John Reynolds

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 23rd, 1998]

Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please provide: ( a ) the rationale and justification for the right-of-landing-fee (ROLF) as it applies to the sponsorship of family members; ( b ) the total revenue collected as a consequence of this aspect of this fee since its inception; ( c ) the location of this revenue item within the public accounts for this department; ( d ) the amount spent from this collected revenue on Language Instruction for Newcomers (LINC) and an item breakdown on the use of this funds; ( e ) an outline of the accounting process in place to ensure proper use and distribution of this fund for LINC; and ( f ) any studies or documentation that may identify the LINC program is not duplicating English as a Second Language (ESL) program?

[Criminal Code, April 22nd, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-391, an act to amend the Criminal Code (wearing of war decorations).

Mr. Speaker, the enactment of this bill allows a relative of a deceased veteran to wear any decoration, et cetera, awarded to such such veteran without facing criminal sanctions.

The decoration must be worn on the right side of the relative's chest.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Late Douglas Alkenbrack, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to the late Douglas Alkenbrack, former Progressive Conservative MP for the Lennox—Prince Edward riding, the people's man in Napanee and the north area.

Doug was elected in 1962 for Lennox—Prince Edward and served this House and his party with distinction until 1979. As a former counsellor and later the mayor of Napanee, Doug brought a sensitivity to riding issues and was known as a congenial and respectable gentleman by his peers on the Hill.

Doug was, as his brother Wesley characterized him, a people's man who devoted his life to his parliamentary and riding duties. Doug was an unpartisan individual who was receptive to ideas and input from those who claimed they did not support his party's views. He saw the good in people and the work of the individual and respected their right to offer another alternative.

Doug Alkenbrack was more than a politician. He was a student of politics, history and a published poet as we just heard. He embraced this aspect of his life with the same vigour and enthusiasm as he did for politics.

After Doug's retirement from politics in 1979, he remained a popular member of the Napanee community and area. Certainly this is testimony to the respect and high regard his community had for this gentleman and for the work he did on their behalf over his career.

I sat in this House with Doug Alkenbrack. I can say that Doug was a fine gentleman, a tireless worker on behalf of his constituents and a man who held this institution in very high regard.

On behalf of the official opposition, I wish to extend to his wife Nan, his daughter Eleanor and his son Douglas, our deepest and sincere condolences on his passing.

He will be sadly missed by those who knew and loved him and by all the members of this House.

[British Columbia Economy, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

A recent Informetrica report indicates that some 9,100 jobs will be lost in British Columbia by the year 2000 due to the increases in CPP contributions. A KPMG management consultant study suggests British Columbia has been shortchanged $1.3 billion by federal government procurement opportunities.

The Prime Minister always talks about the APEC conference helping British Columbia. What else do they have to offer British Columbians to offset these jobs that we are losing in British Columbia?

[Immigration, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

On January 5, 1998 the minister released the immigration legislative review report, a $1.2 million exercise.

The minister has completed her cross-Canada tour to hear from her hand picked groups.

The minister does not need legislative initiatives to deal with issues like refugee determination and enforcement orders. Why is she not acting now on these orders?

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I should remind the hon. member that I was a member of the Conservative Party and left in 1977 when there were still reasonable budgets in this country. I was not part of the party when it went through the great spending program.

The hon. member asks me would I have spent that money and would I have listened to the public. It was not the public they were listening to, it was the professional spin doctors and pollsters that have become such a professional part of this business of politics for both the Liberals and the Conservatives.

If the hon. member were to go out and listen to the public and watch the public, he would understand why in western Canada there really is not any Conservative Party any more. They stopped listening to the people.

I can remember being at meetings in western Canada with members of the Conservative Party who were friends of mine. They would try and tell us that we did not understand, this is the way we have to do it in Ottawa. I told them I did not understand them because they were going to be kicked out of office. That is exactly what happened.

It is the people in this country. We can stand up in this House and make all the speeches we want. I have been in and out of this business a few times. I had talk shows and radio shows in between. If we are not out listening to the people we will not understand. That is why there are 60 Reformers here and why there will be more in Ontario after the next election.

The people of Canada told the Conservative Party what they were doing in the years it was in office by taking the party from one of the largest majorities in Canadian history to the lowest number of seats that any major party has ever held in Canadian history.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure to speak on this budget debate. I am sure the Liberal members who had questions to ask of my colleague will also have some to ask me when I am finished.

When the Liberals took office, Canadians were paying $125 billion a year in taxes. After five years of the Liberal government in power, we are now paying $162 billion in taxes. By the year 2000 we will be paying $173 billion in taxes according to this latest budget. That is a $48 billion increase, $5,000 for every taxpayer in Canada.

When the Liberals took office, we were $500 billion in debt. A lot of that was blamed on my colleagues from the Conservative Party but the Liberals were in power before them. Between the Liberals and the Tories it was $500 billion. Today one would think from all these great speeches on the other side that we had eliminated that debt. We have a deficit that is down to zero, or so they say. The debt is at $583 billion. The Liberals have increased that debt in their short term in office by $83 billion. That is at a cost of $6,000 per year for every taxpayer.

The Liberals have the chequebook out again. They get the deficit down to zero and they come up with $11 billion in new spending. No tax relief and no debt repayment.

Like all other members, I was in my constituency last week going from community to community. A Liberal member asked a question about small communities. I was up in the Sunshine Coast in the area of Sechelt. A great little business seminar was going on. It was business opportunities. A lot of government departments were there, both provincial and federal. They were giving out information to small business. A lot of small businesses had some great ideas which I thought we could use in this House.

One of the people at that conference who was with his wife pulled me aside and told me about some of the things they were concerned about. I asked him if he would mind writing them down and faxing them to me on the weekend. I told him I would be speaking on the budget and I would like very much to pass his comments on to my colleagues in the House of Commons.

I would like to read some of the comments that the husband and wife made. These people are in their retirement age. They state: “Currently there is a lot of concern regarding planning for retirement especially for taxpayers 50 to 60 years old due to the uncertain changes to old age benefits. Taxpayers in this group do not have the time to overhaul planning for their retirement which has been based on long term legislation. Accordingly, now that the budget has been balanced perhaps consideration could be given to some other alternatives that would take into account the time factor that is so critical to long term planning for retirement”.

They talked about an old age pension phase-in to change the entitlement. It is not a bad idea. It is being done in other areas. They talk about age 56 to 65 in the year 2000, no changes with benefits at 65. People of the age 46 to 55 now in the year 2000 will receive old age pension at 66. People of the age 36 to 45 in the year 2000 will receive old age pension at the age of 67. People now age 26 to 35 will receive old age pension at 68. People age 12 to 25 in the year 2000 will receive old age pension at 69. Under the age of 16 in the year 2000 people will receive old age pension at the age of 70. Their attitude was that this would scale it down and help balance the books a lot quicker than what the government is doing now.

There were other concerns that my constituents had. Their comments to me were the constant delays in implementing increased RRSP limits, allowing the self-employed to an expense of half their CPP contribution to be accorded consistent treatment with employed personnel. This is a great concern of a lot of the senior citizens in my area and people who are self-employed.

Provide some relief for single income families who choose to have one parent at home to raise children. There are many responsible young parents who sacrifice much to have the mother stay at home to raise their children because they understand the importance of such a task. Our government needs to encourage this endeavour with appropriate measures that give consideration to some form of joint tax filing.

Consideration should be given to allow interest on RRSP loans as an income tax deduction restricted to perhaps the interest paid only in the year of contribution.

That is what people are thinking when we talk to them in our constituencies. They are not all that thrilled that the deficit is down. They expected when they elected this government that it would get that deficit down. The message was very clear. It was very clear to the Conservative party. It went from a great big majority to two seats in Canada. It did not take a brain surgeon to figure out that we should get the deficit down.

What has this government done for the debt? Nothing. It has announced $10 billion in new spending programs. We have to look at those programs and ask would the average Canadian not be better with taxes lowered, with just a little bit more in their paycheque. Let us let Canadians spend the money instead of forming new government programs and new bureaucracies. Let us ask this government what it is doing.

I want to talk a little bit about British Columbia. British Columbia has been a contributor to Canada for many years, in excess of what we raise in our province in taxes. We are very happy to do that, to help Canada be a united country. But we ask what has this government done in fisheries? My colleague our fisheries critic has talked about that.

I can tell you that British Columbians are pretty upset with the treatment and the respect they get when it comes to fisheries. I can only hope when I see the comments about the number of people being fired at fisheries on the east coast that they are ready to swing the broom and the hatchet in British Columbia. Let us get some action out there so we can get some employment in this area.

There is a harbour in Squamish that this government has been collecting $200,000 a year in fees for as long as you can go on. We have asked why the government is not dredging the harbour. For those who are boaters, if you read the chart it says you can go into the Squamish harbour with no problem, that there is lots of depth. Well the silt has built up. If you were to try to go into that harbour in high tide right now, you would likely go aground and somebody could be seriously injured or even killed.

We have advised the ministry of that but it says there is no money for it. Where is the money it collected? We know the government is trying to download the harbours and I have no disagreement with that as long as everyone does it fair and square. But while we are waiting for that we should not have to wait to dredge a harbour that is a danger to British Columbians and tourists who will travel into that area.

We look at immigration in British Columbia. What is this government doing in immigration? I asked a question in committee last week about what it would cost to bring that department into the 21st century with proper equipment and the answer given was $100 million. An awful lot of money, but not when you consider that there is $300 million being spent on welfare alone on people who are coming into Canada and abusing our refugee system by coming in from safe havens across the U.S. border and other areas.

Those are the types of things British Columbians want to see this government do something about. They want to look at the transfer payments to British Columbia. I said that we pay our fair share but we are suffering in health care because this government has cut payments in those areas. It should be doing more to assist and we should be getting more of our share back.

The infrastructure program is a political game with this government. Everyone has their applications in but it is amazing. I checked with my Reform colleagues. Not very many infrastructure programs are being funded in the areas with Reform members but the minister of fisheries has funding programs and the provincial government has funding programs. They are playing politics with the infrastructure program in British Columbia. British Columbians are not happy about that, no matter what their politics are. That program should be equally shared among all British Columbians.

With regard to coast guard services, we are not getting our fair share. I see Liberal members laughing. It is not a funny matter. One even sounds like a separatist. Only my colleague in the Senate has ever talked about British Columbia being separatist.

British Columbians are Canadians. They have supported Canada quite happily over the years. But we want to know that British Columbia is recognized here in Ottawa.

Premier W.A.C. Bennett, one of our long serving premiers, used to say it is a 3,000 mile flight to Ottawa but it is 35,000 miles back. That is the feeling still, unfortunately, of a lot of British Columbians.

I came to this House in 1972 and I could give some of the same speeches I made in 1972 right now with what the people in British Columbia are thinking about some of the issues as they face British Columbia. We want to make sure our voice is being heard.

It was one of the great issues in British Columbia during the last election. That is why the Reform Party won the majority of the seats and why they won the majority of seats in Alberta, and why we are growing in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It was because people there knew that a grassroots party was listening to the people, was bringing a message to Ottawa, and oh, will this place be exciting after the next election when the Reform Party sweeps Ontario and chases a lot of those Liberals home.

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure to follow my colleague in discussing the bill before the House today.

When we look at all the different forms of legislation there is a lot of good things in them. If we look at the bill, it is essentially the same as Bill C-66 which died in the Senate after there was so much furore in the Senate over some of the issues that were brought forth.

If we look at the administration of the code, the Canada Labour Relations Board becomes the Canada Industrial Relations Board. It is a nice, simple change in name. I do not know how much it costs in the bureaucracy to do that. Somebody dreamt that one up. It is sort of harmless although it probably cost a lot of money.

The terms of the chair and the vice-chair are reduced from 10 years to 5 years. We can accept that. Any government appointments that are reduced in numbers are certainly better than those that are increased in numbers.

There will be a maximum of six permanent members, three representing employers and three representing employees. That sounds fine. Then it says “and as many part time members as the cabinet deems necessary”. That surely scares me because we see defeated Liberal members like Anna Terrana getting appointed to the Immigration Appeal Board.

The many people who were defeated in the last election and the many people who do favours might get appointed as part time members to this board. It is a nice way for them to make a few extra bucks.

Another thing I noticed in the bill, besides amending part I of the Canada Labour Code it revamps or renames the Canada Labour Relations Board and relinquishes Statistics Canada from the current method of reflecting union data. Anything that reduces Statistics Canada cannot be all bad either. As I said, there are some good things and some bad things in every bill, but this one certainly has some bad ones that stand out very clearly.

The representation successor rights section says that the CIRB can certify a union without support from the majority of employees. This provision exists in a number of provincial codes used recently in Ontario to certify a union at Wal-Mart, despite the fact the majority of the employees voted against it.

That type of legislation is more than scary. I come from a province that is very heavily unionized. A lot of the unions work very hard and do a good job. I had a restaurant at one time that was unionized. It operated very successfully. However, when I look at a majority not being able to get what it wants, it scares me. When I look at a majority overruling the minority, it scares me.

Certainly the House would not be the same if we voted the same way the bill will allow votes to take place. We are all elected with a majority, one more than the guy next to us. That is what counts and is what we should look at in the legislation.

What really scares me in the bill is that the CIRB can order an employer to release to a union representative a list of names and addresses of employees who work off site. This clause has been tightened up but there is no provision for obtaining the employee's consent. This clause absolutely astounds me.

Canadians watching the debate today will hear members on this side talking. They will wonder why nobody on the other side of the House, nobody on the socialist side is talking.

To allow a name to go out to anyone without the person's consent is beyond comprehension.

My colleague who spoke before me made a great representation on what happened in British Columbia with recall legislation. We heard stories from reporters that a lot of people were leery about signing it because their names would be made public. When we vote our names are not made public. To vote in privacy is a privilege and a right we all have. Yet the legislation will allow someone to take a list of names and addresses, go to their homes and tell them what to do. It is unbelievable that any government would bring in this kind of legislation.

I cannot help but relate the bill to other issues. As the immigration critic for my party I asked the minister many questions. I asked her about a triad leader in British Columbia, a major gang leader in the world who came into Canada illegally.

The government eventually proved that. It hired a consultant to go to Los Angeles to find out how he got into the country. It admitted that he got here and should not have got here. After the government spent all that money to find out why that triad leader got into Canada illegally, I asked the minister a question in the House. I said “When are you going to get rid of him? He has a big house in Vancouver. His family is living there. He got into Canada illegally. He is a criminal”. The minister said to me “I cannot answer that question because of the Privacy Act”.

This man was in our country illegally. He was a crook. There was a drive-by shooting at his house. However the minister could not tell the people of Canada why he was here because of the Privacy Act.

Under the bill an employer will be compelled to release to union representatives a list of names and addresses of employees. Where is their privacy? We give privacy to one of the biggest crooks in the world, who is not even a Canadian citizen, yet citizens of the country do not have enough privacy to keep their names and addresses from a union leader. We should be ashamed this clause is even in the bill.

I asked the same minister a question a few weeks ago about a couple of Haitians in Montreal who gang raped a young girl. I said “What about deporting those people?” The minister said “I cannot answer that question because of the Privacy Act”.

These two men gang raped a woman and we cannot get information about them because of the Privacy Act. Yet in this bill—and I will continue to repeat it—the CIRB can order an employer to release to the union representative a list of names and addresses of employees who work off site.

What kind of rights do those Canadian citizens have? What kind of rights do landed immigrants have? Their names can be given out to anyone, whether it is a union representative or a political party. The next thing we will do is demand that everything be made public. Our names will be published no matter what we do. We will all go nuts, but the mail will get through.

In my constituency my postmaster said “If you want to get rid of junk mail, just put a sign on your mailbox and you will not receive it any more”. That is my right. If I do not want junk mail I do not have to receive it. In this case someone can walk into the employer's office and say “Give me the list of your employees. I am thinking of unionizing your shop”. That is against the Privacy Act.

I do not understand why government members are not speaking. We have asked the question and it will be asked again many times during this debate. How can we allow anyone to walk into a company and ask it to release the names and addresses of its employees without affecting the Privacy Act? We use the Privacy Act to protect crooks and thieves.

There is a newspaper article which I would like to quote regarding a warrant that went out in Canada. The article is by Tom Godfrey of the Toronto Sun . It states:

The RCMP have broadened their hunt for a violent immigrant who was granted Canadian citizenship even though he was jailed for killing a man in Texas.

Fitzroy Ellsworth Dixon, 31, a landed immigrant from Jamaica, has been sought on a Canada-wide warrant since last December, said Sgt. Paul McIsaac. Police stepped up the search yesterday, releasing a mug-shot of the fugitive.

McIsaac said Dixon was convicted in Texas in 1992 for drug trafficking and involuntary manslaughter and jailed for five years.

“Apparently, he shot and killed a man in a fight over drugs”, McIsaac said.

McIsaac said Dixon was released from a U.S. federal prison in May 1994 and ordered deported to Jamaica. Dixon, instead of waiting in the U.S. to be deported, returned to Canada and applied for citizenship, apparently failing to mention his criminal record or that he had been out of the country for several years, McIsaac said.

Dixon was granted citizenship in February 1996, and the police didn't find out about his criminal past until he was arrested in Toronto for robbery in December. He was convicted but released on probation.

I asked questions about Mr. Dixon, and because of the Privacy Act we were not able to talk about him.

The people listening out there might be afraid because there was a warrant issued for this man. I am very happy to say he was arrested in the city of Toronto yesterday. Hopefully the minister will deport him. However, when we ask questions about him, it is the Privacy Act. We cannot talk about Mr. Dixon, the murderer, the drug man, because of the Privacy Act.

Yet what does this bill say? The CIRB can order an employer to release to a union representative a list of names and addresses of employees who work off site. It should be an outrage that anyone would even think of putting this kind of legislation before the House of Commons.

We all know every day that we debate in the House the freedoms of people, the right to privacy in Canada. Nobody should be allowed to have my name and address or wherever I work. It is not their right. It is my right to my privacy when I go to my home. If I want to publish my name and address I do that.

Even as a member of Parliament we can use our constituency office as an address. We do not have to use our home address. A lot of members do but it is their right and freedom to do so. In this situation they are taking away the rights of all Canadians with this legislation.

In conclusion, I know there will be amendments so I will speak later.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when this negotiation is complete and the Government of Canada has made up its mind to sign on, will it bring it back to the House of Commons for a full debate of this House of Commons and a vote by all members of this House of Commons, yes or no?

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question. What the hon. member is saying is very good but he has heard some good comments from this side. The hon. member is a fair member and has been around for a while. Does he agree that this debate should come back to this House for a full debate by all members of Parliament and voted on so that all Canadians understand fully what the agreement is going to be about?