Keith Martin

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up my remarks on Bill C-63.

We in this House have the responsibility to do the best that we can in all of our endeavours. For four and one-half years this government has been told about the mismanagement and problems within our immigration system.

Immigration, as members have mentioned, has been a pillar and a building block of our country. Many of us are immigrants and were grateful to come to Canada. But the failure of the government to deal with the structural problems within our immigration system has done a huge disservice not only to Canadians, but also to immigrants who have come to this country and people trying to get into this country.

The problems have been articulated. The solutions are in front of us. Focus on the independent class of immigrants. Make sure that the family reunification class truly appeals to those who are immediate family members, not people who are further removed. People who come to this country cannot simply come here, have a baby and the baby automatically becomes a Canadian citizen. Children who are born in this country should retain the citizenship of their parents and once the parents become Canadian citizens, the children will become Canadian citizens too. One of the scams used by some people who come to Canada is to have a child and the child automatically becomes a Canadian citizen.

In the oath of citizenship the minister should have put specific and explicit references to the responsibilities a Canadian has to our country. That is very important. We have a lot of rights but we do not talk about the responsibilities.

There are enormous problems faced by immigrants. Immigrants go through the hoops. They try their hardest yet because of bureaucratic gross mismanagement they are forced to pay for the problems of the ministry. That has to end.

I implore the minister to listen to the constructive suggestions that have been put forth today. Listen to them, implement them and build a good system for all of Canada.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-63.

There is one problem that I and others members of the House see repeatedly in our offices, that the immigration department is in a mess. The minister has had three years to deal with it and yet she has done nothing. In fact things are spiralling out of control. Most members of the House have put cases into the her lap, only to see them completely disappear and evaporate without any action being taken.

Let me talk about some of the problems that are taking place. As are other members of the House, I am an immigrant to this country. We are deeply grateful for what Canada has given us. Let us make no mistake about that. However, the traditional role of immigration into Canada, the backbone and building block of our nation, has been watered down by incompetence on the part of the minister.

We have traditionally relied on an independent class of immigrants, who are trying to get into Canada, to build the country. They are going through the hoops and are told to leave the country. They are told they cannot get in. They do all the work, put their money down, and are sent back to from where they came, even when they are employed in this country. On the other hand, individuals who are criminals and commit offences on our soil are allowed to walk free on Canadian soil. What kind of immigration policy is that?

People who are trying to get legitimate family members into Canada are not allowed to do so. People who are legitimate refugees cannot come in. However those who are bogus refugees are allowed to come in. Why is that so?

Over and above the incompetence the minister shows in botching up her portfolio and in what she does to the citizens of this country, she does a greater disservice to legitimate immigrants who want to come to Canada to build a safe and secure future for themselves and their family. Those are the people the minister is slapping in the face by botching up her portfolio. This needs to be fixed. The minister has had the opportunity to fix it but she has not.

Clause 4(1) of the bill indicates that individuals who are born on Canadian soil automatically become Canadian citizens. Let us talk about some scams. One of the scams is that persons can bring in their children between the ages of 12 and 16, let someone here adopt them and when they become 19 they can bring the whole family into Canada.

When I was delivering a baby I learned of another scam. People can come into the country in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, have babies on Canadian soil and the children automatically becomes Canadian and can then bring the entire family into the country. That is not good immigration. That is gypping the immigration system and immigrants who come into this country by going through legitimate hoops.

It would have been more intelligent for the minister to have a residency requirement for persons coming into the country who are having a child who will become a Canadian citizen. There should be a two year residency requirement or they should be landed immigrants before they ultimately become Canadian citizens. If those provisions were included this loophole would be blocked. Also the loophole with respect to adoption needs to be blocked.

The minister can do a number of things. My colleague from Vancouver mentioned the issue of the oath of allegiance. We have a lot of rights in Canada but we do not talk about a lot of responsibility. The minister could have included in the oath of allegiance an allegiance to Canada, an allegiance articulating the responsibilities of people when they come to the country. That would have made the oath of allegiance, the oath of citizenship, meaningful. She failed once again.

If we are to build an immigration policy that does justice to Canada, if we are to build an immigration policy that will be fairer to immigrants as well as to Canadian citizens, we have to get back to basic principles. We have to build an immigration policy that focuses on the independent class of immigrants. We have to make sure the people who come into the country have the skills to contribute to the Canadian economy and have the linguistic skills to be able to function within Canada.

We have to recognize our responsibility to live up to our international obligations under the United Nations treaties we have signed with respect to refugees. Letting in legitimate refugees is a good thing, a humanitarian and compassionate thing, but letting in bogus refugees, people who are using refugee claimant status as something to queue jump, does a disservice to Canada and Canadians. Above all else, it does a disservice to the legitimate refugees and immigrants trying to come into the country.

As has been mentioned before, immigrants to the country who commit crimes should be sent back to the country they came from and banned from coming back into Canada for at least 10 years. In that way we would ensure the safety and security of our country for both immigrants and Canadian citizens.

We are seeking from the minister an element of fairness, an element of intelligence, and an element of a co-ordinated strategy within the ministry of immigration which will ensure we have an immigration policy that strengthens and not weakens Canada.

Immigrants come through the offices of every member of the House with stories of how they have been forced to pay for the mistakes of the ministry. When people who try to bring their beloved into the country they come here with a certain set of rules and guidelines, only to be told that they have to return to their countries of origin and go through the process again. When they go back to their countries of origin they are told to go back to Canada. This costs them money they often do not have. It also causes them an unnecessary amount of time to go through the process of becoming a legitimate contributor to our country.

We cannot understand why the minister, after three years in her portfolio, has failed to deal with these fundamental issues. She was even guided by the House Standing Committee on Immigration and Citizenship. Four years ago the committee placed 28 recommendations inn the minister's lap. Was anything done about them? No. Why does it take four years to deal with 28 recommendations from a bipartisan committee to strengthen our immigration system? What we see is Bill C-63 which, if anything, nibbles around the edges of our system.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party for his speech.

I want to ask him some questions. I do not think that some of the members across the way get it. If the member is listening to the assertions put forth by independent think tanks not only within Canada but from around the world, they send one clear message. Canada is not competitive because our tax structure is choking the life blood out of our private sector.

As an example, a family of two earners in the United States earns 42% more than the equivalent family in Canada. That can be extrapolated to private sector companies. How can companies compete in Canada with their counterparts in the United States if they are saddled with a tax structure that is at least a third higher than what they have to compete with south of the border?

The central failure our party is trying to impress on the government in this budget is that the government's budget has failed to address the issue of productivity because it has failed to address the issue of high taxes. The member from Vancouver mentioned we want to be productive and therefore the government is investing in research and development.

That is not the issue. If the private sector is given the money to invest in its companies it will invest in research and development. The fact is it cannot because the tax structure is too high.

Again I ask the member from the Liberal government will he go to the finance minister and ask him to lower taxes substantially and do it as soon as possible. Then our private sector would have a fighting chance to compete in the global economy.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the member from British Columbia.

This budget missed the boat in an essential area. The government does not listen very often to anybody from any other political party. But I would like it to listen to independent reviews that are taking place right now on Canada's productivity.

What are these reviews saying? This budget fails because it fails to address the central issue of Canada's failing productivity. Why is Canada's productivity failing? Our tax structure is too high and companies do not have the ability to invest in themselves. We cannot compete with our brothers and sisters to the south because our tax structure is too high.

Will the member bring to the attention of the finance minister the fact that the government's budget failed because it did not adjust the egregious tax structure we have in Canada that is choking off the private sector—

[Foreign Affairs, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Kurdish people are outraged in Canada and around the world after their leader, Abdullah Ocalan, was arrested. However this anger and fury is rooted in years of abuse by Turkish and Iraqi leaders who have murdered, tortured, driven into swamps and had chemical weapons dropped on innocent Kurdish people. Peaceful efforts to resolve this situation have failed.

Layla Zana, Turkish MP, mother of two and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, has been incarcerated since 1994 and for what? Speaking out on behalf of the Kurdish people. Enough is enough.

Now that we are on the security council, I implore the Minister of Foreign Affairs to bring this issue to the floor of the general assembly and the security council to ensure that Layla Zana will be released and to ensure that there will be a peaceful negotiated settlement to the Kurdish situation. If it does not occur, war will break out and thousands more innocent people will die.

[The Late King Hussein, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today the world mourns the death of King Hussein of Jordan.

The King, ruler of his country for 46 years, was a beacon of hope in a land entrenched in conflict. The shifting sands of Middle East politics have claimed many leaders and it is a true measure of the man that he was able to lead his people for so long.

I had the privilege of meeting the King a few years ago. What was most striking about him was his humility, grace and kindness. Known to dress as one of his subjects, to take the pulse of his citizenry, he was a true people's king. However, it is in his last act that the King demonstrated his true colours.

It is said that the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands in times of challenge. So it is in his last gesture of flying while critically ill to ensure that the Wye Peace Accord was signed that the King may be judged.

Members of the Reform Party wish to extend our deepest sympathies to the royal family, the Jordanian people and we commit to support King Abdullah in his pursuit of peace and security.

[Health, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Jeff Cuff is a young man living in Newfoundland who needs a bone marrow transplant to save his life. Thousands of Newfoundlanders have said yes, they would be willing to be donors. The Canadian blood system, though, said no because it does not have the money to screen these potential donors.

Will the Minister of Health guarantee to Jeff Cuff and others who require these life saving procedures that there will be enough money to screen potential life saving donors?

[Military Missions Beyond The Boundaries Of Canada, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure today to speak on Motion No. 380. I compliment my colleague from Red Deer on pursuing this important issue.

This is an issue of accountability and an issue of democracy. The United States is even obligated to bring its requests for international military involvement in front of Congress.

The people's representatives must have the ability to analyse whether a group of our soldiers should be going abroad. This should not be left as an executive decision. There is an element of accountability and an element of democracy. Many things need to be done and we need to illustrate a very important problem. The hon. government member mentioned there were debates taking place in this House. The hon. member knows very well that in spite of the fact that the debates on a foreign affair took place in this House, the decision as to whether troops would be deployed were made prior to that.

In a visit to Davos, Switzerland, the Prime Minister made a side agreement and publicly stated that somehow he is going to send troops to Kosovo. Was anybody consulted? Not when the foreign affairs minister is saying something completely different. Apparently not. Motion No. 380 would prevent that from happening. It would enable parliament and the people's representatives to decide whether troops should be sent for the good of Canada.

I will get to the heart of the matter, that we have a big problem in our country. We have a huge discrepancy between the demands placed on our defence department, which is really the muscle of our foreign affairs department, the commitments being made by our foreign affairs department and the international needs being placed on us.

Let us not forget our individual security as nations is intimately entwined with our collective security. Right now in 1999 our allies do not look at us as a player, as the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned. We are not a player anymore in international security because our military does not have the capability to do the good job it has historically done. The individuals in the military are capable of doing that and they are very competent but they are not equipped and tasked to do the job.

The SCONDVA report that just came out articulately mentioned the wide and deep problems affecting our military. It also gave very pragmatic solutions to address those problems. The minister of defence needs to listen to that report. He needs to enact its solutions and resolutions immediately. If the minister does that we can start to fulfil our international obligations and get back the international respect we have had for so long.

How can we send our troops on so-called peacekeeping missions, which is really war by another name, without giving them the tools to do the job? For example, our helicopters are 30 years old, towed artillery is 45 years old, nearly going back to World War II, and our other artillery is 30 years old. Our CF-18 fighters are having so much strain in their superstructures that they are breaking down and our 30 year old helicopters are falling out of the sky. Our navy's anti-submarine warfare obligations are being severely compromised as are our search and rescue capabilities. Our country desperately needs those capabilities. Not only are those capabilities compromised but the men and women in our military who put their lives on the line every day for our security are put on the line.

We have an obligation to those men and women in uniform to fund them to do the job, to task them to do the job and to ensure the leadership is there to do the job. But as the SCONDVA report very articulately mentioned, that is not there.

The foreign affairs department has to work hand in glove with the defence department. They cannot work as two entities. They are two halves of the same whole. I commend the Minister of Foreign Affairs for doing a very good job on some of his initiatives over the last few years which have brought peace and security internationally. However, he must work with the minister of defence and vice versa.

From a foreign affairs perspective we must engage in initiatives to prevent conflict from happening. What we see internationally is a global impotence in dealing with conflict. Many meetings have taken place. The Kosovo example is just one or we could go back to Rwanda or any number of conflicts in recent years. The former Yugoslavia is another example. We hear a lot of talk, a lot of babble and a lot of hot air but we see individuals who are sometimes willing flaunt their power in the face of international law against their own people causing the death, destruction and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people. In the face of that the international community wags its finger impotently in their face. What to they get back? They get no response.

Kosovo is a perfect example. The bottom line is from a foreign affairs perspective if we are to face up to tyranny then we better have the muscle to back up what we demand of those draconian rulers.

From a non-military perspective there are foreign affairs initiatives that can take place. Our foreign affairs department has the capability of dealing with preventive measures. We need to use our personnel, particularly in the IMF, World Bank and the UN, to have an integrated, preventive approach to conflict.

War needs money. Choke off the money supply and the ability of individuals to engage in war is choked off. Whether we are looking at conflicts that are on the horizon or the many conflicts that are taking place right now, they put demands on our military. From Angola, which is about ready to blow up right now, to Sierra Leon, which is in a state of complete disarray, to central Africa, which is a conflict that threatens to expand and involve many countries, a war the likes of which we have not seen in decades, to the caucuses, to Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia, Indonesia, all these are just some of the hot spots we will potentially be asked to participate in. If we are to ask our people to participate, we have to fund them properly.

I ask that the foreign affairs minister be wise in his decisions concerning involvement. That is the root of the motion from the member for Red Deer. This decision should not be placed in the hands of a few but it should be placed in the hands of this House, the representative of the people, for it is Canadian people who are putting their lives on the line.

Returning to our military solutions and looking at the SCONDVA report, they require funding back to what they were in 1994. Military personnel now are 60,000 less than our capability. Bring them back to a fighting force of perhaps 70,000 to 75,000 or at least integrate the demands of our defence department with the number of personnel available.

On the pay and allowance issue, there are important concerns that need to be addressed. How can we ask men and women to travel half a world away if they are worried about whether their wives or husbands have enough food to put on the table to feed their children? That is how serious this issue is and that in part is eroding the morale of our forces.

The power of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to engage in non-military initiatives to prevent conflict has not been examined properly. Those groups need to look at the economic power and use that against despots who are willing to use their power against individuals for the sake of the pursuit of power in the most heinous ways.

I ask the foreign affairs minister to pursue that with our competent people in these organizations and offer the foreign affairs minister and the defence minister our help in pursuing the effective, pragmatic solutions that we can engage in to make Canada an effective contributor to peace internationally, to keep our troops safe and also to bring peace and security to a world in turmoil.

[Military Missions Beyond The Boundaries Of Canada, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know many people have a lot of things to say in their speeches so I will ask for unanimous consent to enable all speakers to speak for the allotted 10 minutes per person. That would be fair and equitable and would give a chance to everybody who wants to speak.

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois.

We have an enormous opportunity to take a leadership role in something that has never been done before, something that the Minister of Human Resources Development, something that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice can participate in.

If these ministers were to get their colleagues in the provincial government to come together at one point to deal with the precursors affecting the health care of Canadians, the work that has been done by members across the way such as the member from Moncton who played a leadership role would address the precursors of conflict by dealing with children in the first eight years of life.

We can use the available data in a utilized program based on previous experience around the world that has demonstrated profound impacts upon poverty, upon teen pregnancies, upon keeping kids in school longer, and upon the health and welfare of children. It will only happen if the federal government takes a leadership role. It will only happen if the federal ministers call their provincial counterparts together anywhere in the country to form an integrated approach.

This would have the most profound cost saving and humanitarian effect on children based on facts and on existing programs and would save the lives of a lot of people. It is rooted in preventing these problems rather than managing them.

Many of my colleagues and I would be very happy to work with members on the other side to make this a reality. The head start program exemplifies a program which can and should be employed across the country using existing resources.