoke to the annual meeting of the Hudson Bay Route Association and it has a message for the Minister of Transport.

The association is based in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and its members believe we would achieve benefits by making greater use of the port of Churchill.

The only way to move grain and other products to Churchill is by rail, so the association is very interested in anything related to rail transportation.

The association, as I mentioned, wants to send a clear message to the transport minister regarding the Estey Report and its follow up. The message is this: The federal government must maintain the statutory rate cap on the movement of western grain by rail. This is necessary to protect farmers against railway monopoly. Second, the Canadian Wheat Board must retain its current prominent role in the assembly and shipping of grain by rail.

This is what most farmers want, and they want me to send that message to the minister before he makes up his mind on what to do about the Estey report.

The Environment March 24th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, again on the environment, the study by the Pembina Institute shows that the governments greenhouse gas emissions policy is a complete failure.

The government is relying on a voluntary program to have major polluters reduce emissions, but those emissions have actually increased by 7% since 1990. We have to move quickly to put in place programs to encourage the move toward the use of renewable resources. When will the government do something real about supporting a move toward renewable resource use?

The Environment March 24th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's report from the expert panel on Canada's national parks tells us what thousands of Canadians already know, that services in the parks have deteriorated because of the government's chronic underfunding.

The Narrows campground in Prince Albert National Park is one example. The park has struggled to keep the campground open but last winter people were told that this summer there might be no modern toilets or fresh water.

Will the minister commit to putting more money into Canada's national parks so that our citizens can begin to enjoy them once again?

Citizenship Of Canada Act March 23rd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-16, the citizenship act. I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax West.

I am a relatively new member of parliament. I was elected in a byelection last November. I am especially pleased to get up and, for the first time, talk about a subject that is near and dear to my heart.

I have very strong feelings about immigrants and refugees. Like many people in the House, my grandparents were immigrants to this country; on the one side from Germany and on the other from the Ukraine. My family members were farmers and settlers. As I was growing up, we did have a multicultural society for the time, a patchwork quilt in Saskatchewan of a variety of people, mostly from central Europe, in addition to the aboriginal people of course who had lived here for thousands of years.

My wife's family were Mennonite farmers who similarly had a long and interesting history of moving from place to place to place and always making great contributions in whatever place they lived.

One of the strongest experiences I have had with immigrant and refugee people was during the 1973 disaster in Chile when people had to leave their country. Interestingly, many of them at that time were branded as criminals by a regime that was actually criminal. I will have more to say about criminality and immigrants and refugees in a moment. It was clear and remains clear what a great contribution the Chilean community made to Canada. I am very pleased to say, in a personal sense, that some of these Chileans, who I met in the mid-seventies, remain my closest and dearest friends.

In 1979, 1980 and 1981 I worked with the Catholic Archdiocese of Regina. One of the very busy but pleasant jobs that we had was to welcome the Vietnamese boat people who were adrift in the South China Sea and ended up, in some cases, in our country. We co-operated with the immigration department in setting up umbrella agreements so that communities could accept these people.

I also want to mention that perhaps 10 to 15 years after these people came here destitute, and, in some cases, not even the clothes on their backs when they got off the ships, a significant academic study was completed showing that the Vietnamese refugees in Canada had made a very significant economic and social contribution to our country.

Both my wife and I have been involved in refugee work from almost the beginning of our marriage, which goes back many years. We have, in successive times and places, welcomed Central Americans, Iraqis, Iranians, eastern Europeans, Somalis, Eritreans, Bosnians, Africans, particularly from Sudan, and the most recent family we have worked with is an Afghani family who had spent years in refugee camps in Pakistan.

I do believe I have some knowledge on which to speak, although not as much as my wife, but I can tell the House that it is often very worthwhile and interesting to work with people before making pronouncements about what one fears may be their negative contribution to our country. That has been far from our experience.

In a more philosophical vein, I did spend a number of years working for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops who often had things to say about immigration policy and the whole question of immigrants and refugees. I will only mention one point and it is of a theological nature.

I learned, from things that the bishop said about the biblical code of people in countries at the time of Christ and before, how to welcome a stranger. When the stranger came, they opened their tent; they killed the fatted calf; they literally rolled out the carpet. One of the statements the bishops issued while I was working with them on the immigration policy was called “Welcome the Stranger”.

Before I get into more specifics of the bill, I want to mention my political experience, brief as it may be. During the byelection in November 1999, I was pleasantly surprised by the number of immigrant peoples in the riding of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, particularly on the west side of Saskatoon where I was doing my door knocking. When I knocked on the doors of Filipino people, Vietnamese people and people from other countries, I was often welcomed in a way that I was sometimes not at other doors. These people were extremely pleased to be taking some part in the democratic process. I remember various episodes where people told me that it was not only their duty but their pleasure to vote and become involved.

I can remember a Filipino man in particular. When I went to his house in the dark one evening, he invited me in and asked if I was alone. When I said that I was alone, he said “Well, what a wonderful country when you can campaign politically without having to take your bodyguards along with you”. That was the experience that he was bringing to this and that was his view of our country and now his country.

I will summarize by saying that I have great respect, admiration and compassion for immigrant and refugee peoples. This arises out of my family background, my life experiences and my philosophical orientation.

I know that often there is a backlash toward immigrants and refugees. For all the reasons I have mentioned, I certainly do not share that. I try at every opportunity to talk to people about it.

I want to say as well, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre said earlier today, that there is an element of self-interest in our welcoming immigrant and refugee people. He talked about how Canada should think about and decide how many people it wants and what sort of population it wants, and cast its policies in that way. If we look at our past, and he mentioned the time of Sifton when the great west was settled, there was a great openness for people from other countries because we knew that we needed them. I would say that we still need them today and will continue to need them in the future.

If we have any doubt of that, there was an interesting story in the newspaper within the past week about Japan and Korea and how they will have to have fairly massive immigration. Otherwise they will see a loss in population and a shortage of workers, and I would say a shortage of prosperity. That is something which Canada has to look at as well.

This does not mean that it should be completely open ended. We have to have due process. We have to ensure that we do not have queue jumping. We have to do checks to ensure that we are not accepting people with a criminal past into our country.

If I may, I would like to make several specific references to the bill. I have talked about due process. A good number of groups appeared, on a previous incarnation of this bill, to talk about things they thought important, and they made some very good points. I will refer to a few of them.

There is a possibility, the way the legislation is structured, of giving the minister new powers to annul citizenship and broadening measures to revoke it. This means that citizens born outside Canada could lose citizenship, even after many years here, without due process, and in some cases without the right to a hearing.

There are lengthened residency requirements for citizenship. We are concerned about some of these.

There are increased language requirements, imposing more rigorous requirements on applicants for citizenship. This would penalize people who have difficulty learning a new language, and elderly people, often women, survivors of torture.

I could tell the House of the experiences I have had since being elected of immigrants who have come to me who have had great problems one way or another with the language, which creates great problems with the immigration officials.

There will be a certain loss of discretion in citizenship making. Citizenship judges will no longer be the people who make decisions. Frequently it will be civil servants working within specific guidelines. This concerns our caucus as well. We believe that cabinet powers to refuse citizenship are too broad.

We are concerned that business people may find the requirement to live in Canada for three of six years such a difficulty that many may not immigrate to Canada and may take their business elsewhere as a result.

In summary, I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party feel that it is time this bill be brought to bear and that we have new regulations for immigration, but at the same time we have certain concerns with the bill, some of which I have outlined very briefly and others which my colleague from Winnipeg Centre talked about in more detail earlier today.

We would hope to see in committee some changes which would improve this bill and make it more possible for us, perhaps, to support it.

National Parks March 23rd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the report from the panel on the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks repeated what Canadians have known for years, and that is that our parks are in jeopardy.

This summer Canadians want to be greeted by Parks Canada personnel at the gates, to be educated by guides in the parks and to know that there will be water in the showers.

Will this be the vacation memory shared by millions of Canadians or will we see closed facilities and Liberal promises for yet another year?

Overseas Development Assistance March 13th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the recent federal budget comes as a major disappointment to Canadians who care about the poorest of the poor in our world.

The Prime Minister talks big when he travels abroad but under his watch, Canadian overseas development assistance has fallen off dramatically. Canada's target was to provide .7 of 1% of the gross national product to foreign assistance. Under this government we have slipped back to about one-third of that target and the budget does not improve things.

The Canadian Council for International Cooperation tells us that we will be spending a smaller and smaller percentage of GNP on foreign assistance through to the year 2003.

The development needs are enormous in the areas of food, nutrition and agriculture, for basic education and health care, especially for women.

In the budget the government has lost an opportunity to do something really constructive for the poor and the vulnerable in other countries. Canadians are a generous people but the government has not matched their generosity.

Petitions March 1st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions containing hundreds of names, most of them people from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. I might add that I have had many letters from these people and have also met with a good number of them.

These people are petitioning and calling on parliament to immediately rescind the so-called head tax on immigrants and refugees.

In the budget earlier this week the so-called head tax was rescinded for refugees. I have called my constituents to see if they wanted this matter to rest but they have insisted that the head tax also be rescinded for all immigrants.

I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of many people in Saskatoon.

Plutonium Shipments February 28th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the government has repeatedly promised Canadians that there would be no plutonium flown into Canada but in January this promise was broken when American plutonium was flown into Chalk River. Our head offices go south and American plutonium comes north.

This was an act of stealth which occurred without warning or consultation with the people whose health was put in jeopardy. Canadian and American environmental groups say it was illegal and they may go to court.

Will the Minister of Transport commit to an immediate moratorium prohibiting any future shipments of plutonium by air?

Committees Of The House February 25th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to the agriculture committee report, which was just tabled as a result of hearings held in December 1999. I note there was an earlier report in December 1998. These two reports indicate that there is a problem. Members of the agriculture committee understand there is a problem and they want to do something about it.

After reading the report, I agree with much of the analysis and much of the analysis has been provided by the member who just spoke.

The New Democratic Party caucus disagrees strenuously with at least one conclusion in the report. Our agriculture critic, the member for Palliser, tabled a minority report, an addendum to the report, in which he stated that the committee suggests that Canada is so impoverished that it cannot afford to invest in our grain farmers to the same extent as other countries.

The report indicates that Canada cannot compete with the treasuries of these countries. My hon. colleague, the member for Palliser, says that Canada certainly has the financial resources to compete on a comparative basis with the United States and Europe. The problem is that the Canadian government has decided it does not want to compete. We know that it has cut support to farmers since 1993 by roughly 60%, so my colleague in this minority report is saying that we in fact can compete.

We have been on to this issues, as has the Reform Party. The NDP caucus has and will continue to support farmers in rural communities in the ways that they are attempting to put bread on their own tables in addition to putting it on ours.