Bill C-15 (Historical)

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of time allocation, this bill has been long overdue. It started back on December 1, 1999, in a different form with amendments as well. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights held a hearing. The bill has been discussed for five days at third reading stage. In fact, the Chair has said that 40 speakers have been heard with regard to Bill C-15B. In my mind we have to proceed with the bill which started back in 1999 as Bill C-15 and has now been divided into two parts.

With regard to the defence, the hon. member is referring to section 429, which is the defence for all property offences within the criminal code. It is a general defence. We explained at committee hearings and said many times that section 8 of the criminal code provides a common law defence. I do believe that the common law--

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

We will get that in a minute.

This is the important part. There was an instruction to the committee that it divide the bill into two bills. The first contained the provisions of the bill respecting: the protection of children from sexual exploitation; criminal harassment; disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer; home invasions; allegations of miscarriage of justice; and, reform and modernization of criminal procedures.

The second contained the provisions respecting cruelty to animals and amendments to the Firearms Act. In other words, what the House unanimously agreed to was to send the bill to committee and from that point on divide them into two distinct bills.

If some people are arguing that all of this is incorrect procedurally, then it would have been equally incorrect for Bill C-15A. What is the difference? Bill C-15A has now been accepted by the House for third reading and sent to the other place. Therefore the House decided that procedure was correct, otherwise it would not have put up with it.

In addition it states that the committee report the first bill no later than Wednesday, October 31 and report the second bill no later than Friday, November 30, 2001. Obviously then if the House unanimously agreed to report both of them, the House must have assumed that both of them existed, otherwise it could hardly have done so.

We have accepted as a principle that the first one was reported. Therefore, it follows logically that the same would apply to the second. Any other conclusion I suggest would be totally illogical and inconsistent with that which we did on the first part of that bill.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Perhaps that too.

First, the hon. member said in the previous argument that he put before the House that the bill had been dealt with too expeditiously and that we were not justified in moving time allocation. Yet one of his first points on this one was that the bill had been so long before the House that its status was now being questioned. That is the reverse of the same argument.

I want to draw this to the attention of the House. It has been so long that perhaps some of us have forgotten. To tell everyone the truth, I hardly remembered it myself.

I draw this to the attention of the Speaker. I am reading from the Journals of the House of September 26, 2001, which states:

By unanimous consent, it was ordered that Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and an act to amend other acts, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

If it was ordered by the House unanimously, presumably all of us were here.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-15B. I needed to make this point of order before the minister moved the motion because I will be arguing that not only should he not be allowed to close off debate but also that Bill C-15B should not even be allowed to remain on the order paper because the bill lacks the procedural necessity to qualify it to exist let alone proceed to the next stage.

Mr. Speaker, you might remember that in the government House leader's argument he even admitted that Bill C-15B was a distinct bill from Bill C-15. Bill C-15B has not been read a first time nor has it been read a second time and therefore is not legitimately before the House.

On September 26, 2001, a motion was moved regarding Bill C-15. It read:

That Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;

That it be an instruction to the committee that it divide the bill into two bills, the first containing the provisions of the bill respecting protection of children from sexual exploitation, criminal harassment, disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer, home invasions, allegations of miscarriage of justice and reform and modernization of criminal procedure; and the second containing the provisions respecting cruelty to animals and amendments to the Firearms Act;

The motion instructed the committee to bring in two new bills. While the old bill, Bill C-15, was deemed to have been read a second time, Bill C-15B had not.

If the House had deemed the bill to have been read a second time then there would be no problem but since that was overlooked I would conclude that Bill C-15B should be withdrawn.

As a result the strictest standards must apply to its application. It would be wrong to carry the second reading achievement from Bill C-15, the mother bill, to Bill C-15B, its legislative offspring.

The argument that this bill received second reading would be a stretch. Members' speeches during the second reading debate on Bill C-15B would have been significantly and dramatically different than the debate on Bill C-15.

The official opposition supported Bill C-15A, the other half of Bill C-15, and opposes Bill C-15B. Bill C-15A passed through the House without the time allocation and Bill C-15B, according to the government, appears to require time allocation.

According to the government and since Bill C-15A is no longer before the House I am not sure of its fate. If it were in jeopardy I would give the consent of the official opposition to deem Bill C-15A to have received first and second reading. Getting back to Bill C-15B, which is still before the House, I would argue that if there is doubt as to the procedural correctness of advancing Bill C-15B through the system then, Mr. Speaker, you must rule on the side of caution.

A hasty call would not be in the interest of good governance in the House. The history of Bill C-15B warrants caution.

As I argued during the question of privilege on that matter, I pointed out that the member's right to vote and to be heard properly are well established rights that indisputably 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 very heart of our parliamentary system.

The 1993 Supreme Court of Canada decision in New Brunswick Broadcasting Company v Nova Scotia confirmed the constitutional nature of parliamentary privilege on this very basis.

Most of the powers and privileges of members of 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.

The legislative process requires that bill be read three times. On page 607 of Marleau and Montpetit it states:

Some of the rules concerning the legislative process that were in effect at Confederation are still in effect today. Some examples are: the Standing Orders prohibiting the introduction of bills in blank or in an imperfect form, and stipulating that all bills be read three times on different days....

Page 625 describes how the standing orders of the House require that every bill receive three readings, on different days, before passed. The practice of giving every bill three separate readings derives from an ancient parliamentary practice, which originated in the United Kingdom. At that time when the technology was not yet available to reproduce large numbers of copies at low cost, bills were introduced in handwritten form, one copy at a time. In order for members to know the contents of the bill, the Clerk read the document to them. The idea of reading the bill was taken literally.

Marleau and Montpetit goes on to explain that today a bill is no longer read aloud but the formality of holding a reading is still preserved. When the Speaker declares that the motion for first reading has passed, a clerk at the table rises and announces “first reading of this bill”, thus signifying that the order of the House has been obeyed. The scenario is repeated when the House has ordered a second and then third reading of the bill.

Marleau and Montpetit describe that bills must go through the same stages of the legislative process but do not necessarily follow the same route. It describes on page 626 three avenues for the adoption of legislation. The path of Bill C-15B does not match any of the three avenues described on page 626 and fails to meet the requirements to be legitimately before the House. The three avenues are:

After appropriate notice, a Minister or a private Member may introduce a bill, which will be given first reading immediately. The bill is then debated generally at second reading stage. It is then sent to a committee for clause-by-clause study.

A Minister or a private Member may propose a motion that a committee be instructed to prepare a bill. A bill will be presented by the committee and carried through the second reading stage without debate or amendment.

A Minister may move that a bill be referred to a committee for study before second reading.

Regardless of the avenue that the House decides to take, the bill will then have to be carried through report stage, to be read a third time and be sent to the Senate....

Page 627 of Marleau and Montpetit outlines in detail the stages a bill must go through when it is introduced in the House of Commons:

Notice of motion for leave to introduce and place on the Order Paper;

Preparation of a bill by a committee (where applicable);

Introduction and first reading;

Reference to a committee before second reading (where applicable);

Second reading and reference to a committee;

Consideration in committee;

Report stage;

Third reading (and passage);

Consideration and passage by the Senate--

And on it goes. I point out that Bill C-15B missed a few things, like notice for leave to introduce, introduction and first reading and second reading.

I reviewed the other examples of bills being divided and what I discovered was that normally the bills are divided and presented to the House at first reading and all the constitutional and procedural hoops and loops necessary to advance the bills through the House were met. For example, at page 618 of Marleau and Montpetit there is a reference to Bill C-93 that, at the insistence of the opposition in 1982, the government withdrew the bill and introduced two separate pieces of legislation. The two new bills did not appear on the order paper at report stage, as did Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B.

In the case of Bill C-94, the energy bill that led to the famous bell ringing incident, the bill was divided into eight separate pieces of legislation. Once again there was no Bill C-94A, Bill C-94B, Bill C-94C, Bill C-94D, Bill C-94E, Bill C-94F or Bill C-94G. Bill C-94 emerged from a committee without having gone through first and second reading.

There is a major flaw here with Bill C-15B that has been overlooked.

On page 619 of Marleau and Montpetit it suggests that historically disputes over omnibus bills are brought about by political interaction. While the division of Bill C-15 was brought about by political interaction, the path the government took was different and flawed.

If you like, Mr. Speaker, we can look at other jurisdictions. In the U.K. the process is the same. Page 464 of Erskine May's twenty-second edition states that public bills have five stages: introduction and first reading; second reading; committee; report stage and third reading. The U.K. also has the restriction that successive stages of a bill must be taken up on different days.

There are no shortcuts when it comes to the legislative process. The integrity of the House is at stake here. If there is any doubt I would urge you to rule on the side of caution and withdraw Bill C-15B from the order paper. If the government has to start all over again and proceed legitimately, then so be it.

It is our responsibility to ensure that procedural requirements are observed before a bill leaves this place to become law since the courts have the legal power to inquire into the procedural history of a bill before it has been assented to.

On page 186 of Joseph Maingot's second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , it states:

--the courts might be effective in ensuring the observance of procedural requirements imposed by the constitution with respect to the enactment of legislation.

It would be irresponsible to knowingly cast doubt upon the legitimacy of our proceedings. Bill C-15B must be withdrawn and put back on the order paper.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to that stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the third reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Privilege

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

No, it was not a huge omnibus bill. That is nonsense.

In any case, as a compromise to get the emergency part of it through the bill was separated in half on December 5, 2001. We then had the commencement of Bill C-15B. The other part was passed on October 18, 2001. Let us remember it is now June 3, 2002.

Mr. Speaker, in case you thought any of the opposition's points about the amount of time used were valid, which is highly unlikely in my opinion, I will remind the House of the bill's history. Not counting second reading debate or the countless hours in committee, report stage alone was debated on December 6, 2001 and on March 20 and April 8 of this year. The bill was finally concurred in at report stage on April 9. Third reading debate started on April 10. On April 11 there were something like 16 speakers. How could one forget the famous speeches made by those wanting to filibuster the bill on April 22 and the debate on April 30, not to mention the gems of wisdom on May 10? Some members say they were fine debates. No doubt they were. They were so fine that the House has heard them all. Having heard them all it is now time to legislate.

Mr. Speaker, before you deem it appropriate for me to move the motion, which in my view you will agree it is, I would point out that the hon. House leader for the official opposition invoked page 369 of Marleau and Montpetit as justification for why he feels the Speaker should allow debate to continue. He prefaced his remarks by referring to the testimony before the parliamentary committee of our former clerk who wrote this excellent procedural manual. The hon. member reminded us that the former clerk had used as an example a minute amount of time to describe his point. Two years cannot be considered a minute amount of time for debate in most reasonable people's minds.

Mr. Speaker, the use of the Speaker's prerogative on April 13, 1987 is no doubt familiar to you. The Speaker refused to dispense with routine proceedings on that day as a way for the opposition to prevent a time allocation motion from being used. Routine proceedings are not before the House at this point. They will be before the House later this day, as Mr. Speaker well knows. Invoking that procedural argument is of no value because it would not do what the hon. member has said.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons you will recognize that this is not a question of privilege at all. In the unlikely event someone tries to put a point of order making similar or other arguments I think you will be able to dismiss both the question of privilege and the point of order in a similar way. We can then proceed with the business of Canada: passing this important legislation.

The hon. Minister of Justice is here to give all the arguments and answer the questions of opposition members as to why time allocation is necessary. We will then proceed with third reading debate where we can hear from other hon. members or even the same ones if they have not already spoken at the stage we are in.

I am not making any presumptions. It could well be that the hon. member across the way has an excellent speech to give. We will be more than pleased to listen to it and perhaps even applaud. The point is that there is no question of privilege before the House at all. Perhaps those who invoked the point knew it perfectly well. It is a valiant effort. I would not say they are good points, but perhaps they are efforts of some sort to slow down the legislation. They are not questions of privilege at all.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would remind the House that the hon. member for Prince Albert, a member of the same party as the person who just spoke, said if the government intended to get the bill through it would need to use time allocation. The opposition told us the only way to get the legislative program through was to use time allocation. Opposition members are in a difficult position to say time allocation is an offensive instrument. They have already said it is the only way to get the legislation through.

Second, the hon. member who just spoke talked about a reasonable amount of time for debate. The bill was presented to the House March 14, 2001 as part of Bill C-15. The bill was then separated into two distinct bills--

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes to get to that point it takes some basis of building up to the argument. I know the Speaker has been around a while but I wanted to ensure this was all put into the proper context.

In the last parliament the Reform Party offered a unique approach to filibuster. Since the government, under the current House leader, was in the habit of preventing filibusters by closing off debate early and often the Reform Party targeted voting instead of debate and introduced hundreds of motions causing the House to vote around the clock for 42 hours straight. The Bloc Quebecois used it for the clarity bill and so on.

The member for Red Deer argued that the species at risk debate was a successful classic textbook filibuster in that it raised the profile of a controversial issue in Bill C-5.

Why this story is so important is because the debate on Bill C-15B is just beginning to get the attention it needs. The Canadian Alliance has fought for stronger penalties for those who break the law, including individuals who abuse animals. We object to recent sentences for blatant animal abuse that were far below the maximum penalties. Clearly this is inadequate.

Unfortunately, because of the way Bill C-15B is currently worded many ranchers, hunters and medical researchers may be subjected to harassment. The Liberal cabinet states that the bill would protect farmers, ranchers and researchers but the argument has three fatal flaws. Farmers would have to hire lawyers.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of a motion that the government intends to move with respect to time allocation on Bill C-15B. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, on Friday the government House leader gave notice of his intention to close off debate on this important bill.

I must report that if the motion were moved it would be the 76th time a motion to curtail debate has been moved by the government. The last time this issue was raised with you, Mr. Speaker, the government's record was 69 times. I am aware that you were not sympathetic at that time, nor were you sympathetic on the several other occasions the issue of time allocation was raised. However I believe and I will argue that a Speaker does indeed have the authority to intervene in these matters and prevent a time allocation motion from going forward. It is not a matter of a Speaker having authority, but under which circumstances should a Speaker feel it necessary to intervene.

The government House leader should not be allowed to move his motion because the circumstances that justify an intervention exist more today than at any other time. The right of the opposition to prolong debate has not been respected by the government and one of the last tools the opposition had to slow down a majority government has been taken away. I am referring to the procedure developed by the Reform Party in the last parliament involving the report stage of a bill. Because it was so successful, the government took it away.

The right of the opposition to prolong debate is essential. Without it the public is left without an opposing point of view. We had one successful filibuster in this parliament and it was successful, not because of the opposition, but because the government allowed the filibuster to take place. Bill C-5 represents how essential it is to a democratic institution to have an opposition with the ability to prolong debate.

Let us consider the case of Bill C-5. The member for Red Deer made a good case for the virtues of a good, old fashioned filibuster that was published in a number of papers. He talked about the former Quebec Liberal Senator Philippe Gigantès, who filibustered the GST in the Senate for 17 hours and 45 minutes. Mr. Gigantès told the Hill Times that to delay legislation is the last great tool of democracy. Speaker Fraser put it this way in 1988 when he said:

It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con, and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.

The member for Red Deer argued that if a filibuster is to be successful it must raise the profile of an issue and enlist enough public support to: put the necessary pressure on the government to back down, or make the government pay a price at the polls in the event it insists on passing the bill into law.

He described how the naval aid bill of 1913 represented the first time in Canadian parliamentary history that closure was ever used. The proposed legislation was introduced by the Conservative government of Sir Robert Borden and if adopted would have authorized the cash donation of $35 million to Great Britain for the construction of the Dreadnought class warships for its navy. Sir Wilfrid Laurier strongly opposed the bill and the Liberals filibustered throughout second reading and committee of the whole. At one point in committee of the whole they kept the whole House virtually in continuous session for as long as two weeks: the House sat from 3 o'clock on Monday March 3 until Saturday at midnight and then again from 3 o'clock on Monday March 10 to Saturday late in the evening. The naval bill was eventually defeated in the Liberal dominated Senate.

Closure was used again to close off the famous pipeline debate in 1956. Well known academic C.E.S. Franks said the pipeline debate was perhaps the most important debate in parliament's history and it had inaugurated the modern parliamentary age of both obstruction and reform.

The debate on the omnibus Energy Security Act of 1982 was made famous because the opposition caused the division bells to ring from 4.20 p.m. on Tuesday March 2, until 2.28 p.m.--

Bill C-15B, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Government Contracts

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond to my first business question since I came, as I said, back home again.

Today we will continue with the debate on second reading of Bill C-55. This would be followed by report stage and third reading of Bill S-34, the royal assent bill, followed by consideration of a minor technical amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-23, the competition legislation.

Tomorrow we plan to resume business where it leaves off today, with Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments, as a backup, a bill which I know people are very enthusiastic about supporting.

In any case, it is my intention to call Bill C-15B as the first item of business on Monday.

On Tuesday, subject to progress made earlier, we will commence the report stage of Bill C-53, the pest control legislation. In the evening the House will be in committee of the whole on the Public Works and Government Services estimates, pursuant to our new rule.

Wednesday we plan to debate second reading of a bill respecting nuclear safety about which I gave information to House leaders yesterday. The bill will be introduced at the beginning of the week.

Thursday of next week, that is to say a week from today, shall be an allotted day, the last of this supply period which means, and I say this for the benefit of all hon. members and their plans for that day, that the House will sit into the evening or could sit as late as the evening, depending of course, to consider the main estimates and the appropriation act based thereon.

I want to thank all colleagues, if I can say so in conclusion, for their kind words upon my return as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand this morning and speak to this important piece of legislation, Bill C-56.

Unfortunately, time after time in the House legislation comes in with little foundation, public support or acceptance. We have seen this with Bill C-68 which turned into such a fiasco for the government. We have seen it with Bill C-5, the species at risk act which the government apparently thinks is a good bill because everyone is angry about it. We have seen it with Bill C-15B which is being pushed by animal rights special interest groups who feel the government owes them something from the last election. We have seen it with Bill C-55, the security legislation which is a power grab that would extend the government's power and particularly the power of ministers. Why do we see so much legislation coming to the House in this way? The main reason is that the government is adrift.

Yesterday we heard the government's talking points on corruption. It continually tries to convince us that only government members know what it is like to respect this institution. Today we are dealing with a bill that has had absolutely no respect from the government and its leaders. The bill was sent to committee. The committee did a massive amount of interesting and good work. The minister took the committee's work, threw it all out and brought a different presentation to the House. This is yet another bill that has been introduced almost in a vacuum.

One reason for this is the government's desire to avoid the discussion we need. There are issues beyond this legislation that have not been adequately discussed. If we passed Bill C-56 much of the responsibility that should be parliament's would be passed on to one more bureaucracy that would be created by the bureaucracy. This would remove any opportunity for parliament to control or discuss what goes on in the field.

I will take a few minutes this morning to speak to a crucial issue and ask a couple of questions. First, what is human life and how do we treat it? How do we deal with human life? There are people who say we have talked about this enough and do not need to talk about it any more. There are others who think it is foolish to speak about it. However we need to have a discussion in Canada about what human life is and how to treat it and deal with it.

There are a number of places we can go for the discussion. Ethicists deal with these issues on a daily basis. It is their life's work. There are scientists who are deal with the issues. We need to talk with them. We need to go to historians to look back in history and see what has happened with issues of life and death. It is legitimate to talk with the different faith communities of our country because their focus is on issues of life and death. We should not cut them off from the discussion.

We need to involve political leaders. We were sent here for a reason, and that is to have this discussion. We need to go to regular people and get their opinions as my hon. colleague from Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke did so well. In the last few minutes she read a number of the comments she got from her survey. We also need to go to business participants because there is a business component to the legislation that needs to be discussed.

Bill C-56 comments on what human life is and how we should treat it. I will go through a couple of the bill's definitions. Under Bill C-56 an embryo:

--means a human organism during the first 56 days of its development--

Interestingly, a fetus under the bill:

--means a human organism during the period of its development beginning on the fifty-seventh day following fertilization or creation...and ending at birth.

The definitions in the bill indicate that the government is willing to consider the embryo and the fetus as human organisms. I will continue the definition along its logical path: Perhaps a baby means a human organism during the period of development from birth to two or three years; a child means a human organism during the period of development from three years to 18 years; and an adult means a human organism during the period of development from 18 years to natural death. All we are talking about are different stages of development of the same human organism.

Does the human organism consist only of biological material that we can deal with as we choose, or is there something unique about it? Scientists and sociologists can take us apart and show us piece by piece that we are similar to animals. We have physical systems that function similarly. Because of that, research is done on animals that we can apply and use when dealing with human situations and illnesses.

Many throughout history have argued and understood that the total of what constitutes a human organism is far more than the sum of its individual parts. Most successful cultures and civilizations have believed men and women to be unique. Many religious systems have been predicated on the assumption. Many scientific discoveries have come from the hypothesis.

We need to have a discussion about the issue because we are not only setting the stage for a bill. We are talking about legislating attitudes toward human beings in our society. The conclusion we reach in the House about the issue will have great consequences for Canadian society and culture.

Throughout the last century we saw what happened when governments decided individual human beings were not unique and were only basic economic units. In university I was bombarded for three years with Mr. Marx's political theory which states that all events can be analyzed from an economic perspective and that human beings fit into the same analysis.

We have seen Marx's theory lived out under socialist governments throughout the last century and in this century. There has been more brutality under such systems than under any other. Let us look at Mr. Stalin. To gain control of a segment of his economic society he completely destroyed the middle class agricultural community by starving it to death. The individuals in that society were worth nothing to him because he needed to achieve an economic goal.

We have seen this in China which continues to persecute people and deny human rights. The individual means nothing under China's system as it tries to keep its economic structure moving along. We have see it in Sudan where war is being waged against individuals for the sake of profit. When weak positions are taken regarding human uniqueness, individuality and creativity there is a loss of compassion for other people.

We are not immune to this. The Liberal government has refused to deal with a number of issues involving the value of human life. About six weeks ago several MPs had the privilege of meeting with a number of police officers, customs officials and others who deal with the issue of child pornography. These people are fed up with the government's attitude and its refusal to deal with the issue. Anyone who has seen such material and understands what is going on in the lives of those children knows something needs to be done immediately. Yet the government insists on doing nothing. It has failed to move. Child pornography is repugnant and abhorrent. The Liberal government's failure to deal with the issue touches the heart of how it views its citizens.

There are a couple of other questions we need to deal with and talk about. We need to look at the idea of when human life begins. Our present law says human life begins at birth. This is nonsense. It is ridiculous from a number of perspectives, particularly a scientific perspective. The beginning of human life is at conception when the union of genetic material occurs and completion of the DNA package takes place.

Science has thrown a red herring into the whole discussion by arbitrarily choosing a number, day 14, as the point where the embryo becomes something more than it was on day 13. They want to be able to continue experimentation during the first 13 days so they suggest something happens on the 14th day that makes the embryo a different being. That is not the case.

Scientists have failed to address the issue of when life begins. They run the risk of disqualifying themselves by not dealing honestly with the issue. As we heard earlier this morning, for many of them the issue has become an opportunity to make a quick buck. It has become an economic decision rather than a scientific or ethical one.

My time is winding down. We will be addressing a number of other issues when the bill comes back to parliament. I will talk later about what human life is worth. We talked a bit about whether it is unique and when it begins. However what is it worth? Parliament needs to look at what we consider to be the value of human beings in our culture.

There are two interesting and ironic business realities in the legislation. Under Bill C-56 surrogate mothers would be paid absolutely nothing. They would not be allowed to make money from their commitment to surrogacy. On the other hand, companies in Canada would be allowed to make millions of dollars from research.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, we shall continue this afternoon with the debate on the opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will return to Bill C-56, respecting reproductive technologies, followed by Bill C-55, the public safety bill, and Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments. On Monday, we will continue consideration of these bills.

Tuesday will be an allotted day. In the evening on Tuesday, as the House already knows, we will sit in committee of the whole pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a) to consider the estimates of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

On Wednesday, if necessary, we will return to any of the bills I have previously mentioned that may not already been completed, subject to arrangements we may make to deal with the Senate amendments to Bill C-23, the competition legislation, Bill S-34, dealing with royal assent, and perhaps Bill C-5 concerning species at risk. We are also hopeful that Bill C-54, the sports bill, and Bill C-53, the pest control bill, will be reported from committee in the very near future, so that we may take up report stage and third reading of those particular items.

Finally, we are also looking forward to reports from committees of the House on two other bills that have been in committee for what would appear to be an inordinate length of time, namely, Bill C-48 dealing with copyright, which has been before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for more than three months now, and Bill C-19, the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is fast approaching its first anniversary before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am sure the House is anxiously awaiting the reports of those committees so that legislation can be proceeded with through its final stages.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-386 introduced by the hon. member for Calgary East, an act to amend the criminal code dealing with breaking and entering. Last May an identical bill, Bill C-290, was debated at second reading and dropped from the order paper.

As was stated when the former bill was debated, the safety and security of Canadians in their own homes continues to be a key priority for the Government of Canada. The government has responded to concerns about home invasions through amendments to Bill C-15A, the criminal law amendment act, 2001 which is currently awaiting royal assent. The amendments to the criminal code indicate that where an offender's conduct is in the nature of a home invasion the court must consider it an aggravating factor when determining the sentence to be imposed.

Bill C-386 would amend paragraph 348(1)( d ) of the criminal code of Canada by providing for maximum penalties:

(i) in the case of a first offence, to imprisonment for life, or

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for life or to a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than two years--

Section 348 of the criminal code currently makes it an offence to enter a place with intent to commit an indictable offence, to actually commit an indictable offence, or to have broken out of a place after having committed or intending to commit an indictable offence. The current maximum penalty for committing any of these acts in a dwelling place is life imprisonment. The offence of robbery also carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

I suspect most Canadians would be surprised that these offences attract such a severe maximum penalty. Surveys conducted by the Canadian Sentencing Commission in the mid-1980s showed that the public had little knowledge of either the maximum or minimum penalties and many people were surprised by the severity of the existing maxima.

The current maximum penalties for breaking and entering and robbery demonstrate that the government recognizes the conduct is of a serious nature which may have significant impacts on its victims. I might add that I know how it feels to have been a victim of a break and enter since I experienced it in my own home.

The sanctity of an individual's home as a place of safety free from intrusion has been recognized in common law for hundreds of years. It is in part for this reason that the criminal code offences of robbery and break and enter of a dwelling house are both subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Section 718 of the criminal code provides that:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute...to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society--

The objectives of sentencing set out in the criminal code include denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring the offender and others from committing offences, and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and the community.

The government shares the concerns of Canadians with regard to the relatively new phenomenon of home invasion robberies; that is, robberies that occur when the home is occupied. Courts across Canada have been imposing stiff sentences for this type of crime that address the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence and highlight the importance of individuals being able to feel safe and secure in their own homes. The government's amendments to Bill C-15A signal that home invasions constitute serious conduct that should be met with significant penalties.

In addition to providing a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, which the criminal code already does for breaking and entering in a dwelling house for robbery, Bill C-386 would provide that a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of two years be imposed in the case of a second or subsequent offence.

Canada has historically utilized mandatory minimum penalties with restraint and has allowed courts the discretion to fashion a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the offender. It is also interesting to see that other countries are questioning the use of mandatory minimum penalties. The legislature in Australia's Northern Territory recently repealed its mandatory minimum sentences. Courts of appeal in the United States have recently struck down some of California's mandatory minimum penalties as being cruel and unusual punishment.

Judges who have the benefit of being able to consider all the facts and evidence regarding the circumstances of the offence and the offender are well placed to determine the appropriate sentence in an individual case. Those circumstances must be weighed in light of the principles of sentencing. There is no clearly demonstrated need to create a minimum penalty for a second or subsequent conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling house given the high maximum penalty already in the code and the sentencing patterns for this offence.

It is also important to note that courts take into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing the fact that the offender has a previous conviction for the same or a related offence. In fact, the existence of a criminal record is the greatest predictor of a longer sentence length.

With respect to home invasion, the creation of an aggravating sentencing provision in Bill C-15A would encourage judges to use those tough penalties already available which, as noted, many courts have been doing throughout Canada in recognition of the seriousness of the offence and its devastating impact upon its victims.

While I recognize the concerns of the hon. member for Calgary East with respect to the offence of breaking and entering, I do believe that the existing penalty of life imprisonment for this offence and the amendments found in Bill C-15A clearly demonstrate our commitment to providing safe homes for all Canadians.

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

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-15B, specifically the cruelty to animals provision of the bill which is of particular concern to residents in my riding. I will be addressing three specific aspects of the bill: the definition of animal, private prosecutions under the bill, and the inclusion of the terms wilfully and negligently

I will begin by discussing in general terms the objectives of cruelty to animals provisions in the bill. Bill C-15B has two primary objectives: to consolidate, modernize and simplify the existing scheme of animal cruelty offences; and to increase existing maximum penalties and provide new sentencing tools to enhance the effectiveness of the offence provisions.

The first objective would be achieved by removing inconsistent and confusing terminology. It would also achieved by removing archaic distinctions between different types of animals. For example, section 444 deals exclusively with cattle, which I note are defined in the criminal code to include other named domesticated animals as well. Section 445 deals exclusively with animals kept for a lawful purpose and subsection 446(1)(f) deals only with birds.

The amendments would further rationalize the law by distinguishing between offences of criminal negligence and offences requiring subjective intent and providing separate penalty regimes for each type of offence.

Creation of a new part of the criminal code for animal cruelty offences would further the aims of modernization and simplification. The new part would better reflect the policy of the existing law, in place since 1953, that society has an interest in protecting animals from intentional cruelty and criminal neglect and that this interest is independent of their status as property.

However, because the offences were left in Part XI, a part of the code dealing with offences in respect of certain property, there is a lack of clarity and consistency in the law about the fact that animals, whether property or not, have a capacity to feel pain. It is the capacity to feel which is addressed by prohibitions against the infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. Creation of a new part would be a more accurate reflection of the principle upon which the law is based.

Those involved in the investigation and prosecution of cruelty offences report that some criminal justice officials fail to treat cruelty offences with sufficient seriousness, tending to view them as property crimes, such as simple mischief.

There is growing evidence of a link between cruelty to animals and violence against people, including domestic violence and even child abuse. In recognition of this link, animal cruelty offences are best viewed as offences of violence. The continued classification of these offences as crimes against property interests fails to educate the public and the justice system about the true nature of the crimes.

A new offence would also be created to cover a gap in the current law. Under the present law, a person with a lawful excuse for killing an animal is prohibited only from doing so in any way that causes unnecessary pain. This means that a person might use depraved methods of killing an animal for sheer enjoyment and so long as the animal dies instantly, no offence is committed. Although the animal has been spared pain or suffering, society recognizes that brutality or vicious conduct is outside the scope of acceptable behaviour and in fact may pose a serious threat to society at large. Such conduct could include tying an animal to a railroad track, fastening an explosive device to an animal or putting an animal in a microwave oven, of which we have seen cases. The new offence is created to update the law so that this type of behaviour would be punishable.

The second objective of the animal cruelty provisions in Bill C-15B would involve enhancing available penalties. This would be achieved by making existing summary conviction offences dual procedure, allowing the crown to proceed by way of indictment for the more serious offences. Where the crown proceeds by indictment, maximum penalties would be increased to five years for offences of subjective intent and two years for offences of criminal negligence. An amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights raised the maximum fines available for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect where the offence is proceeded with by summary conviction to $10,000 and $5,000, respectively.

The maximum duration of an order prohibiting an offender from owning or having custody of an animal has been extended from two years to life. The courts are given a new power to order a convicted offender to repay to a person or to an organization the costs associated with the caring for the animal in respect of which the offender was convicted.

The term animal is defined in Bill C-15B as a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain. Some people suggest that this definition is too broad. The definition is actually narrower, not broader, than the existing law. Under the current cruelty provisions animal is not defined. At the present time the courts are free to interpret the word animal in accordance with everyday meaning resulting in an interpretation broad enough to include most, if not all, members of the animal kingdom and certainly including many invertebrates. The definition is included to clarify and simplify the law by introducing a greater degree of precision in the law's application, and by providing a rational and principled definition which accords with the underlying purpose of the cruelty provisions.

From a scientific perspective, vertebrates are generally viewed as having sufficiently developed nervous systems to allow for sense and pain perception. They are therefore, as a group, all given protection under the law. However some invertebrates have a developed nervous system and therefore also must have the capacity to feel pain. It would be arbitrary to permanently and absolutely deny protection to some animals because they happen to be classified as invertebrates. Bill C-15B would create a mechanism that allows the crown to proceed in appropriate cases. The onus is on the crown prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the definition of animal has been satisfied.

A broad definition of animal is consistent not only with definitions found in some provincial statutes but also with statutes in the United States. The following may be of interest to members: “does not include a human being” is found in Alberta; “non-human living being with developed nervous systems” is found in Manitoba and New Brunswick; “includes every living creature” in the state of Arkansas; “every living creature except man”, in the state of Maryland; “does not include the human race, but includes every other human creature”, in the state of Nevada; and the list goes on. There is no indication that the definitions of animal used in these jurisdictions have generated inappropriate use of the legislation.

The concern has been raised that the new cruelty provisions would make it easier for interest groups to prosecute persons involved in legitimate practices involving animals. This argument is made even though the test of liability for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect in the bill has not been changed.

The investigation and prosecution of the criminal code offences are the responsibility of local or provincial police forces and provincial attorneys general. Attorneys general decide when to pursue a charge laid by the police. In some cases, humane societies are mandated with investigating and prosecuting cruelty offences. These humane societies are constituted by provincial or territorial legislation and they exercise statutory powers granted to them by the legislation.

In every case brought to the attention of criminal justice officials, a number of considerations are taken into account in deciding whether to proceed, including whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. Procedures that ensure pre-trial screening of charges by prosecutors are more prevalent now than they were in the past and provide an additional safeguard against frivolous or vexatious prosecutions. Some 100 years of experience with animal cruelty laws shows no evidence of inappropriate use of criminal law by authorities to attack standard industry practices.

Private citizens are generally entitled to lay a criminal charge. However, in every case the attorney general in the jurisdiction retains the ability to intervene and take over the charge, and may withdraw the charges.