House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.
Citizenship And Immigration February 15th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration sponsored a meeting and flew writers and bureaucrats on short notice to a four star west coast hotel to ask them: What should we do with the citizenship oath? The meeting was purposely kept secret and the new so-called pledge omits the head of state.
Was the minister aware of this meeting and does he approve of its final result, a pledge that is no longer an oath that leaves out any and all mention of the Queen?
Petitions February 13th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to present 11 petitions signed by over 2,000 people from several communities in my constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin.
My constituents are of the opinion that existing controls on law-abiding, responsible firearms owners are more than enough to ensure public safety. They therefore call upon Parliament to support laws which will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime and support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms; support legislation which will repeal or modify existing gun control laws that have not improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable.
These petitions are presented with my concurrence.
Members Of Parliament Pensions February 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, last November I rose in this House to share the concerns my constituents and I have over the Liberal's inaction in dealing with excessive MP pensions.
Today I rise again on the same subject. Almost three months have passed since trough day, the day 52 members of the House became members of the pay cheque for life club, courtesy of the extravagant MP pension plan. This government is famous for putting off major decisions. Meanwhile the cheques keep flowing from Ottawa and Canadians keep demanding an overhaul.
In a recent Cariboo-Chilcotin householder survey over one quarter of all responses voluntarily singled out the MP pension plan as an area to be cut. My constituents are angry that this government has done nothing.
Reformers stand with all Canadians in demanding MP pensions be brought into line with those seen in the private sector. It is time the Liberals live up to their promises. Stop wavering on
the issue and bring forward an affordable pension plan for the members of this House.
Petitions February 7th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and present three petitions signed by over 700 people from several communities in the constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin.
My constituents feel that existing controls on law-abiding, responsible firearms owners are more than enough to ensure public safety and therefore call upon Parliament to support laws which will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime, to support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, to support legislation which will repeal or modify existing gun control laws that have not improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable.
Immigration Act February 6th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I will be glad to quote the sections of my speech once again for the hon. member's benefit. If the hon member has her pencil out, she can take notes.
I quote Amnesty International that said there were measures contained in the bill that potentially violate rights guaranteed in the charter.
I also quote the Canadian Labour Congress that says:
We believe C-44 in fact violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There are other groups that accused the government of breaking sections 7, 11 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as numerous international conventions dealing with refugee treatment, torture, execution and war zones.
I do not have to quote the sections because they have already been quoted by people who know more about the law than I do, and the hon. member too, I might add.
Immigration Act February 6th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I was in discussion with a constituent of another constituency, not my own. The concern there was that following the policies of the right hon. member who has been mentioned we hardly live in a country any longer. "We are a large plot of geography", he said, "in which a lot of different people try to make a living without any common history, without any common destiny or without any means of coming together".
With regard to the member's question, if she would like to review the transcript of the committee meetings the information is all there.
Immigration Act February 6th, 1995
Madam Speaker, there are a number of deficiencies in this bill, deficiencies that were drawn to the attention of the government by witnesses who came and spoke eloquently at the standing committee hearings. These deficiencies were not dealt with and I would like to just deal with those now at some length if I may.
In 1991 The Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future released its final report on the state of our country. It was one of the most wide ranging and I might add, one of the most expensive committees in Canadian history. It spent over $23 million to get the pulse of the citizens of this country. However, it amounted to little more than a very expensive blood pressure check. Thanks to chairman Keith Spicer we were told what we knew all along: that people get angry when they are ignored by their governments.
The Reform Party grew out of this frustration and the fact that 52 of us now sit in the House of Commons is proof that this frustration is still alive and well.
Among its findings, the citizens' forum found Canadians have had enough of this partisan political system that the Liberals enforce and encourage with a passion. According to the report: "One of the strongest messages the forum received from participants was that they have lost their faith in both the political process and their political leaders. They do not feel that their governments, especially at the federal level, reflect the will of the people and they do not feel that citizens have the means at the moment to correct this".
It adds later: "They would like major decisions affecting them to be made in a responsible manner and in a manner that is responsive to both the expressed views and the general well-being of citizens".
Two years later the Liberals promised in their much touted red book to restore respect for government. They said that in the House of Commons a Liberal government would give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation through the House of Commons committees.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I was looking forward to playing a constructive role in drafting legislation that reflected the needs and the aspirations of Canadians. It was my hope that a new spirit of co-operation would come from this government, a spirit I am always willing to help and encourage.
To me, Bill C-44 was to be a test of this Liberal commitment. Would the Liberals be willing to co-operate with the Reform Party of Canada in making Bill C-44 work? Would they be willing to listen to Canadians on the pros and cons of this bill? Would they be willing to make changes to the bill to account for its flaws and shortcomings? I am sad to say on all accounts they most emphatically were not.
From the very start of the hearings Reform MPs have been faced by Liberal members who have shown neither an interest in working with us in the manner the red book promised nor the respect their peers expect and deserve. After promising to take the high road in dealing with the opposition, the Liberals have suddenly taken a liking to slinging mud at anyone on the opposition benches.
The Reform Party members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Bloc Quebecois members I might add have tolerated constant interruptions when questioning witnesses, sarcastic comments in the middle of statements, an atmosphere of unfounded animosity and confrontation at levels never before seen in Canadian politics. I wonder, is this what this new style of government is all about?
I am more upset though with how undemocratic the entire committee process has become. In black and white, the Liberals promised to give the Commons committees more leeway as well as the power to be more than just lap-dogs of the ministers. Committees are supposed to be the eyes and ears of the House, ensuring that average Canadians are heard on important issues.
Over the past several months the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration heard from numerous witnesses who came at taxpayers' expense to share their concerns about Bill C-44 and to offer their suggestions about how it can be made more effective.
The standing committee heard from a wide range of groups and individuals: lawyers, refugee advocates, police officers, labour groups and international organizations. Not one of these groups had kind words for the government on this bill. Yet clearly the Liberals have turned their backs on Canadians and followed the beck and call of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
For the record, and to jog the memories of the Liberal members sitting opposite, let me state what some of these groups had to say on this piece of legislation.
Amnesty International believes:
Measures contained in Bill C-44 potentially violate rights guaranteed by the charter and in international treaties concerning refugees and the prevention of torture.
The Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association, after outlining 14 series concerns, concluded: "Bill C-44 must be withdrawn".
The Canadian Bar Association is concerned that "the express goals of saving money and reducing delay are not likely to be advanced by the provisions of Bill C-44".
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Canada believed that Bill C-44 violated sections 30, 58 and 1(f)(b) of the Geneva convention.
The Canadian Labour Congress stated:
We believe C-44 in fact violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There are numerous other warnings from groups all across the political spectrum. I wonder what my Liberal colleagues across the way remember of these concerns.
In summary, these and other groups accused the government of breaking sections 11, 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as numerous international conventions dealing with refugee treatment, torture, execution, war zones and disappearances.
The bill would not stand up five minutes against a charter challenge and would be condemned by the international community if passed. It is hard to believe that the government would refuse to deal with these serious concerns or even at least acknowledge that they exist.
On the issue of enforcement, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and I had a rather heated discussion when he appeared before the standing committee. I asked him bluntly: "Can you enforce Bill C-44? Yes or no?" His response was: "Yes, we can". That was a strong pledge in my opinion, but fortunately for the minister he is not the one who will be enforcing the bill. What about the people who will be enforcing the bill? What did they have to say?
According to the Canada Employment and Immigration union, "Additional staff is needed to process applications and help integrate new entrants in a timely fashion". They do not have the staff needed to fulfil their current duties, let alone any new duties.
The customs union said:
What benefit can be derived by the amendments proposed by Bill C-44, if we currently do not have the resources or the capacity to enforce even the existing legislation?
Finally, Canadian Police Association President Neal Jessop said:
It reminds me of putting a band aid on the Hindenburg. The problems are not going to go away.
What else is there to say? Whom should I believe? The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, a politician with little or no background in policing issues, who claims that Bill C-44 can be enforced? Or, shall I believe the people on the front lines who admit that they cannot enforce the laws now and that Bill C-44 will not make enforcement a more realistic possibility in the future? Whom should I believe?
The hon. member for Calgary Northeast, Bloc Quebecois members on the committee and I have pointed out each and every one of these flaws to the committee. We have brought them to the attention of the Liberals through questions, statements and finally a motion last December calling for an inquiry into these concerns.
Liberal members struck down the motion. When asked why, the Liberal member for Elgin-Norfolk responded: "We don't need to tell you".
The member for Bourassa cautioned the Liberals that they were being disrespectful of their fellow MPs. I was shocked at the response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. She responded: "If the shoe fits, wear it".
Is this the new form of government the Liberals promised? Is this how the Liberals listen to Canadians? Is this how our country is going to be governed for the next three years?
I say for the record that the committee hearings into Bill C-44 have been an absolute and total farce. They have wasted my time as a member of Parliament, time that could have been much better used perhaps in dealing with constituency concerns. They have wasted the time of witnesses who have travelled hundreds of miles in some cases to share their concerns with us, only to find they were shut out in the final analysis. Finally, they have wasted taxpayers' dollars on a series of consultations that the government obviously did not take seriously.
The Liberal government has not addressed the serious concerns over the legality and the enforceability of Bill C-44. In the process it has made a mockery of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The Canadian people want meaningful legislation. They want to deal firmly with criminals who take advantage of our country's goodwill. They do not want laws that will be struck down by the courts and ridiculed by the international community. Most important, they do not want laws that cannot be enforced.
Until these specific concerns are addressed by the government, until the Liberals prove they are willing to seriously listen to the Canadian people, until they deal with the unconstitutionality of the bill, and until they give our enforcement officers the resources they need to make the bill work, I and the rest of the Reform caucus intend to oppose Bill C-44.
Petitions February 6th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present three petitions signed by almost 300 people from several communities in my Cariboo-Chilcotin constituency.
My constituents are convinced that existing gun controls are sufficient. Therefore they call on Parliament to support laws that will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime, support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, and support legislation that will repeal or modify existing gun control laws that have not improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or inefficient.
These petitions are presented with my concurrence.
Immigration Act February 6th, 1995
You cannot use that word here.
Immigration Act December 12th, 1994
Madam Speaker, once again my intervention will be very brief. I believe that the intention of Motion No. 21 is to further reduce the intent of Bill C-44. The Reform Party members will oppose that intention.
With regard to Motion No. 22, I have never quite figured out what this is about. I will leave that to those who are going to square the French and the English on this translation.