House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 65% of the vote.
Immigration April 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in the last budget the immigration minister decided to levy a new $975 tax on refugees and immigrants to pay for settlement services. He said that those who could not afford this tax would be loaned the money to cover the costs.
How does the immigration minister intend to pay for the massive bureaucracy which will be necessary to administer the loans that pay for the tax? It is a tax because it is going into general revenue.
Immigration March 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, last year only 27,000 immigrants came to Quebec, well short of the expected 40,000. Despite that incredible drop and despite taking a share of immigrants far lower than its share of the population, Quebec will still get $90 million for immigration or about three times as much per capita as Ontario.
Does the minister of immigration agree it is completely unfair for the federal government to give a province a share of immigrant funding that is vastly disproportionate to the number of immigrants actually accepted?
Immigration And Refugee Board March 29th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said that the cameras were part of an RCMP investigation. The director general of the IRB said that the cameras were installed to investigate improper relationships between staff and somebody interested in IRB's business.
That could mean that someone on the outside was influencing refugee decisions or there was an attempt to restrict information flow from the IRB.
What was the specific nature of the investigation that required the installation of the cameras to watch someone for four months?
Immigration And Refugee Board March 29th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board admitted yesterday that public works had installed one or more surveillance cameras in the ceiling panels at the Montreal office of the IRB.
Yesterday she said, and the minister repeated it, that it was part of an RCMP investigation. However the RCMP denied installing the cameras.
I have a question for the immigration minister. If the RCMP did not authorize the camera installation, did the minister himself or the chair of the IRB? Or, if neither one of them, who did?
Firearms Act March 28th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate the amendment to split Bill C-68 respecting the Firearms Act.
As debate progresses on the bill the level of emotional rhetoric increases. We heard from members of the House interests of all kinds represented here. Feminist groups and their representatives in the House have somehow managed to find a correlation between long gun ownership and violence against women.
We have heard from people who claim there is a correlation between the number of guns in the country and the levels of criminal activity, even though they are unable to show us numbers to back up the implicit assertion.
We have heard from anti-gun purists. The parliamentary secretary to the minister of immigration told us that when she walks into a gun club she says: "Gentlemen, I am your worst nightmare". Most disturbing is that the Minister of Justice thinks only armies and police ought to be able to own guns.
Those interests deserve to be represented as do all interests in the House. However, we achieve nothing by clouding Bill C-68 in rhetoric arguing that guns are inherently evil and must be done away with or rhetoric presuming that violence against women is somehow related to whether or not Canadians need to get a licence for their duck hunting shotguns.
I do not doubt the intention of people who say this type of stuff may be good. However their logic is trivial and is intended to cloud an issue that deserves careful, rational consideration because of enormous costs that would be involved in implementing Bill C-68, the implications of the legislation for gun owners and the mandate the bill would give to police to monitor people who legally own guns. The police can barely handle the complaint load they have without being downloaded additional duties to follow up on registration.
There are two intentions buried in the bill. One is crime control and the other is control of guns. They are two very different intentions. It is a profound mistake to confuse the two issues as Bill C-68 does.
As I previously said, some members of the House seem intent on confusing the two issues. They would have us believe control of crime and control of guns are hopelessly intertwined. That is irrational. It ignores not only empirical data but common sense.
In Canada we have a crime problem. No one would disagree with that. We also have gun control laws that are among the most restrictive in the world. The following question begs to be asked: How can it be that we have extremely restrictive gun control laws and a crime control problem at the same time? The answer is there is literally no correlation whatsoever in the developed world between gun control laws of a country and its crime rate.
The auditor general's report clearly gave direction to the government to review all gun control laws that presently exist and the government refused to do anything about it. I ask why.
There may be a correlation between the number of crimes committed with guns and gun control laws. It is not what the proponents of Bill C-68 are trying to convince us of. They are trying to convince us that if we legislate burdensome registration on the owners of hunting guns we will see a reduction in the crime rate. That is absolute nonsense.
If Bill C-68 passes, which the government seems intent on, the Reform Party will be monitoring the crime rate daily, that is if the crime rate is reported accurately. There is some question whether it is consistent.
If there is no drop in the crime rate-I doubt very much if any will occur-the Reform Party will remind Canadians of the intrusion into their personal property rights the government has undertaken. We will remind the Canadian people it was all for nought, just another means to draw dollars out of their pockets.
The only purpose served by this needless and authoritarian expansion of government power and the application of the outdated ideology which still animates the party across the aisle seems to be more restriction or more involvement into the affairs of the average individual.
Like most reasonable and responsible Canadians, the Reform Party understands there is a social good to be derived from controlling access to and ownership of weapons in Canada. That is only reasonable. However, we think the restrictions have gone far enough and need go no further.
Even further than Bill C-68 are the sentences imposed for using firearms in the commission of a crime. We would like to see more emphasis in this area. Members on the other side of the House possibly disagree that the way to control criminal activity is to control criminals. Can the members on the other side of the House possibly disagree that controlling the perpetrators of crime is far more important than controlling the tools a perpetrator uses to commit a crime?
Bill C-68 flies in the face of common sense logic. The government is flying in the face of logic. The government is attempting to foist on Canadians a radical ideology of government intervention veiled in the garb of crime control, obscured by rhetoric that appeals to the common desire to control criminals.
There are two very different intents underlying Bill C-68. One to control criminal use of guns; the other to control and restrict the ownership of guns. One is a criminal office; the other is not. One is an offence which the government and our party want to see made a more serious offence. The other is a legitimate activity-the ownership of property-the government wants to slowly, if inevitably, do away with. That is unacceptable. It is a power grab by the government. It is an infringement upon individual liberties.
The government wants Canadians to pay a very high price in freedom despite being unable to show there would be any reciprocal payoff in social benefits. What kind of deal is that? What kind of government is that?
As a former police officer who served on the Calgary police department for 22 years I can say with no hesitation whatsoever that this bill, if passed without the amended split we are arguing for and for which I seek support of the members of the House, would have unexpected consequences for most of my colleagues in the House, including the Minister of Justice.
Realistically, mixing the criminal and the regulatory enforcement would have the effect not only of allowing for criminal prosecution of people or even farmers who neglect to register a legal or useful tool, but would also give police officers the right and even the obligation to search out owners of unregistered or poorly stored guns. That obligation on the part of the police would not differentiate between those people who use guns to commit crime and those who collect weapons or hunt with them.
As a former police officer and someone who has given his entire working life to law enforcement and who is very much committed to reasonable gun control measures, I can say the consequences of bringing things like gun storage and registration into the Criminal Code will have unexpected and frightening consequences.
It would not assist any police officer to register every weapon and have that so-called list when the record in other jurisdictions of non-compliance is very clear. People would not comply with the law in that respect, given the track record of Australia and New Zealand as examples.
I urge my fellow members of the House to come clean with the Canadian people. I urge them to allow full access to debate on the bill. There are some serious flaws in it. The bill must be split and I urge all colleagues in the House, on the Liberal and opposition sides, to support the amendment to split Bill C-68. To keep it in its present state is not forthright.
Member For Halifax March 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Canadian public is aware of how the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the member for Halifax, feels about the people from Spain.
The member for Halifax, it was reported, on speculating about doctors who advised Silken Laumann to take an allergy drug that cost her her gold medal commented: "They must have been Spaniards".
Not only is this a blatant insensitivity aimed at the Spanish people, it is absolutely unacceptable behaviour given her position as a parliamentary secretary for immigration. The member should be ashamed.
Canada may be in conflict with the Europeans over turbot stocks, but there is absolutely no need to attack Spanish people directly. Canada has a long standing friendship with the people from Spain. Many Spanish people are among Canada's most successful and contributing immigrants and are an integral part of our common culture.
When the member for Halifax denigrates an entire people like this, it is time to reconsider her credibility as a parliamentary secretary for immigration.
Immigration And Refugee Board March 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister of immigration.
The minister knows about this mess but as usual he has tried to pass the buck to the chair of the IRB. I have received a petition signed by 300 civil servants, many of whom work in the Toronto IRB office, demanding a halt to these wasteful renovations.
Will the minister of immigration recommend that these renovations be halted now, or will he ignore these employees like he has ignored other critical employees in the past?
Immigration And Refugee Board March 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Last week renovations that will cost $500,000 started at the Immigration and Refugee Board's University Avenue office in Toronto. This remodelling, done at a time when 45,000 civil servants are to be let go, is causing outrage in the office itself. With the downsizing of the board, even more offices will be emptied. Nonetheless, expansion is proceeding.
Will the minister immediately call a halt to this incredible waste of taxpayers' dollars?
Petitioners March 20th, 1995
Madam Speaker, my final petition is on immigration. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reduce immigration to the previous average level of one-half of one per cent of the population, or about 150,000 per year, with a basic intake of not less than 50 per cent of the total, composed of carefully selected skilled workers required by the Canadian economy. They request that our refugee acceptance rate be brought into line with the average for other asylum destination countries. This petition bears 42 names.
Petitioners March 20th, 1995
Madam Speaker, this petition is on gun control and bears 119 names. The petitioners support the laws which severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of crime and support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens.
Madam Speaker, may I continue?