Jim Silye

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, September 28th, 1994]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Quorum, please.

[Petitions, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as parliamentarians I do not believe we have the authority to deny the rights of petitioners even if their personal beliefs contradict our own. MPs should present any and all petitions from their constituents.

Therefore I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Mrs. Kathleen Morck who, along with 31 other Calgary Centre constituents, does not support any government legislation that would give special favours or rights to homosexuals.

At the beginning of my term I took an oath to represent the wishes of all constituents to Ottawa and not the wishes of Ottawa to them.

I thank Mrs. Morck and encourage all concerned Calgarians to continue to petition this House on concerns that directly affect their lives so that legislation is drafted from the bottom up and not the top down.

[The Economy, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the national debt of $530 billion-plus and the interest costs to service this debt are the single biggest problem facing Canada today.

Despite this fact, this government still spends $110 million more per day than it brings in. I challenge the team in red to stop hiding its head in its little red playbook, get off its benches, off the sidelines and make a real play for Canadians.

I ask the coach of the Liberal team: Who is prepared to stand up and take responsibility for this fiscal mismanagement? What serious actions is it willing to take? Where is the accountability and the spending cuts promised by the finance minister? When can Canadians expect tax relief from this government rather than tax grief? Why will no one on the other side do something about balancing the budget rather than consulting for another year?

The national debt clock today stands at $531,946,016,332.04. This Liberal government is adding to our debt at the rate of $1,473 per second. This amount keeps on ticking while the government just keeps on talking.

[Party Fundraising, September 22nd, 1994]

They overspend.

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Are we voting on the whole bill or just on the amendment?

[The Senate, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister appointed some political friends to the other place, including a former Manitoba Liberal leader, a former Quebec Liberal cabinet minister, and the daughter-in-law of a former Liberal Prime Minister.

Is it any wonder that Canadians have virtually no respect for the other place or the patronage appointees who rest there. They know that an unelected, unaccountable, anti-democratic body like the other place has absolutely no place in a democratic society. It has no business shaping legislation. It has no business whatsoever in deciding how taxpayers' money should be spent. It has no legitimate role whatsoever and serves mainly to provide a retirement income for the Prime Minister's friends.

Canadians demand that the other place be reformed so that it is elected and accountable, an effective guardian of regional interests.

While the new appointees collect their pay cheques, whether or not they can walk to work, the national debt has risen to $531,172,948,085.41.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member who just gave his presentation the same question I asked the previous member.

There is evidence in the past year that current levels of immigration are putting a stress and strain on the bureaucracy and all the good programs that Canada has which people love to apply and come to Canada for as the hon. member indicated his family did.

Does he not think there is some merit, any merit at all, in looking at the system and our levels of immigration which are currently at 250,000 people? In our opinion it is at least 50,000 too high. It is unmanageable. We need to control it a bit better. It would preserve the integrity of our immigration system. It would restore confidence in the minister of immigration and I am sure the hon. member would dearly love to see his reputation stay at a good level.

Most important, it would also help and protect immigrants who come here to give their best to this country. Immigrants send their children to school, but because of high numbers and the reputations that some of the bad apples bring to the system they go to school and are discriminated against. They are called names. They come home and they cry.

This is not what we brought them to Canada for. This is not what they applied to Canada for. Those are the things we have to try to improve within the system. That is what we are trying to get across here.

We are not against immigration. We are for immigration but we are for numbers at a speed and at a level that we can control things. We cannot control a car going around a 90-degree corner at 150 miles an hour. They should reduce the numbers to control it better.

Does the member who just gave his speech see any merit in looking at the numbers and reducing them for better control?

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question about the levels of immigration. Currently the Liberal government targets 250,000.

It has been shown throughout the year that this stretches and puts strain on the bureaucracy and a lot of the various classifications. Because of that there has been a lot of abuse by the criminal element, a lot of abuse under family dependency programs, a lot of abuse of the immigration business program. The department cannot catch them. We may appear to be attacking and criticizing and I agree we should stress the fact that our immigration program is a good one. However, we should look at the numbers.

Does the hon. member feel there is any merit in either putting a freeze on the immigration program for a while or reducing the numbers from 250,000 to 200,000 so that each and every one of these good programs we have can be controlled? In theory they are all great. But in actual practice there are some elements that are being incorporated into the program where the immigrants themselves are getting a bad reputation and it is not fair.

Like the member I am a first generation immigrant. I like to see immigrants come to this country, be happy to come here and be treated with respect. Because we are on this program of high numbers for whatever reason, the integrity of our immigration policy needs to be restored for the protection not only of Canadians but the very immigrants themselves. Does she not feel there is merit in addressing the numbers of immigrants that are being allowed into this country and reducing them even by 50,000 or 60,000 people?

[Committees Of The House, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I feel the member should withdraw those comments. If he wants to play on a football field I will meet him any time. If he wants to have a war of words-

[Committees Of The House, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to know under comments and questions if the member is leading to a question or whether he is making a comment.