House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.
Petitions October 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in the third petition the petitioners are requesting that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and upholds the Supreme Court of Canada decision on September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Petitions October 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners pray and request that Parliament rescind mandatory release legislation where violent offenders are involved; that Parliament ensure all information on violent offenders, including prior offences and refusal to enroll in treatment programs, is provided to those making decisions on release or parole; and that Parliament ensure all violent offenders will be separated from society until it can be proven that they will not reoffend.
Petitions October 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present three petitions.
In the first petition the petitioners are asking that Parliament take steps to keep BGH out of Canada by legislating a moratorium or stoppage on BGH use and sale until the year 2000 and by examining the outstanding health and economic questions through an independent and transparent review.
Employment Equity Act October 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member if this employment equity legislation will address an issue of discrimination by using discrimination itself.
Although the legislation as he interprets it may not be doing that, we do have a situation in which those who are not covered by employment equity legislation are being told not to even bother applying for some of these positions that are open because they happen to fall outside of the categories of this protection.
How fair is it to not even be considered for a job? I am referring to the RCMP as a prime example. I have had a number of young men complain because they have been turned away at the door from even applying because they do not fit into this little category.
How fair is it to those individuals to be denied even the opportunity of applying to see if they are equally capable of doing the job?
Immigration And Refugee Board October 5th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the bleeding heart mentality of the Liberal government has penetrated the Immigration and Refugee Board, appeal division. Its decision to allow Satpal Singh Jhatoo, a convicted murderer, to stay in Canada is reprehensible. The board says the killer is remorseful. It says the killer is unlikely to reoffend, so it let him stay.
It does not matter that he beat a mother of six to death with a baseball bat, doused her body in gasoline and set it on fire. It does not matter that before being sentenced to life for this horrible crime, he was convicted of aggravated assault when he stabbed a man in the neck.
It does not matter that he violated parole. It does not matter that he was caught smoking pot while on parole. It does not matter that he received day parole after only seven years in prison.
It does not matter that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has the means and the power to declare this criminal a danger to the public and have him deported. It does not matter to the bleeding heart Liberals, but it does matter to Canadians.
Immigration October 3rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, there are nine other terrorists who were convicted of hijacking Air India aeroplanes. All have been released from prison in Pakistan and all are intent on coming to Canada. Two other members of this group are presently in Canada.
With the new powers recently conveyed upon him, will the minister assure this House that these convicted hijackers will be removed from this country as expeditiously as possible?
Immigration October 3rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in 1981 Tejinderpal Singh and four accomplices attacked and hijacked an Indian airlines flight out of Delhi and forced it to land in Pakistan. Tried and convicted for air piracy in Pakistan, they received life sentences. After being paroled, Singh made his way to Canada where he lied about his background when he claimed refugee status. However, his true identity was uncovered and he was arrested but has since been released.
When in opposition the Liberals criticized the previous Tory government for its handling of the Muhammad Issa Muhammad case. I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, will this Liberal government handle the Tejinderpal Singh case differently?
1996 Census October 2nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, Canadians filling out this question will have the option of stating whether they are one of the following nationalities: Chinese, Filipino, Japanese or Korean. However, most immigrants, or descendants of immigrants from these countries, consider themselves to be proud Canadians but they cannot indicate that.
Is the government prepared to stop the practice of creating hyphenated Canadians by adding another nationality to the list, Canadian?
1996 Census October 2nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry says that a question on race is included in the 1996 census because a specific question on racial origin would be beneficial for a wide range of purposes.
However, question 19 is inconsistent as it confuses race, nationality and geographic location. It would allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to claim to be a visible minority because of his Latin American birth.
Can any minister advise the House of one purpose this question will benefit other than providing targets for the government's employment equity program?
Criminal Code October 2nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-277 is technically an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada dealing with the subject of female genital mutilation. This issue raises a wide variety of concerns: legal, medical, immigration and multicultural. All of these issues must be addressed when dealing with Bill C-277.
The most important issue the bill raises is that of clashing cultural values. How tolerant is a multicultural country like Canada supposed to be in accepting the cultural values of immigrants? As a general rule, Canada has been one of the most tolerant nations in accepting and encouraging differing value systems.
However, this acceptance has not and cannot be absolute. For example, Canada has not accepted polygamy as an acceptable way of life, even though it is common practice in many nations. Some might argue our refusal to accept polygamy is discriminatory. My response to such criticism is simple. If you do not like the rules we play by in Canada, do not come to our country.
Hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees come to our nation every year to start a new and better life, but when they come to our country they agree to play by our rules. Our rules say one cannot have more than one spouse and, more important, that one does not mutilate little girls. Female circumcision is just that, mutilation.
There is no religion in the world that prescribes female circumcision as part of its doctrine. It is rather a cultural tradition in some countries in northern and eastern Africa. Because Canada accepts immigrants from all over the world, it is an issue that now is a concern for Canadian law makers.
During the first hour of debate on this bill, members from all parties provided examples of why this is an issue in Canada. While I will not repeat the examples, suffice it to say there appears to be a body of evidence that female genital mutilation is taking place in Canada today. While there appears to be a fairly substantial body of evidence that female genital mutilation is occurring in Canada, there has never been a prosecution of anyone involved in such a procedure. Why?
The bill presented to the House by my colleague from Quebec would make anyone who commits genital mutilation guilty of an indictable offence. As well, anyone who aids, abets, counsels or procures the performance of female genital mutilation would be similarly guilty of an indictable offence.
The members from the government who spoke on the bill believe more counselling is needed and if criminal charges are necessary they can be covered by existing legislation.
What better way of counselling anyone who comes from a culture that practises female genital mutilation than by having a section in the Criminal Code by which if anyone commits female genital mutilation or even aids, abets, counsels or procures such an act he or she is guilty of a serious crime?
If we are serious about eliminating this practice that is the message we should be sending to these communities. I ask the government members who say current legislation already covers this act why there has never been a prosecution of such an act in Canada. If there ever is a prosecution under the assault causing bodily harm provisions of the Criminal Code, the defence would be arguing there never was any criminal intent to cause bodily harm.
By making this a specific offence, as laid out in Bill C-277, all the crown would have to prove is that those charged knowingly participated in female genital mutilation.
I have to agree with the members for Calgary Southeast and Bellechasse who called for an increased maximum sentence. If, as
Liberal members suggest, charges could be laid under the assault causing bodily harm provisions of the code, the maximum penalty for committing this specific crime of female genital mutilation should be the same as the 10-year maximum that exists for assault causing bodily harm.
Let us not make any bones about it, female genital mutilation is a serious offence committed against young girls in the 10 to 12-year range. It is, in effect, extreme child abuse.
While I am generally reluctant to give the provincial legislatures any advice on how to run their affairs, I will make an exception here. I strongly believe that once Parliament passes Bill C-277 or similar legislation the provinces should make amendments to their child protection acts. These amendments should make the reporting of female genital mutilation mandatory for those employed in health, education and social service professions.
It is important the House send a clear and strong message to everyone in Canada that anyone involved in the practice of female genital mutilation is committing a serious crime. However, I believe that before we get to that stage, Bill C-277 should be given a complete hearing at the committee stage. I would like someone to appear before the justice committee and explain why female genital mutilation should not be criminalized. I would like to be there and hear somebody attempt to defend this practice. I would like to hear someone explain to Canadian parliamentarians why such acts should be allowed to continue in Canada.
However, I have a sneaking suspicion the committee would be unable to find anyone who would publicly justify female genital mutilation. How does one possibly defend the indefensible?
While I believe the issue should be reviewed by the committee, I will not even attempt to give the pretence that my mind can be changed. Female genital mutilation is a violent sexual assault committed against young children under the pretence of a cultural value.
Whether it is a traditional culture value is irrelevant. Can anyone imagine if descendants of the Aztec or Mayan cultures came to Canada and wanted to revive the old cultural tradition of human sacrifice? How about the old tradition of 17th century North Americans of burning women suspected of being witches at the stake? Of course Canadians would never support such things. It is outrageous to even think about it, as is the ritualistic, violent sexual assault of little girls. Some cultural traditions deserve to be extinguished. This is one of them.
Bill C-277 is a good step in making sure this practice never gains a foothold in our country. By supporting Bill C-277 we send a message to those communities that still practise this terrible tradition that such acts will not be tolerated in Canada.
I am happy I do not share the guilt members opposite seem to be racked with when dealing with cross-cultural conflicts. I take pride in having this opportunity to denounce the barbaric act of female genital mutilation and I will stand with those members who support this legislation at second and third reading.