John Reynolds

[Child Pornography, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today, February 19, marks the 36th day since the possession of child pornography was made legal in British Columbia.

That might not be of concern to the Minister of Justice and her parliamentary secretary who take great solace in telling Canadians that child pornography is illegal in the rest of Canada. But those of us from British Columbia, especially those with children and grandchildren, resent the minister's dismissal that she has things under control.

The fact is the insensitive Shaw ruling of January 15 has already precipitated the dismissal of one charge of child pornography in British Columbia. There are another 38 pending that are in jeopardy of being brought to justice.

No, it is not business as usual in British Columbia. It is open season for these depraved parasites to practise their pedophile behaviour with immunity.

On February 2 the Reform Party gave the Minister of Justice and her party an opportunity to protect all Canadian children and we gave them another in committee on February 17. They have abandoned and rejected them twice.

[Privilege, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the incident of February 17, 1999, relating to picket lines established to impede access to the precincts of parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Privilege, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to invoke your judgment and that of those in the House on a matter that I believe infringed on my privilege as a member of parliament and impeded me in dutifully carrying out and fulfilling my obligations as an elected representative of this parliament.

Today, February 17, 1999, members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada set up picket lines at strategic locations of entry to the region of Parliament Hill and at entrances to specific buildings within the Parliament Hill precincts, including and not limited to the Langevin Block, the West Block road entrance, the East Block entrance, and the pedestrian and road access entrances to the Wellington Building.

These pickets, I hereby submit, did impede my responsibility as a member of parliament and my ability to carry out my obligations as a member of parliament in a timely and prescribed fashion.

The particular picket line that impeded my ability to carry out the said function and which contravened my privilege as a member of parliament was located at the west gates of the West Block where the shuttle buses that carry parliamentarians had to be rerouted to other access entrances far out of the normal routing on Parliament Hill. Not only this, but in my individual case no bus was prepared to run the gauntlet. Thus I had to make my way to conduct my affairs as a parliamentarian by other means.

I submit this is a violation of my privileges and a contravention of the centuries old precedent and parliamentary order and function.

I further submit that other parliamentarians were denied access to the entrance of their parliamentary office buildings in the early hours of this picketing, thus contravening in direct personal fashion the conduct of their affairs and the affairs of their staff.

There is direct and compelling reference to my question of privilege in both Erskine May and Beauchesne's. I hereby submit, Mr. Speaker, these references for your learned judgment and decision.

Beauchesne's fifth edition states that by definition:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies and individuals.

Beauchesne's states at citation 16:

The privileges of Parliament are rights which are “absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers”. They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.

I submit the events of the pickets in question were in direct violation of this right and privilege, exhibited a contempt for the functions of parliamentarians, and were a direct attack on the dignity of this institution.

I also submit my capacity as a member elected to serve my constituents was diminished by these pickets similar to the references as expressed in citation 18 of Beauchesne's.

Erskine May has reference to the access of parliamentarians to carry out their functions and what would contravene and violate this privilege. I submit the following reference. Under “Access to the Houses of Parliament” Erskine May states that to facilitate the attendance of members without interruption, both Houses, at the beginning of each session, give directions in the sessional orders that during the session of parliament the streets leading to the Houses of Parliament be free and open, and that no obstruction shall be permitted to hinder the passage thereto of the lords or members.

I again submit that the pickets denying my ease of access to parliament are an affront to the centuries old parliamentary privilege as defined by Erskine May.

The president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Mr. Daryl Bean, in full knowledge of these pickets did with contempt violate my privileges and the privileges of others as members of parliament and did with full knowledge contravene the rules of this Chamber and the dignity of this institution. I submit that through the leadership of this union Mr. Bean be held in contempt of this parliament and in contempt of the privileges of individual members and be hereby censured for these actions carried out by his membership.

Mr. Speaker, if you find I have a question of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Apec Inquiry, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking this government to let the public complaints commission do what it wants to do for the last six months.

It has finally agreed to fund everyone in that hearing. It is the government that has to listen to this independent inquiry.

Will the government just give us an answer, yes or no? Will it agree that whomever Mr. Hughes requests to appear will appear at that hearing, including the Prime Minister?

[Apec Inquiry, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government has finally agreed that the RCMP Public Complaints Commission is an independent body by agreeing to fund all participants in that hearing.

Mr. Hughes has also proven his independence by asking and demanding that these people get their funding.

Will the government now guarantee that whomever Mr. Hughes asks to appear before that inquiry will appear at that inquiry from the government, including the Prime Minister?

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have already mentioned the one fault with the bill. There is another issue which I am sure my colleague from Burnaby will be speaking on. It is where the minister will have the power to redefine the family in this bill before the Parliament of Canada decides who should be redefining the family. Those are two issues of the bill which are of concern to me.

The main issue in this whole area is that the minister should be looking at the refugee problem and how it is happening. How are people getting across our border every day just by using the word refugee, while legitimate people from other parts of the world who want to come to Canada through the normal process are held back?

I know the parliamentary secretary can go on and on but as the auditor general said, 20,000 people were ordered deported last year and only 4,000 were deported. The same thing happens every year.

There are a lot of serious problems. This bill is not touching one one-hundredth of one per cent of the problems with immigration.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a cavalier attitude. We have a process and we agree with that process. A person has to be here for a certain period of time and study this country.

I ask the member to read this bill, because I am sure he is sincere, and the section concerning the legal amount of time to become a citizen. I am sure the member, like I, would like every immigrant who comes to this country to become a citizen of Canada so they can vote and participate in what is going on.

But right now this bill says after the period of time the person has been here, puts their application in, the days they have been here after that do not count. They should count for the amount of time they have been here. This allows the bureaucrats any delays they want. They can delay citizenship as long as they want with no penalties to the bureaucrats at all. I think that is wrong and I think the member would agree it is wrong.

Bureaucrats should not have that kind of control. Bureaucratic delays should not be counted against anyone. I think everybody in this House would want it. Anybody who comes to this country usually wants to become a citizen. We should do what we can to encourage them. I agree there are the three years they are here which used to be five years. That is the time in which they assimilate into the community and learn the Canadian ways. I would hope we would encourage people.

I remember speaking with David Lam, who was lieutenant governor of British Columbia when I was speaker of the British Columbia legislature. He asked me to an ethnic dinner. He made a speech about people not living with their own people when they came to Canada. He advised Italians not to live in little Italy, and Chinese not to live in Chinatown but to live in the community. This was not me speaking. It was David Lam, an immigrant to Canada who rose to the highest post possible in our province as lieutenant governor. He was one of the greatest lieutenant governors we ever had.

He talked about studying the citizenship papers. He advised listeners to get their Canadian citizenship and become part of the community. I believe deeply in that. We should be encouraging people. We do not do enough of that. This is not partisan politics now. No matter what party is in power we should be encouraging everybody who comes here as an immigrant to get those papers, study hard and become a Canadian, part of the Canadian mosiac.

We spend more damned time on multiculturalism when we should be spending it on Canadianism.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate today. It was interesting to listen to the parliamentary secretary talk about what is happening in this area. The citizenship bill was brought to the minister by this House four and a half years ago. We have had to wait four and a half years for legislation that is not going to solve the problem of when people come to Canada until they become citizens of Canada.

It is amazing to me to listen to the parliamentary secretary talk about the Reform Party. I also heard the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, a parliamentary secretary, and also the member for Laval West talk about the Reform Party and our position on immigration and how we do not like immigrants, how we do not want immigrants in this country, and he is nodding his head. It is a bunch of nonsense.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary, when he has some time instead of sitting there in his political way looking at these partisan issues, to sit down and talk to the member for Edmonton—Strathcona in my party, talk to a man who was a refugee, an immigrant to this country who is now a citizen and a member of parliament; talk to the member for Dauphin—Swan River who came to this country and is not only a citizen of this country now but is also a member of parliament; talk to the member for Surrey Central who came to this country as a refugee, an immigrant, and became a citizen of this country and was elected to the Parliament of Canada; talk to the member for Calgary East who came to this country as a refugee, an immigrant, and is now a member of parliament.

If the hon. member wants to talk about citizenship, he should talk to the Reform Party. We are out there listening to people. We have members elected by Canadians who know what immigration is all about.

The parliamentary secretary can smile about that but we are here to improve the country for Canadians. We like immigrants. We know Canada is built on immigrants. That is why we have the largest number of immigrants elected in this party right here in this parliament than any other party. The member can check those numbers out and find out I am correct. We are talking ratios of our party to any party in this House. We have more than all the other opposition parties combined. We have done that because our party does go out and talk to the immigrants of this country. We have talked to the people who are building Canada. We are very proud of what we are doing and of what we are doing in this House.

This government wants to talk about citizenship. It has taken four and a half years. Government members have talked about penalties for bureaucratic delays. When I read that section of the bill it made me smile. The current act allows an individual whose application for permanent residence is approved to count each full day of residency in Canada from the date they put their application in. That makes sense. You are living here, you are an immigrant to Canada, you are applying to become a citizen.

What does the government do in this bill? Bill C-63 removes that provision so applicants will now be penalized for the system's bureaucratic delays even when the delays are through no fault of the applicant. What does that mean? I cannot believe any responsible person elected to this House would allow this section to be in the bill. It obviously could not have been read by the minister, the parliamentary secretary or anybody else on that side of the House. This is a bureaucratic insert in the bill. I say that because bureaucrats like delays.

Let us look at the immigration department when it comes to delays. Let us look at the L.A. office. A person from Hong Kong applied through the L.A. office because they had been turned down in Hong Kong. This party brought it to the attention of the House. This party forced the government into having an investigation of that application through the L.A. office. It was party that got a person appointed to go down there to have a look at it. The person came back with a report saying that it was all a big mistake, there was no criminality but just a big mistake. He should never have been approved there. Somebody forgot to punch it in the computer to find out he had been refused. He is now sitting in Canada. He is one of the biggest crooks in the world and he is still in Canada, still in British Columbia. He will probably get some citizenship somewhere along the line because we will not have the guts to deport him.

That is what this bill is about, bureaucratic delays. We do not need those bureaucratic delays. It was this party that brought to the attention of the government that up to $200,000 went missing in the L.A. office. That was well over a year ago and we have yet to hear what has happened to that $200,000. We know the RCMP was investigating. We know the police in L.A. were investigating. We know somebody has taken off with the money but where is it? We do not know and the bureaucrats do not want us to know because they are afraid it might embarrass this government.

Yet what do we have in this bill? A section that says bureaucratic delays are taken away from your time when you are applying to become a citizen. That does not sound to me like a party that wants to create citizens in Canada. It wants to delay your citizenship. That is in this bill. It is not a very good section of the bill. It is really rather embarrassing.

There are a lot of other very upsetting areas of this bill. The most upsetting part of all is that we have not really got to the major parts of what is wrong with this whole department. Here we have a minister who takes four and a half years after a parliamentary committee makes a recommendation to make changes in citizenship and other areas, and what do we have? We have a bill on citizenship with loads of holes and loads of faults, one of which I just mentioned.

Where are the bills on the refugee issue? Where are the bills on the criminality? All we have seen from this minister in the last year and a half is two big press conferences, big thick books full of things she is going to do, and then she changes her mind.

Where is the scanning process to make sure these illegal refugees do not get in this country? That is an issue everybody in the committee agreed on, even the Liberals who sat on that side, yet it will not even be in the legislation according to the minister's latest press release. She is not looking at that problem because it does not suit her needs or her plans. This minister has sat on her seat for four and a half years with no legislation for immigration. We have a citizenship bill that is full of holes but it is not the major problem.

Last year's auditor general's report talked about 20,000 people being ordered deported from this country. How many have been deported? Four thousand. When we asked the department where the other 16,000 were, it was not quite sure. They probably reapplied to get their citizenship. We want to talk about this bill. Where are those people today? Probably still roaming Canada somewhere although the department says that some of them may have crossed the border and gone somewhere else. I doubt that very much. It seems there is more crossing the border to come into Canada than going the other way. That includes what my colleague, the House leader, talked about with the Hondurans in British Columbia. The member smiles on the other side and asks if they have been convicted yet. Yes, a lot of them have been convicted.

I was in Vancouver with a bunch of Vancouver police and some RCMP immigration officers.

We were looking down to the east side of Vancouver where a lot of people come when they arrive in Canada while waiting to apply for citizenship. We were talking to a young 17 year old fellow from Honduras. He produced his papers for us. This young man had been in the country nine days. He was wearing quite nice clothes. The policeman said “You're mumbling. You have something in your mouth. Spit it out.” So he spit out $1,700 worth of crack cocaine. This man was 17 years old from Honduras and has been in downtown Vancouver for nine days. They just kicked him in the pants and told him to disappear.

I asked the Vancouver police why they did not arrest him. As members know, in British Columbia the police cannot lay charges. Charges have to be laid by a crown prosecutor. Crown prosecutors in British Columbia with a socialist government have told the police they do not want so many people in jail so eliminate some of the problems they have. It is not worthwhile to arrest this fellow. These are the words of the Vancouver police. They are frustrated over this whole issue.

I then turned to the RCMP officers and said why not at least get his name and his landed immigrant or refugee file number. The police cannot do that because he has not been convicted. This is the magic word from the parliamentary secretary. Has he been convicted yet?

What kind of society do we live in where we have to have a conviction? I was there. I saw the man spit the crack cocaine out. It is an illegal substance. We know he is peddling or using it. He should have been taken in. At least we should be telling the refugee officials this guy is in the drug business and should be sent back to Honduras right now.

We should be rounding these people up, putting them on an airplane and sending them right back to Honduras. It is not a bad place to be. Certainly Canada is better but there is process people must apply through to come to this country.

I mentioned people in my party who came here as refugees and immigrants. Talk to the member for North Vancouver. He came here as an immigrant and applied. The member for Wild Rose came here as an immigrant and applied through the system. What is wrong with the system?

What is wrong with the system is sections of Bill C-63 that talk about allowing the bureaucrats to use the days of their delay to delay the right of somebody to become a citizen in this country. I want these immigrants to become citizens of Canada. We should be encouraging it. The bureaucrats of this bill will be able to take three, four, five, six years to allow people who are legitimate refugees to become citizens of this great country.

We are as concerned as anybody regarding this situation of immigration and citizenship. But this bill should not have been the first bill in this House. The minister should get the other legislation here that all Canadians want. I hope we can get this section changed in committee.

No immigrant in this country should have their citizenship delayed because some bureaucrat wants to sit on it for another 30 or 60 days. It should not be a penalty for them. We should penalize the bureaucrats and give the immigrant a double day bonus for every day the bureaucrats delay him or her. This bill is wrong and we will oppose it.

[Justice, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is quoted as saying that even one more pervert on the streets is one too many. He is also quoted as saying that he was incensed with Justice Shaw's ruling making possession of child pornography in British Columbia legal. I agree with him.

Given that Justice Jardine has dismissed a charge against another child pornographer based on the Shaw decision, is the government still prepared to wait until the appeal on April 26 before it changes this law?

[The Late Hon. Arthur Ronald Huntington, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to the Hon. Ron Huntington.

A lot of honourable people have served this precinct. Ron Huntington is one parliamentarian who served this House with particular distinction and honour.

First elected in 1974 and re-elected in 1979 and 1980, Ron Huntington immediately became known to his colleagues on both sides of the House as a gentleman, respectful of the dignity and history of this esteemed institution.

Perhaps it was Ron's belief in hard work and what a diligence to task could bring to those who persevered. Perhaps it was Ron's parents, Sam and Winifred, who instilled in Ron what service to community and country meant. Perhaps it was Ron's naval career and his service in the Royal Canadian Navy from 1941 to 1945 that ingrained in Ron a love of this nation and a desire to maintain its honour by serving as a member of parliament. Knowing Ron as a colleague, I believe it was all that and much more.

Ron Huntington was a focused man. He once told me he came to Ottawa with an objective, a goal and a vision. He wanted to make this country a better place and he worked hard each day as a member of parliament for the riding of Capilano to realize these goals.

Anyone who knew Ron Huntington knew of his no nonsense approach to getting the job done. At the same time, anyone who knew Ron Huntington knew of his sensitive and caring side.

Many an employee of Ron Huntington, some who are still working in these precincts, can attest to his nurturing side and his genuine concern for the future of those who worked for him.

Forever humble, it was particularly difficult for Ron to accept the mantel of honourable when he was appointed small business minister in 1979. No one more than Ron deserved this acknowledgement for his contribution to this House and this country.

His work in public accounts, transport, finance, estimates and procedure remains as examples of enlightened and progressive thinking, and his authorship of “Closing the Loop”, a working document on how to make the spending of the taxpayer's money more realistic, is testimony to his deep passion for making things better.

When Ron decided not to run in the 1984 election, he was far from finished with the public service and served as chairman Ridley Terminals from 1985 to 1990.

Following that, Ron returned to Ottawa as chairman of Canada Ports Corporation from 1990 to 1995. Ron had something to offer and his contribution was welcomed by everyone.

Ron lost the woman he brought to Ottawa in 1974 to cancer. Those of us who had the pleasure of knowing Jean knew a woman of grace and dignity. She was Ron's pillar during the tumultuous and trying times and she never wavered.

In 1990 Ron married Mim and until ill health befell her, Ron and Mim resided in peace and serenity in White Rock, British Columbia.

Ron Huntington was a man of passion. His indomitable spirit for good and righteousness is unquestionable. If there was one spot he enjoyed even more than these precincts, it surely was at times aboard his yacht in Desolation Sound. It was his refuge and I will not tell any story or any tales about his times out there.

Ron Huntington left a mark on this institution. Let us work to ensure this mark is not erased and let us each day emulate this most complete and compelling gentleman.

On behalf of the official opposition, I extend to his family our sincerest condolences. We liked Ron and he will be missed.