Roy H. Bailey

[Pornography, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say, particularly to those people looking in across Canada, that they indeed should pay tribute to the hon. member for Mississauga South for bringing this motion before the House. No other issue has brought more attention from across Canada than this issue.

Frankly, I totally disagree with the parliamentary secretary. What he is doing is giving credence to an issue that goes beyond any reasonable doubt about the content and how the courts should act.

We have an issue that the lower courts and the supreme court of B.C. have agreed on. It is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. The question Canadians want answered is, what happens if the supreme court agrees with the two lower courts? Canadians from coast to coast are worried about that. Is it not the responsibility of the House to draft new legislation? It cannot be any clearer than it is now.

The only recourse we have is the notwithstanding clause. If that clause was to be used only on rare occasions, then this is that rare occasion. How can any elected official in this House not know full well that when those pornographic films are made somebody's child or grandchild is being abused? I cannot believe the defence of the system. It simply goes beyond my imagination.

The motion introduced by my hon. friend is a new definition for obscenity. Obscenity takes place in many different ways. How far does freedom go when the two lower courts of B.C. based their dismissal of the case on the grounds of freedom of expression?

Let us take freedom of religion. If we look around the House we see people of different religions. No one for one moment would accept a member of the House criticizing a Jewish member and using degrading representation or degrading remarks. The member would be called totally out of order. However, out in society and in the media it is fair game to attack one religion, that religion being Christianity, and it is all done in the freedom of expression. It is even creeping into the House.

A reporter came up to me the other day and asked me what I thought about the baggage a leading politician was carrying. I told him to wait for a minute and then I asked him what he thought about the baggage I was carrying. He said that I was not carrying any baggage. I told him that I happened to believe in God, in prayer and in fellowship, and that I too volunteered my time as an administrator for a private Christian school. He asked me why I called that baggage. We are allowing this in many different ways.

The supreme case under the charter of freedom of expression has allowed two court decisions to make a mockery out of decency and a mockery out of everything that this country has ever stood for since Confederation. We cannot pass the buck by simply saying that we have to train the parents or we have to stop it on TV. We have to say to the courts that this House is supreme when it comes to decisions like that.

What will we do, I would ask the hon. member? I congratulate him for bringing this forward. I have never had so many cases of representation.

I would say to the hon. parliamentary secretary and government members opposite that if they had a free vote they would bring in the notwithstanding clause just like that. They would bring it in tomorrow if they had to. This is not a party thing. It is a thing of principle, of morality and of decency. However, here we are in limbo. We will let the courts decide.

In the meantime, possession of pornography is legal, and by information that I have been able to acquire, it is growing. Why would it not grow? If it is legal in B.C. it will soon be legal all over the country. Hon. members should ask the RCMP and their police forces. It is growing.

Hon. members may think I am carrying some baggage. They may also think that what is happening in this country is all right. We know about the interference with the clergy at the Swiss Airlines memorial. We know that people were told what to do. That was interference in the freedom of religion. Now, under the guise of freedom of expression, we sit here as legislators with the possibility of the supreme court agreeing with the two lower courts on this terrible issue.

After the passing of the charter of human rights, one of the supreme court judges said that they would finally get a chance to make laws.

Our whole democratic system is built on the principle that there is a big stone wall between the legislature and the judiciary, but we are quite willing to let the judiciary do its thing and make rulings that affect the lawmakers of this land.

In closing, I want to congratulate the hon. member. When the decision comes down and then comes before the House, I know where he will stand. He will stand in defence of children. He will stand against child abuse. He will stand against pornography.

When I was home in Saskatchewan for the weekend I experienced a big debate in the provincial legislature on pornography. This debate was not about child pornography. It was about a crown corporation and the government giving money for the production of a pornographic film of gays and lesbians to be shown at government expense. This is freedom of expression. This is wrong. Nobody can defend it.

I want to say to the House and to people across Canada that they should rise up and take control. Canadians elect us. They should say that it is not up to anyone but the people in this place to make the laws. They should say that it is up to us to protect the people with the laws, not to interpret according to some feelings of the people needing to be politically correct.

We are so worried about being politically correct that we have become obscene within ourselves. Let us face indecency, corruption and immorality the way we should. We should not be passing the buck. It is our responsibility to do it in this place.

My hon. colleague in the Conservative Party and my hon. colleague in my own party have spoken. There will be no change. I say to the member for Mississauga South that when this issue comes up again he can bank on my party's full support in what he is doing.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am glad I was in the House to hear the parliamentary secretary speak. He certainly did a fine job in helping us to relive some of those things. He also experienced great danger in coming to Canada. I have talked to many people like him. It is always very emotional when individuals have the desire to live in Canada. People like the parliamentary secretary inevitably make good citizens.

My area of Canada is much younger than that of Ontario. We are still very much akin to groups of people who came over in this century, even as late as the twenties, who still maintain their nationalist ties. One of Canada's few Romanian settlements is located some 20 miles north of where I live, and there is another settlement about 100 miles from my home. These people are very proud Canadians today.

The hon. gentleman mentioned some of the dark periods in Canadian history. I think about the time of Confederation when we became a nation. That was the time of the plight of the Irish. I can remember Irish people during the famine trying to immigrate to Canada, but there were people in this country who were quite willing to send them back. That is another dark story, another era in our Canadian history of which Canadians are not very proud.

I think my hon. colleague is also somewhat taken back by the number of illegal immigrants who somehow get into Canada. All of the people I know who have immigrated to this country are concerned about the way in which people get here, how long they stay and how they abuse the name of the legal immigrant. These people, like me, are concerned.

I want it understood that I am not anti-immigrant. I am not against the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I am, like most Canadians, which has been shown in poll after poll, against the policies of the government which do not tighten up the immigration policy. Not too long ago most of the crimes being committed in certain areas were being committed by illegal immigrants.

I say to the hon. gentleman that he should take his case and his story to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. If we have people of his calibre applying to enter Canada, then for goodness sake let us speed up the process and bring these people in. We have not done that.

We have been home to too many people who have been here for years and years. In some cases these individuals have committed crimes and have never been deported. Our whole immigration policy, our whole citizenship department, has taken on a very bad name.

There were three people in my office not too long ago. They were all immigrants within the last 10 years. That was exactly their complaint, that they were finding it difficult because of the headlines flashed across the papers and stories about a very lax policy toward immigrants coming into Canada. They were taking the brunt of the jokes in society. That is not right and we could do something about it.

The other day one of the members opposite referred to the member for Calgary Northeast as being anti-immigrant. I am not anti-immigrant. I have tried my best in every case to speed up the process when I knew it was legitimate. I am against the lax deportation and the inability to deal with people who are abusing our Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

The hon. gentleman has presented a very worthy case. I want to support him and I want to support this. However, I want to put the idea out there that we need to honour those people who are legitimate immigrants. We need to move very quickly and deport those people who are not legitimate immigrants and not follow the practice we have right now.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that Canada is a country of immigrants. I too am one generation from an immigrant in that my American mother was born in Missouri. My oldest brother was born in North Dakota. At that time, of course, when immigration was taking place in the west, we did not experience many difficulties. We did not have all of these rules and regulations that we are discussing today.

It is of interest to know what we would do to our own citizens under this act. I refer to a border area where there are a lot of marriages on each side of the border. A lot of people move to the U.S. and are married by a justice of the peace. By necessity, a lot of people rush to hospitals in the U.S. because they are closer than the hospitals in Canada. Therefore, when they give birth in the U.S. the child is automatically a Canadian citizen by birth. There are problems.

We penalize our young people in this country who marry someone, particularly from the United States. It is more difficult perhaps in other areas. Let me cite two cases which I have had to deal with.

There is a young girl who lives not too far from where I live and she is going to a special school. As young people do, she fell in love. There is nothing new about that. She decided to get married. The complications that this girl faces in moving to the United States are unbelievable. It is a story book in itself, not just from the Canadian side but from the American side as well. There has to be a better way.

Let me give the House an example of the most recent case. There is a young fellow who has found a girl, I believe in Wisconsin. They fell in love. Guess what? They want to get married. Immediately the young fellow living in this country applied to bring his fiancée to Canada.

When I got married I was not asked how much money I had. If I had to measure up to Immigration Canada today I probably never would have been married because I never made that much money. When this young fellow applied to bring his spouse to Canada, the Department of Immigration said “No, your T-4 slip says you are not making enough money”. That was bad enough, but the young fellow had to put up $500 or $600 with his application. When he obtained proof that in the year 2000 he would be making considerably more money, Immigration Canada said he would have to resubmit his application. That represents another $500 or $600.

What I am saying to the House and to people across Canada is that when we mention the words citizenship and immigration they have bad connotations in many areas. People think of refugee status, the smuggling of refugees and people smuggling, and the inability to deport. Yet when it comes to our very own citizens, people of high quality, young people, we impose restrictions on them that should not exist.

I wish we could become more amenable to the idea of looking at people and their character and why they want to marry and live with their spouse without having to be married and then separated for a period of almost a year. That happens. That ought not to happen. There is no reason for that to happen. I have dealt with a case in which it took a man over a year to bring his wife to Canada, and there was no good reason for the delay.

We can discuss this bill all we like, but we have to look at what is happening within our country. All of the motions, all of these things, will not mean too much if we do not deal with reality. I am speaking particularly of our young people who choose a spouse outside Canada.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, grassroots aboriginals continue to phone me and send me faxes, e-mails and letters pleading that the Government of Canada hear their concerns.

These aboriginal men and women detest being treated like beggars in their own communities by their own band councils while at the same time being ignored by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. These desperate citizens want equal treatment under local government as other Canadians enjoy. Their neighbours in rural municipalities, towns and villages elect men and women who must practise openness and accountability and who know there are severe penalties if they contravene legislation.

All the natives ask is to be treated equally. They want bondable licensed and trained administrators to handle their financial transactions approved by the band council. They want annual budgets and an annual external audit.

Why does the government show contempt to the petitions of grassroots natives who are being denied time proven legislation and the accountability and responsibility enjoyed by other Canadians?

[Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to many Canadians, particularly young summer employees and so on, that this is not an insurance. It is a tax and it goes into the federal coffers.

I should like to inform the NDP member who just spoke that a terrible thing is happening with EI payments. There is a large oil well operation in my constituency. It is a cyclical industry. When it is up, it is hiring, and then it goes down. If a young person from the city of Weyburn or Estevan hires on in the oil industry and then gets laid off, he can draw EI insurance. However, if someone is laid off and returns to the family farm to live with his parents, he collects zippo. I am quite used to seeing farmers being abused, but when the government taxes them and they have to pay the taxes it is wrong that they cannot qualify. It should be corrected. I brought it to the government's attention but it made no difference. I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

[Boyd Anderson, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to introduce to the House a great Canadian. In 1911 Boyd Anderson's parents moved to a vast, open range land near what is now Fir Mountain, Saskatchewan. There was no school, no town and no railway.

Boyd grew up to become a true professional cowboy and rancher. In his youth, Boyd and his brothers eked out a living during the depression by moving from ranch to ranch breaking broncos for riding. Boyd enlisted in World War II with the Canadian paratroopers. He was wounded in France and taken prisoner by the German army.

Boyd is known today as a rancher, a writer and a local government councillor. He was president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. He served with the Saskatchewan Stock Growers and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

On February 9 Boyd Anderson was installed as a member of the Order of Canada. Canada's highest honour goes to this fine gentleman who has made a great difference to his community, to his province and to this country. He is a true Canadian who I am proud to call my friend.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, April 13th, 2000]

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate my hon. colleague not only for his presentation but for his response. I want him to agree with what I have to say about this because it is a very tenuous issue.

We talk about increasing funding to the attorney general's department. Within that department at the present time we have taken over 300 RCMP officers off the street to engage in gun registration at a huge expense. Does my hon. colleague think that is a good way to spend money, registering guns by taking officers off the street where we need them?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, April 13th, 2000]

F

minus.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, members of the House, people across Canada and I should thank my colleague for drawing our attention to a very serious problem.

The second school I happened to teach in was in northern British Columbia. The attendance was near perfect. The expenditure of funds was letter perfect. For 21 years my signature went on forms to extract money from taxes and government grants for special education students. Whether it was in the Hutterite schools or in private schools that I supervised or in the public schools, whenever a claim was made for a special needs student, solid proof was needed that the money was being expended on that particular student.

The situation that exists within my province and across Canada is a sin against geography and the nature of government. These children who are just as important as any child I ever had in front of me or supervised are not getting funds spent on them for education. What will we do? One word can sum up the last 20 years: nothing. Nothing has changed and it is getting worse.

I want to thank my colleague for drawing attention to this situation. With the billions of dollars going out on these expenditures, what does the hon. member recommend that the government re-examine during the current fiscal year?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, April 13th, 2000]

I was being generous.