Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.
On behalf of my constituents in the riding of Compton—Stanstead, I am pleased to speak to the Speech from the Throne. I congratulate the new Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, on her new challenge, which, I am sure, she will meet with dignity and wisdom.
I would like to say a few words on several matters not included in the throne speech, inadvertently no doubt. I realize that, in the throne speech, no one expects all the details, but it should at least contain an outline of all the areas of government responsibility.
I have to mention two items that were not addressed in the throne speech. The first was national defence. There was one line at the end of the speech which basically said nothing. I will quote it:
The Government will also continue to ensure that Canadian Forces have the capacity to support Canada's role in building a more secure world and will further develop the capacity of Canadians to help ensure peace and security in foreign land.
The first line is interesting. I think we all know a lot better than that. We have a national defence system that is dying of equipment rust out. Yes, we do have a few pieces of state of the art equipment but we are lacking in 90% of our equipment.
Governments around the world all know and say that national defence planning is long term. In 1994 we put forth a white paper with a long term affordable plan. This plan has now been put by the wayside. If the standing committee had not concentrated on the quality of life of our soldiers, they would still be living below the poverty line. Imagine working poor in our military.
I congratulate the Minister of National Defence for supporting the SCONDVA in the quality of life report to date. I hope he will continue to do so. There will be reports coming to the House giving us the heads up on quality of life issues, but I only wish the minister would follow through on the 1994 white paper.
The 1994 white paper is this government's document. I would understand if it were from a previous government that it would not honour such a paper. We do see this a lot. This is a plan to which all parties agreed. It is not a grandiose plan. It is a plan to get our military back on its feet and to give our soldiers a better working chance to do their job with safe and modern equipment. Our military is stretched to its limit in both manpower and equipment. We cannot even work under our own flag when we take up peacekeeping duties throughout the world.
Let us look at all the peacekeeping locations in which we are working under another country. Small groups all over the world cost far more than having one brigade group under our own flag with proper rotation so that all our soldiers can get proper rest and family time. This is a high stress job. Many of the problems we see in our military are caused from this stress. Regular rotation and rest would reduce many of the physical and mental problems. I could go on with many more details but there is a lack of time.
I would also like to discuss another subject which I did not see addressed in the throne speech, immigration. I do not think anyone would argue against the fact that our immigration system is broken. This was evident this summer with the west coast migrant problem. This is but the tip of the iceberg. The 600 refugee claimants on the west coast represent only 2% of our annual total.
The former minister had promised a new bill on immigration for October 1999. Today is November 3, and from what I can see, this new bill is not on the agenda of the House or the standing committee.
The problem of illegal refugees is very easy to understand. It is a lot easier and quicker to enter Canada this way even if the practice is illegal and very dangerous for those who choose it.
The Canadian Trucking Association urgently needs 5,000 employees that it cannot recruit in Canada. However, our immigration system is slow to react. Two-year delays are unreasonable and unacceptable, particularly when there is a lack of knowledge about the qualifications required. For instance, seeing a doctor or an accountant delivering pizza or driving a taxi, seems ridiculous to me.
I want to describe a typical case seen by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, another department that stands out, unfortunately, for its inefficiency.
In June 1998, one of my constituents applied to the embassy in the Republic of Ghana for permanent residence for his wife, who was seven months pregnant. The same month, approval was received from the provincial and federal governments. It seems very, very simple. Several months passed and the only information the woman received about her application was that she would be called to an interview at some point in time. She would then be asked to undergo a medical examination.
On February 8, 1999, in other words several months later, her husband came to my riding office to ask me to try to find out what I could about his file.
The woman gave birth on January 8, 1999. An initial e-mail was immediately sent to the embassy, requesting that I be told where the file was at. There was no reply. On February 16, 1999, the man got in touch with his wife, who said that the interview was to take place in March 1999 or as soon as an officer went to Bamako. Depending on how the interview went, an medical examination would follow.
On April 1, 1999, another e-mail went out from my riding office to the embassy. Once again, there was no reply. On April 6, 1999, my office send a new e-mail, and again on April 13.
Finally, on April 15, I receive a reply which reads as follows: “The following is in response to your message of April 13, 1999. The woman will have to be interviewed before a decision can be made. We were unable to reach her on time during our last trip to Bamako, in March. We therefore put her name back on the waiting list for our next trip, the date of which has yet to be determined”. “However, if she can make the trip to Abidjan, she could be interviewed quickly, that is within a week's notice. If the applicant and the assisting relative choose that option, let me know so that arrangements can be made accordingly”.
I therefore informed my constituent and I gave notice of the option chosen by this woman, who will travel to Abidjan. On April 27, 1999, the woman showed up for her interview in Abidjan. On May 19, she underwent her medical examination. She was declared healthy and now simply had to wait for her visa. On July 5, 1999, my constituent came to see me again and told me that he has not heard anything about his wife's visa since May.
That same day, an e-mail was sent to the embassy, asking for information about the wife's visa. On July 6, the embassy replied that the husband's divorce certificate was required.
Is it not odd that a whole year had passed before the immigration adviser realized this document was missing from the file? Yet at the interview the wife was never informed of the obligation to provide this document.
On July 9, the husband's divorce certificate was faxed to the embassy and my constituent has proof that it was sent. On July 16, 1999, I again e-mailed the embassy, asking for confirmation that the certificate had been received. On August 2, I sent another e-mail to the embassy. I have still not received an answer.
On August 17, I still had heard nothing from the embassy. I sent another e-mail on August 27. What is going on? Canada's embassies are understaffed.