John Reynolds

[Immigration, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we know, and it will be confirmed again tomorrow, that this government is incompetent. Over the weekend, we learned that this government is also heartless.

A young bride, a bride of only three months, was sitting broken-hearted in New Delhi because this government refused to grant her a temporary visa to come to Canada to attend the funeral of her husband. Her husband was one of seven people killed in a horrific head-on collision on the Sea-to-Sky Highway in my riding. A funeral was to be held today in Squamish for her husband.

It was not until I and my colleague, the member for Surrey Central, brought pressure to bear that the government finally relented and did the proper thing.

I personally, as the member for the riding of West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, wrote four letters guaranteeing this heartless government that this lady and her three relatives would go home. My colleague for Surrey Central did the same thing.

I was just informed by the minister about 15 minutes ago that she has signed a ministerial permit. I give her credit for that, but I say that it should not take so much political pressure to get compassion for the people in Canada who have these problems.

I thank the minister for doing it, but I say that next time let us please not put these families through what they had to go through in this situation. It was not good for the families. It was not good for Canada.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls upon Parliament to renew debate on the definition of marriage and reaffirm its commitment to preserving the traditional definition of marriage.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls for the government to retain the protection in the Criminal Code for the freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today from the constituents of my riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast and from people across British Columbia.

The first asks that the Divorce Act be amended to require that both parents of every child of a divorce be equal parents of their children.

[International Aid, November 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, such outrage.

Led by the Leader of the Opposition and all parties on this side of the House, we have agreed to immediately pass the bill. The minister has not done his homework. The industry wants to have regulations before committee. It wants the bill passed.

Why did the government not do its homework and get the bill here so we could pass it immediately and help the people in Africa who need help now?

[International Aid, November 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister just about wrenched his shoulder yesterday patting himself on the back with regard to the bill, and the government would have us now believe it is still committed to the bill.

When countries are facing a crisis situation, why is the government now dragging its feet on this issue?

[International Aid, November 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, countries on the African continent need help fighting HIV-AIDS. They need medication and they need it now. Cabinet ministers put on a big flashy show yesterday when Bill C-56 was introduced. Now we want action to back up those flashy words.

Will the government commit to passing the bill today at all stages?

[The Right Honourable Prime Minister, November 6th, 2003]

--and go during his time. In fact it can be said that he helped some of them go.

He has served under the following: Diefenbaker, Pearson, Trudeau, the right hon. gentleman from Calgary Centre, Turner, Mulroney and Campbell.

We are aware of his musing about staying on as a backbencher where all the power will reside when the ancient mariner takes the helm. We would strongly urge it because power is addictive. If he can enjoy as much power on the backbenches as he does now, he will not suffer withdrawal pains.

I am sure that the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard would welcome the thought of having the former Prime Minister sitting behind him and watching his back, and watching it closely, intently, day in and day out, and every day that the House is sitting, just as the member for LaSalle--Émard watched his back very closely, intently, day in and day out over the last 10 years.

If the right hon. gentleman did decide to stay on as an ordinary backbencher, he could assume the role of the conscience of his party. He could remind the House daily that the new Liberal leader has not yet brought the cod back to Newfoundland or raised the average family farm income to a quarter of a million dollars annually. He could ask the new Liberal leader to identify which streets in which cities he plans to pave with gold. He should be there to act as the conscience of his party and to remind the new leader that a promise made is a debt unpaid.

When the new leader falters, as he inevitably will, the little backbencher from Shawinigan would be close by, sitting here in the opposition benches ready to heed the call to return and save the party.

Seriously, we are here to recognize and pay tribute to the right hon. gentleman for his over 40 years of public service.

As I said earlier, he did not do it all on his own. He did not win his first election and subsequent elections all on his own. He had the loving support of a devoted partner and family.

We pay tribute to him but also to those who supported him throughout his political life. The Prime Minister has often paid tribute to Aline and we do as well for her contribution to Canada.

We have sharp differences of opinion in this place. Now, however, at this moment in time, we think it appropriate to offer our best wishes and thanks on behalf of all Canadians to the Prime Minister.

All political differences aside, he did his best and he did it straight from the heart. And he did it with Canada always foremost in his thoughts and his heart.

We have found little common ground in our political relationship but we find common ground on the other side of the curtains. It is our deep abiding love for Canada that is our common ground.

My own leader, who is in Toronto with the leader of the Conservative Party organizing a new party to beat the other guy, has written a personal letter to the Prime Minister, and I am told the letter will be made public in due course. I know my leader joins me and all caucus colleagues in wishing the Prime Minister a long and healthy retirement that will include many good golf days in the sunshine and even birdies on the bluebird days, when the swing is in synchronized rhythm.

Godspeed, good health and contented days ahead is our wish for him and his family.

[The Right Honourable Prime Minister, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to follow the member for Davenport whom I first met in 1972 when I came to the House. I could not help but notice when he was speaking the colour of our hair, and the Prime Minister still has a different colour. It must be the way he has treated us both.

Today we pay tribute to and salute a long and distinguished career in Canadian politics of the right hon. gentleman from Saint-Maurice. He has served Canada for nearly 40 years. In fact, it was in April we stood and recognized the 40th anniversary of his first election to the House.

All hon. members offer congratulations for a career spanning five decades.

We have disagreed vehemently many times over the issues and policies of the day but today we lay all that to rest when we thank him for his service to Canada.

We will recall that when he first came here he was the hon. member for Saint-Maurice--Laflèche. I am certain that the people of Saint-Maurice are grateful for his long years of service to his constituents. They will remember, when he was once questioned about federal grants and contracts in his riding, his response to the media. He said “What do you say after you say you're not sorry?”

Somehow I doubt if the little guy from Shawinigan ever regretted anything he ever did. That is not to be taken as criticism but simply recognition that he probably retired most evenings knowing that in the morning both his desk and his conscience would be clear.

We were colleagues on the opposite sides of this place back in the early 1970s and the contact we had in those years was renewed many years later.

In 1987 my friends and supporters organized a fundraising roast. The little guy from Shawinigan was the featured speaker. He could not be called little by that time because he drew a very broad audience that included Liberals. They would come to see and hear him even though it meant spending money that would go to some other political party.

That evening drew more than 1,200 paying guests and raised the largest amount of money of any political fundraiser to that time in British Columbia history.

His career has been a remarkable one. He has seen seven prime ministers come and Joe--

[Business of the House, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader to indicate what business is scheduled for the rest of today and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, all opposition parties have agreed to pass at all stages, Bill C-57, which is the enabling legislation to bring into effect the Westbank first nation self-government agreement of October 3, 2003 and the Westbank first nation constitution.

My party has also agreed, and we hope others will, to pass Bill C-56 at all stages. Bill C-56 amends the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act to facilitate access to pharmaceutical products, to address the public health problems affecting many developing nations, especially those resulting from HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics.

Could the government House leader advise us whether we will put those through the House before we leave on Friday? With great anticipation, could he also tell the House what business we will be dealing with on November 17?