Lost his last election, in 1997, with 27% of the vote.
Petitions September 25th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by 30 individuals from my riding.
The petitioners pray that Parliament ensure present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide being enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no change in this law.
Agriculture September 21st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, farmers depend on international sales, as does every other sector of the Canadian economy. My question is for the agriculture minister.
Following ongoing lengthy negotiations with the American government, can he confirm that U.S. tariff rate quotas on wheat
imports from Canada have been removed? Further, will the minister indicate what stance Canada will take if the Americans might attempt to reimpose a tariff rate quota?
Petitions June 5th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to rise this afternoon under Standing Order 36. I have 187 names concerning Bill C-41.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the charter of human rights and freedoms in any way with regard to this bill.
Petitions May 29th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of my riding of Souris-Moose Mountain, I have the privilege under Standing Order 36 to pray on behalf of the petitioners that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Questions On The Order Paper May 29th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to present a petition.
Immigration Enforcement Improvement Act May 29th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to deal with private member's Bill C-316.
I know there has been a lot of discussion surrounding this issue in the larger cities of Canada, but make no mistake, this issue is not just of concern to large cities. I represent the people of Souris-Moose Mountain, a rural riding in southeast Saskatchewan. Crime for them is of great concern as it is to all Canadians.
The people of my riding are honest hard working individuals. They work every day to see that the future of Canada is a good one for their children. We are not so different from the people in
Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. We dream of the future and we hope for our children. We feel strongly that we live in the best country in the world and we want to keep it that way.
Let me say that the murders of Georgina Leimonis and Constable Todd Baylis were reprehensible crimes. The sad thing is that these are not isolated events. We should be able to stop these kinds of things from happening in our country. We must work together to see that we reach a balance which protects the rights of individuals and allows for freedoms, but also provides for security for us to live and raise our families and walk our streets in safety.
I congratulate the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. He has done an admirable job this past year and one-half in producing reforms and actions that have and will greatly improve our immigration and deportation system.
Measures contained in Bill C-44 have limited the rights of serious criminals to appeal under the immigration system. However, there still seems to be room for further tightening on the rights of serious criminals. There is still room for a criminal to fall through the cracks between the courts and the Immigration Act.
Many appeals are available to a convicted criminal both through the criminal process and the Immigration Act. Bill C-316 would still permit the criminal to have access to appeals through the criminal process. It would only limit his or her access to the appeals in the Immigration Act. Remember, we are talking about convicted criminals who have committed a serious crime.
This bill applies to criminals convicted of an offence punishable by a sentence of 10 or more years. The measures contained in this bill will accelerate deportation by allowing the court in addition to any other sentence to order the removal of a non-citizen.
It would save the Canadian taxpayer money because the two separate hearings, immigration and sentencing, would not be needed. Instead of two hearings, the courts would decide both the sentencing and deportation. It would not just save money; in the case of Todd Baylis, it may very well have saved his life. We believe strongly in freedom in this country but we cannot allow our freedom to go so far as to limit our security.
Some people have criticized this bill because they believe it punishes non-citizens more than it does Canadian citizens and it treats them differently. Of course this is already true of our current laws. Non-citizens cannot vote. Under the current law non-citizens are already subject to deportation.
The only difference contained in Bill C-316 is that the sole responsibility for both the criminal sentence and deportation would lie within the courts and not within those two bodies, the courts and immigration. Taking out this extra step leaves less room for error, less room for bureaucracy to step in and less room for criminals to get lost in the shuffle.
Let me cite one incident. Mr. Ng, the individual who came from California, ended up in Calgary. There he stayed for five or six years while the taxpayers had to absorb the cost. Hopefully this mechanism put forward by my fellow parliamentarian would alleviate this kind of excessive tax burden on individuals having to put up with dangerous criminals hiding within the existing law.
This bill has been endorsed by the Canadian Police Association and the Metro Toronto Police Association. Certainly that should tell us something. These are the people who come face to face with these problems each day. They are trying to make our streets safer. We would do well to give them a hand.
An additional measure in the bill that ensures fair treatment of non-citizens is the provision that it does not apply to anyone who arrived in Canada before the age of 16 years, as long as that individual remained free of criminal charges for a period of five years. That is a very important feature. We do take responsibility for those who have been raised in our society whether they are citizens or not.
Before concluding let me touch upon a couple of issues that have come forward with regard to party line. Within the framework of this bill we have the ability to cross party lines to support those initiatives that make good sense to all taxpayers.
The member of Parliament for Cambridge has wrestled with the bill. I am sure he is prepared to entertain any amendments that would strengthen it. In that way we can resolve that those people who do not understand it is a right and a privilege to be here and want to abuse both, we would rather not have them as citizens of our country. It would be much better if they were back in their own country.
Concerning the criminal element, we have some real problems. As some amendments go before the committee we will deal with the deportation aspect. I have strong reservations about suggesting that because criminal elements come here from foreign countries that we would then punish those people by removing foreign aid. I would not support that.
The private member's bill by the member for Cambridge is a good one. It has given us reason to think on how we can improve our society.
In conclusion, I support and commend my colleague the member for Cambridge for a job well done. He certainly has the best interests of his constituents and his country at heart. I urge other members of the House to consider the intent of this bill very carefully. We want to make our streets safer. We want to create a society which will continue to be the number one country in the world in which to live, as stated by the United Nations.
Petitions May 8th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to deal with the House of Commons unanimous motion of September 27, 1991 and to settle, acknowledge and redress the issues to the mutual satisfaction of all Ukrainian Canadians throughout Canada.
Farm Improvement And Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act April 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, would my hon. friend from Ontario outline for me some of the impacts he can see in his area with regard to FIMCLA being increased from $1.5 million to $3 million? Are there different agricultural groups that would be able to utilize that funding? How would the cap feature impact on those groups at this time?
Farm Improvement And Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act April 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I listened rather intently to the hon. member. In his speech he expressed some concern about the capping provision. It is very important.
Since the member has an agricultural background, I take very seriously his thoughts about the whole business of our running government, certainly in the agricultural sector.
Farm Improvement And Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act April 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the questions posed and with regard to FIMCLA we must remember the bill would increase the cap from $1.5 billion to $3 billion. We have to maintain that and keep it as the essence of the drive.
We have to review all government agencies, farm credit and the entire agricultural scene. With that in mind, I am sure the agriculture minister is looking at all available options.
However, in relation to Bill C-75, I would not want us to delay very important action on behalf of the agricultural community.