Art Hanger

[National Defence, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for seven years the government has watched while the combat capability of our armed forces went into decay.

First the government produced a white paper and then refused to fund the forces to fulfil their missions. Then it began to slash personnel levels to a point where they can no longer even function as a force because they have been overtasked. They had to sell off aircraft and they mothballed ships.

When will the minister acknowledge that the infusion of $2 billion over four years is not enough to stop the bleeding or avoid the eventual collapse of the Canadian armed forces?

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Motions Nos. 4 and 5 which are before the House. The proposed legislation that is outlined should be addressed to its fullest. It is quite significant when certain groups of people can be excluded from the advantages of our legal system. Not that I say our legal system is all that great, but if there is an entitlement there should be an entitlement. It means having access to legal opinions of the courts of our country as citizens and another group not having that access. We will support Motions Nos. 4 and 5.

The proposed legislation does not allow individuals equal access to the legal system in spite of the fact that they may be granted citizenship. Even if there were fraud I think there is entitlement. I find it passing strange that this provision is in the bill when a judgment was made in the Supreme Court of Canada in 1985 which declared that refugees have complete and total access to our legal system . That was under the Singh decision.

First they were allowed or permitted an oral examination. Then a process was set up which I think was unnecessary, but be that as it may we have it right now. It could be changed. A process was set up whereby they could fight the matter in the tribunals, in the courts, all the way up to the federal court and tie up the courts for long periods of time fighting cases to which there is never any conclusion, except the federal court will say whether or not they are refugees.

Then it goes through the tribunal process again with the legal minds jumping into the fray. The lawyers all line up, just like they were when the Chinese boat people ended up lined up on a dock on the west coast wanting to fight their cases. They knew there was a legal entitlement and a battle to be fought.

Yet we have provisions in this bill that even though citizenship is granted and then for some unknown reason fraud is found or misrepresentation determined they are not permitted to fight the case on legal grounds.

There is an irony in this part of the bill. On the one hand we see abuses taking place within the immigration process where those fighting their cases with legal representation are caught up in a whirlwind. They are constantly going around and around with nothing ever being resolved. This costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and in fact billions over time.

That is acceptable, but on other other hand someone who may have committed some act is still entitled to legal representation by the mere fact that he or she has been granted Canadian citizenship. Is that not somewhat of a paradox or a contradiction? I think it is a contradiction.

Even a judge listening to a case, despite the fact there may have been fraud or there may have been suspicion of misrepresentation, could make a decision on whether there is fraud and could say that the individual after being found guilty is no longer entitled to legal representation. It is clear that she or he has committed fraud, and everybody goes on his way. However that is not what the bill provides.

There are lawyers sitting across the way. It is odd that we do not hear too much from them. Many times there are charter arguments surrounding the issues of which we speak, but there has been substantial silence on that side of the floor. I find that passing strange.

The point in question is the issue of citizenship. My hon. colleague from the Vegreville area, the critic for immigration, put it quite eloquently. Once citizenship is granted it must be assumed to be genuine. Once it is revoked then another matter must be dealt with such as deportation.

There is no mention of that in the bill at all. We deport people who commit fraud, who lie, who misrepresent. That is not even mentioned in the bill although I would assume there are provisions in another part of the act which might deal with that. When there is a violation of the law as blatant as a misrepresentation or a fraudulent application, it should be spelled out here that a course of action will be pursued against the individual. It all comes back to the fact that there should be an entitlement to fight the case and to present the evidence. It has to be adversarial.

Unfortunately that side of the House has either overlooked this point or maybe wants some other legal entanglement which will take off in a new direction in our courts. The Immigration Act is fraught with all kinds of weak areas that continually require argument in our courts and tie up our courts.

It is about time we had some good, clear policy and legislation that can be easily interpreted without the courts so that everyone knows where he or she stands. When there are arguments, which would be fewer by far, they could be settled in the federal court. I find the whole proposal lacking. On the other hand, my colleague, the immigration critic, has addressed those issues in Motions Nos. 4 and 5, and I fully support them.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again speak on immigration issues. It has been some time I dare say since I held the portfolio of immigration critic.

I suppose, when we analyze it, not a whole lot has changed as far as cleaning up some of the problems within the immigration ministry as it reflects down to the immigration offices located in the various regions of the country, right down to the communities.

The first group of motions deal with a burning issue for a lot of people in our country, both for immigrants and those who were born here. Many of those immigrants who arrived years back, and even some more recently, struggled to reach the level required to be admitted into the country. While they were happy to have been accepted, they continued to struggle to meet the requirements of citizenship.

Another issue that has always been of concern to both them and others who have been established here for a long time, is the issue of children being born to visitors in our land and being granted citizenship at that point.

The minister is well aware of that particular issue. She was aware of the issue when she took office. The previous immigration minister was also aware of the issue when she took office, and so on down the line. I could go all the way back to when Sergio Marchi was the immigration minister. He was very well aware of the issue of children being born in Canada to parents who were not Canadian citizens but visitors. Each one claimed that they would look at the issue. They also agreed that it was an issue to a degree, but that they needed to know how important it really was.

When I served as the immigration critic, the matter came forward and the immigration minister at the time was going to examine the problem to see how significant it was; in other words, collect some data and make a decision. That was good because that was the way it should be done. In his two years in that portfolio he did absolutely nothing. I do not know if he even collected any data even though it was not very difficult to collect that kind of data. That has been the case with every Liberal immigration ministers since I have served in the House.

It is shameful to think that a minister or ministers procrastinated, stalled, refused and ignored those requests raised by both the opposition and Liberal backbenchers. I am sure there are members in the government who have raised this issue with their specific ministers. I do not think that is the response that should be coming from a minister.

I know the present minister stated that she made no changes to this clause because there was no research done on how big a problem the citizenship at birth issue really was. She further stated that hospital records do not request the nationality of parents and changing this would require provincial co-operation. Why does the minister not take a little trip over to the city of Vancouver? It is well known that a hospital there is a target for those visiting this country to do that very thing, to register their births in that hospital and with the province. One hospital in particular handles a number of them.

If the minister was truly concerned about collecting data, and I believe that the data is already there, she would make that effort and do it forthwith. Obviously, she does not want to do that. She does not want to question status quo immigration policy.

I have a problem with that. We must question status quo immigration policy. We have an immigration document or an immigration code that gets thicker every year. We bring in more and more legislation but none of it really corrects the problems that exist. If it is poor legislation or inadequate legislation, why are we here? Is it just so we can add to the immigration act year after year?

I have to shake my head at the ministers sitting across the floor who do not seem to want to correct some of the major or glaring issues of the day, specifically the immigration policy which is often generated from legislation. This is a great shortfall and there are series of flaws in the process and in the legislation. That it does not address serious problems concerns a number of Canadians. I will make the reference again. When I say “a number of Canadians”, I mean those who have come here as immigrants and have had to wait and wait in line and those who were born here.

I am in a quandary on how to get a point across to that side of the House on very significant issues which have been expressed time and time again and are of concern to Canadians in general. There has been no action taking place over there in spite of the fact that it has been raised numerous times. We have had five immigration ministers since 1993, the length of time reform and now the alliance has been in the House.

The government pointed out that it likes consultations. I can remember as an opposition critic for immigration that we were involved in consultations. The consultations consisted of dropping around to various spots in the country and talking to people in the department, to advocacy groups, to lawyers and to consultants.

We had consultation after consultation. Yet shortly after all the consultations took place, lo and behold an interdepartmental survey landed on the desks of several opposition members. That survey clearly outlined all the problems within the immigration department and even recommendations on how to fix them. There were not only serious breaches of policy but serious flaws within the act and how it was carried out.

I rest my case. The bill before us is inadequate. The issues of concern to most Canadians will not be addressed.

[National Defence, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, a report released this week claims spousal abuse at military bases is being covered up. This is a very serious allegation. I believe statements like those offered in the report would require immediate reaction on the part of the government. The report obviously is based on specific cases of abuse.

My question is for the defence minister. Will the government investigate any of the specific allegations of abuse made or referred to in the report?

[National Defence, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it seems every time the minister is asked about the Sea King replacements he says that the decision is coming soon. Those words are beginning to ring hollow. In fact they have been ringing hollow for seven years now and with this particular minister three years and we still do not have any Sea King replacements.

The truth of the matter is that this government has politicized the procurement process and has paid no attention to the needs of the military.

How much more embarrassment and unnecessary danger must our armed forces endure before the government acts to replace the Sea King helicopters?

[National Defence, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is unable to find the words that would reflect the government's inaction regarding the replacement of Sea King helicopters.

We heard again today empty assurances that the defence minister will replace the ageing Sea Kings. There are no deadlines and no timelines. It has been seven years.

How much longer will Canadian military personnel have to bum rides from our allies to get the job done?

[Victory In Europe Day, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on this anniversary of Victory in Europe Day we reflect on the courage of our war veterans who fought so that we could be free. It is also necessary to acknowledge some veterans who were abused and forgotten.

For years, some military personnel were used as guinea pigs by the Department of National Defence for mustard gas experiments. This is a source of national shame, a tragic example of bureaucratic immorality and a story of human suffering. Yet the government has never apologized to those it deemed fodder for chemical warfare tests.

The government finally acknowledged the assault that was committed on the lives of these men in a Suffield ceremony on May 5, 2000, but many are still battling for some form of compensation. This is outrageous. Not only should these experiments never have happened, but the victims should not have to fight veterans affairs today. Surely they have suffered enough indignity, personal loss and injustice.

[National Defence, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the defence minister a question in reference to the commitment of troops by the Prime Minister to the buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon.

The Israeli officials warned Canadian officials about Hezbollah terrorist attacks on any UN peacekeepers that may fill that zone. How many Canadian troops will be committed and how long will they be committed for?

[International Organizations, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion submitted initially by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and amended by the member for Surrey Central. To refresh everyone's memory, I will read the amendment:

—should continue and intensify efforts with other nations to develop multilateral initiatives in order to strengthen the capacity of international organizations (e.g. International Monetary Fund, World Bank and United Nations) to enable them to identify the precursors to conflict and improve their conflict prevention capabilities.

I want to reflect on the comments of the mover of the motion about the road map to conflict prevention. I will reiterate the three main points and elaborate a bit on them.

The first was to establish an early warning centre, a spot somewhere in the world where information could be gathered and analyzed and then a conclusion reached. He suggested a spot in Canada.

This would lead to the second point, the need to have a series of responses. Those responses would be integrated and involve diplomatic, economic and military initiatives.

The third point the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca raised on this road map to conflict prevention was the economic issues. The economic issues involved the IMF, the World Bank and multilateral foreign aid agreements. They would be co-ordinated in some effort so that pressure would come to bear on those individuals or groups of individuals who were placing undue abuse on their fellow countrymen.

I will go back again to the first point on the early warning centre. When we think about the need in society, this is quite an initiative. There are something like 33 conflicts raging right now in the world which fit into the category of need of some sort of analysis and response. There are 33 conflicts where human rights are being abused and violence is being meted out to individuals and groups of individuals. Torture is taking place and polarization between different ethnic groups within areas of conflict.

If a conflict is raging it would require a co-ordinated response. Certainly there have been co-ordinated responses in the past. Unfortunately sometimes they are not as rapid as they should be. Canada, in particular, could very well play a significant role in bringing some co-ordinated efforts together to deal with conflicts where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed or where there is potential for hundreds of thousands of people being killed.

We do not have to reflect too far to look at areas like Ethiopia, Liberia and Sierra Leone. There is a conflict raging right now in Sudan. No one is involved but it is being monitored. I can see Canada playing a role in the diplomatic, economic and military initiatives.

I am going to touch on the military initiative. To look after a military initiative where a conflict is raging, one would need a rapid response combat capable force, not one that will take weeks and months to put into the field but one that will take a few days. A ground force would be ready to act, if necessary, but it would be combat capable. It would be capable of being in a medium intensity environment with fire power that goes beyond hand held weapons.

Canada should build its military up to that point. However we do not fall into that category at this point in time. We have some heavy armament but not nearly enough to respond quickly. It is really unfortunate that we do not have heavy lift or rapid reaction capability at this point.

The third point is economic clout, a co-ordinated effort that the IMF and the World Bank could use against groups of individuals who are bent on human rights abuses.

[Petitions, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present today.

The first set of petitions, which contains 786 signatures, calls upon parliament to enact legislation to establish a pedophile registry.

The second group of petitions contains 249 signatures. The petitioners seek the protection of the communities and children in our country and ask parliament to pass legislation to prevent the release from lawful custody of anyone convicted for a second time of a sexual offence against a minor person.

The third set of petitions contains 75 signatures. The petitioners call upon parliament to eliminate the right of a convicted pedophile to be let out of jail on bail pending an appeal. This would thereby ensure the protection and safety of the victims and the community from a convicted sexual offender.