John Reynolds

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, neither would I say anything inappropriate. I am quoting from a Liberal document. If he wants to keep this debate at a certain level they should stop printing documents which do not contain the truth. That is what the Liberal Party should do.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this debate. I listened to the member who spoke prior to me call people who oppose this matter hotheads. I found it a little disconcerting that a party debating a bill that represents a majority viewpoint of the people in British Columbia can be called hotheads because they disagree with the government.

I read with interest today a little brochure the national Liberal caucus put out called “Dancing with dinosaurs”. I was really proud when I opened it up because I was the first one they quoted. I want to read it because I think it is a very interesting quote. I hear the Liberals over there yelling and screaming. They get a little excited and I think it is quite funny.

I look at the government over there and the things it has done over the years. The Liberal Party misled Canadians on the GST. It promised to do something and did not do it for their two terms of office. That is the same party that said it would eliminate free trade. It did not do a darn thing. How can we believe the Liberals on anything? How can Canadian people, especially westerners, believe the Liberal government on anything?

My Liberal friends say “Dancing with dinosaurs”. I would rather dance with a dinosaur than be in the water with a Liberal shark. Sharks eat people for no reason at all, do things for no reason at all, and are vicious animals. I would rather be dancing with a Reform dinosaur than be in the water with a Liberal shark. That is what these people are. They are sharks.

[Child Pornography, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I still thought Alberta and B.C. were part of Canada. Let me remind the government of the justice minister's words on February 2, 1999 in this House. She said “We are acting immediately. We will not wait for this case to reach the supreme court”.

Let me also remind the government that in January the parliamentary secretary who just answered the question wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to use the notwithstanding clause to solve this child pornography case, as did 62 other Liberals.

When is the government going to bring in the notwithstanding clause and put children first instead of the sexual deviants who are still operating in this country?

[Child Pornography, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is official. Possession of child pornography is now legal in provinces other than British Columbia. Despite promises from the justice minister that this would never happen, yesterday in an Edmonton courthouse right in the minister's own backyard, charges against Lawrence Edelstein were held over pending a supreme court decision.

Given this contradicts everything the minister said would not happen, including the child pornography case reaching the supreme court, would the parliamentary secretary tell us if the government will now invoke the notwithstanding clause?

[The Late Hon. Alan Macnaughton, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of Her Majesty's Official Opposition to pay tribute to a former Speaker, Alan A. Macnaughton. He presided over the Chamber from 1963 to 1966.

Mr. Macnaughton is remembered as a man and a Speaker who displayed a fairness in his deliberations and rulings, a deep love for democracy and a diligence to his task. Mr. Macnaughton was Speaker of the Chamber during some very turbulent and bitter times. More than once his quiet but compelling nature pulled proceedings from the brink of catastrophe.

I had some pages talking about his background, but the Deputy Prime Minister has done that and I will not repeat that because, as a Speaker, he would not want me to be longer than I should be, even in a tribute to him.

He was a great Canadian and the scope and breadth of Mr. Macnaughton's professional activities were impressive. He was a former president of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association, the Canada-France Parliamentary Association and he served more than 30 years as a director-adviser to European and American banks. He was chairman of the World Wildlife Fund, chairman of the Roosevelt Compobello International Park Commission and deputy chairman of the historic 1973 United Nations Conference on the Environment.

Mr. Macnaughton also served on many corporate boards after he left Ottawa. Alan Macnaughton was a gifted gentlemen. His unassuming and distinguished manner was respected by all who knew him. As a lawyer, politician, Speaker, businessman and philanthropist, Mr. Macnaughton brought a dignity and a competence to whatever he pursued.

In 1995, his contribution to this institution and to his country was acknowledged when he was awarded the Order of Canada. There was nothing mediocre about this man. The words brilliant, refined, dignified and accomplished will mark his contribution. We will all miss him, but appreciate the great job he did for Canada.

We offer all our sympathies to his family and his friends, and he had many of those.

[Requests For Emergency Debates, October 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I request leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration.

Following a January 1999 British Columbia supreme court decision concerning the possession of child pornography, the British Columbia Court of Appeal did, on June 30, 1999, dismiss the appeal to reinstate subsection (4) of section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.

The supreme court has scheduled a hearing on this matter for mid-January 2000. Given the normal time required for the supreme court judgments, this issue will not be disposed of until perhaps 2001.

The legality of the possession of child pornography is not limited to the province of British Columbia. In fact, defence counsel in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta are arguing cases now based on the British Columbia decision to make child pornography legal in those provinces.

The government did not find reason in the Speech from the Throne to discuss this issue. That is why I served notice after the speech yesterday.

On February 2 the minister said in the House that the government was acting immediately on the issue and would not wait for the case to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. Sixty-three Liberal MPs and six senators signed a notice to the Prime Minister asking him to use the notwithstanding clause in this child pornography issue because it was so important last February.

The children of this country cannot wait until 2001 to find out that child pornography is illegal to possess in Canada.

This is an issue of children. Children were mentioned in the throne speech yesterday but this issue was not mentioned.

I think all members of the House agree that the law we have is a good one; it is only some judges who do not. We have to debate that issue in the House and come up with a solution to protect our children a lot quicker than the judges of this land want to protect our children.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

There are only nine days left on the parliamentary calendar. As parliament is expected to prorogue, I would like to ask the minister about the youth criminal justice act.

Last week my party offered unanimous consent to move that bill into committee and get some fast action on a bill which is very important to the House and to Canadians. Why is the Minister of Justice abandoning the youth of this country and the youth criminal justice act?

[Ontario Election, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last night part two of the common sense revolution began. Congratulations to Mike Harris and the Conservative Party. The victory marked the first back-to-back majority government since 1971 and with 59 seats the common sense revolution was a victory for sound fiscal management and tax relief for Ontario.

Is there a message here for the federal Liberals? For those federal Liberals like the member for Burlington, who claimed some sort of moral victory in her comments last evening, may I remind her that the united alternative vote in her home riding of Burlington was double that of the Liberal candidate. For the federal Minister of Health, who said that the Harris health care plan would sink the Tories, maybe he should reflect on what the voters said about health care in their voting patterns.

Ontarians want less taxes, back to basics education, work for welfare and a get tough approach on crime, including a new young offenders act, a sex offenders registry, harsh penalties for drug pushers, drug testing for parolees and making parents more responsible for property damage caused by their children. Yes, there was a message for our Liberals last night from Ontario.

[Canada Elections Act, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, on March 12 I asked the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Prime Minister about Canada's youth criminal justice act that had just been introduced the day before. Obviously there are a lot of concerns about the bill. The public had not had much of a chance to look at it, but we had some concerns and we were seeking answers at that time and were also anxious to see the bill move forward.

Today it was disappointing when the government House leader talked about adjourning the House earlier than what is on our normal calendar because the government is really running out of legislation and is talking about possibly getting out of here next Friday. Yet when I got up and asked the government House leader why we were not dealing with the Canada youth justice act his comment was that it was being filibustered by the opposition.

It is quite interesting. I did go and look. I know we have had some speakers on the bill. We have had some obvious input. My colleague from Surrey North has great concerns on the bill and has been up as well as many others. But we have spoken as the opposition for four hours, 240 minutes on this bill since it was introduced.

The bill was introduced by this government over five years ago. It was something the Liberals wanted to do and it took them five years to get the bill to the House. After three months we have only had the bill before the House a very small amount of time. We certainly want to see it get to committee. We want to see many changes in it but the government seems to be dragging its feet.

The Liberals do much talking and introduce a lot of PR jobs. They spent about $5 million on advertising in this area so far. Yet the book they put out says that the Government of Canada will establish a five to six year implementation plan. The Liberals have had five years to look at. Now they are talking about taking five to six years to implement it.

The Liberals go to great lengths in their advertising to talk about how they have committed $206 million over the first three years for the Canada youth justice act.

The Young Offenders Act is supposed to be supported by 50:50 contributions from the federal government and the provinces. This government is only paying about 30% on average for Canada's young offenders. That is the problem. It is a lack of money. It is a lack of really caring about what is going on in society today.

Today in my community in British Columbia on the lower mainland, one person every day dies from a drug overdose, yet we have no money from the government to solve that problem. I do not know what the numbers are in Toronto and Montreal and other major cities but they are very large. British Columbia is one of the capitals for drugs and it is very serious.

Here is a government that talks about money but it is not putting it where it is needed. It is not putting it there fast enough.

The Liberals are great at talking about the Canada youth justice act and how they are going to implement it and what they are going to do for young children, but they do not get behind their words with actions. They do not get behind their words with money. They know how to spend money with PR firms to make it look like they are doing a good job.

They are spending a couple of hundred million dollars to register guns across Canada, really guns in the rural areas because guns have been registered in Canada for a long time. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on that but there is very little being spent on drugs. There is very little being spent on young offenders.

We have a case today where a young man 18 years old is going to spend about seven years in jail for viciously murdering a young girl in Victoria. I do not think that is acceptable to most Canadians. Had this bill been brought in a year or two ago as it should have been, it would have had a major impact on that young man. He would have been treated as a real adult and got real adult sentencing and served a long time in prison for a very vicious crime, which is what he should do.

We also are not spending any money on rehabilitation. The government did not want to include 10 to 12 year olds in this bill. All the provinces want to do that whether they are NDP provinces, Conservative provinces or Liberal provinces. They want to include those young people to rehabilitate them to make sure they do not turn into criminals. This government will not do that because it does not want to spend the money.

This country has a serious problem with crime, a serious problem with young children. We have a government that likes public relations but likes very little action and that is too bad for our families and too bad for our children.

I hope the government will take a chance over the summer holidays to look at what it is doing and come back with a mandate from the people to do what the people want to solve this problem for young people.

[Business Of The House, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the government House leader has said that if there was unanimous consent we could send the young offenders bill to committee. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to send the bill to committee.