Bill C-15 (Historical)

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

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

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre.

Today we are debating Bill C-15, the omnibus bill involving many amendments to different sections of the criminal code. The sections of the criminal code to be amended are unrelated and cause all kinds of problems for individual members who want to support changes but not others.

An unrelated example is the cruelty to animals section, which is a very major issue of concern to everyone. It is totally unrelated to pornography, the Internet and sexual predation on children. It is also unrelated to the changes proposed to the gun legislation.

I want to emphasize right off the bat that this is totally unfair. It is not right for the government to be bring the omnibus bill forward as members like myself, who represent an agricultural riding and the livestock industry, will be harmed if the legislation goes through.

I would like to point out that the continuous attack on the livestock industry, and agriculture generally, with the proposed regulatory and legislative changes compounds a difficult situation that many farmers find themselves in due to weather, with the drought this year, and low commodity prices. Farmers switch commodities, from grain to cattle and back and forth. The government should allow our farming sector to be secure. The government should allow farmers to have a business plan that will work and one that will not be hindered by poor legislation. The changes to the section in the criminal code dealing with cruelty to animals are doing that.

I am a cattle rancher. Every farmer and every rancher is 100% opposed to any kind of cruelty to any animal. Farmers, ranchers and people who live off the land are going to take more care and be more concerned than anyone else in Canada when it comes to things like nature and the general environment.

With the variety of opinions today about animal rights among the population, for livestock producers to have a competent business plan that financially works for them, they have to be assured that they will be free from litigation that could be brought against them.

In the case of the cruelty to animals section, we would like an exemption to the definition that animals feel pain. We all know that. However the definition leaves it open for individuals to complain to police and the government and to proceed with private prosecutions because in their opinion branding an animal or putting an ear tag into an animal's ear constitutes cruelty to animals. When this gets to court, the court will consider what the intentions of parliament were.

The way Bill C-15 is now written with regard to the cruelty to animals section, the courts could interpret that branding and ear tags constitute cruelty to animals. The minister has assured us that this is not the case and that it is not the intention of this legislation.

I will not try to refer to other cases in the past where the supreme court went against what I perceived was the intention of parliament. Needless to say that is a distinct possibility. However, the minister has assured us that this is not the case.

The farm groups, myself and the Canadian Alliance are saying that if this is clearly the intention of parliament, what is wrong with retaining cruelty to animals in that area of section 429 of the criminal code? The protection under section 429, which deals with legal justification and colour of right when acting within the scope of normal practices, protects livestock producers. I and the lobby groups I have talked to clearly feel that if that was put in there it would allay virtually every fear that they have with regard to being harassed with allegations of animal cruelty.

That is probably the biggest problem I have with Bill C-15. I say that because I am the chief critic for agriculture. As a result, I am disregarding the other aspects of Bill C-15 to emphasize to the House and to make it clear to any subsequent court that may look at the speeches of today that the intention of parliament is clearly not to extend the definition of cruelty to animals to any farming practice. That is the outcome of this.

The other issue I would quickly like to deal with is the firearms section. I will go back to day one when Kim Campbell, the former Conservative prime minister, started this whole blasted business over the registration of hand guns, which I have supported for a long time. I support the basic idea that people should be checked out before they get a hand gun licence or acquire a firearm. However, the firearms legislation went far beyond what was reasonable and sensible.

Now under Bill C-15, the government is still trying to make it more acceptable and easier. It knows it is a big mess, so it is trying to expedite the acquiring of licences.

In Manitoba and Saskatchewan conservation officers have said they will not enforce any of the provisions of the Firearms Act because obviously it is such a mess that people have not been able to get licences.

That brings me to another point. Manitoba Premier Gary Doer and the NDP said during the last election that they would not use any provincial resources to have the Firearms Act implemented. Now they are using conservation officers, and will be in the future, to check licences. If somebody does not have a licence, I am sure they will lay charges. I wish they would live up to their promise and with more effort try to have the Firearms Act not drain Manitoba tax dollars.

In conclusion, I would emphasize one last time that when the bill goes to committee, the minister has to accept that legal justification under subsection 429(2) of the criminal code should be retained and replaced in any new legislation so that farmers, ranchers, chicken producers and dairy farmers will feel they can continue with their livelihoods and enrich every Canadian.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, further to what I was saying at the beginning of my speech, there is agreement that the criminal code needs modernizing, but not at any price.

Bill C-15, particularly the portion relating to animal cruelty, contains amendments we consider an enrichment, indeed a necessary one, in order to ensure that animals are protected. I have, moreover, referred to this in the first part of my speech.

It does, however, also contain some aberrations that have negative impact, particularly for individuals and businesses raising animals for the purposes of consumption, people whose business this is, whose living this is, and who expect this bill to include the protection they enjoy at the present time under section 11 of the existing criminal code, but which is no longer present in this bill.

Bill C-15 is also prejudicial to the thousands of sports enthusiasts who are liable to be charged because the part relating to animal cruelty contains no exception that would protect them.

We can present a whole set of arguments in support of the absolute necessity for Bill C-15 to be looked at again, amended and reworked.

In Quebec alone, close to 400,000 hunters and one million fishermen will be affected by this bill. These figures demonstrate the heavy economic impact there will be on Quebec. I am certain there are also people in other provinces who hunt and fish, in equal numbers, and there will be economic repercussions there as well.

It is important to remember that in Canada as in Quebec, we have a tradition of hunting and fishing. It is not only native peoples who do so. We do so, and most hunters and fishers are guided by a spirit of wildlife conservation. There are also groups of hunters who use dogs, and this bill affects them considerably.

Quite often, these people assist foundations or provincial wildlife departments in studies to show their respect for wildlife. They are affected, because they will no longer be able to use their hunting dogs. From now on, because of the training, they could be considered to be harassing or mistreating the animals. These people help with animal conservation, because their dogs help them find dead or wounded animals.

Other people use birds, pheasants they raise for hunting. What will they do if they can no longer use them? We need these animals to train the dogs.

The rights and practices of hunting in our society must be taken into account. The provinces do so. They have laws and regulations derived from federal and provincial legislation in hunting matters that contain measures to ban and penalties to do with hunting practices. They are however in contradiction with Bill C-15. The converse is also true. We must be able to alter this bill.

We must be able to amend it significantly, and I am not alone in saying that. I have a document in hand that comes from the law and government division.

This is taken from the Department of Justice website. It is quite clear. It states that we could alleviate the concerns of groups that expect to be affected by this bill. It mentions, in particular, hunters and trappers, who fear that some of their acts may lead to prosecution.

It states quite plainly that the legislation needs to be reworked. It lists exceptions to acts that would be considered criminal. These include not only hunting and trapping. They include:

identification, medical treatment, spaying or neutering; provision of food or other animal products; hunting, trapping, fishing, and other [lawful] sporting activities...; pest, ...control; protection of persons or property; scientific research...; and disciplining or training of an animal.

The opposition parties are not the only ones saying that this bill must absolutely be split, reworked and modified, there is also someone from the federal Department of Justice.

I would like this to be referred to committee, so that it can be studied item by item, in order to come up with legislation that is fair towards everyone and to avoid prosecution and court costs. We cannot tell to what extent our fellow citizens are, or are not, on the same wavelength as us when it comes to the issue of cruelty to animals.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, which, for many reasons, has not received unanimous support. This is an omnibus bill that deals with subjects having to do with criminal law, but which seem to have nothing to do with each other.

For this reason, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to express my support for the motions and proposals presented earlier by our colleagues, to the effect that this bill should have been split.

As far as I am concerned, I would like to speak to the part that will group together current provisions of the criminal code regarding cruelty to animals. This is an extremely important part, which will affect a market and people involved in certain sports, people who are quite concerned about this bill.

The fact that the minister is finally proposing amendments to the criminal code, particularly when it comes to cruelty to animals, is a good thing. It is time, and I believe that people are in favour of such measures. However, this section of the bill in unfair. In our opinion, the minister must give all groups or organizations affected the opportunity to respond.

The part of the bill that addresses cruelty to animals is significant, since a number of studies have clearly demonstrated a marked correlation between cruelty to animals, family violence and violence toward human beings in general. According to some studies, 70% of individuals found guilty of criminal offences had been violent toward animals as children. In all cases, what is involved is an abuse of power over defenceless individuals or animals. Our society cannot condone any abuse of power whatsoever against anyone or anything.

In my opinion, the first step must be to legislate the protection of pet and farm animals. It is estimated that more than 55% of the population owns a domestic animal. More and more, domestic, or pet, animals have come to occupy an important place within Canadian and Quebec homes in recent years. Increasingly, people are adopting animals that become full-fledged members of the family and a source of affection. Seniors are no exception, and increasingly use pets to meet their emotional needs.

This increase in pet ownership, and the fact that they become “people” like any other family member, has generated a huge underground industry worth billions of dollars. Some have made inordinate profits from it. We need only think of the puppy and kitten mills, the dog pounds and attack dog training schools that have generated so many court cases. Lacking any functional legislative and regulatory framework, magistrates end up issuing reprimands with no consequences, and neither the underground industries nor the animal abusers take any heed.

That is why we are in favour of increasing the penalties for individuals or businesses found guilty of animal cruelty. This would be a maximum five-year sentence and a heavier fine.

We would go further still; we would delete the word “maximum” in the phrase “maximum penalty of five years”. If we assume that abusing animals is a form of violence, then there is too much at stake. An individual charged with cruelty to animals should be liable to at least five years in jail. Those found guilty of cruelty to animals cannot be given a chance.

I also wish to draw members' attention to the puppy and kitten mills I mentioned earlier, a form of battery husbandry. These are run by undesirable breeders raising poor-quality animals, often the result of inbreeding, with disastrous consequences, and with no respect for the animal's reproductive cycle or health.

This problem has been repeatedly covered in the newspapers and on television. These animals are in distress, beaten, and underweight, because they receive little or no food. Simply put, they are living in extremely unhealthy conditions.

They are kept in cages that do not allow them to lie down; there are dogs and cats whose paws are deformed because the place in which they are growing is inappropriate. Some animals are chained up outside in extreme temperatures. Some are so sick that, when the Humane Society comes to their rescue, it must put them down because they can no longer be saved.

This is unacceptable and it is the reason we are in favour of a tougher piece of legislation, one with more teeth, to address this problem.

There are also some people for whom the legislation causes problems. This sizable segment of the Canadian population includes producers of animals destined for consumption, as well as hunters, fishers and trappers.

Right now, producers of animals destined for consumption are protected under part XI of the previous legislation, which exempts them from prosecution since their occupation is supplying animals for consumption. But part XI was moved in the new legislation and it has been dropped entirely from Bill C-15. They therefore no longer have the immunity they had under the previous legislation. This is an important legal protection which they need and now enjoy, but which they can no longer invoke under Bill C-15; they are no longer exempt.

I think that clause 182.2(1) of the bill has to be reworked and added to. At the moment it reads as follows:

182.2(1) Every one commits an offence who, wilfully or recklessly

At this point we could add: “and without justification or an excuse in law or appearance of right”.

These people have a vested interest. They provide food for people. They must not be dragged before the law under Bill C-15 for some hair-brained reason, such as killing animals. We must give these people protection and protect legitimate agricultural activities.

Another category of individuals is also oppressed by this bill. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you go hunting or fishing in your rare free moments, but I must say I enjoy these sports a lot. Under Bill C-15, people will be liable to fines and even imprisonment for having wounded or mutilated an animal, be it a night crawler, a worm, a fish, a partridge, a deer or a moose because there are terms and expressions in the bill that are not clear.

Now, the definition of the word animal includes all invertebrates and all vertebrates, be it a partridge, a wild animal or a chicken. They are all in the same boat.

For example, if I wound a partridge while I am hunting and my neighbour finds it, he can take me to court, accusing me of wounding a partridge. At that point, under Bill C-15, I would have to appear in court and would be liable to a fine, even imprisonment. This part of Bill C-15 has to be amended.

There are also some extremely important clauses that provide for the protection of those who hunt with dogs. It is a really agreeable sport enjoyed right across Canada. Over 400,000 hunters hunt with dogs in Canada. These people cannot all be considered as criminals. They have to be protected.

These hunters' dogs are not considered abused. First, a hunting dog is a gentle animal. This type of dog could not be trained to hunt if it were abused. Owners of hunting dogs automatically provide excellent living conditions for their dogs, so that the dogs can be receptive to them and able to do the work asked of them.

Furthermore, hunting dogs help with the protection of wildlife, for the simple reason that if you go hunting, as you have said you do, Mr. Speaker, and you kill a partridge, you will have a hard time finding it in the underbrush, if it is at all dense. However, a hunting dog will be able to find it. The partridge might not be dead. It might be injured, and die later. If I were to leave that partridge in the forest, then I would be showing disrespect for wildlife. In such a case, my hunting dog will retrieve it.

It is important to consider that with Bill C-15, if we do not take this into account, there will be people who will have to give up their sport, and give up protecting certain animals.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to today to participate in the debate on Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts. I really feel as though I am standing to give two or three speeches.

This is an omnibus bill that has some very distinct different pieces of legislation within it. While there are some very good pieces of legislation in the bill, there are some very bad ones. The bill is the good, the bad and the ugly.

Bill C-15 contains a number of amendments which we would like to see and which we would be in favour. Some parts of the legislation were requested by the Canadian Alliance before the House recessed. In fact, the Canadian Alliance requested that this bill be split so we could deal with those pieces of legislation.

We asked for a split in this bill to ensure speedy passage of those amendments dealing with child luring and child pornography over the Internet, leaving the more controversial part, that is the section dealing with cruelty to animals, for further review and debate. Government members voted against our motion. As a result, this summer more children fell prey to sadistic pedophiles, hunting them down via the computer.

In late August the Canadian Security Intelligence Service released its 2001 report. Among many other findings, CSIS said that the Internet provided an easy means for sexual predators to lure potential victims through conversations in chat rooms. The report reads:

Internet chat rooms and web sites dedicated to the sexual exploitation of children enable the collection and dissemination of child pornography at a faster rate than past methods of distribution. Requests for assistance received by law enforcement concerning child pornography on the Internet continues to rise in Canada. The anonymity of the Internet provides opportunities for sexual predators and pedophiles to lure children for sexual purposes.

I will briefly point out that CSIS also found that across this country child prostitution continues to be a threat. We must take every measure possible to protect children in the country and throughout the world. I therefore fully endorse the section of Bill C-15 that makes it easier to prosecute Canadian citizens or permanent residents who sexually abuse while abroad and engage in so-called child sex tourism.

Under the new law, it will not be necessary to obtain a formal request for prosecution from the respective other country. Although I do in theory support such measures, I would be remiss if I did not question the effectiveness of this Canadian measure aimed at eliminating child prostitution throughout the world. I am skeptical about how readily and easily this attempt to bring Canadian citizens to justice can be accomplished through this legislation.

Bill C-27 introduced and passed in the House in 1997 made it an offence for Canadian citizens to engage in sexual relations with children in other countries, an offence for which perpetrators would be prosecuted in Canada. While this bill was before the House, the Canadian Bar Association as well as a number of prominent Canadian lawyers said that although Bill C-27 provided “an admirable statement of principle” it would be virtually impossible to enforce. Alan Young, a criminal law professor at Osgoode Hall said:

We've seen this before with Parliament enacting a law with very little teeth. They've shown good intent but it is just not enforceable law. Think about it. How could it be? How are Canadian authorities going to become informed of these infractions? Any extra-territorial law is going to be fraught with political infractions and be nearly impossible to enforce.

With regard to the Internet, Jay Thomson, president of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, a group that represents about 80 of Canada's largest Internet service providers, welcomed provisions of Bill C-15 saying that it would make life a lot easier for his group by putting the onus on the judges to define what was and what was not child pornography. Once a judge ordered a site or a link deleted, it would be easy for the provider to do so, according to Mr. Thomson.

The new bill would also give judges the ability to order the confiscation of any equipment, including computers, used in the commission of child pornography offences. Judges would also be given range to prohibit convicted makers of child pornography from having contact with children.

As duly noted I am sure, I have spent half the time allotted to me to pour out accolades on this piece of legislation and to provide some bravo to the government for bringing forward some good sections of Bill C-15. I must however turn to the contentious portion of the legislation and be critical of a bill that wants to politicize parliament and be partisan in nature.

I am referring to the section of the bill regarding cruelty to animals, the part of the legislation that has made it impossible for us on this side of the House, especially those of us who represent rural agricultural ridings, to support the bill.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Chicken Farmers of Canada and the Alberta Farm Animal Care Association, to name just a few, have expressed reservations and concerns regarding Bill C-15.

The majority of these groups say that they support the changes made to the cruelty to animal section of the criminal code in the interests of modernizing and increasing penalties to those who would treat the animals with cruelty or undue care. However, as stated by the Alberta Farm Animal Care Association, the bill needs to specifically and clearly articulate the principle that generally accepted practices in the livestock industry fall outside the intent of the legislation.

What these groups are asking is whether the accepted practices in the cattle and chicken industries, which are generally accepted nationwide, fall outside the legislation.

The Chicken Farmers of Canada, representing close to 5,000 farmers in all provinces and in the Northwest Territories, believes it is necessary to protect animals from cruelty, but that the inadequacies found in Bill C-15 are such that they could bring into question the normal and legitimate uses of animals in agriculture. It believes that in its present form, Bill C-15 could cause some very serious consequences for animal agriculture and that there could be some nuisance charges stemming from the lack of clarity and upfront protection with the bill.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association, an organization representing over 100,000 cattle producers in Canada, believes that Bill C-15 will create unwarranted exposure to prosecution of members, other livestock producers, hunters, fishers and medical researchers.

These agricultural organizations are asking that the government leave the animal cruelty provisions in the property section of the criminal code or provide the current upfront legal protections of lawful excuse in section 429(2) by removing the definition of animal or modify it to exclude the phrase “or any animal that can experience pain” and retain the words wilful and wilfully as they currently appear in the relevant offences.

These organizations are only asking that minor changes be made to Bill C-15, changes that will assure that ranchers, farmers and other animal owners will not be put at risk. Canadian Alliance members, particularly those of us representing large agricultural areas, will be pushing for those amendments as Bill C-15 proceeds through the justice committee and report stage.

We already have a very fragile agricultural sector. When we look at our agricultural sector today, such as grains and oilseeds, we see that it is weak. Look at the drought conditions, the grasshoppers and all the different things that have created a weakened agricultural climate. Look at what this legislation will bring in. The Canadian Cattleman's Association has said that this will jeopardize the practices of ranching and farming in Alberta and throughout Canada. Others have said that it will put at risk the ability to be prosecuted for normal practices.

We need to protect an economy that is fragile. We need to protect an agriculture that would be devastated without the cattle industry. We need to defeat the bill.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague for Crowfoot. It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-15. This omnibus bill covers a number of issues. It is unfortunate that the government continually plays politics with legislation.

The bill contains a number of good initiatives which would likely receive support from most if not all parties and those proposals would receive speedy passage toward law. There have been repeated calls from the opposition to split the bill in order to facilitate such speedy passage of those sections but the government has refused for what can only be perceived as political reasons.

In 1995 the DNA bill, Bill C-104 was passed the same day it was introduced. I believe we could have done much the same with many parts of Bill C-15. It would be difficult to foresee many members having much opposition to creating an offence for taking a weapon from a peace office in the performance of his or her lawful duty.

Similarly, it would be difficult to foresee members having much opposition to increasing the maximum sentence for criminal harassment but the government seldom seems interested in bringing forth legislation in a timely fashion.

A bill like this one is like a bushel of apples. We have a number of nice, ripe, delicious apples on top but underneath we find a few less palatable. Those who decide not to buy the barrel, rotten apples included, will be quickly condemned by the government for refusing to accept all the good apples.

Those who oppose Bill C-15 will be characterized as being against the police, against the victims of stalking and criminal harassment and against increasing penalties for home invaders.

The government has been more concerned with playing politics than in providing those protections before more offences are committed, before police officers and citizens are further victimized. It has been months since the legislation was introduced and I dare say it will be some time yet before it receives passage.

If not for the fact that I consider our work here to be important, I would feel inclined to characterize much of what goes on here as being ridiculous and scandalous.

The issue of criminal harassment was before parliament a few short years ago and at that time the government was not interested in increasing the punishment. Even now I question whether the government is really interested in properly addressing those offenders who stalk and harass.

Bill C-15 increases the maximum sentence for criminal harassment to 10 years from the present five years but it remains a dual procedure offence. We are sending a message that it is okay to merely fine or slap the wrist of those who stalk. If stalking is to be considered serious, it should be an indictable offence only but the government refuses to do that.

As well, I find it most interesting that the bill will now make home invasions an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

A couple of years ago I made the suggestion in a motion before the justice committee. The Liberal majority defeated it. The member for Winnipeg South even went so far as to characterize my suggestion as being silly. I doubt whether he will be as condescending toward the Minister of Justice and the Liberal caucus for introducing this better later than never improvement to the law regarding home invasions. This place is indeed a wonder of work.

One day the government calls an idea silly because it comes from the opposition benches and before long we see it claim the same proposal is its own. It is amazing.

I support the proposals concerning changes to the child pornography provision. When the Sharpe decision arose in January 1999, I urged the minister to review the legislation at that time. The minister procrastinated claiming that the courts would overrule Mr. Justice Shaw's ruling. In the meantime, we still had questionable law. She said the same when the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled against her and she was forced to hold out hope for the Supreme Court of Canada, which eventually did not even give its full support.

Now, well over two years later, the government is finally getting around to proposing some improvement for the protection of our children.

I support the luring of a child provisions of the bill but will those provisions really do anything to protect children? This new offence refers to a number of already illegal actions. An offence is created if someone lures a child by means of a computer system, presumably via the Internet, for the purpose of facilitating any number of criminal offences such as sexual assault, sexual touching or indecent act, et cetera.

How will it be proven that the luring was for the purpose of facilitating any one of those criminal offences? We have not been particularly successful in getting into the minds of offenders as to their intentions. We usually have to impute intent from the acts of the offenders. When the offender commits sexual assault he or she can be tried for that sexual assault. There seems to be little added benefit of having this luring a child offence.

There is not even added punishment for using the Internet to entice a child to meet for those nefarious purposes. In fact most of the maximum punishments are reduced should the crown decide to proceed under the luring provision rather than the substantive offence. Luring has a maximum of five years when most of the offences referred to have a maximum of a 10 to 14 year range.

To me, all this government propaganda to publicize its actions to prevent child luring over the Internet is as Shakespeare said, “Much ado about nothing”. Again, it is truly amazing.

The cruelty to animal provisions of this bill pose a problem. Before anybody gets carried away with a political reaction, let me say that I fully understand that most of the concern with these provisions comes because of a rural versus urban interest in animal protection. I also understand that the rural constituency of this country is just as interested in standing up for pets as well as other animals. It is just that farmers also have an interest in protecting their property and livestock from predators of the four-legged variety.

We have two cats and a dog in our home and we care deeply for them all. I understand the reason for laws to protect them from abuse and harm but I can also appreciate that there may well be conflicting interest at play in everyday farming practices. For instance, the new section, paragraph 182.2(1)( b ) states “Everyone commits an offence who wilfully kills an animal”. What about a fox in the henhouse? The farmer who wilfully kills that fox to protect his chickens, I would argue, is at risk by this provision. Some will argue that he had to do it, so it was not wilful. Others will state that he fully intended to kill the fox so he wilfully acted. Does this section intend to protect the fox in those circumstances? That appears to be the case and, if so, it is wrong.

Similarly with the wolf attacking the flock of sheep. When it is killed to protect the flock is it not a wilful killing? There is a definition of wilfully causing an event to occur within the criminal code but it does not apply to the animal cruelty provisions. I hope the government will be open to some change in this area.

Paragraph 182.3(1)( a ) states “Everyone commits an offence who negligently causes unnecessary pain to an animal”. On cattle farms and ranches it is common to have to castrate most, if not all, of the steers in a herd. This is done to prevent inbreeding and to manage the growth and lineage of the herd. Does the rancher who castrates those steers, thereby causing some discomfort to the animal, not offend this section? I appreciate that there is a definition of “negligently” which means departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have. Does this mean the reasonable rancher? What is reasonable to a farmer or a rancher may not be reasonable to the city dweller who views any form of castration or even branding with a hot iron as causing unnecessary pain to an animal.

I can sympathize with those who have great concerns over where we are headed with this legislation. The government has been silent on explaining its reasoning on these issues.

I support the provision to create an offence of disarming a peace officer. It is too bad that the police have had to wait for years for this protection. I must note that police forces have also been lobbying for additional protections for their dogs and their horses. These animals are an essential part of the arsenal for public safety. If they are afforded no more protection than an ordinary pet they may be killed or seriously injured in the line of duty and yet we do not have any laws to protect them any more than any other animal.

The taxpayer spends a lot of money to train these animals. When they are laid up with injury or die in the line of duty, our communities are deprived of a valuable resource.

During the last parliament, a group of students from British Columbia organized Project SHEP to lobby for more protection for police animals. Some members of the justice committee had an informal meeting with police dog handlers representing these young people. They were assured support from committee members, including government members. Now we are told that the Minister of Justice is not supportive of tougher sanctions against those who would harm law enforcement animals. That is indeed unfortunate.

I am prevented by time to debate all the problems this legislation will cause over its changes to the preliminary hearing process and its requirements for defence lawyers to provide notice of expert testimony. I am sure that the defence bar will be avidly pursuing these issues. It is once again obvious that the government is bringing in this legislation on its own initiative without much consultation with those most affected. Once again, witnesses will appear before the justice committee to present the arguments and once again the government will likely dig in and refuse to entertain amendments. Seldom do we ever see substantial amendments to government legislation. We see much in the way of technical amendments because the legislation is brought to the House without a great deal of review or forethought.

For some reason the government is ready to admit its technical glitches but balks when it comes to making significant adjustments, in spite of reasoned and well-intentioned debate for change.

Like this bill, we may eventually see some adjustment two years from now when the government will lay claim to the idea. Bill C-15 is just another example of this. Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “that” with:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts, since the bill reflects several unrelated principles rendering it impossible for the House to make a responsible and intelligible decision”.

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

Mr. Speaker, some of the changes that could have occurred would have led to less discrimination toward anglers and hunters in particular. One specific change would have been to stop the practice of registering long guns. The bill throws in yet again another controversial element of another bill that has no bearing whatsoever on cruelty to animals, stalking or the disarming of a police officer. It further aggravates the opposition to have the element of long gun registration and streamlining of the Firearms Act tossed into the mix. These are changes that are supposed to consolidate statutory authority over all the operations of the Canadian firearms commissioner who reports to the Minister of Justice supposedly to enable Canada to meet its obligations under the United Nations firearms protocol. These inconsequential elements of the bill detract from the important elements that deal with stalking on the Internet, the protection of children and the protection of police officers in criminal harassment cases.

It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in the dilemma of having eight separate elements coming together under one umbrella so that the government can pass this legislation in one fell swoop when we know that had it done this in a more reasonable fashion we could have had those elements last June. We could have been dealing with these other controversial issues at an appropriate time and in greater detail.

I would move the following amendment to Bill C-15. I move that the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word that and substituting the following words: this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts, because the bill contains many unrelated proposals thus denying members of the House the ability to vote meaningfully at second reading on the content and principles of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, having heard your ruling I accept it. The bill is not one with which there is a degree of comfort on the part of many members. That is not to say for a moment that we do not support the positive changes contained in the legislation. However the issues are in many instances difficult to deal with at one sitting because of their complex nature.

Eight separate and distinct issues are contained in this omnibus bill. We have asked numerous times, as recently as a few moments ago, to split the bill because it contains unrelated issues. In my opinion some of these issues trivialize the more important ones within the legislation.

I am talking particularly about changes that would ensure greater protection for children on the Internet and changes that would provide greater protection for police officers by making maximum sentences more proportionate to the harm that can be done when an individual tries to disarm a police officer.

When we compare these with some of the more minor procedural changes within the bill it makes it confusing to deal with in the Chamber and difficult for Canadians to understand. When the bill goes to committee we will be forced to bring forward witnesses from all four corners of the country to talk about all the different bills at one time. That is not a productive and positive use of members' time.

The minister obviously has a bit of a political agenda. She wants to ask members of the House of Commons to vote for her amendments though she knows there is great resistance and reluctance on the part of some, particularly to the bill's cruelty to animal provisions. These are very troubling for cattlemen, ranchers, and those involved in hunting and angling.

There is also a great deal of resistance because of the ill-fated, ill-conceived, cumbersome, overexpensive, bureaucratic and quite useless long gun registry foisted upon the country at a cost of nearly a billion dollars.

Jamming all this superfluous legislation down the throats of members by bringing it forward in an omnibus form is quite offensive. The minister has indicated she will bring forward more legislation in the same vein.

Turning to more important matters within the bill such as those dealing with child stalking on the Internet, this is the type of legislation for which we have been crying out for some time. Had the bill been presented properly in the first instance these elements of it would have been passed last June.

However the minister again dug in her heels and decided she would stick to her guns. We know the minister wants to get rid of all long guns and ensure that somehow only criminals and police will have guns.

There is concern from the high tech industry regarding the bill's child stalking provisions. Subsection 163.1(3) would subject Internet service providers to criminal liability for third party content unless they could prove they did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the information was being disseminated on the Internet.

There is therefore concern about the resources that would be required of Internet providers to police the Internet on their own.

We are supportive of the home invasion and criminal harassment aspects of the bill. Clause 23 states that in cases of break and enter, robbery and extortion the courts must consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the dwelling house was occupied. This refers to the principle of home invasion.

We would have preferred that a separate offence be created for home invasion. It would have a greater deterrent effect and would be a more straightforward way to deal with this type of offence. There is no specific reference to home invasion in the criminal code.

The courts refer to it. Police, prosecutors and lawyers know what we speak of when we talk about home invasion. It is perhaps one of the most startling experiences a person can have, particularly elderly people who feel quite threatened in their own homes.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition would prefer to have a separate offence created for home invasion.

We also support the bill's criminal harassment elements. In 1993 the Progressive Conservative government of the day passed Bill C-126 which added the offence of criminal harassment to the criminal code.

Bill C-15 would increase the maximum prison term under paragraph 264(3)( a ) of the criminal code from five years to ten years. This is a suggestion we support. Senator Oliver in the other place has brought forward similar legislation. It is a cause he has supported for many years.

Bill C-15 would not increase penalties for harassing phone calls, indecent remarks or intimidation on the phone. Yet these are forms of harassment which can result in or give rise to more serious crimes. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to delve into that at committee.

The cruelty to animals provision is one of the controversial elements I pointed out in my earlier remarks. In recent years numerous incidents of cruelty and mistreatment of animals have alarmed Canadians and caused great public concern. Cruelty to animals may be the precursor to violent behaviour toward people. Bill C-15 might help prevent certain types of violent crime against people if it is enforced in a logical and reasonable fashion.

Although the amendments target the behaviour Canadians reasonably expect people to exhibit toward animals, there is particular concern about the wording.

The offence section contains wording such as wilful, reckless or without regard for the consequences of the act. One would hope the judicial interpretation of these words would protect the longstanding practices we have seen exercised by furriers, ranchers and those who make their living working with animals.

No one in the PC/DR coalition wants in any way to condone cruelty to animals. However we must be mindful and protective of those who engage in activities that are their livelihood. Changes that would require licence renewals, authorization and more bureaucratic steps would have a financial impact on people who have conducted their businesses reasonably for many years without any sort of cruelty toward animals.

This is a complicated bill. I wish I had more time to delve into other aspects of it. It deals with amendments to the criminal code that touch on miscarriages of justice which have allowed individuals like Stephen Truscott to suffer grave injustices at the hands of prosecutors and our justice department.

There are elements of the bill we hope to be able to sort through at committee. I look forward to that opportunity.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

The Chair has carefully weighed all the arguments put forward by hon. members this morning. I thank them for their interventions.

In my view this issue is not a question of privilege. At best it is a point of order and I will treat it as such. I do not believe the privilege of the House is involved in the discussions on this matter.

I can only note that Bill C-15, which is before the House, deals with amendments to the criminal code and other acts. The other acts are pretty consequential. There are minor, slight changes but almost every amendment in this voluminous bill deals with the Criminal Code of Canada.

I can only imagine what a nightmare it would be for the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to be studying the whole criminal code if that were the act before the House for passage.

One day it was. One day the criminal code was adopted in the House. It dealt with far more issues than are dealt with in Bill C-15 and it apparently got through somehow.

There were no invitations extended to the Speaker that we know of to divide that bill into chunks. If such arguments were put forward they were ignored because there has not been a single precedent cited to the Chair where the Chair has in fact split a bill. I note that in all the arguments this morning. I have asked for this kind of citation and have found none because I submit there is no precedent for the Chair to split such a bill.

I can only refer, as the government House leader did in his argument, and he got there before I got to it, to the sections of Marleau and Montpetit to which I had reference after receiving the notice of the question of privilege from the hon. member for Provencher yesterday. I cite again from this work:

It appears to be entirely proper, in procedural terms, for a bill to amend, repeal or enact more than one Act, provided that the necessary notice is given, it is accompanied by the Royal Recommendation (where necessary), and it follows the form required. However, on the question of whether the Chair can be persuaded to divide a bill simply because it is complex or composite in nature, there are many precedents from which it can be concluded that Canadian practice does not permit this.

The citation referred to in support of that contains, for example, the rulings of Madam Speaker Sauvé which were referred to in argument in which she refused to divide the bill then before the House, which caused such trouble and the bell ringing incident.

Then of course there was the decision of Mr. Speaker Fraser when he was asked to divide the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. That was in June 1988, and I know the hon. government House leader may have been arguing the point in June. If he was suggesting that someone I knew more personally was involved he is incorrect. I was not elected to the House until November 1988 and I was not part of that argument. In any event, the argument was lost and Mr. Speaker Fraser said this:

Until the House adopts specific rules relating to omnibus Bills, the Chair's role is very limited and the Speaker should remain on the sidelines as debate proceeds and the House resolves the issue.

I have to rule with reluctance that it is not for the Chair to divide a bill in the House. The argument I think would be stronger were this what could be called an omnibus bill, that is one dealing with a myriad of amendments to many different acts, as was the case, for example, with the free trade implementation bill, rather than a bill which seeks to amend one act of the Parliament of Canada.

In my opinion, this is not a point of order, and we can get on with debate.

The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has eight minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks. He made the initial twelve minutes of his speech on May 7 earlier this year. I must say I have forgotten what he said on that occasion and am looking forward to the remaining eight minutes of his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much attach myself to the comments of the hon. member for Provencher. This new tact that the Minister of Justice, backed by the government House leader and the government, has taken on the issue is holding up very important legislation.

There was unanimous agreement among the opposition and many members of the government's side to pass the more palatable elements of Bill C-15 in the last parliament. We could have had the bill in place last June.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, your office would have received notice yesterday at 3.20 p.m. that I would be rising on a question of privilege on Bill C-15, the omnibus bill.

I rise on a question of privilege today with respect to the bill, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts. Our ability as parliamentarians to vote on and debate Bill C-15 is impeded because Bill C-15 reflects several unrelated principles, making it impossible for members of the House to cast their votes responsibly and intelligibly on behalf of their constituents.

A member's rights to vote and to be heard properly are well established rights that undisputedly make up the powers enjoyed by members of parliament. In a constitutional democracy, the right of members to vote is fundamental and goes to the heart of our parliamentary system. The 1993 Supreme Court of Canada decision in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v Nova Scotia confirmed the constitutional nature of parliamentary privilege on this very basis.

Many of the powers and privileges of members and the House are the result of centuries of practice and convention. The courts have clearly recognized that conventions are part of our constitution. Our legislative procedures, including voting, are part of our historical heritage, our parliamentary traditions and indeed of the privileges collectively of the House and individually of its members.

This matter should be resolved through a question of privilege because the work of members as legislators is being threatened. History will show that omnibus bills bring frustration and dysfunction to the House of Commons and indeed are cause for alarm.

One speaker was prompted to ask on January 26, 1971, which you will find at page 284 of Hansard of that day:

--where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? ...We might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada, which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.

I would argue that the numerous and unrelated principles in Bill C-15 bring us to the point where we have gone beyond what is acceptable. Bill C-15 is seeking our approval, with one debate and one vote, of eight general topics: first, child luring and child pornography over the Internet; second, animal cruelty; third, amendments to the Firearms Act, the act known as Bill C-68; fourth, criminal harassment; fifth, home invasions; sixth, disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer; seventh, a substantial reform of criminal procedure in the country; and last, allegations of miscarriage of justice.

This is unacceptable. I believe this bill could, with some justification, be broken down into five general subject areas: first, provisions dealing with child luring and child pornography; second, provisions dealing with cruelty to animals; third, provisions dealing with amendments to the separate act, the Firearms Act; fourth, provisions dealing with amendments to the criminal code and other acts in respect of criminal harassment, home invasions and disarming a peace officer; and fifth, reforming criminal procedure and procedures to address miscarriages of justice.

On page 619 of Marleau and Montpetit it is suggested that historically disputes over omnibus bills are brought about by political interaction. Page 618 describes one of those interactions. It describes how the opposition paralyzed the House for 14 days in 1982.

Fortunately or unfortunately that type of persuasion is no longer available to the opposition. For the record, the opposition attempted to reason with the government and have Bill C-15 divided, but the government was unwilling to listen. Indeed, the minister has reiterated her position and this summer indicated that she would be bringing more bills of this type.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that you have today in your hands the ability to stop this dangerous trend, which is not simply a trend that is oppressive to the opposition parties in the House but indeed is oppressive to the people of Canada who send us here to vote in accordance with their wishes.

With respect to a procedural solution, I have reviewed the rulings on these types of complaints that have been raised in the past and have concluded that a satisfactory procedural remedy is not apparent.

On May 11, 1977, at page 5522 of Hansard , the Speaker shared some of these views. He said:

This still leaves, as it has in the past every time this kind of argument has been put forward, some very deep concern about whether our practices in respect of bills do in fact provide a remedy for the very legitimate complaint of the hon. member that a bill of this kind gives the government, under our practices, the right to demand one decision on a number of quite different, although related, subjects.

I think an hon. member of the House ought to have the right to compel the House to vote on each separate question. Previous rulings have made reference to several devices open to hon. members under our proceedings regarding bills, but it seems to me that each which has been mentioned in the past suffers from at least one weakness.

In the absence of a satisfactory resolution or procedural solution to resolve this matter, in the absence of political will, and given the minister's very clear comments that not only will she refuse to engage in any discussion relating to breaking the bill into separate bills but she in fact intends to pass more of these bills and bring more of these types of bills to the House, I think the powers of the Speaker should be invoked.

I propose that Bill C-15 should not be allowed to proceed any further in its present form on the grounds that it has a tendency to impede the House and its members in the performance of their function and the discharge of their duty.

Parliament is fundamentally about debate. The government's use of this omnibus bill is another attack on our ability to debate. The opposing views of the opposition cannot be properly heard. No matter which way we vote on this bill it will not express our views and the views of our constituents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience. I look forward to your ruling and the comments of others in the House.

Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member means by the alternate motion, if he means the motion to refer the subject matter to committee.

It is not completely open in the sense that there is a date for reporting and not just referring the subject matter to the committee and the committee then decides if it does not want to deal with it. It will be difficult for the committee because there is also a sense of urgency in the country that we deal with Bill C-15 and that we get the anti-luring on the Internet laws passed and laws passed having to do with child pornography, home invasion and disarming a police officer. All of those are urgent on the agenda of the justice committee this fall and properly so. Members of the justice committee will have their work cut out for them to deal with those issues and to deal with this issue.

I am not sure whether to refer to the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough as a colleague of the hon. member, and I do not want to prejudice other arguments that may be coming tomorrow. I may refer to him as a geographical seatmate perhaps. In any event I am sure that the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and other members of the justice committee as well as Liberal members on the committee are not going to allow this to become just another study. If they do, they will be properly judged by the Canadian people.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-11, the act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or endangered.

I appreciate the initiatives and the efforts of members from all parties to actually improve this legislation and the hard work they have done on this committee. At the risk of sounding partisan, I especially appreciate the hard work of the Canadian Alliance MPs who had considerable input on this.

The bill would replace the 25 year old Immigration Act of 1976. There are some much needed changes in the bill but unfortunately it has a series of serious flaws.

Immigration to Canada should be simple. Either one meets the criteria to enter Canada or one does not. The legislation should be clear, transparent, comprehensive, precise, democratic, accountable, efficient, effective, enforceable, easy to interpret and helpful to legitimate immigrants, while maintaining the integrity and security of Canada and Canadians.

Let me make it very clear that the Canadian Alliance will pursue a policy of open and transparent immigration. The nation is strong because at one time either ourselves, our ancestors, our parents or grandparents all immigrated here. Even many of our aboriginal peoples, anthropologists tell us, at one time found their way across the Bering Sea to what we now know as North America. We all immigrated here at some time. The strength of our nation will continue with a good and sound immigration policy.

The legislation may be well intended but the outcome may unfortunately not serve its stated purpose. Lack of clarity, prudence and real enforcement behind the legislation may ultimately cause more troubles than the legislation that it purports to replace. There is far too much reliance to interpret 89 pages of regulations that are in the legislation. Much of what is in the regulations should in fact be in the legislation itself.

Regulations really give the minister the option of running the department any way he or she sees fit. That is not accountability in government, but the present government is not known for its accountability. The Liberal government has a habit of governing by regulation and not by legislation. Regulations cannot be debated in the House of Commons and so in a way it is governing through the back door. It not only makes legislation undemocratic but makes it complex, opaque and difficult to understand.

The Canadian Alliance attempted to have amendments passed that would have made the legislation effective and workable but the Liberals refused to co-operate. Most of the amendments presented at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration by the Canadian Alliance member were rejected by the Liberal dominated committee. There was no true freedom for members on the government's side to vote and support common sense amendments to the legislation.

There is a history of the government not accepting most of the opposition's amendments to any bill. A government should be open to amendments that make sense. It does not weaken the government in the eyes of the public. It strengthens it when the government shows that openness. We on this side are open to pointing out times when the government does that which is good. We point that out and we give it credit. We think correspondingly it should respond to amendments from the opposition that make sense and would improve the legislation.

There are many examples where the government did not seem capable, certainly not willing, to do this. For example, in Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act, the Liberals refused to accept amendments from the opposition and eventually passed yet another ineffective piece of legislation.

We all know that on Bill C-15 the government refused to accept an opposition suggestion to split provisions that would protect children from Internet predators, which we all support. It would have split the bill into other pieces of legislation which we were willing to debate separately, but the government was not. The official opposition had a number of suggestions for improvement that we wish the government had incorporated into the bill.

As a general principle we have suggested that the minister should establish an ombudsman to receive complaints from Canadians on all matters pertaining to immigration. The ombudsman would report annually to the House of Commons. We feel that was a valid proposal, one that would not hurt the government but strengthen it. It seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Ministers should consult with municipalities. Wherever I go across the country, and as members of the Canadian Alliance visit with mayors and municipalities, we see the need for a consultation process with the federal government with respect to resettlement for immigrants and integration programs where applicable. The municipalities have to bear not only the responsibility but the cost of this, and there needs to be consultation with the federal government. A Canadian Alliance government would do that.

The government should encourage open and accountable discussions between a variety of agencies, as well as the provinces and non-government immigration organizations. In this bill the government has missed the opportunity to truly strengthen and have a vibrant immigration policy. Our party would work with the provinces for policies on the settlement of immigrants.

The Canadian Alliance supports the current immigration levels but we would like to see immigrants in the jobs that they were trained to do. We would like Canada to attract the best and the brightest from around the world, not just those who wish to come here so we can fulfil a quota but those whose skills correspond to the needs of our economy.

Physicians and nurses are not on the list of occupational needs required by Canada despite acute shortages in those professions. This is an obvious deficiency in the bill. Even if a doctor or a nurse were to immigrate to Canada, he or she might not be allowed to work in his or her field of endeavour for up to two years or until the minister granted a work permit. Whether they are doctors or nurses, qualified immigrants should be able to find work in an expedient way in the occupations in which they were trained. They should not have to work below the level of their qualification.

When it comes to families, we support the expedient reunification of family members. The bill purports to help family reunification, but without the proper enforcement and the staff to handle the changes proposed in the bill, the line-ups of people waiting in the system may be even longer. The system may become further clogged, which is not the way to reunite families.

In order for people to have their spouses or fiancés immigrate to Canada, they must be financially responsible for them for up to five years. That means the spouse or the fiancé is not allowed to work in Canada until his or her application is processed.

A real case in point is when a Canadian marries an American. They both work in the high tech industry and they wish to return to Canada. The American spouse can be sponsored but will not be allowed to work even though the need and the demand is here. He or she can apply for independent status but will not be able to work for up to a year while the application is being processed. These kinds of discriminatory provisions should be removed.

I might add that the discriminatory right of landing fee, also called the head tax, is not a signal to families that we want to see them reunited. The costs are shamefully high, especially to low income families wanting to reunite their families. That is inappropriate and we are opposed to that.

Bill C-11 is also a direct attack in some ways on legitimate refugees. We support and reaffirm our policy of taking in our share of genuine refugees. However paragraph 3(2)(d) states that Canada is:

—to offer safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, as well as those at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;

This translates into meaning that every criminal or otherwise undesirable entering Canada who claims to be a refugee would be under Canadian protection from extradition to another country if there was reason to believe they would be under threat of any harm. The list of undesirables includes international terrorists, murderers, members of organized crime, sex offenders and child abusers.

The key changes include referring refugees to the Immigration and Refugee Board within three working days. What is key here is the processing time of a claim would still remain at 90 days. There is no improvement whatsoever and that is unacceptable.

The unnecessary appeal processes need to be curtailed. The onion layer effect of appeals actually causes more problems than it attempts to solve. The definition of a refugee needs to be clearly defined. Most Canadians know what a true refugee is. We support doing our part to help those who are truly in need, but keeping them clogged in the system is not helping them, especially when they are found not to be genuine refugees and are deported. Their lives are ruined after so many months and years in the system.

The bill would also give refugees, as well as refugee applicants, full charter protection. If for any reason someone is either denied access to Canada or refused refugee status, that person would be entitled to an appeal. It also means refugees would be given full rights as if they were citizens of Canada, appealing possibly all the way up to the supreme court. No other country in the world does this.

It has been reported recently that some 15,000 individuals facing deportation warrants are missing and Canadian authorities have no idea where they are. The government's record for tracking landed immigrants is abysmal. We do not keep exit reports on those who depart and this is something that needs to be addressed. There are 89 pages of regulations and the government does not have the ability to keep track of exit reports.

The Canadian Alliance, along with most Canadians, supports the deportation of undesirable individuals without question or delay in cases of criminal activity or non-compliance with the Immigration Act.

Bill C-11 would completely strip the minister of his or her right to deport those who have either broken the law or have come to Canada to escape the law. The Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay, which came down on February 15, applies to those individuals who face the threat to their person if deported from Canada.

According to the ruling, all convicted or charged criminals can now seek asylum in Canada and the minister has no visible authority to deport them. There is nothing in the legislation to address this supreme court ruling. This is a grave deficiency and the minister will not address it.

The bill would allow for so-called front-end security screening but it would only apply to refugees, which in some cases is a physical impossibility. Front-end screening would not apply to applicants in general.

The bill promises to deliver better enforcement of security measures for both refugee and immigrant applications but there is no plan of action set out in the bill to explain how this would work. It appears that it would be at the whim of those who administer the program.

No one should be allowed to enter Canada without proper security checks as to his or her risk to the country. All persons entering Canada should be subject to a security check at all ports of entry. All persons entering and leaving Canada should be recorded as deemed to have entered or left Canada.

Shortage of staff and inadequate training create a security risk. This was evidenced by Mr. Lai Changxing, the accused kingpin smuggler who landed in Canada through queue jumping, who was not detected by the visa officer by even a simple background check. This is just not acceptable.

In relation to human smugglers, the government should send a strong message to these individuals who exploit and prey on vulnerable people. Our actions should be stronger than words. We need tougher laws and the will to implement them by levying longer jail sentences and higher fines. All vehicles, be they ships, aircraft or automobiles, used in the illegal transportation of human cargo should be immediately seized and impounded for at least one year.

There is no penalty for knowingly submitting a false application for immigration to Canada. Individuals may submit as many fraudulent applications as they like. A mechanism needs to be put in place that would prevent repeat fraudulent application submissions. The bill contains no deterrent from repetitious and fraudulent applications. This will continue to cause endless paperwork for visa officers.

Bill C-11, regardless of its intentions, does not deliver what it is promising without better enforcement, accountability and management. There is no action plan in the legislation to achieve these results. The good points in the bill are unfortunately outweighed by its flaws, flaws which we in the opposition parties have identified. We have proposed amendments to improve the bill but they have been rejected.

Unless the Liberal government is willing to entertain amendments to strengthen and improve the bill, I cannot support it. We want to support a good, transparent, open policy of immigration in this country, but the bill will not do it.

Agriculture

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

Mr. Speaker, livestock producers and their representative organizations have written my office setting out their concerns over Bill C-15. They have raised concerns that livestock and poultry producers will face criminal charges for simply following ordinary farming practices.

Why does the justice minister refuse to specify in legislation that normally accepted animal husbandry practices will not be subject to criminal prosecution?

Bill C-15

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

Mr. Speaker, in recent days there have been charges and countercharges of people playing politics with Bill C-15.

I just wanted to put on the record that as far as we are concerned here in the NDP, it is the Minister of Justice who is playing politics with Bill C-15. She did not have to put the omnibus bill together the way she did in the first place. She could have dealt with a number of items separately.

The government was made an offer by the opposition to deal with five elements of Bill C-15: child pornography, luring on the Internet, home invasions, disarming a police officer and improving the stalking laws. We could have passed all that and still had fully dealt with what was a single bill in the last parliament, but the Minister of Justice refused. She is the one who is playing politics with Bill C-15. She is the one who must answer to the Canadian public for what has not been accomplished on those files.

Justice

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we have made it plain over and over again that sexual predators are a priority of the government and the protection of our children is a priority of the government.

Unfortunately it does not appear to be a priority of the official opposition. We are ready this afternoon to pass Bill C-15. Why do they not put their petty posturing to one side and join us this afternoon in the passage of Bill C-15?