Bill C-15 (Historical)

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, a fellow Saskatchewanian, upon her appointment as deputy House leader for the official opposition.

This afternoon we will be continuing with the debate on Bill C-15B, the legislation relating to cruelty to animals. When that is completed, I expect to move on to Bill C-15A, the legislation relating to pornography. If there is time after that, we will go on to Bill C-53, the pest control bill, followed by Bill S-40 respecting financial clearinghouses.

Tomorrow the business will be Bill C-43, the miscellaneous technical amendments legislation, followed by the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-33, the Nunavut legislation.

On Monday I would expect to begin the day with Bill C-53 but after 3 p.m. we will turn to Bill C-54 which relates to sports in Canada.

Commencing on Tuesday we will return to the report stage debate of Bill C-5 respecting species at risk.

Child Pornography

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, based on his own experience the hon. member knows full well that I cannot comment on the case because it is still before the court.

As I said, the government has been very active. It is looking very actively into the matter. For example Bill C-15A creates a new offence. Of course we are open for discussion. We are looking very actively into the matter. We have provisions within the criminal code that strike the very delicate balance we need in order to have an effective tool in fighting child pornography.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the member of parliament has raised a very serious question.

We all know that the government is firmly committed to protecting children in Canada. We have within the criminal code sections that have been declared valid by the Supreme Court of Canada. We are acting in a very dynamic way. For example, Bill C-15A is creating a new offence.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-15B.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to say how deeply saddened we in the opposition were that the government chose to originally bring in Bill C-15 with completely disparate issues attached to it.

The new bill, Bill C-15B, also has two disparate issues, one dealing with the Firearms Act and the other dealing with cruelty to animals. These issues should be two separate bills so members could vote for or against them.

Those of us who have strong feelings for or against one issue and a different view on the other issue should not have to vote a certain way. When the government connects two disparate issues it compromises our ability as members of parliament to do what our constituents want us to do.

It reminds me of the situation in the U.S. congress where a particularly good bill will move forward but suddenly have an attachment to it with a completely different issue that has nothing to do with the intent of the original bill and as a result the whole bill is bombarded, destroyed and cannot move forward.

It is actually a way of kiboshing a particular issue and compromising our ability to work and the ability and concerns of Canadians to move forward. The government should never do this again. If it were truly interested in dealing with issues, such as animal cruelty and firearms registration, which are both important issues, it should do so in two separate bills and not one.

Having said that, I will deal with the two issues separately, the first one being cruelty to animals. There is not a person in the House who does not want to see legislation toughened up to deal with those miserable, disgusting, bottom feeding creatures who would take out their frustrations in life upon defenceless, innocent animals. Worse than that, we see a disturbing pattern of behaviour in people who do this, particularly when they are young.

Psychologists and psychiatrists will tell us that there is a strong link between the abusive and violent actions of an adult against persons or animals and the actions of the same adult as a child. In fact, a child who displays the systematic desire to harm animals is showing a big warning flag that he or she may grow up to commit violent abuses as an adult. We are very cognizant of that.

As a party we have certainly fought for and would support good legislation that would strengthen the penalties to ensure that individuals who commit those atrocious acts will be brought before the full force of the law.

Sadly, however, that does not happen today. We have heard of cases where dogs have been roasted, boiled and tortured, as have other domestic animals, and the individuals who committed those acts receive slaps on the wrist . The Canadian public and indeed everyone in the House wants to see things toughened up. The question is whether Bill C-15B is the way to go.

We have heard in the House from members on all sides that there is a vast number of individuals who work with animals who are deeply concerned and do want to ensure that animals are not abused but who will not support Bill C-15B and the elements within the bill that deal with animal cruelty.

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association is one of the groups. Surely if there is one group above all others that has the best interest of animals at heart, it is the men and women in the veterinary sciences who work day in and day out to relieve the suffering endured by animals. Obviously these individuals would in no way, shape or form want to see these animals suffer and yet they are opposed to Bill C-15B because it leaves such loopholes that it opens up individuals in their profession to litigation.

How could the government not have seen that the bill would leave veterinary doctors open to criminal prosecution for cruelty to animals?

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association wants those people who work in the veterinary field to be exempted from the code regarding cruelty to animals. It does not want veterinarians being penalized so it has asked that they be excluded from the bill. In the interests of veterinarians, the association is absolutely right.

If we use the same logic, it can be applied to other groups, such as farmers and other people who work in the agricultural field. These individuals work with animals. They work with animals to feed us every single day. We cannot have a bill that enables individuals to prosecute people who are doing their job and treating animals humanely within the context of Canadian law.

Unfortunately, people with extreme views on the issue would like to see animals treated in exactly the same way as human beings. While on a certain level there is some sympathy for that, the fact is that we own animals, we kill animals and we eat animals in order to survive. Those are the facts of life.

As Bill C-15B is written it would enable extremist groups to prosecute individuals who are doing their job to feed us.

If the government wants to do anything on this issue it ought to look at whether or not animals are treated humanely in agricultural practices. It should applaud and support those individuals who are treating animals fairly, those who work in animal husbandry, while prosecuting those individuals who treat animals with disrespect and with cruelty in the field of animal husbandry. That is what the government should be pursuing if it truly wants to have animals treated in a fair fashion.

Canadians for Medical Progress is another group I want to talk about. This group advocates for individuals involved in the biomedical field. Bill C-15B would allow individuals who work with animals in the field of biomedical research to be prosecuted by again those extremist groups who are opposed to animal testing. They dispute the necessity of animal testing.

I must say that those of us who have family members who suffer from cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological disorders and a vast array of other medical problems, it is absolutely essential that we test our new medical treatments not only on people but also on animals. It is a fact of life and we cannot get away from it.

When I was doing some biomedical research as a student we worked on larger mammals. We were always cognizant and fearful of groups that would go into the University of Toronto to try to free the animals. Bill C-15B would enable those types of groups to not only shut down research that is essential for our health but it would also enable them to prosecute researchers who are engaging in lifesaving research for all of us.

We had a code of conduct when we worked in those labs. We had a stern set of regulations that told us what we could and could not do for the humane and ethical treatment of those animals. I can tell members that while those animals were euthanized at the end because they were from the pound and were going to die any way, they were treated with the most utmost respect. They were treated so that they would not have any pain in the course of the research and experiments that we did.

The fear these scientists have is that they believe, and I think with a great deal of legitimacy, that they could be prosecuted if the bill is passed. I will give the House some examples of why they feel this is so. They feel that the definition of animal is too vague and that it should be applied to warm blooded vertebrates only.

Also, as my party has said, the bill at a minimum should reinstate animals as property. That is essential. This does not preclude our ability to implement and institute good, strong, tougher laws that will protect animals against cruelty. Researchers make this point. Many of us own animals and some of us breed them. Some animals are used to feed us. They are property. Increased penalties can easily be incorporated under the property section to protect animals from cruelty. That is what should be done. That is what biomedical researchers would like to have done. As they have said before, if the bill passes and if it gives individuals the power to prosecute them, which it does, then we are killing biomedical science research in Canada.

The second half of the bill deals with the firearms legislation or Bill C-68, which was passed in the House some time ago. Bill C-68, the firearms registration act, was labelled as a bill for the protection of the Canadian public. When it came out, my colleagues and I were appalled. We were appalled but not because we were against public safety: Bill C-68 did the exact opposite.

It seems almost counterintuitive. Who would not be in favour of legislation that would prohibit criminals from acquiring guns and ensure public safety? Everybody in the House is in favour of this. We were labelled as a party that was against gun control, but I will dispel all of that today as I did in front of the justice committee when Bill C-68 was put together. At that time I took apart the then justice minister's comments piece by piece based on the facts.

Fact number one is that this party is in favour of protecting civilians and in favour of gun control, but we are not in favour of stupid gun control that will make Canadians less safe. I will explain why. Bill C-68 is chewing up $600 million. The question is, can that money be better used somewhere else? That is the question at hand.

One of my Liberal colleagues said that he could not believe I was against this bill because he claimed it would save lives. I asked him how much he thought a life was worth. In reply he said that no amount of money could be placed on the value of a life. He said the government would spend any amount of money to save one life. I told him that in economics there is something called an opportunity cost. If people put money into A versus B they had better get more bang for their buck in A than in B. That is the problem. The sum of $600 million will not give someone more benefit in A than in B. That amount will not save more lives as it is currently used. It will actually decrease the number of lives saved. That money ought to be used to put police on the ground. We should have money for our customs officers. We should have money in our courts to prosecute those individuals who are using guns as weapons for illegal purposes.

One of the arguments used by the government was that the bill would make our streets safer. Based on police facts, a criminal does not purchase a gun, take a course, wait a period of time, apply to the government and then commit an act. The criminal gets the gun illegally from the United States, often a smuggled gun, and then commits an act of violence. That is where criminals' guns come from. Criminals do not get a firearms acquisition licence from the government. They do not take courses. They acquire their guns illegally.

If the government were truly interested in public safety, it would do the following. First, it would toughen up our borders and provide more customs officers there. Second, it would ensure heavier penalties for the use of a gun in the commission of an offence. Third, the government should ensure that the law is enforced. The public would be shocked to know that in regard to violent offences a weapons offence is often plea bargained away to get an expeditious conviction on another offence. Or if the person is convicted on the weapons offence, the weapons offence penalty runs concurrently, not consecutively. What kind of a penalty is that?

There is something I used to be disgusted about when I worked as a jail guard. I used to see people committing multiple acts of violence. The penalties for their criminal acts and weapons offences were added to their sentences concurrently. The criminals would laugh about it. They would laugh and say there was no penalty for using weapons.

The government's second argument is that there would be fewer suicides if we had gun control. My party supports gun control. We support firearms acquisition certificates and courses. We support waiting periods so that people who are violent, have psychiatric problems or are a threat to society would be able to take the courses.

My time has partially run out. I assume I will be able to continue--

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-15B, which deals with cruelty to animals changes to the criminal code and various changes and amendments to the Firearms Act.

As a cattle rancher from Manitoba, I and the Canadian Alliance support very strongly that cruelty to animals be prohibited. We strongly support that persons being cruel to animals should be heavily fined. There should be heavier penalties than what is in the current legislation. Courts and crown prosecutors should be fully funded so they can take action against those who are cruel to animals.

There are other aspects around the cruelty to animals amendments which have nothing to do with cruelty to animals. It has to do with the philosophy being put forward by animal rights groups, humane societies and others in society. They would like us ultimately to get to the same point as some sects in India that sweep away a bug in front of them in order not to step on it and harm an animal.

The legislation is very bad. Why did we end up with these aspects in the cruelty to animals part of the bill? The reason is that animal rights groups have circulated letters stating that in fact they take full credit for getting the current Minister of Health elected in Edmonton. They can take credit for it and I am sure they had a big impact, but that is not the way government works. A minister is to govern for all Canadians, not just a little pressure group, a group of animal rights promoters.

Who has the minister turned against in Canada? Let me quote a pretty significant individual in our country. This has to do with medical research. For crying out loud, that is the first group the health minister has turned against, people in medicine and specifically medical research. I will quote Pierre Berton, the senior patron of Canadians for Medical Progress Inc. Remember, we are talking about the health minister. He said:

In my opinion this [C-15B] is an asinine, ludicrous approach toward solving the problem of animal abuse...if passed in its present form, creates a disturbing potential for the animal rights movement to begin a step by step process involving litigation and the incremental influencing of legislation, congruent with putting their spin on “public education”.

How precise this gentleman of letters is. This gentleman writes books that convey to Canadians the very essence of being Canadian. He describes so clearly what is wrong with the animal cruelty legislation.

What do we do about it? As I go through my speech, I want the backbench Liberals who have an opportunity to vote according to their constituents and according to what learned people like Mr. Burton have said, to stop the legislation. I want them to kill it and come back with legislation that increases the penalties for cruelty to animals to make sure we can prosecute those who are cruel to animals.

Who else besides the medical people are against the bill? The health minister comes from a big agriculture province, as do many of the other Liberal members. In fact, every province has agriculture.

Every livestock group in this country is against this cruelty to animal legislation. It puts farmers, ranchers and fur producers under the gun with the threat of being taken to court by a group of people that is pushing the issue. That group of people is the justice minister and the Liberal government.

The former justice minister, who is now the health minister, started all this business. I do not understand why the Liberals are so against agriculture, farmers and ranchers and the use of livestock for human food. I do not understand why they are against furs for warmth and the whole economic activity that those industries create.

The essence of the cruelty to animals bill has been stated. The status of animals is properly in the criminal code and should be maintained. The defences of legal justification, excuse and colour of right should be explicitly maintained for the legitimate use of animals. Of course, the definition of animal as is currently in the bill should be amended. Defining an animal as a vertebrate other than a human and having the capacity to feel pain is what will be used.

As Pierre Berton would say it is furthering the animal rights agenda. It is reaching to the point where under the law, animals are equated to human beings with the same rights and I was going to say obligations, but I do not think that could be there because animals are not human beings.

The other aspect of this bill is the firearms provisions. On the firearms provisions, the House passed special funding legislation this past winter in order to put another $114 million into the firearms registry budget. That brought the budget up to around $150 million for the past year. This coming year it could get even higher. Certainly it is not likely to be less. It is approaching $700 million or maybe more. We will have to see what the actual figures are. We have to question whether or not that is wise spending on the firearms registry.

On the animal cruelty changes, there are some good changes and some bad changes. In the firearms legislation that is presently being amended, there are no good changes.

The Canadian Alliance stands for firearms control in Canada. Canadians never were allowed to carry around registered handguns as a matter of course. There was legislation. I was a police officer for 30 years. If there was an indication that a person was going to harm somebody else with a firearm or by any other means, a police officer could get a court to take those firearms away. The police officer could get the court to prohibit the person from having firearms if the person was considered to be dangerous.

Let us look at how registration worked with handguns. I cannot remember any criminal case that was ever solved in my 30 years of police experience and I worked in drug dealing in Winnipeg which is a major centre. I worked in rural policing for 15 years. The registration system never worked for solving any crimes whatsoever. It simply ensured that the legislation did not allow handguns to be carried around.

I support that. I do not want handguns carried around in the streets. However, we do not want to make it so that firearms owners cannot shoot them at the local shooting range. Who was carrying around unregistered handgun? The drug dealers, those in organized crime, those who were running the prostitutes on our streets. They did it in spite of firearms registration. That is who we are talking about here, criminals who need to be taken care of in our legislation and judicial systems.

Honest law-abiding citizens are on the other side. It is absolutely ludicrous to pass laws and spend $700 million in order for these people to perform the purely administrative function of buying a licence. Why could that $700 million not go to Gimli, my hometown in Selkirk--Interlake, to the centre for abused women. Unpaid volunteers help out at that centre. They struggle and try to do the very job the government is not doing because it is blowing money away on a foolish registration system for rifles and shotguns that will do no good.

With my broad range of experience as a police officer for 30 years, I say that is not the case. Right away the minister will say that the police chiefs love this legislation and think it is the greatest thing in the world. I reckon if I were a police chief getting $100,000 a year from the federal government to run my association, I would probably be in favour of the legislation too.

That is a sad commentary. According to an animal rights group, the Minister of Health, who is the former Minister of Justice, owes her election to its activities. The payback is that she has said “Do you want this legislation? The farmers and ranchers are all against it but we are going to give it to you.”

That is what she is saying to those groups that say the only thing they will ever accept is if there is not one firearm in this country except those carried by the police and the military. They are trampling on the rights of every Canadian who legitimately owns that property. They are saying that the firearm registry will make it so miserable and tough for Canadians that they will eventually give up and say “I cannot have firearms because the government is going to charge me. It has made so many laws that it will lay charges for travelling around with a rifle or a shotgun, for not registering it, or for not filling out the right form to transfer it”.

I can guarantee that if the government stays in power, we will end up with the justice minister picking on every little iota of a description of an offence in that act in order to take away the guns of every Canadian.

The ministers cannot cater to one group. They are supposed to be governing for all Canadians. They are catering to these little groups.

I am 100% in favour of prevention of crime. I am 100% in favour of what we had prior to this legislation in regard to keeping handguns off the streets. Prohibited weapons such as sawed off shotguns and fully automatic firearms were prohibited before this legislation. It was good legislation. We had a safe country.

The other day the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice was speaking about statistics. The first statistic I would like to talk about is the court challenge that the provinces, seven of them in any event, including the Northwest Territories, had with the firearm registration. It went to court in Edmonton, Alberta.

I know some of the justice lawyers too. I was in charge of a proceeds of crime unit in Winnipeg and did some of the initial work on the legislation that the government brought forth in order to seize assets from organized crime and from drug dealers in particular.

At that court challenge the justice lawyers brought in statistics to show how great the legislation was and how bad things were, that there was not legislation in place. They quoted the RCMP. They said the RCMP had put out statistics substantiating the position of the government and its legislation.

It was challenged in court by the lawyers of the province. Lo and behold the statistics were drastically misused. In fact the RCMP subsequently publicly said that the justice department had misused its statistics and what the government lawyers had said in court was not true. It should have been a contempt of court.

Let us look now at the justification of the parliamentary secretary. He was trying to substantiate how great the legislation is. He said that in 1998, 63% of all female domestic homicide victims, as if there were no male victims of any kind of crime, were shot with ordinary rifles and shotguns. Holy samoly, that has to be a large number.

Let us look at the facts which are quite clear. It is 63% of what the total deaths, or homicides, of victims were and that number could very well be 10 or 15 of the total.Then the rifle, whether it was registered or not, would have been just as lethal. The problem was not with the rifle or the shotgun. The problem was the individuals who were under tremendous stress for whatever reason did not have social services or did not have the abuse centres or did not have a government funded organization that could help them with their mental problems. That $700 million would go a long way in Selkirk--Interlake to help people with those kinds of problems.

Registering these guns will not help stop this kind of abuse. That is the injustice of this firearm legislation, and a terrible waste of the moneys that we see being put into it.

I would like to see a comparison. If I spent $700 million across the country to prevent spousal abuse, instead of spending it on registering rifles and shotguns, I swear to God I would save a lot more lives. The money would be spent on social services and helping people with problems rather than on making criminals out of honest, decent citizens.

I think I have made my point that the government has misjudged this legislation. I ask that every Liberal backbencher look at the cruelty to animals legislation and the firearm legislation. I ask them to stand up and represent their constituents the way they know they should, send the bill back, kill it now, and come back with good legislation, the kind they know should be in there. That is what I would like to see.

I would like to move a subamendment to the amendment of the member for Provencher. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding:

“and that the committee report back to the House no later than June 21, 2002.”

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand and partake in the debate on cruelty to animals. This is the third time I have spoken against certain provisions of Bill C-15B. It is important to remind the House that the Liberal government initially brought the bill forward as an omnibus bill that brought together good pieces of legislation with the bad and the ugly. Today we are left to deal with the bad and the ugly.

The Canadian Alliance would not support a bill brought forward in that manner. We in the Alliance strongly opposed Bill C-15 and worked to have it split. We gave quick passage to the first part of the bill, Bill C-15A. Today we are debating Bill C-15B. My colleagues and I oppose Bill C-15B because it would have detrimental and far reaching effects on the farming communities and rural areas that constitute the majority of the riding I represent in Crowfoot in Alberta.

As I stated during debate on Bill C-5, the endangered species act, farmers do not need any more Ottawa made laws to drive them further into the ground. Many of my constituents, like those of all rural MPs including members on the other side of the House who appear poised to sell out their rural constituents, are struggling to survive. Our rural constituents are struggling to keep their farms viable. They are struggling to protect and preserve a way of life. They are struggling to provide for their families in the fashion to which they have become accustomed.

I will exemplify my point. For those here who do not subscribe to the Western Producer I will read the headline from March 21. It reads “Rural Exodus Hits Saskatchewan the Hardest”. The article goes on to say Saskatchewan has lost 13,162 rural folk since 1996.

The province I represent, my home province of Alberta, experienced a population growth of 10.3% between 1996 and 2001, a rate that far exceeds the national average. The national average over the same period was about 4%. This shows Alberta has a growing economy and the population is portraying that. However Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have all experienced what we call a population shift. This is prevalent and evident in my riding. Individuals are leaving the farms. They are leaving rural Alberta and moving into urban centres.

Alberta's saving grace has been its natural resources. It has been its oil, gas and tourism industries. The part of Alberta that has benefited most from the movement of population is the corridor between Edmonton and Calgary. It has seen the most substantive growth.

In September last year the Canadian Federation of Agriculture produced some facts about farm incomes. CFA president Bob Friesen said:

On the surface, the numbers might project farmers will be fine, but scratch the surface and you find a completely different picture.

From 1996 to 2000 total farm cash receipts rose by 12%. However when inflation is taken into account the increase drops to 5% in real terms. The numbers are also influenced by the livestock sector which has remained fairly stable and in some cases seen an increase. Crop receipts by comparison have declined by 14%. As the CFA president pointed out, it is important to note that cash receipts do not indicate final farm income. They reflect gross revenue, not the input costs associated with farming.

Expenses for farmers rose by 13% during the same period. Fuel costs alone went up 27% and were expected to rise another 10% in the next year. Fertilizer prices were expected to rise 33% during that period. We stood in the House last year debating farm input costs. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture said that all in all the year 2001 would be remembered as an historic low point in Canadian agriculture due in part to increasing input costs but more specifically to the environmental conditions facing farmers.

Environmental and drought conditions are factors over which farmers have no control. Parts of British Columbia were hit by drought while wet conditions on Vancouver Island affected the apple crop. Alberta and most of Saskatchewan were so dried up that most fields looked like parched pavement. Walking through a pasture in Hanna I could feel the grass crunch and break underneath my feet. I saw dugouts that were with caked mud on the bottom. I watched grasshoppers part in clouds for a person walking through a pasture.

In parts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba crops were lying in water, flooded out and destroyed. The drought experienced in the maritimes was made worse by an invasion of army worms that hit the potato and forage crops hard. While in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland blueberries were less than plentiful, Prince Edward Island horticulture crops were down 50%.

My colleagues and I are not prepared to stand idly by. Canadian Alliance members of parliament will not stand by and watch the demise of the family farm in our respective provinces. That is why we have fought so hard for agriculture over the past years and for a system that adequately meets the needs of farmers. That is why we are opposed to this piece of bad legislation before the House today.

As we get into the cruelty to animals section I will make it abundantly clear that the Canadian Alliance Party does not condone intentional acts of cruelty toward animals. We therefore fully support increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts.

I do not think any Canadian believes behaviour such as mutilating animals or tying dogs to trees and beating them to death should be condoned. We need to throw the book at these individuals. However we are adamantly opposed to the broader definition of animal that appears in Bill C-15B. By including non-human vertebrates and “all animals having the capacity to feel pain” the new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms that have never been provided that kind of protection in the past.

We are also opposed to the provisions of the bill that would leave farmers and ranchers open to frivolous or costly lawsuits for performing routine farm practices which have been commonplace for centuries.

At the outset when the bill came before committee a number of rural Liberal members of parliament gathered at the committee to share our reservations. However promises from the Department of Justice have obviously appeased their concerns. Despite the negative impact the bill would have on their rural constituents they now appear ready to toe the old Liberal Party line to the detriment of rural Canada.

The chairman of the Prime Minister's task force on agriculture, the hon. member for Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant, has said that with the bill's assurances that any attempt to charge a farmer with cruelty would have to be vetted and approved by a crown prosecutor, an overwhelming majority of rural members are now able to support it.

The hon. member for Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, echoing the words of his Liberal colleague, has argued that the pre-study of cases before a judge and crown attorney would take frivolous actions out of the system so farmers would not have to pay for them or spend time in court. He claims this would allay a lot of our concerns. I will make it abundantly clear to the House that this would not alleviate the concerns of the official opposition Canadian Alliance. The proposition might even be cause for concern in that it would potentially cause an undue burden on judges, crown prosecutors and our already overtaxed judicial system.

I do not know the exact figures. However from the complaints I have had in my office it would appear to be taking an inordinate amount of time to move cases through the courts. We hear of instances where it is two months, six months or years before court cases get a date for hearing. It is unacceptable, and Bill C-15B would make a bad situation even worse.

Bill C-5, the Endangered Species Act, coupled with the legislation we are debating today and the potential prosecutions that would occur as a result of Bill 68, would put a tremendous strain on our courts which would hear cases against law abiding citizens based on unfounded allegations with no requirement of criminal negligence or mens rea.

For the past 50 years animals have been successfully protected under the special property section of our criminal code. We see no reason for the changes being contemplated by Bill C-15B. Historically animals have been classified as property under common law. During the feudal period when the law was first developed, cattle included oxen, cows, donkeys, mules, sheep, goats, horses and chickens and was considered a person's most valuable means of survival and wealth. As such cattle was a seminal form of chattel or personal property. It was viewed for centuries as chattel or property. The law regarding personal property was based on cases regarding rights of possession with respect to cattle. Because of its economic use and benefit cattle was recognized by law to consist of domestic animals, distinguished from pets, that in some cases were tamed, bred, and used for farming, food and draught.

As a farmer with a herd of cattle, although now that I have become a member of parliament it is a smaller herd, I can attest to the fact that we still consider cattle as property and one of the most valuable means of wealth and survival. This is especially true in the riding of Crowfoot.

Let us consider what it would mean for the people of Crowfoot, in Hanna, Oyen and throughout the riding, to take away cattle from the property section. As an owner of cattle it is my property. This puts me in the position of being its owner. Being an owner gives me the responsibility to look after that which is my property.

I can hardly wait. I can imagine what groups like the SPCA and others would do as they came out and saw cattle being neglected. The farmer would say they were not his property. He would say he had turned them out into stubble fields where there were bush patches. He would say he had turned them out in winter to go and secure their own food because they were not his property. However because I am the owner of cattle and they are my property it is incumbent on me to look after that which is mine.

To reiterate an earlier statement, we in my party see no reason for the definition of animal to be expanded. For these reasons alone we in my party are adamantly opposed to Bill C-15B.

With respect to the part of Bill C-15B that would amend the Firearms Act, I stand by our party's longstanding position that we would repeal Bill C-68. I stand by our reasoning for not introducing amendments within this section of the legislation. With 22 pages and some 63 clauses of firearms amendments, Bill C-15B is a clear admission by the Liberal government that Bill C-68 was a complete and total failure.

Bill C-68, the hallmark of the Liberal government, consisted of 137 pages of new laws with respect to firearms and weapons. It has failed. The first enabling regulations introduced in November 1996 added an additional 85 pages while those introduced on October 30, 1997 added approximately 65 pages to our changing firearms laws.

It is important to note, especially for those who were not here in 1995, that there was a provision in Bill C-68 that stipulated that when amendments were made to the bill the amended regulations would not have to be reviewed by parliament. The justice minister could enforce or enact firearms regulations without parliamentary review if the regulations in his or her opinion were “immaterial or insubstantial” under subsection 119(2) or urgent under subsection 119(3).

To date the government has enacted legislation using these subsections 16 times. Furthermore it has failed to report these changes to the House as required by the Firearms Act. The government failed to report them to the House until the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, exposed this and it was forced to. Effectively, these regulating powers negate our parliamentary system of checks and balances which are supposed to ensure that the government of day does not use extra, autocratic or dictatorial type of powers.

It may be immaterial and insubstantial. It may be urgent in the opinion of the Minister of Justice, or it may be material or very substantial and it may not be urgent at all in the opinion of parliament. To my colleagues who represent large rural consistencies their firearms are viewed perhaps more as a tool than as a weapon. Regardless of our opposition and animosity to the Firearms Act we must be apprised of any and all changes to the legislation in a clear and concise fashion. All Canadians must be aware to avoid unintentionally breaking any of these encumbering laws.

Despite what the Minister of Justice said in defence of Bill C-68 there still remains serious criminal repercussions for Canadians who fail or inadvertently fail to properly register their firearms.

Bill C-68 created three different penalties for failing to register a firearm: a maximum penalty of a summary conviction procedure of six months or a $2,000 fine under firearms section 112; second, a maximum term of imprisonment of five years on summary conviction under the criminal code subsection 91(1); and finally, a different penalty for knowingly neglecting to register a firearm with a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years under the criminal code subsection 92(1).

Bill C-68 also provided the Minister of Justice with almost autocratic powers that Canada has not seen since the War Measures Act. Subsection 117(15) of the legislation empowered the justice minister to declare any firearm that in his opinion is not reasonable for sporting or for hunting purposes to be declared a prohibited weapon by a simple order in council which is immune to judicial or parliamentary review. Talk about losing rights. Talk about the rights of the property owner and the gun owner being set aside, actually pulled away.

Subsection 104(1)(b) of Bill C-68 states:

An inspector may not enter a dwelling-house under section 102 except

with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant

However, if consent is not given the Firearms Act empowers police and inspectors to obtain a warrant to enter a home even where no evidence exists to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. Prior to Bill C-68 section 101 of the criminal code prohibited entrance into a dwelling house without a warrant except in cases of fresh pursuit. A warrant could only be issued or obtained when a police officer had reasonable proof that a crime had been committed or was about to be committed.

The intrusive nature of Bill C-68 and the huge powers that are being bestowed on the Minister of Justice alone demonstrates why the legislation was and still is viewed as an attack against decent law-abiding firearm owners. It is an unjustified attack.

Firearm owners support measures aimed at reducing the criminal use of firearms. The Liberal government has never shown how this ill conceived piece of legislation, with its mountains of regulations, complicated regime of licensing and registration, would accomplish this one simple objective. It has never shown and never been able to prove that Bill C-68 would reduce the criminal use of firearms.

Bill C-15 and Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation, as well as Bill C-68, pit rural against urban, are confrontational wedge issues against rural Canadians and their way of life. That is why Canadian Alliance members will continue to fight for the constituents that they represent and that is why we remain opposed to these Liberal made laws that insult and disrespect our rural lifestyle.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, my colleague from North Battleford, made a very strong case, as did my colleague from Calgary, in terms of the liberties that are involved. Bill C-15B is a very significant piece of legislation that does seem to be somewhat intrusive.

I want to make it abundantly clear that one of the things we in the Canadian Alliance want to underline time and again is that we are absolutely not in favour of cruelty to animals. We do support the intent of the legislation, which would make cruelty to animals a more serious offence. There is no question about that and I want to make that abundantly clear so that no one misinterprets or misunderstands why we are opposed to the bill. We have no criticisms of those aspects of the bill, but we do criticize its intrusiveness, which creates problems for other people.

I would like to suggest that there is a fundamental principle of legislation we need to observe in all legislation and that principle is this: the legislation must make sense. Legislation that makes sense actually achieves what it intends to achieve and it protects the legitimate interests of citizens and the pursuits of those citizens in various legitimate enterprises, and in particular, farmers, ranchers, fishermen and medical researchers.

Now I will try to look at this piece of legislation from that perspective. First, then, I would like to recognize that the legislation before us now in Bill C-15B could open up the possibility that farmers, sporting groups and scientific researchers will be unjustly prosecuted. They may even be persecuted. Animal rights groups in Canada will certainly use this new legislation as the basis for such prosecutions, and in fact have already stated their intentions to do so, notwithstanding that some people argue they will not.

I will refer specifically to a quote from Liz White, the director of legislative revision, Animal Alliance of Canada. She stated:

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. That’s what this is all about. Make no mistakes about it.

My learned friend is a legal person and understands what the legal processes are. He understands exactly what that kind of statement means. The federal minister has assured us that what is lawful today in the way of legitimate activities in the courts would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent. The problem is that these new provisions arguably narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities.

Am I the only one who has concerns about this? I am not trained in the law, but I do know something about logic and I do know something about how things work. I would like to refer the House to the Canadians for Medical Progress, Inc. This is a group of very sophisticated researchers who know what they are talking about. They have examined this omnibus bill. Pierre Berton, the senior patron, says this:

I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Medical Progress to request that, if you haven't already done so, you take a close...look...The intent of the legislation is to deal more stringently and effectively with incidents of extreme and unacceptable abuse to animals.

Who would disagree? I do not. The vast majority of Canadians would heartily endorse this, that is agreed, but he continued and stated:

However, some amended components of this section of the bill as drafted could have serious and paralyzing consequences for medical science. Essentially, they will remove animals as property, and will be interpreted as conferring person-like status on animals. In my opinion, this is an asinine, ludicrous approach toward solving the problem of animal abuse.

These are not my words. These are the words of significant, respected, well qualified and successful researchers in the field of medicine.

I will go on and look at the other parts of the bill. Canadians for Medical Progress has as one of its objectives:

Making representations to the government for the enactment or protection of legislation permitting and supporting biomedical research.

We ought to do that. We should have that. The group has other goals. It wants to promote “health research awareness, the science of biomedical research and the knowledge and practice thereof”. It wants to co-ordinate its “activities with those of similar organizations and societies and individuals” and it wants to hold “conferences, meetings and exhibitions for the discussion of biomedical research”. That is what these organizations do. The quotes I have just read are the words of people who do these kinds of things.

Canadians for Medical Progress also stated that it:

applauds the efforts of the drafters of this new legislation on their goal... We wish to affirm our belief that the wanton cruelty to animals is plainly not acceptable, and should be subject to the full force of the law.

However...the present wording, although totally unintentional, could open the door to costly and paralyzing private prosecutions, based on unfounded and frivolous allegations, against responsible, legitimate and ethically sound research. The key here, though, is the cost and time expenditure that could be inflicted on researchers and their research activity, regardless of potential litigation outcomes.

I know, and so do the members of the House, that in Canada the litigation process is not so much dependent on what is right or what is just, but rather on how much money and time the people who are litigating have to spend on the issue. Do we really want to get into the position where our researchers have to spend millions of dollars defending themselves instead of devoting that money to the legitimate pursuit of research to solve some of our medical problems we need to address? That is the issue here. Why would we create a law that would make it difficult for these people to conduct legitimate research using animals such that they would have to go to court to defend themselves about whether the use of those animals is cruel or not? That is at the heart of this concern.

People will say “but that is the medical group”. No, it is not just the medical group. I have some documentation here and if I have time I will read it into the record as well. It is from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, from the fishermen's association and from the veterinary association. A lot of people are deeply concerned. Their concerns are not frivolous concerns. These are not people who have looked at this legislation and just have said it came from the Liberal government and therefore they would throw it away. Their concerns are not political concerns. They are legitimately concerned that this legislation will threaten, will paralyze, a legitimate activity that they want to do on behalf of improving the health and welfare of Canadians.

I want to review this briefly. What did the former minister of justice state at the time the bill was introduced? She stated:

...what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent.

If that is really what she meant, why would she then create legislation that really puts into question whether that in fact would be the case? Her statement in effect is self-evident. However, it is misleading. Of course the new provisions will not prevent legitimate activities from being carried out, but the law only prescribes illegal activities. The problem is, therefore, the concern that these new provisions arguably narrow the scope of what constitutes a legitimate activity. That is where the difficulty comes in. It is the scope of that activity. If it was not the minister's intent to prohibit the presently acceptable and legitimate activities in Canadian agriculture or fur industries, she should have amended the legislation to clarify the intent in those provisions.

Therefore, at best, in my opinion, the bill begs the question of whether it makes sense and whether it protects people. In practical terms I think it fails to do what the minister originally intended to achieve. I think that is a very major concern.

Let me be a little more specific with regard to farming. Farmers are constantly faced with challenges. They are influenced daily by weather, commodity prices, transportation costs and federal government intervention.

Most farmers would add certain animal rights groups to this list. Some groups target livestock producers, labelling them as cruel, inhumane and barbaric. I will provide an example that shocked me. I did not know that this had happened but apparently it has. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, has launched an anti-dairy campaign targeting schoolchildren. It is essentially telling them that if children drink milk they are responsible for the torture of cows. Just imagine. Why would anyone do that? My colleagues and I in the Canadian Alliance, including my party's agriculture critic, are concerned that groups such as PETA are about to be armed with a powerful new weapon against farmers. I hope this never happens but apparently this is already taking place.

I certainly agree with the vast majority of Canadians that we need harsher penalties for those who deliberately abuse animals. Unfortunately, because of the way Bill C-15B is currently worded, many ranchers, hunters and medical researchers may be subjected to harassment and prosecutions and could be convicted of abuse even though they properly care for their animals.

We have two suggestions. The Canadian Alliance is demanding two major changes to Bill C-15B. The first is that the bill's definition of an 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.

Because this definition is too broad it could interfere with the abilities of farmers to eliminate pests and of researchers to find cures for diseases. We must change the definition.

Second, we are calling for the legislation to protect from costly, frivolous prosecutions those who legitimately use animals. Currently the criminal code provides protection from harassment and prosecution, but because the bill will move animal cruelty out of the property offences of the criminal code this protection effectively would be removed. The justice minister has the ability to introduce legislation that would strengthen and modernize the current cruelty to animals provisions of the criminal code without threatening those who legitimately use animals, but so far the minister has refused to be explicit in the legislation and ensure that the courts have no ability to interpret Bill C-15B in a way that parliament did not intend.

That is at the heart of this: that the courts not interpret the legislation in a way that was not intended by parliament. I do not think there is any quarrel from our side of the House about the intent of the legislation being noble. It is. Therefore let us word it in such a way that it indeed can achieve what it was set out to achieve.

Now I will speak to the other part of the bill, which for some crazy reason is in this bill but in my opinion should not be, and that is the amendment to the firearms act. What that has to do with cruelty to animals I do not know, but it was put together so I need to separate it out and refer to it in particular.

Mr. Speaker, I think you are very well aware, as are all members of the House, that as far as the Canadian Alliance is concerned the whole firearms registry and Firearms Act should be scrapped, repealed, done away with, but let me refer to a particular aspect of this amendment. It deals with criminal law. Criminal law is our most serious form of law. A violation of criminal law, including a violation of any prescription or regulation that exists by way of an order in council, and by the way this act does exactly that, can result in a criminal record and imprisonment.

It is therefore inappropriate to create criminal law that is not to be found in the act but must be sought in a maze of current, revised, overlapping and obsolete order in council regulations. Why is it so significant that this has gone through the regulations part? All of this stuff is dealt with in the regulations rather than in the law itself. While regulations made under the authority of orders in council may have a place in regulatory law, we submit that they should not be included in criminal law. The regulations are simply not sufficiently available to rely on them as a valid way of setting forth criminal law.

Those affected by them are not usually subscribers to the Canada Gazette . It would be inappropriate to believe that everyone knows them or can know them and they are not easily available to either crown prosecutors or defence lawyers. It is possible to know the criminal code and other criminal law and in fact it is the duty of us to know that. However, it is not possible to know the regulations unless one has a subscription to the Canada Gazette or makes it one's business to read it.

Mr. Speaker, I think you have read many of them and I am sure you recognize how difficult that exercise can be. The regulations change frequently and with insufficient publicity.

It is my understanding that in a recent court case the crown and defence lawyers argued the exact meaning of certain terms in a particular regulation. The entire case turned on the exact wording of the regulation and was eventually decided by analysis of that wording. It was not the legislation, the act of parliament, but it was the regulation which is an act of the privy council.

The severity of that problem is well illustrated by a blunder enacted into law by parliament in the current Firearms Act and in particular, order in council, described as the Prohibited Weapons Order No.12 made by order in council 1992-1690 of July 23, 1992 and registered as SOR/92-471. I have to beg the indulgence of those who are watching because there is a lot of technical stuff. It was not registered as SOR/92-471. It was registered as SOR/92-599-01. SOR/92-471 was an earlier order in council that was replaced by SOR/92-599-01.

Similarly in subsection 12(5) a particular order is described as the Prohibited Weapons Order No. 13 made by order in council P.C.1994-1974 of November 29, 1994 and registered as SOR/94-741. It was not registered as SOR/94-741. It was registered as SOR/94-829-01. SOR/94-741 was an earlier order in council and was replaced by SOR/94-829-01

If you can make sense of all that, Mr. Speaker, you are very good. I had to read it several times to figure out exactly what was going on. It was a real mess. The crystal clarity of it is that it is a mess. That is the part that is clear.

The bill fails. It does not make sense because in my opinion it does not protect the legitimate activities of farmers, hunters and so on in their use of animals. Also, it relegates to regulation what should be in the legislation. If it cannot be enforced in legislation, why would the government relegate it to regulation? The government thinks it can be enforced in regulation what it has given up in legislation.

There are very serious problems with the bill. On the intent we agree and I want to repeat that. We totally agree with the intent of making it a more serious offence to abuse animals and to treat them cruelly. There is no problem with that. However some of the clumsy ways in which this is being introduced is so ridiculous that the bill should be withdrawn and redone. There are some things in the bill that are really worthwhile and there are other parts of it that should be thrown out.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have a few preliminary comments about the firearms registry.

I wish the government would recognize that the firearms registry a totally failed experiment. It was ill-conceived. Let us be honest, it was more about politics than good legislation at the time. It is going nowhere and is costing the country a huge amount of money. It has created another unnecessary bureaucracy in this town and there are enough of those already without more of them.

I would like to relate my experience as a practising lawyer. One of the most troubling problems I encountered was the inadequate protection for people, and women generally, who were stalked or harassed by really dangerous people and quite often because of a marital breakdown. The resources were not in place.

I recall a number of years ago when a new mayor was elected in New York City, one of the most crime infested places in the world. The mayor was elected on a law and order platform. He was going to reduce crime and improve public safety in that city. What did he do? He hired more police officers. What did he do with those police officers? He put them on the streets where the crimes were happening.

Lo and behold, guess what eventually happened? The crime rate in New York City dramatically decreased. He was not filling up prisons with prisoners. He was deterring crime in the first place. Today, if I am correct in my figures, New York City has a lower violent crime rate than any city in Great Britain with 500,000 people or more. That is public safety and is an effective use of public resources.

Why is the government not looking at cancelling a useless program that is costing us a lot of money and instead putting money into useful programs that actually do increase public safety and provide protection to our citizens?

The problem for a lot of our law-abiding citizens is that the government does not protect them. The resources are not in place. It does politically correct things like passing more laws. I think the government believes that if it wanted to make cats bark all it would have to do is pass a law. I am convinced of that. Some of those people over there are unreal.

I practised law for 25 years. I wish I had the time to go through all the useless legislation that has been passed that interferes with our ability to make common sense decisions in our day to day lives.

I want to address the rest of my comments to the cruelty to animals amendments in the legislation. I want to make it perfectly clear that the amendments in the bill are all about harassment and mischief. Who will be the object of the legislation? Who are the criminals we are targeting under this one? Under the firearms legislation it was duck hunters, but who will be the object of this legislation? Will it be the livestock producers, the hog producers, the poultry producers, the turkey producers and anyone else who is involved in the caring for animal? Will it be the fishermen, the sports fishermen, the medical researchers, the agricultural researchers, the furriers, the trappers and many others? Most of these folks are just trying to make a living, support their families, get their kids through school, support their communities, pay their banks to get by and also support us by paying our salaries in Ottawa.

The legislation before us is about harassment and targeting those individuals. This is not a time for any of them to be targeted by more government interference.

In the U.S. one of the national parties has compromised itself by getting into bed with an organization called the American trial lawyers association.

We have seen the absurdity in the United States of those sort of policies. People with cancer sue tobacco companies because they did not understand that tobacco was not good for their health. Individuals sue a franchise coffee maker because they did not understand that coffee was hot. A person tried to commit suicide by jumping in front of a subway train and lost his legs because he jumped too far and successfully sued the New York transit authority on the basis that it should have anticipated someone would try to commit suicide and should have put up guards.

Most of this sort of stuff is pure absolute nonsense. We do not need that in this country. Anyone in the United States who has any common sense would agree that sort of intrusion by the litigative nature of the American society causes people a lot of additional costs and impairs the economy.

We heard from the friends of the government in committee, the animal rights groups. They came in droves. I recall a number of those spokespeople identifying lawyers who were supportive of the legislation. Quite honestly I would identify the lawyers that were mentioned as being akin to the American trial lawyers group. They were enthusiastic supporters of the bill. I am sure many of them are even members of the American trial lawyers association.

I am disturbed because the Liberals are bringing American style litigation into Canada. This is something we do not need. Much anti-Americanism sentiment comes from members of the government from time to time. However in this area they seem to be enthusiastic endorsers of something that is unnecessary and negative.

When we stand back and look at it the Liberals generally would like to see a society dominated by courts, judges and lawyers. Why do they want to do that? It is good for the lawyers and it seems to be good for the Liberal Party. However I am not exactly sure it is good for the Canadian public.

With a certain provision in the bill the Liberals have done something that even the Americans have not done. They have introduced the concept of tort and negligence right into the criminal code. I had never heard of that concept ever existing in any other common law or democratic society that I know of where we start introducing concepts of tort and negligence and litigation directly into the criminal code.

Let me draw the House's attention to the actual section. The section has absolutely nothing to do with tinkering with existing legislation. This is an entirely new addition to the act. Subsection 182.3(1) states:

Every one commits an offence who

(a) negligently causes unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal;

Let us use an actual example. I am a sport fisherman and I do catch fish. When I catch a fish I have to do something with it. I could put it in a tank and when I get back to shore I could kill it. I could put it on a rope and hang it beside the boat in the water and when I get back to shore I could kill it. I could have a club in the boat and hit it over the head until I kill it. Or I could throw it in the boat and let it jump around until it dies itself. Another possibility is a method I use, I learned it from an aboriginal person. I take the fish by the head hold it firmly and break its neck. In my view that is a good way to kill a fish because it puts it out of its existence quickly. For ice fishing most people just throw the fish out onto the lake and it slowly freezes to death.

In this subsection everyone commits an offence who negligently causes unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal. According to this definition the fish has a vertebrae so it is an animal. Under the legislation any sport fisherman could be looking at a charge under the section. Animal rights groups would be hiring their own lawyer to prosecute the case.

The Liberals say they have put something in place that would protect people against private prosecution. There would be a preliminary hearing first to decide whether the charges should proceed or not. That is just absolute nonsense. I know what a preliminary hearing is; I practised law for 25 years. It is a trial within a trial. There is a magistrate, a lawyer on the other side and witnesses.

I envision the fisherman walking into a courtroom full of animal rights activists, their witnesses and their lawyers. That will be a very costly venture. People who go in there had better have a lawyer and some witnesses or they will lose and face charges. That is just that one subsection.

However it does not stop there. In subsection 182.3(b) it reads:

...negligently fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, air, shelter and care for it;

When a farmer hauls livestock to market it is an hour and a half drive and it is 85° outside does that mean the facility that he is hauling in should have temperature adjustments so the livestock is being hauled in at 72° or room temperature? If it is 5° above freezing should there be a heater in there so that it is 20° above zero? What about the food, water and other matters that are raised in there? Should the truck be stopped to feed the animals and give them water? Subsection 182.3(c) states:

negligently injures an animal while it is being conveyed.

When we look at all of these provisions I suggest there is not an existing agricultural practice that would not be open to attack under the legislation.

People say I am just pandering and raising fears that are not real. They should look at the experience in Europe, England and the U.S. where this type of legislation has been introduced and listen to what the radical animal rights groups are saying.

I find it particularly disturbing. We had one justice minister who got on his high horse to introduce this useless firearms registration. It is all about politics and nothing about good public policy.

The thing I find disturbing, when I go through the animal rights website and look at the material, is who the animal rights groups backed, strongly supported and put all their resources into in the last federal election to make sure they won and defeated all those “crazy firearms people” and “wing nuts” as they call them.

In the Edmonton riding, where the past justice minister came from, they backed her to the teeth and now she is delivering the bacon. She is delivering a piece of legislation that they wanted.

There is another provision in the bill that really bothers me. It is how what is negligent is determined. I doubt anyone on that side of the House has the slightest clue what process would be used to determine what negligent is. Sometimes I wonder whether any of the folks on the other side of the House ever spent two minutes in a court of law in the country, let alone knowing what that would mean. Subsection 182.3(2) states:

For the purposes of subsection (1), “negligently” means departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use.

I know what that will entail; I have seen it. When one is involved with negligence cases in the court one hauls in a whole pile of expert witnesses and they tell the court what they think reasonable care is. Usually the people who have the most and best experts win the case. They are very expensive. Expert witnesses can easily cost $5,000 a day and the more the better. The rich and wealthy have a major advantage in this sort of thing.

It would have been so simple. The Canadian Alliance and other parties wanted a simple amendment whereby we would determine the standard based on the practices of the industry. In agriculture the practices that have been longstanding would become the test under this arrangement, but no, the government would not accept that proposal. We would not stand in the way but it did.

This is another area that seemed so simple to me. When talking about fishermen and the way they kill fish, the accepted practice would be an absolute defence. For a livestock producer, the acceptable standard would be an absolute defence to the charges. It would alleviate the concerns that all these groups and producers in our economy are concerned about, but the government would not do it. It is so simple.

I guess the reason it will not accept that sort of standard as a defence is because it is promoting the radical animal rights groups objectives. They want to challenge every existing standard we have in place. They want to challenge every one of them and make it perfectly clear that is their objective.

Bill C-15B underscores the whole approach of the Liberal government. There was a government recently elected in British Columbia whose name matches up a lot better with liberty than that party's does. It actually believe in that word. The government in British Columbia committed itself to reducing one-third of the regulatory burden in that province.

It defined regulatory burden as a regulation that restricts the freedom of an individual or imposes obligations on the individual. It found 400,000 specific regulations that fit that definition. I would be curious to know if the government across the floor would submit itself to that sort of review, how many regulations we would find in Ottawa. It would absolutely be frightening.

Another thing the government of British Columbia discovered when it looked at the regulations and analyzed them was that for every dollar it costs the government to create laws and regulations, and enforce them, it costs the people affected on average something like $17 to $20. Here is a government that is passing a cruelty to animals law but it does not care about the consequences to the industries affected. It passed it because the minister made a deal with animal rights groups to get this thing shoved through. This will cost the affected industries a lot of money.

The government is good at that. It likes to pass laws and interfere with our day to day lives and our abilities to make decision without worrying about the costs. It just does it. The government is always pushing for environmental impact studies before something is done. I wish sometimes that before we pass laws in the House that we have an economic impact study of the laws before they are ever passed.

In conclusion, the Liberal way is more about more regulation. The Liberal way is more about more government. The Liberal way is more intrusion in our day to day lives as citizens. Liberals, contrary to their name, place very little value on personal freedom and liberty. They believe the government is better equipped on this matter to take over that role, to start making the decisions for individual citizens and to transfer more and more power to the bureaucracy in Ottawa. This is despite the fact that the Canada pension plan is in huge difficulty. We have probably more people working in fisheries in this town than we have actual fishers. We have an agriculture industry--

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address some of the issues I raised in the question to my hon. colleague.

We have here in Bill C-15B more than 20 pages and more than 60 clauses of firearms amendments. That to me is a clear admission by the government that Bill C-68, the original bill, was a complete failure. In fact, most of the debate on this bill has been focused on the cruelty to animals section, yet the bulk of the bill is amendments to the Firearms Act.

On September 22, 1998, while tens of thousands of responsible firearms owners rallied peacefully on Parliament Hill to express their outrage over Bill C-68, the justice minister told a news conference that the debate was over. If the debate was over as she claimed in 1998, why did the minister bring in pages and pages of amendments to the legislation in 2001? If the debate was over back then, why is parliament now debating the son of Bill C-68? After six years, the waste of more than $700 million, and massive non-compliance, the government has admitted that at least 320,000 gun owners failed to apply for a firearms licence. The government has finally admitted that it made at least 24 pages of mistakes by using closure on two occasions to ram Bill C-68 through the House in 1995.

The insurmountable problems with the gun registry will not be solved by the band-aid amendments proposed here. The only cost effective solution is to scrap the gun registry altogether and replace it with something that will work, and when we form the government that is what we will do. We need to replace this law with a law that has the full support of the ten provinces and the three territories, the full support of the firearms community and the full support of the aboriginal community.

Six provinces and two territories opposed Bill C-68 in a constitutional challenge that went all the way to the supreme court. Now eight provinces and territories have opted out of all or part of the administration of the Firearms Act. This is criminal code enforcement, which they do not want to have anything to do with. The territory of Nunavut launched its own constitutional challenge in the summer of 2000. Now we have the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations launching a constitutional challenge. The Assembly of First Nations is so frustrated with the broken promises of the justice minister it is now considering joining the FSIN court challenge.

Some of the amendments are an improvement, but are too little, too late, to win the support of our party or the firearms community. In the next election we will be calling for the repeal and replacement of Bill C-68.

Before getting into any comments on the proposed amendments to Bill C-15B, I need to correct the misleading statistics presented in the House yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. He claimed that the gun registry is somehow going to improve the fact that women are being killed with rifles and shotguns. The parliamentary secretary failed to explain how registering rifles and shotguns is going to stop these firearms from being used for criminal purposes. We have never received an answer to that although we have been asking for six years.

An article in the Toronto Sun on Tuesday of this week proves just how useless the 68 year old handgun registry has been in preventing the criminal use of handguns. It states:

Police found an arsenal and a stash of drugs after raiding the home of a man captured breaking into his former common-law wife's house with a loaded gun. The man faces more than three dozen charges after he was arrested with a .380 calibre handgun at his estranged spouse's Bathurst St. and Eglinton Ave. home late Saturday night. Police said he subjected the woman to 11 years of terror. She and the couple's two children are now in hiding. In a search of the man's Brampton home Sunday, police seized five loaded firearms, including a Tec-9 machine pistol. He was under a life-time ban preventing him from owning firearms.

Obviously the Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary should be more interested in directing the scarce police resources that are in place to make sure that firearms are removed from the hands of the 70,000 people who have been prohibited from owning guns.

What are we doing instead? We are shuffling paper in the back room somewhere. What a waste of resources.

The Minister of Justice claimed that the registry was working well because the department had refused and revoked more than 4,000 firearms licences, making a huge leap of logic that revoking a firearms licence somehow prevents people from acquiring guns. It does not. As the Toronto Sun article that I just quoted proves, this type of Liberal thinking is fatal, flawed, because when it comes to protecting lives gun registration is useless.

If the Liberals are really serious about protecting the lives of women living in violent domestic situations, we need more police to vigorously enforce restraining orders and prohibition orders. The fact is that while the justice minister and his minions are droning on about the 4,000 firearms licences they have refused and revoked, the truth is they did not even follow up on these licence revocations to ensure that the guns were removed from people they determined to be potentially dangerous. All of a sudden we do not have enough resources to enforce that part of the law. How did revoking these firearm licences help if they did not direct the police to these very people to take away their firearms? How did revoking these firearms licences help? If there are not enough police checking to see if these people have acquired firearms legally, it is a waste of our resources.

The fact is that the totally useless, fatally flawed gun registry is burning up more than $100 million a year, which the police really need in their fight against violent crime, including removing firearms from really dangerous people, from criminals. Every year Statistics Canada publishes homicide and robbery statistics that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that as a policy gun registration does not work.

Here are some of the more revealing facts from Statistics Canada in its report, Homicide In Canada, 2000 . I will quote from page 7 of the report:

Of the 542 homicides in Canada in 2000, stabbing, beating and strangulation accounted for 58% and firearms for 34%.

Obviously violent individuals are the problem and registering a person's firearms does not prevent someone from killing another person.

Second, I would like to draw out of that report this statement, and I will remind members that the law has required all handguns to be registered since 1934:

Of the 183 firearms homicides in 2000, 58% were committed with handguns, 8% were committed with firearms that are completely prohibited, [such as sawed off rifles or shotguns and fully automatic weapons] and 31% were committed with a rifle or shotgun.

Obviously 67 years of registering handguns demonstrates that registration is fatally flawed as a way of preventing the criminal use of firearms.

The statistical evidence also indicates that the total banning of guns does not work any better if the government does not allocate police resources to enforce the firearms prohibitions.

The third thing I would like to draw out of the Statistics Canada report is this:

Despite 67 years of mandatory handgun registration, the use of handguns in firearms homicides has been steadily increasing since 1974, from 26.9% to 58.5% in 2000. Conversely, firearms homicides with rifles and shotguns that weren't registered dropped steadily over the same 27-year period, from 63.6% to 30.6%.

Without registration they dropped from 63.6% to 30.6%. It makes a sane person wonder why the Liberals would employ 1,800 staff and waste more than $680 million trying to register millions of rifles and shotguns when it will do nothing to make our lives safer.

The fourth thing I would like to draw from the government's own statistics is this:

Of 110 handgun homicides committed between 1997 and 2000, 69% of the handguns were not registered.

We have had the law since 1934 and yet people have not complied with it. Does the failure of the gun registry as an effective government policy get any more obvious than that? That one statistic alone should make us scrap the entire registry.

The report also stated:

In 2000, 67% of persons accused of homicide had a Canadian criminal record, and 69% of these had previously been convicted of violent crimes. At the same time, 52% of homicide victims also had a criminal record.

Obviously the Liberals hit the wrong target by requiring completely innocent farmers, hunters and recreational shooters to register their firearms. Obviously criminals are the real targets not duck hunters. The government had a choice six years ago and it made the wrong one. On September 21, 1995, Ontario Solicitor General Bob Runciman told the Senate standing committee:

In national terms, $85 million would put another 1,000 customs agents on the border; $500 million would put an extra 5,900 police officers on the street. The federal alternative is to use the money to register every shotgun and bolt-action .22 in Canada. No great brilliance is required to figure out which would have a greater impact on crime.

The September 11 terrorist attacks have shown us what a real security threat is. With few exceptions everyone in Canada knows that the threat is not 3 million completely innocent firearms owners.

I have a lot more material I could present but I would also like to talk a little about the cruelty to animals amendments in the criminal code because there are a lot of people in my province who are very concerned about this.

I come from a riding that is heavily involved in agriculture. Bill C-15B is a threat to that very industry. The amendments made after report stage have not addressed the fears and worries of farmers and ranchers across Canada. Instead of working toward the original goal of increasing penalties to those who abuse animals the government has put the livelihood of thousands of agriculture producers in danger.

Currently animals are classified as property under the criminal code. This designation is the fundamental principle of Canada's agriculture industry. The ownership of animals and the farmer's legal right to use animals to produce food comes from his or her right to own animals. Moving animals from the property area of the criminal code and creating their own area would cause farmers and ranchers to be under an unfair risk of prosecution.

This would be to the great joy of animal rights activists who want to test this law in the courts, and we have quotations to that, because it would have to make the farmer reconcile his or her right to own animals under the new status of animals under the criminal code.

I have spoken about the right to own animals as property. There is a good reason for that. Under our current constitution Canadians do not have the entrenched right to own property. Our democracy and economic system are based on the fundamental right that each person has the right to own and enjoy his or her own property. It seems that the government has forgotten the connection between property rights and economic freedom, between property rights and prosperity.

In communist Russia property rights were under the control of the state which led to no economic freedom for the individual. We cannot function in a market economy without the right for each individual to own property.

Animal rights activists who have hijacked the agenda of the bill want to use the bill's provision to violate the rights of a farmer to earn a living and to own property.

Farmers and ranchers would not be afraid of the bill if they knew that they had some recourse to defend themselves against malicious prosecution. If our charter of rights were to say that every Canadian had the right to own and enjoy property most farmers, and that would include myself, would not be worried about the implication of the bill.

The government and the former justice minister were confused on the aspect of animal welfare and animal rights. Instead of working toward tougher penalties for those who abuse and neglect animals and working toward the better treatment of animals the minister has worded a bill that would give more rights to animals in Canadian law than it does an unborn child.

The government has created a definition of an animal that is so broad that any living creature that has a backbone would be subject to this law. Yet at the same time the Government of Canada does not recognize the rights of an unborn child. What a twisted and demented conscience we have on the other side of the House.

There are other concerns that I have with the bill. Since it was introduced the Canadian Alliance has asked that the government put in a clause that would protect the traditional farming practices that are done on farms and ranches. People who care and are genuinely concerned in the welfare of their animals do these practices. They have been passed down from generations of ranchers and farmers. Why should we let someone who does not understand this practice deem it to be illegal?

I am not against handing out stiffer penalties to those who abuse and neglect animals. I am against creating a piece of legislation to appease a small group of people. The legislation does that. It appeases the animal rights groups by giving them a law that they can test in the courts and push the boundaries of what can and cannot be done to animals. That should not be decided in the court of law. It should be decided here in the House of Commons.

Our job is to create clear, concise legislation that leaves no room for interpretation. Bill C-15B would do the exact opposite. It would allow animal rights groups to use it as part of a hidden agenda to eliminate the fur trade, ranching and hunting. That is a huge concern.

A letter from Liz White, director of the Animal Alliance of Canada, best illustrates this hidden agenda. She writes:

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. That’s what this is all about. Make no mistake about it.

Do we need any other evidence that they will use the vagueness of this law? They will use the provisions in this law to go after farmers, ranchers and those who use animals in a legitimate fashion.

We in the House have allowed a piece of legislation that has a blatant hidden agenda to make its way to third reading. I am sickened to see that the government did not consider our amendments in report stage. The bill would only punish those who need animals to earn a living. It would strip farmers and ranchers of a fundamental civil liberty, the right to own property. The government would do all this just to satisfy the animal rights groups while not addressing the issue of animal welfare.

We had an opportunity to create a piece of legislation that would punish those who abuse and neglect animals. We could have had the means to shut down the puppy mill owners and punish those who knowingly neglect their animals. Animal rights groups have used this legislation to turn the sights on the very people who care about their animals.

Farmers and ranchers do not trust the legislation. They do not trust the former justice minister and they do not trust the current justice minister. If the bill were to pass I fear that honest hard-working Canadians would be charged and put in jail for the simple act of trying to make a living. The government has created a monster and in the future we would see that most clearly.

I would like to make a few comments about the firearms section of the act. I have already mentioned some of the problems in my previous question to my hon. Conservative colleague.

The bill would give any designated firearms officer any of the duties and functions of a chief firearms officer. In other words the Firearms Act would give the CFO a considerable amount of power, even some of the powers of the provincial minister. The CFO in New Brunswick has designated a private eye as a firearms officer. Do Canadians really want private eyes running around with all the power of a CFO to investigate and harass law-abiding citizens? How will we know if the private eyes are using their powers as firearms officers to investigate people for their other clients and their own personal gain?

The bill would amend the definition of a firearm in an attempt to ensure that millions of air guns or pellet rifles would no longer be considered firearms under the law. The wording is confusing and the new definition may not have achieved that objective. Some legal interpretations say paintball markers would now become firearms if the amendment is passed into law. Is that not unbelievable? A number of lawyers, including some who work for parliament, have already offered different legal opinions on changes needed to make this section consistent with the government's stated intentions.

The standing committee needs to receive the testimony from firearms experts, forensic scientists and legislative drafting experts to determine what this new definition really means before it becomes the law of the land.

In 1995 the justice minister ignored the 250 amendments proposed by the Reform Party and it ignored many of the substantive amendments proposed by the Liberal dominated committee. Why after five years and $700 million does the government not admit its mistakes?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, that was quite a speech. I thank my colleague for his questions and I would say that four relates to one and two relates to three in the way he has poised them.

The issue of the complexity of the bill is undeniable. It is reminiscent of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. It is also reminiscent of the Income Tax Act. Judges and others working in the courts, including crown, defence and police, will have an incredible challenge before them in trying to sort it out.

I think that in drafting legislation one of the guiding principles of the Department of Justice, which was called the world's worst law firm by the previous minister, really should be try to strip away some of the complexity and make law that is based more on common sense and is more understandable for the general public.

The bill, as the hon. member knows, was the brain eruption of the justice minister of two terms ago, who has the reverse Midas touch. Everything he seems to touch turns to something other than gold. I know that my friends from Manitoba, from Dauphin--Swan River, Brandon and rural parts of their province of Manitoba, understand that Canadians want enforceable legislation, bills that work to protect the public, not to target law-abiding citizens, which is what the Firearms Act does.

In the Progressive Conservative Party, we cannot support any legislation brought forward to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic of a bill that will crash, that will ultimately falter and sink. We need a bill that targets criminal activity. This legislation is not a bill that I could describe in that fashion. Sadly, it is legislation that does not accomplish its goals. It is legislation that creates problems rather than addresses problems.

My friend spoke of the removal of the RCMP element, in essence, the privatization of the legislation, which endangers Canadians' private information. If the information fell into the wrong hands, it would tell persons who wished to access illegal guns where to find them or it would tell individuals who rely on a weapon for protection that the person may or may not have a gun.

The other part he touched on, which is very relevant, is that the frontline police officers will not trust the accuracy of the information. They cannot rely on it. If they receive a call to go to a domestic or other incident, they cannot trust that the information contained in the computer is accurate. Therefore they have to attend every call assuming that there might be a weapon in play, not assuming that there is not because the person has not registered.

To suggest that in regard to having a laser sticker or some instrument of a number recorded and placed into a computer data system, it will save lives, prevent crimes or even improve tracking if the information is not 100% accurate is a fallacy. It is a complete falling down, a complete abdication, on the part of the government in presenting a bill that is so costly. I am privileged to be surrounded by individuals from Manitoba and St. John's, Newfoundland who I think share that same sentiment. This is a bill that will not work. Any effort in Bill C-15B to improve the legislation is similarly doomed.

I hope I have addressed the questions that my friend raised. I agree with him. We in the Progressive Conservative Party do not support the registry system, which has been presented, I would suggest, in a very misleading way. The traducers who came up with the bill clearly did so for reasons that were best described as political rather than practical. The only way that this firearms legislation will ever disappear from the landscape in the country is when the government is voted out of office. That is the sad reality.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have four issues I would like my hon. colleague to comment on in relation to the amendments to the firearms section.

Most people looking at Bill C-15B have been debating the cruelty to animals section. However the public and many people who have not read the bill do not realize that the great bulk of it consists of amendments to the Firearms Act. I will raise four concerns. First, Bill C-15B would give the minister the power to exempt non-residents from the Firearms Act. The regulations and 14 sections of the Criminal Code of Canada would be involved.

Why does the justice minister trust foreigners with firearms more than he does Canadian citizens? Does section 15 of the charter not guarantee everyone the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law? I have raised the issue before and not once has the government given me an answer.

Second, the bill would remove all the RCMP's authority for the firearms registration system it has been responsible for since 1934. While the bill would assure the current RCMP registrar continued in his current position he would do so only until a new registrar was appointed. All the authority previously granted under the law to the RCMP would be transferred to a new government agency under the control of a new bureaucrat called the Canadian firearms commissioner.

If the RCMP bureaucracy cannot make the gun registry work after 68 years of experience how would a new bureaucracy do it any better? Removing the RCMP from the administration would likely further erode public and police confidence in the gun registry. As I explained yesterday during the late show, the system is so riddled with errors it is of absolutely no value to police officers in their day to day law enforcement functions.

Third, for years judges have complained that the firearms legislation is so poorly drafted it is unenforceable. As a former crown prosecutor I am sure my hon. colleague has concerns in this area. Many of the amendments would make it more confusing. I will give the House an example that would challenge any police officer, chief firearms officer or provincial attorney general. The government should have used plain English rather than this legal gobbledegook. This section of the bill illustrates what I am talking about. It states:

Section 2 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) Sections 5, 9, 54 to 58, 67, 68 and 70 to 72 apply in respect of a carrier as if each reference in those sections to a chief firearms officer were a reference to the Registrar and for the purposes of applying section 6 in respect of a carrier, paragraph 113(3)(b) of the Criminal Code applies as if the reference in that section to a chief firearms officer were a reference to the Registrar.

I am raising this quickly because I do not have much time. People who studied and pored over that paragraph for two hours have said they cannot figure it out. How is a police officer supposed to charge anyone under such legislation?

Fourth, the amendments would transfer to provincial ministers the power to exempt employees and businesses from the Firearms Act and Part III of the criminal code. This would have the effect of creating 10 different ways of implementing the legislation. We need one law to apply equally to everyone. This section would completely undermine that.

Could my hon. colleague to comment on this? Section 15 of the charter guarantees everyone will be treated equally. How would that be possible with legislation that is applied 10 different ways?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, we have before us today Bill C-15B which has been divided into two parts. As a former member of the justice committee Madam Speaker, you would know that this bill has been a long time coming to fruition.

This is a piece of legislation dealing with a section of the criminal code going back over 100 years. I am quick to add that the legislation is very much needed. It deals with a very serious issue that horrifies Canadians. They recoil in horror at some of the images they have seen of the abuse of animals. In the criminal courts and through the media we have seen cases that involve horrific cruelty toward all types of animals.

The sad reality is that psychologists and those who have studied human behaviour have come to the real conclusion that individuals, particularly young people who engage in the abuse of animals, very often go on to display a similar type of violence and aggression toward human beings. There is a real connection to that type of disturbed anti-social behaviour. There is a need to recognize the significance and the motivation of that and the importance of having stricter guidelines that curtail and hopefully dissuade individuals from engaging in activity and aggression toward animals.

A number of cases have been brought to people's attention concerning the consequences of abusive acts toward animals. Yet it is fair to say that we have seen a rather lacklustre response on the part of the courts for any number of reasons. The punishment does not seem to fit the crime, and that has been the trend. Many have pointed to the need to amend the criminal code and that is very much in part what we have before us today. The bill is a legislative attempt to address the inadequacies of the current law as it pertains to animals.

The Progressive Conservative Party wholeheartedly embraces the spirit and intent of the bill. Its intent is clear. It is meant to up the ante. It is meant to bring about the ability of judges and the judiciary to expand the range of sentences meted out by them as a result of an individual being convicted of cruelty toward animals. Along with that, coupled within sections in Bill C-15B, is the ability for a judge to prohibit an individual from owning animals for up to a lifetime when that individual has been convicted of serious violence toward animals.

By violence, we have to refer to the definition. It speaks of: wilfully or recklessly or without regard for the consequences of their act; committing an act of violence which causes unnecessary pain or suffering or injury; kills an animal brutally or viciously without unlawful excuse; poisons or allows an animal to be poisoned; engages in the fighting or harassing of animals for money or trains an animal to fight other animals; takes part in cock fights; takes part in any manner in an exhibition in which captive animals are liberated for the purpose of being shot at the moment they are liberated; and is the owner of any premise and permits the premises to be used in the course of one of the above activities.

It is necessary to spell out some of these activities because we know there have been numerous examples, as I mentioned earlier, of mistreatment of animals. Some of that mistreatment is merely in the neglect and the conditions under which those animals may be kept.

The duty of care that should be imposed and the expectation and the position of trust that animal owners find themselves is not unlike that of the expectation that people should have for the standard of care for children. Animals are unable in many instances to fend for themselves and are reliant upon their owners or keepers. For example, an animal in a game sanctuary needs care, attention and relies on individuals for food.

One case is near and dear to my heart and that involves Sable Island ponies that are fed hay by the government. Circus animals is another example where many individuals have expressed taking animals out of the wild and bringing them into captivity. That is not to say that many organizations and many circuses do not treat their animals very well.

However then there is also the argument about the psychological ills that may come to animals that are taken out of the wild and brought into captivity. For example, we have seen cases involving whales in Vancouver that have captured the attention of many.

There are numerous examples and numerous organizations, most obviously the SPCA, that go to great lengths to ensure that animals are treated with kindness, care, love and affection. We certainly count ourselves in the Progressive Conservative Party with those who want to protect animals and want to ensure that we have strict guidelines as to how animals are treated and how animals are cared for; on the flip side of that equation how those who transgress against the rules of fair treatment are responded to in a fair and firm way.

Yet we in the Progressive Conservative Party have real concerns about the wording. As is very often the case, the devil is in the detail. The legislation accomplishes those laudable goals of permitting the courts to respond in a more heavy-handed way in meting out punishment that embraces those long standing principles of general and specific deterrents. General deterrents for the public often involves making an example of an individual who chooses to display aggression and cruelty toward animals.

However this legislation takes the issue of animals, which have been defined as property in the criminal code, and creates an entirely new section which opens up a huge chasm for abuse of prosecution of individuals who engage in what I would consider very legitimate acts toward animals in the use of animals in a business sense, whether it be in farming, animal husbandry of any sort, fishing and furriers who very often keep animals for that purpose. Although many might find that offensive, what I fear is, as we have seen in many issues that come before the House, there is a real division in the way Canadians view this in rural and urban Canada.

We cannot deny the fact that we have a frontier pioneer background in this country. There are many individuals who grew up on farms in a rural setting and relied on animals for food, for transportation and for their very existence. To that end however, there is a sad reality that that use in the eyes of those who may be sheltered, who may live in a more urban setting and do not believe that animals should be consumed for any purpose or used in any way that might be deemed as different than the way we would treat another human being is not the case.

I fear that this proposed law brings into question some of those practices that have long been exercised in this country and from which some people shy away. They may not like to talk about it, but I am speaking about castration of animals, dehorning animals, butchering of animals and the way some animals are kept. There is a very subjective line that exists in the way in which those exercises are practised. Surely there is a standard of care that has to be applied but by removing animals from the property section there is a real potential for danger in opening up prosecutions which are unfair, unwieldy, will result in lengthy court cases and will result, in a business sense, in putting individuals who rely upon animals for their very existence at risk.

We can all agree that the litigation route when it is chosen, whether it be in a criminal sense or civil litigation or a family matter, results in lengthy and costly delay. It is the exception sadly, not the rule, where a case proceeds quickly through the courts and is settled in a fashion that is advantageous and acceptable to any party. When people come into conflict and it gets to the point where it goes to court, there is a cost to be paid regardless of the outcome.

Many who rely on animals in this day and age, particularly in the agriculture sector, do not have the time nor the money to engage in the protracted legal hearings that would be encouraged as a result of the changes envisioned in the act.

As we have seen time and again when legislation is presented before the House, the government chooses to bring forward cumbersome bills called omnibus bills which mix issues. Bill C-15B in its present form has been separated from a larger bill that contained no less than seven subject matters. However much to our dismay it still contains changes to the firearms regulation.

I will speak only momentarily to the Firearms Act because it is clear and on the record where the Progressive Conservative Party stands. The Firearms Act was sold to the Canadian people as a way to help enhance policing and public safety. That is nonsense. The act was supposed to cost $85 million. It has ballooned to almost $800 million. The money should be spent on frontline policing on a priority basis where it could be utilized in a significant way to protect the public.

The cumbersome, unenforceable, protracted legislation involving firearms will not work because it is based on the premise of voluntary participation. I will say it again: The Hells Angels are not lining up kiosks at the mall to register their illegal guns. It will not happen.

All the effort, public spin and costs associated with publicizing the government's effort have been a complete and utter sham. My hon. friend from Yorkton--Melville has put great efforts into educating the public about the other side of the coin, which I would call the truth, about the real effects of long gun registry.

No one is against gun control. There is not one member of parliament or law-abiding Canadian who is against gun control. Gun control means safe storage, locks, and knowing that individuals who handle guns are trained and competent to do so.

Those who use guns for criminal purposes will not voluntarily provide information about their weapons of choice. It is like suggesting criminals will voluntarily give fingerprints and DNA samples before they go out and commit crimes. They will not do it. It is a completely false premise upon which gun registry has been sold and presented by the Liberal government to the Canadian public.

These two incongruous pieces of legislation have been presented to the House of Commons with one purpose in mind: to force parties like the Progressive Conservative Party and others to vote against bills they support in part because they strongly oppose other elements of them. That is sad. It is playing politics at its worst. It divides intelligent and informed debate. It puts individuals in an uncomfortable position.

The previous bill had elements of protection for children that would help police track those who present pornography on the Internet. Luckily, and to everyone's benefit, the bill was divided. It will be back before the House potentially this week. We will be speaking in support of the bill which also includes stronger penalties for those who stalk and criminally harass individuals. Senator Oliver in the other place did tremendous work in bringing that issue to the floor of the House and to the other place.

We in our party support Bill C-15B in its spirit and intent. Yet while legislation is necessary to prevent needless cruelty toward animals the traditional practices of hunting, fishing and farming do not fit into the category of intentional and mean-spirited violence.

There is a blurring of lines when legislation takes animals out of the property section. This may seem somewhat harsh to some Canadians but I believe animals benefit by being seen as property. Regarding animals as the property of either individuals or the state benefits the animals by enabling and obliging someone or some entity, be it the government or an organization, to care for them when needed.

It is important that animal cruelty legislation clearly define and target those who engage in brutal actions against animals, just as it is important for gun control legislation to target individuals who cause harm by perpetrating crimes against animals or society involving firearms. Let us make that the focal point. Let us bring about legislation that will bring in harsher penalties, greater lengths of probation, and treatment to deter individuals. That is where our efforts should be expended.

When one considers the genuine need for clear and progressive legislation in the area it is the government that is being negligent by bringing forward Bill C-15B and stubbornly refusing to listen to stakeholders. It is one thing to have a committee that gives stakeholders such as farmers, fishermen and individuals who work daily with animals a hearing and an opportunity to come forward and speak. It is another thing altogether to listen to them and produce legislation that encapsulates and speaks to their concerns. It is obvious Bill C-15B has not given proper consideration to those who would be most affected by it: the law-abiding individuals who care for animals and do their utmost to ensure they are protected.

In the final analysis Bill C-15B would give judges the ability to mete out greater sentences and come down hard on those who are convicted. Many will argue that taking animals out of the property section would allow for more private prosecutions and allow prosecutions to proceed without the animals' owners. However that can already happen.

The shortcomings of the current legislation are reflected in the fact that there are scarce resources for police today. This can be tied back into the priority spending of firearms registration. Some $800 million is going into a registration scheme that is doomed to fail and will collapse under its own cumbersome and unenforceable weight.

Prosecutors and police officers must make priority decisions every day. They currently have the ability to proceed in cases where dogs are dragged behind cars. Puppy mills are still operating in Canada. I brought forward a private member's bill I hope will bring attention to the issue and result in legislation.

It is imperative that we bring in laws that focus the efforts of prosecutors, police and the courts on the perpetrators who cause the harm, not on innocent bystanders in whose interest it is to protect animals and see to their health, safety and well-being.

I am left with a great deal of frustration when I see the bill proceeding in its current form. It would be reckless to pass it in its current form. Sadly, even though we support the elements that would increase fines, periods of incarceration and bans on ownership of animals we cannot stand in support of Bill C-15. Although its intentions are noble and it contains elements we support, too much harm could result in the community, in rural Canada and in industries that rely on interaction with animals for their livelihoods.

Criminal Code

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to Bill C-208 introduced by the hon. member for Jonquière. Bill C-208 proposes amendments to the criminal code as a means of protecting child victims of sexual offences.

The first of these amendments is a reclassification of certain sexual offences from hybrid offences, which may be prosecuted either summarily or by indictment, to indictable offences. The bill also seeks to impose graduated mandatory minimum sentences for the offences of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching of a person under the age of 14. Finally, offenders convicted of any of the sexual offences listed in the bill, including sexual assault against adult or child victims, must undergo mandatory treatment.

I would like to indicate at the outset that the government is committed to work to safeguard Canadian children and to protect them from all forms of sexual exploitation. However, we do not believe that the proposed amendments to the criminal code are the appropriate means of achieving those goals.

First, the reclassification of these offences from hybrid to indictable is problematic as they are intended to cover a broad array of fact situations which range from minor offences to more serious matters. It would be inappropriate to mandate that the less serious offences which are covered by these criminal code provisions be prosecuted as indictable offences.

In addition, proceeding by indictment is a more lengthy and formal procedure which places additional burdens on child victims who may be required to testify at both a preliminary inquiry and at the trial.

With respect to the use of mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offenders, we must be mindful that their use in Canada is limited. Only 29 offences in the criminal code carry mandatory minimum penalties. A recent evaluation of the research in this area in the Department of Justice provides little support for any initiatives to expand the use of mandatory minimum penalties in Canadian law.

The evidence indicates that mandatory penalties in general are not effective in deterring crime and have many unintended harmful consequences in the criminal justice system, such as dramatically increased costs due to more and longer trials, fewer guilty pleas, and increased numbers in remand custody. In short, it is not clear that mandating such penalties would meet the goal of Bill C-208, which is to protect children from sexual offenders.

The use of mandatory treatment programs for all offenders convicted of one of the sexual offences listed in Bill C-208 raises issues of capacity and costs.

The House will note that the offence of sexual assault is included in Bill C-208. This is an offence which covers a broad range of behaviour and which applies to both adult and child victims. Consequently, the offenders prosecuted under this and other listed offences would present a diversity of treatment needs so that a variety of programs would have to be developed.

Additionally, the bill is inconsistent in its approach as it only proscribes treatment for offenders convicted of certain sexual offences while omitting others, including more serious sexual assaults.

Any reforms concerning the protection of children from sexual offences are best addressed in the context of an ongoing comprehensive review of the criminal law dealing with child victims, which is currently under way in the Department of Justice.

In November 1999 the department launched a consultation and review of the criminal law to assess the need for reforms addressing child specific offences, sentencing to prevent reoffending against children, facilitating child victim/witness testimony, and the age of consent to sexual activity.

The project is examining whether criminal code reforms are required to ensure that the serious nature of any offence against children is reflected adequately in general sentencing principles, aggravating mitigating factors, sentencing options, and how to better protect children from known sex offenders. The results of the consultation were recently presented to the Minister of Justice and to his federal, provincial and territorial counterparts at their meeting in February. They have directed federal, provincial and territorial senior officials to develop follow-up options for their consideration.

Before concluding I would like to remind the House that the government has taken and continues to take many other important steps to better protect children from sexual exploitation. For example, on November 10 last year, Canada signed the United Nations optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child, on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. This step exemplifies Canada's strong commitment to better protect children against sexual exploitation in the international context.

As well, on March 14 last year the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-15, which proposed criminal code amendments that would better protect children from sexual exploitation. The bill included the creation of the following offences: using the Internet to lure and exploit children for sexual purposes; and transmitting, making available, exporting and intentionally accessing child pornography on the Internet. The bill also simplified the process for the prosecution of Canadians who sexually assault children while abroad.

These reforms are now in Bill C-15A. I am pleased to note that the bill has now passed third reading in the Senate with three amendments. It is now returning to the House for final consideration of those three amendments.

While we cannot support the member's bill for the reasons I have outlined in my remarks, let me state that the government, like the hon. member for Jonquière, is very concerned, as are all Canadians, about sexual offences against children. This is why the government will spare no effort in order to protect Canadian children from such offences.

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the members who spoke before me. It seems to me that the heart of the matter is the way people regard the change in the status of animals as a result of Bill C-15B. For the first time the treatment of animals and the whole question of cruelty to animals is being taken out of the property section of the criminal code and put into an entirely new section of the criminal code. This is the source of concern on the part of at least three of the opposition parties.

The New Democratic Party sees this change in the status of animals as one of the things that is good about the bill. Getting beyond regarding animals as simply property is a conceptual and philosophical advance. We are not opposed to that. In fact that is one of the things we celebrated about Bill C-15B along with a lot of other people.

We join with those who feel that amendments to the criminal code with respect to increasing penalties for cruelty animals is long overdue. I hope the Bloc would share our view on that even though it appears it has decided to oppose the bill.

I listened with care to the critic from the Alliance. He expressed a lot of concerns that I know are out there in the community of fishermen, farmers, hunters, trappers, people who use animals for medical research purposes, people who grow animals for food, et cetera. They all have a concern that the legislation would somehow be used to harass them and to make their life miserable.

People who have what one might arguably call a radical animal rights agenda could use the legislation in ways that it was not intended, not intended by the government, and not intended by the NDP in supporting the legislation. If the legislation were to become a tool by which people engaged in those kind of activities were harassed then I for one would be quick to come back to the government and say that we were wrong on this. I would argue that the protections built into Bill C-15B to prevent that kind of harassment were not working and that we must do something to protect the legitimate interests and activities of people who grow animals for food or people who were engaged in fishing, hunting, research, et cetera. I would certainly share those concerns.

I must say I do not know why the government was not more open in the drafting of the legislation to giving the kind of discretion to the provincial attorneys general that some people argue should be in there.

On the other hand the Alliance critic, the member for Provencher, seems to think that there would never be any political agenda if only it were left in the hands of the attorney general. I would regard this argument as somewhat suspect. I can imagine the member for Provencher in other contexts accusing a particular provincial attorney general of having a political agenda with respect to enforcement of certain laws having to do with social policy or whatever.

It would not be a guarantee to me, if the power that is sometimes vested in attorneys general was left with attorneys general with respect to the enforcement of these new offences, that somehow farmers and fishermen and others would be protected. It is conceivable that we could have an attorney general with a radical animal rights agenda in which case there would be no protection. In fact, there might even be less protection. There might even be instructions to crown prosecutors or others to go after everybody they possibly could. The argument from the Alliance critic is somewhat one-sided in that respect.

In some ways the response of the Alliance to Bill C-15B and the radical animal rights activists are sort of mere images of each other. They both attribute extremist motivations and intentions to each other. We saw that clearly this afternoon and that is unfortunate. I do not think that has contributed to the kind of debate that we could have had about Bill C-15B.

I regret that the hoist motion has been moved by the Alliance critic because that means that this debate will drag on further than it ought to. The time has come for this legislation to be passed, tested and practised, and if found wanting, if found to be a source of illegitimate harassment of people who are involved in various legitimate activities then let us have the legislation back.

Bill C-15B does not have to be the last word on it. I have seen other legislation passed through the House and come back in a few years time to be corrected. I have also seen legislation that does not come back. We all have a political responsibility to ensure that if in some way or another the bill does not live up to expectations, or for that matter if it does live up to the negative expectations of certain people, we will need to come back and correct it.

We feel that the bill is worthy of passage as it stands now. We would like to see the bill passed as soon as possible; we see this as progress. We are willing in future to review whether or not some of the fears that have been expressed about the bill have come to pass and if they have we would be willing to review it.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present the position of the Bloc Quebecois and to share the views expressed by numerous stakeholders regarding this issue, which has been neglected for too long. My presentation will be divided into two parts. First, I will deal with the provisions on animal cruelty and, second, I will discuss the provisions concerning the Firearms Act.

It goes without saying that animal cruelty is a very important issue that must be closely examined by this House. Bill C-15B, which is the result of the splitting of Bill C-15, amends the criminal code by creating a new part exclusively dedicated to protecting animals and preventing animal cruelty. This is part V.1.

The criminal code is amended to increase penalties for offences related to cruelty to animals. I am referring to clause 8 of the bill, which amends the criminal code by adding clause 182.1 and the clauses that follow it.

This bill also amends the Firearms Act to modernize administrative procedures and to give more powers to the registrar of firearms, which results in decreased powers for the chief firearms officer, who currently falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. I will discuss this issue a little later on.

The federal government reacted favourably to a public campaign, to hundreds of letters and thousands of signatures from people who were asking for more effective animal protection legislation, and for harsher penalties for any act of cruelty involving animals.

Most of the of criminal code provisions dealing with cruelty to animals date back to the end of the 19th century. Modern associations and groups, whose numbers are growing and which are increasingly better organized, demanded that the scope, types and harshness of penalties be reviewed and increased. The idea was ultimately to have a more modern and broader notion of cruelty to animals. The federal government took advantage of this considerable support to introduce a bill reforming the part of the criminal code that deals with cruelty to animals.

Since its introduction, Bill C-15B has given rise to strong reactions and conflicting interests. Initially, the Bloc Quebecois supported several elements of the bill, including the creation of a new part in the criminal code, which would see the transfer of provisions related to animals from part XI of the code dealing with property crimes to this new part. However, the Bloc Quebecois can no longer support the bill, because it does not protect, among others, the legitimate activities of breeders, farmers, researchers, hunters and so on.

The purpose of this bill is to have more adequate means to deal with offenders who commit cruel and reprehensible acts against animals. The purpose of this reform is to protect animals, which we obviously support.

However, here is why we cannot support the bill as it stands. The then Minister of Justice as well as government officials claimed that the bill would not deprive the animal industry of its revenues,

We have to question the true intention of the federal government, since it has decided to reject the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois asking that the means of defence in article 429 of the criminal code be added explicitly—I repeat, explicitly—to the bill so as to reassure the animal, farming, medical and sports industry regarding any risk of frivolous action. Because this has not been done, we cannot support this bill.

The Department of Justice simply preferred to amend the bill by adding the general defences in paragraph 8(3) of the criminal code. All that this amendment does is add to the bill a defence that is universally applicable. What we wanted was the specific addition of the means of defence in section 429.

What is the reason for not explicitly including these defences when a dummy amendment is being created to add clause 8(3)? The Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments specifically aimed at having the means of defence in section 429 of the criminal code added explicitly to new part V.1 of the criminal code.

The Minister of Justice and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights rejected the Bloc Quebecois' amendments, which would have explicitly added as a defence acting with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

The Bloc Quebecois would clearly have been in favour of the bill in principle if it could have been amended to reflect the means of defence currently allowed in part XI of the criminal code.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois recommended that the means of defence in section 429 of the criminal code be added explicitly to new part V.1 of the criminal code. All these amendments were turned down in committee.

What exactly is this bill? Bill C-15B contains the present provisions of the criminal code concerning cruelty to animals and adds a number of new provisions.

The problem at present as far as the section of the present code relating to animals is concerned is essentially with the concept of property. Animals being considered at present to be property rather than living things, the penalties and possible recourses are to all intents and purposes minimal.

Enforcement of the legislation as it now stands results only in damages for loss of goods. Another problem raised relates to the lenient sentences. Because sentences are lenient, they encourage repeat offences. Clearly, revision was necessary. This is why animal rights groups have repeatedly called for better protection with respect to cruelty to animals.

I must reiterate that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of increased protection for animals, but only provided there is protection for legitimate activities involving animals, animal husbandry, sport hunting and fishing, and research.

It is not the case with Bill C-15B, since the amendments tabled by the Bloc Quebecois have all been rejected. It is very important that we analyze the provisions of this bill to understand it fully. The logical place to start would therefore be with the definition. The bill contains a very broad definition of animal, which it describes as “a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain”.

This is what new section 182.1, in the new part V.1 of the criminal code, states. This is an example of a final change. Not only are animals moved from the property section, but this amendment also shows how animals will be viewed in the criminal from now on, that is as creatures that can experience pain.

I will come back later to the problem created by the introduction of the notion of pain in this part of the criminal code. The concerns of stakeholders in the animal industry are legitimate, very much so. Could a farmer who deliberately poisons a rat, which is a vertebrate, be convicted under section 182.1 of the criminal code or clause 8 of the bill? Would he be liable to the maximum sentence of five years imprisonment?

On the other hand, I want to make it clear that the bill does not define the notion of killing an animal without lawful excuse, in section 182.2(1)( c ). I wonder if a hunter who kills an animal without lawful excuse could receive a sentence of five years imprisonment.

Similarly, Bill C-15B could cause problems, particularly for breeders and the entire sport hunting industry in Quebec, as well as for medical and scientific researchers.

I believe that a better balance between these two opposing interests could have been struck. This did not happen, the amendments that the Bloc Quebecois proposed in an attempt to do so were all rejected in committee.

During the committee meetings, justice officials said that activities that were legitimately recognized would be recognized after the bill had been passed. We are skeptical. What is more, a number of witnesses appearing before the committee mentioned that there is an obvious lack of resources to enforce the criminal code effectively and appropriately when it comes to cruelty to animals.

Let me come back to the problems surrounding the notion of pain. This notion is not clearly defined, the Bloc Quebecois fears that the crown may not be able to prove which animals can feel pain other than by resorting to expert opinions. As well, once they have taken this first step, the crown may well have to meet twice the burden of proof because it will be required to prove, again by expert opinion, that not only is the animal in question able to feel pain, but that it did indeed feel pain.

The Bloc Quebecois also fears that there may be unjustified legal proceedings, which will create significant costs, not only for the Crown, but particularly for animal husbandry, sport hunting, research and other sectors, related to all of the expert opinions required to demonstrate the notion of pain, and pain that was in fact felt.

After this examination of the definition, I would now like to examine the clauses of the bill. Clause 182.2(1) lists the acts towards animals that would lead to criminal responsibility if committed by a person who does so wilfully or recklessly.

Paragraphs ( a ) through ( d ) do not provide for all means of defence as found in part XI of the criminal code. Paragraphs ( c ) and ( d ) do provide the protection of lawful excuse, but not the others.

As such, paragraph ( a ) of clause 182.2(1) refers to causing or, if you are the owner, permitting to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal. Paragraph ( b ) of the same clause refers to killing an animal brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately, or if you are the owner, permitting an animal to be killed in this way.

I bring to your attention clause 182.2(1)( c ), which provides a defence for someone who kills an animal without lawful excuse. Clause 182.2(10( d ) says that it is unlawful to poison ananimal, place poison in such a position thatit may easily be consumed by an animal,administer an injurious drug or substanceto an animal or, being the owner, permitanyone to do any of those things.

I emphasize that it would have been appropriate to amend the preamble of clause 182.2(1) to include the concept of lawful justification, excuse or colour of right for the first parts. With the amendments the Bloc Quebecois introduced, parts ( e ) and ( h ) would not be afforded the defences provided for under part XI of the criminal code.

It should be noted that we moved an amendment providing for an exception for hunting with hounds or for the roue du roi under clause 182.2( g ). This amendment was voted down in committee as well.

We agree with the intent of those clauses making illegal all activities concerning the fighting or baiting of animals, includingtraining an animal to fight another animal, under clause 182.2(1)( e ).

We also agree with the provisions in paragraph 182.2(1) ( f ) which would make it an offence to build or maintain a cockpit or any other arena for the fighting of animals on premises that a person owns or occupies, and those in paragraph 182.2(1)( g ) having to do with activities at which captive animals are liberated for the purpose of being shot at the moment they are liberated, with the exception of the exemption proposed with respect to hunting with hounds and the roue du roi.

We are also in agreement with paragraph 182.2(1)( h ) which has to do with the owner, occupier or person in charge of any premises permitting the premises or any part of the premises to be used in the course of an activity referred to in paragraph ( e ), fighting or baiting, or paragraph ( g ), captive animals being liberated for the purpose of being shot at, with the exception of the exemption proposed with respect to hunting with hounds and the roue du roi.

New paragraph 182.2(2) sets out the sentences for the above offences. These are hybrid offences liable on conviction by way of indictment to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months. The government added a fine to the sentence.

I wish to say at this point that we are in favour of increasing sentences. But the police must be able to make the charges stick. We think, therefore, that consideration must be given to the fact that the police do not necessarily have adequate resources to deal with complaints of cruelty to animals.

In addition, we think that it would be advisable to make the police and the courts more aware of this scourge. We realized this in committee, when police associations appeared before us to say that everything was fine. In fact, they were there solely to address the firearms provisions.

I must point out that representatives of animal defence groups have repeatedly told us that very few complaints lead to charges and that almost no charges result in a sentence. The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that this aspect of the problem of cruelty to animals is vital to finding a solution. The necessary resources must be made available.

I will now look at the defences which should be part of the bill.

We believe that adding a new section to the criminal code will have the effect of moving animals to a section of their own, which in itself is desirable. However, we cannot support it because the defences available under section 429 of the criminal code, under part XI of the criminal code, dealing with property offenses, are not being transferred to the new part V.1.

The defences proposed in Bill C-15B are central to our concerns. The fact that the means of defence are not included in the new part V.1 will certainly result in those who legitimately and legally kill animals or cause them pain being deprived of the protection currently afforded them under subsection 429(2) of the criminal code.

Moving such provision would ensure lawful justification, excuse or colour of right. It is so at present. Why then not provide for it in Bill C-15B?

Subsection 429(2) of the criminal code reads as follows:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 446 where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

While Bill C-15B includes the concept of lawful excuse for certain offences, as well as the common law defences in subsection 8(3) of the criminal code, it is still not enough because these provisions only apply to offences under paragraphs 182.1 ( c ) and ( d ) and are definitely not as general as the existing provisions.

However, the Minister of Justice, the Deputy Minister of Justice and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice saw fit to amend the bill stating that section 8(3) of the criminal code would apply and that the defences of legal justification or excuse or colour of right would be implicit. The Bloc Quebecois has grave reservations in this regard.

What is colour of right? In R. v. Ninos and Walker [1964] C.C.C. 326, the court stated that the accused must show that he had an honest belief in a state of facts which, if it existed, would constitute legal justification or excuse.

The colour of right defence is based on the honest and subjestive belief of the accused that at the time of the offence there was colour or right. It is based on a belief in a set of circumstances or a situation of civil law which, if it existed, would negate the wilful intent to commit the offence.

Even if the belief does not need to be reasonable, the fact is that it is a factor to be taken into consideration in determining whether such a belief. However, it is not enough for the accused to have an amoral belief in the colour of right.

The colour of right applies to errors of facts or errors in law and is not limited to areas of the law concerning proprietory interest or ownership right.

And what about legal justification or excuse? It is defined as a defence allowing someone accused of a criminal offence to be acquitted or get a reduced sentence because of circumstances surrounding the action in question.

I would stress that these defences are provided for under section 429 of the criminal code and allow legal activities that otherwise would be considered criminal.

Furthermore, section 8 of the criminal code states that common law defences render a circumstance a justification or excuse. According to the government, it would appear that the rules of common law are still in force, but this same government has chosen to reaffirm it in the new part of the criminal code, namely part V. 1.

The Bloc Quebecois has serious misgivings about this. On the one hand, legal experts tell us that defences provided for under section 8(3) of the criminal code apply all the time and, on the other hand, the government chose to include them explicitly in its bill. We question the appropriateness of this approach.

Let me explain. On the one hand, the department tells us that the defences now being used under section 429 of the criminal code, which apply only to that part of the code, will not be included in the new part of the legislation dealing exclusively with cruelty to animals. Representatives of the Department of Justice stated that these defences apply implicitly, so it is not necessary to spell them out.

On the other hand, the department has chosen to repeat the defences mentioned in section 8(3) of the criminal code, which apply to all of the code. Why do this if the defences automatically apply to the entire code?

I continue to wonder about this, because I want to know why the government has decided not to include some specific clauses that apply exclusively to one specific part of the code in another specific part of the legislation.

There is a principle in law whereby the legislator is not deemed to speak in vain. Therefore, if a general clause applies to the whole of a text, one has to conclude that a specific clause will only apply to a specific part of the text.

After all, if section 429 applies only to part XI of the criminal code, we would be mistaken in saying that it will also apply to another part of the code; that is why we must set out explicitly the defences mentioned in the new part V.1. That is what our amendments would have done.

A first common law defence provided under section 8(3) of the criminal code is that of necessity. The three evaluation elements for this defence are: first, the existence of an imminent danger or peril; second, the absence of reasonable legal alternative and, third, the proportionality between the harm caused and the harm avoided.

A second defence is the inducement to commit an offence, or police provocation. This defence may be used when, during the course of a criminal investigation, peace officers provide an opportunity to commit an offence, in the absence of a reasonable doubt that such an offence would be committed.

Intoxication is another defence. If the intoxication is induced by the accused himself, it is not a defence. However, it can be a defence for a crime of general intent, if the intoxication is such that it is not associated with a reasonable person. Finally, we all know the defence known as an alibi, where the accused endeavors to prove that he was in a different place when the offence was committed.

The Bloc Quebecois understands that the population as a whole is very attached to the moral principle of ensuring the wellbeing of animals. Many of us are concerned about this issue and feel that animals should be better protected from illegal and criminal behaviour affecting them.

A growing number of Quebecers and Canadians have been calling for tougher penalties against those who are cruel to animals.

As for us, we believe that it is just as important that judges, crown attorneys and special agents from the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals be empowered to impose penalties on those whom they find guilty of committing such offences. It is obvious that authorities lack the resources to examine complaints and deal with them in an appropriate fashion.

This is the substance of the evidence heard in committee. It was also reported that many studies confirm the existence of a close connection between cruelty to animals and aggressive criminal behaviour. Therefore, it appears that imposing harsher penalties on those who are cruel to animals could help prevent violent crimes against people.

Animal rights organizations are demanding increased protection against animal cruelty and more recourses. A majority of people agree and feel that it is essential to recognize animals as living beings.

It was also mentioned that the criminal code does not adequately cover cruelty to animals offences. Sections 444 to 447 of the criminal code were passed in 1892 and minor amendments made in 1954. The wording is obsolete and, in many cases, does not help in protecting animals forced to endure suffering and unnecessary wounds or wilfully deprived of essential care.

Again, a high proportion of serious criminal offences against animals do not result in sufficiently stiff sentences. This is what we should be focusing on.

I repeat, we must make the police, judges and crown attorneys more aware of this scourge so that it is no longer seen as an offence against property. We wish to emphasize that our reservations about this bill have to do with the potential threat to the conduct of legitimate activities.

The proposed amendments to Bill C-15B have to do with acts of cruelty committed wilfully. Department of Justice officials tell us that the bill will in no way change how the act is applied to existing legal activities involving animals and this is where we are not in agreement.

We think that the existing accepted practices of companies using animals must continue to be expressly protected by the fundamental criminal laws now in effect.

The Bloc Quebecois therefore believes that it is necessary to protect animals and not to consider them as property. Thus, part XI of the criminal code, which has to do with crimes against animals, was quite rightly included in Bill C-15B. Persons with animals in their care have an obligation to meet their basic needs and not to wilfully or recklessly cause them unnecessary pain, suffering or injury.

We believe that the shortcomings in the current legislation should have been corrected long ago. However, it appears obvious that the vital corrections to some of these shortcomings have still not been made.

We have heard from the witnesses and we can conclude that those who are directly or indirectly involved in the animal industry feel that this bill is unacceptable as now drafted. For the vast majority of them, the new provisions may well increase the possibility of legal action being taken against those who work in the industry or who engage in recreational activities such as hunting and fishing.

The demands by the chicken protection coalition clearly illustrate the concerns raised by Bill C-15B. This organization called upon the federal government to amend Bill C-15B so that livestock producers would retain the legal protection they enjoy at the present time and be able to continue to exercise their legitimate profession without any risk of complaints or charges. All of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois relating to this were turned down by the committee.

There are two issues that provoked a reaction from chicken farmers, but that also reflect the concerns of livestock industry groups. According to these groups, there may well be serious consequences for the poultry industry and for all livestock industries.

I would now like to share with the House our concerns regarding this bill in terms of amendments to the Firearms Act.

We believe that the purpose of this bill is basically to take away a number of powers and responsibilities of the chief firearms officer, now under the jurisdiction of the government of Quebec.

Since the gun registration scheme was first introduced, the government of Quebec has set up agencies responsible for issuing permits, the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec.

Now Bill C-15B is creating a new position, the firearms commissioner. This will have the effect of diminishing the powers currently under the responsibility of the chief firearms officer who reports to the Government of Quebec.

We are justifiably concerned that, with these new provisions, all powers delegated to Quebec will end up back under federal government control, and the entire organization already set up by the Government of Quebec will be swallowed up.

At the present time, there are two entities involved in firearms control. The director is in charge of firearms registration, and reports to the federal government, while the chief firearms officer, who is responsible for issuing permits, reports to the Government of Quebec. This bill turns that arrangement topsy-turvy.

When the gun control legislation was being implemented, the Government of Quebec worked in close collaboration with the Canadian government, sharing its expertise on firearms and firearm control.

However, the new provisions limit the powers that had been delegated to Quebec and repatriate them to the control of the federal government. This is one more reason for our opposition to this bill. It is tantamount to a reversal of the partnership that was in place between the federal government and the Government of Quebec concerning the Firearms Act.

In our opinion, the ultimate goal of this bill is the creation of a federal gun control agency, one that would eventually be privatized, and thus to do away with everything coming under Quebec jurisdiction, either by cutting back the powers of the firearms commissioner, or by drastically cutting the funding to the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec.

The Bloc Quebecois also has some misgivings about the non-definition of the powers of the firearms commissioner. This is left to be defined as the Minister of Justice sees fit.

The proposed amendments make major changes to the administration of the Firearms Act, including the provisions on the financial participation of the federal government. Through this bill, the federal government is essentially seeking to reduce the costs associated with the administration of the act. To this end, this bill will give the government the power to centralize administrative activities and to close offices if it so desires.

There is also a problem with the proposed amendment dealing with air guns. As it is worded now, this provision is likely to create confusion because of the double negative in the French version.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois proposed that this provision be reworded to dispel any confusion by amending clause 2(2) of the bill to separate the elements listed. The amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois to eliminate the double negative in the French version was rejected in committee. The Bloc Quebecois wanted to clarify this provision in order to eliminate any risk of hardship for paintball game operators.

In conclusion, because the bill is poorly drafted and because the government rejected our amendments aimed at protecting the defences provided for the animal industry, the Bloc Quebecois has no choice but to oppose this bill. We proposed something that would have been acceptable for both parties, particularly for those who, like us, want to protect animals. The Bloc Quebecois also wants to protect defences provided for the animal industry, scientists and of those who engage in sports involving animals.

This bill does not explicitly protect the legitimate activities associated with the animal industry, with sport hunting and with research. Of course, we are against this bill because it takes away the powers of the Government of Quebec with regard to enforcement of the provisions of the Firearms Act.