Dick Harris

[Ethics Counsellor, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance told the House that he discussed with the ethics counsellor the connection between Jim Palmer, his Calgary bagman, and the fat contract that his department gave to Jim Palmer, but no one in the world has any record of it.

Maybe the finance minister should just clear the air. Does he have some documentation to back up his statements?

[Terrorism, April 29th, 2002]

You're a disgrace.

[Ethics, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when I was elected in 1993 someone asked me the question “What can politicians do to clean up their image?” I said “That is easy. Do not lie, do not cheat, do not steal, and do not pay off your friends with taxpayers' dollars”.

In the last nine years I have watched scandal after scandal follow the Liberal government, from Shawinigan golf courses to HRDC waste to the fixing of procurement contracts to the paying of fundraisers with taxpayers' dollars.

If government members ever get serious about cleaning up the image of politicians, I say again “Do not lie, do not cheat, do not steal, and do not pay off your friends with taxpayers' dollars”. If they want a memento of this I will frame it and send it to each and every one of them.

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I agree with you. I trust that this debate can be held in a civil manner which is conducive to the respect the House deserves. Certainly that last comment by the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough was not. He should withdraw it with an apology.

[Criminal Code, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-15B I will focus primarily on the issue of farmers in Canada and how they could be affected by the application of the bill in its present form.

The bill's implications for farmers are quite significant. As we all know, farmers constantly face challenges in trying to carve their living out of a land filled with both domestic and wild animals. Farmers are influenced daily by weather, commodity prices, transportation costs and mismanagement of federal agricultural policies. Most farmers would add certain animal rights groups to the adversaries they face on a daily basis.

Some groups target livestock producers whom they label as cruel, inhumane and even barbaric. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, has launched an anti-dairy campaign targeting schoolchildren. It tell children dairy farmers are evil because of the so-called cruelty they inflict on their cows. This animal rights wacko group essentially tells kids if they drink milk they are playing a part in the torture of dairy cattle. That is the most outlandish line of thinking I could possibly imagine, yet it is only one of the things PETA advocates.

Bill C-15B which we are debating would change the way the criminal code deals with animal abuse. We in our party agree with the vast majority of Canadians who say we need harsher penalties for those who deliberately abuse and are cruel toward animals. Unfortunately, because of the way Bill C-15B is currently worded many ranchers, farmers, hunters and medical researchers may be subject to harassment, prosecutions and convictions for abuse even though they are properly caring for their animals.

The wording of Bill C-15B would give groups like PETA free licence to bring court proceedings against farmers, hunters and medical researchers who are not treating animals in a cruel or abusive nature. However because members of PETA believe they are, the wording of the bill may encourage them to bring charges. They could do so not because there was substance to the charges but because this is the way such animal cruelty groups think about things. PETA is the same group that tells school kids if they drink milk they are contributing to the torture of dairy cows because dairy farmers are cruel to their cows. We can see the connection between absurdity and the possible harassment some people in our society may go through because of this group.

Animal welfare groups such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals claim they have no intention of using Bill C-15B to harass farmers and researchers. However because of the past actions of groups such as PETA and the Animal Alliance of Canada we have a hard time believing their partners in the animal rights movement would follow that position.

I will read a statement by Liz White, a lawyer for the Animal Alliance of Canada, who foretold what might come if Bill C-15B passes in its current form. She gave a veiled hint of the group's intentions by stating:

My worry is that people think this is the means to the end, but this is just the beginning. It doesn’t matter what the legislation says if no one uses it, if no one takes it to court, if nobody tests it. The onus is on humane societies and other groups on the front lines to push this legislation to the limit, to test the parameters of this law and have the courage and the conviction to lay charges.

The intent to use Bill C-15B as a tool to restrict the use of animals in research and agriculture seems clear. Animal rights groups would jump all over farmers, medical researchers, hunters and anyone else whom they felt pet an animal the wrong way.

The Canadian Alliance is demanding two major changes to Bill C-15B to prevent frivolous and downright stupid charges from being laid. First, the bill's definition of animal must be amended. The current definition reads “a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain”. The definition is too broad. It could easily interfere with the ability of farmers to eliminate pests and the ability of researchers to find cures for diseases. This could get pretty serious in light of what some animal rights groups are saying.

Second, the Canadian Alliance is calling for Bill C-15B to protect people who legitimately use animals from costly and frivolous prosecutions. The criminal code currently provides protection from harassing prosecutions. However because Bill C-15B would move animal cruelty out of the property offences of the criminal code the current protection would be effectively removed.

The justice minister has the ability to introduce legislation to strengthen and modernize the current cruelty to animal provisions of the criminal code without threatening people who legitimately use animals. However he has rejected that. It seems he has fallen for the line of the animal rights groups. He has refused to be explicit in Bill C-15B and ensure the courts would not be able to interpret it in a way parliament did not intend.

We are concerned. The Liberals are counting on Bill C-15 to reach much further than they publicly state. There may be a hidden agenda behind the bill. The government has refused to protect farmers who legitimately use animals for the production of dairy and other agricultural products and researchers who legitimately use animals in trying to find cures for diseases. The wording of Bill C-15B would leave such people wide open to harassment by animal rights groups.

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Souris--Moose Mountain pointed out, Canada appears to have acquired the title of the most lenient country in the free world when it comes to the possession, transmission and sale of child pornography. The numbers are astounding. When we look at the numbers we see a remarkable increase over the last five years. During that last five years, and since 1993, the Liberal government has been in power, unfortunately.

My friend said that if we are going to fight this effectively we must have the will to fight it. The question to ask of the government is whether it has the will to go up against the judiciary and some of its insidious decisions and against the legal community. Some lawyers appear to take great delight in finding loopholes in the law or within the criminal code with regard to something as horrible as child pornography.

Does the government have the right to target, and target effectively, people who are doing whatever they can to allow it to go on rather than, as I spoke of earlier in my presentation, just taking a shotgun approach to it? There are targets within the people who are trying to proliferate child pornography.

Does my colleague really think that the government has the will to go after some of the court decisions and some of the people who are involved in this?

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, could you clarify what you mean by taking it into consideration? Are you saying you will determine whether the motion is appropriate?

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning and speak to a group of Senate amendments to the child protection provisions contained in Bill C-15A.

The new legislation would create the offence of luring a child by mean of a computer system. It would define child using the same ages set out in the Criminal Code of Canada. Accordingly, it would be a crime with a maximum penalty of five years to use the Internet to lure persons under the age of 18 for prostitution, child pornography, sexual assault, incest or sexual touching where the accused is in a position of trust. The age would be 16 for abducting an unmarried child from his or her parents. The age would be 14 for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, bestiality in a person's presence, exposure or harbouring.

The bill would create the offences of transmitting, making available or exporting child pornography through a computer system, offences which would carry a maximum penalty of ten years. The new legislation would also prohibit persons from intentionally accessing child pornography on the Internet, an offence which would carry a maximum penalty of five years. The material would be liable to forfeiture if deemed by the court to be child pornography.

We in our party have a couple of problems with the Senate amendments. First, we have a problem regarding the Internet. As my hon. colleague from Saanich--Gulf Islands pointed out, the amendment is far too broad to effectively hit the target. Because of the amendment's broadness legal minds would be searching for loopholes in it. The amendment would be an open invitation for people intent on using a computer to export, access or sell child pornography. It would be an open invitation for them to go running to the legal minds of the country who want to deal with the issue and find loopholes to challenge the amendments in a court of law.

We are dealing with people who possess, distribute and create child pornography. We are dealing with the lowest form of humanity: people who seek to draw children into a position to make and proliferate this type of material. If we are to target these people, and indeed we must because they are ruining the lives of countless thousands of people, we must have legislation that does not go out like a shotgun spatter and miss the target. We must set our sights on these people with legislation that is 99.9% loophole free.

I know how the law works in Canada. One can take almost any law and find a way around it if one has a devious mind. A lawyer who is able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear in a court of law can set some sort of precedent through a loophole. The amendment dealing with the Internet is far too broad in its application and would create loopholes. We need a more targeted approach.

Second, we have a problem with artistic merit. I roll my eyes when I think about the Sharpe decision and the so-called artistic exhibits we have seen in the National Gallery. Since I have been in Ottawa I have seen exhibits with a sexual attachment to them that the vast majority of Canadians would find absolutely disgusting. Yet somehow the artists were able to convince whoever they needed to convince that the works had artistic merit. There are dozens of examples here in Ottawa and at the National Gallery.

As for the judges who argued Sharpe's material has artistic merit, a board of inquiry should look at their competency to sit on the bench. If they were politicians their competency to sit in the House of Commons would be questioned. The lawyers who found a way to create the so-called artistic merit defence are an absolute disgrace to the legal profession. That is my opinion but I believe it is shared by many Canadians.

I will finish because I have said enough about the issue. However I will move a motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word that and substituting the following:

“the amendment numbered 2 made by the Senate to Bill C-15A, An act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts, be now read a second time and concurred in; and

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with the amendment numbered 1(b) because the amendment applies the artistic merit defence to the new offences introduced by this act which could impact negatively in child pornography cases and this House disagrees with the amendment numbered 1(a) made by the Senate to Bill C-15A, An act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts, because the amendment could exempt offenders from criminal liability even in cases where they knowingly transmit or make available child pornography.”

[National Horse of Canada Act, April 22nd, 2002]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill that came through the Senate in an attempt to represent the creation of a Canadien horse is important.

For that reason, I think our members are likely to support the bill. However, at the same time, we express our discontent with the way the government has treated private members' bills originating in the House of Commons.

[National Horse of Canada Act, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I felt that I had to speak on this Senate private member's bill just briefly. I want to point out the dictatorial way that the government has acted in relation to private members' bills coming in through members of parliament.

Apparently an attempt was made to introduce a bill such as this some time ago and was quickly--