Werner Schmidt

[Member for Calgary Southwest, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today signals the beginning of a new era in Canadian politics.

A few hours ago the newest member for Calgary Southwest was sworn in as a member of the House. In a few minutes he will commence his first question period.

The contrasts between the opposition and the government are more evident than ever before. On this side is a fresh, young, principled, intelligent leader at the head of a united, strong, focused and determined caucus. Over there is a tired, disengaged, distracted, fuzzy leader at the head of a directionless, fractious, incompetent, arrogant and corrupt government.

The official opposition is standing for Canadians, for law and order, good management, lower taxes and less intrusion. The government is standing for nothing but helping its friends with smelly land deals, questionable contracts and a wink, wink, nudge, nudge approach to the business of the nation.

I invite Canadians to watch us and our new leader carefully. We demonstrate both the need for change and the choice for change.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for the lucid and logical demonstration of what would happen under the bill. I also commend her for dealing with the democratic process that has been involved.

If I understood correctly, the hon. member talked about the subject having been introduced in 1993 through a special commission. Here we are almost 10 years later before seeing something happen. In the meantime we have had rapid progression in terms of science and certain other areas.

The hon. member said something about the government sitting on its hands. However she mentioned a situation where the government did not sit on its hands. The committee studied the proposed bill in great detail. If I remember correctly, the bill was given to the committee before being introduced in the House. This was done to provide ample opportunity for a large number of experts and people who understood the subject to present their cases.

What has happened to the government to allow it to change the committee's recommendations? It first told the committee to study the bill. It then went ahead and changed the bill after the committee had worked on it.

[Privilege, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I understand you were expecting me after the question of privilege was raised earlier today. I want to give you and the House my best recollection of what actually happened. I did not hear the question of privilege because I was on the bus going back to my office.

It seems to me that for some reason or another a member from the other side of the House felt that I had assaulted or intimidated him. At least that is what I have been told. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the member that absolutely nothing like that took place. I can say exactly what happened to the best of my recollection.

I was standing in front of the Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings waiting for the green bus to go to my office in the Justice building. As I was standing there, the hon. member for Mississauga South, who apparently raised the question of privilege earlier, came up from behind me.

I told him I had a contention to raise with him. He asked what it was. I said that it had to do with his refusal to give unanimous consent for the hon. member for Vancouver Island North to table a letter in the House. He said that it could not be allowed because the letter was not in both official languages. I told him that it was not his decision but that of the Speaker whether or not the document could be tabled. I said to him that he had not even seen the letter.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the letter had to do with the subject that was debated that day. It comes from a group of over 8,000 Chinese people. The letter was written to the justice minister of Canada. The translation of the letter reads:

Dear Justice Minister of Canada:

Re: Raising the Age of Sex Consent to Eighteen

I am shocked to hear that the age of consent for sexual activity is 14 years of age. That means adults can legally be having sex with children. Given the emotional vulnerability of children and the great potential for harm from sexual activity, I am very concerned.

I understand that the provincial governments have asked you to raise the age of consent to help combat child prostitution and sexual exploitation.

Canadians do not vote, consume alcohol, fight wars or engage in other adult activities legally until age 18. Sexual activity is an activity with adult consequences, including disease and pregnancy.

For the sake of Canada's children, I respectfully urge you to act immediately by enacting and supporting legislation to protect children and restore the age of consent back to 18 years of age.

That was the letter and unanimous consent was denied by the hon. member for Mississauga South. The allegation has nothing to do with that particular part but that was the disagreement between the hon. member and myself, and I expressed it to that degree.

The hon. member has suggested that I stepped out of a car into his way and put my finger in his nose, or something like that. There was absolutely nothing of the kind. I was not in a car to begin with. I was standing on the sidewalk waiting to get on the bus. He came in later. I believe there was at least one other member, I believe it was the member for Nanaimo--Cowichan, who passed by as the member for Mississauga South and I were talking.

If this is the kind of thing that is supposed to be a serious question of privilege, I do not understand it. There was no assault or intimidation involved. There was disagreement involved, absolutely, and there still is but that is not the contention. The issue is that I am being charged with having done something that I did not do. I deny it totally. I do not understand where this is coming from at all.

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals and members of other parties are sitting here in the House today and it is almost as if there is supposed to be some sort of confrontation between the Liberal side of the House and the official opposition with regard to this issue. It seems to me there is not a person in Canada who deliberately wants to hurt people, especially children. Maybe there is, I do not know, but it is not the majority by any stretch of the imagination. Hon. members on the government side would do very well to recognize that they could work with the opposition on things that are really meaningful.

I want to speak to the part of the motion that deals with measures to prohibit the creation or use of sexually explicit materials exploiting children, or materials that appear to depict or describe children engaged in sexual activity. My remarks will be restricted to that aspect and I will not deal with the part concerning age of consent.

Why is this issue so important today? It has become important because of the recent decision in the John Robin Sharpe case. The judge decided that the man was not guilty of doing something illegal in terms of having pornographic material because it had artistic merit. The written material described sadomasochistic violence with boys.

The Oxford dictionary describes sadism as sexual perversion characterized by the enjoyment of inflicting pain or suffering on others and masochism as deriving sexual gratification from one's own pain or humiliation.

Does such material have artistic merit? The law is quite clear. Hon. members have stated clearly that there is a law against having pornographic material in Canada and indeed there is. According to our legislation child pornography can mean any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years. That would be considered an offence under the code. One of the defences set out is:

Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2), (3) or (4), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

It was under that particular provision that Mr. Sharpe was declared not guilty.

The case brings to our attention the need to protect children from evils associated with the possession of child pornography. No one denies that child pornography involves the exploitation of children. Possession of child pornography contributes to the market for child pornography, a market which in turn drives production involving the exploitation of children. Possession of child pornography may facilitate the seduction and grooming of victims and may break down inhibitions or incite potential offences. These are not my words, but rather the words of a supreme court justice.

Two issues stand in stark contrast to one another. On the one hand stands the right of freedom of expression as the Minister of Justice mentioned. That is a right which is fundamental to the liberty of each Canadian. On the other hand stands the conviction that the possession of child pornography must be forbidden to prevent harming children.

It is pretty clear what the issues are. What is pornography? I will not go through all the details about it, but I will deal with one particular aspect of this issue.

Written material can constitute child pornography in only the last of the ways I am going to mention. What is the way that is being talked about? It is by advocating or counselling sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years. That would be an offence under the criminal code.

An adult or any other person who brings a child into this kind of knowledge and abuses and exposes the child to issues that are clearly defined in the legislation needs to be recognized in terms of what is fundamental to this nation and certainly fundamental to my beliefs.

I would like to read into the record the words of Jesus in Luke, chapter 17, verse 1:

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves”.

That is very interesting. In our society today where many of the laws are based on Judeo-Christian values, to recognize that the authority behind that states clearly that people who mislead and bring about the offensive behaviour of certain people who are not responsible in their own right but who are adults and know exactly what they are doing, is a very serious offence.

The exposure to child pornography may reduce a pedophile's defences and inhibitions against sexual abuse of children. That is why we object. Banalizing the awful and numbing constant exposure to child pornography may make the abnormal seem normal and the immoral seem acceptable.

The evidence is clear and uncontradicted. Sexually explicit pornography involving children poses a danger to children because of its use by pedophiles in the seduction process. Criminalizing the possession of child pornography is likely to help reduce the grooming and seduction of children. Clearly then, that is what should be done.

The abuse of children in the production of pornography is conclusive. Children are used and abused in the making of much of the child pornography caught by the law. Production of child pornography is fueled by the market for it and the market in turn is fueled by those who seek to possess it. Criminalizing possession may reduce the market for child pornography and the abuse of children it often involves. It will not eliminate it but it will reduce it and that is certainly what we want.

The impugned provision recognizes that the possession of child pornography has a particularly deleterious effect on society since the persons depicted as most directly harmed are children, our most precious possession. It is interesting that when many of us here in the House are asked to speak at high school graduations, the comment we often use when we talk to a graduating class is that they are the leaders of tomorrow. That applies no less to the people who are four years old, six months old, or ten years old who are being used and abused by pedophiles. Their lives are scarred forever.

We want to avoid that kind of thing. In spite of the fact that a lot of good legislation exists, there is a provision in the legislation which I think has to be changed. I refer to the provision for a defence of artistic merit against the possession of pornography.

What may reasonably be viewed as art is admittedly a difficult question, one which philosophers have pondered through the ages. Although it is generally accepted that art includes the production according to aesthetic principles of works of the imagination, imitation or design, the question of whether a particular drawing, film or text is art must be left to the trial judge to determine on the basis of a variety of factors.

Pornography damages children. It needs to be done away with. I recommend that the first thing the government do is destroy and delete that provision in the legislation where it allows for artistic merit as a defence.

We love our kids. I was at a birthday party for my four year old grandson just last Sunday. When I think that he might be the object of a pedophile attack, it hurts. We can do something about it and we can do it now. We do not have to wait for a long study. Do away with that defence.

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the provisions in the charter of rights and freedoms which allow for artistic expression and a lot of self-expression and is there for the protection of Canadians, would the hon. member's interpretation of the charter say that harming children is less important than providing for the artistic expression of someone who creates this kind of pornographic material?

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I found it rather interesting to hear the hon. member cataloguing and calendaring the number of things that the Liberal government has done in terms of the registry for sexual offenders. I really wonder what that has to do with the motion currently before the House.

Aside from that, I would like to ask her specifically about the defence of artistic merit that is provided for in the Criminal Code of Canada. In her role as a representative of York West, which is in the vicinity of Toronto, and recognizing that the chief of police of that city is extremely concerned about the pornographic things that are happening, particularly the abuse of children, would she, in her role as representative of that part of Ontario and of Canada, recognize that artistic merit is a defence of someone having child pornography in written form?

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said we will perhaps examine ways in which we can strengthen the protection of children against pornography. Is he prepared to delete from the current criminal code defence of artistic merit?

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to address only one question to the hon. minister with regard to defence of artistic merit. Would he agree that the protection of a child is of greater significance than declaring certain sado-masochistic information as having artistic merit? We know that pornographic material hurts and harms children. Would he consider artistic merit to be more important than protecting children?

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to welcome back a colleague who has served our caucus well, who has served the House well, who represents the constituents of Calgary East very well. He has suffered from a misfortune, ill health and almost was unable to come back and visit with us, to put his shoulder to the wheel and help us do the job that needs to be done. We welcome the hon. member back, encourage him and may he be healthy for many years to come. It is good to have him back.

I thank him for the wonderful speech he has just made. He articulated many of the things which I think we need to look at.

I want to approach the bill from a principled point of view and ask two questions. Is the bill democratically conceived? My other question is the one with which my colleague actually ended his speech. Does the bill protect species at risk and does it do so in an equitable and fair manner? I wish to address those questions as I go through various amendments in the bill.

I was really impressed by the Minister of the Environment during question period. He made a very interesting statement. He said that the one thing we have to do when we create legislation in the House and when we deal with the affairs of the country, we must be sure that we listen to the people, that we pay very careful attention to what the people are saying and that we do it in a manner that will meet their needs, their interests so that indeed we can be the democrats that we purport to be. That is what he said. I think my colleagues will all verify that is what the hon. Minister of the Environment said.

Guess what. Right here in the bill, right off the top what do we find? We find that the committee recommended that the bill should have a five year review. The committee recommended a five year review. What did the government do? No, it would not do that. The government is going to review the bill when it thinks it ought to be reviewed. That is wrong, wrong, wrong. That is the way in which the government operates. So right off the top we have some difficulties with the bill.

I want to get into a very specific part of the bill, the creation of the stewardship action plans. Motion No. 25 deals with the creation of stewardship action plans.

The standing committee had required that stewardship action plans must include a commitment to examine regularly “tax treatment and subsidies” and “to eliminate disincentives”. The government wants to delete this language but it is vital. Why? It demonstrates that compensation is not just in cash payment but could involve other things like tax treatment which is so vital to farmers and other property owners.

Further, while the government always wants to create incentives and programs, it must be forced to confront the realities of disincentives, the reasons that people do not respond.

My hon. colleague just a moment ago said that if people are not involved in conservation, if they do not make it their business, it is impossible to police the actions that will actually result in conservation. The ivory tower theories of bureaucrats will never do the kinds of things they say they will do unless the people actually agree that they want to do it.

The government also wants to delete the standing committee's requirement that stewardship action plans provide technical and scientific support to persons who are engaged in stewardship activities. Get this: The government will provide information relating to technical and scientific support available to persons engaged in stewardship activities. This is a small but significant difference. Instead of giving property owners real assistance by sharing data on the presence of endangered species on property to protect the sensitive habitat for example, the government can simply mail them a brochure and say “Have a look at this” and that is what they do. Thanks a lot.

The motion extensively modifies the amendment of the standing committee that introduced this stewardship action plan. The amendment reinforces an earlier government amendment that makes the development of an action plan discretionary. Is that not interesting. There is a stewardship action plan that is required that is provided for but it is discretionary and not mandatory, although when the minister chooses to develop an action plan, the motion would still dictate some elements to be included.

When a piece of legislation says that maybe it is mandatory or maybe it is not mandatory, we come to the point where we say what is this? Is this whimsical legislation that allows the minister to do whatever he or she wants to do whenever he or she feels like doing it?

The committee did not mandate compensation, but at least required that the minister commit regularly to examine tax treatment and subsidies and to eliminate disincentives for people who protect species at risk.

I cannot avoid talking about compensation. Is it not interesting that the bill could provide for the opportunity of the minister to confiscate land, to take away property without compensation.

Canada is a democracy. Canada is a country where people are supposed to have a say in what happens. I want to underline, as my colleagues have, that the Canadian Alliance and I personally definitely are not opposed to protecting species that are at risk. Members of my family and I are very strong conservationists and have always been. To take the position that it is possible to take away property, to take away the freedom to enjoy and to use personal property simply at the whim of a minister, that may put at risk a different species, that species being those who own property. The bill is completely silent about that. That is not right.

The committee's amendment requires the commitment to provide technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities. Instead the government commits to providing information. Landowners can expect a far lower level of support by virtue of this amendment. The government is asking them to assume significant responsibilities, It is threatening them with criminal sanctions for even inadvertent errors, yet it refuses to offer technical assistance as to how they could actually do the job.

We must strongly oppose this particular amendment which waters down the original intent of the legislation.

Motion No. 29 is a modification of amendments carried by the standing committee. It removes the requirements imposed by the standing committee to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on draft contribution agreements still under discussion, as well as publish them when they are complete. This is unacceptable.

A stewardship agreement can affect not just the landowner but neighbouring lands too. For example, the introduction of wolves back into an ecosystem in certain parts of the western United States affects not just the national parks involved, and I believe this happened at Yellowstone National Park, but all the ranchers in the area as well.

Therefore, it is essential that proposed stewardship agreements must be made public prior to being finalized. It is part of that consultation program, yet somehow it is not required. We must oppose that kind of highhanded thinking.

The intent of Motion No. 114 is to accommodate the changes made by the standing committee to the bill which establish proposed management plans. Specifically, it requires that management plans that adopt existing plans are considered to be proposed management plans and are subject to a public comment period. That sounds like a pretty good idea. Let us do that. We would definitely support this motion.

Under Motion No. 24 any government in Canada, organization or person must provide a copy of the stewardship action plan and must be included in the public registry. Consistent with other transparency provisions in the bill, the motion proposes that a copy of the plan be included in the public registry. This is a positive amendment which increases the flow of information to the public.

An amendment was made by a Canadian Alliance member to the effect that this information should be made public. The word public was inserted. This is a very positive amendment that came forward. I wish the government would see fit to put that amendment forward.

There has been a bit of negative and a bit of positive in my analysis, and my speech was far from finished. I would ask the government to please consider this amendment and at least make public the information so that everyone knows what is involved in the stewardship action plans and the technical information necessary for people to actually exercise the stewardship that we all want them to do.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has included the answer in his question. He is absolutely right. Any particular position taken to an extreme becomes ridiculous.

The word we need to look at in all these things is balance. We need to look at what we are really trying to do and revert to the original principle. Does it make sense? Does it protect the legitimate interests and activities of law-abiding Canadian citizens or does it make it criminals out of people who are pursuing a legitimate exercise?

The hon. member has put it in perspective very effectively and accurately.