David Price

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I quite enjoyed the speech of the hon. member on the other side. I agreed with most of it. There are a couple of problems. The things I do not agree with are not part of the bill. We seem to be spending an awful lot of time talking about marriage and spouse. There is not a mention anywhere in the bill of these two words, yet the debate has continuously revolved around those words.

I agree with the member that it is up to the House to define marriage and spouse. That is what we should have done, but I am afraid it will have to be done in another bill. Does the hon. member agree that we spent an awful lot of time on this bill debating the wrong thing?

[Petitions, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling a petition signed by concerned citizens in Quebec.

The petitioners want rural letter carriers to be considered employees of Canada Post.

[Shipbuilding Act, 1999, February 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on October 18 I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration about the troubling selection process for the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

So many times well connected Liberals are appointed to positions of power and prominence in this country. I implore the minister to involve parliamentarians, specifically committee members, in this selection process. Parliamentarians have a mandate to represent and work on behalf of their constituents. How can Canadians be adequately represented when appointments are fait accompli by the time MPs are informed?

I refer specifically to the appointment of Mr. Peter Showler. He was appointed chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board by an order in council dated November 16, 1999. First, I applaud the appointment. Mr. Showler is duly qualified to take on the daunting task of chair of the IRB, a quasi-judicial post.

Despite that, the issue I have is one of principle. Why was the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration not consulted? Allow me to refer to Standing Order 108(2) which mentions additional powers of standing committees. It says that the standing committees will be empowered:

—to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned to them—

Standing Order 108(2)(e) widens the powers of the committee to investigate:

—other matters, relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department, as the committee deems fit.

Is the appointment of the IRB chair deemed to be not crucial to the administration of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?

Standing Order 111 allows for the review of the appointment. Reviews are fine but do not allow the committee members any authority over the hiring in the first place.

Standing committees are intimately familiar with the issues and would be an excellent source of advice for an appointment as chair of the IRB. Even if it were a bad review it would not necessarily lead to the dismissal of an appointee.

I fear the committees, and indeed the House itself, are becoming rubber stamps for policies and motions already approved and formulated by the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office.

The House is consulted less and less by government but I remind the governing party that 38.5% of voting Canadians in the 1997 election supported it. That is far less than the majority. By not consulting with the House of Commons, the voices of a vast majority of Canadians are not being heard. This is not the correct practice in a liberal democracy like Canada's.

Committee members are powerless over anything the Prime Minister and cabinet wish to do. It is interesting to note that the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Council for Refugees are both on record as disapproving the present selection process. They want a more fair, more transparent hiring process.

The next time an order in council appointment is made, will the minister exercise some democracy, take the high road and consult the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration?

[Immigration, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced on December 3 at an NGO meeting and later in response to a Liberal question in the House that her department is starting a pilot project whereby all refugee claimants will receive photo identification cards for better access to social services. Is this also a pilot project for exit controls? When was this project discussed at the standing committee?

[Immigration, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, at the dawn of the third millennium immigrants and refugees still pay a head tax of close to $1,000. In 1997, the now Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, a seemingly more compassionate and understanding man back then, put forth a private member's bill to eliminate this financial burden on destitute refugees.

Has the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, with the support of the fisheries minister, been able to convince cabinet to remove this unnecessary debt on newcomers to Canada?

[Laval University Rouge Et Or, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 27, Laval University's football team, the Rouge et Or, won the Canadian university football championship, the Vanier Cup.

Laval has had a football team for just four years. This success shows the tenacity and determination displayed by the team to achieve that level of excellence.

It takes an extraordinary staff to build such a team. Coach Jacques Chapdelaine gained his experience with the famous Bishop University Gaiters.

Mr. Chapdelaine is a native of the Eastern Townships and a former resident of Compton—Stanstead.

Compton—Stanstead is also home to the bag balm, a product recently made famous by the soft and satiny Shania Twain.

Congratulations to Jacques and his team, the Rouge et Or.

Congratulations to Eric Smith and his bag balm.

[Request For Emergency Debate, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather straight forward just from hearing what the minister had to say today. As usual, he was skating around the issue.

The point is that through the Access to Information Act we received the actual briefing notes of the minister. In those notes it is stated quite clearly that there is an eight year time slot from the time of ordering the helicopters and the time that they will be delivered. At the present time, the Sea King helicopters with their life expansion program only go to the year 2005. Therefore we have a three year window with no maritime helicopters. That is what we are getting at.

It is a huge safety matter with our armed forces and the Canadian people. That is the main reason we would like to have it debated in the House, but there is a lot more to it.

[National Defence, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in a briefing note to the minister obtained through the Access to Information Act, it states that the procurement time for the replacement of the Sea King from direction to delivery will be eight years. The document then states, “The current estimated life expectancy of the Sea King has been extended to 2005”.

Can the Prime Minister outline for the House what the Department of National Defence will do between the year 2005 and 2008? That is three years with no maritime helicopters in the air.

[National Defence, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for over a year now, the Minister of National Defence has repeatedly told the House that the maritime helicopters project, and I quote: “is ready to go soon”. The statement of requirements has been ready for some time now.

Has the Prime Minister again scrapped this project so vital to the safety of our soldiers?

[Speech From The Throne, November 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will go through this very quickly and I will do it in English.

To answer part of the hon. member's question, yes, I did do a lot of this myself and I did try phoning several times. As I mentioned at the outset, this is just one of many cases. I live in an area with a very low ethnic population but I deal with cases like this on a very regular basis. I think the biggest problem is a lack of people in our embassies to do the work. We also know there has been a huge cut in the number of people.

In reference to what this has to do with the Speech from the Throne, I mentioned of course the armed forces which was very lightly gone over in the Speech from the Throne, but immigration was not mentioned at all.

The Speech from the Throne is supposed to set out the priorities of the government in general terms. I said at the outset that we were not expecting to see details. We are looking at the generalities. Everything should be covered in the Speech from the Throne. There was nothing about immigration, in particular since immigration has been one of the top problems today.

The case I brought forward is not a refugee problem. It is the problem of getting a family back together, something that is supposed to have a very high priority. At the end of the file the lady finally received her visa a couple of weeks ago after a year and a half. She was pregnant when she applied. In that time period she had the baby. Her husband has had the opportunity to go there but it is very expensive to run back and forth. It seems so unfair when we are trying to get families together that we are not doing it.

There should have been a reference in the Speech from the Throne stating that we should be doing something about immigration. The minister promised to bring forward a bill in October. It is now November. When we look at the agenda there is nothing there. There is nothing happening in committee. The bill is not coming forward. That is what I am talking about.