Dick Harris

[Criminal Code, March 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, in February 2002, Mr. Justice Shaw of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, using whatever logic or rationale that may have prevailed on that particular day, ruled that the written works of acknowledged pedophile Robin Sharpe, which depicted young children in various sexual poses, depicted young children as victims of sexual violence, and depicted young children being brutally exploited sexually by adults, “had artistic merit” and acquitted Robin Sharpe of the charges of possession and distribution of child pornography.

This came as an absolutely unbelievable court decision to millions of Canadians. It fuelled the fires of doubt about whether their justice system was working for society. It fuelled the storm of protests over the decisions that we see coming out of our justice system. It fuelled the storm of protests over the mounting judicial activism that has been happening in our country for the last 10 years because governments, such as the Liberal government, do not have the guts to make controversial law and legislation in this Parliament, but rather they would take the cowardly way out and leave it to the judges to make these decisions and expect Canadians to just sit back, abide by some very sick decisions, such as this one here, and accept that because it came from the courts it must be right.

This has not happened by accident. I believe that the push to get controversial or publicly sensitive legislation out of Parliament started way back when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the Prime Minister of Canada. He and his government put through legislation and he led the charge through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that Parliament would never have to make controversial decisions that would make it uncomfortable or nervous. It would be left in the hands of the courts to decide.

The government now brings in Bill C-20 that is supposed to fix this. The defence that it is trying to fix is that the representation or written material has artistic merit or is for educational, scientific or medical purposes. It was certainly the defence used in the case of Robin Sharpe, which Chief Justice Shaw accepted, for whatever insane reason, and certainly, not for the good of society.

Now instead of using the artistic merit, educational, scientific or medical purposes defence, the new bill, which is supposed to fix this thing, proposes that this defence be repealed and replaced by the defence that the material alleged to constitute child pornography serves the public good. This is amazing.

Every sane person in the country could understand that we simply could not attach the phrase “serving the public good” to materials that depict the sexual exploitation of children or the brutality of children by sexual predators either in drawn form or written word. My God, how can we imagine that Canada could accept that a defence could be used that could describe child pornography as serving the public good?

Only a Liberal government that has failed Canadian on so many justice issues since 1993, could come up with a bill like this.

They are not alone. The Liberals on the other side who support the bill, will stand up and say that we have to be careful and that we have to try to determine that maybe there might be some public good in child pornography. They will stand up and vote for the bill. They will be joined by their friends in the NDP party. The member for Palliser has already given notice on this. January 27, the member for Palliser said, and he believed that his colleagues shared his opinion, that:

--if it has not specifically hurt a minor in the production of it, if it is created by people's visual imaginations and if the main purpose of it is not simply about pornography and sexual exploitation, then under the laws people do have a right to their own imaginations and thoughts, however perverse...

That reflects the opinion of the member for Palliser and as he said, “I believe it will be shared by a majority”, of whom, I do not know. It is certainly not rational thinking Canadians but maybe that does not include supporters of the NDP party. However it will shared by a majority if not all of his colleagues. Therefore we are talking about not rationally thinking Canadians.

Mr. David Matas of Winnipeg wrote an opinion on child pornography and artistic merit. Apparently this person is a Winnipeg lawyer. He argued the Sharpe case in the Supreme Court of Canada for an organization called Beyond Borders, which is a leading fighter against child pornography in Canada. He is a very knowledgeable person.

Mr. Matas said that the defence of artistic merit, which is in the legislation now and in the court system now, needed to be narrowed so that only in the case of police officers using child pornography that was drawn or written as evidence in a case against the child pornographer or cases like that could it be allowed. Certainly not the possession by some of these perverts that are running around our country preying on our children.

I am absolutely disgusted at the lack of knowledge that the Liberal government has about how society feels about child pornography. It is a disgusting lack of leadership by the government and we certainly cannot support the bill.

Speaking of disgusting acts, I cannot sit down before I tell the House about something that happened the last two nights in the Bell Centre in Montreal. Some of the fans were booing the American national anthem and booing the presence of American based teams playing in Canada. This as one of the most disgusting and embarrassing things I have ever seen Canadians do. One has to wonder where their priorities are--

[Sex Offender Registry, March 21st, 2003]

What nonsense, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that not one single name of a person who has committed a sex offence prior to the passing of the legislation will be on the sex offender registry.

There comes a time when people have to stand up for what they believe in. I ask the government and the minister, why have they chosen to stand on the side of sex offenders and against the victims of these despicable crimes?

[Firearms Registry, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the public accounts committee the member for Mississauga West, in a failing effort to somehow justify the 500% cost overrun of the government's gun registration program, accused the Auditor General of having an individual with an anti-gun control bias on her advisory board.

The disrespect shown by the member for Mississauga West toward Canada's financial watchdog is reprehensible and he should be ashamed of himself.

These actions, unfortunately, are typical of an out of control government that continually refuses to admit its failed performance in every respect.

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member who just talked about not getting one's mind around it, does he actually believe that criminals with an intent to commit a firearms crime, and by the way, for that member, it is the criminals who do it, it is not the law-abiding Canadians, will ever contemplate making sure that they have a registered firearm to do it? Or would he just automatically assume that a criminal is going to use a gun that is stolen, unregistered, something that we would have a very difficult time tracing?

The point I am making is that criminals do not give a darn about the firearms registry. They are not going to use registered firearms. They are going to use those that are not registered and that are going to come in through the black market. This has nothing to do with law-abiding citizens in this country, who are being penalized through this gun registration program. The government uses that poll, but it misled the people in the polling question. The question asked was, “Would you support a firearms registry or gun control program that would cut the incidence of crime in this country?” It is a no-brainer. Everyone would answer yes, but in fact this program does not do it. I believe that this member has been misled by his own party as to the effectiveness of the firearms program.

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from the Bloc again. I guess skulduggery is a good word for what went on with Groupaction. I would ask him to comment on that. The government once again broke every procurement rule in the book, with the intention of course of awarding these contracts to political friends. If this was done in private practice and a purchasing agent was responsible for breaking the rules, in his opinion would a purchasing agent be fired on the spot? The government still has ministers are carrying on?

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the Bloc for his words. It has been said, as a matter of fact I may have said it, that the Liberal government will go down in history as being the most corrupt government Canada ever saw.

I want to ask the member if he could agree in theory about this. By the deceptive and corrupt actions of the government, have members of the government somehow violated the privileges of other members of Parliament? Members of Parliament have a right to work hard and be honest. We want to give the image that there are politicians representing Canadians in this place who are honest, work hard and believe in being up front and transparent in everything they do. However the government, by its actions, is wiping away what we are trying to do as representatives of the people. I feel somehow this is a violation of our rights to do that.

Would the member agree with that type of scenario or theory?

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from the Bloc on his most enlightening presentation. I would like to ask him about the legacy of corruption that has gone on in the Liberal government since 1993.

However, first I want to zero in on the gun control registry. When the program was started Canadians were told that it would cost $2 million net after the revenue came in and expenses were calculated. Then we found that it would cost somewhere around $85 million. At the end of the day, to date we have spent, that is recorded, about $700 million and it will go to $1 billion according to the Auditor General over that, and could be more.

All this time, the Department of Justice was moving money around within the department and concealing the absolute travesty that was going on with the firearms program, concealing just how bad it was, and how it had miscalculated and mismanaged the program. This would get someone in the private sector thrown in jail.

Does the member from the Bloc agree that if people in the private sector had been doing the books and cooking them the way the government has, would they indeed not be equated with common thieves and simply thrown in jail for their efforts?

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I know that members opposite really want to be reminded of the scandals and corruption that have followed the government and the Prime Minister since 1993. They also want to be reminded that when the House debated issues of national importance, issues that affected our children, the way families provide for themselves, national security and how we get along with our international partners, the Prime Minister never was involved in those debates. Apparently they were not that important to him. Probably he was spending a lot of time with his lawyers and advisers trying to figure out how to stay one step ahead of the scandals and corruption that have followed the government since 1993.

Then the Prime Minister suddenly appeared in the House and wanted to speak. This is his pet bill. Bill C-24 is an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act as it applies to political financing. What a bill of monumental importance to the country.

Do people understand how this pet bill of the Prime Minister's is going to change the face of our nation and make it so much better for everyone who lives in this country? Our children will be safer on their way to school and while playing in the park; criminals that commit heinous crimes in our country will be given time that reflects the crime; the homeless will have homes; people who are suffering from social injustice will be treated equally; all because of this nation-changing bill of the Prime Minister's. Mr. Speaker, does that sound like a lot of poppycock? Well you bet it is, just like the bill.

This bill that the Prime Minister finds so important will serve no other purpose than to provide yet another tool for the government, the Prime Minister and whoever follows him, to continue even more so to manipulate the taxpayers' money within the treasury of the government. The bill will be of monumental benefit to whom? The governing party.

The Prime Minister is trying to create the facade that he is a person who believes in integrity, in ethics, in what is right and wrong, through this bill. This is despite the last nine and a half years of the country watching him dodge scandal bullets through his political days as Prime Minister, from the Grand-Mère golf course and hotel episode to exonerating his friends and ministers who have been involved in scandals and corruption.

It is a facade. It points to the sheer arrogance and hypocrisy of the Prime Minister, who through this bill wants Canadians to think that he is a nice guy. Well it ain't going to sell because all the bill is for is to extract more dollars out of the taxpayers for political use.

The bill simply replaces the government's addiction to corporate and union political funding with its addiction to taxpayer funding. That is not the answer. Taxpayers cannot be forced to support a political party they normally would not support in the polls, but that is exactly what the bill is trying to do.

The Canadian Alliance is opposed to direct subsidization of political parties. Any public funding must be tied to voluntary donations coming from individuals. Why would a government that purports to believe in democracy and fairness, through a piece of legislation, force Canadians to support a political party financially that they would not support in the polls? That is the big question.

Why is the Prime Minister doing it? It is part of a bigger scam of some sort. Given time, we will figure out exactly what he is up to, we can bet on it, given his record as Prime Minister. Scandals have followed him from 1993 to the present. Scandals have followed the ministers whom he has sent off to places where they can be out of touch and away from the long arm of the law in many cases.

This bill is a cover up. The Prime Minister is trying to make us believe through the bill that he is concerned about how the political system has been funded through corporate donations and even individual donations in the past, that he is concerned about the perception that there may be something wrong with the way politics has been funded. In the same breath he is saying that through his bill he will make everything transparent and ethical.

Canadians almost choke on the word “ethics” as it comes from the Prime Minister. Some days in the House we wait for the lightning to come through the ceiling when the Prime Minister talks about ethics in his party.

We cannot support the bill. It represents a massive shift in the sources of contributions to political parties, from the voluntary actions of Canadians to the mandatory imposition on Canadians to support political parties, whether or not they would support them in the polls. We cannot and will not support the bill.

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is amazing that when we discuss important issues in the House for the benefit of the country, such as health care, the security of our nation, criminal justice or more defence funding, we never see the Prime Minister speak to those issues in the House. On issues of real national importance does the Prime Minister ever come to the House and put forward his point of view? No.

When did we see the Prime Minister? When he stood in the House with Bill C-24, his little, private, personal bill, designed to give him and his government even more tools to manipulate taxpayer money to the benefit of that party. He is not fooling anyone in the House.

When I looked at the bill, when I listened to the Prime Minister and other Liberals, I thought, “My God, the sheer hypocrisy of it all”. The Prime Minister stood up in the House and talked about how this system would behave more equitably and with more integrity. This coming from a Prime Minister who since 1993 has been followed by scandal after scandal--

[Canada Elections Act, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I point out that what the member just said about seeing so many things in the campaign last time, Canadians saw the red book litany of lies in the last campaign as well.