Debates of June 7th, 2001

Sir John A. Macdonald Day And The Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand that the second item was also agreed to by all House leaders. It was the approval of a travel request for the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons it is a pleasure for me to rise to debate Bill S-14 is that it is in part reflective of a private member's bill I had in this place in the last parliament which would have formally recognized the birthday of our first great prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald.

I am very pleased to see that one of the great parliamentarians in the other place, Senator Lynch-Staunton, has initiated this legislation and that a very fine parliamentarian in this place, the hon. member for Don Valley West, has chosen to introduce it. He himself is an advertisement for the need for parliamentary reform, that a member with such talents should be stuck in the backbenches. I ask the member to please not include that in his election brochure against the Canadian Alliance candidate next time. However I do believe that members such as he are a very good reason for empowering members of parliament.

I was about to enter the debate by simply commenting on the importance of the bill and how important it is to have a deeper understanding of our history. I was hoping to be completely non-partisan, as is the convention here, but I must say I was disappointed with the intervention of my colleague from Parkdale—High Park for whom I have considerable personal respect.

That speech must have been written by a bureaucrat in the department of heritage and handed to the parliamentary secretary. To suggest that we not pass a bill recognizing our two greatest prime ministers because we are not sure what criteria we should apply is precisely the problem in Canadians not recognizing our history in an appropriate fashion. The bureaucratic notion that the selection of the founding prime minister and the first great Liberal French Canadian prime minister above others is somehow an offence to equality or an offence to standards of political correctness is offensive.

Then we have the idea that we can properly recognize these prime ministers through some Internet program. How did we get on to government connectedness and so on? With respect, the attitude articulated by the parliamentary secretary to the heritage minister reflects precisely what is wrong about the recognition of Canadian history by the official culturecrats in the department of heritage.

That really has me spitting mad because there should be no question at all. We do not need to devise committees of bureaucrats, experts or politicians to say that there are two great and outstanding prime ministers who stand above all others in our early history, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and that they deserve some formal institutional recognition not just of parliament but of all Canadian people. That ought not to be a matter of contention or debate.

Both these prime ministers recognized that Canada was a unique experiment in the history of liberal democracy, that it was in many respects a confluence of our British heritage and traditions with the culture, language and uniqueness of the French faction in North America, and in some respects kept an eye on the liberal republican democratic experiment in the United States.

In that light we can look to how our friends in the United Kingdom and the United States celebrate their heroes. I submit that both these countries have a very vivid and robust understanding of their particular histories, traditions and the great figures in those histories.

One need only walk down the Mall in Washington, D.C., to see the statues and monuments of their great past presidents, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, great generals and figures of American history. They have entrenched the memory of these men, mainly men, who were central in the history of their founding.

Similarly in the United Kingdom one can walk down the Mall in London and in Westminster parliament to see and feel a connection with history and tradition. One can recognize in a very vivid and robust way the central role of the monarch as the central political institution of the United Kingdom. Those traditions are celebrated in many different and vivid ways.

It is regrettable that in Canada, with those examples before us, those examples of our two closest and best friends, we lack that kind of robust celebration of our great historical figures and the great moments in our history.

This is an important bill. Symbols are important, but regrettably we do not maximize the values of our symbols in Canada.

I am sure that if John A. Macdonald or Wilfrid Laurier were to see the motion before us today they would find it ironic and would undoubtedly vote against it, in part because they would see the sort of recognition of mere politicians in a constitutional monarchy as something inappropriate.

However, I do think that these great men, who contributed so much to carve out of the northern half of this wild, intemperate continent a nation as unique as this, deserve our recognition in a very formal way, which this bill would seek to do by recognizing their birthdates on January 11 and November 20 respectively.

A couple of years ago a new think tank called the Dominion Institute conducted a survey of young Canadians to ascertain their familiarity with Canadian history. Regrettably, it found a shocking degree of ignorance among younger Canadians about our central historical moments and persons. In fact, I think fewer than one-quarter of young Canadians could actually name our founding prime minister.

Whatever excuse we have had for Canadian history in the school system has not worked. We need to reinforce national symbols of our history. Through such symbols people will learn what they may not learn in school about the central people and events in our history. That is one reason why the bill should be supported.

I am glad to see that there is a kindling of understanding about the need to revive Canadian history. Jack Granatstein wrote an excellent book entitled Who Killed Canadian History? which is an excellent survey of this issue. The foundation of the Dominion Institute itself was dedicated to reviving an interest in Canadian history. A recent first time publication by Stoddart, Canada's Founding Debates , is a compendium of the founding debates at the time of Confederation. It allows lay people a very accessible window on the debates that founded this parliament and this Dominion.

Let me quote from an intervention by John Macdonald at the legislative assembly on February 6, 1865 in speaking about his plans for this new federation. He said “We should feel sincerely grateful to beneficent providence that we have had the opportunity vouchsafed us of commonly considering this great constitutional change, this peaceful revolution, that we have not been hurried into it like the United States by the exigencies of war, that we have not had a violent revolutionary period forced on us as in other nations. Here we are in peace and prosperity, a dependent people with a government having only a limited and delegated authority and yet allowed without restriction and without jealousy on the part of the mother country to legislate for ourselves and peacefully and deliberately to consider and determine the future of Canada”.

This was, in a way, a modest vision but for a very immodest project, this country. We owe so much to the great and sacred memory of these two men that the passage of the bill is a trifle. I hope that the bill is votable and that all members will support it. I regret that there is one party in this place that has not even submitted a speaker to this bill, which is a reflection of the need for us to reinforce our remembrance of these great figures.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, the question I have been asking was in relation to the selling off of aircraft parts, not that it was done improperly. There was a tender call for the sale. In fact a number of companies received letters thanking them for their participation in the sale of aircraft parts. However the interesting point about the contract was that it was changed or amended after the firm got it. Was it to sell off another handful of aircraft parts? Not so. It was to sell off 10 or 15 jets and something like 40 helicopters.

I equate that to someone calling a tender to sell off used car tires and when all the bids are in and a favourite bidder happens to get the nod, the contract is suddenly amended and he is also asked to sell 40 Buicks and 15 Cadillacs, with the ensuing profit going to that friend.

Perception is reality. Both the perception and the reality here are not very pleasant for one to look at or to read about. It is the type of stuff that governments and politicians should not be involved with. If there is a bidding process, if there is a tender call, then whatever that tender call is we should live with it, not amend and adjust to increase it tremendously for the benefit of perhaps those who get the job, provided they are our friends.

Another concern about the sale is that a lot of the parts were stored in a warehouse in the United States. The people involved with that were also involved in some illegal activity in that country, according to the records. That left many people concerned about the security of the products and whether or not we could end up losing them if the company involved went into bankruptcy.

The minister did not give a clear cut answer to either, but he gave no answer at all to the question as to why the contract to sell parts was amended. I know the answer will be: What is the definition of a part? When we talking about parts we are not talking about Challenger jets or about helicopters. The question mainly that was unanswered is why that contract was amended to include them after the fact.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, on the issues raised by the hon. member, Lancaster Aviation was the company in question which won competitive contracts in 1997 and again in the year 2000 for the disposal of surplus aerospace assets, not simply parts. I recommend the member look at the contract to verify that fact.

The 1997 contract contemplated special project sales such as planes. When such a need arises the contract called for an amendment to be made to legally bind the parties with regard to this special project.

The sale of the surplus aircraft was conducted to the letter of the law and certainly with the interest of Canadian taxpayers in mind. The member is quite right that 40 Twin Huey helicopters were sold to the U.S. department for approximately $20 million U.S. and 8 Challenger aircraft were sold to DDH Aviation of Texas as a result of a competitive tender for approximately $30 million U.S.

Lancaster was paid a fair commission for its services as per the terms of the contract. It is true that Lancaster was using a facility in Florida for warehousing purposes only. The assets were warehoused in Florida because that is where the market is. The assets are not and were not in danger. They are the property of the Department of National Defence and are only in the custody of the contractor. Lancaster is also responsible for the safekeeping of the assets and is fully liable for any losses.

I would close by saying that if the member has any knowledge of any illegalities or allegations of wrongdoing, the appropriate course of business is to refer such matters either to the minister or to the RCMP if that is the nature of the item.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, the question I asked of the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration was about why Canada continues to harbour the criminal elements of the world.

Canadians have read in the newspapers throughout these last few years about the illegal criminals entering the country. Canadians are asking why are we allowing these criminals to enter the country?

Canadians have also heard names like Gaetano Amodeo and Lai Changxing. In fact they have become household names in the country over the last few years. We have put a lot of effort into protecting these criminals who enter the country. While we do this, we put other Canadian citizens at risk. We put Canadian visitors at risk. An example is the Sklarzyk family who was recently deported back to Poland. Who is looking after their rights? Who is looking after the rights of Serge Kisluk? This gentleman passed away just recently.

I would like to quote Marsha Skrypuch from a newspaper article. She is a children's author and met Kisluk while researching a novel about a girl whose grandfather was accused of war crimes. She said that she was appalled at the process that had been used to condemn Mr. Kisluk. She stated:

These are 50-year-old cases, and evidence won't hold up in a criminal court, so they use the immigration rules instead. The reality is that there just isn't enough evidence. Innocent people get hurt. You end up with a bunch of little old men trying to defend themselves against the state.

Who is defending his rights? Who is defending the rights of people like Oberlander and Odynsky? How many criminals are there in Canada? I do not think anyone knows. What we do know is that there are at least 15,000 warrants out for people who are in the country who should not be here. They should have left a long time ago.

We are letting too many criminals through the front door. Why? Because the front door is wide open. The Canadian Alliance has said for a long time that there should be necessary screens put in place to screen out the undesirables so they do not enter the country. Certainly with technology that should not be an impossible task. In fact the standing committee recommended that in its last report to the minister.

In closing, I would say that Canadians support an open immigration policy but not at the expense of national security. The minister, as the auditor general has said in his report, can improve the system without Bill C-11. In fact Bill C-11 would do very little. It would basically penalize the legal migrants and refugees to this country. So instead of just talking about doing the job, I would only hope that the immigration minister would walk the talk.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I would like to deal with the main issue raised by the member.

Obviously he made reference to a specific case which we cannot go into any detail on. However I can assure the hon. member that the processing time for applications for permanent residents is not static. They vary according to how many applications are in the process at any given time and available resources to process them.

I will give an example. In the year 2000, 50% of all the applicants who applied for permanent residence in the business immigration category took roughly 11 months to process. This means of course that some were longer than 11 months and some were shorter. However I can assure the hon. member that in this case the allegations that were brought out concerning Gaetano Amodeo were completely and utterly unfounded.

In conclusion, all members of parliament make representations to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It is our duty to do so when our constituents ask us for some information.

Senators, members of parliament, and even our colleague from Dauphin—Swan River, I am sure, have made representations to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on specific applications.

Last year, we received 40,000 requests for information. In the national capital region, there were in excess of 6,000 representations made, some of them by myself.

That is the role we play, our duty to our constituents, and we play it with the best intentions possible.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.)