Art Hanger

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

What ghosts? The ghosts of abuse?

[Heroism, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to applaud the bravery and remember the young lives of two Calgary students who are now assumed dead after trying to save a drowning women off the coast of California.

David Elton and Brodi McDonald, both 17, jumped into the ocean off Black Sands Beach about 200 kilometres north of San Francisco to save Barbara Clement. The Calgary woman had been swept into the sea by a large wave.

David and Brodi both attended William Aberhart School. These youths represent the courage and desire to help others in need, which has been a longstanding national characteristic of Canadians.

Our hearts go out this afternoon to the families of the loved ones of everyone affected by this tragedy. May the selfless determination and heroism of these young men be remembered.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I could go on for some time when it comes to the issue of accountability. It has been a concern to the Canadian people for a long time.

What are the priorities on this side of the House? I do not care whether the member is looking at EDC money, HRDC money, CIDA money or any other department where money is allotted, what are the checks and balances in the system that would allow for that money to be spent in a fair and equitable way? Unfortunately that does not exist on that side of the House.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's question and it deserves a very direct answer.

The member is wondering where the money will come from. Why does he not ask the HRDC minister how she has such a handle on her department? One place we could certainly address as far as waste and abuse is the HRDC department. To whom does all the billions of dollars go?

I see a great need in the country for enforcement all the way around. Both the RCMP and the military have suffered greatly at the hands of the Liberal government. They barely have an identify left. The military, the RCMP and other enforcement agencies in Canada have been starved of funds and the member dares to ask what more the government can do.

Accountability and priority are the keys. What is the priority? We have a need for security. We live in a global environment with a lot more threats. Where better to spend money than on our military and our enforcement agencies in the country?

The member should look carefully at what his own cabinet is doing when it spends money. He should ask his own constituents what they think. If the member is in touch with his constituents he will come to the quick realization that the money is not being put to good use.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

It would depend on what the plan is. The key point is to make our military combat capable. We ramp that up to 15 or 20 years and, as the member across the way has stated, we should include the reserves as part of that. I totally agree with that. The reserves should be factored in and should be part of the whole mobilization plan. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Our party has recommended that the budget be approximately 2% of the GDP by the year 2015. We ramp up to the year 2015 and that is where we would see the budget factoring in around 2% of the GDP. Do hon. members across the way know what the GDP is in our country right now? It is over $900 billion. In other words, to allow for a combat capable force, the budget should be almost double what it is right now.

Our budget is just a little over $10 billion. Our troop numbers are still being cut down. There is still talk about mothballing equipment. There is still talk about disbanding our reserve units that live and work among us, in our cities and in our towns, the most visible part of the military. That should not happen. The funding should be at a level that keeps the reserves active within the community. Unfortunately, so much that the military does goes unnoticed. I find that very unfortunate because we have a proud military history that we should all be teaching our children, if only they knew.

That is where the Canadian Alliance is coming from. We see an opportunity to really do something positive, to really build that feeling of nationalism higher in our country and that opportunity is now.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the budget speech.

Unfortunately I listened to the member for Waterloo—Wellington on the Liberal side when he made his presentation. I was rather disappointed in his comments. I thought they were quite inflammatory toward our party.

Before I get into the budget speech, the member for Waterloo—Wellington made reference to the background of our party, the Reform Party which is now the Canadian Alliance. I am speaking as a member of parliament from the Canadian Alliance party. I want the House and the Canadian people to know that.

The member for Waterloo—Wellington made some very damaging comments as far as I am concerned to the people of faith who trust in God and have faith in God. He made disparaging remarks toward people that built this country. I do not believe those comments should go unchallenged. I am surprised that the Speaker did not stand and put an end to what he was saying, so I am going to make reference to those comments.

He made very disparaging remarks to people of faith who trust in God and trust in Jesus Christ. I do not think that is acceptable nor should they remain unchallenged. They are the people who built this country. Others came afterward.

The Liberals may snicker and smile and I see some of them doing that. It is absolutely unjustified. I will make very direct reference to the comments of the member for Waterloo—Wellington. I will certainly stand up for the people in the country who believe in God.

Turning now to my speech on the budget, the budget that was handed down certainly has had very little attention in one respect. I know the members in the front row on the government side wanted more attention to be paid to it but something which overshadowed the budget was the boondoggle in HRDC. However, that was very much directed to the budget because how are funds managed when they are allotted to a specific area? How are they managed? That is more important than setting the budget itself. HRDC is a prime example. A lot of dirt is starting to stick to members on that side of the House as a result of the HRDC boondoggle.

A new budget was tabled. The last thing the government wanted to happen was to have anybody pay attention to HRDC and how that money was being spent. Look at the new budget. Members opposite said they were even offering some tax relief. Unfortunately that was all lost in the boondoggle at HRDC and rightly so because there is a principle involving morality in how the taxpayers' money is spent.

The taxpayer is looking very carefully at what the government is doing. The new budget is not prominent in their minds but how the money is being managed certainly is very prominent in their minds. I will get to the specifics in the area of defence, for which I am the critic.

The government allotted $1.9 billion extra to the defence department over three years. Defence has been in the news a lot over the last year and a half. It has suffered tremendously. It has been starved to death. There is a crisis in the quality of life of military personnel. There is substantial equipment rust out, so much so that one has to question just how combat capable our military really is.

The government came along and offered a $1.9 billion increase over three years. Incrementally that could be chewed up in three years just by doing tours overseas and doing a little on the quality of life issue faced by our military personnel. The amount is not a lot when it is divided over three years. It will not stop the rust out. It just prolongs the problem. There has to be a substantial infusion of funds to make our forces what they should be, combat capable, and to give them the necessary equipment to do the job.

I stand in the House as a member of the Canadian Alliance which wants to see some changes in that area. We know that the budget is inadequate and insufficient. There has to be a long range plan. There is no long range plan from this side of the House. Everything is done on an ad hoc basis. The long range plan is 15 to 20 years down the road. That is how far one should look. Believe me, the Liberals would have the opposition in total agreement with a long range plan for the military.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise in direct reference to the comments made by the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

I take exception, as a member of the Canadian Alliance, to his comments that the Canadian Alliance, our new party, formerly the Reform Party, preaches the politics of hatred. I know that other opposition members here in the House would also find that very unparliamentary. In fact, I say shame on that member and his party.

I believe a retraction is due. I appeal to the Chair for that very course of action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any specific comment that I made during my presentation that involved hate.

I and members of my party do not belong to any organization, nor do we have any ties to any other organization that espouses hate. I am surprised at the member's comments. I feel ashamed for him as a member of parliament trying to impugn that kind of response to this party. None has been placed on his party over any other issue such as this. I do not think it deserves the dignity of an answer when he puts it in that form.

I will put it in a way that all in the House will recognize. The Reform Party wants to see a good, honest, fair immigration process. That is what we are asking for. We have never said anything about not having a good, honest, fair immigration process or a refugee process. We want to see refugees come from those areas in the world where they are truly refugees as defined by the U.N., not gate-crashers.

If that is what this member from the NDP party is trying to portray, I say “absolutely not”. We have set ourselves apart. Sure, we have dared to talk about the immigration policy in this country because it needed to be talked about. It should involve the people in this country and not just fan the flames of anger. There is a party that just did.

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

Yes, the lawyers and consultants had a vested interest in keeping the situation the way it was. It was a moneymaker for so many. Unfortunately things have not improved all that much. The consultants still exist and are making piles of money from it. The lawyers are still making piles of money from it. For what and to whose advantage? Is it for the advantage of the Canadian people? No, it has never been to their advantage.

The people in this country have never had input into any discussion on the Immigration Act. They have never had any input into any provision or amendment. Why? Because there has been a vested interest on the part of the Liberal government since 1993, the time that we have been in the House, to lean toward those who have that very special consideration: the consultants, the lawyers and anyone else who is part of that industry.

Things have not changed. The amendments in Bill C-16 do not deal with that problem. The changes that are coming up in the new Immigration Act do not deal with the problem of interference.

When I took office as a member of parliament in 1993 I was somewhat shocked to find that 70% to 80% of my work related to immigration matters. Immigration has become a political football. If we oppose it, we are criticized severely and called every name in the book. If we say there is something wrong with the act, our opponents say we are criticizing immigrants or that we are being discriminatory. That is the accusation made. Unfortunately that is a smokescreen. It is an abuse of a position to hurl those kinds of insults at someone who is just trying to straighten out a problem that most people in the country know exists but are not quite sure how it all comes together.

When dealing with issues on immigration, the quickest way to come up with an act that is suitable for people is to include them. New immigrants, those who have been here for 20 years and those who were born here should be included. The government would be very surprised in what it found out.

One of the biggest complaints about the Immigration Act, even relating to the Citizenship Act and certainly dealing with the refugee system, is that many immigrants who do come here would like to bring their relatives over to visit from time to time. That is a fair request. They would like to bring their relatives over but time and time again they have been denied that privilege.

Why would they be denied bringing their relatives to visit them here in Canada? It is because of an interpretation in one court case by a supreme court justice which has never been challenged. If a person comes here and claims refugee status, no one can send him back. That is a fact. No one can send him back. Even though he may have come on a visitors visa and decided to stay, he cannot be turned back or refused if he says, “I am a refugee”.

Unfortunately that very specific court ruling has never been challenged. It is high time that it was because the immigrants in my riding, and I have many, would like their friends and relatives to visit them even if it is in the case of sickness. But because of that very foolish interpretation many of them are denied that very special privilege.

When talking about a family, that is a provision that could change to allow a stronger family and certainly a much better position on strengthening the family.

What else is wrong which this act does not address? We could cross-reference this act to the Immigration Act because they go hand in glove.

It is high time that we changed the visitors visas and introduced a system where cash bonds could be placed. Anyone who refused to return would have to forfeit the bond. It would pay for any court case that came along. This would address a major concern in my riding at least and would make a lot of people much more comfortable.

I am going to go back to the refugee system. I think it is the most flawed area in immigration. There are so many queue jumpers who use the refugee system to enter this country. The issue is not being addressed in a very effective way.

This was a battle in 1993, in 1994, and in fact it has even existed much longer than that. It was one that we took up when we came into office in 1994. We fought diligently to have some reasonable changes made to the Immigration Act to deal with the refugee determination system.

Lo and behold very little has changed. Bill C-16 talks about patronage appointments through the citizenship process. That permeates the whole immigration system. Not only does it deal with the citizenship process, the judges and those doing the evaluations, but it also deals with the Immigration and Refugee Board. Nothing has changed. I believe it has even gotten worse and and has been pushed down out of sight because no one wants to talk about it much any more. Needless to say, when we do not talk about it on this side, the government refuses to clean up any of the problems that exist.

Let us look at the immigration and refugee act. If that hole is plugged, I believe that a lot of immigrants who are in the process of trying to immigrate to this country through the normal legal channels will feel a lot better about the process. They look at others who have jumped the queue, who have come in through the back door via the refugee system. They become very irritated and as a result they too begin to look for other ways of entering the country.

I will now talk about the issue of sovereignty. We on the west coast of this country have experienced boatloads of people arriving on our shores. These people are not refugees but illegals who have come in through this whole process of smuggling people, which has severely tarnished the immigration process in Canada.

People smugglers have not been dealt with in a severe manner in any way, shape or form. They should be taught that this is not acceptable. Unfortunately, the government of the day refuses to tighten up the laws in this area. Enforcement and court action are the keys to this problem. I can only call on the government to examine those processes before it deals in any substantive way with the citizenship issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, the long suffering Immigration Act and Citizenship Act. Even though Bill C-16 is designated as the Citizenship Act and amendments to it, it reflects quite frequently on the Immigration Act itself. If we are intending on fixing the Citizenship Act, the matter that precedes it is the Immigration Act and all of its faults.

When Reform first came to the House in 1994, immigration was on the plate. It was an issue that was debated at length by the Reform Party. We dared to bring up this topic. We dared to introduce some different ideas in spite of all the criticism that was hurled our way. Much of that criticism was an attempt not only by the government side but by special interests in the community that had a direct ear to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at that time and still do—