Lost her last election, in 1997, with 22% of the vote.
Public Safety April 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, first of all the reports are incorrect.
There are not 400 prisoners currently. There are 200. They are in the prisons and in the jails at this time serving out their sentences. At the end of the service of their sentences due process and the immigration department will ensure that they are returned to their countries of origin.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act March 24th, 1994
I am sure you did. You may learn from it too.
Consider the fact that members of the Reform Party think we need more members of Parliament. It is unquestionably true that there are certain members for whom a lack of redistribution is creating a difficulty. I refer to my very good friend, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of human resources who has, as I understand it, the largest and most populous riding in the country. I believe that the parliamentary secretary's riding will soon hit a population somewhere in the vicinity of 300,000.
My own riding has a population of somewhere in excess of 100,000 which is larger than it should be. There are many ridings, particularly urban ridings, where this happens and it will be difficult for urban members. It may well be that we are
going to have to look at some other way to ensure that people are getting the proper representation.
I do not think the hard-pressed Canadian taxpayer wants to hear from us that we are going to increase the number of members of Parliament. Again, my shock really knows few bounds that the hon. members from the Reform Party could possibly be advocating this. They talk about the fact that there is a process in place. Yes, there is. But as the hon. member who spoke previous to me said, we are here to legislate. We are here to legislate when things are not working in their most optimum way to ensure that they do.
This bill is part of our responsibility that we are exercising to ensure that the House does for the people of Canada what the people of Canada deserve and need, not follow a format that has probably outlived its usefulness.
If the members of the Reform Party are worried about the money spent in getting to this point-as apparently they are, I believe I heard the hon. member for Beaver River talk about this yesterday-I can only say that perhaps the time should have come some years ago to put an end to this. Unfortunately we have not been in power for nine years. Now we are and now we say that this must stop. This is not the way to go. This is not the time to increase the number of members of Parliament and that spending the unconscionable amounts of money, a lot more than was spent already, I might add-perhaps it is the arithmetic that is the problem here-is putting good money after bad.
Again I can only reiterate that it is utterly unbelievable, given what we have heard day in and day out since January 17. I know that my friends here are absolutely astounded as am I. I can see that the member for Scarborough-Rouge River just does not know where to turn at this stage of the game.
That members of Parliament from the Reform Party in all seriousness are advocating that we continue this and increase these numbers is really beyond my comprehension. The time to undertake a comprehensive review of the process is now. I take a leaf from the book of my friend who spoke previously and say: This is what we are about. We are all legislators. It is our responsibility to ensure that the legislation that comes from this House is in the best interests of Canadians. It is time to review a great number of things but it is certainly time to review the electoral process and the way we decide representation and how representation shall be meted out. It is time to tackle this issue because we are still at an early stage in the process. It is time because the existing electoral boundaries commissions have not yet invested the time, energy and funds into holding public hearings.
I wonder if my learned friends on the other side of the floor have any idea just how much that process will cost Canadians along with the addition of all those new members of Parliament. I am quite taken aback by the stand taken by the Reform Party of Canada. It amazes me, as I know it would certainly amaze my constituents. There are individual reasons why we do not want this redistribution, aside from the question of saving money, aside from the reason that Canadians do not think we need more MPs.
I will close, Madam Speaker, by saying that in my riding of Halifax I would lose the section known as Halifax Atlantic. It is a wonderful section, the only part of my riding that has a rural element. It has five fishing villages. It has been in my riding since the redistribution that took place just before the 1988 election. I did not win it in 1988, I lost it. In 1993 I won it and I won it in a big way.
I am sure that those members on the other side of the House who are worried about this kind of thing. As a member who has been here for five years I can tell them that kind of change rarely makes a difference in the long run to your electoral majorities if you are a constituency person who works his or her riding. The people you represent are the people you represent, and the geographical ideas that some people put forward as being a problem do not really exist.
The main issue here is saving the money of the Canadian taxpayers. I am appalled that the Reform Party does not want to do this.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act March 24th, 1994
Madam Speaker, may I say that I am really very pleased to take part in this debate. I am particularly pleased to take part following my friend from the Reform Party-I am sorry but I do not know his riding-because there are a few home truths that need to be brought up here.
Let us talk about some of the things that our constituents want us to do. First of all it is true that there are in some places, in some ridings in the country, people who are greatly dissatisfied with their representation. It is also true that there are some 70-plus of us in this House-this is not to denigrate in any way any of the new members from any party-who did get re-elected and got elected quite handily with quite large majorities.
In my riding, so that members will know where I am coming from on this, I won every poll but one. Some polls had not been won by a Liberal since Confederation.
In the riding next to me, and these are the two ridings that would be affected should redistribution take place, the same thing happened. The hon. member for Halifax West and I were both very gratified that we won by very large majorities at every poll. I believe the hon. member for Halifax West took every single poll in his riding and, as I said, I lost one. It was certainly remiss of me and I will try not to do it again.
The point I am making is that the reason for this bill, it must be stated here and now, has nothing to do with the worry about boundaries changing and causing problems in the traditional gerrymander, if you will, that ridings are being changed and we might lose them.
With the greatest of respect, I know the member of the Reform Party who is the sole member of his party from Ontario could say that Liberals in the province of Ontario are not particularly worried about the electoral losses of moving boundaries. What we are worried about-I am astounded that we do not have the support of the Reform Party on this-is the cost of increasing the number of members of Parliament to the public purse.
There are 295 of us in a country of 27 or 28 million people. Look at the representation in the House of Representatives in the United States yet they appear to manage their representation very well. In these days when restraint is being urged on us by all fronts, not the least of these urgings coming from the Reform Party members across the way, should we really be considering increasing the number of members of Parliament? I am almost at a loss for words, which I can assure my hon. friend in the Reform Party is not something that happens very often.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act March 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound for his intervention.
I must say that counting the number of representations on any issue is really no way to determine the wishes of the majority of Canadians. It is also no way to determine whether public policy reflects the opinion of the people of Canada.
Write in campaigns initiated by certain groups distort reality. All of us who have sat in this House for any length of time are aware of that. They only reflect the opinion of the particular group. With the greatest of respect, I might remind the hon. member that we on this side of the House who did win the majority of seats campaigned on exactly the immigration level the hon. minister brought forward this year.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is aware that many Canadians are concerned however about the future directions of the immigration program. That is why on February 2 of this year he launched a major public consultation process that will help shape this country's immigration policy for the next decade.
His intentions are clear. He wants to hear from Canadians through an open and informed discussion. The process will set the stage for establishing a new 10-year framework for immigration and a new immigration plan.
The minister has stated on numerous occasions he has no intention of formulating immigration policy on public opinion polls, but by an open and frank discussion of the facts, not the myths.
In the red book this party described our policies. Canadians accepted them through the national and democratic election. The 1994 levels fulfil the red book commitments, including a total immigration of approximately 1 per cent of the Canadian population and a priority to family and independent immigrants.
The Reform Party is calling for cuts to levels which would reduce immigration levels by 100,000 people. The only way to
do that is to modify the eligibility criteria which means changing the rules of who gets in and who does not.
This is a very important issue which deserves input and discussion by as many Canadians as possible, not just a few letter writers in a few constituencies.
Immigration Act March 17th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Since it is St. Patrick's Day and I happen to know that you, Madam Speaker, are wearing a shamrock on your gown, I thought it would be appropriate to thank you on behalf of those of us in this House who are of Irish descent. Of course, I include the hon. Minister of Justice who is also of Irish descent. I would never mention his name, it is a weird name to be Irish, but it is there.
We do thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your kind comments.
Immigration Act March 17th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River on the interesting work he has done on behalf both of his constituents and all Canadians on this issue.
I might add, and I know the hon. member made mention of this, that it is not just in this Parliament but in the previous Parliament as well. He deserves congratulations. His interest in this is both timely and a good reminder to all of us who work in this area.
This is an area that interests all Canadians and that is why the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has announced a new consultation for a 10-year immigration framework and one that the minister hopes to be making the first statements about this coming fall.
Canada's Immigration Act lists clear policy objectives to facilitate the entry of visitors into Canada for the purpose of fostering trade and commerce, tourism, culture and scientific activities and international understanding.
The decision to issue or not to issue a visitor's visa is based on the intention of the person seeking to visit Canada. It is very interesting that this bill should come up for debate today because I was discussing this very matter with senior departmental personnel earlier today before an appearance at the committee. One of the more senior public servants was telling me that one of the things he makes a point to do when he visits our offices abroad is to go to the visa office and observe the visa officers.
I think it is very true and something that bears repeating here in the House that the particular knowledge and ability of our visa officers, who are a very small but very specialized group in our foreign service, to make the decision right there on the ground particularly in some of the offices that are very crowded, that are over-subscribed by vast numbers of people wishing to come to Canada for a variety of reasons, to make good decisions and to make the right decisions is pretty amazing. The senior staff I spoke to today made mention of this more than once as something that we should be very proud of, our foreign service officials who are working for Canada.
We have in place a network of 47 full service and 25 specialized officers abroad located in Canadian embassies, high commissions and consulates who are ready to process visitors' visa requests all the time.
In 1993 Canadian officials overseas received 627,394 applications for visitors' visas. They issued 546,457 of these visas. Only 81,937 of these requests were refused or withdrawn. That is an 87 per cent acceptance rate and I think that is, again, an amazing figure. Most of these visitor visa requests are completed within 24 hours.
In general, the problems we hear of as members of Parliament make up a very small percentage of the volume that is done by our Canadian offices abroad.
I want to make very clear that the minister believes the hon. member raises some very important issues with his private member's bill. They are issues certainly worthy of review. I am sure the minister responsible for citizenship and immigration will take the member's words and bill for review. A great deal of interest such as has been generated here today will continue certainly on behalf of the minister and the department.
Business Of Supply March 17th, 1994
Capital punishment, not on this side of the House. The hon. member should wait; he might get another chance. I never at any time suggested there should not be
adequate punishment. Of course there should. That is why we have the Criminal Code. That is why we have the sentencing policies that we have in place. Some of them are insufficient and some of them must be changed.
My point to the hon. member was that we do not, to use another cliche similar to justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, throw the baby out with the bath water. We have children in this country who go wrong. We must do everything we can to put them back on the right track. Necessarily lowering the age to 10 and frying them is not the answer.
Business Of Supply March 17th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary Northeast for his questions and comment. First let me speak to something that has been addressed because I know he would not want to carry on with a misconception.
The question of whether Junior Marshall contributed to his own misfortune was addressed by the inquiry. The appeal court judges who sat on the case were reprimanded by the judicial counsel for saying exactly what the hon. member said, with the greatest respect. I know the member did not mean to perpetrate it. He did not contribute to his own misfortune. He did not lie, absolutely not. He was in the park that night and was hurt by the same man who killed Sandy Feal. He did not lie and the judges who said that were reprimanded by the judicial counsel, in the words of Casey Stengel. The hon. member could look it up.
At any rate with regard to deterrence, not at any time did I suggest to the hon. member or to the House that there should not be deterrence and punishment. I did not say there should not be.
Business Of Supply March 17th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As he knows, unquestionably the minister has responded in the House on several occasions by referring to his own commitment to the subject of gun control.
On the actual legislative itinerary the member will have to ask the minister. Certainly it is part and parcel of our policy. Certainly, as the hon. member knows as well, this question is extremely close to my heart and one that I along with many members on this side support very strongly.
I suggest to him that if he is just patient all things will come in due course.
Business Of Supply March 17th, 1994
It is? I guess I have to say that is the reason that you are on that side and I am on this side and we are the ones with the majority, praise the Lord.
I can only say that in my years as prosecutor under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act I saw a number of cases where the child was given the benefit of the doubt. I remember one in particular where a young man came up before us accused of 40 counts of break and enter. He had made the mistake in the particular exercise on the day. He was breaking into cars and stealing car stereos. He happened to be doing it in a shopping centre in Halifax. The cars were all parked against the fence and an off duty policeman who happened to be mowing his backyard heard the noise, looked over the fence and the inevitable happened.
The boy was charged and I was prosecuting. There were a number of people who came along. It was a very difficult family background.
A very well respected school principal came to speak for the boy, who had scored very well on intelligence tests, who had certainly a lot going for him as he had a lot going against him. In consult the prosecutor, the defence, the judge, the probation officers, the police officers, everybody got together and asked: "What are we going to do about this?" There was a compromise reached. A family member would be willing to take responsibility for this young man and ensure that he was not subjected to the same influences he had been subjected to in the family group, that he would not see the rest of the family who were the bad influences, et cetera.
To make a long story short, that young man eventually won a scholarship to a famed international institution of higher learning and is today leading a very productive and wonderful life in this country where he is making a great contribution.
I do not hesitate to say in the interests of truth, justice and the Canadian way that was one of the success stories. As I know my two colleagues on the other side from law enforcement would be quick to agree, we did not have a lot of those success stories. We had more of the other kind.
The point again is if that young man had been, as we used to say in those days, piped to the juvenile detention home I do not think he would be where he is today. I do not think he would be a productive member of society. I think he would probably be in super max or he would be dead in all likelihood.
I guess I have to say that success story means more to me than all the ones with whom we did not succeed because they were too far gone, it was too late and so on. The ones with whom we did not succeed went through the detention process, many of them in detention until they had passed the age of being juveniles, until they turned 18 whereupon they went out and committed some further offence and went to Dorchester Penitentiary or Sackville correctional centre.
If we do not take risks to attempt to save young people then we are just consigning young people to a life of crime. That is why I speak against this motion. That is why I say we have to look at the way the child is going. The word child is very important here because we are talking about children when we talk about young offenders. We are not talking about hardened criminals.
I also in conclusion would like to say that given the tenor of this motion and given the statements I have heard from the members of the Reform Party in particular, I am sure that we can then count on the support of such members as the member for Crowfoot and the member for Calgary Northeast to support us when we come in at some future time, as I am sure we will, with stronger gun control measures. I am sure as former police officers both of these gentlemen know how important it is that guns in particular be kept out of the hands of a majority of people who have no idea how to use them.
What about those kids who are potential criminals. You do not want guns lying around the house do you?
I hope that hon. members will see their way clear to support this kind of legislation when and if it comes up in this session of the House.
I have spoken with police officers in my riding in the province of Nova Scotia and among the strongest supporters of tougher gun control legislation are indeed the members of the police force.
At any rate, I would just like to say that I am delighted to speak on this topic today because I am very proud of the crime and justice package that was in the red book. I know that the crime and justice package will in due course come into this House in the form of legislation. I am sure that as with all of the promises in the red book those legislative measures will make Canada a better place. Also remember that being a better place is also a place of humanity and compassion.