Myron Thompson

[Immigration Act, October 31st, 1994]

Once again, it is just common sense that it was done. We accepted it and we are very grateful that we passed the test.

[Immigration Act, October 31st, 1994]

If the member will be quiet for a minute I will tell him about the medical requirements.

I was required to go the doctor as were my wife and baby. We were given probably one of the most thorough medical examinations we have every gone through with the clear understanding that if there was anything wrong, any medical reason from tuberculosis on down or any kind of heart disease problem, whatever it may be, it would be cause for grounds not to be able to enter this country.

We accepted that as being wise. Had we not passed we would not have come.

[Immigration Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it must be nice to be part of a government of responsible people who simply take the attitude: "Let us all be happy; things are fine".

That seems to be the attitude that often comes across. I really object to that because as my colleague from the Reform Party said a few minutes ago, if we applied common sense to a lot of things we are talking about, just straight, old common sense, it should ring a few bells. Apparently there are no bells to ring on that side of the House.

Many will say that any member rising in this House to support mandatory HIV testing of immigrants and refugees entering Canada is doing so because of moral judgment. Let me first say that no moral judgment is behind my supporting this member's bill. My support for this bill is based solely on one concern and one concern only. That is public safety. Before anyone can discuss whether all immigrants and refugees must pass a

mandatory HIV test to live in Canada, it is necessary to research the history and the transmission of HIV.

The unknowns are what we should be concerned about. The unknowns surrounding the infection of Canadians by HIV and the transmission of this virus to other Canadians must be addressed. As most Canadians know, those engaging in homosexual or bisexual activity and those engaging in heterosexual contact with persons of high risk are dealing with the two largest sectors of our society that test positively for HIV. What is seldom talked about is the third largest sector of HIV positive Canadians, those who are HIV positive with no identifiable risk factor.

How can someone who is not homosexual, bisexual, an injection drug user, or who does not associate with these high risk individuals become HIV positive? Science cannot answer that question. Science can say that human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is offering one of the most difficult challenges to those actively engaged in understanding how this virus works.

What is understood is that there are two known types of HIV, HIV-1 and HIV-2. The predominant virus in Canada is HIV-1 which is considered by scientists as the most serious viral form.

Scientists also say HIV is the most studied virus in history but much remains to be learned about it. It is known HIV is retro-virus. It consists of RNA and must invade the DNA of living cells to replicate. It is believed that HIV may require one or more co-factors that act together to cause full blown AIDS. What those co-factors are have not been identified.

It is also believed by scientists that HIV is the most genetically variable virus yet discovered and that worldwide there are at least five subgroups of HIV-1, the most dangerous form of the virus. This virus is known to mutate rapidly and is known to recombine with other HIV strains. This mutation can change the manner HIV infects the host and may change the manner in which the virus can be transmitted.

Of Canadians known to be HIV positive and have developed AIDS, 4.5 per cent have no known identified risk factor that would explain why they became HIV positive. That particular stat worries me and it should worry every member of this House.

There is currently no known cure or preventable measure that will end the worldwide threat to humanity posed by this virus. To be infected by this virus is considered a slow death penalty of great suffering.

We have Canadians who have practised every known method to reduce the risk of HIV infection and yet they are known to be HIV positive. Can we allow those outside of Canada to bring different strains of HIV into this country to readily mutate with the strains already here? Can the rapid mutation of HIV and possible unknown variations of HIV cause the infection of those known not to engage in risk behaviours? Could introducing a new strain of HIV to Canadians develop a mutated version of the virus that we presently have that would allow far easier infection of Canadians?

I do not know the answers to these questions and it appears the scientists who are studying this do not know either.

Under current immigration regulations anyone presumed to be a drain on Canada's health care system can be refused authority to immigrate to Canada and HIV positive status is now a legitimate reason to prevent immigration to Canada.

I understand this may change if this government accepts a proposal to allow anyone into Canada who would not be a drain on the medical system for five years. It is known to take seven to ten years from infection by HIV to require enormous medical need. Those not showing symptoms nor admitting to HIV positive status or are unaware they are HIV positive who are now entering Canada will require either large medical expenses in the future or maybe a threat to spread the HIV virus.

Public safety also means no one has the right to spread a health threatening virus. It is a legitimate purpose of law in this nation to protect individuals and communities from health threatening possibilities and the cost of HIV infection.

Public safety also dictates this government maintain a public health system that will be available for our citizens. In 1992 the average demand on our health care system per citizen was $2,247. An individual with progressive HIV infection after seven to ten years will require an expenditure of $70,000 to $100,000 per year. Every HIV positive person who requires known medication will use up to 40 times the medical expense used for every Canadian.

The unknowns of how HIV mutations will affect positive individuals and transmission of the virus from positive individuals to others are still being investigated. The total potential cost to the health care system by HIV positive individuals is not known.

Whether we can afford this total cost when we all know cuts will be necessary to health care financing if Canada is to keep our health care system accessible to all is not known. All these issues concern public health and safety and must be stated to Canadians. I believe that Canadians have no argument with allowing immigrants and refugees to live in Canada if they will not be an unnecessary and extravagant drain on their tax dollars or a threat to their health. I believe allowing individuals into Canada without knowing who may spread the virus or whether their cost to the health care system may be so large that the majority of Canadians will be denied adequate health care assistance in the future is too great a risk for the majority of Canadians to accept.

Since exposure to HIV infection may lead to AIDS which is plainly life threatening, it is a legitimate purpose of law to protect individuals, communities and this nation from the spread of the virus. That is why I support the member's bill requesting mandatory HIV testing for all immigrants and refugees entering Canada. I believe the majority of Canadians would agree with me.

In 1968 my wife and I and my small child arrived in Canada. When we were at the immigration office it was explained that we had to have certain things in terms of money available and a few other things.

[Petitions, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition, is asking to extend the protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

I respectfully submit these petitions on behalf of these signatories.

[Petitions, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my next petition contains the same signatures from across Canada asking to prohibit assisted suicide.

[Petitions, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present five petitions today on behalf of individuals all across Canada, including from my riding of Wild Rose and other areas of Alberta.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Remembrance Day Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak on this motion. I, too, have lost relatives, in fact close relatives, due to these tragic wars. It has always been in my heart to make certain that these memories are not forgotten.

We have before us Bill C-251 to provide that Remembrance Day be included as a holiday in public service collective agreements. This bill asks that Parliament negotiate on behalf of the public service.

Parliament should never be involved in negotiating contracts for the public service or any other union. Bargaining is the role of union officials, union employees and union bargaining teams, not members of the House of Parliament. It is my understanding that the public service has already bargained for its workers to observe Remembrance Day as a holiday. Why then is this bill before Parliament?

It seems that under the current negotiated contracts that workers deemed essential for the public safety or public interest must work on Remembrance Day but do not receive extra remuneration. Essentially this bill will provide extra payment for those deemed essential or required to work for the public safety.

Let us think for a moment why it is that we pause at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month to remember: Lest we forget the sons and the daughters of Canadians in the time of the country's greatest need who chose to travel to foreign lands and defend this country against tyranny and dictatorship. Lest we forget many of the sons and daughters who did not return to the arms of their loved ones following the long, long journey to fight for democracy and freedom, yet they ensured that the same highest qualities remained in our government. Lest we forget thousands upon thousands of Canadians who offered up the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, so that we at home could remain free to choose how we should live our lives.

I have heard tales of the carnage of war. I have listened to veterans of the wars talk about their time over there. Not too often do these men and women talk about the battles over there. They talk about the times that bring fond memories, the detailed preparations for battle, the training for battle, or the nights of quiet reflection remembering home.

The reason those who faced the horrors of battle do not talk of seeing friends or comrades in arms who entered the fray but did not return is because of the pain that such recollections would bring.

Those of us who have not experienced total war do not really understand the cost in human lives and human memories that such conflicts inflict. Those veterans of such times recall the horror, and believe me, none I know of say that those times were filled with glory.

Veterans ask us all to remember those who gave their lives for our freedom because they want Canadians to recall the total price that war brings. Veterans want those living today to remember total war costs. The cost is lives.

No one in this House would dare ask Canadians to not honour the memory of those who offered the supreme sacrifice, their young lives, so that we today can stand on Remembrance Day to thank and remember them.

By not supporting this bill, I do not make light of the sacrifice. None of those who died sought death. They were seeking to give life to this country and in doing so they died.

I cannot support this bill, not because I do not believe we should not remember them but because I believe this House should not diminish the freedom of workers and management to choose on what terms they will agree to work together.

As for the portion of this bill that will make it mandatory for those required to work on Remembrance Day to receive extra remuneration, I say this. If those we are remembering could freely choose to give the ultimate sacrifice so Canadians can be free, surely Canadian workers can freely choose to work on Remembrance Day without complaining about extra money.

Our young of years gone by were prepared to travel across the sea, live in mudholes and dwell in the cold and damp to preserve our freedom. They chose to do that. Surely it is not too much to ask those required for public safety or essential services in these times of peace to do so without thinking of their paycheques.

Members of this House must never allow the memory of our young men and women who died so we may be free to diminish in this land. We must honour them so we will continually recall the price we must pay when we involve this country and our young in war. Surely we can remember them without a bill that essentially removes a freedom they fought for, the freedom to negotiate working conditions. Surely those who are needed to labour on Remembrance Day can do so without demanding extra pay.

Our young of the past died so we could be free. Our young of the present can pause at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month to remember those who died and why we must remember that war has a price.

Surely that price is more than time and a half on a paycheque and that price is more than removing one freedom from those who fought and died for our many freedoms.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, before question period I opposed the bill. After question period, realizing we went another $8 million into debt, I oppose it even more. Now it is $8.5 million and climbing.

The bill proposes to allow the minister to provide financial assistance in the form of grants, contributions and endowments to any person. If that is not an invitation for every special interest group to bend the ear of the minister and grab tax dollars, I do not know what is.

The problem with that is quite simply that we have no tax dollars to spare. We are spending 39 cents of every tax dollar to fund the interest on our debt, and the government wants to spend some of the remaining 61 cents to satisfy special interests. It sounds like a red book Liberal idea to me.

The bill proposes to allow the minister to establish a Canadian council composed of seven to twelve part time members, including a chairperson, one or two vice-chairs and not more than nine other members to be appointed and hold office during the pleasure of the governor in council.

If that is not an ideal position for hacks, special interests and friends of the government to feed at the tax trough, I do not know what is. At a time when the government will not reduce our deficit spending or debt, the government wants to spend more tax dollars on cronies. The patronage continues.

The bill proposes that the head office location of the Canadian council be set by the minister. Are there any bets the chosen location has no relation to the bill but has significant political meaning to the government?

The bill offers the government further excuses to give its political cronies, hacks and high donation buddies ample funds from the public trough and easily allows any special interest group that can successfully lobby the government its turn at the trough.

The bill does not take into consideration the fiscal and financial state of the treasury. The manner in which this tax and spend government will tax Canadians to spend their hard earned

dollars on political favours and to further increase the feeding frenzy of political hacks and cronies for which the government is famous will know no bounds if the bill is passed into legislation.

At a time when the government readily admits essential services desired by Canadians will be reduced, how can it justify further expenditures of tax dollars on the funding of hacks, special interest groups and friends of the minister?

Canadians must now ask whether they support the continuing waste of tax dollars being presented in the bill. I know what grassroot Canadians will say. It would be a resounding no. It is too bad grassroot Canadians could not get constituent representation with members of the government, because the bill would never be tabled for consideration if they would bother finding out. The government prides itself on making the tough decisions without having to ask its constituents for their input. The government has already said it knows what is best for Canada.

With bills like this one Canadians know the government only knows what is best for its friends who will feed at the trough well established by this kind of bill.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague across the way I am proud to be a Canadian. Prior to that I was an immigrant. I see no reason to support this bill.

I begin with the idea that this bill is going to save $7.3 million. I cannot find this anywhere in the document. Rather it appears to me to be a hodge-podge of ideas designed to remove more tax dollars from the pockets of taxpayers.

The bill proposes an omnibus department of government designed to promote a greater understanding of human rights. How often do we hear that? It has not one word about human responsibilities.

The bill proposes a department to promote fundamental freedoms and related values. The term related values has no meaning to most Canadians. What values are related to fundamental freedoms? Could it be that the term may give another minority group another reason to challenge the current charter or human rights legislation because their values are related to fundamental freedoms?

The bill allows for the establishment of multiculturalism, another tax grab. The Liberal government started multiculturalism as a means of using tax dollars to buy votes and it continues to do that today. Canadians, if given a choice between funding special interest groups under the guise of multiculturalism or funding education, health care and social services, would always vote for the essential services, not for a waste of tax dollars.

I recently attended a multicultural event. It was marvellous. We had ethnic food, represented by 14 countries, flags flying for each country, ethnic dancing. It glorified the splendour of young men and women, wearing ethnic costumes, depicting the varied artistic culture of their homelands.

This event did not cost taxpayers one red cent. It was entirely funded by those in attendance. There was a $20 admission fee. Not only did everyone have a great time, the event earned enough money to assist one group with its building fund. That is my kind of multiculturalism, the proud display that cost taxpayers nothing.

The bill proposes to finance the cultural aspect of the status of the artist. Could anyone please tell me what that really means? It surely sounds like another waste of taxes to special interest groups who are so successful in lobbying the government for hard earned tax dollars. Another example of a catch-all phrase that steals taxes from essential services is the government's intent to fund cultural and heritage industries, including every form of entertainment imaginable.

In case the government does not know, we have a vibrant entertainment business in Canada that does not need tax dollars to survive. It is funded on a user pay system. If citizens partake in any event they pay for it. What is wrong with the free enterprise system funding cultural heritage industries? All the user-pay system does is stop wasting tax dollars.

The government proposes that this new super department will oversee sites, canals, battlefields, railway stations and federal buildings of historical importance. I ask, who decides this importance? More special interest groups clamouring for tax dollars? More than likely.

Also the bill proposes to have control of national parks. Since there are national parks in my riding this is of special interest to me. My constituents already know a small band of radicals have the heritage minister's ear. Instead of allowing Canadians access to their national parks he seems intent on doing whatever is instructed by these radicals to prevent our national parks from being open to call Canadians.

It seems the minister listens to those who are already established in the parks and are preventing others from doing likewise. Again, special interests will control this department.

The bill proposes to encourage and promote development of amateur sport. Yet every parent I know that has their child in organized amateur sports like hockey, ringette, baseball and soccer are finding it more difficult each year to afford keeping their child in any of these sports. Again, special interests receive the tax dollars.

The bill proposes to advance the equality of status of English and French with the use of federal tax dollars. The provinces should be controlling language, not the federal government. Again special interests will benefit and all Canadians will pay.

The bill will allow spending tax dollars on state ceremonies and Canadian symbols. May we ask what ceremonies and what symbols, or dare we ask?

The bill also proposes to fund with tax dollars the formulation of cultural policy as it relates to foreign investment. Can anyone in the House tell Canadians exactly what this means? Who knows? I doubt if this government knows either.

[Dangerous Offenders, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my memory is hopeless.

Five dangerous violent offenders are strolling the streets, having escaped custody. These people were on parole or day passes. They have been named by the RCMP to be highly dangerous and are on the most wanted list.

Is the Solicitor General prepared to accept responsibility for what these five people do within the next few days before they are caught?