Dick Harris

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-14, the Tlicho act, which would give the force of law to an agreement between the federal government, the Northwest Territories government and the Tlicho First Nation that was signed on August 25, 2003.

The agreement gives the Tlicho First Nation ownership of approximately 39,000 square kilometres between Great Slave Lake and the Great Bear Lake and participatory-regulatory authority over even a larger area.

The agreement is unique in that it involves both a land claims settlement and a self-government agreement. It creates a precedent for the approximately 600 first nations that may seek similar provisions in their own agreements.

Every day in our opening prayers we pray that this Parliament will be given the power and wisdom to make good laws and wise decisions. That is what we all want in the House. That is what we want for our country and for people.

While the Conservative Party of Canada supports the settlement of the Tlicho land claims and a self-government agreement, we have concerns about five issues in the agreement. I go back to the ability of Parliament to make good laws and wise decisions. I want to go over the five issues in Bill C-14 that we find of particular concern.

First, it is not a final agreement. It contains a clause to reopen negotiations if another Northwest Territories aboriginal group negotiates terms that are attractive to the Tlicho in a future agreement. It fails to do its most basic job, which is to achieve a final agreement.

The fundamental goal of any agreement should be that it has some finality. In negotiating a treaty settlement and a land claims and self-government settlement, what benefit could it be to Canada to have open-ended agreements in force that could be reopened at any time? In this case, in the event that another Northwest Territories first nation negotiated an agreement with the federal government that was seen by the Tlicho band to be better than the one it signed, under the terms of this agreement it could simply reopen negotiations. That is not the way to have a good agreement that would promote the unity and bonding of our country. An agreement must contain terms that are good for everyone involved in the agreement, not just the Tlicho First Nation, but indeed all the people of Canada.

We do not want to carry on a history that has been carried on by the Liberal government where it introduces legislation that does more to foster divisions in the country than to promote unity. That is what the Liberal government has been doing for decades. It is astounding when we hear the Liberal members talk about the mosaic of Canada and how we need to ensure that the laws we introduce are fair to everybody so that we can stand as a strong united government.

The Liberal government today and previous Liberal governments have introduced legislation again and again that promotes and fosters division, more than it tries to unify the country. They should be ashamed of their record. This is just another example.

[Petitions, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in my second petition, the petitioners in the riding of Cariboo—Prince George call upon Parliament to immediately hold a renewed debate on the definition of marriage and that it reaffirm, as it did in 1999, its commitment to take all necessary steps to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I support and agree with both of these petitions.

[Petitions, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce two petitions today from the great riding of Cariboo—Prince George.

The folks who have signed the first petition have seen the falling of Bill C-23 and want the government to amend it to allow for retroactive inclusion of sex offenders serving a sentence or on parole for sexual offences, and that sex offenders automatically be included in the national sex offender registry, removing the possibility of using the registry as a bargaining chip when going through the criminal justice system.

[Prime Minister, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, you just gotta love the headlines in some of the papers this morning as Sheila Copps blasts the current Prime Minister for his doublespeak.

In this House we have heard the Prime Minister say one thing when, before coming here as the Prime Minister, he said another thing. And now he is accused by Sheila Copps of widespread organized crime, wanting to abolish the Canada Health Act and old age pensions, and privatize the CBC.

These allegations are not coming from the opposition, they are coming from Sheila Copps. You gotta love her, Mr. Speaker, on days like this.

What we have seen in the House over the last several weeks, in answer to questions from the opposition, has been the Prime Minister just simply refusing to stand up and answer questions. Maybe Ms. Copps has--

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member's words and statements are not only unbelievable but, in many cases, appear to be downright deceitful.

He talks about the proud legacy of health care under the Liberal government. Does he call the over $20 billion that the Liberals ripped out of the health care system and the waiting lists for critical operations that are in the tens of thousands at the present time a proud legacy?

The Liberals have created, enhanced and encouraged a two tier health system in this country. They have forced it on Canadians who cannot afford to pay to get to the front of the line, like the Prime Minister did a couple of weeks ago.

I find it absolutely astounding that the member would stand up and, in all honesty, as he believes, as misguided as it is, try to defend the health care system and criticize the Conservative Party of Canada. We are the ones who would bring in an affordable, sustainable, quality public health care system where Canadians could go to a clinic or to a hospital anywhere in the country and get the kind of health care they need when they need it and at a price they could afford.

The member talked about our leader bringing out, and I think the term he used was the retreaded Mike Harris candidates, to run for the Conservative Party of Canada. Those candidates ran for nomination and they were nominated. How does the member explain his Prime Minister, his leader, appointing candidates out in B.C.?

Speaking of retreads, how about Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh, the former premier of the province of British Columbia who led the failed provincial NDP, being appointed by the leader of his party? Talk about a hypocritical situation.

[Criminal Code, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-221.

Canadians cannot imagine how much I would rather be speaking today on a different subject, which would be to remind Canadians of the gross mismanagement, the patronage, the payoffs and, yes, the corruption within the current Liberal government. I would love to be speaking on that and the newest thing, of course, the health care crisis that the Prime Minister finds himself in. That would be a great subject for today.

However, we have Bill C-221, the private members' bill put forward by my colleague from Calgary Northeast, which if passed would certainly clear up the question in the minds of so many Canadians. Why is a life imprisonment sentence given to offenders of the most serious and heinous type of crime, when in fact under the Criminal Code and the provisions that were introduced by previous Liberal governments, the term life imprisonment does not really mean in any way, shape or form life imprisonment?

I have received numerous petitions, letters and calls over the last 10 and a half years from constituents of mine, asking the question, why is the term life imprisonment used in the handing down of sentences for first degree murders and others that would warrant a sentence like that? In fact, it means that they can in some cases apply for parole, I believe after 15 years and some after 20 years. In any case, after serving 25 years of a life sentence they could automatically become eligible for full parole.

There are many Canadians around the country who bring to mind such people as Clifford Olson who many years ago committed multiple murders of young people in British Columbia and was given a life sentence.

We appear to be constantly reminded of Clifford Olson and his crime through the threat that he is going to be able to apply for parole and get out of prison. Canadians could walk down the street in any community, whether it be a city or a small town in rural Canada, and ask the question of people that they met: Do they think that Clifford Olson or people like him who commit such horrible crimes in this country should ever get out of prison? The answer, I am sure all members would agree, would be an overwhelming no. They should never be let out of prison.

Yet, every few years we are reminded of the fact that there is a provision that Clifford Olson can apply. It keeps bringing back the horrible memories of the crimes he committed to the families of his victims. It is something that Canadians in a very large part would like to have dealt with in an absolute fashion.

Life imprisonment should in fact mean life imprisonment for crimes that would qualify or would deserve to have that type of sentence handed down, where the penalty fit the seriousness or the heinousness of the crime.

Members will know that Bill C-221 brought forward by my colleague from Calgary Northeast is not something that is just an idle thought. I am sure members of the House know very well that my colleague spent many years in the service of protecting Canadians as a member of the police force. He was exposed to the most horrible types of crimes.

In serving as a police officer he was able to, of course, follow the proceedings of people he had arrested for committing first degree murder crimes or something that would be deserving of the most serious penalty that our system would provide. He watched these people go through the system--the guilty verdicts and sentences being handed down of life imprisonment--only to find that within a 15 year period people were able to apply for parole and in many cases were granted parole.

This, I am sure, led my colleague to wonder why we even have the term “life imprisonment” in the Criminal Code for sentencing if in fact it does not really mean what it says. I know that most members of the House, in the last three Parliaments since I have been here, have received letters from Canadians, particularly following serious and heinous crimes. Canadians say that it is time for Parliament to make a statement that the justice system and the Criminal Code are going to take a very hard line stance on people who believe that it is okay to kill people in this country knowing that they will have a chance for parole after serving only a portion of their so-called life sentence.

In 1976 the Liberals crafted the legislation which made these provisions. It brought in section 745, now section 745.6, which is known as the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code. This section, as I said, allows offenders to have their parole ineligibility period reduced after serving only 15 years of a life sentence.

In response to the number of criminals that were being freed under section 745, now section 745.6, in 1996 the Liberals brought forward Bill C-45, which introduced some changes to that section of the Criminal Code. Under the provisions of that bill, convicted murderers were no longer entitled to an automatic section 745.6 hearing, but rather there was a screening process put in place. There was also a provision that just boggled the minds of most Canadians. It stated that a person who had committed first degree murder could apply for early parole if only one murder had been committed.

The Liberal government, back in 1996, made a distinction that if someone killed just one person and was convicted of first degree murder, then that individual had a chance of getting out, but if someone killed more than one person, that individual's chances were eliminated.

Therefore, by extending that line of thinking, one could only arrive at the conclusion that it was not quite so bad in the minds of members of the Liberal government to maliciously and viciously kill one person because the criminal could apply for parole and some of the provisions would kick in, but if two or more people were killed, then somehow that was bad. Canadians are confused enough by some of the Criminal Code provisions that were put in by the Liberal government.

In wrapping up, I would encourage all members of the House to support private member's Bill C-221 because we must bring back to this country truth in sentencing and, indeed, life imprisonment should and must mean life imprisonment.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, May 4th, 2004]

Brian Fawcett is not necessarily an expert on the beetle.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, May 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on something that my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford said earlier. It concerns the government's failure to provide contingencies for disasters that may happen throughout the country such as the avian flu in the lower mainland of B.C.

I also want to talk about the disastrous pine beetle epidemic in the forests of British Columbia which has at this point devastated the interior of British Columbia which is far bigger than the entire area of Vancouver Island. That infestation has been going on for about seven, eight, nine or ten years now. While the government has been aware of it, it has sat back and offered zero help to fight that infestation. In fact, it has denied it. That beetle is now on the western side of Jasper and Banff national parks and due to infect forests under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Almost two years ago the Province of B.C. put forward to the federal government a six year beetle attack plan requiring about $500 million in total to be successful. The province asked the federal government to come to the table with half of that money in consideration of the billions of dollars of taxes that have come from the forest industry of B.C. to the government's coffers. To this date nothing has happened.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, May 4th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member for Etobicoke North. He is like all other Liberal members. They make an attempt to trumpet their interest in the infrastructure problem we have in this country. He talks about the $12 billion that his government has put in since 1993. As my colleague from Edmonton mentioned earlier, that is simply a fraction of the billions of dollars in fuel taxes that the Liberals have scooped for other programs when in fact, as my colleague pointed out, fuel taxes were first implemented to be directed to new infrastructure programs and the maintenance of existing programs.

What the member for Etobicoke North failed to mention--and no Liberal will mention this--is that under the 10 year reign of the Liberal government, under the former finance minister who is now the Prime Minister, this government drove the national infrastructure deficit up to an astounding $53 billion. Liberals allowed it because they took money out of fuel taxes and directed it to politically friendly programs through their program increase in spending every year. That infrastructure deficit went up to $53 billion. They cannot deny that fact. To stand up and trumpet the $12 billion they put into it is really smoke and mirrors.

I am sure that my colleague from Edmonton has seen the infrastructure deficit in his neck of the woods. I would like him to comment on these smoke and mirrors comments the Liberals are so quick to put forward.

[Persons with Disabilities, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, because Liberals historically have problems of actually earning votes of Canadians, their chosen alternative has been to try and buy or even extort votes, or a combination of both.

The Prime Minister's target this time is Canadians with disabilities, and this is sleazy politics at its worse. Using it as a photo op, the Prime Minister is re-announcing some budget provisions for disabled training and programs. While this may sound nice, this is the same Prime Minister who, as finance minister, slashed around $25 billion from health funding to the provinces, severely impacting the disabled.

This is the same person who imposed punitive changes to the disability tax credit, forcing disabled persons to again prove that they were disabled and forcing thousands of previous legitimate disabled persons out of the tax credit provision.

This “snatch then bait” election strategy is utterly shameful.