Roy H. Bailey

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her excellent remarks.

The hon. member touched upon something which is bothering Canadians very much. The hon. member made reference to making it airtight so it is approved by the courts.

It seems to me that Parliament is the supreme court in this land. It seems to me that we represent all the people in this land. We should be concentrating on pleasing all the people, not only the courts.

I have a real problem that in the last 20 years we are always trying to do something to please the courts. I want the parliamentary secretary to address the question, why not try to please the people first?

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if anyone in the House had followed me on four different occasions when I dealt with children as young as in grade two who have been maimed for the rest of their lives because of what my colleague calls pure filth, and followed these people through the course of their lives, they would have seen that one committed suicide and three others had real problems in their lives. Let me say that there is no defence. My colleague very proudly said that we should remove all defences. There is nothing in the bill that will really stop what is going on.

I say to my colleague from Edmonton North that we have enough courage. Does she think the government has enough courage to stand with us and say that there is zero tolerance for this material?

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member has said. He brings up a very important topic, that is, the charter, the use of the charter and how the charter is being used.

For two decades Canadians have had the charter. It seems to me that at the present time there are certain freedoms within the charter that are far more important than other freedoms. Was the charter written for the courts and lawyers or was it written for ordinary people such as hon. members and myself?

I want to give two quick examples and ask for a comment. It seems to me the freedom of the charter most used by the judiciary is that of freedom of expression. For example, we have a legal church service in progress that is disrupted because few individuals know what doctrine they preach. That was only freedom of expression, it is a legal assembly, and yet no charges are laid because the freedom of expression is weighted more heavily than the freedom of assembly. I would appreciate a comment on that.

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

The government handcuffed him.

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is a cop-out in a simple phrase. First it was artistic value and now it is for the public good.

I would like to ask my colleague or anyone else who is going to speak today, what part of pornography is acceptable and for the public good?. That phrase is a misnomer. That phrase should never be in the courts. It should never be uttered. What part of pornography could possibly be for the public good?

[Veterans Affairs, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, no member of Parliament on any side of the House could read the number of letters that I have received from these war widows without being touched by their condition and their plight, while at the same time ashamed of the government for its inaction.

How can the government, with a boasted surplus of billions, continue to keep these war widows at the bottom of the priority list?

[Veterans Affairs, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there was unanimous consent at the veterans affairs committee to extend the VIP benefit to some 23,000 additional war widows. There were rumours that the government agreed and would make an announcement. War widows who were also expecting this announcement have been saddened by this and they are losing faith.

Has the minister forgotten the needs of 23,000 war widows who have contributed as much as those widows who are currently in this program?

[Petitions, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of signatures here, not only from my constituency but from across the province. Many of these people tell me that this is the most important issue facing the country today.

The petitioners call upon the government to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Committees of the House, October 22nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to see a big headline in the newspaper, as early as tomorrow, reading “Canada fulfills its obligations”. In this case it is an obligation. Abraham Lincoln once said that nobody has the right to do the wrong thing. What the government is doing now is the wrong thing.

This can be changed by regulation. It does not require legislation.

Everyone in the House should know that many of these widows will be standing teary-eyed on November 11 at the site of the memorial knowing that they have been thoroughly discriminated against by this government. During the two minutes of silence, in which we are supposed to honour our veterans, their minds will go back to the government that brought dishonour upon widows who served this country equally as their husbands did who bore arms to go overseas.

We cannot wait and wait. We must move now before November 11 of this year. I plead with the government not to carry on this discrimination further, bring this to floor and announce this change so that it will be effective, as I have said previously in the House many times, by November 11. Let us pay tribute to our war widows. Let us not ignore them or discriminate against them.

[Veterans Affairs, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the government knows that the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs voted unanimously that the war widows who were cut off their pensions as recipients under the VIP should be reinstated.

Will the government reinstate these war widows into the program so that they can continue to be treated with the respect that war widows deserve?