Alexander Bell PATTERSON

PATTERSON, Alexander Bell

Parliamentary Career

August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
SC
  Fraser Valley (British Columbia)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
SC
  Fraser Valley (British Columbia)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
SC
  Fraser Valley (British Columbia)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
SC
  Fraser Valley (British Columbia)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
SC
  Fraser Valley (British Columbia)
October 30, 1972 - May 9, 1974
PC
  Fraser Valley East (British Columbia)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
PC
  Fraser Valley East (British Columbia)
May 22, 1979 - December 14, 1979
PC
  Fraser Valley East (British Columbia)
February 18, 1980 - July 9, 1984
PC
  Fraser Valley East (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 236)


September 19, 1983

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Patterson):

The Hon. Member seeks unanimous consent. Is the House agreed?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ACT
Full View Permalink

June 29, 1983

Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):

Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents in the riding of Fraser Valley East. The purpose of the petition, signed by members of the Clayburn Women's Institute in Clayburn, B.C., is to register their opposition to the adult erotic entertainment being planned by First Choice Pay-TV on the grounds that such programs are an assault on human dignity and a violation of generally accepted standards of decency. Permitting such telecasting results in the demeaning of women, in the degrading of man and the destruction in children of a wholesome and responsible attitude to the human sexual expression. They have included in their vigorous opposition Red Hot Video stores and similar establishments that are licensed sources of pornography.

June 29, 1983

Petitions

Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to insist that public broadcasting be required to observe a code of ethics that will enhance the highest level of ethical and moral standards and that licensed public retail outlets will be required to promote the highest rather than the lowest levels of morality and human decency.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   PETITIONS
Full View Permalink

June 27, 1983

Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate this evening but I cannot say that I am happy to do so. Somehow I feel rather sad that this great institution that has such a tremendous responsibility and also an influence for good in our nation should have before it a Bill which I believe tends to erode the very ethical and moral basis and foundation of our country.

I cannot help but think back to when I wore a different hat, or collar. In preaching to my congregation, I would point out the fact that I believed that in the exchange of goods, there were only three principles that were operative: one was by purchase, the second was by barter and the third was an outright gift. When we move into the area in which we are moving with this particular Bill, we are bypassing those basic principles and carrying on one of the weaknesses of humanity, which seems to be becoming more prevalent in these days, that is, to try to get something for nothing, and get it quickly.

There are several components of the Bill that have been mentioned to which I want to refer very briefly again. First, I would start by referring to the matter which was addressed by the previous Hon. Member. His last comment concerned the fact that under the provisions of the Bill we are called upon to set up another Crown corporation. We must remember the words of the Auditor General when he referred to the Crown corporation proliferation as being a sub-government, one that was beyond the control of Parliament and one that did not have any sense of accountability.

When I think of another Crown corporation being set up at a time when there is so much criticism directed toward that type of activity, I somehow feel that we are moving in the wrong direction. We ought to call a halt and consider whether or not we are setting up just one more agency which will be

beyond the power of Parliament to control, one that does not have any sense of responsibility to the Canadian people.

Another matter in that connection is that we are called upon to amend the Criminal Code. Just to bring this to our attention, Clause 33 states:

The Criminal Code is amended by adding thereto, immediately after Section 188 thereof, the following Section:

"188.1 Notwithstanding any provision of this Part relating to gaming or

betting it is lawful

(a) for the Government of Canada to-

That is absolutely reprehensible. It is completely immoral to say that under the Criminal Code a thing is illegal and a crime, and then for the Government to bring in a measure and say, "We will put in a clause and say, regardless of what is in the Criminal Code, that we will do it and we will not be held responsible for it. We cannot be charged under the Criminal Code". What in the world is the Government thinking about? Where are we going in this country? It is absolutely wrong for a person or a community to do something, yet a Government can do it, wrapping itself in the garb of irresponsibility and saying, "In spite of what the Criminal Code says, we will do it and you cannot charge us for the crime". I wonder how much has been spent in pressuring people to do what is intrinsically wrong according to the Criminal Code. The Government will advertise and urge the people to do what is wrong according to the Criminal Code. I would like to know just how much money Governments have spent in the past in order to get people to do what I have suggested is wrong. May I say that the Government is completely irresponsible. It is immoral for a Government to do this.

It is asking us to go ahead and pass this measure. I believe that if the projects that are stated as being the recipients of assistance in this Bill are laudable causes, which they are, they should not be left to chance. They should be provided for from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the money obtained in a legitimate fashion from the people of Canada instead of through the back door via this particular mechanism.

I know that the Government will say that we are advocating greater Government expenditures. But I can outline many projects which the Government could eliminate and transfer that money to meet the demands and requirements of these particular causes. It would be far more commendable for the Government to spend its money there than the way it is spending it now.

I have documents here from the Council of Christian Reform Churches in Canada. I also have statements by the executive committee of the Baptist Federation of Canada and the Commission on Moral and Social Standards and Issues of the Salvation Army, as well as the working unit on social issues in justice, division of missions in Canada of the United Church of Canada. They suggest and urge us to reject this Bill and vote against it because they believe it is detrimental to the fabric of our nation. I believe that we ought to reject it.

June 27, 1983

I wonder why no Liberals will stand up to defend this measure. Are they all in agreement that this Bill should go through? I wish there were at least some who would stand up and say that they believe this measure is wrong and that they will not support it. The plea that 1 make today is that the Minister withdraw his Bill and realize that it is thoroughly wrong.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ATHLETIC CONTESTS AND EVENTS POOLS ACT
Full View Permalink

June 27, 1983

Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):

Mr. Speaker, I did speak on the measure once this evening, but we are now considering a further amendment and I have a few observations in connection with it. First, the Government's claim has been that the Bill must be passed in order to facilitate the holding of the Calgary games. The inference is that without the support of the Bill, the games are in jeopardy. However, I would submit that everyone knows that that is not true. The same serious argument was used by the Government in forcing the Crow Bill through the House. In its argumentation it stated that if the transportation system was to be upgraded, the statutory Crow rate had to go because, through the change that it was proposing, the money would be forthcoming to

assist the railway companies in upgrading and providing a better transportation system for Canada. I think everyone knows that that was not true. Everyone was in favour of the upgrading of our transportation system.

We think back to the days when a certain Minister of Transport said that the transportation system was a mess. The same could be said today because we remember the attempts of the railway companies to discourage passenger travel by making it almost impossible to make connections at various out of the way points and by using other techniques as well. We are still facing a situation in which the transportation system is inadequate to fulfill the purpose for which it was originally set in place. However, I would suggest that there are other options open to the transportation system than the method and the route that the Government was following in trying to destroy the statutory freight rates.

We are faced with the same situation again involving a very laudable project namely, the Calgary Olympics. I do not suppose anyone objects to the holding of the Calgary Olympics. I would say that it is a possibility that the greatest percentage of the people of Canada think it is a good idea, even though they may not be sports-minded. They say it is a good idea to encourage our athletes to participate in competition with those from other countries, and they would like to see it go ahead. However, now I say that the Government in implying that unless this particular measure goes through and the sports pool is set up, those games are in jeopardy. However, we all know, in and around this place, that if the Government wants to do something, it gets some money somewhere. If it wants to prop up an ailing industry, and many times some of its own followers can help it out in a tought spot, it can get the money all right. It can go and borrow and does not mind doing it at all. Yet if we are to have the Olympics, it says that we cannot do it that way. It says that we must put in a sports pool and get the money out of those people who are poor and hard up yet desperate to make a dollar in order to better their economic condition and so they will take a chance on buying tickets.

The Government is hypocritical in its attitude, in its proclamations, in its announcements, because it knows very well that there are other avenues that it can tap in order to ensure the holding of the Calgary Olympics. It can do so without forcing the Bill through the House as it is endeavouring to do at the present time.

There has been a question raised as to whether it is a lottery or a sports pool, or just what it is. However, we all know that it is just a gambling device. I would like to draw attention to the following statement. It was the concluding words of the joint Parliamentary Committee on Capital Punishment and Lotteries in the report which was made on July 31, 1956. It concluded with a very interesting statement:

That no useful purpose could be achieved by the institution of state lottery in Canada. It considered that the proper role of the state is to control and regulate such gambling activity as is permitted to private citizens by the general law, and

June 27, 1983

that it is not appropriate for the state to provide facilities for gambling to the public. The committee includes, in the prohibition of state lotteries in Canada, those which might be operated by provincial and municipal Governments as well as the federal Government.

We see that the joint committee that was studying this particular activity as well as others, came to the conclusion that this was no place for the federal Government to move in and establish a national gambling facility in order to try to finance operations.

This particular amendment with which we are dealing now concerns the activities in the following fields: the arts and culture, fitness and amateur sport, medical health and research, the Winter Olympic games to be held in Calgary, and worthy capital projects of national interest in fields described in other paragraphs.

As we look at this particular matter, the Government is arguing against itself when it says that the Olympics will not take place unless this is set up. However, it has listed the Olympics as number four in its priority projects that could expect funding from this particular facility.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ATHLETIC CONTESTS AND EVENTS POOLS ACT
Full View Permalink

June 22, 1983

Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):

Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I would like to direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. Why have there been reductions in authorized person-years at agricultural research stations in western Canada, particularly the Agassiz Research Station in my constituency of Fraser Valley East, whose work has gained world-wide acclaim, while staff allocations have been increased in other areas of Canada?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Full View Permalink