Loyola Hearn

[Points of Order, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to a ruling you made today on the question asked by the member for South Shore, I respectfully ask that if you review the blues you may find that there was a question and that it might be in order.

[Fisheries, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend thousands of dead codfish washed ashore in Friendly Bay, Newfoundland. This is one of the few remaining stocks of cod in Atlantic Canada.

Scientists have theorized that the fish swam into a body of supercooled water. Fish have been swimming in the Newfoundland waters for centuries, we have known for 500 years. We have never known them to be suicidal and unlike the Liberals, they are not kamikazes.

We have a problem. We have too few scientists and we have too many seals.

The minister is just about to make some important decisions in this matter. I hope he makes the right ones because he could correct both of these problems.

[Juno Awards, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a woman's world. Last night many of the Juno Awards were won by Canadian women and they were certainly well deserved. However another event took place yesterday also. The winner of Popstars “The One” was selected and the one was Newfoundland and Labrador's own Christa Borden.

The competition started with 7,000 participants from all across the country that culminated last night with the winner being chosen. Christa's own statement is one of encouragement to all young Canadians. She said, “It doesn't matter where you come from. If you believe, you will achieve”.

We would like to congratulate all the participants and to Christa Borden, we say, “We are proud of you Christa, you kept us hanging on, but you are the one”.

[Citizenship Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, just to make sure that we understand what we are talking about here, I will read the explanation. The bill “is designed to remedy the situation where a person has, as a child, been deprived of their Canadian citizenship as a result of the operation of section 18 of the Canadian Citizenship Act, chapter 15 of the Statutes of Canada, 1946”.

We must be very cognizant of the timeframe here. That was legislation in 1946, which is 57 years ago. A lot of things have changed since the statutes were developed at that time, as everyone can imagine.

That provision, which was in force until February 14, 1977, thus creating that 31 year gap we are talking about, provided that a minor child ceased to be a Canadian citizen upon the responsible parent becoming the citizen of another country.

This present enactment makes it easier for such people to gain or regain their Canadian citizenship so that they will no longer have to be established as permanent residents in order to do so.

However, again let us look at the timeframe in which that legislation was passed and enacted. Under the 1947 Citizenship Act, not only minor children but women were considered to be the property of their fathers and husbands. Therefore, before 1977, if a parent, the parent being the father in this case, relinquished his Canadian citizenship, under the law at the time the rest of the family also lost its Canadian citizenship. Of course, the child could have been any age, from a baby a couple of days old to a teenager or whatever, who may or may not have understood what it was all about or may or may not even have understood where or when he or she was born or what went on or what kind of country it was.

While it is regrettable that these wives and children also ceased to be Canadian, parents at that time made, and parents to some degree yet do make, decisions for their minor children. The decision to relinquish citizenship is another choice that the responsible parent made for the children. Really, it was a conscious decision made by the parents to move and to take up citizenship in another country, not ever thinking, of course, that it would perhaps become a major problem for the child down the road.

As we can remember, in 1946 there was not a lot of movement back and forth. Certainly very few of the people who left their homes in Canada, and in Atlantic Canada in particular, and moved to the United States ever thought they were coming back, and very few ever did. Many of the people affected by this law have spent their entire lives outside of Canada, as everyone knows. There is no provision under the Citizenship Act for resumption of citizenship for people who have ceased to be Canadian citizens as long as they are eligible for lawful admission to Canada and have resided in Canada as landed immigrants for at least one year. The place of birth may not be a condition for re-establishing citizenship. It is only one aspect of citizenship and should not be the only or the most important aspect when considering this bill. That is why we might question why the government has not made some changes.

We have to look at this almost as a case by case issue. First, where did the family move? In which country did the parents, or parent, because in the earlier years the father made the decision, take up residence? What has happened in the interim? We hear the example of the United States used quite often because a lot of our people moved to the United States for employment, as unfortunately many of them are doing today.

Today, of course, a lot of our people hold dual citizenship. It is not a major problem and there is a pretty free flow back and forth. However, what about if the parents moved to Afghanistan, the child grew up there, happened to come under bin Laden's instructions for x number of years and wanted to come back to Canada?

I do not think we can just have free flow, whereby people who were born in Canada and moved to some other country for x number of years, regardless of how young they were, automatically can come back without scrutiny. Perhaps the government is correct in this case in issuing a word of caution and I think it is an issue that we can only deal with on a case by case basis.

With our neighbours to the south, and perhaps other British countries like England or Australia, we have had a free flow of like-minded people. We do not have stringent immigration laws, but the thing is that in this day and age, since 9/11, there is a complete and utter difference in the awareness of people who come to our country and why they come here.

We have to be a little cautious here. We cannot just say that if people were born in Canada, regardless of where they went, regardless of where they lived, regardless of what they have done, then there is free flow back here. I do not think that is the way it can work. Perhaps the government is right in being a little cautious in this situation.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from New Brunswick Southwest for sharing his time. He has already stated our position on the motion. I will confine my remarks directly to that motion, which I am sure will both surprise and please the House.

The motion itself is a two part motion. One part deals with the unfortunate comments made not only by backbenchers but by front line ministers in the government. That must be a concern not only to the party but to the House and to the country because these remarks have been carried more so than the common sense, solid, responsible debate that has gone on in the House and in the country.

I do not blame some of the backbenchers because I am sure it is out of frustration. They see a Prime Minister, who most of them do not support anyway, who has waffled back and forth on the issue of involvement, and they see the person who they think will be their next leader disappear completely from the scene. Where is the next messiah of the Liberal Party in all of this? It is a question everyone is asking. He is doing what he has always done on major issues, he has ducked.

The other unfortunate thing about the first part of the resolution, which requests an apology, is from whom the request comes. It is like the old story of the pot and the kettle because the leader of the Alliance, who is asking for the apology, called the Minister of National Defence an idiot some time ago and I do not believe has apologized. It is pretty hard to expect others to apologize when he himself makes similar insulting remarks and refuses to apologize. Having said that, let us say that apologies should be made. Those remarks should not have been made in the first place. Let us get on with supporting our friends and allies, which is really the crux of the resolution.

It is difficult to know where the government stands. From the beginning the Prime Minister gave varying answers. Every time we picked up a newspaper, listened to him in the House or in scrums, we got a similar type of confusing response that did not clearly indicate where the government or the country was in all of this. The government was totally supporting a Bloc resolution that stated:

That this House call upon the government not to participate in the military intervention initiated by the United States in Iraq.

The Prime Minister and the government totally supported the resolution. The following day the Minister of National Defence was asked whether we would participate if biological weapons were found or if germ warfare was used? He responded that just because the government voted for a resolution did not mean it could not change its mind. It is complete and utter inconsistency.

Day after day we are told we are not participating and yet we have troops actively involved. We have ships that are in position and undoubtedly are playing a part in the war that is going on. I am not saying that is wrong. They should be there. I agree with them being there and we should solidly support them. We should not deny that they exist. We are telling 30 individuals and their families that we deny the fact that they are involved. Let us respect the people who are involved in this confrontation. Let us support our own people, our allies, and our friends.

I listened to the minister speak this morning because I thought I would hear something of significance. He said that our friends are at war. They certainly are and we should be there to help them, not to stay home, watch them on television and cheer.

Once people across Canada understood what was happening their support started to shift. This happened in Australia where the Prime Minister came under tremendous pressure when he indicated that his country would be participating in this confrontation. The people of Australia strongly supported that move because it was the right thing to do. They knew Australia had to go in with its friends.

Our Prime Minister has said clearly that if the United Nations had sanctioned the war, it would have been okay. However, he said that his government did not agree with regime change. The minister said this morning that when the war is over and Saddam is gone, we will move in and help with restructuring, et cetera. He wants Saddam gone. He is saying we need regime change to protect the people of Iraq and the rest of us in the free world. This will be a great subject for a thesis for someone down the line when an analysis is done of the various conflicting statements that have come from the government in relation to the war.

The minister stated it was unfortunate that people booed the United States national anthem at some hockey games and other events. I agree with that statement. We have the right to disagree and we do disagree in the House. Many disagree vehemently with what is happening in the world today and Canada is part of that. I respect the right of individuals to disagree with my stand on an issue, but I hope they respect my right to disagree with them. That is true not only here, but across Canada and around the world.

While we can disagree with each other, if we are friends and part of an overall team then we should respect each other. Respect is the word lacking here and across the country. It is lacking mainly because of the signals being sent to Canadians from this very House. It is hard to expect someone who only picks up bits and pieces of information in the news media to respect our friends and neighbours.

When the going gets tough, that is the time friends should support each other. The going is tough now in the world. Even if we have no reserve players to boost the team, nobody to call up to help, we could at least tell our closest friends and neighbours that we support them morally. We did not do that in the beginning. It was clear that we did not support the effort. It is on the record here.

We should tell those countries that we can offer them our support. We can move our troops from Afghanistan. We can use our ships wherever needed to move in food and supplies and backup those countries where necessary. We will recognize the fact that our troops are involved, and we will support and strengthen them wherever we can.

The government has not handled this situation well, and unfortunately, Canada will pay a price for this. However, it is not too late to correct what we have done. We can do this by first recognizing the fact that we have insulted our friends. Not only did we ignore them but we insulted them. We can correct that with an apology. We can support our own military personnel and others who are involved to the hilt so we will have a better country. This way we will be surrounded by friends who will help us if they are needed. Collectively we can create a better world.

[Terrorism, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canada must send a message to the world that we are not a safe haven for terrorist organizations and there will be ramifications for those who operate outside the law.

Today's listing brings the total to 26 organizations designated as terrorist entities under the Anti-terrorism Act. Canada's United Nations suppression of terrorism regulations have listed and frozen the assets of more than 370 entities. Despite the government's official stand on the war in Iraq, an action which in part will assist with the war on terrorism, today's announcement signals the willingness of Canada to continue the fight against these heinous organizations on the home front. We must do all that we can to ensure terrorism does not get a foothold in North America.

Perhaps today more so than ever before we must be concerned about terrorist organizations and terrorist activity. We hear daily the pledges from Saddam Hussein that he would carry on terrorist acts throughout the world.

The Canadian government must ensure that Canadians are protected from such acts. We support the government in identifying terrorist groups in order to limit the chance of any terrorism activity taking place in our country.

However, we take issue with a couple of items in the statement. The minister said that any person or group that is listed may have its assets seized and forfeited. Why may? If the government has the proof, which perhaps has not been circulated but I am sure it has to have taken such action, of these groups supporting terrorist activity, then the government should seize the assets.

The minister's message to all Canadians continues to be that we cannot consider ourselves immune and we cannot afford to drop our guard. It is so true. We must work with our friends and neighbours to ensure that does not happen. Perhaps therein lies our weakness. We should always ask the question, how did these groups get into our country in the first place and why did we let people come here to continue on the fight that they started somewhere else?

We must be vigilant as to how we deal with terrorists. The government must start taking a stronger leadership role than we have seen today.

[Privilege, April 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly and maybe to assist you in your decision which I am not sure even falls under your gambit here, but whether we have to listen to somebody speak for 13 hours on one hand, or whether these people feel that they have to be compelled to speak in order to get a fair ruling, perhaps this says something about what goes on in our committees.

At the present time, the modernization committee is trying to improve work in parliament generally, including trying to find ways to make committees more practical and more reasonable for members. Maybe there is an avenue where we can clarify some of the problems we are presently experiencing.

[National 4-H Citizenship Seminar, April 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this week in Ottawa, 4-H members from all across the country are attending the National 4-H Citizenship Seminar.

Those of us who have had the opportunity to be leaders in the 4-H movement, fully realize the value of being a member of this great national organization which instills such values in our youth. Pledging heart, head, hands and health for the betterment of the country is a laudable initiative.

We congratulate the leaders, the organizers and the sponsors of this event. We welcome all of them to the seminar, especially those from the great district of St. John's West and, on behalf of my colleague, of South Shore.

[Question No. 128, March 28th, 2003]

How does the seniority of personnel figure in the processes the Department of Fisheries and Oceans use to engage or release employees of the Canadian Coast Guard?

[Fisheries, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in the bureaucratic mess of downsizing the fishery many people who have fished for a lifetime are being told that they are not core fishermen.

Will the minister agree to revisit this issue provided that proper documentation can be brought along to back up their claims?