Dick Harris

[Division No. 327, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to sit in the House today and watch Liberal member after Liberal member stand and read a speech prepared for them by the office of the heritage minister. One thing that comes clear in listening to their speeches is that they do not understand what is at the very root of Bill C-55.

The fact is this is a very profound infringement on the freedoms of Canadian business. This government is taking one more huge step of intrusion into the freedom of choice that Canadian businesses have with respect to where to place their advertising dollars in this country.

After this bill is passed, Canadian businesses will not be permitted to place advertising for Canadian readers in the media area of their choice. That is what Bill C-55 is doing. It is saying that a Canadian free enterpriser, an entrepreneur, a business, whether selling goods or a service, cannot advertise in the Canadian split-run side of an American owned publishing company. They cannot target Canadian consumers or a potential market of their product in a split-run Canadian edition of an American publisher. That is what this bill is saying.

We in the official opposition came to the House in 1993. Time after time after time we have seen this government intrude further and further into the lives of Canadians, their family lives and business lives. What is it about this government that thinks it should be in control of everything in this country? Where are the individual freedoms of Canadians? Where are the individual freedoms of Canadian business?

The government is saying there will be freedoms of expression and choice in this country under this Liberal government, but there never will be freedom of choice under this Liberal government. That is what it is all about. It is about dictatorship in the strongest form. I cannot believe it. What happened to democracy? What happened to freedom of choice in this country? It is a joke.

The member said the Liberal government shall be the protector of Canadian culture, the protector of Canadianism. Let me give three examples of how the Liberals protect Canadianism.

This is the government that threatened Canadians with fines and/or imprisonment if they dared to put on the census form that they were Canadian. This is the very government that would not allow a Canadian citizen when asked what heritage they were to put the word Canadian. People were threatened with criminal fines and sanctions. Is that the great protector of Canadianism? The Liberals are a little silent now.

This same government has so little faith in the patriotism of Canadians that it spent $20 million of taxpayers' dollars to buy Canadian flags to give away free in an attempt to buy patriotism from the Canadian people. The Liberals have so little faith in the patriotism of Canadians that they thought they better give away some free Canadian flags at a cost of $20 million of taxpayers' money.

What kind of confidence in Canadianism is that from this Liberal government that now stands up as the great protector of Canadianism in this country? It is a hypocritical position for them to take in the strongest form.

This one is really the biggest joke of all. This Liberal government, these great protectors of Canadian culture and heritage—

[Division No. 327, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite is straying a long way from the subject. Because you have not taken him to correction, I assume you are now giving permission to following speakers to speak on any subject they want on this bill.

[Points Of Order, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the House leader of the government was completely in error in an assertion he made that I supported the 16% raise senators are now asking for.

[The Senate, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in parliamentary committee the member for Calgary West asked the committee to call a senator to come before the committee to explain exactly where all the money was being spent. Under the Prime Minister's direct orders, the Liberal members voted against calling an accountability.

What is the government trying to hide in this Senate money spending? What kind of embarrassment is it trying to avoid? What is it that troubles the government about the way senators spend money?

[The Senate, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, dictatorship is alive and well in the Liberal Party. Yesterday the Prime Minister ordered his own MPs to vote once again like sheep in favour of supporting the 16% two year raise for senators. He also had the gall to say “The Senate is doing its job and doing it well”.

I would like to ask the government exactly what the Senate is doing such a good job at. Is it taking Mexican holidays or is it not showing up for work? Which one does it accomplish best?

[First Nations Land Management Act, March 5th, 1999]

Ten minutes, Mr. Speaker.

[First Nations Land Management Act, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are really privileged to have the minister in the House today. I am sure she would like to remain for a little while longer to clear up some of the many questions for all Canadians.

I would like to once again ask for unanimous consent so that maybe we could extend the question and comment period a little more so some of the very important questions could be asked and the minister could have a great opportunity to respond. I am sure she would go along with that.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in that case do I have your approval to use the term stable waste when referring to the items in his speech?

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I could handle the hon. member's lack of knowledge of mathematics, but I cannot accept the word fraud to be used in reference to my party.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the values of the member for Mississauga South, but unfortunately he has chosen to do what every single Liberal who has spoken today has done. They have not been prepared to address the direct thrust of this motion. They have talked all around the whole system as it pertains to families, but they have carefully avoided the very particular part of the tax system that our motion refers to.

The hon. member for Mississauga South knows very well that in no part of my presentation did I attempt to pit families against each other because of their choices to have both parents in the workplace or one at home.

The Liberals themselves since 1965, since Mr. Trudeau, have deliberately pitted themselves against Canadian families, particularly against single income, two parent families. The Liberals have done the pitting.