Reg Alcock

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member when he began his remarks said that he did not want to do anything to inflame the debate, that he was not here to fan the fires. The member then says that today in B.C. pedophiles are walking free because of this law. That is absolute nonsense. Take it on face. This is a law that made it illegal to possess child pornography. The person was accused of the possession of child pornography. It is not a good thing. It is a bad thing. I said that many times. Members on this side of the House have said that. Let me put it very clearly for members opposite. Members on this side of the House have risen over and over and over—

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

I have worked with young children for the first two decades of my working life. When I was a student in high school in Winnipeg I used to volunteer downtown in what we called the community development centres then. I went on to work as child care worker with kids who were by all accounts victims to some of the activities that we heard reference to today. During part of my career as the director of child welfare in Manitoba I had the privilege of being part of a group of people who wrote the 1985 child and family services act in Manitoba.

I had a chance then to work with some of the leaders in this country in the area of child abuse, one of which was Dr. Charlie Fergusson who is known throughout Canada as the exposer of it, a person who, back when no one would talk about this horrible stain in our communities, would talk about it. Charlie kept confronting people with the fact that in our communities children were being treated in these horribly abusive and very destructive ways.

Much of my work was trying to help the victims of child abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse, recover and put their lives back together, to think it through and come to terms with the very terrible experiences they had.

The member from Burnaby asked a member from the Reform Party whether there was a distinction between one kind of child pornography and another.

While I have some appreciation for the arguments that are made by civil libertarians around the general issue of sexual freedom and sexual exploration, I think a legitimate concern is raised when we try to repress too forcefully certain information or certain discussion.

We do as a community draw a line between acts that involve adults and acts that involve children. I have no difficulty with drawing that line. I have no difficulty standing against all kinds of child pornography, all depictions of sexual acts with children.

We as a country have said for a long time that children have and deserve special status, and because of their extra vulnerability we as a country will protect them. I do not think there is a person in this House, despite the rhetoric that has gone down in the last two hours, who truly believes otherwise.

I end up being somewhat saddened to find myself standing one more time on the floor of the House debating a motion that has been brought forward by the Reform Party, in the fullness of virtue and goodness and to proclaim its righteousness, which is simply a kind of cheap political ploy to try to put people on the spot, to try to pick at people's differences and to try to make people feel uncomfortable on what is an extremely important and sensitive issue.

This is an issue that this country would not even have recognized 25 or 30 years ago when I first started to work. One could not even talk about the fact that young girls were being sexually abused by their fathers or by men, who still have difficulty getting laws that make it a criminal act for a man to have sex with a child. Do we debate these things or hear about these things?

What we see from the official opposition is this desire to run in this House in front of the latest outrage in the community and demand all sorts of actions.

The fundamental problem I have with that is that it is not unlike any other lynch mob every time we are outraged by what goes on in the community. If we are to do our job as legislators, if we are to provide the kind of leadership the country expects and deserves from this House and from the system of laws and justice that we have built, then we owe everyone in this country calm, quiet deliberation. We owe it to ourselves and everyone else to let the process work.

The fact is a mistake was made. I believe this judge has ruled in error and I believe that ruling should be overturned as quickly as possible. I also believe there is a process in place for that. There is an appeal process in place and the government has agreed to expedite that appeal. We have reflected our concern about the issues that lie at the heart of this debate.

Beyond that, this is little more than an attempt to grab a headline. I am saddened that we would use an issue that is so fundamentally important to the lives of young children for that purpose.

There are a lot of things that happen in this country on a daily and weekly basis that we do not like such as someone who drives drunk through a stop sign and kills somebody. We are all emotional about those issues and we all hate them. I have two young daughters, four months old and six years old. The thought of this repulses me. However, I also owe it to them to not do what we did in days of old and run down the street with our torches and hang the first person who comes into sight.

We have a system of law and justice that allows us as a country to reflect on these issues and move in a judicious, careful and responsible manner. All we are saying here is that process exists.

Frankly I am also a little saddened by the image of the judiciary that is constantly brought up in this House by members of the Reform Party. I have worked with the judiciary and have sat in these courts many times on these kinds of issues and have watched the judges and the prosecutors struggle with this. I think our court system in Canada serves us very well. When the judiciary does things which calls its wisdom into question it also has mechanisms to correct itself. When it cannot, we should act. If we reach that point on this case or any other, we will act. But we should do it with the kind of judicious consideration, the kind of bringing to bear our intelligence on those issues that produces a solution, not simply to pander to the momentary emotion that we all feel when confronted with an outrageous and despicable crime against anyone in this community.

I would, as I have often done in this House, urge the Reform Party to be a little cautious, take a deep breath. When it comes forward with debate, bring it forward having reflected on it, having thought about the consequences, having thought about the end point.

Does the Reform Party really want us to be using the notwithstanding clause every time the federal government is offended by something that happens somewhere in the provinces? Is that its goal in this? Does the Reform Party want us to be running around every time, immediately upon an action taken that we do not like? Or does it want us to respect the law? We are the law makers. Does the Reform Party want us to respect the laws we create and hold ourselves accountable to?

I am splitting my time with another member.

[Dalian, China, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last month while travelling in China with the Canada-China Business Association we had the opportunity to visit Dalian in northeast China.

It was a memorable trip. Dalian is truly one of the most beautiful and most dynamic cities in China. It has one of the largest ports in China, comparable to our own port of Vancouver with which it is twined. It has a modern, efficient industrial infrastructure.

This dynamic city is led by an equally dynamic mayor, Mayor Bo Xalai. His obvious love of his city and the people who live there and their admiration for him were marvellous to behold.

Home to a major international fashion festival and an extremely competitive soccer team, Dalian is a city I am sure we will all hear more of in the future.

On behalf of the members of the Canada-China Legislative Association I thank Mayor Bo for his hospitality and wish him and his city the very best in the new year.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct when he says he did not choose the day but his party chose the topic. There are a great many things the House can be talking about at any point in time. They chose today to put on the agenda the social union discussions.

As to the deadline, the motion says that this House urge the government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories prior to December 31. If that is not a deadline I do not know what we call a deadline.

Whether we say prior to December 31 or prior to the next budget, what we are doing is setting up an icon which is a pressure on those discussions that perhaps is not in the best interest. If the hon. member truly believes that the provinces and the federal government should and can get together and work co-operatively as they say, if we look at the statements of the premiers, none of the premiers is calling for this deadline or any deadline and they are all saying this thing is moving, they are happy with the way it is going.

Let me quote one more time from the chairman: “The first order of business is the social union, negotiating it as quickly as we can, not under any artificial deadlines or timetables, doing it with dispatch, doing it with determination”. This is a quote from Premier Romanow: “The Prime Minister wants to do it, his ministers want to do it, the premiers want to do it”.

If that is not an endorsement of the process, I do not know what is. I am not certain what is served by the Reform Party's trying to insert itself into this debate. Frankly I am a little surprised that the Reform Party is so willing to sign a blank cheque. I understood Reformers ran for this Chamber because they had an interest in the federal government. I am deeply concerned about their willingness to run in and sign on sight unseen to a provincial position.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I contribute to this debate because I look forward to opportunities to discuss the social union in this Chamber and to debate the social framework, the agreements that are going to guide the federal and provincial governments in the delivery of improved services. I think this is a very important topic. I do not want to reflect too much on the motives of the official opposition in bringing forward this motion, but I have to wonder why we are into this kind of debate the day after the Quebec election.

I hear a lot of language on the other side of the House that talks about an open debate and the desire to improve programs in Canada. I also hear, quoted by the previous speaker for the Reform Party and in his question to my colleague, this sense of a desire to facilitate this process based on a statement by the premiers in August of this year.

Let me share with the House some statements which were made by the premiers yesterday and today, not five or six months ago. The chairman of the process, the premier of Saskatchewan, stated: “The first order of business is the social union, negotiating it as quickly as we can, not under any artificial deadlines or timetables, doing it with dispatch, doing it with determination. The Prime Minister wants to do it, his ministers want to do it and the premiers want to do it”. That is a statement made yesterday by the chairman.

Let us take a Liberal premier of Atlantic Canada, Brian Tobin of Newfoundland. He stated: “On the question of social union and the negotiation that is ongoing, I think that is something that we will get back to in the new year. I think we are making good progress with the national government”.

Let us take a Conservative premier, the premier of Ontario, who today at one o'clock said: “We obviously would like to see some progress after the budget—I mean on the social union discussion”. He is not demanding a December 31 deadline.

Based on what did the Reform Party undertake to draft this motion upon which we are going to be called upon to vote in 15 minutes?

The motion states:

That this House urge the government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories, prior to December 31, 1998, and—

I have two problems with this. The first problem is the deadline; not the specific deadline but a deadline. Let the process go on. Let the provinces in good faith come to the table to discuss this along with the federal government. These are people who want to solve problems on behalf of the people we all serve. Let us not presume from the federal House of Commons to set any deadline for them. They are responsible people. I heard the member talking about the ability of the provinces to manage these programs. That is a position I endorse. Certainly they can and certainly they are competent to make the decisions about how and when these negotiations should proceed.

The second part, the second reason why I cannot support this resolution is that it is based on the unanimous resolution of the provinces.

We are the federal House of Commons. What I find disturbing about Reform's position on this is that it seems to act as though there is no federal role, as if there is no reason for the federal government to concern itself with these programs. I do not share that view.

Do they need to change? Absolutely they need to change. Change is something we are always going to have to face and it is hoped that we create a framework, a relationship with the provinces that allows change to be ongoing. Circumstances have changed. Economic circumstances have changed. People's mobility has changed. People's opportunities have changed and the programs that the federal government and the provincial government operate jointly should change in order to reflect those changes in the community. That is a given.

As someone who comes out of the social policy, the social program area, as director of child welfare in Manitoba for a period of time, not only do I believe that the provinces have the capacity and the ability to deliver these programs, I think they are better able to deliver these programs. I think that case oriented decisions about social services should be made by those people who are working closest to the people who are receiving them. I absolutely endorse that. I do not have any difficulty with those positions.

However, I also believe, as the people who created this federation believed, and as we have acted in accordance with throughout the life of this country, that there is a reason for our being a federation and that there are certain rights and abilities we all exercise because we are a federation. I also want those things considered and respected.

I want to know that when a disabled person moves from one province to the other they will receive services. I want to know that when a person goes into another province they will have the ability to work. I think there are pan-Canadian issues here. There also is a very real ability for the provinces and the federal government, working collectively, to learn a lot about a better way to deliver services.

I am a little saddened, frankly, by the discussions I hear coming out of the Bloc, because when I meet with members of the Bloc and I meet with people within the province of Quebec who are working in social services, and I do this rather regularly, what I see is a very creative approach to a great many of the services I have worked with. I think they have really captured some very important concepts and have developed some very important policies in how one activates communities and involves communities in the way of services.

I think in many ways some of the activities that have taken place in social services in the province of Quebec have proved to be a model for the rest of Canada. I think they are an important contributor to the development of policies and services across Canada. So I am saddened when I hear this debate sort of draw back into a discussion of powers and rights because I think when we focus our attentions and energies on powers and rights, we are talking about things that are mainly of interest to a few politicians and we marginalize the rest of Canada.

I think what Canadians want to hear us talking about is services and opportunities, ways we can be supportive of the kinds of goals they have, whether they live in Chicoutimi or Winnipeg or Prince Albert. They want to know their children will have a good education. They want to know they will have work. They want to know their health care will be of the highest quality possible. If we focus on solving those problems, if we focus on building a relationship with the provinces that allows us to collectively focus all our talents and energies on solutions to those problems, we will have done a great service to this country. But if we simply fall back on to endless arguments about powers and rights, I think we all lose. I think the people of Canada lose. I think the people in this Chamber and in all the chambers across the country lose.

I am very pleased with what I heard coming from the New Democrats and the Conservatives. What I heard the speaker for the New Democrats talk about was a commitment to services. He wanted to talk about services, as I heard from the Conservatives. I just wish we could find a way in this House to put aside on these important services some of this battling that seems to serve no one other than perhaps a few of our friends in the media.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can deal with both issues.

The member in his remarks made a point of talking about the arrogance of the federal government simply ordering things around in the union in a top down fashion. This government for quite some time now has been working very hard in co-operation with the provinces on a whole range of problems.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Justice in the social union discussions have been working very diligently with all of the provinces to bring about a consensus on needed changes to the social union framework. That is what is going on.

For the federal government to order—actually not the federal government in this case but the House—by passage of this motion, whether it is December 31 or before the first budget, is setting a setting a condition around these negotiations that we have no authority to set. The provinces are partners in this so how can we presume to tell them when they are going to conclude this agreement? I would also suggest it introduces an item into the negotiation that mitigates against the kind of consensus we are all trying to achieve. These are extremely important services that affect all Canadians in all parts of the country.

The member is absolutely right when he makes the case that they should be conducted in an atmosphere of co-operation and consultation. We should work toward a consensus, all partners to the agreement, all the provinces, the territories and the federal government. That is the final part of the comment. The federal government is not a passive bystander in this. It has a role to play.

The question I have for the member is, in supporting so fervently the consensus arrived at by the provinces, is he saying that this position is the position of the Reform Party?

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the date he dismisses and does not dismiss. He said if the 31st is not suitable then let us have another date.

This is a negotiation or discussion with the provinces. How can this House commit the provinces to a date? Do we not have to consult our partners? Is it not a little presumptuous of the House to say this or that date? This thing will be a negotiation among partners. Perhaps we should leave the decision about the timing of this to the partners who are negotiating.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a quick question for the member. The member who just spoke is well known as an advocate for his region of the country, Atlantic Canada. He spends a lot of time thinking about, debating and working on the issues that are comprised within the social union envelope.

Could he tell the House whether there has been a cry on the part of the Atlantic premiers for a deadline? Are they expressing concern about the speed of this? In his experience are they asking for a specific deadline?

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote from Premier Romanow. He stated: “The first order of business with a social union is negotiating it as quickly as we can, not under any artificial deadlines or timetables”.

I would like to ask the member two questions. First, Reform members come into this House and purport to be acting on behalf of the provinces. Do they or do they not believe that there is a position for the federal government in these negotiations?

Second, how can they come forward to impose a deadline when the very chairman of the process they purport to support does not want it?

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the Reform Party in this motion, it is that the House of Commons of Canada should accept, without question and without any attempt to negotiate, the position of all the provinces. Is that truly the position it is putting forward?