Sharon Hayes

[Immigration, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has also tried to reassure Canadians that the vast majority of deportations are carried out after they are ordered, but of approximately 25,000 deportations ordered last year fewer than 9,000 have actually been carried out.

Canadians deserve to know how the immigration enforcement system is working.

Will the minister agree to the public disclosure of the percentage of deportation orders successfully carried out, especially in light of his recently announced amnesty agenda?

[Immigration, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Several weeks ago the minister was quoted as saying that only 16 deportation orders against criminals had been overturned last year. He argued that this meant the immigration and refugee board was working just fine.

Recent reports indicate that at least 242 non-residents, most with criminal records, had deportation orders overturned.

Was the minister unaware of the numbers of criminal deportations overturned? If not, why did he choose not to reveal the true number?

[Citizenship Act, May 11th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-249, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (right to citizenship).

Madam Speaker, today I wish to table a bill to amend the Citizenship Act.

The intent of the bill is to clarify the automatic issuance of Canadian citizenship specifically to those born in Canada to parents who have made a claim for refugee or landed status and are awaiting a decision. The bill specifies that a child should retain the citizenship status of the parents until a decision is rendered on the case.

It is my belief that our citizenship laws should recognize that citizenship is not simply an automatic right, it is a privilege.

The intent of this bill is a direct response from input by the citizens of my riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Citizenship Court, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on April 14 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated: "As vacancies arise, new citizenship court judges will not be appointed". On April 26 the Prime Minister stated: "We are working at substantially reducing the deficit". He referred to the millions of dollars being saved by the citizenship court judge decision.

As a result of the attrition in these appointments the estimated potential savings for this year alone should be in the range of $300,000. However, all attempts to have the estimates in this one department reduced at all to reflect these savings to the Canadian taxpayer have been stonewalled by the Prime Minister's own caucus.

Similar to this government's first budget brought down in February, we continue to hear promises from this Prime Minister but see no action.

[National Sport Act, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Bill C-212 and the amendment introduced by the parliamentary secretary.

This discussion encompasses much more than the pros and cons of two Canadian sports. Rather it is an opportunity for us as members of Parliament to raise a rallying point to help us further define ourselves as Canadians. I assert that by naming Canada's national sports, with which we identify parts of our history, our present reality and a future that can bring all Canadians a step closer together.

There are certain questions we can ask ourselves. My colleague has actually presented a case for lacrosse. I wish to briefly propose some questions that will address whether hockey should be made Canada's national sport.

First, is hockey rooted firmly in Canada's history? As we have heard the answer is an unequivocal yes. Hockey in Canada has been in existence for as long as Canada itself. Hockey is a uniquely Canadian sport dating as far back as the early 19th century.

The hockey that is most familiar to Canadians today was first introduced in Montreal by a McGill University student named J.G.A. Creighton. The first world hockey championship was held in Canada in 1883. The first Stanley Cup game was held in 1894 and won by the Montreal triple A team.

In addition to Lord Stanley's contribution, Canada also recognizes excellence in hockey through other historical awards. The Lester Pearson award is given to the most outstanding player in the NHL. The Lady Byng Memorial Trophy is awarded to the player who has exhibited the best type of sportsmanship combined with a high standard of playing ability.

Second, is hockey seen by Canadians as their national sport? Most Canadians would answer yes. Over the last several decades hockey has consistently attracted a number of fans and participants greater than all other sports together. Household words are hockey names like Rocket Richard, Gordie Howe and Wayne Gretzky.

There are over half a million players registered at the amateur level and for each of those at least five other Canadians are behind the scenes. There are 31,000 teams and 2,400 hockey organizations registered with our national registry. These numbers do not include the many tens of thousands of other players. From pre-schoolers to old timers there is an explosion of participation. Like so many other centres in my own riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam the facilities in our area just cannot keep up with the demand.

Third, is hockey an inclusive sport open to all Canadians? For instance, women's hockey is the fastest growing sport played by women in Canada today. Two weeks ago our women's national team gained international recognition as the best team in the world. This was their third straight world title. They have yet to lose to any country at the international level.

Fourth, is hockey accessible to Canadians? Canada boasts the most impressive organizational network for hockey in the entire world. Known as the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association this body links the membership of local associations to all other nationally and internationally organized bodies. First formed in 1914 the CAHA has nurtured amateur hockey in Canada so that millions of Canadians from coast to coast can come together. In addition, police and government organizations, colleges, universities, et cetera, et cetera bring Canadians together through hockey across Canada.

Fifth, does hockey serve the interests of Canadians both individually and as a community? Hockey indeed enriches the lives of many Canadians. It encourages leadership among our youth. It teaches sportsmanship, drive and determination. It builds a healthy sense of competitiveness and fosters an atmosphere where lasting friendships as we have already heard can be developed.

Millions of volunteers offer their time to this sport each and every year. Parents, teachers, friends, neighbours, people from all walks of life invest their time in their communities and therefore in Canada as a whole. In addition, an estimated $400

million is pumped into the national economy annually as a direct result of hockey.

Sixth, when other countries look at Canada, what do they see? They see hockey. Teams from across Canada travel all over the world to challenge the best players from other countries. Whether we win or lose on the ice as a nation, Canada wins each and every time one of our teams competes abroad.

Remember well the 1972 Canada-Russia series when Paul Henderson scored. It was one of the great moments in our history, a moment in time that caught and has held the hearts of all Canadians.

Seventh, when Canadians look at Canada what do we see? Canada is hockey. Hockey is played in every region of the country, from west to east, south to north, from Vancouver to St. John's, from Calgary to Montreal, from Edmonton to Toronto, and in every town and village in between.

We look at the present and to the future and see the need to bring Canadians closer together. We need symbols that represent Canada as a whole. We need to build on what we have. Hockey and lacrosse can play a part in furthering pride in our land and our unity.

In the words of one of our hockey greats: "The 1972 Canada-Russia series was not politics, it was not sport. At that time we were not considered easterners or westerners, we were Canadians. We represented Canada and had the best players in the world".

In conclusion, from what I have heard today, may I suggest that we take part in Winterlude on the ice next year and show Canada that we as parliamentarians can enjoy our national winter sport.

[Citizenship Act, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in response to the announcement today of the plans to develop a new Citizenship Act. It is of great importance to all Canadians and to the future of the country that we are all proud citizens and contributors to the economic growth, the cultural diversity and the social renewal of Canada.

Citizens of Canada should have a commitment to the future of the country and to their fellow Canadians. I would like to take some time to briefly comment on some aspects of the announcement of the minister. Today the Minister of Citizenship and

Immigration described his department's response in seeking to eliminate the patronage aspects of citizenship court judges.

With Canadians I have talked to, I have felt that we are truly fed up with the perceived misuse of partisan privileges. I asked them and members can be sure they are. I am pleased with this first step in the right direction in getting rid of patronage appointments.

Of the 48 judges who now occupy the benches of the citizenship court, 34 full time and 14 part time, there surely will be a long delay before full implementation of this program. They must complete their five-year, average $64,000 a year income positions.

Some appointments are recent and no announcement of the particulars of what their severance arrangements might be has been made. As well, there is no comment as to the hundreds of other positions within the department and what sort of arrangement might be made.

We still do not have a concrete government response to the issue of patronage within the system or of government interference. For instance, we have just seen an election where candidates have been appointed. Even in this very department, what about all the recent refugee board appointments? They are much more numerous than the citizenship court judge appointments and just as lucrative.

I applaud the government's willingness to include the standing committee in the process of the review of the Citizenship Act. Hopefully this involvement will be more than just recognizing general principles and ideas. I for one have input from Canadians for that process.

I have a polling system in my riding and just recently I asked this question to do with citizenship: "Should citizenship be granted automatically to those who were born in Canada regardless of the status of their parents' citizenship?" The response I had has been two-thirds against this notion which is now in the system. These things have to be looked at and I hope that our committee will have input in these areas.

The idea of streamlining the process, as in all processes of government, is to be applauded. Other attempts at amnesty and streamlining have happened in the past. In fact what comes to mind is the streamlining process in immigration between 1991 and 1992. That addressed a pressing refugee demand need within the system.

Those very stresses are now facing the citizenship courts. There is a three-year wait between the time people arrive and the time they can apply for citizenship. The three-year wait and the right of citizenship are putting the onus on the citizenship courts.

Canadians are again faced with fast tracking of these individuals. For the sake of security in our country and the maintenance of the value of our citizenship, I demand full accountability of any acceptance system.

It came to mind that over a century ago people moved from one country to another on what was known as an underground railroad. We must not be too hasty to change our present citizenship system to a Bombardier bullet train.

Of greatest importance to me and I believe to all Canadians is the elevation of the concept and value of citizenship within this country. Does Canadian citizenship at the present time have the value it deserves? Has the government helped make that citizenship a value by some of the choices it has made? Has it helped Canada be an economically viable place in which to live where the citizens can be a proud part of that viability?

I look at the budget and I see sinking credit rates. I ask if the government has helped citizens become part of a country that is to be a full player in the trade and economy of this world. I ask the government whether citizenship has been helped with the continued fractionalization of our country.

I look at present policies of bilingualism and multiculturalism. I believe they created a country that does not stress the equality of Canadian citizens as individuals but stress the individual's association with a particular group. I challenge that.

I ask the government if it has enhanced citizenship with the notion that was introduced in that act in 1977, that citizenship is a right rather than a privilege to all who qualify.

Reformers believe that Canadians should have every reason to be proud of their citizenship. It is a pride that should not be devalued but strengthened and encouraged because it is a privilege to be a Canadian, not just a right.

Those who are Canadians by birth or those who become citizens by choice should honour this privilege as we work together to make this country all it can be. Citizenship should be the first step in our commitment and investment toward a brighter future. That future is our responsibility in this place as the law makers of the country and not only within the Citizenship and Immigration Department, but in all departments. I challenge the government to make this country the best place in which anyone could want to live.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are many things that can be done to help the Canadian public and certainly-I hope the Liberals are listening-the Canadian taxpayer.

It is not simply electoral boundaries and that is another thing I hear loud and clear. There are inequities in the system right now. There are very large ridings and very small ridings but with the process in place, I believe in the public input that would be given to that process. Many of the things that the hon. member asked would be put on the public agenda and discussed. Then something very real could come out of that.

I feel that should be put in place and followed through as it is already very much along the way. Finish it and get the public input. It is not just the hon. member and I. The public wants a voice in this as well.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, a suspension of process, what does that mean? That means an interruption in a process that is already in place. What this does is take it to a Liberal dominated committee again. What is its intention? We do not know. Why suspend it if you feel that it will proceed? Let us carry on with what is there and use the process that is there.

As to the other question, if the number of members were limited to 295, certainly that would be an improvement and from the feedback from my constituents they would heartily endorse a freeze on the number of members of Parliament. Perhaps this should be looked at more carefully over time and perhaps that could even be reduced depending on what we would find to be the proper representation by population and the proper regional representation model that would apply to the Canadian people.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the proposed suspension of the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I rise to oppose Bill C-18 and to support the Reform amendment to that bill.

There are three issues here that need to be addressed and have been addressed. I would like to put my thoughts to them. The first one is the issue of government interference with due process; the second is the issue of proper representation for the people of Canada; the third is the proper use of funds and the affordability of the process that we are looking at.

In terms of government interference there are several things I feel the government is doing in proposing this bill. In 1964 the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act put into place a system that was non-partisan and operated under general principles, a system to look at electoral boundaries within our country and make a choice in a system to make it fair to Canadians.

On a whim the government has decided to dismantle a due process. The people of Canada look at the motivation and wonder what motivates this and what in future might happen the same way, as well as government interference in the process here in this House in terms of time allocation and the closure on bills.

I have a quote here from a few years ago of a former member of this House who represented a constituency in B.C. when closure was enacted by a former Conservative government to enact the legislation that this government is trying to annul.

Let me quote from Hansard of December 17, 1985. The Right Hon. John Turner stated:

The proposal of the government to impose closure on Bill C-74, an act which in effect amends the Constitution of this country with regard to the number of members who have the right to sit in this Chamber, cuts very deeply into the ability of the House to represent adequately the people of Canada. The House of Commons, its make-up, its essence and how we operate should not be tampered with in a careless, callous and cavalier fashion.

I warn those who sit on all sides of this House, particularly those who sit on the backbenches of the Conservative government, to take heed and pay close attention to what the government is attempting to do, because it affects all of us and our ability to represent adequately the people who did us the honour of sending us to the House.

This is the first time in the history of the House that a government has made redistribution a partisan issue.

Now we have a second time.

At all times previously redistribution, a measure to redivide the seats of the House of Commons, has been done in a non-partisan, impartial manner. There was all-party agreement, in fact for 30 years.

If the action so heartily condemned by the leader of the Liberal Party was wrong then, why is it suddenly so right now? Does time change these things, or is it power? Suddenly debate and a thorough review of the best approach to take in an atmosphere of freedom are no longer valid concerns when he is the one in power.

Is it any surprise that MPs on this side of the House are now suspicious of the government's motives and undefined plans?

Government interference is also in the fact that it is allowing or seeks to allow or disallow the input from the public, from Canadians. Instead it wants to put the decision to a parliamentary committee of which of course it would control the outcome.

The very act of redistribution takes at least two and a half years, possibly longer. It involves the striking of commissions, it takes a look at geography, drafts boundaries, involves consultative processes and perhaps, as we saw in 1981, court challenges in the process.

Besides that, Elections Canada has to look at it and put into place all the returning officers needed. Polling districts have to be set up.

The 1988 election had to operate from a 1981 census. The potential of the process that we now see if this is delayed for two years as suggested would be looking of course at something that would take us into the year 2000 before we had redistribution.

We would be looking at 1981 numbers and I would like to reflect that in my own area. My constituency right now is made up of three centres, Coquitlam, Port Moody and half of Port Coquitlam, and happens to be one of the fastest growing areas in the lower mainland.

In the 1992 referendum there were 77,900 voters and in the 1993 election there were 86,324 voters. According to Statistics Canada in the three centres the population in 1991 was 136,000; in 1996 that is projected to be 158,000; in the year 2006, 197,000.

There was 21 per cent growth from 1986 to 1991 in Coquitlam alone, and 26 per cent growth in that same period in Port Coquitlam. By the time we come to the year 2000 which is potentially where we would be if the process is shut down and the representation is not there we would be looking at numbers that do not reflect the proper representation by population. The skewing would be that much worse than it has been.

I was interested to see the numbers that were assigned to this project that has happened and hopefully in the public consultations this will be looked at.

The target number in our particular area was 96,000 voters. Certainly some of these things need to be reviewed.

I was interested to review that the United States House of Representatives has in total 435 representatives. They represent ridings of approximately half a million people. That maximum is set by their constitution and like ours their boundaries are adjusted every 10 years.

Britain, on the other side of the scale, has 651 members. There are so many members and so little room in the House they cannot accommodate these members. In fact to vote they have to file past the Speaker. This limits debate. It shortens the question period.

We do have to look at numbers and in fact the Canadian people are saying they do not want the numbers increased. The cost is high enough in this House.

What do the Canadian electors want? My second point is they want proper representation. Effective representation comes from representation by population. The numbers that come from each constituency should reflect the population. Those numbers should be equal as much as possible for the constituency.

However, outside in rural areas to make up for that we need reasonable regional representation.

Once again I would make a point of the importance of the other place, representing regionally and equally across this country, an elected Senate that is effective and therefore equal representation of all Canadians.

The third thing we have to remember is the affordability of the process. The process that is in place has met the criteria proposed by the body that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is proceeding on budget. It has accomplished to this point its purpose on budget and would be wasted if the process were put aside. I propose that what we do need is proper use of funds. We should let this proceed to the point at which the public can be consulted, the input is in place and we get the feedback that Canadians want from this process.

It is true that we do not need more seats in Parliament. The Reform stand is that Canada is already one of the most governed countries of the industrialized world. Do we need more representation? No, we need better representation. Do we need more costs? No, we need better representation.

We need representation by population. We need regional representation. We need proper use of the money that has already been spent and a step in the right direction for public input on how best to spend money in future electoral processes.

With these comments I would like to support the motion for the amendment to put aside or to postpone Bill C-18, as proposed by my Reform colleagues.

[Parks Canada, March 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage on his presentation of the Parks Canada guiding principles and operating policies. It is a result of a much needed process. We agree that with the stress on the preservation of the natural and cultural heritage and the care of our environment, it is now of all times crucial to Canada to have fresh insight into our identity and our vision as a country. This indeed will be inspired by a fresh appreciation of our lands and the recognition of the importance of exploring and developing, renewing and conserving our natural resources and the physical environment.

Any discussion of the management and preservation of our natural heritage though leads us to the complex relationship of the healthy environment and the human activity that must go around that relationship. Federal leadership is necessary in the integration of the economic, the human and the environmental factors.

I suggest three considerations should be kept in mind: First, the development of the ideas and the directions of this proposal must be a balanced approach with equal weight in any decision given to the economic, the social and the technical considerations. Second, the operational and management decisions of any mandate should be based on sound management philosophies, structures, procedures and planning. Third, the very great importance of communication and partnership with any mandate with all provincial governments equally, with private industry, with educational institutions and the public itself to maximize the benefits to all of these.

Parks Canada now has a mandate that should be an example of environmental stewardship and of economic stewardship both nationally and internationally because as we seek to serve all Canadian taxpayers, we need wise management. Those Canadians are wage earners and consumers, therefore we need consideration for jobs and resource management. Those Canadians are citizens of a proud country that has been blessed with a rich heritage and with amazing beauty.