Roy H. Bailey

[Canada Evidence Act, April 30th, 1998]

Unbelievable.

[Weyburn Red Wings, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Weyburn Red Wings of the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League have captured the Anavet Cup. It took seven games to defeat the talented Winkler Manitoba Flyers.

The Weyburn Red Wings now advance to the Junior II National Championships to be held in Nanaimo, B.C.

Winning the national championship is not new to the Red Wings or their loyal fans.

Good luck, Red Wings, and bring home the national championship and the coveted Royal Bank Cup.

[The Late Father Bob Ogle, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to Reverend Bob Joseph Ogle who served as the NDP member of parliament for Saskatoon East from 1979 to 1984.

As mentioned, he died on April 1 after a long battle with cancer. As a former MLA for the Rosetown—Elrose constituency, I had the privilege of meeting Bob Ogle on a number of occasions. He was born in Rosetown. I am told in visiting there it was a very proud day for the town of Rosetown when he was ordained priest in the town of his birth.

Although he is best known in his native province, this great humanitarian's dedicated approach to human life and human justice gained him international recognition. His philosophy for which he was so respected can best be summed up by what he said on the day of his nomination, September 17, 1977:

I believe that all human rights are all of a piece; ignore one right and you jeopardize all the others. That is why a single issue approach to rights will not work. If we are really pro-life we have to protect human life, from conception through to death. This requires an active, lifelong concern for a just social system.

On behalf of my colleagues in the official opposition, and I well recognize all the members of this House, I pay my respect to a missionary, to a world traveller, to an author and a renowned Canadian politician.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

They both have.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a bad day. It is beautiful outside but not so great inside. I do not want to get down to anything but cold, hard facts. Let us look at reality.

The case is prevalent all across Canada. It does not miss anybody's constituency. I wonder how the hon. member would respond to a cold, hard situation. Here we have two people in the same town both given blood transfusions in the same year. One person contracted hepatitis C and the other has HIV. One will be compensated and the other will not. All through the same blood. All through the same causes.

How can members opposite possibly say to the people of Canada that this one is this way and that one is that way? This is a problem for the people over there. They are not dealing with realities. They come in here with a canned speech and read it off. They stay to the party line. They are not thinking with their hearts. Their hearts do not tell them to snub this person living on this side of the street and that another person will get compensation. They do not have an answer to that question. I have been listening to them for four days on this issue and they have not answered that question.

Could the hon. member deal with absolute reality and tell me how he would deal with a situation like this one?

[Nunavut Act, April 20th, 1998]

Three different times whole pages could have been deleted and the government opposite refused to do it. It chose to do that. It chose to take away the celebration of this day. It was not me but the government opposite.

I want to say in closing that I wish these people well despite the intervention. I mean it from my heart. I do not care what questions they want to throw at me. It is a dead issue. The Nunavut is not a dead issue. I wish them well. I hope they do walk out and say this is the person they want for the Senate.

[Nunavut Act, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, if I recall—and I was not here for all of it—there were sections in it that we could have agreed to which would have shortened the speech by a great deal. The government opposite refused to do that.

[Nunavut Act, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I say to the hon. member who asked the question that I spoke with altruism. I was not trying to indicate something. I do not put on a sham when I talk. I was saying what I truly meant to say when I talked about my desires as an individual member of the House in the support of the new territory.

I do not know why the hon. member would cast doubt upon my integrity in my speech. I have never really had that happen before. I have spoken in hundreds of different places, in provincial legislatures and in this House. I am somewhat disappointed that he would take the speech I made in the House today and somehow cast that upon what I was trying to say to my hon. colleague.

I wished the hon. colleague well. Is he doubting that I wish her well? I find that rather distasteful. All I said was that I think it would be a great day for these people. It would be a wonderful day. Over the past they have developed their own style of government. They have been promised a member in the Senate. They should be the ones who make the selection. That is not taking a pot-shot against anybody. That would be the right way to go. If I had an opportunity to go back to my own province on this again, I know what it would do.

This was a condemnation of me as a speaker who came to congratulate them. I have read a great deal about the background. I even got a prize at the hon. member's function when she asked who was their most famous inhabitant. I knew it. It was Santa Claus and I got a nice T-shirt. I certainly would not agree with degradation from the hon. member opposite. I would hope that he was not attacking me personally because I would feel quite badly about that.

[Nunavut Act, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I guess all MPs at one time or another would say during the course of their sojourn in this place that they are proud to represent their own constituency. In my case I would say that I am proud to represent the constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain which is in Saskatchewan.

I know that the hon. member, who represents the area under discussion, is very proud as well, and indeed should be proud of the area that she represents in this House. She has spoken very passionately about the need for the House to pass this bill and the excitement of the people over what will take place in less than one year.

I do not think the hon. member need fear the opposition not supporting what she has said. When we take a look at the tremendous impact, the tremendous area, the tremendous change that must take place, led by people like the member opposite, I know it is going to take place and the people of Nunavut will be satisfied with what they gain through their relationship with the rest of Canada.

The population of Nunavut will be over 24,000. That may not be a lot of people, but they will be spread over a large area. I complain about my constituency being too large, but by comparison the only way an MP could possibly reach all of the communities of Nunavut would be by aircraft and through the modern technology of communication.

We know that the language will be different because 76% of the people of Nunavut speak neither English nor French. We do not have the typical founding nations in the area. The challenge that is there for the people of Nunavut is great.

The people of the area need to feel that the rest of Canada welcomes them as a partner in Canada and welcomes them to the traditions of our parliamentary democracy.

I think they have a tremendous advantage. The hon. member said previously that they are not as fortunate. I would like to suggest to her that perhaps they are more fortunate because they have an opportunity to take a look at some of the mistakes we have made over the past 100 years or so. Maybe they can bring about the type of government which will correct those mistakes.

It is going to cost a lot of money. The province in which I live was a territory much the same as the hon. member's. Saskatchewan was in a part of Canada known as the Northwest Territories. It did not become a province until 1905. A tremendous amount of money went into Saskatchewan, particularly in the building of the railroads and the settlement that took place.

That is not the case with this addition to Canada, but the Nunavut people will have to be patient with the rest of Canada. The progress of the opening of this particular part of Canada should be quicker than even that of western Canada because of modern techniques in transportation and communication.

If I remember correctly, there are some regulations forthcoming that women will very much form a part of the government in the new territory. During the break I met with an Indian band. The chief and the entire band were women. It is the very first in Canada. I complimented them as I sat down to eat with them. I pointed out that if we make sure we have an equal balance with women things will progress because nobody is closer to understanding the needs of young people and youth. Just as I told my friends in the Ocean Man Reserve in Saskatchewan, this was the best thing I had seen for a long time. I would say the same to the hon. member. She talked about having flexibility, which is very important particularly when going into something new. When the provinces came into Canada, particularly those in western Canada, they experienced all kinds of difficulties with governing themselves and with breaking away from other types of government. Nunavut will experience this, but that does not mean that through the experience it will not develop a better type of government. I am sure it will.

From listening to her speech I am sure the hon. member opposite has a great deal of pride in representing that area. She speaks from the heart. That is the kind of person that will make it go. I am sure many people in that territory will be watching this debate. They will see and understand what is going on, which will only add to their excitement.

I recently watched a television program on this topic. They talked about the tourism industry and the ongoing excitement. Between now and April 1, 1999 there will be a great deal of excitement. I would like members to carry the same excitement I witnessed in watching these people as they develop and become part of Canada. They are not just people in a faraway land but part of Canada connected by the democratic process, by radio, television and all other media, and connected by the hon. member herself being part of the House of Commons. I am very proud to wish her well.

I hope she will convey the message back to her people to go all out and be the very first of all institutions to say that they will elect their own senator. That would put them in first place again. Government members may not agree with that but they could make history by doing it and would never regret it. The member's people would choose their own representative in the red house. That would make it great. If we were to do this all over again and I was talking for the first time to the people of Saskatchewan, I know what they would say. They would say go for it. I say the same thing to the member.

They will have an elected assembly. She is a member of the House in which she represents her constituency well. She should go back to her people and tell them to do something brand new. They should bring in the very first elected senator from their territory. I do not think it would ruffle the feathers of members of the government in which the hon. member sits. It would be the right move for them rather than having somebody in Ottawa appointing somebody where they live. That would be a mistake.

The member has a lot of good things going for her. She talked about the language, about maintaining her culture and about a free election for an MP. Let us add to that a free election to the Senate. Nothing but good could come of this.

The Reform Party supports this move. We know there is a tremendous cost involved. There is a tremendous cost involved with many things. An hon. gentleman asked a question about the tourism industry. If I had time that is where I would be going. I would want to go right up there and look at it myself, be there and be part of it.

We wish the member well. We support this move. We hope she will be as diligent in the development and as painstakingly as possible make sure that many of her people get involved. We want them to preserve their culture. We want them to preserve their language. At the same time they must admit that if they are to expand and grow they will have to make some fundamental changes like everybody else has had to do to put their new area in touch with the day.

Canadians can be and will be proud of the member. The government is proud of her as a member. We welcome that. I caution the member to step out, to be bold and to be brave just as she is now in saying that they want this relationship with Canada. They would be the very first area in Canadian history to say thanks but no thanks, we will elect our own senator in our own way. That would be history making beyond anything they could expect in a year's time.

[Criminal Records Act, April 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to congratulate my colleague from Calgary who has brought this private member's bill in. I too am pleased that it has been drawn as a votable item.

I would like to withhold most of my comments for the second round of debate on this bill because time does not permit it today.

However, there are a number of observations I would like to make. There are a number of suggestions I would like to make to hon. members on the government side.

Members of the Reform caucus do not seek any glorification in winning a so-called political battle in bringing this motion forward. We have but one purpose. We are not vindictive. We do not hold malice. We have one thing in mind. We are not satisfied with the 31% figure of pedophiles coming back to abuse our children.

The hon. member who spoke earlier from the government seemed to suggest that number was satisfactory. I do not think the last member who spoke from the government would agree. He would agree that if we can by any means bring that down to 15% that would be better for all of the people in Canada, never mind this House. We are here because of the people of Canada. This bill came forward because of the children of Canada, whom we want to protect.

My profession has put me front and foremost of watching young people suffer because of sexual molestation. I have watched them struggle through life. I watched them struggle through high school. Now I watch them struggle in adulthood. If there are ways and means to prevent this, then let us go for it. I say to my hon. colleague who spoke last from the Liberal side of the House we do not care what happens. If he would like to readjust the bill and bring it back in, we would be pleased with that. We are not looking for credit in any way. The hon. member who initiated this bill would be the first to agree to it.

Different organizations have been mentioned. I want to tell members of the difficulties I had hiring teachers on whom I could not obtain the information I should have obtained. They were protected. This led to a disaster. I was the CEO to the board. A bill like this would prevent school boards from becoming trapped in an issue. It would prevent communities that hire recreational directors from becoming trapped. They should have this right. To deny the main purpose of this bill, to deny the main intent of this bill will mean this will go on and on.

Church groups that get young people together for the summer should have this right. They should have the right for limited information to protect not only themselves but the children. They are putting on functions for children because they love children and they want to protect them. The fundamental purpose of this bill, the only purpose, is to provide protection for Canadian youth.

Finally, let us forget about politics. Let us forget about the different parties. Let us forget about our personal viewpoints. Let us work together, whatever it takes. If it means going back to the committee, fine. But let us come up with a more positive solution than we have at the present time or Canadians are going to have less faith in the House for not doing something which is a national problem. We cannot sit by and simply say, as I heard this afternoon, 31% is not a bad figure and it is holding. That is not good enough for us on this side of the House.