House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.
Oath Of Citizenship June 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, Canadians can accept the premise that new citizens should take an oath of allegiance to Canada. Why limit such an oath to new Canadians?
If the government will require all new Canadian citizens have to take an oath of allegiance to Canada, does it not believe that the members of this House should be required to take an oath of allegiance to Canada as well?
Oath Of Citizenship June 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated that it was the intention of the government to modernize the oath of citizenship.
Most Canadians would agree that the oath should reflect contemporary views of the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
Would such an allegiance to Canada be in addition to the current oath of allegiance to Her Majesty or would it replace the oath to Her Majesty?
Criminal Code June 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I add my comments to those of the hon. member for Mississauga East who introduced this private member's bill dealing with consecutive sentences.
For some time now Canadians have been very concerned about what they see as a lack of justice in Canada. They are concerned that individuals who commit one, two or three crimes end up getting a sentence that is compacted in a concurrent sentence rather than getting three different sentences.
I am not saying everything is perfect south of the border but we see sentences that are consecutive. Individuals get sentences added to the first sentence. In Canada we see sentences packed into one sentence so that individuals who may have committed three or four serious sexual assaults end up getting a three or six year sentence as opposed to a three or six year sentence for each and every victim.
Basically that says to Canadians that only the first victim has any worth or value, that each consecutive victim has no value or worth, and that there is not a price to pay for having been a victim. I think Canadians have difficulty with that.
The attempt of the hon. member for Mississauga East to bring in consecutive sentences recognizes that Canadians want to see from their justice system that an individual who has committed a series of crimes is penalized for committing a series of crimes and not just for one crime.
The hon. member has good intentions. Her amendments add sections 2.1 and 2.2 to first and second degree murder. Canadians are concerned when they see people who have been given life sentences for committing either first or second degree murder ending up on parole. In some cases it is relatively early in their sentences, be it seven years or ten years.
When an individual in the circumstance commits a crime, whether aggravated assault or in very serious cases a second murder, they fail to understand the way the courts calculate the time spent before eligibility for parole. It does not seem to recognize the seriousness of the crimes committed.
Canadians are asking themselves how somebody can go out and murder an individual, get a life sentence without eligibility for parole after 10 years or 25 years, get out on parole, go out and murder again and not be given a life sentence that means life without parole.
I agree with my hon. colleague from Calgary Northeast that Canadians want certainty of sentence. They want to know specifically what the judge is talking about. They want to know that when somebody is given a sentence of five years they will spend five years of incarceration.
If judges were to say to Canadians that in certainty of sentencing they will incarcerate an individual for five years for having committed this crime, then they will give them two or three years of parole, and if need be in some situations they might even tack on a period of community supervision outside of parole, people would understand clearly what the penalty is of the crime.
However, when a judge gives a five year sentence and Canadians see this individual wandering the streets in two years or in eighteen months, they fail to see where justice is being served. If we are to have confidence in, faith in and support for our justice system, justice must be seen to be served. We do not have that today.
The hon. member for Mississauga East is trying to make some amendments to the conditional release act that show a certainty in sentencing, that do not leave it to some obscure calculation to determine when a person will be eligible for parole, that when a person is given a sentence for more than one conviction there is more than one sentence, that sentences are consecutive, that they are added on. The member for Mississauga East has attempted a very honourable thing. I commend her for her attempts to amend the conditional release act.
I ask that this private member's bill be given unanimous consent to become a votable bill.
Questions On The Order Paper June 4th, 1996
What was the total cost of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's trip to Hong Kong and India in April 1996 and ( a ) who accompanied her on this trip; ( b ) if anyone from outside the Public Service of Canada did accompany her, what are their names and who paid for their expenses and provide details of these expenses; and ( c ) what was the minister's detailed itinerary during this visit?
Petitions May 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 128 signatures from constituents in my riding who oppose the government's legislation to include sexual orientation in the human rights bill.
Immigration May 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for citizenship in Quebec claims that since his province receives half of the refugees to Canada, Ottawa should pay for the services that Quebec provides to them. While many refugees are attracted to Quebec because of the high rate of acceptance of refugee claims in that province, the Quebec government fails to mention that almost half of the immigrants to Quebec leave that province within the first two years.
I ask the minister of immigration to assure the House that federal taxpayers will not end up footing the bill as the separatist forces in Quebec attempt to display some compassion for newcomers to that province.
Immigration May 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, for almost three years the government has repeatedly claimed there is nothing wrong with the current immigration system. Yet it is apparent that it prevents Canada from deporting individuals who are a threat to Canada's national security.
Is the minister of immigration satisfied with these laws that afford more protection to terrorists, criminals and spies than they do for the Canadian public?
Immigration May 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, while various ministers in the government are talking tough about two suspected Russian illegals who have been in custody for the past week, it is clear these two individuals will not be deported any time soon without their consent.
If these two suspected Russian spies choose to pursue all available appeals they may be able to delay their deportation for years and then seek to stay in Canada on compassionate grounds.
Is the minister of immigration prepared to take definitive action to remove these individuals from Canada or will they be permitted to defer their deportation indefinitely?
Financial Administration Act May 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the arguments from the other side. I find it confusing that somebody could even question accountability to the House of Commons and Parliament.
My colleague's motion merely asks that government departments be accountable for the money they spend, particularly when the auditor general's report indicates instances in which there might be some question of whether it could have been spent in a better way. My hon. colleague's motion is only suggesting that all departments be required to table responses to the auditor general's report when it brings into question some of the activities within the departments.
The reason my hon. colleague suggests that the departments should table responses is that the public accounts committee cannot handle all the issues raised by the auditor general. If it were only the public accounts committee that would deal with these issues in an effort to bring resolution to the concerns in the auditor general's report, it would have no opportunity to do the necessary follow-up.
We spend $50 million a year for the auditor general to audit some government department accounts. All my hon. colleague is suggesting is that if we are going to invest that kind of capital for the auditor general's department to do checks on government spending, then the government departments that are found to be somewhat in question as to whether they are operating with the best value for the dollar for Canadian taxpayers should be accountable. This is something that should have the support of every single member in the House of Commons.
The House of Commons is accountable to the Canadian taxpayer and to the Canadian public. Members of the House of Commons are voted in by the Canadian taxpayers to make sure their interests are being looked after, considered and protected.
What Canadians feel, rightly or wrongly, is that government bureaucracies, the departments, tend to remove themselves from accountability to the House of Commons. Canadians think the bureaucracy is running the show. If Parliament wants to regain some control and some accountability of government departments
that administer the policies established in the House of Commons, then something like this is needed.
What is needed is a report which gives the department's explanation and what it will do about the auditor general's concerns and the time frame within which it will address the issues brought up by the auditor general. We are only asking that these departments table a report acknowledging the auditor general's comments, giving an explanation of why it occurred and giving some indication of how much time it will take the department to rectify the concerns of the auditor general.
It is almost impossible to understand how an hon. member across the way could find fault with this request. The hon. member for St. Albert is asking for the government bureaucracies and departments to be accountable and to answer to the House of Commons.
The auditor general is an officer of the House of Commons. He is acting our behalf to investigate, to audit public accounts and to make sure Parliament is aware of where the government is spending money. It makes sense to me and hopefully to everybody else here that Parliament should be holding the departments accountable for responding to the auditor general's report; not just a parliamentary committee which has not the personnel, the members, to address all of these concerns.
If I remember correctly, in 1994 the report had 34 chapters of detailed information on selected government programs in a dozen departments and agencies. Only four of these chapters received a response from the government in last year's budget. That does not indicate to me and to Canadians that government departments take seriously the concerns raised in the auditor general's report. If we are to invest the kind of money we do, if we are to invest the opportunity for somebody to audit government accounts, we should also make sure their suggestions and concerns are given serious consideration.
This year, of 27 chapters in the auditor general's report only 1 was addressed in the budget plan, annex I. One has to ask how seriously the government takes the concerns raised by the auditor general. How seriously does the government take those situations in which the auditor general is pointing out taxpayer money is not being well spent, or that the return on that investment of taxpayer dollars is not just justified and not enough?
I suggest all members in the House of Commons, if they believe it is the House of Commons that is in control of the country and not the government departments and not the bureaucracy, should fully support Motion No. 166 to see that control and accountability are returned through the House of Commons and not through the government departments.
Financial Administration Act May 17th, 1996
You are on Novocain.