Geoff Regan

[Government Response to Petitions, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when my hon. colleague mentioned getting out and shopping, it reminded me of a cartoon in one of the newspapers showing a gentleman at home reading the paper and when his wife arrives with a bunch of boxes he says “So how goes the war on terrorism?” My wife cut out the cartoon and put it on our fridge at home because we both enjoyed it.

I think my hon. colleague is right, in spite of the levity of what happened it is very important for us to return to normalcy. We must get on with our lives and get out and do our shopping. The greatest damage terrorism could cause is if we as Canadians were so terrorized that we stayed in our homes, that we did not go out, that we did not carry on with our lives and that we did not do the things that keep our economy going. We must continue purchasing, working, living our lives and going on vacations.

The vast majority of members of parliament travel on airplanes all the time and I do not think we feel threatened by travelling on airplanes. I think we have very safe airplanes and airports and a very good system that has been improved in the last couple of months. That is very important.

I want to address the concerns my colleague mentioned about the anti-terrorism bill, which of course is not part of today's opposition day motion but I am cognizant that this is an issue we have been hearing about. I know you are aware, Mr. Speaker, as is the hon. member, that the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister have indicated their openness to hearing the views of the committee and members on this bill. It is important we take the time to go through the bill. Obviously there is some sense of urgency but at the same time we do not want too much urgency.

It is important to hear the concerns of members, to debate the bill and to discuss in full the options or perhaps some alternatives to the provisions proposed. The Prime Minister clearly indicated the other day that this government bill was being presented and that it was supported. However it is important to understand that an openness has been declared to hear from the House and members about the kind of things the hon. member has suggested she feels should be included in the bill.

I am certainly looking forward to seeing how this develops as the bill goes forward through committee, through report stage and in the third reading debate before the House.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to comment on the motion before the House. The issue of how we receive and treat refugee claimants at our borders is one that has taken on a different sense of urgency in the wake of the tragic events of September 11.

Throughout the world the terrorist attacks in the U.S. forced a wrenching re-examination of many aspects of life and society long taken for granted. In Canada, as elsewhere, we have been compelled to rethink the ways in which our society functions. We are forced to carefully review and question such fundamental issues as how we protect our society.

Part of the questioning and re-examination has inevitably focused on how we deal with those who come to Canada as refugees.

There is no question that the attacks of September 11 were virtually beyond our capacity to comprehend. How can we make sense of such violence and callous disregard for innocent human life? Yes, we are shocked and horrified by these events but we must not let the terrorists drive us to take actions that result in a turning away from the very values that define us as Canadians.

One of those values is our longstanding commitment to welcome genuine refugees. Who we are as a people and as a nation has been substantially defined by the contributions of those who have come to our shores either as immigrants or as people fleeing injustice and persecution.

Our strength as Canadians is directly tied to the diversity of our society, a society that we have built together. Our world may have become more threatened since September 11 but we must not allow the current situation to lead us toward actions that we will later regret.

How then do we find a balance between ensuring that Canada continues to welcome legitimate refugees while also ensuring the safety and security of our society? That clearly is the challenge before us and the challenge all Canadians want us to grapple with. This balance is reflected in the government's new immigration and refugee protection act, Bill C-11.

Under the new legislation, the refugee determination process would be streamlined and it would enable departmental officials to suspend and terminate the processing of refugee claims where persons are determined to be a security threat. That is a very important change considering what happened last month.

The current Immigration Act authorized detention of a person considered a danger to the public or one who was unlikely to appear for immigration proceedings. Existing authorities also permit the targeted use of detention at a port of entry in cases where an individual's identity is in question or where there are security concerns.

Figures for 2000-01 show that some 8,790, almost 9,000, persons last year were detained under the Immigration Act. These numbers attest to the fact that our officials are being vigilant. We all, nevertheless, recognize the imperative to make our processes work even better.

Bill C-11 would also strengthen authority to arrest criminals and those who pose security threats. In addition, it would eliminate appeal rights in such cases and provide for a streamlined certificate process to remove security threats.

As the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration outlined in her statement of October 12, the government is investing $49 million to strengthen the capacity of her department to do its job. This includes $9 million for additional staff for key enforcement activities like the examination and security screening at ports of entry.

These additional employees will also be carrying out detailed screening of refugee claimants who are already in Canada, along with increasing detention and deportation.

This investment in the safety and security of Canadians is part of an ongoing process. These new resources are in addition to ones identified in the 2000 budget for the citizenship and immigration department, funds targeted specifically for the enforcement program that is so important in this climate and in light of what happened last month.

I draw the attention of hon. members opposite to the $1.8 billion that have been invested by the government in key departments and agencies, such as Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, CSIS and the RCMP, since budget 2000. This investment took place long before September 11, reflecting the government's commitment to provide federal departments and agencies with the tools they need to fight terrorism. This is a fight we must and will win.

The next important step we can take toward that victory is to pass the legislation when it is before the House.

Understandably, Canadians are concerned in these difficult times. We have entered into an era of world events without precedent but we must avoid the temptation to allow our fears to overwhelm us.

As we heard from our leaders, it is important to go out and shop and to go on with our normal lives. I read somewhere, and I think it is true, that the return to normalcy is the greatest affront to terrorism. That is the key. If we want to say no to terrorism, we have to live our normal lives. We have to carry on and be courageous, maybe hug our kids more often. We need to recognize the value and the preciousness of our lives more readily and more completely but we also need to go on with our lives.

Canadians are rising to the current challenge, as they have done in other periods of difficulty and threat, as we have seen too often in the past.

We are firm in our determination to work with the United States and our other allies to overcome the threat of terrorism. We are likewise determined to take the necessary steps that will increase the security of our borders and the safety of our citizens.

The Government of Canada has acted and will act to protect Canadians. Bill C-11 is a major step in honouring this commitment.

I could provide other examples of how this new legislation can and will address the very issues that the opposition has raised in its motion. However how we treat refugees and how we balance refugee claims with the largest security concerns of our society, are matters of fundamental importance. Let us not give the terrorists an additional triumph because we choose to act out of fear. Let us not give in to the temptation to diminish our commitment to welcome legitimate refugees.

The motion before us is neither necessary nor deserving of support. Let us instead stay true to our commitment to compassion and the values that define us as Canadians. Let us show the world that we have become stronger because of the challenge we face.

[Question No. 40—, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 40 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Unicef, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as Halloween approaches it is important for all Canadians to give a little more to ghosts and goblins wearing bright orange boxes around their necks this year.

The United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, or UNICEF, has been helping children of the world for over 53 years. In countries around the globe UNICEF provides much needed food, money and other supplies for children and their families in the worst possible need.

In Afghanistan, for example, there are nearly five million victims of the Taliban who without assistance will become a humanitarian disaster when the cold, hard Afghanistan winter sets in.

This Halloween I would ask all Canadians to be particularly generous when neighbourhood children with UNICEF boxes knock on their doors. Ignorance and poverty breed hatred, and hatred is the true enemy in this campaign.

[The Parliament of Canada Act, October 18th, 2001]

Madam Speaker:

I had rather hear a brazen canstick turn'd... Or a dry wheel grate on the axletree, And that would be me teeth nothing on edge, Nothing so much as mincing poetry.

As much as I am delighted to have a legitimate opportunity to quote Shakespeare in the House, I am dismayed to have to disagree with the bard at the same time, or perhaps disagree with his character. That stanza from Henry IV, act 3, scene 1, takes a view of poetry completely contrary to that of Bill S-10.

I am pleased to be able to speak today about Bill S-10, which would amend the Parliament of Canada Act to create the position of parliamentary poet laureate.

It seems to me there have been many occasions and many poems in which events in history have been immortalized. Contrary to what my friend from the Progressive Conservative Party said, that has happened many times. For instance, I think of the expulsion of the Acadians.

Would we have as vivid an understanding or memory of that event today, which happened so long ago, if it were not for Longfellow's poem Evangaline which immortalized that event so well? Will our descendents, in 200 or 300 years, remember the events of September 11 as well as we do? Obviously, as he said, we will not forget those events; they are vividly etched forever in our minds, in our hearts and in our memories, but how long will they carry on to our descendents?

There is a role for poets in helping to carry on these events and to recognize and immortalize the significance and the lessons of these events for all of us.

It seems to me that there is a role for poetry in so many ways in our lives. It strikes me that, while it is not solely a parliamentary poet laureate who could bring forth poems for particular occasions, nothing in the bill suggests that other poets could not bring forward poems. Surely time, and only time, will tell which poems are the enduring ones, the ones that last and are carried on to other generations, ones that have enduring messages and enduring strength.

The proposed patron of poetry would be responsible for the creation of verse for use in parliament on occasions of state. He or she would also be able to sponsor poetry readings and thereby hopefully improve this veil of tears through which we on the hill so quickly walk.

Parliament exists, according to many, to ameliorate Canada's laws and, through them, Canadian society as a whole.

Over the years, there have been many ideas that have emanated from this place and have gone on to greatly improve the lives of citizens. The government in fact is committed to the cause of lifelong learning. The parliamentary poet laureate would be an excellent addition to this cause.

It seems completely appropriate to me that parliament expand its educational role by having a resident expert wax poetic whenever need be.

The bill before us calls for a poet laureate to be selected for a two year term by the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate. He or she would be chosen from a list of three names submitted by a committee chaired by the Parliamentary Librarian and composed of the National Librarian, the National Archivist of Canada, the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada and the chair of the Canada Council.

The notion of a poet laureate is a longstanding tradition in several other countries. The mother of parliaments, the United Kingdom, has had a poet laureate for almost 400 years. In fact, the position has been a royal office for most of that time.

Our neighbours, the United States, have adopted this practice as well, although much more recently. Their tradition only traces back to 1940, but has an enhanced role. In the U.S., the laureate is charged with increasing the appreciation of reading and writing poetry among the general population.

The Canadian position is proposed to be an amalgam of the two.

Already in Canada there is a provincial example of a poet laureate. In Saskatchewan, my mother's beautiful home province, the laureate exists to demonstrate the province's commitment to the recognition of artists and the arts as a vital force in the community, a force that reaches even into official life.

The provincial poet laureate has worked to celebrate the spirit of the people and places of Saskatchewan. He or she serves as a focal point for the expression of Saskatchewan culture by attending public events, participating in provincial celebrations and writing poems addressing the character, beauty and heritage of the province and its people. We feel it is only fitting that parliament have such a voice.

I am especially delighted to be able to speak to the House today on this topic because my own grandmother, Rose Greene as she was called in her younger years and later became Rose Regan, was a poet in her native Newfoundland. Her work was published in literary magazines in Newfoundland during and after the first world war. She loved to read and write works of poetry. Her poems spoke of her experiences in Newfoundland. That is what poetry does. It is a window not only on individuals but on cultural groups, regions and on all Canadians. It is us speaking about ourselves, telling our own stories in a uniquely expressive way.

Many Canadians would have similar experiences of a loved one or someone in their own community who they know as a poet. The hon. member for Dartmouth is a well recognized poet in our home province of Nova Scotia.

Poetry, like so many other art forms, has not only cultural importance but has a uniting effect. Poets give expression to our deepest beliefs and values, particularly in times of national celebration or difficulty. The ability to craft the written word into something timely but lasting, meaningful but enthralling, engaging but understood, is truly an art. Adding that art to the many other fine examples of Canadian talent found throughout parliament would be a tremendous benefit. It would help us to celebrate our history, our heritage and our diversity. After all, those are the things that make us truly Canadian.

I hope members of all parties in the House will join me in supporting the bill and in seeing it move forward. It is not all that often that private members' bills have the chance to go forward, succeed and become law. It seems to me there is a very good opportunity for this bill to become law and have a real significance and meaning for Canadians, to give a higher place in our country and our society to the role of poetry, the kind of pride of position that poetry ought to have.

We daily use the power of communication here. We use words to express ourselves. Words can be very powerful. When are they more powerful than when in the hands of an expert artisan, in the hands of a true poet?

Words inspire us, they motivate us and they teach us. Poetry does that for us in a way that no other kind of prose can do. I do hope that all members will join me in supporting this worthwhile legislation.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Blood Samples Act, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting in favour of the bill.