Leon Benoit

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the hon. member opposite for being a very eloquent speaker. That is a rare gift and it is very entertaining indeed to listen to the hon. member. I do congratulate him for that. The substance clearly is another issue entirely. There was a noticeable lack of substance to the member's speech.

I am here to talk about Bill C-42 which is a bill which was presented to the House from the Senate. I want to make it clear that what we are objecting to today is process. We are not objecting to Madam Justice Louise Arbour being appointed to do this international service that the member opposite talked about. Just to make it very clear, it is process which we are concerned with.

We have seen a complete lack of regard for democracy and a complete lack of democratic process in this House over the past three years. Actually, sometimes it sickens me. Closure is invoked almost daily. Legislation is rammed through by order in council day after day after day.

The Prime Minister tells government members of Parliament that they had better not vote against a government bill because if they do, they will not be running again as members of the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister did that when Bill C-68 was being debated in the House. That is a threat which clearly throws out the whole concept of democracy. The Prime Minister says to his own members of Parliament: "I am going to end your political career if you do not toe the party line".

The former Liberal MP in his speech in Toronto to the Rotary Club stated it very well. He said that the Liberal government is run by the Prime Minister and two or three key people.

We are arguing against the process. Reform does not believe that this bill should be passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

You can't find it, George?

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to have the hon. member comment on something that I talked about in the House earlier today. It is a conversation I overheard between my 17-year-old sons. They were talking one night while doing their social studies homework. They study Canadian government. They were discussing some things about the Canadian government which clearly are not democratic.

One of my sons in commenting to the other said: "Really, what it seems to me we have in this country is a Prime Minister who is pretty much fairly elected". I could not have put it better myself. I was so proud of them, their teacher and their fellow students for having come to that conclusion. I believe that really reflects the system that we have in this country.

We have seen closure used so many times routinely. Orders in council are used instead of bringing issues before the House. We have heard of the Prime Minister threatening Liberal MPs that if they do not toe the party line they will not be running as Liberals again. This was done publicly as I am sure it is done privately.

Could this member comment on my son's evaluation of government in Canada?

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

Worse.

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

He does not even understand the problem. He does not have a clue. I do not believe it.

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her intervention.

I was listening to my 17-year old twin boys a couple of weeks ago, who were studying the Canadian government in their social studies class. I caught the tail end of their conversation and this is what one said to the other: "What we really have in Canada is a pretty much fairly elected dictator". That was their assessment when they talked about how parliament and how government work in this country.

They were talking about things like the use of orders in council and something which they probably know best, Bill C-68, the gun control bill, where the Prime Minister publicly threatened any government MPs that if they dared to vote against a government bill again he would refuse to sign their nomination papers. This would mean that their political career would be ended if their papers were not signed by the Prime Minister. They cannot run as a Liberal candidate. Many got elected only because they were on the Liberal's slate last time.

Maybe my sons are not normal 17-year old kids to be talking about this kind of thing, but I am proud that they were and came to this conclusion.

I would just like to ask the hon. member to comment on the conclusions that my sons had come to about how government works or does not work in this country in terms of being a truly democratic system.

[Citizenship And Immigration, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.

The review of the immigration centre has clearly hurt the people of Vegreville by unfairly tarnishing their reputation. This $42,000 government commissioned study should never have been done. This issue should have been dealt with quickly and decisively by competent management.

Will the minister simply apologize for the damage done by her department and show some concern and consideration for the people of Vegreville?

[Vegreville, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a week since the media broke the story about a leaked report on the Vegreville Immigration Centre which slammed the people of the town and the centre as racist and sexist.

The minister of immigration still refuses to offer a simple apology for the actions of her department which unfairly damaged the reputation of the people of Vegreville. The mistake was commissioning a third party study to deal with isolated charges of racism and sexism when these charges should have been dealt with quickly and firmly by management.

By calling for a study, her department was indicating that there was a widespread problem when that was not the case. The report verifies that there were isolated incidents only.

The deputy minister should have anticipated that a study which was as widely circulated as this study was, would be leaked and it was. The immigration department is responsible for unfairly tarnishing the reputation of the good people of Vegreville.

Will the minister show enough consideration for these people to apologize for the damage that her department has done?

[Immigration, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a federal report commissioned by the immigration department has stated that the immigration processing centre in Vegreville is a haven of sexism and racism. According to Sunday's Toronto Sun the study portrays the town of Vegreville as `a redneck, racist community like something out ofMississippi Burning'''.

Racism and sexism cannot be tolerated. However, the government report portrays the entire community of Vegreville as being racist because of the alleged actions of a few people. By unfairly labelling an entire town, this report is doing to the people of Vegreville what the report claims the people are doing to some of the workers at the centre. Is the government unfairly stereotyping the people of Vegreville for political gain, to have an excuse to move the centre to a Liberal riding?

The truth is that Vegreville is one of the best places in this country in which an immigrant and his family could find a home. Just ask the thousands of immigrants who have done that over the years.

[The Economy, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I find it sad and unbelievable that this finance minister will stand up and brag about an unemployment rate of 10 per cent when the United States has an unemployment rate of 5 per cent.

The Reform Party has brought forth a tax relief plan that will completely eliminate the tax burden of over 1 million Canadians. Our plan will leave more money in the pockets of these families to spend on groceries, rent and clothing.

My question for the prime minister is specifically how and when will his government provide tax relief for Canadian families.