Bill C-15 (Historical)

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

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

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Very good. I like that.

I will have to focus here. I didn't get much sleep last night. I had my windows open and I live in a noisy neighbourhood. There was a cat meowing all night long, and it wouldn't stop meowing. It gave me lots of time to think, if I can get my head together here.

I will continue with quoting the ethics guidelines from the Canadian Association of Journalists, “We make sure to retain the original context of all quotations or clips, striving to convey the original tone”, which we are seeing in these articles. “Our reporting and editing will not change the meaning of a statement or exclude important qualifiers.”

It's in the ethics guidelines, right there; they do not change the meaning or statement. Look at the articles. If this is not a leak, why are the stories so close together? Why does the wording of both stories show statement of fact rather than just speculation?

I will quote here from March 19, 2001. At that time, the Speaker ruled on a question of privilege regarding an incident whereby the media was briefed on a justice bill, Bill C-15, before the members of Parliament. The Speaker indicated that there were two important issues in that case: “the matter of the embargoed briefing to the media and the issue of members' access to information required to fulfil their duties.”

In that ruling, the Speaker said:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government’s discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence.... The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.... To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

Mr. Chair, I think we find ourselves in the same type of situation.

This bill was probably the most important bill I will get to vote on in this term, in this Parliament, and—if the voters are willing to return me to this place, which I hope they are—probably in my entire career. Nothing will be as wide-reaching as this bill, the magnitude of this bill.

By the way, I did a constituency referendum on Bill C-14. Of almost 4,000 returned ballots, 78% voted in favour of Bill C-14. It was a good experience to do that and consult the constituents. My riding, Mr. Chair, is not as big as yours, but as the House was sitting at the time, it was a way to consult a large number of constituents in a small to medium-sized area in that short period of time and get a fairly accurate reading of constituents. Everybody, regardless of how they voted, had the opportunity to tell me how to vote. The range of comments was very good, lots of good feedback. People were telling me to vote yes or no based on a wide range of reasons, whether they saw a family member suffer—

Criminal Code

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today to take part in the debate on second reading of Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act.

Essentially, Bill C-22 proposes changes to the Criminal Code to better protect young people, age 14 and 15, against any form of sexual exploitation by adult predators. That is a rather clear and simple objective that the members of this House should understand and support.

It is also an important element of our government’s commitment to tackle crime. We recognize that families should be able to raise their children without fear of sexual predators. In that regard, Bill C-22 enables us to take a very big step toward the achievement of that commitment and, I would even go so far as to add, to satisfy the expectations of Canadians.

The age of consent, or the age of protection, is the age at which the Criminal Code recognizes the capacity of a young person to consent to sexual activity. In other words, it is the age below which any sexual activity with a child or young person is prohibited.

At present, the Criminal Code prohibits all sexual activity with a child under two categories of offences: general offences of sexual assault of a child or an adult, and specific offences that apply only to children. Those prohibitions deal with any form of sexual activity, whether it consists of sexual touching or sexual relations.

The criteria under which an assault is “sexual” was established almost 20 years ago by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. Chase, a 1987 case in which the court concluded that sexual assault is an assault which is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature, such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. This criterion requires any court to consider all the circumstances, such as the part of the body touched, the nature of the contact, the situation in which it occurred, and the intentions of the accused.

Bill C-22 does not seek to amend the already well established legal status on this question. In fact, it proposes rather to build on the approach adopted by the Criminal Code concerning the prohibition of sexual activity with those who have not reached the age of consent

Currently, the minimum age of consent to sexual activity that is in any way exploitative is 18 years. This applies to prostitution, pornography and sexual activity involving a relationship of authority, trust or dependence or situations in which a young person is exploited in some other way.

The bill does not change the existing age of protection for these purposes.

For other kinds of sexual activity, however, the current age of consent is 14. There is only one exception to this rule: 12- and 13-year-old youths can consent to sexual activity on condition that their partner is less than two years older than they are, although this partner may not be 16, and the relationship is not one of trust, authority or dependence or a relationship in which the youth is exploited in some other way.

Bill C-22 does not change this two-year age proximity exception, although it does advance the age of consent from 14 to 16 years. It also creates a new age proximity exception for 14- and 15-year old youths.

More specifically and as is currently the case with the age proximity exception for 12- and 13-year old youths, Bill C-22 would create a new age proximity exception that would allow 14- and 15-year-old youths to consent to sexual activity with a person who is less than five years older on condition that this relationship does not involve a position of authority, trust or dependence and is not exploitative in any way.

The bill contains a broader age exception for 14- and 15-year-old youths in recognition of the fact that they are more likely to engage in sexual activities than 12- or 13-year-olds and the peer group of secondary school students is generally larger than that of children in intermediate school. This measure also reflects the general purpose of Bill C-22, which is to better protect 14- and 15-year old youths against adult predators while avoiding the criminalization of consensual sexual activity among adolescents.

This is not the first time that we have studied a proposal to extend the age of protection from 14 to 16 years of age. This issue has actually been raised, studied and debated on numerous occasions over the last 20 years.

Allow me to mention some of the landmark reports on the subject.

First, in 1981, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, together with the Minister of Health and Welfare, struck the Committee on Sexual Offences against Children and Youth. The committee was given a very broad mandate to examine the incidence of sexual offences against children and adolescents in Canada and to recommend improvements to laws protecting adolescents against sexual abuse and exploitation.

The committee, often referred to as the Badgely committee after its chair, Robin Badgely, submitted its report in 1984. This was the first comprehensive interdisciplinary report to provide a national overview of the sexual abuse and exploitation of children in Canada. The committee made 52 recommendations that addressed the need to reform criminal and evidentiary law, as well as social services and programs to better protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation.

The committee studied existing Criminal Code prohibitions concerning sexual activity with children. For example, at the time, the only thing a man was absolutely prohibited from doing was having sexual relations with a female who was not his spouse and who was under 14 years of age. Sexual relationships with 14 or 15 year old girls were prohibited only if the girl in question was “of previously chaste character” or if the accused was more to blame than the girl for the behaviour.

It is easy to see why the committee recommended modernizing these prohibitions to protect both boys and girls, not only from sexual relationships, but also from all forms of sexual activity, regardless of whether they were “of previously chaste character”.

It is interesting to note that the committee also recommended that the age of protection be raised from 14 to 16 years. However, even though several of the committee's other recommendations were followed in what was then Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, which came into force on January 1, 1988, the age of protection was not raised.

Former Bill C-15 required that Parliament review the implementation and the effectiveness of these reforms four years after they came into force. In June 1993, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, chaired by Bob Horner, tabled its report on the four-year review of the child sexual abuse provisions of the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act (formerly Bill C-15).

Once again, the issue of age of consent was examined. Some of the submissions the committee received recommended raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 and including a close in age exception of three years. However, the committee concluded that the testimony received did not warrant raising the age of consent.

So it is that Bill C-22 is before us today. The issue is still there; it has not gone away. But do we have more evidence today than in 1993 to justify raising the age of consent? I think so, and I believe that the people of Canada think so as well.

First, children and adolescents continue to be greatly exposed to the risks of sexual assault and exploitation.

In 2005, Statistics Canada said that children and adolescents accounted for 61% of all victims of sexual assault reported to police. According to its report, and I quote, “Sexual assaults are largely crimes committed against children and young people.” [Juristat: Children and youth as victims of violent crime, April 2005].

As well, the adolescents that Bill C-22 is seeking to protect better are among those at highest risk of being victims of sexual assault. Again according to Statistics Canada's 2005 Juristat, girls aged 11 to 17 account for a high proportion of victims of all types of sexual assaults committed against children and adolescents: 31% or nearly a third of victims were adolescent girls between 14 and 17, and nearly 23% of victims were adolescent girls between 11 and 13.

These same adolescent girls are also more likely to be lured over the Internet. Luring over the Internet has been an offence under the Criminal Code since 2002. The Criminal Code prohibits the use of the Internet to communicate with a child or an adolescent for the purpose of committing a sexual offence or an abduction.

In 2005, Cybertip.ca, a national tipline for reporting the online exploitation of children, reported that during its pilot phase from September 2002 to September 2004, 10% of the tips it received were about online luring.

In 93% of cases, the victims were young girls, most of them—about 73%—between the ages of 12 and 15. Given the popularity of the Internet among teens, we have every reason to believe that this trend will continue.

For example, three years ago, Statistics Canada reported that 71%—nearly three quarters—of 15 year olds used the Internet at least a few times a week; 60% said they used it primarily for email and chatting. My source is a document entitled Canadian Social Trends published in the summer of 2003 by Statistics Canada.

The 2004 report of the Canadian branch of the World Internet Project, which was released in October 2005, included a survey of Canadian Internet users and non-users. In the survey, parents estimated that their children spent an average of 8.9 hours a week on the Internet.

Third, young Canadians engage in sexual activity relatively early. Let us look at some of Statistics Canada's data about sexual activity among youth.

In May 2005, Statistics Canada reported that the percentage of teens who said they had sex for the first time before turning 15 has been increasing since the 1980s. As reported in The Daily on May 3, 2005, it is estimated that 12% of boys and 14% of girls have had a sexual relationship before turning 14 or 15. In 2003, an estimated 28% of 15 to 17 year olds reported having had at least one sexual relationship.

Fourth, many other countries already recognize that 14 and 15 year olds are at risk of sexual exploitation. Their age of protection is higher than Canada's 14.

Take the Commonwealth countries, for example, where the criminal law derives from the same sources as Canada’s. We find that the age of protection is 16 in England, and 16 at the federal level and 16 or 17 at the state level in Australia. In New Zealand, the age of consent is 16. If we look south of the border, we find that the age of consent is 16 at the federal level in the United States, and that it varies essentially from 16 to 18 at the state level.

It is particularly worth noting how Hawaii recently dealt with this question. In that state, the age of consent was set at 14 until 2001, when it was temporarily raised to 16 so that additional analyses and studies could be done. In 2003 it was permanently raised to 16, and an exception for age differences within five years was adopted for all sexual activity with a young person 14 or 15 years of age.

Today we know much more about the risk of 14 and 15 year-olds being sexually exploited than we did 20 years ago. It is now time to act on what we know.

I am aware that some people have decided that Bill C-22 serves no purpose, arguing that former Bill C-2, which dealt with the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, extended the existing prohibition on sexual application to cover young people aged 14 to 18. That amendment imposed a duty on the courts to consider all of the circumstances of a sexual relationship with a young person, such as the age of the young person, any age difference between the two partners, the evolution of the relationship and the degree of control or influence by the older partner over the young person, in determining whether the situation was a case of sexual exploitation.

That amendment was simply not sufficient. It did not adequately clarify things and it did not protect young people aged 14 and 15. However, that is what Bill C-22 does. Bill C-22 eliminates all conjecture and draws a very clear dividing line: if you are more than five years older than a young person who is 14 or 15 years old, you are prohibited from engaging in any sexual activity with that young person. This rule will provide protection for all young people 14 and 15 years of age against anyone who is more than five years older than them.

It is not the aim of Bill C-22 to criminalize all sexual activity on the part of young people. In fact, this bill provides for very clear and very reasonable exceptions, to ensure that sexual activity between young people to which they have freely consented is not criminalized. Bill C-22 will not operate to criminalize marriages or common-law relationships involving a partner who is 14 or 15 years of age and a partner more than five years older than that person that exist when it comes into force. There will be an exception for those cases.

However, there should be no doubt regarding who will be held criminally liable under Bill C-22: any adult who is five or more years older than a young person with whom he or she engages in sexual activity. This is not just something that must be done to protect young people against sexual predators, it is also the only fair thing to do.

Cruelty to Animals

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the hon. member and his party have against Bill C-15B. It is a bill which modernizes the provisions of the criminal code which were essentially outdated. We did not have, believe it or not, in our criminal code a definition of animal. We had to create new offences as well. Basically the new provisions that we will have with Bill C-15B will put our country in line with what we see in other countries in the world.

Having said that, the bill is in the Senate. As I said, if there are amendments, the Senate alone will decide that.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is talking about, is a bill that we are very proud of on this side of the House, Bill C-15B. It is there to modernize a section of the criminal code, create a definition of animals as well, which we did not have, create new offences in that field, which is very important, and increase penalties.

On this side of the House, we are very proud of what we are doing on the issue of cruelty to animals. Having said that, if there amendments, the Senate will decide that.

Independent Public Inquiry

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to support this timely motion put forward by my colleague from Saskatoon--Wanuskewin in view of his concern about a problem in Canada. I commend my colleague for bringing it forward. The motion reads:

That this House appoint a committee to conduct an independent public inquiry into Canada's sentencing, corrections and parole systems for the purpose of identifying measures to provide meaningful consequences for offenders, reinforce public safety, and instill public confidence.

That sounds like a worthy goal but the parliamentary secretary completely dismissed the idea of bringing forward an independent inquiry to look at sentencing.

The last time the government attempted to amend the criminal code with regard to sentencing was almost seven years ago. In June 1995 Bill C-41 was rammed through the House of Commons much like Bill C-15B and Bill C-5 were rammed through this spring. The government attempted to pass legislation and then recessed for the summer. That is the way Bill C-41 went through the House.

Before I proceed, for the record I would like to state my opposition to the blatant disregard for democracy that the government has shown. To cut off debate on Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B as mentioned by the member from Yorkton an hour ago was nothing more than a cowardly act clearly demonstrating the government's desperation to have these contentious bills dispensed with given the growing opposition and the swelling dissent from within the Liberal ranks as well as the strong opposition from the Canadian Alliance.

Bill C-41 as stated earlier amended the criminal code providing an express statement regarding the purpose and principles of sentencing. Contained within that legislation were provisions for alternative measures, alternatives to prison for adult offenders. Bill C-41 contained conditional sentences where offenders sentenced to two years less a day could serve their sentences in the community under supervision rather than in prison.

The Canadian Police Association, an authority that even justice ministers often cite as law enforcement experts, commented on Bill C-41 but the commentary was anything but complimentary. In a brief submitted to the standing committee on justice the Canadian Police Association said:

Bill C-41 with few exemptions, is unwieldy, complicated, internally self-contradictory, duplicitous and what is worse in almost all of it, completely unnecessary for anyone with any knowledge of or use for the common law heritage of Canada.

The police association went on to say:

While it would attempt to codify basic sentencing principles, eliminating this most basic judicial discretion, at the same time it would bestow huge new discretionary powers to a whole range of persons within the justice system.The common thread in those new powers is that all are to the benefit of the offender in the sense of non-custodial consequences for criminal actions.

Where sentencing reform calls for protection, this bill offers platitudes. Where it calls for clarity it offers confusion and outright hypocrisy. It will almost certainly cause the already skyrocketing criminal justice budget to expand further still.

I could not have summed up what Bill C-41 accomplished better than what the Canadian Police Association did.

The government has a pathetic record when it comes to tightening the screws of justice. Conditional sentences are a prime example.

Since the introduction of Bill C-41 members of our party have requested amendments and subsequently asked that the criminal code be amended to restrict the use of conditional sentences. We have had ample reason to be concerned about the release of violent offenders, including rapists, back into our society and on to our streets. Pretty good reasons would be our daughters, wives and mothers and unfortunately, now we can even say our sons.

Sex offenders have the highest rate of reoffending. They have the highest recidivism rates and pose a serious risk to our safety and to the lives of our families. However, despite our repeated requests, successive justice ministers have refused to limit conditional sentences. As a direct result we see rapists walking free. We have numerous examples to prove this fact.

This afternoon I would like to mention a number of the appalling examples. On January 26, 1998, a Quebec court judge granted 24 year old Patrick Lucien and 23 year old Evans Sannon 18 month conditional sentences for sexual assault. The judge granted these lenient sentences although the crown recommended prison terms of five and four years for their heinous crimes. A community sentence was totally inappropriate and unacceptable for those two individuals who took turns raping an 18 year old victim while the other one held her down.

When questioned in the House about this case, the former justice minister said that she was satisfied to leave it in the courts. She was satisfied to leave that case and similar controversies to the courthouse rather than deal with the law here in the House. She was not prepared to amend the criminal code limiting the use of conditional sentences. We had then and still are requesting that happen.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is planning to review conditional sentences, hopefully to an end of finally making them off limits for violent and repeat offenders, as we have been recommending for seven years.

Two weeks ago Chatham speech pathologist Larry Hyde was convicted of possessing some 5,000 images of child pornography on the hard drive of his computer. In the ruling the presiding judge described the images as very vile and yet Hyde was given an 18 month conditional sentence and ordered not to associate or communicate with anyone under the age of 18 unless he was accompanied by another adult.

Following the Hyde case, one newspaper said that conditional sentences for possessing child pornography seemed to be the norm across Canada. It is normal now. That is what we have come to in the country. It is normal to put these perverts back out on the street as quick as we can.

Last September, Daniel Isaac Sichel of New Brunswick was handed a six month conditional sentence for possession and trading of child pornography on the Internet. In December, Richard Blumhagel was sentenced to a nine month conditional sentence in a Windsor court for distributing videotapes of child pornography.

The only comforting news in the Hyde case is that the Chatham police have placed his photograph on the provincial sex offender registry.

Daily in the House we see members presenting petitions asking the government to make it a criminal offence for the sadomasochism of children and child pornography and yet we watch our courts put them back out on the streets with conditional sentences. It is a shame. Shame on the court and parole systems that allow such individuals to be walking our streets.

Limiting conditional sentences is only one of many changes that must be made to ensure offenders receive meaningful consequences. The other way, and perhaps one of the most important in my mind, is limiting parole and eliminating statutory release. Although the Canadian Police Association does recognize that there is a place for the conditional release of offenders, it believes that parole must be earned and not be an automatic right as is currently the case.

We completely agree with the Canadian Police Association. Criminals must earn their right to parole by the way they conduct themselves in prison and whether or not they better their lives by gaining a skill while in prison. Their right to parole should not be an inherent right.

National Parole Board statistics for 1999-2000 show the number of incidences committed by offenders on conditional release has increased. A corrections performance report states that the number of escapes from minimum security prisons are increasing.

Recent and all too frequent high profile people, such as police officers, as the member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin mentioned, have been murdered by those who have been out on parole. Police officers who uphold the law and peace in the country have been shot and killed by individuals who have been out on parole. This is wrong.

We need a government with the will to make changes. The parliamentary secretary talked about reviewing the CCRA. The government accepted 48 of the recommendations two years ago but has failed to implement them.

Studies that are not accepted and nothing is done with them may as well be thrown in the fireplace. They do no good.

Committees of the House

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, we are a farmer friendly party and will be increasingly so. I do not know what Bill C-15B has to do with the report, but the chair of the rural caucus did his best to ensure the bill would be changed. I expect that when the Senate gets around to it Bill C-15B will be changed to ensure current farm practices relative to cruelty to animals--

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

Madam Speaker, members of the Liberal rural caucus told farmers and their constituents they were strongly opposed to Bill C-15B. They promised amendments would be made in the Senate. This week on the Stirling Faux radio show in Saskatchewan Senator Joan Fraser admitted that when she spoke to the minister she learned there had never been any such agreement.

Can the Liberal member opposite explain why he and his party misled constituents and the farmers of Canada into believing that the Liberals were a farmer friendly party, that amendments would be made in the Senate, and that an agreement had been made when in fact--

Pest Control Products Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise and speak to third reading of Bill C-53, the pest control act. I know it is too late to make amendments to the bill but I hope to make some suggestions to which I hope the government will listen. Perhaps at some future date it will implement some of these suggestions and the positive changes we hope to see take place.

Unlike the debate earlier today in which the government found itself on the wrong side of an issue, the disability tax credit and having to defend its treatment of disabled persons, we find that this bill is politically correct in every way.

I think this bill is part of a trend. When I came to Ottawa, I was under the impression that bills would be written with a positive objective. It is surprising to me to see that a number of bills have been introduced with a negative objective.

The first one I came across was Bill C-15B, which was the animal rights legislation. It has a very strange definition in it where it defines animals as “any being that has the capacity to feel pain”. That is a very strange and negative way to define an animal. We could just as well have been defined animal as one that can feel excitement. It could have been defined either way. It was interesting that the government took a negative tact to define one of the major definitions in that bill.

When we read the primary objective of Bill C-53, once again we see that it has a negative tact of what it wants to do. It says that it is “in the national interest that the primary objective of the federal regulatory system be to prevent unacceptable risk to people and the environment from the use of pest control products”. It begins with the assumption that the bill needs to do something negative.

It is too late now to change the bill but the objective of the bill could have easily been to promote good health and environmental stewardship through the regulation of products which are used for controlling pests. That throws an entirely different flavour on the objective of the bill and its direction.

The perspective of the department is revealed in a large way by how it put the bill together. The objective sets the direction for how the bill will be enforced and how it will be applied. I have a lot of concerns about that. The words “prevent” rather than “promote” have been used . The words “stop“ rather than “provide” have been used. I think already we can see what the intention of the department will be in applying this legislation.

The bill also seems to be very politically correct in that it is discriminatory. Once again, by picking out special interest groups, the government misses out on protecting the people it should be protecting. In the preamble of the bill it mentions that we need to take into account the effects of chemicals on major identifiable subgroups, including pregnant women, infants, children, women and seniors. However it completely misses mentioning the effects on the people who use chemicals the most and who are most closely exposed to them, and that is men.

It is fine to identify the other identifiable subgroups. It is true that some of them are more susceptible to chemicals than others. In my constituency the men are exposed most closely to the majority of the chemicals. Men are working with them consistently. I would expect that to be fair government legislation should deal with everyone, not just the politically correct groups. It is an insult that seems to always accompany special interest politics by people who either do not really understand how things work right on the ground or bureaucrats who have an agenda.

I would like to talk a bit about the people at home. I come from an agricultural area where chemicals are used. The people who use them are primarily the men in our area. The farmers use them in spring to treat seed crops, fungicides and in a number of other ways. Later in the spring they use them for weed control and insect control. In the fall there are chemicals that are often applied as well. I suggest men do have special characteristics. There are a number of illnesses that are often ignored because it seems they are male in origin, while other more politically popular and perhaps more politically correct diseases get a lot of funding and attention from different places.

The bill discriminates. I am not too sure the people who wrote it realize that. My question would be this. How used to that way of thinking have we become that we begin to discriminate but do not realize it?

As so many other bills, this bill also has a coercive element to it. We have seen other coercive government thinking. We have seen the big stick approach in a number of other bills as well. Just lately, in Bill C-5, the government insisted on passing a bill without providing for compensation for landowners who would be affected by it. The government said that we should be comforted by the fact that at some point in the future it would put compensation in regulations.

We have seen it in Bill C-15B where there are very strong penalties for animal rights abuses, yet at the same time the government has chosen not to protect farmers and ranchers from frivolous claims and attacks on their normal way of life. We have seen it also in Bill C-68 which over the years has been a source of a lot of contention and problems.

We see it here again in terms of the transportation, disposal and handling of these products. Clause 6 reads:

No person shall handle, store, transport, use or dispose of a pest control product in a way that is inconsistent with...

Then it states the regulations and a couple of other options.

Later we see that the fines are very substantial. Penalties are severe: $200,000 or six months in jail for a summary conviction and $500,000 and three years upon conviction from an indictment.

I would suggest that farmers will be caught in this. It may be news to the government but containers are not always disposed of in the manner that the bureaucrats have decided is good. That happens for a number of reasons. Often the regulations are made with no accommodation for compliance. The regulations are set up but it is not practical to comply with them or there is no funding in place to make it possible to comply with them. Often there are physical barriers to compliance which includes things like no local facility to dispose of the product or the extra containers.

The best solution I saw on this was in my home province of Saskatchewan. It came out with a program where the containers were triple rinsed and then returned to the local landfill site. It was very successful, it was voluntary and it had educational component to it. Farmers were very happy to comply with the program. They just needed a bit of encouragement and some education on the fact that the program was there for them. Fines of $200,000 will not encourage compliance as much as encouragement and a good program with a bit of education.

I have some concerns as well about the re-evaluation process. Clause 16 talks about that. It mentions that all chemicals shall be re-evaluated at some point. It talks about the fact that if the pest control product was approved in the past years, then the review process would have to be implemented fairly quickly. There is a time limit on when new chemicals will have to be re-evaluated.

This could be a very good process or it could be a disaster. We need to know more about the provisions to re-evaluate all chemicals on the market. If the government tells everyone to begin from the start with these chemicals in order to get them re-evaluated, we will find ourselves with a very expensive, cumbersome process.

The PMRA has not exactly been successful at its registration of new products. I do not know that we can throw every chemical that we have approved in the last 30 years on it without causing a huge backlog. If the government expects companies to start over with the registration, it will be just about impossible. However, if at some point it is willing to set up with an ongoing evaluation system and give approval to chemicals that demonstrate that they are not a problem that are not causing problems in the environment, then this re-evaluation process could be an excellent thing. All of it depends upon the application of the process.

I have great concern over subclause 17(2) which talks about a special review every time any OECD country takes a product off the market. We know that trade concerns can often be hidden behind health and environmental issues. We have already run into that a number of times in other areas. I suggest this ties us too closely to other countries and their activities. The Liberal government seems to be very wary of getting too close to the United States, yet in this legislation says that if any OECD country decides to pull a chemical off the market, we need to do an automatic review of its registration.

If it is good to do it that way, why do we not do it the other way as well. If any one of the OECD countries approves a product, then we approve it as well and put it on the market. That would be a fair exchange. That is not part of this bill and it is not likely that would ever happen.

There are other concerns as well. One is harmonization. We were pleased to get one of the Alliance amendments through on harmonization. Under our amendment when an applicant applies for a registered pest control product or to amend the pest control product registration, they would now be able to submit information from reviews and evaluations conducted in other OECD countries.

We heard this a PMRA hearings. People want the opportunity to bring information here that has already been developed in other places and use as part of our registration. If we use a chemical under similar conditions, it makes good sense that we use that information. It avoids costly duplication for pesticide makers. It cuts down on the cost of the registration process. It actually hastens the process of getting those chemicals onto the market where they can replace some of the older and maybe more hazardous chemicals.

Minor use is one of my other concerns. A major shortfall in Bill C-53 is that it gives no consideration to minor use products. The agriculture committee has heard this a number of times. It is very important for horticulture and vegetable specialty crops. It is important that there be a discussion about minor use and the way it will work in Canada. Minor use applications are increasing as we go to more niche marketing.

There are a lot of times that the economy of scale absolutely does not support full registration. There was a situation last spring on the prairies regarding chick peas. Because the Bravo chemical was not working in stopping the ascochyta, I approached the government to try to get another chemical approved. It took some time but the other chemical, Quadras, was approved and it worked very well. However the approval process for that chemical took quite a bit of time. That approval time has to be shortened up. If a chemical is available, if it has been used in other places and if we seem to have similar conditions here, then it should be available quickly. This is important for Canadian competitiveness.

Fruit and vegetable growers have told us that they need these chemicals. If they are available in the United States, if they have been approved and are on the market and if we have similar conditions, we need to be able to use them. The government has recognized the importance of minor use but has done nothing about it.

Concern about access to minor use products was brought up prominently in the recent report of the agriculture committee on registration of pesticides and the competitiveness of Canadian farmers. According to the report:

Canadian farmers...do not have access to the same safe and effective pest management tools as their competitors, particularly American producers.

I was glad to be part of the committee that put that report together. It called for several improvements and I would like to read two of them to the House.

First, the committee has called for at least $1 million a year in funding for research and an analysis program similar to the U.S. IR-4 that will be developed in co-operation with agricultural stakeholders to generate the necessary data for approval of new minor use pesticide products or to expand the use of previously approved products.

A second recommendation is that an adviser on matters pertaining to minor use pest control products be appointed to intervene in decisions and policies to facilitate activities relating to minor use products. This adviser's mandate would include a special focus on harmonization issues with the United States such as the equivalency of similar zone maps and the consideration of data already existing in an OECD country. The adviser would report to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Another concern the committee is that the bill does not address the issue of reduced risk products. It makes no provision for getting these new, safer reduced risk products directly into the marketplace. We need to expedite the reviews of such products.

The United States has reduced risk category and timelines in approving them. Last year the timelines to get these products onto the market was approximately 35% less than conventional pesticides. There are some big savings in terms of efficiency and cost.

Bill C-53 also does not mention any timelines for registration. That is an important change but perhaps it will be made later. There needs to be some timelines put on registration because presently this is taking far too long.

The health committee also heard from a number of witnesses that registrations were taking too long compared to the United States. That was consistent with what the agriculture committee heard as well. Our party has pressed for timelines to be drawn up but the government has chosen not to put them into this legislation.

I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the PMRA, which seems to be an ongoing problem in the agriculture sector. This legislation will be completely wasted unless changes are made to the PMRA.

Unfortunately, the bill does not bring accountability to the PMRA. Timelines are a concern within the PMRA, but also the audits that this legislation calls for do not go far enough. There is no requirement in the bill to report the financial information of the agency. We already saw the failure of that in the Canadian Wheat Board audit where wheat board directors were allowed to set the conditions for the audit.

The auditor general did a good job on the area she was allowed to study but she was not allowed to study the overall operations. She ended up doing a study of office management but could not study the overall efficiency of the board. Because of that she was prevented from reaching any conclusions about the kind of job the CWB was doing for farmers. I would not like to see the same thing happening with the PMRA. We need to know if the agency's objectives are being achieved in an expeditious manner.

Both the health and agriculture committees heard a number of times from witnesses their concerns about the PMRA. Many of their administrative and management practices were called into question repeatedly. The agriculture committee highlighted problems with the PMRA. We were told that seven years after the PMRA was started up it had advanced the pesticide registration system but the impatience and frustration of farmers persisted and was systematic of a glitch in the agency's overall operation.

We heard from many witnesses who were frustrated with having to deal with the PMRA bureaucracy and feeling that they could not get through the registration process. They could not talk with the people who could make decisions and often regulations were changed while they were trying to work on registrations.

The agriculture committee recommended that an independent ombudsman be appointed to facilitate discussions on the needs of farmers regarding pest control within the PMRA. We made a recommendation that the Auditor General of Canada conduct a value for money or performance audit to examine the management practices, controls and reporting systems of the PMRA.

We feel it is important that for the legislation to work that the problems within the PMRA be resolved if any of the worthy goals of the legislation are to be realized. The bill is only as good as the PMRA's ability to administer it.

I will go over the agriculture committee recommendations made regarding the PMRA. It is important that we get them on the record because we heard a lot of concern about these needs. The report that the agriculture committee submitted dealing with pesticide registration had four recommendations.

First, it recommended there be an ombudsman independent of the PMRA that would report to the health minister. Poor communication between farmers and the PMRA has been a concern. Having a third party reporting directly to the Minister of Health would certainly alleviate disputes. We thought it was a good idea and that the time had come for this to take place.

Second, it called for the auditor general to do a full audit of the PMRA. The PMRA has been slow in registering products. It has been far too slow. Bureaucrats from the PMRA told the committee that it was due to inadequate funding. There are people who would dispute that but the auditor general's recommendation would allow general performance and management practices to be audited for efficiency and we could then see whether this bureau is funded adequately or not. It would be important to do a value for money check to examine the management practices and the efficiency, or the lack of efficiency, that we may find within the PMRA.

Third, we called for a recommendation dealing with funding to enhance broader product access. More funding is needed for the approval of minor use pesticides. In the United States, for example, the EPA has approved 901 new pesticides and new uses for existing pesticides. The PMRA has only approved 24 products since March 2000. Are we getting good value for our money?

The committee recommended at least $1 million a year in funding from Agriculture Canada for research and analysis development in co-operation with stakeholders for the approval of new minor use products.

Fourth, we made a recommendation for a scientific data adviser. The PMRA often seems to reinvent the wheel every time an application comes in for a minor use product. The committee recommended an adviser on minor use pest controls to intervene in decisions and policies. The minor use registration is a growing and significant part of what the PMRA will do. It is important for it to have a scientific adviser in place to make good and quick decisions on minor use. The person could work specifically on the harmonization with the U.S. There should be some equivalency with the United States and encouragement to use existing data so that we do not have to repeat the research that was done several other times.

The bill is needed and it is time that it was passed. It is long overdue. We have some reservations about it and I have tried to make some suggestions of areas that the government might consider improving. I know that they will not be in the bill but hopefully in the future the government would take a look at putting some of these improvements into place. The government could have done a better job but the bill serves the purpose of beginning the process.

Species at Risk Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate there is closure on the amount of time because there is a great deal more that I would like to say.

I want to make one observation right off the bat. The member for Davenport chastised us for not speaking up on the committee or doing this through the committee but he did not say anything when a Liberal member did it.

I would like to pose a question for the member and then make some comments.

One thing that needs to be put in legislation which is very questionable when it goes through the House is a clause that mandates a review of the legislation after a certain period of time, such as five years. It is known as a sunset clause or a clause that would create an automatic review by an unbiased agency or committee of the House to check to see whether the legislation is actually working. Why did the Liberal government not put one in? Would the member support that kind of thing?

We have to realize that once we pass legislation in the House, it is there forever. We have made many suggestions which have fallen on deaf ears.

The member for Peterborough wanted an example of where proper compensation was not made. I am completely familiar with the Firearms Act and it was not provided for in a proper way in that act.

Today many people are being deprived of their property. Because we do not have property rights in this country, we must have compensation mandated in the bill. Because it is not in there and it is left to the regulations, anything could happen. We need to have some kind of a revision after five years.

Many people in Canada do not realize that another problem with leaving it to the regulations is that we do not have an effective scrutiny of regulations system in the House of Commons. It flies in the face of democracy that the committee that reviews these and says they are not appropriate has no power to enforce the fact that regulations are not effective. That is the reason we have to get the bill right before it goes through the House. We do not have an effective scrutiny of the regulations in the House. I only became aware of that after a few years of experience in this place.

Compensation is not ensured. That is a serious problem which has been raised in western Canada. It may not be raised in Ontario but it is raised in western Canada all the time.

The other issue which the member for Davenport talks about is the creation of mistrust. What creates mistrust is the fact that in the bill there is what is called mens rea. People may be violating the law or have an endangered species on the land and are not aware of it and there is no obligation to make them aware of it. That is totally unacceptable but the government is letting that go through. That creates mistrust and it is a huge problem.

Bill C-15B passed and now that the bill has passed, we realize we did not get it right. The medical community is already concerned with what we have done in the House.

Is there a mandatory review mechanism in the bill? No. Why not? That should be mandated in every bill.

Would the member opposite support that kind of amendment being made before we go any further? It is critical that we get it right in the House before we let this legislation go. If we do not, we ought to stop it right here. That is what I am suggesting.

We are all in favour of protecting species but the way the bill sits, it is going to have the opposite effect.

Species At Risk Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as the hardworking member for Red Deer said earlier today, we wish that we were here celebrating the success of the bill and celebrating the passage of a good bill. Unfortunately we are not able to do that today.

I would just like to take a minute to respond to the comments of the member for Davenport. I was very concerned because I think it shows a lack of being in touch with Canadians to come in here and suggest that the bill does not create uncertainty, resentment and distrust among Canadian people, because it most certainly does among the people in my riding. They do not know what to expect from the bill. It concerns them and it causes uncertainty, resentment and distrust. It did not have to be that way, but unfortunately it has turned out that way.

I would like to take a little time to talk about the main issues we have with the bill. First I would like to say that the Canadian Alliance has consistently supported good species at risk legislation. We would like to see a bill that is effective, we would like to see a bill that is useful and we would like to see a bill that is realistic, that Canadians can deal with knowing they will be dealt with fairly in the legislation.

As I said, the main problem, which we have heard about all day today, continues to be the issue of compensation. The main objection to the bill is the government's refusal to protect its citizens by providing full market value compensation. I will spend some time talking about it, but the amount of discussion this has generated is interesting. I would suggest that it has been generated because the Canadian Alliance, and the Reform Party before it, has been very firm on this issue and has insisted that we need to have fair market value compensation for people affected by species at risk legislation.

The lack of compensation is the main problem with the bill. The bill does not provide for it. We can talk about it all day here, but there is an absolute refusal on the part of the government to put fair market value compensation into the bill. It continues to talk about regulations. I would suggest that it is talking about regulation and regulating things at the same time as it is taking away Canadians' rights. I will also assert that I think this is tied to a consistent position the Liberal Party has taken over the years, that being that it does not want to recognize personal property rights. This bill is in line with that position.

I am sick and tired of hearing government members justify the lack of compensation in the bill. It would be very simple to fix. If the government really thought it was an issue it could have been fixed very easily. It has chosen not to do that and I wish it would have.

The minister's speech here this morning sent up a lot of warning flags. I heard him say a number of things I would like to touch on. One of the things he said is that the government will work with landowners in willing partnerships. Without that fair market value compensation, though, it made me think of the movie The Godfather , when they made people an offer they could not refuse. I know that none of us want to wake up with a burrowing owl in our bed.

The government says it “shall” provide regulations. That does not guarantee anything other than more regulations. It does not guarantee producers a thing. Again the issue is that compensation must be at fair market value. It needs to be written into the legislation. There is now no mention of it in the legislation.

The minister also made a couple of other comments that really concern me. He said they would get started on general compensation regulations, and then there was a funny phrase in there: if needed. It may not show up in Hansard later on, but I found it interesting. It was almost a side comment that he made, that they would start on them if needed. If the government is not going to put them into the legislation then we certainly need them, immediately if not sooner.

He also made the suggestion that the government would be dealing with the claims on a case by case basis. I do not know of anyone other than other Liberals who would think that this is a good idea. I have an example from the past, which is the expropriation of land for the Suffield military base near Medicine Hat. The family of a friend of mine grew up in that area. The time came when the government wanted that land for a military base. The government talked to the ranchers and invited them to come to Medicine Hat individually to discuss with the government the deal that they could make on their ranches and their land.

The ranchers went in and made their deals, but the one thing the government had not counted on was that on the way home the ranchers all stopped at one place to have coffee. At that house they of course talked about the agreements and deals they had made. They started to realize that they were being treated quite a bit differently one from the other. They got together and went back to Medicine Hat together. I was told that they went in the front door of the building and the bureaucrats went out the back door and after that they ended up negotiating long distance. They all got the same deal in the end, but the danger was that they were being divided and conquered individually. When they finally got together and stood up for themselves, they were able to make a deal they could live with.

I get very concerned when I hear the minister say that regulations will be put in place over the next few years but until then the government will deal with things on a case by case basis. Given the government's record and recent history, I do not think Canadians should be at all comfortable with the fact that the Liberals want to deal with them on a one to one basis. There may be some good things in that for a small group of people but the majority of Canadians will not be treated properly.

I want to come back again to the fact that the minister and the members are still implying that compensation is included in the bill. I know we are running short on time and not many more members will be speaking on the bill. However, I would ask the government members to show some integrity in this.

Yesterday one member on the opposition side said that corrupt attitudes spread like scum on a pond. I understand how that happens but a little courage and clarity would go a long way. If government members would get up and say that the bill does not have compensation written into it but that they are supporting it anyway, the Canadian people could understand this and may even show them respect for having the courage to take a position.

Here is the reality. There is no compensation and I encourage the government members to admit it, stand up and take that position. Otherwise we will find a situation like we had last week when Bill C-15B passed without providing legal protection to farmers and ranchers. Afterward we saw government backbenchers are trying to justify it in their ridings. When they are called to account, they have no explanation for the position they have taken. The idea that we can pass it on to the other place and it will fix up legislation that we have the responsibility to fix here will not work.

Rural members of all parties could have worked really well on this legislation. The committee did that but the minister chose not to accept it.

Rural members need to work together. The opposition members have done their job on the bill. They have forced the discussion. They have brought in a large number of amendments, not frivolous ones, but ones where that dealt seriously with changing the bill. The Liberal backbenchers need to show some support and backbone in supporting these initiatives. It is not good enough for the rural backbenchers to come out of the woodwork, which happened with this bill to a great extent, only because they support one of the Prime Minister's challengers. We need to see rural backbenchers coming out of the woodwork because they are representing their constituents, not because they are trying to cause damage to someone else and gain political advantage.

The Liberal rural backbenchers have an obligation to their constituents and Canadians deserve better than what they are getting right now from the backbench on the other side of the House.

The second major issue is the legal rights of producers and farmers. Again, we saw the sad situation last week when Bill C-15B was passed without providing legal protection to farmers and ranchers. It was then justified later. Again, in Bill C-5 we see a situation where farmers and ranchers will not have the proper legal protection.

I have a huge concern about the attitudes behind the bill. There were two ways that it could have been put together. One was through a coercive way and the government chose that way. We saw it before with Bill C-68. Now there is massive non-compliance with the act. We will see ourselves in the same situation as the U.S. with the triple S. The government will come in and tell people what to do. The producers will react with a shoot, shovel and shut up policy which definitely does not preserve species at risk.

I also object to the fact that the government brought in closure to cut off debate on an important issue. This action does not give people the opportunity to finish the debate.

In conclusion, it may be too late to ask the government this, but it needs to take another look at the bill and include amendments that provide protection for landowners, both for full market value compensation and for legal protection. It should use the suggestions that we have made about providing compensation and set up the bill so that it uses positive incentives to encourage people to be conservation minded, that is tax incentives to provide technical assistance to stakeholders, farmers and producers. The government needs to eliminate some of the disincentives and provide payment programs if necessary to encourage people to co-operate.

The government needs to understand that farmers are the best environmentalists we have. We need to give them the tools to protect their environment.

We have heard about aboriginal working groups. It surprises me that there is no local working group and that is something the government should look at.

If the government is not going to make these changes, the government will pay the consequences both in terms of the loss of endangered species and at the polls.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us which we voted on last night is a better bill than it was when it first came from the government. A lot of the credit must be given to all the members on the committee, including the members in the opposition in that committee. There was very little friction in the committee. No one in this House nor anyone in the committee can say that the party which I represent is against protection of endangered species. That would be a grossly false statement for anyone to make across Canada.

Make no mistake that the changes that did take place were necessary and were because of the co-operation in that committee. In particular I would pay tribute to the committee chairman who led us very carefully and intelligently through days of debate. I was a standing member on the committee. I would be very insulted on behalf of my party and myself to hear anyone say in the future that we were against the species at risk legislation.

There are concerns. Many of my constituents are concerned about the possibility of losing income and benefits that they now have. For example, last summer we were plagued with an infestation of Richardson's ground squirrels which destroyed millions of acres of crop worth millions of dollars. The government would not allow us to use the same type of pesticide that had been previously used. The question that comes to my mind is, was there compensation from the government because of that tremendous loss? The answer is, no. We have been criticized for trying to control that infestation but not one of the organizations has come up with a suggestion as to how it would contribute to the losses of the farmers and ranchers.

I want to make it very clear, as have many of the previous speakers, that this is not a rural-urban issue in itself. This legislation directly affects less than 10% of the people. The last census indicates that the number of people who are actually engaged in farming, in the timber industry and so on is now in the single digits. They are the stewards of the land. In Canada, the people are mainly concentrated in the large urban centres. As a result, they do not understand the concept of compensating people when they lose part of the control of provincial land or how that affects their operation in the industry.

This bill has to be handled very carefully by the government. It has had the same effect as the gun registry legislation, Bill C-68 which divided the country between rural and urban centres. The majority of people are concentrated in large urban centres. They could not possibly see why rural Canada objected to the bill.

Recently there was Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals bill. I talked with people in the large urban centres, some of whom are relatives. They asked what was wrong with the bill. They have never seen the practices on the farms regarding calves and therefore they supported the bill.

Now there is Bill C-5. One question that has not been answered is if 10 sections of land are lost under this plan to protect the species at risk, there is nothing in the bill that says the government would provide not only compensation to the person losing control of that land but also to the local government body that loses the land as a tax base. The issue is much bigger than what we think it is. The governments that will be affected are mainly the local and perhaps provincial governments.

All Canadians must understand that compensation must be there. We would not ask someone to give up 10% of his or her salary. The bill is designed to benefit all Canadians. Therefore, it does not bother me in the least when I hear the figure of $180 million being in the bill for compensation for those who would lose their income because of preserving habitat or anything else. The government must tell people that the money is there to protect those few Canadians who are the tenants and protectors of the species and who must be paid for their loss of income.

I also want to deal with something that I feel is terribly important. The bill says there must be a review in five years. I see nothing wrong with that. However, what if in the process of what this bill is designed to do there are real flaws regarding identifying species or regarding the provincial governments or tenants which cause all sorts of disagreements? Of course we cannot wait five years because if the problems are severe, five years will kill the whole bill and its effectiveness. We have to give serious thought to a procedure by which the committee or the government can come back and say that this part of the bill will be reconsidered before it self-destructs.

There is one province which brags, and rightfully so, that it is the only province in Canada that is rat free. That is Alberta. It is true that it is rat free. There are no rats, except the few that are not the four-legged ones.

The reason is that the province took a concentrated look at the damage the ordinary Norwegian rat causes which was in the millions of dollars. The provincial government embarked on a program to stop the loss of this agricultural waste and the province is now rat free. Some people would immediately say that Alberta has upset the ecosystem for years. That is ridiculous.

If and when the bill runs into that type of difficulty the flexibility has to be there because we will need to make some changes. I am sure of that.

The endangered species bill is all inclusive. It includes the federal, provincial and local governments as well as everyone else. Speaking for myself, I hope it is successful and that people understand that we are all for endangered species.

I hope the government realizes that the bill is not some kind of holy writ. If there is something wrong with it, it is hoped the government will move very quickly to remedy it through amendments in the House and in committee.

Canada Post Corporation Act

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it is clear that the member has stated before the House that the data he used in most of his intervention was really based on July 2001. The statistics that I referred to are statistics that are up to date and represent great improvements that we have made within the system.

The hon. member represents a party that has done everything possible within the House to stop the streamlining of this process and the making of this process more efficient. This was by the stalling and filibustering on Bill C-15B which finally forced the government to enter into time allocation to effectively bring it to a conclusion and advance it to the other place.

We are very pleased that we have now done so. It is now in the other place and we will see more benefits accruing to the legitimate firearms owners in Canada through that streamlining process. We look forward to having many registrations that will go through without error.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to provide an update on the firearm registration process and to reinforce the government's commitment to public safety. We have become accustomed to the hon. member's frequent allegations about this public safety initiative and I intend to respond to this one as we have with all others.

The hon. member is alleging that the firearms registry is of limited use to the police. Let us first be clear that this public safety program is much more than a gun registry. It is a multi-facetted, practical approach that addresses the prevention of firearm death, injury and crime deterrence. That is why Canada's law enforcement community recognizes and supports the firearms program as an important public safety initiative.

In its testimony on Bill C-15B we heard the law enforcement community reaffirm its support for this program and its essential crime fighting tools. The Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police outlined the significant public benefits available through this program, which combines the screening of the applicants, tracking of firearms and minimum mandatory sentencing to help deter, prevent and prosecute firearm crime in Canada.

Regarding the questions of the hon. member about errors in the system, I want to emphasize that errors reported to the Canadian Firearms Centre to date represent a tiny fraction of the firearm documents that have been issued.

As recently as April 27 of this year, 99% of the firearms in the Canadian Firearms Registry system were correctly registered according to identification and classification as required under law. Also, 99% of the licences were correctly issued to the right person living at the address stated with the appropriate privilege and safety training. There may be a small number of entry errors for which we have no statistics but when these are reported, they are dealt with promptly in co-ordination with the client. Firearms owners should verify the information on their firearm documents and contact us immediately at 1-800-731-4000 to report any anomalies and have the situation rectified.

There are currently 2.1 million individuals in the firearms database and firearms owners have been sending in their registration applications in unprecedented numbers. As with any other high volume operation, it is only natural to expect a small degree of entry error. That is why we remain vigilant and have recently made some improvements to further minimize the potential for error.

Over the past few months, the Canadian firearms program has completely restructured the registration process and implemented rigorous measures to ensure the integrity of the information. When the personalized registration application is returned for processing, the form is scanned including the bar code that identifies the licence holder. Manual data entry is eliminated which minimizes the potential for error.

Unquestionably, this program has been beneficial to the Canadian community at large. We believe it is an excellent program and it is working well. We believe that the errors that the member refers to are errors of at least a year ago.

Nuclear Safety and Control Act

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-15A, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts--Chapter No. 13.

Bill S-40, an act to amend the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act--Chapter No. 14.

Bill S-34, an act respecting royal assent to bills passed by the Houses of Parliament--Chapter No. 15.

Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act--Chapter No. 16.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Shipbuilding; the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, National Wildlife Areas; the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Softwood Lumber.

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

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, whatever parliamentary secretary I am, I am not quite sure on this wonderful Monday in Ottawa. Whatever it is, I can assure members that I will continue to perform to the best of my ability.

Members opposite have come over and suggested that I do not know anything about animals. I find it interesting when people stand up in this place and talk about their family pets as if that is somehow the issue here. I e-mailed my wife to make sure that my 80 pound Lab Duke is watching, so he knows that I support obviously the proper care, nurturing and feeding of all animals, two legged, four legged or whatever kind.

What I find really interesting are the objections to putting in law the definition of animal and the concerns about that. Frankly, I do not have a problem with people expressing concerns on behalf of the farming community to ensure that we all understand the impact the bill would have.

The fact of the matter is most jurisdictions have defined animal. People at home watching might think that is kind of bizarre. Let me share some of the definitions. A broad definition of animal is consistent not only with definitions found in some provincial statutes, but also with some United States statutes.

Let me give some examples. The province of Alberta says that it does not include a human being, an exclusionary definition. The next definition from Manitoba and New Brunswick is “non-human living being with a developed nervous system”.

The definition from Arkansas includes every living creature. That is pretty broad, even more so than what we are talking about in the bill, which requires a vertebrae to be in existence.

Here is one that could apply to members of the opposition. It is a definition out of Colorado, Florida and Ohio. The definition reads “means any living dumb creature”. Those are not my words. That is the definition. If the shoe fits maybe they want to wear it.

It goes on and on like that. The point of the matter is what we are trying to do is put in place a definition so that when it does come to a decision in the courts, some rules will be there which can be followed.

One member opposite with the fifth party suggested that somehow this would impact mosquitos. Talk about going over the top, if we want a humane way to take care of a mosquito. It is so ludicrous that we have lowered the level of debate to the point where we are talking about somehow being charged for killing a mosquito that is in the bedroom trying to take some blood. This has become silly.

I think it is because members opposite feel the heat and the pressure that we have all felt. All of us have received, e-mails and phone calls. There have even been demonstrations on the front lawn of Parliament Hill . People have called on us to invoke closure, get the bill done and put in place some laws that will provide protection for animals. Have members ever in history seen a situation where people have demonstrated and called for the government to invoke closure? It is unheard of.

Let us put this issue of time allocation in perspective. The bill was originally introduced in this place as Bill C-17. That was December 1999. There were howls and complaints from members opposite that we needed to split the bill, that it was too much like an omnibus bill because it dealt with guns, animals and child pornography. I remember the hue and cry from members opposite that we needed to split it up so we could deal with the child pornography issue separately.

The government agreed and brought in Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B. It is almost like the opposition cannot take yes for an answer. We split the bill, and now we are dealing with the issue that concerns Canadians.

At third reading alone there were over 40 speakers in five days. Committee hearings took place and the bill was reintroduced in September 2001. Two years later there was a new bill. It was split at the request of the opposition and of caucus to allow us to deal with it separately.

There is fearmongering going on that somehow if someone killed a cow, maybe it should not have been killed because it never did anything and people say it is awful. Animal husbandry, the way of dealing with animals on the farm, is not being threatened. We are concerned about abuse.

I am sorry to say that just two weeks ago in my riding two dogs were left in a car for four hours outside a bar while their owner was inside and obviously had too many drinks. One of the dogs died and the second dog almost died. I have not heard whether or not it was able to pull through.

Should society not do anything about that? Should we not take it seriously, to make it a crime that is punishable? One can be punished for that kind of crime for up to five years. The fine can be up to $10,000. It is absolutely unconscionable that there is some perception that a farmer is going to be told he cannot take the tail off a pig or a lamb as we heard earlier, because it is cruel and unusual punishment. Clearly if it is part of common law and I would add if it is common sense and it is a tradition, then what we do not want is to rip the tail off. There is a proper procedure for doing it.

When I was in the Ontario legislature we dealt with the issue of research. Companies and people were using animals for research purposes. We recognize the importance of using animals for research but if it is done properly those animals do not suffer unduly. Care is taken with the animals. I invite members to take some time to visit a research lab to see the love, caring and tenderness of the people who deal with those animals, whether they are monkeys, hamsters or whatever they are. They are not people who are savagely trying to inflict pain and getting great pleasure out of it. They are people who are doing cancer, heart and blood research. They are doing research on the immune system and research in all kinds of areas that are good for human health. Those people are not in jeopardy with the bill.

What we dealt with in the province of Ontario was a private member's bill that would make it illegal to use a rabbit's eyes to test for cosmetics. Let us get real. Somebody drops mascara or something of that nature into the eye of a rabbit, or puts it in with a needle to try to find out if it will harm the eye or create an allergic reaction. Surely to goodness there are ways of determining that without inflicting that kind of pain on any given animal.

If it is for the good of humanity, for medical purposes and there are reasons to do this kind of thing, the bill would not prohibit it. There would be a defence based on common law. Clearly the bill would put the onus on the crown to prove that there was some kind of objectionable conduct. We have to realize that if we want to get to the bottom of this, if we want to attack the puppy mills, the people who put cats in microwaves or the people who leave their animals in hot cars in temperatures of 80 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit, we need a bill with some teeth in it that will allow the government to stand up for the living beings that cannot defend themselves.

I want the Canadian public to know the kinds of objections that are being made here and how outrageous and ridiculous they are, such as the suggestion that the bill would actually create problems for someone who killed a mosquito. Imagine that someone actually said that.

Years ago when I was a member of Mississauga city council, a director of the humane society used a weapon to shoot dogs in our facility in Mississauga, having determined it was a safe and harmless way of killing seal pups. It was an Ontario humane society official who did it. There were pictures of dogs lying bleeding because the shot did not work or the gun missed. It was an appalling situation. At the time I took on the director.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are drawing to a close on the debate in the House on Bill C-15B regarding firearms and cruelty to animal provisions in the criminal code. We are drawing the debate to a close for the simple reason that the Liberal government is incensed with the fact that people in Canada do not agree with it all the time. The opposition parties on this side of the House represent those people and, in the case of cruelty to animals, we represent the farmers. The government is so incensed that it has brought in closure to shut down legitimate debate on those provisions of the criminal code.

We are not in the House to debate, kill time or just talk because people voted us in and we are supposed to be here. We are here debating real issues that affect real people.

What I have to say here will be parliamentary but it may seem aggressive when I say that the farming community right across the country, from sea to sea, is still opposed to the legislation. The most recent example that I have is from May 31, just a couple of days ago, when members of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan said to the members of this parliament that they were 100% opposed to most of the provisions of the proposed cruelty to animals changes in the criminal code. However they are for stiffer penalties and are against the city people we see in the newspapers who have been skinning cats, crushing their heads and killing animals. They have enough common sense to be definitely against that.

They have also considered what the proposed law will do to farming and farming practices. I have heard a lot of debate in here about how farm practices are legal today and will be legal tomorrow. I have spent a lot of time over the years working in law enforcement and dealing with lawyers, crown attorneys and judges. It is my understanding that the criminal code, which is a federal law, takes precedence over the standards set by provincial organizations, the humane societies or farming groups. Why are we concerned? We are concerned because when the time comes that a charge is laid and it goes to court, the judge will not interpret that industry standard. The court will judge whether or not that animal was treated cruelly according to the provisions of the criminal code.

Why would that judge go against what the industry standard says? It is because the definition of animal has been changed. It has been changed to include any animal that has the capacity to feel pain. Another change is that it is no longer in the property section. Somehow animals can be on their own without ownership either by the federal government, in the case of wild animals, or by farmers.

As we have seen happen before, I think there is a very high likelihood that those judges will interpret this law in the very way it is written. I will not blame them for that. As the bill is written, if someone intentionally inflicts pain on such an animal, as in branding a calf or dehorning it after it is a few months old instead of as a little baby, the judge will say that the criminal code is quite plain on this, as we can read for ourselves. The judge will consider it an offence and he or she will find the farmer guilty. That is the problem. Is there any likelihood of that kind of a charge being laid? Absolutely, and it will not necessarily come from one of the animal rights organizations.

Today I had an interview with a young lady who is an aspiring journalist. She was talking about farming and we had a nice conversation. After she had finished her interview, she said that she knew the cruelty to animals bill was being voted on today. She urged me to vote against the bill. My point with regard to this young person and as it relates to young crown attorneys and young judges coming up, is that she has an animal rights agenda. As a journalist, she is in a position of power to help form public opinion through the persuasion of the pen.

The common sense of society is 100% against cruelty to animals. However the survival of mankind from the oldest times until the present says that after life itself there has to be food to eat and good quality food to eat, and that involves the use of animals for human consumption.

The hidden agenda being promoted by the animal rights people, including Mr. Rick Smith who is with the International Fund for Animal Welfare, is very clearly to move along animals from being property, like they have the government agreeing to, which is one step away from being property now, and to slowly attribute rights to the point where we will not be able to use animals for anything.

The other day I had a skunk at my ranch. Under this bill, I wonder if I was wrong in shooting that animal. It never did anything to me. It was not diseased as far as I could tell but I intentionally shot that animal. What right did I have to do that? In many areas like mine there are no policemen or people to do that job for me. However skunks have a tendency to contract rabies and a bite from them could kill a young child or a person. They certainly kill a lot of livestock. Would the bill make that kind of action on my part illegal? I suspect that may well be. The bill says that if one intentionally shoots or kills an animal, and then it goes into justification as to lawfully doing it.

I said I would be a little aggressive. I have to talk about the stand that was taken by the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, a leader in his party, a leader in his riding and a leader in the agriculture industry, especially in the chicken and feather industry. He has properly and rightly fought the bill for months. He had most of the rural members, who have farmers in their area, understanding that the bill was bad for agriculture and it was even bad for society as a whole.

What did the member say today? He said that he had changed his attitude, that everything was fine now and that he would vote for the bill. Why would the member do that? He said that the Senate would take care of it, that the Senate would make an amendment. We know that will not be the case. The member is misleading, not only his co-caucus members but the people in his riding. The Senate will pass the bill and it will be done and gone before July 15, which will be a sad day for agriculture.

I hope the bill comes back to the House so we can debate it again and maybe get it through the government's head that this is a bad bill for not only people in the country but also for people in the city.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the cruelty provisions in Bill C-15B respond directly to the concerns of Canadians.

Over the past three years Canadians have been consistent and clear in their demands for action by the federal government to update the cruelty provisions and create stiffer penalties for acts of cruelty against animals. Bill C-15B would meet these expectations without changing the liability for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect. Nothing in the bill would in any way put at risk lawful and humane activities involving animals for purposes such as agriculture, hunting, trapping and research.

To be absolutely clear, the former minister of justice introduced an amendment that was adopted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The amendment states that all justifications, excuses and defences available in common law would apply to proceedings under the animal cruelty provisions. The amendment is the latest in a series of modifications to the animal cruelty provisions to address the concerns of critics.

The animal cruelty provisions in Bill C-15B were contained in a previous bill, Bill C-17, which was introduced in parliament on December 1, 1999 and died on the order paper when the federal election was called in October, 2000. The amendments had two primary objectives. First, they would have consolidated and simplified the existing law on animal cruelty by organizing offences in a more rational way and removing outdated distinctions and expressions. Second, they would have enhanced the penalty provisions by increasing current maximum sentences such as terms of imprisonment, fines, and orders prohibiting the possession of animals, and by creating a new power to order offenders to repay costs incurred by humane societies in caring for animals they leave unattended.

Bill C-17 was enthusiastically supported by thousands of Canadians. However a number of associations representing agriculture, hunting, fishing and animal research made submissions to the Minister of Justice expressing specific legal concerns about the bill, largely to the effect that the amendments could increase the risk of prosecution for people engaged in such activities. The minister benefited from the input of these groups. Although Bill C-17 would not have increased the risk of prosecution for people engaged in lawful activities, the amendments contained in Bill C-17 and replicated in Bill C-15B contain several important improvements that would make the intent and effect of the law more clear.

Such changes include: spelling out the necessary criminal state of mind with words like wilfully or recklessly instead of leaving it to the courts to interpret the proper standard; offering a definition that clearly establishes a standard of criminal negligence and removes all doubt that simple or civil negligence is not enough; adding the word unnecessary to the offence of negligently causing pain to clarify that there may be situations where the pain caused is necessary; clarifying and limiting the scope of the offence that deals with trap shooting to shooting at animals the moment they are liberated and not some time after, which would leave no room for people to argue that the section prohibited pheasant hunts in enclosed spaces; and taking animal cruelty provisions out of the part of the criminal code that deals with sexual offences and public morals and placing them in a separate part, thus clearing up the concern that it is inappropriate to group animal cruelty offences with certain other types of offences. With that we fully agree.

These improvements more clearly establish that the law deals with criminal intent and criminal neglect rather than the causing of incidental or unavoidable pain to animals in the course of lawful activities.

I suggest to the hon. members of the House that the concerns of industry have been heard. The government has done everything that could reasonably be done to accommodate those concerns.

Bill C-15B does not need any additional tinkering. It is time to act. I urge all hon. members to do the right thing and pass the bill.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-15B one more time.

When I was explaining the legislation back home I ran into an interesting question. When I explained that it would apply to vertebrates a constituent said that would leave the Liberals out because they do not have a spine. I said that was completely unfair because they do have a spine but it is not evident sometimes.

Today Liberal members had a chance to stand up for democracy by opposing the closure motion but they let the House of Commons and the country down again. My hon. friend from Nova Scotia who spoke a moment ago said this is the 73rd time the government has invoked closure, a very anti-democratic record among governments.

I am a long time dog owner. We have had pets in our family all our lives. As someone who comes from a rural area where animals are important to our economy I almost instinctively understand how important it is to be conscious of ways to protect animals from cruelty. There is nothing more reprehensible in the world than people who abuse animals and there should be tough penalties for anyone who does. We have a golden retriever at home. He is almost part of the family. He sits on the couch and is completely spoiled. I cannot imagine people being cruel to animals. There should be tough penalties.

If the government's intention is to ensure animals are not abused why does it not simply provide tougher penalties in law to protect them? Why does it not increase enforcement? If that was the government's real intent it is what it would have done. It would not have added all these controversial changes that are causing us to question its motives.

I will explain what I mean. When the former justice minister introduced the legislation she said all activities that are legitimate today would be legitimate after the new law came in. Again, why not simply raise penalties for cruelty to animals? The government has instead brought in a number of new provisions. One of these would remove animals from the property section of the criminal code and give them a new section. A lot of people are arguing, correctly, that this would bestow a new set of rights on animals and move away from the concept of animals as property.

That is a big step. It is in a sense a dangerous step. We have already heard radical animal rights groups saying they would challenge the new law once it received royal assent to get judges to interpret it in a way that would bestow rights on animals that previously were not there. This would ensure farmers and ranchers who have engaged in what the minister called legitimate activities in the past would not be able to do so any more.

I come from an area where there is a lot of cattle. We have not just a few thousand but tens of thousands of cattle in my area. Hon. members familiar with the business of raising cattle will know that after they are born they must be dehorned so they do not hurt one another. They might get ear tags. They might be branded. They might be castrated. It is not a pleasant business. The animal feels some pain, there is no question about it. However these are legitimate traditional activities farmers and ranchers in my area engage in to make a livelihood, as a result of which people have food in the grocery store.

Unless we want to change that we had better be conscious of how we would be inviting animal rights groups to challenge the new legislation under the provisions the minister has introduced. For that reason government members across the way are completely off base in caving in and supporting Bill C-15B. It would open up all kinds of opportunities for animal rights groups to be meddlesome and cause mischief. We need to be conscious of that.

I will switch from that provision to the provision that has to do with firearms. A few minutes ago the hon. member for Parkdale--High Park, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, got up in the House said the most outrageous thing I have heard in half an hour. I say half an hour because we have heard a lot of outrageous things today in the House. She said support for the bill is unanimous in her riding. She said everyone in her riding supports the gun legislation, not just the majority. There is a standard by which all members of parliament should be bound: their statements should at least be credible. The hon. member for Parkdale--High Park probably has 200,000 constituents. To say every person in her riding supports the legislation is completely ridiculous.

The hon. member trotted out other arguments. She said a poll was done which showed an overwhelming majority of Canadians support the legislation. We should do other polls that ask questions like “When a government program gets to be so big and bureaucratic that the government cannot possibly use it for its original purpose, would you still support the legislation?” If we asked that question it would describe what has happened with the firearms registry. The gun registry was to cost $85 million, $68 million or whatever. It has gone up to $640 million or probably $700 million. Several months ago we saw the statistics of Library of Parliament researchers who were dealing with the issue in the Senate. The figure is probably $700 million now.

In gathering gun registry information the government has made mistakes on probably 50% of the applications. In other words, it has invalidated a huge number of registrations. My hon. friend from Yorkton--Melville has done a great service to the country in pointing out the foibles of the firearms registry. He has pointed to situations where people have received 59 different permits. Someone from Surrey got 59 permits for registering 17 firearms. It is completely out of control.

There have been other instances. My hon. friend from Yorkton--Melville pointed out the case of a firearms owner who had registered his firearms. He heard a knock at the door one day, saw people in balaclavas lurking outside his house, went to the door and found that a SWAT team was there to pick up his firearms. The police were under the impression he had a bunch of firearms that were not registered or legal. He produced his permits and lo and behold, it was all completely legal.

The minister and government members have argued that the point of the registry was to ensure the police knew the situation in all these homes. As in the case I have cited, when the wrong information is fed in the potential for people to be killed or hurt is absolutely astronomical. People could have SWAT teams running around with all kinds of automatic weapons outside their doors because the government has fed in the wrong information about firearms in their homes. It is completely contrary to what the government is trying to achieve.

I have touched on some of the major reasons we should oppose Bill C-15B. It is unfortunate the government is moving closure on the legislation when it is so contentious and when Canadians, especially rural Canadians, have so many legitimate concerns about its provisions.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill at third reading.

It is time for the House to act on the will of Canadians. Legislation that would update animal cruelty provisions and provide enhanced penalties for animal abusers has been before the House in one form or another since December 1, 1999. That is two and a half years during which there have been numerous opportunities for organizations from a broad spectrum of interests to come forward and make their views known. They have shared their views with the Department of Justice, members of parliament, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the media and other members of the public. There has been a full and comprehensive debate on the issue of the changes that must be made to modernize the animal cruelty provisions.

During that two and a half years the former justice minister listened carefully to the concerns of all Canadians, including industry. In fact, to be absolutely clear that criminal liability for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect had not changed, the former justice minister made several accommodations to industry when the animal cruelty provisions were reintroduced in Bill C-15 after an election was called and Bill C-17 died on the order paper. The accommodations did not change the legal tests for liability but provided further clarification about the elements of the cruelty offences.

After Bill C-15 received second reading in the House of Commons on September 26, 2001, it was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with the direction that the committee split the bill into two parts.

Bill C-15B contains the provisions regarding cruelty to animals and firearms. The committee heard from a wide variety of groups with diverse views on the issue of animal cruelty. At the committee hearings the Criminal Lawyers' Association confirmed that removal of the animal cruelty provision out of the property section would not cause accused persons to lose any available defences. The association did indicate however that if there was a desire to make this absolutely clear one of two options was possible: either make an express reference to subsection 429(2) of the criminal code which outlines defences of legal justification, excuse or colour of right; or specifically confirm application of the common law defences under subsection 8(3). Again, in the interests of accommodation to reassure critics of the bill, the government introduced a motion adopted by the committee to confirm application of subsection 8(3).

Following the suggestion of the lawyers association one would have thought opposition critics of the bill would agree that all accommodations could be made. They have been made without changing the test of legal liability. Unhappily, with the notable exception of the New Democratic Party, this does not appear to be the case. Critics among the opposition parties want more.

I take this opportunity to look at their position more closely. These critics have been clear that they are not supporting an exemption for industry. They maintain that all persons should be subject to the animal cruelty provisions. Yet, what they are asking for appears to be an exemption in anything but name.

Some members of the opposition parties maintain that the defences in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code provide them with a justification for their industry practices, even if those industry practices cause unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. They maintain that these defences effectively give industry the protection that anything they do pursuant to lawful purpose is itself lawful. This is simply not the law.

Equally inaccurate is the position maintained by some hon. members that the cruelty provisions prohibit the infliction of any pain or suffering and that it is the defences that legitimize the infliction of pain. This position completely ignores the tests for liability for cruelty that have been in the criminal code since 1953. The issue of defences does not even arise until after the crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the infliction of pain or suffering was unnecessary.

The test for unnecessary pain or suffering is clear in case law. The courts have recognized that avoidable pain is unnecessary. Pain is avoidable if there are equally accessible, reasonable, and affordable practices available to achieve the same lawful purpose.

What is interesting is that opposition critics maintain their position even though they have cited not a single case of support for their position and have been unable to identify any relevant offences under subsection 429(2) which would not be available as a common law defence subsection 8(3) of the criminal code.

I do not believe for a moment that industry wants its activities exempted from the application of the criminal code. Those members of the opposition who suggest that industry has this protection currently or who argue that somehow lawful industry practices would become unlawful after the bill is passed are misrepresenting the state of current law.

No one has been exempted from the application of the animal cruelty law. This has never been the law in Canada and the government is not proposing to change this law now.

One of the most basic notions in Canadian criminal law is that the law applies to everyone. Canadians have made it clear that they support a law which imposes at least a minimum standard of behaviour on everyone. It is time for this House to answer the expectations of Canadians and move on this legislation.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for all members to take the last opportunity that we have today to speak to Bill C-15B. Both aspects of the bill, the firearms part of it and certainly the cruelty to animals part of it, are problematic.

The first thing that needs to be said about the legislation is that at noon today the government decided we would have no more democratic debate on the bill and it brought in time allocation. It brought in time allocation I believe for the 76th time in the history of this government. It has used time allocation more than any previous government.

The government may say that all Canadians are in favour of the bill but nothing could be further from the truth. I watched all the Liberal members stand like trained seals today and vote in favour of time allocation. I believe there was actually one who did vote against it. That is absolutely scandalous on their part.

I believe the Ontario Liberal caucus was going to defend the interests of farmers, of rural Canadians and of people who harvest animals or participate in animal husbandry. Somehow or other I am quite certain those interests were not defended today when the government voted for time allocation on this legislation.

At 7 o'clock tonight the debate will be over, the bill will be voted on and then it will be moved along in the process. That is not democracy at work. That is not changing the way this particular piece of legislation is written.

Let us be quite honest and blunt about this. This legislation on cruelty to animals has not been updated or renewed since 1892. It is time for the legislation to be modernized. It is time that it reflected the beliefs and ideals of citizens in the 21st century.

However, somehow we have a group of people sitting on their hands who are not trying to do that at all. Specific parts of the bill that are extremely problematic and parts of it are just fine. No one believes that individuals, whether they be owners of animals or not, should be able to, in any way, shape or form, harm or intentionally cause pain to animals.

At the same time, what we have here now is a definition of animal that even all the Liberals are not happy with. Section 182.1 states the definition of an animal.

In this Part, “animal” means a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

That is a pretty broad brush stroke. I do not know exactly what is not covered here but I will assume that everything is covered: reptiles, invertebrates, fish, all vertebrates, all domestic animals, insects, spiders, mosquitos, multi-celled organisms.

The government should take a look at the legislation that it is about to force down the throats of Canadians. It says that any animal or any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

It is punishable under the Criminal Code of Canada. Everyone commits an offence who willfully or recklessly causes, or permits to be caused, unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal; kills or permits an animal to be killed brutally or viciously regardless of whether the animal dies immediately.

We do not have a proper definition of animal or what unnecessary pain and suffering is. We certainly do not have a definition of how animals can be killed. What is the definition of brutally or viciously? It can be a totally different definition between two people. People who are extremely sympathetic to animals would say that anything that causes the death of an animal is brutal and vicious.

Somehow or another there has to be a modicum of common sense applied to this piece of legislation. There is absolutely no room here for traditional harvesting and animal husbandry practices. I suspect that if we were to ask the majority of people, especially urbanites, if a gunshot to the heart of a big game animal was brutal and vicious, they would classify that as definitely yes. Does that mean that we would outlaw all deer, rabbit and partridge hunters? It could. If it is not clear, and it is not defined, and it is not obvious, it should not be there. That is the job of legislation.

No one, in any way, shape or form can do anything but condemn unnecessary cruelty to animals. I have heard it time and again. No one is listening over there. What about regular animal husbandry practices, the simple castration of lambs and docking tails? There is a reason why we cut the tails off lambs and young piglets. It is simple. It is so that they do not start biting at one another, getting a little blood going out, getting into a frenzy and killing one another. It is not because we are trying to be mean to them.

There are all kinds of regular, everyday animal husbandry practices that are done carefully so that they cause a minimum amount of pain, which would be condemned under this piece of legislation as unnecessary, brutal, vicious and causing unnecessary pain and suffering. It is absolutely incorrect. Do not tell me this does not threaten farmers because it does.

Take that fact on top of the fact that it is an omnibus piece of legislation. There are two totally separate pieces of legislation here, one on gun control and one on cruelty to animals. My first reaction was that we need to update the cruelty to animals legislation. We already know we cannot trust the Liberals on the gun control legislation, but we do need to update the cruelty to animals legislation. Unfortunately neither one will get done now.

We have an important piece of legislation like cruelty to animals that we need to take a look at. We need to sit down in a reasoned, rational debate and put in laws that protect animals when they need protection. These two pieces of legislation in one bill are not connected at all. They are thrown in almost as an afterthought, and neither one of them will do the job. One sets out to do and take away the credibility of the other. If people believe in gun control, then the animal section should not be in here; if people believe in doing something about cruelty to animals, the gun control section should not be in here. This is poorly crafted legislation.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak today to the provisions of Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code with respect to cruelty to animals and firearms and also to amend the Firearms Act.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak especially in light of the considerable misinformation that has been stated about the purpose and effect of the animal cruelty provisions in Bill C-15B. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a couple of very important points about the legislation.

The first point is that the characterization of animal cruelty as a property offence belies its true nature as a crime of violence. Canada lags behind the rest of the western world in recognizing that society has an interest in protecting animals from abuse, quite apart from their status as property.

The assertion that creating a separate part of the criminal code to deal with animal cruelty somehow changes the status of animals as property represents a profound misunderstanding of the rules of statutory interpretation as well as of the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. Bill C-15B is an exercise of the federal government's criminal law power. There is nothing in Bill C-15B that would in any way affect the status of animals as property.

Second, I would like to recognize the research that increasingly shows a link between animal cruelty and violence against humans. There appears to be a high correlation between cruelty to animals and child and spousal abuse. Also, there appears to be a link between animal cruelty in childhood and subsequent violence against humans in later years.

It is time for the law to recognize the true character of animal cruelty offences and to properly reflect upon the seriousness with which this crime ought to be treated. The increased penalty provisions of Bill C-15B are extremely important in conveying society's condemnation of brutality toward animals. I know the hon. members support increased penalties for animal cruelty and in this they are joined by a strong endorsement of a huge majority of Canadians and almost a unanimous support in my own constituency of Parkdale—High Park.

A third point is clarifying what the cruelty provisions are really about. These provisions are not, and I emphasize are not, a clever attempt by the federal government to regulate industry practices. The animal cruelty provisions have co-existed with various instruments regulating industry practices since the criminal code was first enacted in 1892. They will continue to do so after Bill C-15B is passed.

All Canadians must respect the minimum standard of behaviour required by the animal cruelty provisions in the criminal code. This is true whether they use animals for commercial purposes, recreational purposes or own them as pets. This is the law now and this is the law that will continue to apply after Bill C-15B is passed.

The test for liability for unnecessary pain, suffering and injury has also not been changed, nor has the test for criminal neglect. What will change if Bill C-15B is passed is a law that will be set out in a clear, concise manner and will clearly distinguish between offences involving intentional cruelty and those which address criminal neglect.

The complexity of the law will be reduced by the removal of complex deeming provisions. Outdated distinctions between different types of animals, for example, cattle versus other types of animals, will also be removed.

The House has the opportunity to modernize and update the animal cruelty provisions without increasing the liability of persons involved in the legitimate use of animals.

I urge hon. members to see past the scare tactics that have been used in an attempt to discredit this important legislation. It is time for parliament to answer the expectations of Canadians and to pass Bill C-15B now.

I would like to turn now to the proposed administrative improvements to the Canadian firearms program.

Canada's firearms program is a practical and common sense approach to gun safety that works to keep firearms from those who should not have them while encouraging safe and responsible gun use by legitimate firearm owners. This is achieved through the licensing of firearm owners and firearm registration.

Canadians remain steadfast in their support of this very important public safety initiative. I can tell the House that in my riding there is unanimous support for the legislation.

The government's approach to preventing firearm death, injury and crime is a clear reflection of Canadian values and principles. Over the past decade, poll after poll has shown that the overwhelming majority of Canadians support gun control and support the important public safety framework of the Firearms Act. In fact, an Environics poll taken last year shows that the majority of the supporters of all political parties in the House support the firearms program.

Our national investment in this program is already paying off in terms of public safety benefits and in compliance. While Canada's firearm program will not be completely implemented until January 1, 2003, it is already making a significant contribution to public safety.

These are measures aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of people who represent a danger to themselves or others. Since December 1, 1998, more than 7,000 permits have been either denied or revoked by public security authorities. This figure is 50 times the total number that were revoked in the last five years of the previous firearm control system.

With the implementation of a number of initiatives to simplify administration and make the program more user friendly for firearms, Canadians are now complying with the law. There are now 2.1 million individuals in the firearms database, achieving a 90% compliance rate with licensing, and several months before the deadline, two-thirds of licensed firearm owners have already participated in registration.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-15B build on the success of the firearms program to date and lessons learned from the licensing experience. We are not changing the basic policy goals of the program, such as the firearm registration deadline, nor the government's commitment to public safety. Instead, we are putting forth administrative changes that will facilitate compliance with the program and continue to ensure a high level of service to clients. These are a direct response to extensive consultations with program partners and stakeholders, including the policing community, gun owners and other Canadians. This is good news for Canadians and the sooner these administrative changes can be implemented the better.

Frankly, with only months left before the legislated deadline of January 1, 2003 for full implementation of this program, any further delay would be a complete disservice to Canadians.

We have already heard and carefully considered the views of various individuals and organizations over the last several years and, most recently, the testimony that was heard by the committee last year. In its testimony, we heard the law enforcement community reaffirm its support for this program and its essential crime fighting tools. The Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police outlined the significant public safety benefits of this program, which combines the screening of applicants, tracking of firearms and minimum mandatory sentencing to help deter, prevent and prosecute firearm crimes in Canada.

We have also heard the minister's user group on firearms maintain that these amendments are in fact an important step toward ensuring a fair balance between the interests of responsible firearm owners and our shared objective of public safety.

The government is committed to enhancing the safety of Canadians inside and outside of their homes. The amendments to the Firearms Act included in Bill C-15B will help ensure that the key public safety goals of the Firearms Act are met while ensuring that the administration of the program is more efficient, effective and indeed client friendly.

Canadians expect us to get on with it.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a last opportunity to speak to Bill C-15B. Throughout its long journey through the House of Commons I have struggled in the background with the definition of animal in the legislation and tried to change it, unsuccessfully, I regret to say. I am hoping that when the bill goes on to the Senate that the senators will take some of my concerns to heart and perhaps question closely the officials and the minister on why they have gone for a definition of animal that reads something to the effect that:

...“animal” means a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

It is that latter bit, “any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain” that troubles me. That extends the definition of animal to include just about every living creature. Just about any living creature from an amoeba to a whale has the capacity to feel pain.

I think the intention and the feeling of the public is that the animal cruelty legislation should be directed towards animals that at least have a high order nervous system of the type that can feel pain and suffering. Cruelty is all about alleviating suffering, not simply trying to prevent a natural physical reaction.

This issue of the definition of animal was tackled by the consultative committee in the justice department way back in 1998 when it sent around to various interest groups and other organizations a consultative paper that invited responses on a number of questions. Overwhelmingly, organizations responded by saying that the definition of animal should be limited to animals that are non-human vertebrates. The reason is that obviously a vertebrate has a brain and a higher order nervous and mental system, and it is capable of feeling pain.

Instead however, the officials who drafted the legislation elected to choose the broadest definition possible. The definition that is before us would allow litigation based on any type of animal that may be experiencing pain, be it a worm on a hook or a lobster in a cooking pot or anything imaginable, a jellyfish. I know this is hard to imagine, but jellyfish do have a reaction when they are poked. It does not mean that they are suffering when they are taken and thrown on the beach. This definition would encompass that.

I have corresponded with the minister on a number of occasions on this. The argument back, I am sorry to say, has not been, shall we say, as exhaustive as we would like. The reaction back has been to say that there are other jurisdictions in the United States, a few state legislatures or states, such as Arkansas, that have a similar definition for animal that is just as broad.

The legislation we have before us is criminal code legislation. It is an amendment to one of the most powerful and important legal instruments in the land. Because a few isolated states in the United States have a broad definition of the word animal, not federal legislation, but state legislation, should not be a cause for adopting the same definition.

Another argument was presented by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association who wrote to the justice minister that it was very supportive of the changes that define animal for the first time as a vertebrate other than a human being and any other animal that has a capacity to feel pain.

That is supposed to be a letter from this association. However this was correspondence in the year 2001. If we go back to the files, what we find is that the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, when it replied to the original consultative paper in 1998, was very concerned that the definition of animal be limited to non-human vertebrates. In that sense it was entirely in conformity with all the other organizations, the majority of competent organizations that did not support broadening the definition in the way that we have before us.

I thought the reply from the minister suggesting that the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association was supportive of the definition was a little bit ingenuous because originally it wanted the definition to be non-human vertebrates and only elected to have the broader definition if, I have the correspondence here, it had the assurance from the justice department that this definition would not lead to interference or litigation involving the use of animals in a lawful and proper fashion. As a matter of fact I have quote here. It said:

Our association's support is based on our interpretation and expectation that the amendments will in no way alter or criminalize accepted activities in the treatment or use of animals.

These include practices such as in agriculture, hunting, fishing, trapping, animal research and so forth.

It was conditional. The difficulty, and where the pith of the problem is, is that the government cannot guarantee that there will not be litigation based on this broad definition. The government can only say that the courts will decide. This is where the flaw in the argument comes. The difficulty is that so many of these radical animal rights groups obtain their fundraising by confrontation before the courts. By allowing the broadest possible definition of animal to go forward in the legislation, the government is inviting endless litigation which will be the source of fundraising for various animal rights organizations for years to come.

It represents a naivete to think that simply and purely regarding a definition in legislation only in legal terms and not allowing for the social consequences it will have is a failure to properly inform the justice minister. I feel that what is missing, and indeed why we have these debates in the House, is that often when officials look at the definition of legislation, as do the courts, they often look at it in isolation. It is this place that should sound the warning, as indeed the opposition has on several occasions, that we want animal rights legislation that genuinely protects animals that are capable of suffering from unnecessary cruelty.

The legislation will do that but unfortunately, with this very broad definition, it will do more. It will give the opportunity to various organizations to bring nuisance court cases and challenges before the courts. Yes, we can fight them and yes, we will win them, but it will cost the government money to fight these cases because they will go all the way up to the supreme court. The people who will win will not be the public. It will be those who stand to profit from raising the issue of animal welfare. Animal welfare is an important thing that we are all concerned about, but it is not something on which organizations should be allowed to make money.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate concerning Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

The purpose of the bill is to reintroduce the proposed amendments to the cruelty of animals provision of the criminal code while consolidating animal cruelty offences that were introduced in Bill C-17 with a few changes, some of which we consider improvements and others which are of concern to Canadians.

Among the improvements are increased maximum penalties for persons found guilty of cruelty to animals, those who act willfully and recklessly in killing or harming animals. However, with a widened definition of the term animal, it creates a number of concerns for those who are dependent on the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their livelihood.

The new provisions would not prevent legitimate activities from being carried out. The law would only proscribe illegal activities. The problem is, and therefore the concern, these new provisions would narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities. Why does the minister not simply raise the penalties for committing animal offences?

Problems arise with the definition of animal in the bill. The proposed definition of animal in Bill C-15 would include non-human vertebrates and all animals having the capacity to feel pain. This new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never before been provided that kind of protection. This definition is too wide and would open the door for the prosecution of those who earn their livelihood working with animals. Our key concern is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices.

The phrase “legal justification or excuse and with colour of right” in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. The parliamentary secretary to the minister attempted to assure the justice committee that it is the government's intention that the defences in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code would continue to apply to cruelty to animal offences and that those defences would be implicit in the new legislation. Both the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc members moved amendments that would have made these defences explicit and the government members opposed them.

However in the new bill animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own which would remove these provisions outside the scope of that protection. By moving the animal cruelty section out of the range of property offences would emphasize animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. This is a significant alteration in the underlying principle of the legislation, and could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts.

Our concern is that the legislation could open up the possibility that farmers, sporting groups and scientific researchers would be unjustly prosecuted. As a result, animal rights groups in Canada would use the new legislation as the basis for such prosecutions. They have already stated their intentions to do so. Liz White, a director with Animal Alliance of Canada, has said:

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

The people who are most concerned about the bill are the agricultural groups, farmers, industry workers and medical researchers. They do not condone intentional animal abuse or neglect in any way. It is fundamentally important to the success of their livelihoods that they treat their animals with the care and respect that the bill intends to afford animals.

Moving the animal cruelty section out of the ambit of property offences to a new section on its own is seen by many as emphasizing animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. This significant alteration and the underlying principle of the legislation is something that needs to be carefully considered.

The Canadian Alliance asked government members to retain the cruelty to animals provision in the property offences section of the criminal code but they refused. Many groups are concerned that elevating the status of animals from property could have significant and detrimental implications for many legitimate animal dependent businesses. Our party supports increasing penalties for cruelty to animal offences. However we do not support the widening scope of what currently constitutes a criminal offence against animals.

The amendments to the Firearms Act are of an administrative nature and would simplify the registration process and reduce costs by incorporating information technology. My Canadian Alliance colleagues and I are opposed to these provisions on the basis that we have long held that the act be repealed entirely. We believe there should be severe mandatory penalties for the criminal use of any weapon. We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer. We would replace the current firearms law with a practical firearms control system that would be cost effective and would respect the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.

I support increasing penalties for cruelty to animal offences but I cannot support widening the scope and definition of what currently constitutes a criminal offence. This legislation would influence and cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different way which may have a detrimental effect and implications on farmers, hunters and agricultural producers.

The minister amended the bill to provide a screening mechanism for indictable offences. That would allow a provincial court judge to prescreen such prosecutions and decide whether they should proceed. The Canadian Alliance in no way condones intentional acts of cruelty to animals and supports increasing the penalties relating to such acts. However, while cruelty to animals cannot be tolerated, the criminal law should not be used as a tool by special interest groups to destroy the legitimate farming and related food production industry.

We will strive to ensure that the legitimate use of animals by farmers, sportsmen and medical researchers is protected.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill, as I do have a number of rural constituents although my riding is now close to 70% urban. Certainly I know that 30% well and in fact I am part of that constituency.

I want to start off by expressing my total displeasure with the use of closure in the House. Closure has been used 70 to 80 times since I have been here. It used to be that the government really thought about doing something like that. In fact a government could easily fall at the next election because of the use of closure. The government now uses closure in the House like we change our socks and thinks nothing of it. I hope the Canadian people are now seeing what they have because of not watching and keeping an eye on the government and providing pressure to keep it from doing this.

As far as the bill is concerned, obviously all of us would be opposed to any kind of cruelty to animals. We have to really differentiate between what we mean by cruelty and what we mean by strict agricultural practices.

The policy of the Canadian Alliance is pretty clear on that. The Canadian Alliance in no way condones intentional acts of cruelty toward animals and supports increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts. However, while cruelty to animals cannot be tolerated, the criminal law should not be used as a tool by special interest groups to destroy the legitimate farming and related food production industry. We will strive to ensure that the legitimate use of animals by farmers, sportsmen and medical researchers is protected.

That pretty much sums up our position and where we stand. Anyone who portrays it any other way obviously has not listened to the words that I have just said and that our party and all our members stand for. Sometimes I even think that probably Air Canada is behind the bill because it certainly is opposed to serving any kind of meat products on its planes. I think most of us are getting tired of vegetarian pizza, vegetarian omelettes, vegetarian fajitas and all those things.

Let us talk about the bill itself. The critical point is that this is an assault on agriculture. The farmers see it as nothing else. They see an ongoing assault. We have to remember that farmers are 1.9 million Canadians creating about $26 billion in exports. In the province that I come from we have hundreds of trucks heading south with cattle every day to serve the huge market in the U.S., which adds directly to our GDP and is so important to our standard of living and what we all have in this country.

This attack on the agriculture industry has been going on for a long time. I suppose it has been going on from the beginning of the country's existence. There are all kinds of examples. We could talk about the Canadian Wheat Board. Certainly the people in my constituency feel that while it is an agency that was needed in the 1940s, it is now subject to real questions about marketing and about whether a bureaucracy, a monopoly, is the way to sell grain products. They feel that it is an assault on their rights and particularly when it only applies to the prairie provinces. It does not apply to farmers in Ontario, Quebec and so on. They definitely see that as an attack on the west.

As well, of course, and more recently, we had Bill C-68. I received 13,000 letters in my riding telling me to vote against that legislation. Obviously 13,000 letters on anything tells us what they thought about it and obviously they have been proven right. It does not work. Licensing and registering farmers, ranchers and duck hunters is not going to work and it is certainly not going to make any difference to the crime situation.

Then there is the bill that I have been involved with as the environment critic, Bill C-5. Again the people of my riding feel that is a direct assault on them as individuals and as farmers. They feel that the bill has to include compensation. If it is in fact going to affect their livelihood and their way of life, they obviously have to be compensated.

Bill C-15B is just another example of their concerns not being taken into consideration. They do not want anything special. They want to be treated as an industry that does the very best job. I must say that most of the farmers and ranchers I know care about those animals a lot. Those animals are their livelihood. They really care about those animals that do not have the calves in the spring or for some reason have been injured out in the field. They will go a long way to preserve those animals. Sure, there are practices that we may not necessarily like. Castration is certainly not a pleasant thing and neither are dehorning and those kinds of things, but they are necessary agricultural practices. The concern is that the bill will now impact on that industry. We have to remember that it is an industry providing a livelihood for a lot of Canadians and that it adds to our GDP.

As well, our farmers look at the subsidies out there, which Canada objects to. The recent OECD figures show that a U.S. wheat farmer gets 49% of his income from the government. An EU farmer gets 43% of his income from the government. In Canada the farmer gets 17% of his income from the government. Obviously they look at that and say that the government really does not care about a guaranteed food supply, that it really does not care about the agricultural industry. If the government did, it would be doing more to help farmers get over what are considerably tough times for them.

The member who spoke previously mentioned the rodeo. I do not know how many members of the House have been to a rodeo. I cannot say that I am a great fan of rodeo. I do not follow the rodeo around. I do not know how many points the people get. When I was in business I used to do a national finals rodeo tour down to Las Vegas and I saw the thousands of people who paid thousands of dollars to watch rodeo. I know that on every weekend in my constituency from now until October there will be a rodeo somewhere in my riding. Rodeo is a way of life. Those people live that very existence and it is part of the cultural base of western Canada.

I would love to take every member in the House to Daines Rodeo, just north of Innisfail, Alberta, so that they could get the feeling of being Canadian. There are Canadian flags everywhere. Girls carrying Canadian flags come in on their horses. It is quite a show. Calves get roped, but those calves almost look like they are smiling. They are used to it. They are bred for that. The horses are bred for that . There is a very specialized industry around the rodeo. It is entertainment. We can watch the NHL hockey games and maybe we think they are kind of brutal. Maybe they should be outlawed too, with no checking. The NHL could be a powder-puff league with no-hit hockey. Maybe that is what we should have. It is rough, but that is the sport. The first time I saw rugby being played in Australia, my God, I thought the players were going to kill each other.

What we really have here is an assault on the agricultural community. A rural caucus member said there is no problem, that the bill will be fixed in the Senate. That is a cop-out. That is giving in to pressure from the whip and saying what they think people want to hear. I hope that people in the riding of Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey will not be conned by this sort of garbage with members saying they will vote for the bill because it will be fixed in the Senate. That is not the way to be a good legislator and it is sure not the way one should act in this House.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my hon. colleague for Yukon that I respect him greatly as a person. I want him to know that the points I will make in my speech are valid points, and they are not being made just by me. They represent much of the opposition to the bill as it presently stands.

The bill before us today was introduced and discussed by the Liberal spin masters on many different occasions but I still do not think the government has it right. Bill C-15B reintroduces the proposed amendments to the cruelty to animals provision of the criminal code that were introduced in Bill C-17 during the last parliament with certain changes.

However, despite the minor improvements to the legislation, many people who are dependent on the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their livelihood still have a number of concerns with the bill.

One concern with the bill is that the definition of animal is too broad. The proposed definition of “animal” in Bill C-15B includes non-human vertebrates and “all animals having the capacity to feel pain”. This new definition extends legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never before been provided that kind of protection.

Another key concern is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. The phrase “legal justification, excuse or colour of right” in section 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence.

However, in the new bill the fact that the animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own would remove these provisions outside of the scope of that very protection.

Moving the animal cruelty section out of the range of property offences to a new section in its own right, emphasizes animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. I think that is the big difference that we need to be clear on here. This is a significant alteration in the underlying principles of the legislation and could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts.

This legislation could open up, for instance, the possibility that farmers, sporting groups and scientific researchers will be unjustly prosecuted. Animal rights groups in Canada will certainly use this new legislation as the basis for such prosecution and in fact have already stated their intentions to do exactly that.

Liz White, the director of legislative revision of the Animal Alliance of Canada, has been quoted as saying:

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

Those are not my words. Those are the words of one of the directors of the Animal Alliance of Canada, an animal rights group. Animal rights groups are already gearing up to test this law. We hear reports of them harassing feedlot owners, cattle sales ring owners, rodeo workers and even veterinarians about possible cruelty to animals. Those are ordinary Canadians who make their livelihood working with animals. The bill opens up this legal Pandora's box which will cost Canadians much down the road.

The former federal justice minister has offered assurances that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities will be lawful when the bill receives royal assent. However the problem is that these new provisions arguably narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities.

We have all been witness to time after time when we were told by the government “don't worry, it will never happen that way, just trust us”. In the present climate of the government in this country today, that is a statement that just will not wash with the Canadian public.

The long and the short of it is, unless it is clearly spelled out in the legislation, I do not trust the legislation. I believe the government has passed legislation before that will have devastating effects on the future of this country and yet may not be seen for years to come. This legislation is just one more example of that.

As I turn to the second part of the bill I note that the government has failed dramatically in its efforts to curb violence through its ill-fated gun policy. In spite of the overwhelming evidence that the Liberal gun registry has failed miserably both administratively and financially, the government blithely carries. The emperor has no clothes and yet no one on that side of the House is prepared to state the facts as they really are.

The Hells Angels think that the gun laws are just fine. Just ask one of their leaders who was recently convicted of a number of crimes and was known to be directly associated with the most elite division of this infamous motorcycle gang and yet successfully applied for a firearm acquisition certificate. Yet the minister stands before the House expecting to be believed when he states that the registration program is working just fine.

My colleagues in the Canadian Alliance have stated before and I will state again that we support increasing penalties for cruelty to animal offences but we do not support widening the scope of what currently constitutes a criminal offence. New animal cruelty legislation may cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different light. This could have significant and detrimental implications for farmers, hunters and other agricultural producers who are dependent on animals for their livelihood. If it is not the minister's intention to change what is lawful today, he should simply raise the penalties for existing animal cruelty offences.

The Canadian Alliance in no way condones intentional acts of cruelty toward animals and supports increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts. However new animal cruelty legislation may cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different light. This could have significant implication on all those who are dependent on animals for their livelihoods.

With regard to firearms, we believe that there should be severe mandatory penalties for the criminal use of any weapon. We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer.

Certainly if we ever become government, and it may not be long, we will replace the current firearms law with a practical firearms control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.

In closing, I believe we need to have a strong dose of reality injected into both this debate and this bill. Let us not get caught up in the hyperbole that can elevate any debate beyond the realistic to the surreal. All Canadians would agree that cruelty to animals is wrong and that realistic gun control should enhance the safety of Canadians. However, if we do not define the limits of the legislation in a careful and reasoned manner, keeping in mind the need to have realistic applications of these changes, then we are only making life more difficult for everyone and unhelpful to anyone.

For those reasons and the lack of reasoned ability to apply these new changes to the laws of the land, I will be opposing, on behalf of my constituents, Bill C-15B.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, this speech has not been given by anyone else. I have been making it up to refute some of the invalid points the opposition has made with respect to the bill.

I will speak to an aspect of Bill C-15B which has not been the subject of recent discussion and has not been given enough emphasis in terms of the importance of the legislation. While taking animal cruelty offences more seriously would be entirely consistent with society's moral condemnation of the abuse and neglect of animals, an even greater societal interest would be served by the provisions of Bill C-15B. There is increasing scientific evidence of a link between animal cruelty and subsequent violent offences against humans, particularly in the context of domestic violence. A number of studies in the United States have clearly shown the link. Recent Canadian studies have also put out interesting findings.

Last year a study was conducted of 100 women entering two shelters for abused women and children in Calgary. Some 65% of the participants were either pet owners or had been pet owners in the last 12 months. More than half who owned pets said their abusers had threatened to kill or hurt or had killed or hurt their pets. More than 25% of the pet owning participants said they delayed their decision to seek shelter from violence for themselves and their children because they feared for the safety of the animals they left behind.

One American study has noted that while most animal abusers will not commit sensational murders, serial killers almost invariably have histories of animal abuse earlier in their lives. Many notorious serial killers including Albert DeSalvo, the Boston strangler, have had histories of animal abuse that started in their youth. There is increasing evidence of a link between animal abuse early in life and subsequent violence against humans. As one report noted, the literature suggests an association between a pattern of cruelty to animals in childhood or adolescence and a pattern of dangerous and recurrent aggression against people at a later age.

One of the first formal studies in this area examined the life histories of 84 prison inmates in the United States. The research found that 75% of those charged with violent crimes had an early record of cruelty to animals, fire setting and bedwetting. A later study of psychiatric patients who repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found that all of them had high levels of aggression toward people and had also been victims of brutal parental punishment as children.

The link between animal cruelty and the abuse or neglect of children has been examined in other studies as well. In one study of 57 families being treated by local child welfare authorities because of incidents of child abuse, pets had been abused in 88% of the families in which children had been physically abused. In two-thirds of the cases the abusive parent had injured or killed the family pet. In the remaining one-third of cases it was the children who had abused the pet. In describing animal abuse as symptomatic of family dysfunction, one study notes that the research strongly suggests animal abuse is not the result of some personality flaw in the abuser but a symptom of a deeply disturbed family.

Insight into the dynamics of animal cruelty offences can be gained from research that examines the reasons given by offenders for their actions. In examining violent offenders with a history of animal abuse, researchers have found that some offenders resort to cruelty to control the animal's behaviour. Others have hurt or killed an animal to retaliate for an action by the animal such as barking. A third motivation is prejudice toward specific types of animals, most commonly cats.

I hope people understand that there are ramifications of the bill in terms of determining that cruelty to animals is an offence of violence. It would be of benefit to our society to realize the seriousness of it in that respect.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I am glad the hon. member has raised the issue because it is the next part of my speech. Not only the hunters but the trappers, fishermen and even the farmers in my riding are very happy that the rural caucus has done a lot of work to make sure the bill would not harm any practices that have been allowed in the past. I compliment the hon. member for Huron—Bruce for making these points and bringing them forward to ensure Bill C-15B is totally acceptable and would not harm the ways of life that are so important to the trappers, fishers, hunters and even the farmers of the Yukon.

Although the debate has gone on so long it is disappointing because no new points have been brought up. However I will again refute the two or three points brought up in criticism of the bill. First, some argue that under Bill C-15B a whole bunch of frivolous lawsuits might be undertaken against innocent people who could not afford the time or effort. This is not true. Cases would need to go to a hearing. Cases brought forward by private individuals trying to do something vexatious or frivolous would be screened out at that stage. Almost every offence would be a hybrid offence which means it would fall under this category. The only exception would be if someone broke the law by owning an animal when he or she was not supposed to.

Second, an unfounded complaint is that the bill would expand the definition of animals too far. I am sure some members of the opposition support preventing cruelty to animals, but some are arguing Bill C-15B would catch all sorts of animals that were not included before. However there was no definition before so anything was eligible. Bill C-15B would limit the number of animals the law would apply to.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about a couple of the points members of the opposition party, the Alliance, made recently.

First, they suggested we propose an amendment in the House instead of in the Senate that would help rural Canada. The member should understand legislative procedure better. We cannot propose an amendment here because an amendment and a sub-amendment have already been proposed. It is not possible procedurally. He should be aware of that. He should also be aware that when an amendment goes before the Senate it must come back here to be approved anyway. Amendments must be debated and approved by parliament before they are agreed to.

Second, the same member tried to create a myth that we would not be able to do research on animals after the bill was passed. The case law with respect to the issue is obvious. The Ménard case says the application of the law would be the same under Bill C-15B as it is now and that research would be quite appropriate.

The purpose of Bill C-15B is to consolidate, simplify and modernize the existing provisions to increase maximum penalties for cruelty to animals and take care of injured animals. I do not think anyone in the opposition would disagree with increasing penalties for people who abuse animals so the issue is taken more seriously. I think they would have a hard time with their consciences if they voted against increasing penalties for those who are cruel to animals.

I have had a lot of input from those in my riding who work in the humane society and others who strongly support the bill. It has been a large percentage of the input I have had on the issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member who preceded me as well as my colleague from Châteauguay for his participation and work during consideration of this bill. I know he also works very hard on the justice committee.

In my view, the bill boils down to the simple issue of whether we can accomplish all that we set out to do in the protection of animals and still leave the bill in such a way that it protects and provides assurances to legitimate animals users, and by that I mean farmers, hunters, furriers and researchers?

Can we leave all these new protections within the property sections, within the existing sections of the criminal code that provide those colour of right excuses that have long been held very dearly by those individuals in the group I described? The answer to that is yes.

It was interesting that the member for Provencher pointed out that there may be some assurances that were given that might explain the voting that took place here today by rural members of the Liberal caucus. Previously they expressed outrage and seemed quite prepared to vote against their government if the bill was to remain in its current configuration.

That may very well be and we may see some of the discussion that took place on the floor of the House repeated on the floor of the other place. I suspect that may be the case but the behaviour here today was bizarre. I do not say this lightly, but members of the Liberal caucus today who were so adamant before in standing against the government on the legislation did appear a bit like hand shy, whipped puppies when it came to the vote today. There is real concern that the cave-in, which took place, may be the result of a behind the scenes deal.

It goes without saying that Bill C-15B does have some legitimate and positive changes that would bring about a greater sentencing range for those convicted of cruelty to animal offences. In my view and the view of members of the Progressive Conservative Party, there is a need in legislation currently to up the ante and punish those who intentionally abuse or neglect animals.

Cruelty to animals is an issue that has received significant publicity in recent years and months. Psychologists are drawing parallels between children's cruelty to animals and their subsequent cruelty and behaviour toward other humans.

While I am supportive of many elements of the legislation dealing with crimes against animals, there are still legitimate concerns that stem from the decision to remove the current criminal code provisions dealing with animal cruelty from the property sections of the criminal code and create, in essence, a new section.

It was suggested that a new section could also have brought with it the existing protections found in part XI of the criminal code. Those sections permit acts to be done with legal justification, excuse or with colour of right. They go back to the very origins of the drafting of the sections pertaining to animals that were contained in those property definitions.

There is still an opportunity to get it right and to get it right in the first instance. The importance of having those protections is clear. There is a real and legitimate fear on the part of animal users and participants in businesses that require the use of animals and practices that might be perceived by many from an ivory tower perspective to be cruel. I am talking about legitimate practices such as branding, castration, methods of slaughter and methods of medical and scientific research that have a very legitimate practice. Those of the feint of heart and those who may be a bit squeamish about this often sit down and enjoy a nice steak or sport their leather belts and boots. That is the reality.

Providing those protections under the property sections of the code permit acts to be done legitimately within certain parameters that have long been respected, respecting the need to be using safe and fair practices when it comes to animals.

I share the concerns of many Canadians and many members when it comes to definition of animal, involving any animal that has the capacity to feel pain. There was some concession made by the previous minister of justice. There was a spirit I suppose of co-operation and perhaps reasonableness when the current minister's predecessor heard from many stakeholders on this issue.

The previous bill was careful to insert the words “wilful cruelty” and “unnecessary pain and suffering” in the drafting of the bill, yet there was an intransigence when it came to the changing of the issue of property.

Members have expressed concern on behalf of stakeholders and their constituents over the lengthy, protracted and costly litigation that could result in both the criminal and civil courts. The potential private prosecutions could be costly and paralyzing. We all know that when a dispute disintegrates into this type of litigation it can literally bankrupt the participants. It can bankrupt the individual who stands accused. Regardless of the outcome the end result might well be that many farmers, fishers, and those involved in the fur industry and privately funded scientific research face bankruptcy by the time the issue is resolved.

Protection is being denied. Neither the Minister of Justice nor anyone on the government side of the House to date has made a legitimate case as to why we cannot achieve all the protections and necessary elements. No one has explained why we cannot up the ante when it comes to sentencing and give prosecutorial teams or individuals greater ability to hold to task and bring to justice persons who deliberately or recklessly cause harm to animals. All that could be accomplished by leaving these offences in the property section of the criminal code.

The fears people have with respect to the firearms registry are apropos to what has happened because similar guarantees were given at the time of the passing of Bill C-68. The government claimed it would only cost $85 million. That has gone out the window. The cost has ballooned to over $800 million and is climbing. Yet the registry is still not up and running.

Was the gun registry a legitimate expenditure? Was it good value for the dollar? Are the Hells Angels lining up at kiosks at the mall to participate in the gun registry? Absolutely not. Will criminals give their fingerprints before robbing houses? No, they will not. Will they register their guns before using them for illegitimate purposes? Absolutely not. It is based on a completely false premise.

That is why members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada do not support changing or tinkering with the gun registry. Making changes to the gun registry at this point would be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic . The ill-founded, ill-conceived, overblown, expensive and bureaucratic gun registry system will eventually collapse under its own weight. The police cannot rely on it. It will not achieve the public purpose for which it was sold to Canadians in a time of heightened awareness and fear about firearms. The assurances given to Canadians including the Canadian Police Association among other groups have been completely abrogated.

Why should we trust the government on this one? The government says legitimate animal stakeholders should not be concerned because protections would be there. I will make the point clear: There would be no compensation for individuals who wound up before the courts for legitimate practices concerning their animals, just as there is no compensation for gun owners who have their property seized. We are opening a door that is unnecessary and that may result in costly and protracted litigation. For what reason are we doing it? We are doing it for reasons that cannot be enunciated, explained or articulated by the government.

I regret that the Progressive Conservative Party will not be supporting the legislation. We had an opportunity to get it right. Perhaps those in the other place will have more success in convincing the government that we have an obligation to recognize that Canadians, particularly those in rural Canada, have needs that must be recognized and supported by the government.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill. It is my hope that this legislation will go through the House and move on to the next stage so that it becomes law.

This legislation deals with two elements, first, the harmonization of what we already have in a place, and second, to introduce new penalties and increase some of the other penalties.

The first element of the legislation would harmonize some of the definitions and issues that we have in the bill. That is a timely matter. As we know this legislation has not been touched for quite some time. I commend the minister who has brought this legislation before the House. It has gone through a substantial amount of consultation with various parties and interest groups, the community as a whole, and people at the provincial level. This has all been done with one thing in mind, and that is to bring to parliament legislation that reflects the needs of the communities, deals with the substantive issues that the government is trying to address and to harmonize some of the definitions and issues and bring them up to date.

On the second issue it is important for the government to take the action it is taking on the issue of enforcement. It is important for us to create a high level of awareness in our communities that cruelty to animals is not acceptable. We must put measures in place to protect animals.

Along with outreach, information and education there must be a level of enforcement. Individuals must be told what needs to be done but at the same time they must be shown the consequences if that does not take place. The introduction of the measure for protection came as a result of a number of studies that have shown over and over again that those who have tendencies to abuse animals would have tendencies to abuse human beings. That correlation does exist. Simply put, to introduce and strengthen those measures is the right thing to do.

Earlier my colleague raised a number of concerns. I have also heard from some of my constituents who have also raised some concerns. For example, one of the issues that has been raised in the House deals with certain provisions in Bill C-15B against the killing or poisoning of animals without lawful excuse that, in their views, would make industry more vulnerable to prosecution.

It is important to know that offences which prohibit the killing or poisoning of animals without lawful excuse are set out in parts of the legislation, mainly subsections 182.2(1)(c) and 182.2(1)(d) respectively. The words lawful excuse are expressly mentioned in the offence provisions because they form an integral part of the definition. The activity itself, the killing or poisoning of an animal may be a lawful activity, for example, slaughter, pest control, defence of persons or other animals, protection of property, legal authorization such as hunting, fishing or trapping, and euthanasia. Lawful excuse is a flexible concept designed to provide access to an unlimited variety of excuses or justifications.

Depending on the nature of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed it is impossible and unwise to envisage every situation that could amount to a lawful excuse for a particular offence. Whether or not there was a lawful excuse for an offence is a determination that must be made on the basis of all circumstances as presented by the evidence.

Another issue that had been raised concerning a certain element of Bill C-15B was whether or not the criminal code had the effect of criminalizing activities in various regulated sectors or setting standards of behaviour. The answer to this is quite clear. The criminal law in relation to cruelty to animals does not at all prohibit legitimate socially accepted or regulated activities that do not inflict unnecessary suffering on the animal. A vast body of jurisprudence on animal law supports this particular position.

If we look back over the past 100 years, since animal cruelty laws have been in place, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the criminal law is being misused to target legitimate hunters, fishers or people working on the farm. On the contrary there is every indication that the only acts that result in a criminal offence are of sheer or senseless brutality taken against an animal, or they come as a result of criminal neglect in the feeding or care of animals. The criminal law is applied generally and sets a minimum standard of behaviour which must be adhered to by everyone.

There have been other questions raised by my colleagues dealing with the possibility of a third party alleging that someone has committed a cruel act against an animal. This deals with the whole issue of frivolous or vexatious prosecutions. This particular issue would be dealt with by the courts. In other words, one would have to go through a lot of hoops before being able to establish a legitimate complaint against a third party.

Individuals would have to put their name on the line by making the allegation. The court would have to look at the allegation and assess whether or not there was reason to believe a particular offence had taken place. Before a procedure would move to the next step a judge would have to be fully satisfied that there was ample evidence that supported the claim of the third party that someone may have committed a cruelty to animal offence. Once it moves to the next step there are ample numbers of protective measures in place to prevent those kinds of frivolous actions from taking place. The criminal code also deals specifically with false allegations. An individual who makes a false allegation against a third party is subject to prosecution.

Having listened to some of the comments of my colleagues in the opposition as well as hearing from some of the special interest groups in the communities and looking at the legislation itself I can say in all fairness that it strikes a strong and good balance between the needs of those who are legitimate hunters or trappers and the protection for our animals. It is my hope that this legislation would go through the House smoothly and become law as soon as possible.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again today and tell the House about the Bloc Quebecois' position on the proposed amendment to the amendment with respect to the date the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is to submit its report.

I wish to reiterate that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of tangible and appropriate measures to fight the scourge of cruelty to animals. This is a serious problem which merits all our attention and all our energy. This problem has gone on for too long and it is high time that we face up to it and take the appropriate corrective action.

Again, what we are talking about are acts of unheard-of violence deliberately committed against creatures unable to defend themselves and win recognition of their rights.

Despite all Bill C-15B's good intentions, the Bloc Quebecois still opposes it for two main reasons: the lack of protection for legitimate activities involving animals, and the fact that important powers are taken away from the chief firearms officer, who reports to the government of Quebec.

An amendment to the bill was put forward requiring that the bill be referred back to committee for detailed consideration of clause 8, which sets out how the bill will be applied.

We are in favour of this amendment because it specifically addresses one of our main objections to Bill C-15B, which is the defence for legitimate activities relating to animal husbandry.

It is noteworthy that the section addressing firearms would benefit from a thorough revision as well. The Bloc Quebecois maintains its position on this camouflaged decrease of powers in favour of the chief firearms officer.

We are in favour of the creation of a new section in the criminal code which would institute an innovative concept, the object of which would be to completely change the concept of what an animal is. A animal would no longer be perceived as property, but rather as a specific named entity in the code.

We want to make it clear that we are opposed to this, if it is going to have significant negative repercussions on all those who are involved in a totally legitimate way with animal husbandry, hunting or scientific and medical research.

This is a very important amendment, because it will mean a definitive change to the application. Such a change must not be done in such a way as to have a detrimental effect on what is already in place. And that is exactly what the present wording of Bill C-15B is going to do.

By changing the description of what constitutes an animal, we will no longer look at animals as before and will no longer treat them as before. Yet this innovation must not result in a radical and definitive change in the lives of those who are currently involved in animal husbandry or scientific research in particular, and have been for many years.

With this amendment to the amendment, we recognize that it is essential to look at clause 8. We also acknowledge the urgency of the tragic situation that occurs daily. By introducing this amendment to the amendment, parliamentarians are clearly establishing the limits of a very tight deadline within which the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights must report back to the House on its indepth study of clause 8 of this bill.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of this amendment to the amendment in that it establishes a reasonable opportunity to carefully, meticulously, review clause 8 of this bill, a clause which may be considered the very cornerstone of the criteria for protecting legitimate activities involving animals, including animal husbandry, hunting and scientific and medical research.

Bill C-15B is very controversial, and has been from the very beginning. We all receive mail from our fellow citizens asking us to support this legislation. I had the opportunity to discuss the Bloc Quebecois' position with a number of these people, and they support our position, which is to protect animals while recognizing the legitimate activities related to the whole animal industry.

We, like the stakeholders, want increased protection for animals. However, we also support specific protection for people in the animal industry. The problem is that, in Bill C-15B as it is currently worded, there is a blatant lack of protection for these legitimate activities in the animal industry.

Again, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the bill in its present form, because of this unacceptable and deplorable flaw.

There are currently specific defences for activities relating to the animal industry. These defences are provided for in section 429 of the criminal code, which explicitly protects those who raise livestock, hunters, the animal industry and researchers. These protections are not included in the new part V.1 of the criminal code.

As we said before, the primary purpose of this bill should have been to increase penalties for any reprehensible and violent activity involving animals. The penalty for a cruel offence should be serious enough to deter anyone contemplating it. But this is not the case with Bill C-15B, because it lumps all violent actions together, whether or not cruelty is involved. This is unacceptable.

Officials from the Department of Justice told us in committee that the government's intent was not to deprive those who take part in legitimate breeding activities of the protection to which they are entitled. How can this be the case when the current protection that is specifically laid out in section 429 of the criminal code is not included in clause 8 of the bill? This begs the question. We have reason to seriously question the statements made by the representatives of the Department of Justice.

We have been told that they are legal experts who have anticipated everything. Yet, if this is the case, why were the protections found in the current legislation not included in the new bill? It makes no sense. Why not include the specific protections found in section 429 of the criminal code? These protections are not repeated in the new part V.1 of the criminal code, even implicitly. According to the wording in section 429, these protections only apply to sections 430 to 446 of the criminal code. All we want is to apply the general rights of defence to clause 8. However, at the request of the Bloc Quebecois, clause 8 was explicitly included in the bill, but the government did not want to include explicitly the defences set out in section 429. It makes no sense.

How can we interpret these protections as applying to the entire criminal code? It is simply not logical. Why not include that which has existed for such a long time? The legislator is not deemed to speak in vain. This is a legal principle known to all experts. If legislators have taken care to specify that protections only apply to certain specific sections and not the entire code, that is their intention.

We introduced amendments to this effect, but they were all rejected in committee. The Bloc Quebecois believes that it is essential to take the appropriate measures to satisfy all of the stakeholders. It is possible and perfectly feasible.

As I said before, the Bloc Quebecois supports the creation of a new part of the criminal code for a completely new definition of animal, thereby granting a new designation and legal value.

However, we cannot accept it if the current protections are not respected. The fact that the means of defence that currently exist are not included concerns us.

Unfortunately, I am out of time. I only had a page and a half left to read. I wonder if it is possible for the House to give its unanimous consent for me to finish my speech.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon with a heavy heart to speak to Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals act.

Farmers and ranchers in Canada are facing hardships like we have not seen in recent years. The old timers in our area are saying that it is worse than the 1930s. The economy is bad, the weather conditions are bad and we are facing a severe drought.

The future of agriculture in Saskatchewan is uncertain. The stress and worry that our farm families are facing is hard to grasp. Over the last two weeks we have sent letters out to all the rural municipalities in my riding. By next Wednesday at least, the RMs in my whole riding will have been declared disaster RMs.

We look at farm families and what they have to live on. I heard last fall that the average income for a farm family in Saskatchewan was $7,000. I look at the bill as another impediment for those farm families to make a living and to succeed. The livestock industry in our province has been one success. The bill is just another nail in the coffin of profitable business.

Also of great concern to the province of Saskatchewan and right across Canada is the recent U.S. farm bill. The huge subsidies that the American government are offering American producers will have a definite negative effect on Canadian agriculture as a whole. Input costs continue to rise while income to farm families continues to fall. Faced with this crisis situation the Liberal government chooses to turn a blind eye to agriculture programs in Canada because it continues to inadequately fund them and inefficiently run them. These are programs that the government sponsors and says are so good for our farm families.

While the neglect shown by the government has been passive, the bill that is before us today is an open, aggressive attack on agriculture. This is not fearmongering, as the government would like Canadians to believe. It is a simple fact. The legislation before us would have a negative effect on farmers and ranchers throughout the country. When we talk to chicken farmers--

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations earlier this day and last Friday, and at the request of one of the opposition parties, and pursuant to unanimous consent that was given, I would like to move the following motion for which I ask for unanimous consent:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, when debate concludes this day on Bill C-15B, divisions on all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage shall be deemed to have been requested and deferred to 3 p.m. on Tuesday, June 4.

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

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in English that is what we call fearmongering. I am talking about Bill C-15B, the bill which is in the House at this point in time. As I said, the defences that exist today will still exist under Bill C-15B. We have created a new provision within the bill in order to make sure that we do refer to the common law defence.

I refer to what has been said by the Criminal Lawyers' Association. It is time we proceeded with the bill. It is long overdue. We have very good support to proceed with modernizing those sections of the criminal code in order to ensure that we will be in line with other administrations. It is long overdue.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to be careful and respect the Senate process. There are different stages. The bill is in the House of Commons at this point in time after which it will be referred to the Senate. The Senate will have to look at the bill. We will see what takes place at that time.

Bill C-15B is a good bill. It modernizes the existing sections of the criminal code and creates a definition of animals to increase penalties. As well it creates the new offence of viciously killing animals.

Let us proceed in the House of Commons and respect as well the process on the Senate side.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a strange question.

With the legal framework we have in place and the existing legal process, I can guarantee that the bill will be applied in the normal way. The legislation will be applied to ensure that we achieve the aims and goals of Bill C-15B. At the same time we will make sure the industry will be kept involved through its normal activities regarding the use of animals.

It is important to mention once again that the Criminal Lawyers' Association was involved in the process regarding the question of subsection 8(3) to make sure that those defences that already exist will be taken into consideration under Bill C-15B. We made sure that a provision was created within the bill specifically referring to subsection 8(3) of the criminal code.

We are talking about common law defences which were there before. They are still there.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to fear in regard to what has been raised. Let me refer to a previous question with regard to the system that exists in Canada. I do believe that with the system we have there is no way we will have abuse of the legislation. To be more precise, the hon. member should have a look at the legislation per se. I think it will offer to the industry a much more interesting protection in the sense that Bill C-15B is there in order to simplify the existing provisions within the criminal code so that parameters in the framework of the legislation will be clearer and easier to understand.

Once more, it is not there to go against the industry in any way, not at all. It is there in order to make sure that all people will better understand the legislation. As well, I would like to repeat for the industry that the defences that existed before are still there. To be more precise, we have been sure to add a clause within Bill C-15B in order to make a specific reference to subsection 8(3) of the criminal code in regard to criminal defences.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15B is just part of a long list of threats facing our agriculture community right now, a lot of which has been brought on by the government. We have the species at risk act, the Kyoto protocol, the combat we are having in the international trade industry and the use of pesticides in Canada. The list goes on and on.

The minister of agriculture and his colleagues have been quick to say they want to avoid crisis management in agriculture. Do they not realize that implementing the bill will bring our farmers, our ranchers and our animal researchers into court day after day to fend off the attacks by the extreme animal rights groups?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Listen, I will read the following:

The committee heard from a wide variety of groups with diverse views on the issue of animal cruelty.

At the committee hearing the Criminal Lawyers' Association confirmed that removal of the animal cruelty provisions out of the property section would not cause accused persons to lose any available defences.

I think that this is clear enough. However, once again, to answer the various concerns, a provision to allow specific references to section 8(3) of the criminal code was added to the bill. I am referring to section 182.5 of Bill C-15B, which reads that:

For greater certainty, subsection 8(3) applies in respect of proceedings for an offence under this Part.

This seems clear enough.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we know the justice system in Canada and the way it works, with regard to criminal law it is quite simple. We know that normally there is a police investigation with regard to criminal code offences. An attorney general has to make a decision in each and every case. We know that those people are experts. We do not foresee any abuse of the bill. The way Bill C-15B is drafted it offers all the protection for the industry. To be more precise, if we look at criminal code subsection 8(3), the bill offers the same defences that previously existed.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to put it quite simply, it is implicit in the bill. As we have said and as I have said many times, those who are carrying on lawful activities with regard to animals, respecting the framework of the bill, will not have any problem.

I would like to repeat what I said before. One of the aims and goals of Bill C-15B is to modernize the offences in the criminal code sections to make sure that we will be in line with much of the legislation that exists all over the world. The bill will make sure that we will be able to compare ourselves with some other countries. Honestly, another good point is that we are creating the definition of animal, which did not exist before.

I do believe that subsection 8(3) of the criminal code will give them all the defences they need. As to whether the defences that exist now will still be there with this brand new bill, the question has been raised many times, and the answer is yes.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, section 429 of the criminal code was in place to provide general coverage for the various elements concerned by the category of property offences.

Essentially, what has to be understood is that section 429 did not provide an automatic defence and protection where cruelty to animals is concerned. What is important to understand now is that section 8(3) of the criminal code covers all defences. Thus all the defences available are therefore now in place within Bill C-15B.

I would, moreover, like to point out that the criminal lawyers association find this totally acceptable.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question raised by the hon. member. Let me repeat that in regard to the available defences we are talking about the very same defences recognized, as I have said, by the Criminal Lawyers' Association. We are talking about subsection 8(3) of the criminal code.

With regard to the question of property, to qualify a good or something as property essentially does not belong to our jurisdiction. It is a provincial matter. Creating a specific section within the criminal code with regard to cruelty to animals puts us as a country basically in line with many other administrations in the world.

Bill C-15B, as I said, has been due for a long time. We have to proceed with it to modernize our legislation. As well, we are creating a definition of animal, therefore leaving to the court the obligation to define this on a case by case basis.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very good point. Bill C-15B deals with the question of cruelty to animals. As well, it deals with the firearms registration system.

Bill C-15B would streamline the administration process of the whole firearms registry. As the hon. member just said, we are looking at the possibility of proceeding with some outsourcing, which we are doing in all departments across government. We will still keep the responsibility of managing the whole program but to be more efficient and effective, to keep providing the population with very good services and to keep improving the system, we will proceed with some outsourcing to be more precise with regard to technology.

Of course, needless to mention, we will ensure we protect privacy which is a very important part of our duty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying we in the NDP support Bill C-15B. However I also want to use this opportunity, as it is intended, to raise a matter with the minister of justice with respect to firearms registry.

He knows that there is a lot of concern, and indeed I have written to him to this effect, about the plans the government has to contract out. I say contract out but when I write the minister, he writes back and says that the government is not contracting out it is outsourcing. I have not taken a whole lot of comfort in the distinction between contracting out and outsourcing. Whatever we call it, some private company will have charge of all the information that will be gathered as a result of registration.

This is a needless provocation on the part of the government. The idea is that this information be secret, that it be held in confidentiality and I do not know why the government is proceeding to further aggravate an already aggravated situation by pursuing this policy. Would the government reconsider that policy?

[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.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, although waxing eloquent the previous member missed a fairly major point regarding the submissions of ranchers, farmers, researchers and so on. We in the Canadian Alliance want to make it clear at the beginning that we in no way condone intentional acts of cruelty toward animals. We would without a doubt support increased penalties for offences relating to such acts. However there are ways to do it other than those the minister has proposed.

As has been mentioned in the House by others today and previously, there are animal rights groups that target livestock producers and label them as cruel, inhumane and barbaric. We have seen this. We have been monitoring it on the Internet and elsewhere. One such group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA, has launched an anti-dairy campaign targeting schoolchildren.

I take offence to that. We have a lot of dairy farmers in Saskatchewan. My riding has probably the highest concentration of dairy farmers in the province. They are hard-working people who take care of their livestock. They need to do so for the sake of the bottom line. Indirectly targeting these people is something I am greatly opposed to and offended by. The Canadian Alliance is concerned Bill C-15B would arm groups like PETA and others with a powerful new tool to use against farmers, dairy farmers, ranchers and others whose livelihood requires careful care and treatment of animals.

The official opposition agrees with the majority of Canadians who want to see harsher penalties for those who mistreat or deliberately abuse animals. However because of the way Bill C-15B is currently worded many ranchers, hunters, medical researchers and so on might be subject to harassing prosecutions. They could be convicted of animal abuse even though they properly care for their animals.

Groups such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals claim they have no intention of using Bill C-15B to harass farmers and researchers. On the other hand there are groups like the Animal Alliance of Canada whose director, Liz White, hints she would use the legislation to attack animal producers. I will put it on record again if it is not already there. She stated:

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

The Minister of Justice has the ability to introduce legislation. However I cannot for the life of me understand why he does not introduce legislation that would strengthen and modernize the current cruelty to animals provisions of the criminal code without threatening the people who use and care for animals.

The minister has chosen to go a different route and not listen to the many submissions of those calling for changes to the bill. He has refused to explicitly protect farmers, ranchers, fishermen, hunters and medical researchers. He has refused to be explicit in the legislation and ensure the courts would not be able to interpret Bill C-15B in a way parliament did not intend.

In light of these refusals we are concerned the Liberals may be counting on the bill to reach much further than they publicly state in the House. The Canadian Alliance will continue to demand that the government amend Bill C-15B to ensure farmers, ranchers and medical researchers would remain protected, that their concerns would be taken into account, and that there would be no problems down the road with people going to court and using the legislation to the detriment of these individuals.

The bill's definition of animal must be amended. The present definition reads:

--a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

The definition is far too broad. It could interfere with the ability of farmers to eliminate pests and rodents which are destructive to their livelihood. We had a gopher problem in Saskatchewan we needed to deal with. Out on the range a problem like that can hurt other animals. If a horse gets caught in one of the holes it can create problems for the horse's owner who may be trying to conduct a ranching business. We need the amendment for that reason.

We are calling for the retention of the animal cruelty provisions in the property section of the criminal code. The criminal code currently provides protection from harassing prosecutions to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. It does so through the phrase cited by the hon. member opposite concerning legal justification, excuse or colour of right. Bill C-15B would move the animal cruelty provisions out of the property offences section of the criminal code and into a section of their own, thereby effectively removing the legal justification protection.

I will quickly summarize. We in the Canadian Alliance in no way condone intentional acts of cruelty toward animals. We support increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts. We should hike them up significantly to send a strong message to those who would abuse or deliberately hurt and maim animals in some cases for their own perverse pleasure.

New animal cruelty legislation might cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different light. As we have said, it could have significant detrimental implications for farmers, hunters and other agricultural producers who depend on animals for their livelihoods.

Moving the cruelty provisions from property offences to a new separate section would elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. No one can deny that. The defences that apply to individuals who want to protect themselves against harassment and malicious charges would no longer apply under the new section.

The former minister stated that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would still be lawful after the bill received royal assent. If it is not the former justice minister's intention to change what is lawful today why did she not go the route of raising penalties for those who perpetrate cruelty on animals? That is the way we would have preferred her to approach the matter.

I will again make plain our longstanding opposition to the Firearms Act. We in the Canadian Alliance oppose the amendments to the Firearms Act proposed by Bill C-15B on the basis that the act should be repealed altogether. Messing around with it or tweaking the edges to no account is not something we are favourable to. It should be repealed and removed altogether.

For these reasons we in my party oppose Bill C-15B as it stands.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support Bill C-15B as it is currently written. However I will comment on the wording of an amendment to send Bill C-15 back to committee because the amendment is based on a false assumption that is inconsistent with the status of animals in common law.

The amendment assumes it is necessary to expressly state in law that animals can be used for lawful purposes. It assumes that if legislators did not do so the use of animals would be illegal. It assumes that if one wanted to use animals for a particular reason it would need to be authorized by statute.

I recognize the concerns raised by the hon. members who say that unless specific reference is made in Bill C-15B to the defences of lawful justification, excuses or colour of right, the use of animals for industry would become illegal. They are saying the defences are needed to render the use of animals lawful.

That is a false assumption. It is important to look at the argument more closely because it raises the question of what the status of animals has been historically. What was the status of animals in common law prior to the enactment of animal cruelty legislation? Did their use have to be expressly recognized in order to be lawful?

The answer is no. The status of animals in early common law before animal cruelty laws were enacted was described in the case of Standard Sausage Co. v. Lee, a 1933 decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In that case Mr. Justice Martin confirmed that before legislation was passed in Britain in the 1800s making cruelty to animals a crime, members of the animal kingdom were at the mercy of the wanton brutality of their owners.

The early justification for animal cruelty laws focused on the morally corrupting influence that witnessing animal cruelty had on humans. It was felt that humans who saw people being cruel to or abusing animals believed it was easy to move on to other acts of violence. Bill C-15B does not talk about the use of animals which has been done historically. It talks about the abuse of animals. No one is questioning the use of animals. This is about abuse of animals.

In early common law animals had no rights or interests per se. The property rights of animal owners were protected but there was no prohibition against owners or anyone else abusing animals. The lawful use of animals is already protected. Bill C-15B would expressly prohibit the unlawful use or abuse of animals.

This is the reverse of the assumption made by some hon. members that under Bill C-15B all use of animals would be illegal unless there was recognition of the use of animals in statute. It is clear that since the inception of the animal cruelty provisions of the criminal code a minimum standard of behaviour has applied to everyone.

There is either a lack of understanding of historical common law or a lack of understanding of the history of animal cruelty legislation. That may be why the amendment is being brought forward. It could also be a red herring. It is one of the two. I do not know which. If it is a red herring it is sad because it would put in the place of good legislation a trumped up charge that did not apply at all.

I do not think anyone in the House would condone the abuse of animals. That is what Bill C-15B is talking about. Let us expressly prohibit the abuse of animals. The use of animals is lawful in many areas of law. That would not change under the bill. I would like to see people here stand and say they condone the abuse of animals because if they do not support Bill C-15B that is what they are doing.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

There they go, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what I am stating. What does he mean, am I for it or against it? The bill has flaws. The bill was not thought out. The member on the other side wants to go ahead with it and that is exactly what I am talking about. That is why today we want to highlight what is wrong with the bill.

Bill C-15B would penalize those who deal with animals as part of their life.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

When we talk about cruelty to animals it raises compassion in people. It brings out what is best in human beings. It brings out their concern about cruelty to animals. I, representing the urban riding of Calgary East, have a lot of constituents who have written to me about this. When they hear the title of the bill, they automatically have compassion. I have been subject to numerous representations from them. They feel that we should pass the bill because, from their point of view, the bill is needed to stop cruelty to animals and we have all seen many examples of cruelty to animals.

The title of the bill automatically makes it an emotional issue for people who live in urban areas and cities in Canada. Nobody would say they oppose protecting animals. Everybody would agree with the bill. As a matter of fact, I have a dog, and I can tell members that my own children would get upset if I were to tell them that technically I am opposing the bill. They would feel that I am agreeing with cruelty to animals.

However, that is not the issue here. The issue is not cruelty to animals. As I stated yesterday during debate on the private member's bill dealing with the killing of wildlife, which was presented by my colleague, the approach the government takes in addressing an issue is that it will try to address an issue but at the same time it will try not to address an issue. The government plays a role which at the end of the day turns out to be of no help to anyone. This is the typical kind of bill that comes from the--

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part today, at third reading stage, in the debate on Bill C-15B, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

This bill was the government's response to hundreds of letters and thousands of signatures from people asking for a more effective act regarding treatment, protection and penalties relating to animal cruelty.

The current legislation dates back to the 19th century and needs to be modernized. However, after scrutinizing this bill, we realized that the government has not been able to strike a proper balance so that breeders, farmers, hunters and researchers who carry out legitimate activities do not have to face unacceptable legal action.

The purpose of this bill is not, of course, to protect people, from all walks of life, who commit cruel and reprehensible acts against animals.

Everyone agrees on the need to make changes in order to find the proper balance.

However, while the Minister of Justice claims that the bill does not deprive the animal industry from its revenues, it would be important to specify this in the legislation, so as to reassure the animal, farming, medical and sports industry regarding any risk of frivolous lawsuits.

This was not done, and it is why the Bloc Quebecois is against the bill. The minister simply amended the bill by adding the defences in paragraph 8(3) of the criminal code. The minister and the Standing Committee on Justice rejected the Bloc Quebecois' amendments, which would have explicitly added as a defence acting with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

The legislation would no longer provide any balance on the issue of cruelty to animals. We are shifting from an outdated legislation that did not properly protect animals from cruelty to a legislation that would put people carrying out legal and reasonable activities in an unfair and unacceptable situation.

As a member representing a rural riding, my duty is to protect not only farmers, but also the tourism industry which includes hunters, ranchers and researchers.

In my riding, for example, studies are conducted on a regular basis to see if the snow goose population is maintained at an adequate level. There are contentious issues involved here. The legislation, in its present form, could result in prosecution that would prove frivolous and that would hinder the very scientific and relevant process undertaken to ensure adequate management of the snow goose population.

This is also true for farmers. We have seen all over the planet animal rights advocates, whose point of view is defendable. However, we must avoid going too far and finding ourselves in a situation where it would be impossible to get into various types of operations that are currently accepted, that are normal in our society but that could result in vexatious prosecution.

The Bloc Quebecois was in favour of the bill in principle, if it could have been amended to reflect the means of defence already allowed in part XI of the criminal code. This is why the Bloc Quebecois asked that the means of defence in article 429 of the criminal code be added explicitly to new part V.1 of the criminal code. These amendments were rejected in committee.

This bill also deals with firearms. In that part of the bill, powers are taken away from the Government of Quebec, which created bodies responsible for issuing licences, namely the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec. These responsibilities will be taken away from Quebec under this bill, which we also find totally unacceptable.

In short, the Bloc Quebecois opposes the bill because it does not explicitly protect the legitimate activities of the animal industry, hunting and research, and because it strips the Government of Quebec of the power to enforce the provisions of the Firearms Act.

I will give a good example of what goes on in my riding. The Cégep de La Pocatière offers a popular course on animal health, which trains people to become technicians working with veterinarians. Obviously, in this line of work, one must operate on animals. The people who take such a course become animal health technicians. They learn to work with veterinarians and animals.

The bill, as it stands, could lead to lawsuits against this practice, with the major legal consequences that entails. Such proceedings would not, in my opinion, jeopardize the program as such, but they would give rise to costs that, in my opinion, are inappropriate. Consequently, we believe that the bill should be re-examined more thoroughly before being passed.

The same goes for farmers and ranchers. Our ranchers have to assume their responsibilities properly. I believe that the vast majority do just that. If there are exceptions, let us use the provisions currently in the act or amend the bill to focus on those cases. However, we should not make a blanket statement. Many ranchers behave quite appropriately and they should not be the object of frivolous lawsuits. I believe the bill should be reviewed and reworked to be made more palatable.

The purpose of this bill is to have more adequate means to deal with offenders who commit cruel and reprehensible acts against animals. It meets the intent of the reform, which is to protect animals, but it does not define precisely and properly enough what an offender would be. Consequently, the bill will be challenged in court time and time again. I do not believe making this kind of laws is what legislators intend. Their goal is to have laws that will be easily enforceable and that will help deal with problems. It is important to do this properly.

As I was saying before, the current legislation dates back to the 19th century. It is being updated. Let us hope we will not have to do it again within the next five or ten years. We should have legislation that is consistent with today's reality and that will enable us to deal with problems in the years to come.

We do not have that with this bill. Therefore, it should be sent back to the drawing board. I believe it is not a matter of such urgency that we need to do it for tomorrow morning, but it is important to have proper legislation we all agree upon, which is not the case at present.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill unless it is amended in a novel fashion.

Since we are at third reading, unless the government decides to change the content of the bill to better take into account criticism from those who raise animals, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill. As a member from a rural area, I can only applaud this position.

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code and the Firearms Act. The stated purpose of the bill is to amend the criminal code by consolidating animal cruelty offences and increasing the maximum penalties. The bill would also add administrative provisions that are intended to simplify applications of the Firearms Act.

Bill C-15B re-introduces the proposed amendments to the cruelty to animals provisions of the criminal code that were introduced in Bill C-17 during the last parliament with certain changes. However, despite the minor improvements to the legislation, many people who are dependent on the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their livelihoods still have a number of concerns with the bill.

One concern is that the definition of animal is too broad. The proposed definition of an animal in Bill C-15B includes non-human vertebrates and all animals having the capacity to feel pain. The new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never before been provided that kind of protection.

Another key concern is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection afforded at present to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices.

The phrase legal justification, excuse or colour of right in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. However, in the new bill, the fact that the animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own would remove these provisions outside of the scope of that protection.

Moving the animal cruelty section out of the range of property offences to a new section in its own right would emphasize animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. This is a significant alteration in the underlying principles of the legislation and could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. The legislation could open up the possibility that farmers, sporting groups and scientific researchers would be unjustly prosecuted.

Animal rights groups in Canada will certainly use the new legislation as the basis for such prosecution and have already stated their intentions to do so. Liz White, the director of legislative revision from the Animal Alliance of Canada has stated:

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

The former federal justice minister assured us that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent. However, the problem is that these new provisions would arguably narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities.

The changes to the Firearms Act are administrative by nature. The provisions of the bill are intended to simplify the registration process and to incorporate information technology to reduce costs. Regarding the Firearms Act, I refer to section 31 of the Canadian Alliance declaration of policy where it states:

We believe there should be severe mandatory penalties for the criminal use of any weapon. We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer. We will replace the current firearms law with a practical firearms control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.

We support increasing penalties for cruelty to animals offences but we do not support widening the scope of what currently constitutes a criminal offence. New animal cruelty legislation may cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different light. This could have significant and detrimental implications for farmers, hunters, and other agricultural producers who are dependent on animals for their livelihoods.

We do not support the amendments to the Firearms Act as we have a long held feeling that the act should be repealed entirely and replaced with a practical, cost-effective firearms control system.

To reiterate, the Canadian Alliance in no way condones intentional acts of cruelty to animals and supports increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts. Moving animal cruelty provisions out of property offences to a new and separate section of the criminal code could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. The defences currently available would no longer apply in the new section. The new definition of animal would include an extremely broad definition that includes a vertebrate other than a human being and any other animal that has a capacity to feel pain. This new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never been provided that kind of protection before.

The former justice minister stated that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent. If it was not the former justice minister's intention to change what is lawful today why did she not simply raise the penalties for existing animal cruelty offences?

Without substantial amendments to address the concerns I have I must join with my colleagues of the official opposition party and oppose the bill.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the House on the progress that was made earlier today with respect to one very important piece of legislation, Bill C-55. I hope that progress can continue through all stages of that legislation when the House returns to it.

This afternoon and tomorrow, we will continue with Bill C-47, the excise bill, Bill S-40, respecting clearing houses, and Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments.

Next week is a scheduled constituency week and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows the rather elaborate procedure that must be gone through to change that process. It is not an easy thing to do. However next week members will be at work in their constituencies.

When we return on May 21, I would expect then to return to Bill C-47, if it is not already completed. We then would turn our consideration to the very important legislation introduced earlier today with respect to reproductive technologies, that bill introduced by the Minister of Health. I would also in that week that we are back hope to make further and better progress on Bill C-5 concerning species at risk.

I would confirm the earlier commitment that I made to the Leader of the Opposition that Thursday, May 23 will be an allotted day.

Species at Risk Act

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to participate in the debate today, a debate dealing with Bill C-5. I believe this is probably the fourth time I have spoken to the bill.

The more I look into this bill, the more I dislike it. The more we research the bill and the more we look at it to see if it will be effective in what it is to accomplish, the more we are concerned and the more we realize and recognize the gravity of what the bill would accomplish.

I go back 15 months to the first time that I stood in the House to deliver my maiden speech. Since that time I have spoken more about the sorry state of agriculture and the family farm as a result of the Liberal government's inaction than on any other topic. Again today we find ourselves standing and looking at legislation that would be an impairment and would have a negative impact on the family farm, agriculture and even more specifically, western Canadian agriculture.

I have spoken more on agriculture because no other issue impacts my riding to the degree that agriculture does. I am a farmer. My father is a farmer. My grandfather and my great grandfather were farmers. My neighbours, the majority of my friends back home and business associates are ranchers and farmers. Those who are not are in the business of supplying goods and services in farm communities.

Bill C-5 is not only disheartening of course to those involved in farming but also to farm communities when they recognize and realize the impact this legislation will have.

The importance of today's debate can be understood as we discuss Bill C-5 and its contents.

There is tremendous frustration being experienced in rural Canada given the repeated attacks by the government on our way of life, a way of life that has significantly contributed to the success of our country and which continues to produce, despite the many roadblocks that the government throws in front of it, an abundance of some of the highest quality food in the world.

We are continually under siege by a government that appears either disrespectful or oblivious to our way of life and common rural practices. It is a siege that has been exasperated by a Prime Minister who propagates government of the politicians, by the politicians and for the politicians rather than promoting a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

Bill C-5 will have a negative impact on the people of Crowfoot and rural Canada. This fact is even more evident given the failure of the Prime Minister to listen to his backbench members of parliament, particularly those representing rural ridings in Canada, especially in regard to not only Bill C-5 but also to Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals bill.

Reportedly the government has vowed to pass Bill C-5 legislation despite the objections of some of its very own backbenchers, objections that have surfaced as the ferocity of our opposition has mounted against the bill over the last few months. The official opposition has been opposed to these two anti-farming, anti-rural pieces of legislation since their very inception. We have at every opportunity voiced the concerns of rural Canadians, the concerns of the people of Crowfoot, Cyprus Hills, Red Deer and other areas.

At every opportunity we stood to voice the concerns expressed in letters from ranchers and farmers.

Also, reportedly, the Prime Minister is making note of those on the government benches who are opposed to the legislation. In other words, he is saying that he knows who they are and that they will be whipped into line. There are no encouraging words from the Prime Minister as he attempts to strong arm Liberal backbenchers to forget representing their constituents and those who are involved in the agricultural sector.

We have ample opportunity, individuals and examples of those who were not whipped into line. John Nunziata knows all too well what happens when one votes against the government and in accordance with the wishes of constituents.

Last week the government apparently cancelled the vote on Bill C-5 because it did not have enough supporters on its own benches to win the vote. This legislation should not be reduced to number crunching. This bill is wrong. Regardless of those who will vote in favour of it or against it, the common sense approach to this bill would recognize that this legislation is not right. This will not accomplish what the government says it will accomplish.

We in the Canadian Alliance believe strongly that we need effective species at risk legislation. We need compensation. If we are to expect the farmers and ranchers to take their land out of production to protect a certain species, as Canadians, let us all share in the burden and give that property owner, rancher or farmer adequate and fair compensation.

What is the definition of fair and reasonable compensation? It is whatever they want to give at that moment. Fair market value is quite different. The government fails to recognize that farmers have a huge investment in their land. It is to the point now where the government has taken away the guns, it has taken away the land and one wonders when it will come to take away the wife and kids.

The Liberal government is failing to recognize that many rural Liberal and Alliance members of parliament are opposed to Bill C-5 because of the detrimental effects it will have on their constituents. One government source apparently claimed these government MPs were going to vote against the bill because they had a gripe against the Prime Minister. We do not want anyone to vote against the bill for that reason, but people can vote for whatever reason as long as they are voting against it because there is sufficient evidence in this bill to show that it is just wrong.

This type of autocratic, arrogant thinking completely demeans the Liberal MPs whose opposition and reservations are based on the opinions and fears of their constituents, fears that there will not be adequate compensation for landowners or that they will be unjustly dragged into court to defend common farm practices in the case of Bill C-15B.

Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation, is a terrible affront to our western rural way of life. The Liberal government has brought pieces of legislation before us today that are becoming almost as notorious as Bill C-68, the Firearms Act. Up until now there has been no other piece of legislation that has pitted rural Canada against urban Canada, but we have a beauty here. We have a piece of legislation that is wedge legislation which pits one against the other.

Despite being passed by the House almost seven years ago, Bill C-68 still invokes strong animosity and opposition toward the Liberal government, and so it should. Bill C-5 has the same potential because it is based on wrong principles. It is based on the principles that people who own land where a species at risk is found have the sole responsibility of protecting that species, even it means forfeiture or a loss of income because of having to take land out of production. It is wrong. It is time that every member in the House stands and says that this legislation is wrong.

Farmers are enduring financial hardships. If we go back to Bill C-68, we know it costs us $700 million to administer a program that is does not work. Yet on the other hand, the Liberal government is holding back putting into this legislation fair market value for land taken out of production.

We have seen species on our farm that would be listed as species at risk and I will do everything to protect the species. However I cannot promise that when farmers look at the ability of the government to grab the land, to basically expropriate it and pay a pittance in the way of compensation--

Supply

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are debating the long list of attacks the government has made on farmers across the country. Quite frankly, it turns my stomach to hear the member of parliament who just spoke, my colleague across the floor and others say that somehow they are going to tell our farmers how to farm better. The last thing we need is for them to tell farmers how to farm better.

When it comes to these conservation techniques the member was talking about, farmers in my part of the country have been using them widely for 10 years. They are so far ahead of the government it is not funny. All farmers ask of the government is to take care of a few specific things and then get out of their way and let them do their jobs. Instead government continues to attack and interfere. I do not have much time to talk about that but I am going to mention some of the ways the government attacks and interferes with our farmers.

All farmers want from the government is to properly negotiate the unfair trade practices which are destroying their prices and driving prices down. Government is very weak on this. It does a pitiful job in terms of negotiating trade deals and dealing with unfair trade practices. That is what farmers want it to deal with. They want a basic safety net program. What the government has put forth is a disaster. It simply has not delivered the few things farmers want from it, yet it keeps throwing other things at farmers. I could go through a long list but I do not have the time.

The government has forced farmers to pay for inspections through the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and other places. The inspections are done for the good of the general population yet farmers are made to pay for them. That is unfair. It is that kind of attack our farmers do not want.

The government has made farmers and other taxpayers pay for 200 Department of Fisheries and Oceans employees who were sent to the prairies. It destroys the fisheries off the east coast and then sends DFO people to the prairies to further interfere and make it more difficult for farmers and communities to do their business. That is the kind of attack the farmers do not need from the government.

The gun registry is another government interference which has just been devastating. It cannot even keep guns out of the hands of Mom Boucher for Pete's sake. He is one of the biggest organized crime figures in the country and he still successfully registered his guns. The registry is a complete disaster. That is what the government throws at farmers. The registry is expensive, intrusive and unnecessary.

Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B are before the House. The government throws these bills at farmers and they are devastating. Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation, will not protect a single species. We know that. It is a very heavy-handed approach and the penalty is extremely high. There is so little co-operation in the legislation that if a species is found, the farmer, cottage owner, or whoever it is as this will affect a lot more than farmers, will make sure that the species will not remain one way or another. It will lead to more harm to endangered species rather than less.

Members of the rural caucus stood and said they got compensation for the farmers. That is a deceitful statement to farmers. They are deceiving their own constituents with those statements. They are absolutely untrue. I challenge them to show us where compensation is written in the legislation. I challenge them to show us where in any regulation there is a fair market value guarantee. It is not even suggested. The compensation those members have talked about is not there. They are being dishonest with their constituents and that has to change. That is not an acceptable thing for government members do. The rural caucus members from the Liberal Party will have a lot to answer for when their farmers find out what is in the legislation and what is not. That is unacceptable.

In Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation, the government again is attacking farmers. That is what our motion is about today. The government is making it very difficult for farmers to operate. Farmers will be subjected to court challenges at their own expense. The government does this and says that everything is okay.

The member for Peterborough had the nerve to stand and talk about 50 year old legislation that already determined what is going to happen in terms of allowing farmers to use animals the way they do and produce animals the way they choose. If that is the case, then why did the government bring forward this legislation? He said the legislation has been fine for 50 years. The judge ruled 50 years ago that it is okay, so why do we have this intrusive legislation which will make life difficult for farmers?

I know my time is up, but the list is very long and I have been able to mention only a few of the key attacks of the government on farmers. The members of the rural caucus ought to be ashamed because they will only get caught in their own deception.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member stands up and accuses me of being irrelevant by addressing Bill C-15B, which I think has been mentioned by every Alliance member except him this afternoon. It was to that I was responding. He then proceeded to ask me a question on a topic I did not mention in my speech. This is surely irrelevance.

I would like to say that my point of view on this is very strong. I represent farmers. I have represented them since Bill C-15B was Bill C-17. I believe that it is our job as members to examine the legislation and to explain it as well as we can and truthfully to our constituents. That is what I have tried to do since the days of Bill C-17.

An Alliance member stood up earlier today and said that rural members on his side have recently discovered something about this legislation, but we have been working on it for three years and, by the way, to the satisfaction of many of our farmers. I believe this is what has happened. A year or so ago supporters of the gun lobby got a spurious legal opinion that included the matter of property, which is also an irrelevance, and they have been arguing that spurious legal opinion they have developed on the backs of the farmers.

As it came from the gun lobby and the hunting groups, why do they not use hunting examples when they are considering cruelty to animals? Why do they persist in raising all these standard practices of the farming community, which, as I have explained, have been protected for a half a century? Why do they do that?

I would say they are hanging the farmers out to dry. They should be talking to their farmers and educating their farmers on what not just this legislation but all legislation means.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Portneuf.

I would like to take the opportunity provided by the motion on rural issues to clarify some issues regarding cruelty to animals and specifically the provisions of Bill C-15B which the opposition has been systematically delaying.

I wish to commend the hard work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The committee spent over two months hearing a wide spectrum of witnesses including farmers. These witnesses had a wealth of experience and knowledge. The committee has heard all the arguments for and against further change in the bill, changes suggested by rural members like myself on this side of the House and by the science community, the medical community and many others.

There is absolutely no question that the committee carefully considered all aspects of Bill C-15B including whether there was anything in the bill which eroded current protections for industry and others who use animals for the benefit of humans.

The bill considers the importance of ensuring protection of the legitimate use of animals. Members opposite know full well that the courts have specifically recognized the use of animals in industry but they still persist in fearmongering among the farm community. The leading case is Crown v Menard in1978. Many years ago in the decision of the Quebec court of appeal Mr. Justice Lamer expressly made the point that they are contradictory. He said:

The animal is subordinate to nature and to man. It will often be in the interest of man to kill wild or domestic animals, to subjugate them and, to this end, to tame them with all the consequences this may entail for them and, if they are too old, or too numerous, or abandoned, to kill them. This is why, in setting standards for the behaviour of men towards animals, we have taken into account our privileged position in nature and have been obliged to take into account at the outset the purpose sought.

Members critical of Bill C-15B also know or ought to know that the use of animals by industry is already taken into account when deciding whether pain, suffering or injury caused to an animal is unnecessary. Again, Mr. Justice Lamer makes this very clear that the task of assessing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury is twofold. The first part of the test considers the purpose for which the pain was inflicted. The second part of the test determines whether the means used to achieve the purpose causes avoidable pain. Mr. Justice Lamer makes it very clear that the law allows pain to be inflicted on animals if it is done for a lawful purpose. He stated:

It is sometimes necessary to make an animal suffer for its own good or again to save human life. Certain experiments, alas, inevitably painful for the animal, prove necessary to discover or test remedies which will save a great number of human lives. Section 402(1)(a) does not prohibit these incidents, but at the same time condemns the person who, for example, will leave a dog or a horse without water or without food for a few days, through carelessness or negligence or for reasons of profit or again in order to avoid the cost of a temporary board and lodging, notwithstanding that these animals would suffer much less than certain animals used as guinea pigs.

For the benefit of members section 402(1)(a) is currently section 446(1)(a).

Members know or ought to know that the pain inflicted must not be unreasonable having regard to the purpose for which it was inflicted in the first place.

Again, Mr. Justice Lamer said:

Considered in terms of the means by which one seeks the purpose which is justified, the expression “without necessity” takes into consideration all the circumstances of the particular case including first the purpose itself, the social priorities, the means available and their accessibility etc. One does not kill a steer in the same way as one kills a pig. One cannot devote to the euthanasia of animals large sums of money without taking into account social priorities. Suffering which one may reasonably avoid for an animal is not necessary. In my opinion, in 1953-54, the legislature defined “cruelty” for us as being from that time forward the act of causing to an animal an injury, pain or suffering that could have been reasonably avoided for it taking into account the purpose and the means employed.

I am using these long quotations because they are decades old. They have been in the law for generations. The onus is always on the prosecutor to show beyond reasonable doubt either that the purpose for inflicting pain, suffering or injury was unlawful, or if it was lawful, that the pain, suffering or injury caused was unnecessary.

It is not the defences which legitimatize the use of animals in industry. That use is recognized by case law as in the example I just gave, under common custom, in regulations and in codes of conduct. If members do not know that they should know it. I believe members opposite who are critical of Bill C-15B know this and have been deliberately misleading farmers.

Some members have asserted that the defences referred to in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code regarding legal justification, excuse or colour of right, provide upfront protection for the industry. One translation of upfront protection is the word exemption. These members argue that if individuals have a lawful purpose in doing something then they can achieve that purpose by any method they choose. This is not the case. These members either know or ought to know that this argument is wrong in law because it completely ignores the tests for unnecessary pain and suffering and for criminal neglect.

It is misleading to suggest that anyone who uses animals has an exemption from the application of the criminal law. There was not a single witness before the committee who suggested that industry or anyone else should have an exemption under criminal law. Doctors and hockey players are not exempt from the law of assault when they engage in their legitimate activities. Similarly, why should anyone be completely exempt from the reasonable requirements of the criminal law in relation to treatment of animals?

The criminal law applies to everyone and imposes a minimum standard of behaviour in everyone. The Canadian public will not tolerate anyone having an exemption for inflicting unnecessary pain, suffering or injury on animals or humans. Let us be clear about this. That has never been the law and it certainly was never the intention of the animal cruelty amendments to provide exemptions of this nature.

The animal cruelty provisions of Bill C-15B are another example of the government's commitment to assuring that the criminal law, which is what we are talking about, is a balanced reflection of the objectives and desires of the Canadian public, be they rural or urban.

Opposition members who are opposing the bill are doing farmers, including farmers in my riding, a great disservice. No group in Canada has a greater interest in healthy, pain free animals than farmers. Farmers are overwhelmingly opposed to unnecessary cruelty to animals. The opposition is hanging the farmers out to dry on this matter for its own political ends.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, there seems to be a growing split between rural and urban Canada. There is a perception that government caters to the urban population. Is this a perception or has it become reality? There are several issues that point to the fact that it has indeed become reality. It is a reality that those in rural Canada could live without. The government, by its policies and legislation, continues its assault on the lives and livelihoods of those residing in rural Canada. The lives, interests and well-being of those individuals are not seen to be important. These people are being marginalized by the government.

Only a few days ago in committee a member of the government stated that a majority of Canadians live in large cities and we have to listen to their views. It is that very mentality that drives the agenda of the government. According to 2001 census results from Statistics Canada, the population total for Canada's five largest cities was 12.5 million. That would leave a population of 18.6 million, or 60%, as the total for smaller centres and rural populations.

We have seen the effects of rising populations in Canada's largest urban centres: pollution, poverty and homelessness. Rural living should be encouraged. Whether one chooses to live on a picturesque island off the coast of Newfoundland, on the western prairies or in the interior of British Columbia, rural communities offer much to the life of this nation. Instead of encouraging the sustainability of our smaller centres and rural populations, the government continues to bring forward legislation that only hinders their growth. Rural populations offer much to this nation. Many of those in our rural communities are the producers of our food, our clothing and shelter for the rest of Canadians.

In the last year alone, the attack on rural Canada has been unprecedented. Let us begin with the government's Bill C-5, the species at risk act. The bill seeks to offer absolute protection to a wide variety of animals, plants and habitats. While the official opposition supports the need for legislation to protect endangered species, we do not feel that it should be done at the expense of landowners. Co-operation is the only way that the bill will be completely effective. The government fails to realize that landowners, farmers and ranchers remain among the finest conservationists in the country. Instead of working with these people, the government chooses to form adversarial relationships. Farmers, ranchers and landowners are left without assurance of compensation. They are not included in the consultation process. They will be treated as criminals and punished as such.

Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation, is also an affront to law-abiding rural people. This legislation leaves the door wide open for frivolous lawsuits by animal rights activists. These groups have openly stated that the legislation cannot be proven effective unless it is challenged in court. This is not what we need for rural Canada.

The vast majority of farmers and ranchers are well aware of effective, humane animal practices and choose to implement those practices on their farms and ranches every day. The government is blatantly catering to lobby and special interest groups without a second thought for the massive negative implications that the legislation would have for farmers and ranchers. When the livelihoods of farmers, ranchers and landowners suffer, there is a direct impact on the surrounding communities. The economic repercussions must be taken into account when discussing legislation affecting all rural communities.

Agriculture as a whole has been ignored or minimalized by the government. In western Canada, the continuing drought is causing severe difficulties for producers. We are in need of effective safety net programs that are run efficiently and adequately funded. In western Canada the Canadian Wheat Board is also an area that demands attention. Western producers are cut off from opportunities to market their products like the rest of Canadians. They are limited by the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. If the government is serious about helping producers in western Canada, then the concerns over the function and mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board for western Canadians must be addressed.

The Liberal government's inaction over subsidy issues will continue to lead to loss of profits and livelihood among rural Canadians. The American government continues its protectionist stance in the areas of agriculture and forestry, but we do not see any definite action being taken by the government on behalf of our Canadian producers. The government has called the new U.S. farm bill foul and insidious. Its repulsion for that legislation is laudable but means nothing if not backed by action. That is something we rarely see from the government. The proposal of a 70% increase in subsidies to American producers will have catastrophic effects on our Canadian market. Now is the time for action. Words alone cannot save a national industry. Words alone will not keep producers on the family farm. Words alone will not ensure a viable future for rural Canada.

In 1999 the official opposition formed Action for Struggling Agricultural Producers in response to the growing farm crisis in the country. Surveys were distributed to producers. At that time, 74% of the producers said that continuing with farming would be difficult or impossible and 79% said that the government must immediately launch an aggressive international campaign to reduce foreign subsidies.

Those results are from three years ago. Producers were well aware of the crisis facing their industry. They were aware of the need for the government to act on their behalf. They were aware that changes had to be made.

The government's own need for awareness is evident by the $21 million announced for an advertising campaign to promote soil conservation. Spending that kind of money to tell producers something they already know is a waste. Because the minister of agriculture visited Saskatchewan last year and saw a dry field of summerfallow, he decided that he would take on an advertising campaign to stress conservation to farmers on no-till. That farmer summerfallowed that field because he could not afford to chemfallow that field. Chemfallow has been carried on for years by no-till farmers in Saskatchewan. It is not something new. However, that farmer could not afford to put chemical on that field, so he summerfallowed it.

The government's lack of awareness of the problems facing rural Canada is appalling. I would urge the Liberal government to open its eyes and start fighting for rural Canadians. I would urge the Liberal government to talk to the farm families where both mother and dad are working to keep the farm alive and to pay the bankers. They do not know how they will pay their power or fuel bills or how they will feed their families, let alone pay the telephone bill. The government is great at talking about how the solutions are on the Internet, but a lot of people in Saskatchewan cannot pay their telephone bills.

I have a very good friend who lives in my riding. She lost her husband last year to cancer. She and her son were farming. They decided that they could not afford to farm any more because they were going further and further into debt. Her son is the kind of young man that we would like to see farming in Saskatchewan. The lady and her son advertised the farm this spring. It is prime land, wonderful land. When we have rain it is some of the best grain growing land in our province. They did not get one offer to buy that land. They did not get one offer to rent that land.

They had an auction sale. I phoned her and asked how her auction sale went. She said it was terrible. They bid in the combine and they bid in the tractor. They kept the air seeder. The $25,000 to $30,000 sprayer sold for $4,000. It was a disaster. That lady is now working. She has her house on the farm. We do not know what will happen to her. I would like to see the Liberal government come out and talk to some of the farm families I know and find out just how serious the drought is.

The government can spout off about the $1.5 million that was given to PFRA this year but that money and the 2002 budget was spent in January. The $1.5 million is now gone. There is no water anywhere. There is no more money for wells and dugouts, and the cattle are starving.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of today's Canadian Alliance motion that calls on the Liberal government to stop its legislative and political attacks on the lives and livelihoods of rural Canadians and their communities. I believe we have heard enough patronizing and naive comments from the other side in respect of this serious issue. We must look at the issues before us and look at ways to resolve some of these difficult concerns.

As the member of parliament for the primarily rural riding of Provencher in southeastern Manitoba I am proud to represent a large population of farmers and other rural Canadians who are some of the hardest working, honest and law-abiding citizens in this country.

However they are faced with an unholy trinity of legislation, some of which is still under consideration by the House. I fear that this legislative package would put our farmers into an unworkable situation. Time and again we have seen the government implement ineffective and costly legislation that pits rural Canadians against urban Canadians.

The legislation I am referring to is Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation and Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation. They have been on the House agenda for over a year, but it is only because of sustained opposition efforts that public awareness about the true nature and anti-rural character of these bills is finally being understood. Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, has been in place since 1995 and every year the price tag increases while crime is getting worse.

The new species at risk bill, if passed, would give the federal government the right to expropriate land from farmers and other rural individuals without any obligation to compensate for losses.

Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation, introduces the risk of harassment to farmers from private legal prosecutions funded by radical urban based animal rights organizations who are claiming the debt that they claim the former justice minister owes them for supporting her during the last federal election.

Even if prosecutions by these radical animal rights groups were not successful, the legal process involved would impose a financial burden that few could afford. In addition, we also have the Kyoto agreement that threatens to dramatically push up costs without any substantive evidence that it will improve our global environment. The member for Red Deer stated that all we are doing is playing a shell game. The earth is a global entity. We cannot simply push off dirty air in exchange for clean air and think somehow the dirty air is being reduced in the process.

The third bill, Bill C-68, has targeted primarily rural Canadians for owning long guns and yet these individuals have been law-abiding families for generations. We heard today from one of the Canadian Alliance members that while farmers are being harassed and prosecuted for not registering long guns, the government is busy handing out licences and registrations to leaders of criminal organizations in Canada. This is at a cost of $700 million and climbing at a cost of $100 million a year. Last year's estimates showed that the registry would cost $35 million. The true numbers came in at $149 million in direct costs.

I do not believe that the government is against rural Canadians. It is indifferent to rural Canadians. It is banking on passing legislation that will build support in urban areas at the cost of rural Canada. Instead of looking at Canada as a whole whereby we should be working together, the government takes advantage of a smaller population to impose politically expedient but ineffective programs.

By calling for discretionary compensation in Bill C-5 the environment minister is asking Canadians to trust the government with their land and livelihood. He says compensation should not be such a big issue because the government is willing to pay landowners dollar for dollar for any losses they would face. If this is truly the case why does he not make the commitment explicit in the legislation? Why does he not say in the legislation that farmers and landowners would be compensated dollar for dollar at fair market value?

The government is trying to get the legislation through the House by offering vague assurances that regulations would be formulated to compensate landowners. Such regulations would be drafted in the secrecy of cabinet meetings. Even the government's own backbenchers would have no input into them. There may well be Liberal backbenchers here today who say we should trust the government. However they do not realize that the regulations would be passed in the same secretive way in which the government acts on matters crucial to the integrity and effectiveness of our rural economy and the larger Canadian economy.

Our farmers are unable to take any more financial blows. While some landowners in the past have voluntarily co-operated in species recovery programs without full, fair or, in some cases, any compensation the large majority of farmers and landowners today are not financially able to make such sacrifices in the name of the public good.

If a species at risk is important and worth saving why should it be done on the backs of rural Canadians? Why could we not all share in the cost? If it is good for the country we should let the country as a whole pay for it. We should not take it out of the livelihood and land of our rural people.

Bill C-5 sets out some scary criminal provisions. Its low requirement for mens rea or guilty mind would enable prosecutors at the direction of the minister to prosecute farmers for even inadvertent destruction of habitat. This kind of legislation is not worthy of the dignity of the House. If we are to make people criminally responsible for their actions let us make sure they are criminals. Let us not convict people simply because we want to terrorize rural people into not doing anything with their land and for their livelihoods. The government's heavy handed approach would lead to uncertainty and confusion for land and resource owners including the majority of rural Canadians who in good faith tried to comply with the law.

Bill C-15B is poorly drafted. Had it not been for the perseverance of the Canadian Alliance Party, Liberal backbenchers would not have woken up to the dangers posed by the bill. Finally they are waking up. They are saying it is their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their constituents that would be affected. I am happy the Liberal backbenchers have finally woken up. However when will they take a real stand? When will they stand and say they have had enough of the government's abuse of rural Canada? When will they stand with the people who are concerned about the country as a whole?

I am profoundly concerned about the direction of the government. There is some optimism now that Liberal backbenchers are finally waking up. However it will not be until the Liberal cabinet is gone that rural Canadians can be equal partners with their urban cousins.

I urge hon. members to think carefully about the legislation before the House before they do anything untoward and damage rural Canada any further. Let us think carefully about Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B. Let us remember the lessons of Bill C-68

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's remarks. He has a great deal of compassion for the struggles of rural Canada and for farmers in particular. I ask the hon. member, how is it that he lives with the policies that his government has been producing? They are not consistent with being empathetic and sympathetic toward the plight of rural Canada.

He knows that in the species at risk bill, it is not the species that are at risk, it is the property owners. They are the people in rural Canada who might have their property seized or may have to foot the bill for the relocation of an endangered species. How does the member live with the fact that the government has brought in legislation that hurts rural landowners and farmers in particular with respect to the cruelty to animals legislation?

Bill C-15B and Bill C-5 are two perfect recent examples of his government's attack on rural Canada, not to mention the ill-fated useless gun registry that is still being perpetrated at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. These are concrete examples of his government's policies.

The hon. member from Miramichi is shaking his head because it is good for his riding but it comes at a huge cost to the rights and privileges of farmers, fishermen and people who legitimately use guns.

How is it that the member can defend that record and say that he stands for rural Canada?

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I will, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize. That is why the constituents of Prince George--Bulkley Valley do not believe the hollow promises that come from Liberal and Tory candidates at election time.

Another example of how the government holds in contempt rural Canada, particularly British Columbia, is by ignoring the massive pine beetle infestation in central British Columbia. This could be consider equal to a natural disaster and the government knows that. The government of British Columbia has made a formal request for help with its five year plan to try and salvage whatever wood it can from this mega area of British Columbia. The area of infestation is three times the size of Vancouver Island.

The government has done nothing. It has stood by and ignored this problem despite requests in the House from myself and the members for Cariboo--Chilcotin, Prince George--Peace River, Skeena, North Vancouver and my colleague from Kamloops. The government has ignored requests from the province of British Columbia itself. Billions of dollars in taxes have gone into the federal coffers from the forest industry in British Columbia and the government has simply not responded to the plea for help from the province and the people who depend on the forest industry for their livelihood. That is another example of the contempt the government has for rural Canadians.

The Minister for International Trade has called the tariff duty slapped on us by the softwood lumber people in the United States obscene. He blamed the breakdown of talks on cynical U.S. lobbyists. The Prime Minister said that he is disappointed that the softwood lumber talks have failed. They are using words like obscene, cynical and disappointed, but let me use those same words. It is obscene the contempt that the government has for rural Canadians. I am disappointed it has treated rural Canadians this way. I am very cynical in any belief that it will recognize the importance of rural Canadians and the contribution they have made to this country.

The government has brought in the endangered species bill. This bill would put rural Canadians at risk of being charged with perhaps accidentally stepping on a wild seed plant that has grown onto their territory. They are apt to have land seized by the government and quarantined without compensation.

The government has brought in Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals bill. This bill will put farmers, dairy people, horse breeders and medical researchers at risk of harassment charges brought forward by some of the more wacko animal rights groups that run around this country.

All of this flies in the face of rural Canadians. If this government were ever to expect to have any type of respect from rural Canadians, it would have to start recognizing that rural Canada is an important part of this country. It should not throw all of its eggs into the baskets of Metro Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal or Vancouver.

It is unfortunate that our party's motion is not votable because it would be supported by large numbers in the House. It would also be supported by massive numbers of rural Canadians who refuse to believe the hollow promises of the Liberal government. Rural Canadians have demonstrated their refusal to believe those hollow promises by their lack of support at the polls and the support will continue to fall for that party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Prince George--Bulkley Valley.

The government is failing agriculture and rural Canada. We are debating rural issues including agriculture. Being the chief agriculture critic for the Canadian Alliance, I have a lot to say about the agriculture aspect of rural Canada.

The policies are being lived by people in my own riding. Albert Strick, a farmer in my area, has done a lot to develop the community in our area. He sees clearly that a lot of the policies are not in the best interest of farmers. I appreciate constituents like him who try to move the debate along and accomplish something that the government has not.

The government does not seem to understand the importance of agriculture. The direct result of this misunderstanding is indifference and insufficient support for farmers who are fighting against foreign subsidies that are of course beyond their control.

The U.S. farm bill is dumping $180 billion into the U.S. subsidy program. U.S. politicians are using their subsidies to close the gap with Europeans. The real effect will be to push Canadian farm income even down further. What does our agriculture minister have to say about the issue of subsidies? He has said that the government cannot match it, that it has to do is find ways to mitigate it and that it will be seeking ways to do that.

I have outlined, and my party has outlined in report after report some of which were tabled in the House, many ways to help farmers without the direct subsidy route if that is what he feels he needs to be done. All he needs to do is read up on those. I will even send him another letter to ensure that he fully understands what those are. We will mention many of those in our speeches today.

The minister's department has identified a 25% decline in prices due to these foreign subsidies. That is why I have repeatedly asked questions of the minister and the parliamentary secretary in the House about the trade injury compensation program. All the farm associations like Keystone Agriculture Producers, Wild Rose Agricultural Producers in Alberta and the grain companies like Agricore United, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and Canadian Federation of Agriculture know that we need to have a trade injury compensation program but the government refuses to deliver it.

Individual farmers are taking the bull by the horns. I will mention two individuals in Manitoba who are doing just that on an individual farmer basis, over and above the farm organizations, because the minister does not seem to listen to farm organizations like he should.

Mr. Murray Downing of Reston, Manitoba and Joe Dusik of Oakbluff sent a letter to the right hon. Prime Minister, the Ministers of Finance and Agriculture and Agri-Food and to the leader of the official opposition. They said:

I am a Canadian Grains and Oilseed producer and/or a concerned citizen of Canada.

According to information from the department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, foreign subsidies are removing $1.3 Billion each year from the income of the grains and oilseed sector in Canada.

Our industry cannot fight against foreign treasuries alone. I am joining with all agriculture groups across Canada in requesting that you immediately implement a $1.3 Billion trade Injury Compensation Program in the form of an immediate cash payment to be directed at grains and oilseed farmers.

This payment would generate a $9 billion spin-off to the Canadian economy. This is not an expense but an investment in your future.

These two gentlemen and their families are farmers who are living the life of desperation in a lot of ways because the agricultural policies of the government and its lack of support make them very uncompetitive with our U.S. neighbours just across the border a few miles south.

The minister has to answer these questions. Yes or no. Does he support our farmers? Is he going to put this trade injury compensation program in place or not?

The other ministers who have a big impact on agriculture should not escape unscathed from the debate today.

The current Minister of Health for instance has had a record of being anti-farmer. She was formerly the justice minister who brought in the cruelty to animals legislation, Bill C-15B. In that bill the minister and the government have refused to provide the protection for farmers that is necessary for their livestock production. The protection is needed to prevent harassment type prosecution by animal rights groups. The present minister could fix that right now by adding in the legal protection that we had in the criminal code before this time.

In addition the Pest Management Regulatory Agency is virtually non-functioning at this time and I do not think that the new amendments under the pest products control act will do anything to alleviate the problem with getting full use of newer and safer pesticides inside Canada.

This can only be corrected by the minister taking responsibility and a leadership role in telling the bureaucrats that they will make the agency work and that they will serve the client, the farmer and the pest products people who produce the pesticides needed for agriculture.

There is another major issue which could be effective in helping rural Canada. The thrust of my speech is on all these minister who could do something for rural Canada but will not.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is going to Manitoba, the prairies and across the country enforcing subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act. That act is designed to protect the habitat of fish in our streams and lakes. Nobody is against that. However the department is using this subsection of the Fisheries Act to obstruct the reclamation and the improvement of agricultural land. It is saying that until a study is done on a particular drainage project, drainage cannot be done and existing drains cannot be used or cleaned. From the time drains were built by the municipality, minnows have got into them and as a result, fisheries and oceans has stopped the drainage improvements which directly impacts on farmers in a negative way.

The province of Manitoba believes that the cost of drainage projects has increased by 25% to 30% to comply with the new fisheries enforcement act.

In my riding of Selkirk--Interlake where Mr. Strick lives, about 10,000 acres in the RM of Armstrong, along with Coldwell, Woodlands and St. Laurent are currently being flooded because we cannot get the drainage put in. Part of that is fisheries and oceans but also part of it is the lack of infrastructure spending by the government in rural Canada, which is the topic of the debate today.

If that money were forthcoming to Selkirk--Interlake to be used on North Shoal Lake, where I ranch, we would have a much larger agriculture sector there. We would have more production, creating more jobs for more Canadians. The commodities that we produce are exportable and as a result we would bring in a lot of foreign currency.

Mr. Strict is a councillor from our local community of Armstrong who has done a lot of hard work to try to mitigate these circumstances that have been so negatively impacting on agriculture in my riding.

We can talk about other ministers. The revenue minister could quite easily today get rid of the 4¢ federal excise tax on diesel fuel and gasoline.

Farmers could come under the wheat board voluntarily. I do not understand why the government and the minister want to give Ontario, Quebec and the provinces outside of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan a big marketing advantage and the option to decide what is best for their farmers but yet our prairie farmers come under the thumb of the board. Farmers have been told that the only way they can market some wheat or barley is by delivering it strictly to the wheat board. However Ontario and Quebec get whatever they want. They can market whatever they want but not prairie farmers.

Rural issues are big and we have a lot of good solutions and I have mentioned a few of them here.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough is being far too generous to the government. He mentioned earlier that he thought the problems arising in rural Canada were because the government ignored rural Canada, not that it was an intentional thing it was doing.

I want to run through a list of the problems we have in rural Canada. He talked a little about fisheries policies and how destructive they had been in his part of the country. We now have softwood lumber problems at the other end of the country in rural areas.

After all this time we still do not have a cost on Kyoto. This morning we heard that it would be somewhere between $5 billion to $12 billion a year. The government cannot decide which study or which number it should use as it tries to convince Canadians that Kyoto is a good idea.

We are all familiar with the gun law, Bill C-68, which was aimed directly at rural Canadians and drew a target on their backs.

We had a lot of hubbub last week over Bill C-5, the species at risk bill, and the fact that it contains no provisions for compensation. We just have another tired commitment that regulations may be made at some point. It has been very frustrating to hear some of the Liberal rural members try to take credit for making changes in the bill and then to hear them later laughing about the stunt they pulled on the farmers and on the media. That is really reprehensible.

We also have other things. Bill C-15B, the animal cruelty legislation, is also geared toward rural Canadians. Bill C-53, the pest control act, also deals with rural issues. Maybe we could use the pest control act to get rid of the DFO people who have invaded the prairies. These people have come in and said that they will not allow municipalities to put in new culverts unless they get permits from DFO.

Could it be that the government is so incompetent that it is actually doing these things to rural Canada by accident?

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member is talking about the cruelty to animals act, Bill C-15B. We have said that there should be adequate compensation for any farmer who will be disadvantaged economically in terms of implementation of the bill. I think there is a fair consensus in the House of Commons that there should be some amendments to that effect.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two short questions.

First, do the member and his party oppose the current Bill C-15B before the House, the cruelty to animals legislation amendments to the criminal code? They are negative not only toward farmers but toward rural Canada. This is a big issue in rural Canada. It would also hurt Canadians in small towns and cities, because if that bill is passed we will end up with fewer jobs as the livestock industry deteriorates.

Second, in regard to the PMRA, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the member's health critic would like to have virtually every pesticide removed from the shelves and from Canadian farmers. Does he support that?

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should cease and desist its sustained legislative and political attacks on the lives and livelihoods of rural Canadians and the communities where they live.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Medicine Hat.

The topic for today's official opposition motion does not come from us as MPs but from Canadians. We are a vast country and the vast majority of the people who live beyond the glare of the big city lights are fed up. They feel neglected by the Liberal government and they are telling us so. I imagine that Liberal backbench MPs have been told the same thing by their constituents for the last eight years, but sadly these common sense appeals from rural voters have fallen on the deaf ears of the Liberals.

As evidence of this I will cite that over the last couple of weeks a fear of being dethroned during the next election has been spreading among the Liberal backbenchers. Some of them have even been brave enough to speak up against the Prime Minister's dictatorial ways. These Liberal MPs will again accept minor word changes by the government and consider that a victory. The Liberal elite laughs at how easily duped they are: A few grants and handouts later, they are back barking like trained seals.

If the constituents in those Liberal ridings want to see real change, they should elect Canadian Alliance MPs. We have been in the lead in championing these issues important to ordinary Canadians for the last eight years. The government implements our policies, but much too slowly to make the dramatic changes that are needed to turn our economic engines into economic dynamos. The Liberals would rather use taxes and red tape until the industries are hurting so bad that they need to subsidize them.

Only when the Liberals are subsidizing things do they consider their programs and policies a success. Slush funds and political patronage they understand; economic development they do not. Slush funds, by the way, are used mainly to buy votes. If the government had implemented Reform Party agricultural policies in 1994, many thousands of farmers would not be facing the crisis they are today. Unfortunately in eight years the Liberals have learned nothing. In fact they have become more arrogant, anti-democratic and corrupt. They look for new ideas among the bureaucrats and Liberal backroomers when the best ideas are right in front of their noses. All they have do is listen to the people who are on the long-suffering end of their failed policies and programs.

The Liberals are experts at pitting one group of Canadians against the other and nowhere is this more evident than in the way they have pitted urban voters against rural voters, the very essence of what we are bringing forward today. The Liberals play up to animal rights groups at the expense of farmers, hunters and fishermen. They try to ram animal cruelty legislation through parliament and make farmers out to be the bad guys when the opposite is true. No one cares more about animals than farmers do. The Liberals play up to the environmental lobby groups by trying to ram endangered species legislation through the House, but they are dishonest with both environmentalists and farmers because the laws they wish to enact will not protect endangered species and will force farmers to abandon their land without being paid fair market value for their land.

The Liberals play up to urban voters by telling them they are doing something to fight violent crime in the city by forcing millions of law-abiding citizens to register their guns, this despite data from Statistics Canada and insurance company actuaries that prove that responsible gun owners are no threat to themselves, their families, neighbours or communities. Anyone listening today must be starting to see a trend developing here. Last week the backbencher from Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey acknowledged this serious problem in a letter to his caucus colleagues. He stated:

I believe that unless [the bill] is amended, there will be a perception in rural Canada that once again a law tailored to urban interests is being thrust upon the rural community. Those of us representing rural ridings know all too well the divisiveness and distrust that remains from our government's passage of C-68, the gun registration law.

That strikes to the very heart of what we are talking about today.

Our speakers will outline failure after failure of Liberal policies and programs. Today we will describe Liberal legislation and programs that have failed rural Canadians: legislation like Bill C-5, Bill C-15B, Bill C-68 and Bill C-4 from 1998, which perpetuated the fiftieth year of the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. We will describe programs like useless regional economic development funds and corporate handouts that are really slimy Liberal slush funds buying votes instead of creating real development opportunities.

We will describe today how rural Canadians have been ignored and neglected by the Liberal ruling elite while the Liberal backbenchers sit on their duffs in the House, scared they will lose their perks and access to their slush funds if they start to really represent the true needs and wishes of their constituents. We will describe Liberal neglect and mismanagement of trade issues to the detriment of the softwood lumber producers and the communities where they live and work, and Liberal neglect and mismanagement of the foreign trade and subsidy issues to the detriment of Canadian farmers and their communities.

Not only will the House hear a dry, statistical and economic argument today, it will hear about real people in real communities who are hurting because of Liberal laws and Liberal neglect.

My own province of Saskatchewan lost 15,000 jobs in the last year alone. Report Newsmagazine recently reported that the population of Saskatchewan has dropped by 26% in the last three decades. Saskatchewan should not be a have not province. Liberal policies and programs perpetuate Saskatchewan's have not status and it has to stop now. The Liberal failure to allow Canadian wheat producers to sell their wheat directly to value added processing like pasta plants is just one glaring example of Liberal neglect and stupidity.

The one area of economic opportunity in Saskatchewan is guiding and outfitting, but what do the Liberals do? They force every American hunter to pay a tax of $50 to come into Canada. Many of them stayed home last year, and it will get worse. Who are the Liberals hurting with this new tax? They are hurting farmers who are forced into getting into outfitting to help finance the losses they were suffering on the farm. Again they are at the receiving end of failed Liberal policies and programs. The Liberals are hurting aboriginal guiding and outfitting companies, one of the few economic opportunities for aboriginals living on remote reserves. Liberals would rather pay welfare than get out of the way and let aboriginal entrepreneurs prove that they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

What if a farmer needs to go out and buy a new rifle to shoot the coyotes that are attacking his cattle? The Department of Justice documents put the regulatory cost of buying a rifle at $279. That is before even buying the rifle and bullets. That is absolutely ridiculous and the government has the nerve to say it is not doing anything to negatively impact on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for their own livelihood.

Before my time is up I want to leave everyone with one last message for our friends in urban Canada. The Canadian Alliance is not playing the Liberal game of pitting one group of Canadians against another. We believe that sound rural and resource development policies create jobs, opportunities and wealth in urban centres. It is no secret that all the mines are in the north but most of the money from those mines flows through Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal to benefit all of the citizens of these cities.

When farmers succeed, the Canadian economy grows and jobs are created in urban centres. Development of Canada is a team effort. Unfortunately, for the last eight years the Liberals have been neglecting half of the team.

I predict that in the next election campaign the Liberals will again try to use labels to smear their opponents rather than discuss the issues important to Canadians. Today's motion is a key part of the debate that needs to take place.

Today the Canadian Alliance is saying to rural and northern Canadians “We know you are fed up and we are not going to let the Liberals get away with it any more. Like a friend of mine once said “To light a fire you start at the bottom, and it will spread upwards”. If we want the economy to start burning we need to get out of the way of our basic resource sectors; we need to stop pouring cold water all over them and instead get them back on track, be it the fisheries on our east and west coasts, the farms all across Canada, the forestry sector, the mining, oil and gas sector, or the tourism industry for hunting and shooting sports. All these rural based industries are being held back by destructive Liberal policies or neglect.

The message I have for our city cousins is this: “Please help us, for it is the economic health of urban Canada and your own jobs that are affected too”.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to take part in the debate today on the new bill the government brought forward, Bill C-55. It replaces a couple of other attempts the government made to address the issue of security.

I do not feel Canadians who read the bill would feel one bit more secure. The safety and security of the citizens of a country is the number one job of a government and in this instance they have been let down.

The bill is an omnibus bill that addresses 19 different acts of parliament in nine ministries, all lumped together into one bill brought forward by the transport minister. It is to be dealt with by one committee and we feel therein lies one of the greatest problems. The bill should be split so that each area would be dealt with by the ministry or committee to which that section pertains.

We support some of the things that are being addressed in the bill but one of the factors of real concern is the extra special powers given to ministers without prior approval by cabinet, or furthermore, by the House. The ministers affected are: environment, health, fisheries and oceans, transport, justice and immigration. It would give them an interim order ability which would give them more power to act without any consultation with cabinet or parliament. However, the general increase in authority is not accompanied by any new specifics or assumptions of the responsibility of the minister concerned.

We have the ability to create the special situation but we do not have the coinciding responsibilities to which the minister must adhere to in carry it out. That is one of the things that needs to be addressed. We were hoping for that and maybe when we get into discussion in committee some of these things could be brought up. Certainly more than one committee needs to address the issues in the bill, not just transport.

We talk about the $24 charge for a round trip ticket to increase security at airports. I fly quite regularly. There are no X-ray machines at Lethbridge. Carry-on baggage is checked by hand and I joke with the people who do it that if I am ever missing anything they should remind me and I could go home to get it. They are getting quite familiar with my belongings.

We asked the minister to explain to us in detail what the $24 per head would bring to the airport, specifically Lethbridge in my riding. We have not seen anything concrete come of that. We have some 60,000 passengers, and times $24 is a large amount of money. What will the government do to make us feel more secure when we travel?

This whole thing is in response to the terrible crimes that were committed on September 11. It has taken our government eight months to come up with a bill that will be debated, and go on for I do not know how many more months, to address the situation of security in Canada. That is not acceptable.

It is a situation in which we now exist. It could happen in Canada at any moment if we are not vigilant. Yet we are still fudging around with the laws that would allow our country to protect itself better.

There is the issue of some of the defence measures that would create special military zones. I support that and I believe our party supports it to some degree but we need some definition of it. There has been concern raised as to what it would entail. If a military vehicle were to be parked somewhere could one go in to protect it by using any means thus getting around the whole issue of creating a special security zone?

These are points that need definition. We do not see it in the bill. Somebody should be bringing that forward to allay some of the fears that it will be abused. If indeed it is intended to protect military equipment, if we have ships or whatever that need to be protected, then let us define that and make sure that is what it is doing.

The issue of money laundering is a whole separate problem this country has that needs to be addressed but that is in the bill.

One thing too is job protection for people who are called up from the reserves. That is important. We have a competent, capable and willing reserve contingents in this country. When they get called up it almost goes without saying that the job they had should be protected while they are performing that special duty.

We talked about taxes, special levies, airport fees, and this $24 security tax. One set of figures brought forward dealt with a flight from Calgary to Edmonton where the actual cost of the ticket was $100 and it was $188 by the time we were finished paying for it. It cost 88% more on top of what the actual ticket was when all the fees were added on.

This $24 charge is causing some problems. Lethbridge has an operation called Integra Air that flies directly from Lethbridge to the municipal airport in Edmonton. It is a small operation but it offers a service that is well subscribed to. This $24 fee has made it revisit some plans it was looking at for expansion into Calgary to connect to some WestJet flights. It is unfortunate when a levy such as this adversely affects the future plans or the operating plans of a company in Canada. We need to look at what we are doing and what we are getting for that $24.

I know the transport minister has addressed this issue to some degree saying that any cases like this would be looked at. He wants to know when an operation has been affected by this $24. We have brought that to his attention so we will be watching him carefully to ensure that it is addressed.

We have seen omnibus bills before. Bill C-15 was one of those. We eventually split into Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B. We had issues that dealt with the protection of children from predators and pedophiles, cruelty to animals legislation, and regulations affecting the gun registry. We fought to separate those issues, some of which we supported. They were put into Bill C-15A and we supported it and moved forward. We are still debating and have some problems with Bill C-15B

I would like the government to consider that aspect. We should quickly put into place certain issues without holding up the entire bill because of some aspect of it that we do not particularly like. It should be done in a way that reflects the powers of each ministry so that the committee and the minister responsible for that particular section deal with it in a very direct way.

I wish to mention the issue of documents. Every time we ask questions of the immigration minister he would sooner return an attack. I guess he believes that the best defence is a strong offence. The issue is about people travelling on airplanes. We must know who they are. What happened on September 11 was that terrorists used planes and the people on them as virtual bombs to attack the United States.

We must know who is on those planes. Are they a threat to the people on the plane and the people on the ground? The ability to collect documents, to identify, to share that information with law enforcement agencies, and to pass that information on to the RCMP and CSIS is critical. Without that how can we possibly feel that the bill would work?

There are a lot of issues to be addressed. It has taken a long time to get this far which is unfortunate. The United States was able to put a bill forward very quickly. The government has been trying to mirror that for eight months now and it does not have it right yet. Hopefully some of the suggestions that are coming out in the debate today will be taken to heart so that when it is finally passed the bill will reflect what Canadians truly need.

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

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

In fact it would have the opposite effect as my colleague has just said. Bill C-15B seems to be taking dead aim at a hard pressed agricultural industry that does not seem to have any support from the government in any way at all.

Farmers are under stress from agriculture commodity prices being very low. That is caused by huge subsidies taking place in other countries around the world. The government's answer is that it will not get in there, mix it up and protect them in trade agreements. The Liberals have said they are not interested in helping agriculture.

The GATT and the World Trade Organization came to some kind of an agreement in 1994 to reduce agricultural subsidies by only 15% over six years. The Liberals on the other side were reluctant to sign off on that. In fact they wanted to protect the supply managed dairy industry, the textile industry and the cultural industry with huge subsidies.

Here is a sector of agriculture, especially the grain and oilseed sector, that is going down the tube because the government offers it no protection. First, the government will not enter into subsidies for it. Second, the government will not enter into trade agreements that restrict others from using subsidies to devastate Canadian exports around the world.

There is a lack of support for agriculture in the subsidy business, which I can understand and support, but the government will not open up things like the Canadian Wheat Board. It will not allow competition in the transportation industry to let farmers take advantage of at least some market opportunities. The government puts roadblocks in the way at every turn and now we have had two bills before the House in the last couple of weeks that would result in huge problems for the agricultural industry in the country.

The government tells us in Bill C-15B that it would not be a problem. We know that there are some people who exploit and are cruel to animals. There are provisions there to handle that right now. We know that people are being charged. One person that probably might have been charged was a minister of the government who left the car windows up a few years ago in over 30 degree heat with an animal inside. That minister could have been charged but no charges were laid.

Now the government wants to move this forward and insert codes in Bill C-15B that could be open to interpretation. I think of my own brother who has 1,500 head of livestock in the beef industry in the Peace River riding. I see a huge industry in the Peace River riding trying to diversify, trying to find some way to continue to exist under the pressures of a government that will not support them in any way. What do they get? They get more regulation from the government. It makes it difficult.

What about the cattle industry? What about the issue of how these codes could be interpreted? Ear tags is one of the things that is happening. It is a method of identifying a herd in case there is an outbreak of disease to trace it back and stop that disease in its tracks. Ear tags could be considered to be cruel to animals, as well as the dehorning of animals.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-15B with deep regret. I and a lot of people in the country cannot understand where the government is going with these kinds of issues. It seems like it has some kind of vendetta against agriculture. I and the people who produce food cannot understand where this is coming from and why the government seems to be so much against people who produce food.

This is not the first time. Bill C-5 is still before the House and is on the same track. There is a lot of window dressing. The government pretends to be sincere about protecting endangered species. What actual protection is it offering?

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to Bill C-15B or the war on agriculture as I call it.

The bill would create a war on agriculture in Canada. The government is creating another hardship for all agricultural producers who deal with livestock. Farmers and ranchers must be made aware of exactly what the government is doing and how the bill, if passed, would negatively affect their livelihood.

We heard today that bureaucrats in the federal agriculture department are questioning bureaucrats in the province of Saskatchewan as to whether there is a possibility of a drought in that province. They are asking if there is dryness on the prairies. This is the kind of vision that the government has of agriculture. Bill C-15B is just another nail in the coffin for agriculturalists across Canada. This is not fearmongering by our party. This is an attempt to show people what the bill would do to all agricultural and livestock industries.

The justice minister said the introduction of the bill would not change things, but I tend to disagree with that statement. Dairy farmers across Canada disagree with that statement. What about chicken farmers in Canada who give us free styrofoam coffee cups, napkins and everything? The bill would affect chicken farmers no matter what propaganda they are told.

The justice minister said that what was lawful before would remain lawful. I dare to differ with that statement. If the bill has no effect, then what is its purpose? The bill would not affect legitimate practices, but it would narrow the definition of what those legitimate practices are.

My husband and I raise elk, bison and deer, one of the most regulated industries in Canada. Our practice is so legislated that there is no way we could ever commit cruelty to any of our animals. Those animals are better looked after than the way some dogs and cats are treated by people in a lot of places. We baby those animals. I have bottled fed bison calves and an elk calf. That elk cow is now five years old, and still comes to the fence when I call her. When I ask Gracie to come give me a kiss, she runs to the fence, gives me a big kiss through the wire fence, and I pet her and scratch her. We look after our animals. Bill C-15B would have a huge effect on any animal based business in Canada.

Animal rights groups have said that to be proven effective this legislation would have to be challenged in court. Farm families I know cannot afford to take anyone to court because they are clutching to survive. Farm families I know do not where they will get money to put the next meal on the table. Both people of farm families I know are working off the farm all day, come home and farm at night. They cannot afford court challenges, but that is what lies ahead for our agriculture industry. Working Canadians cannot afford to fight battles against well funded activist groups.

My colleague's motion would see wilful and reckless actions as guidelines for prosecution. It would help to protect farmers, ranchers, researchers and others with legitimate animal based occupations from numerous prosecutions.

The Canadian elk industry is going through difficult times right now with the CWD outbreak in Canada. The only way that scientists can study the disease is by taking blood tests from live animals. If that were outlawed there is no way that we would ever find a control or find out how the disease is spread. We must keep scientists away from prosecution.

As in Bill C-5 the government is content to categorize all actions as criminal. There must be protection in place for those who use animals legitimately. My colleague from Lakeland said that the dairy farmers of Canada are the most conscientious of all farmers.

I appeal to the government to listen to their concerns. It should talk again with the dairy producers of Canada. They will tell the government what they are feeling. They feel this is a threat to their whole industry.

We must protect our livestock producers. The agricultural industry has been abandoned by the government. Legislation such as Bill C-15B would do additional damage to an already struggling industry. Moving animals from property offences to the criminal code leads us away from animal welfare into the land of animal rights. This is a scary proposition for many Canadians who use animals for legitimate purposes. The definition of animal in the legislation needs to be changed. The current definition is far too broad. It is too inclusive and would lead to problems for law abiding citizens.

A leisurely day of fishing could now be met with court challenges, for example, a fisherman picking on a fish. I would like to tell people in Ottawa or Edmonton that they may not go fishing on the weekend. I have seen numerous boats coming from Alberta to our northern lakes in Saskatchewan. If we were to stop them from fishing, our province would be in worse shape than it already is.

The government would like to assure Canadians that petty things like that would not happen. The legislation however would open the door for exactly this scenario. The government's blatant pandering to special interests groups is horrific.

A letter from the Animal Alliance of Canada is a perfect example. It states:

Bill C-15B, which makes changes to the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code, recognizes for the first time that animals are not just “property”, but rather being in their own right...I can't overstate the importance of this change...It started in the last federal election. Because of a commitment by the (previous) Minister of Justice in the House of Commons to pass Bill C-15B (we) campaigned for her re-election. Under attack by hunters and gun owners and a cabal of extremist right wing groups, (she) was in a losing campaign. (We) stepped in and championed her election...(she) won by 700 votes.

Instead of championing for the stability of law abiding animal based industries and businesses the government caters to a special interest group. That is unbelievable.

My colleagues and I in no way support cruelty to animals. However we do support law abiding Canadians who are involved in animal based businesses and industries. We cannot support the bill as it stands. It seriously jeopardizes Canadians from engaging in legal, moral and ethical animal practices. The Secretary of State for Children and Youth spoke yesterday about the fur industry and how much good it did for Canadians. We must stop and look at this. The government must look at the broader picture and the repercussions the bill would have on industry, instead of its blatant pandering to lobby groups.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the debate this afternoon is on Bill C-15B, which is called the cruelty to animals bill and which we have been debating in the House for some time. Many people have approached me and written to me saying that they support the bill because it would help protect animals and prevent cruelty to animals. However, very many also have written, e-mailed and phoned to say that we cannot let this pass because it is going to interfere in their raising of farm animals, or in their trapping business or in their fishing business and so on. I have had many, many calls, letters and e-mails from those people saying that if this legislation passes it will cause very serious problems for them and for their businesses, and for no reason, because they fully respect animals and believe in taking good care of animals. They do not believe in cruelty to animals.

We have had these two parties come forth on different sides of the bill. I would suggest that those who say they support the legislation because they want to help reduce cruelty to animals would support the proposition that I will make to the government right now. If we are truly here to help prevent cruelty to animals, then why do we not right now today throw this bill aside because of all the objections from so many people, farmers and others, and put in place instead a bill that will increase the penalties for those who are cruel to animals? Let us deal with it in that way. It would certainly satisfy those people who have come out in favour of the legislation because they want to help protect animals and prevent cruelty. It would certainly be supported by those people, and it would be supported by farmers and others who are very concerned about this piece of legislation.

Why do we not just do that, just throw this legislation aside and put in place very simple legislation increasing the penalties for those who are cruel to animals? I think we would all be very happy. I doubt if there is one member of parliament in the House who supports cruelty to animals. There are very few people across the country who support cruelty to animals so that is not the issue. The issue is how we in fact prevent cruelty to animals. I suggest that this legislation anything but the solution.

I have a letter from the Dairy Farmers of Canada. I think the dairy farmers have made their points very well when it comes to looking at this from a farmer's point of view. There are many farmers in my constituency. They truly are the backbone of my constituency in terms of the economy and in terms of our communities and they are very strongly against this legislation, almost to a person. One of the things they have said they are concerned about is just what the Dairy Farmers of Canada said. They are concerned about redefining animals which have been and are now defined as property in the criminal code. The dairy farmers are saying that must be maintained. I fully support that, as do farmers in my part of the country. The reason for supporting it is that Canada's agriculture industry is in fact based on the principle of ownership of animals. It is a farmer's legal right to use animals for food production; this stems from his proprietary right in these animals. That is what is in the criminal code now. That is something I fully support.

By moving that definition of animals to a new definition in the act, which is what the bill does, to a new category of special property, I think we are certainly creating problems and so do the dairy farmers. They say that “the Government is changing the legal status of animals” and that puts farmers at risk because it has not been carefully defined and it really will change the way that the courts view animals and the treatment of animals.

The Dairy Farmers of Canada stated, and I think this is an important point, one that the government should pay attention to, that “Humane treatment [of animals] is not compromised by an animal's designation as property” as it is in the act right now. The dairy farmers stated:

The Government could maintain the current status of animals as property under the Criminal Code and still meet its stated goal of this legislation--

They are right.

Why does the government not just do that? Why not just leave the definition the same as it is under the act? That will certainly help deal with some of the problems that we have right now.

The second area I want to talk about is the definition of animal in this legislation. It has to be changed and I will tell members why. Animal is defined in the act as “a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain”. That is the way it is stated in the bill. It is hard to believe but it is true. “Any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain” is much too broad a definition. That opens up farmers to potential litigation that is almost unimaginable, but not just farmers. Let us take the example of a gardener in downtown Ottawa or Edmonton who finds a slug in the garden. Slugs are not nice things. The only way I know to control slugs is to squash them, to kill them. That is what people do because slugs destroy vegetables in large numbers.

If a gardener were to do that under this new legislation that is being proposed, I ask the government, could he or she be charged under the act as having committed cruelty to animals? Do slugs feel pain? I do not know. I think they probably do. I would suggest this means that under the act and under this definition of an animal as “any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain”, a gardener in downtown Ottawa, Edmonton or Toronto could be found guilty of having committed a serious crime under the criminal code. Is that the intent of this legislation? I doubt it very much, so let us throw this legislation aside and put in place legislation that will do the job without putting this kind of threat before Canadians in general.

Of course when it comes to farm animals I think there is even more of a threat. We have to take an even more careful look at that. I would suggest that there is no group of people in this country more concerned about animals than farmers. Their very livelihood depends on taking good care of their animals. Nobody is more concerned. In fact, farmers across the country have set and follow high standards of animal care and treatment. They set those standards themselves and they follow them, all but a very few.

Why would we put in place legislation that could end up causing such hardship to a gardener in downtown Toronto or a farmer just outside of Mannville, Alberta? Why are we willing to put this kind of threat over the heads of these people when they have done nothing wrong and when they truly do believe in the best interests of animals? As the previous speaker said, a farmer could have a herd of 200 cows and know the names of every one of them. Farmers know the history of their animals, they care for them and they try to save every calf produced. They care for them in a way that is going to give them the best life possible. That is what farmers do. This law is a true threat to farmers.

The last issue I will talk about because of the very limited time today is the defences that are in the current criminal code: the defences of “legal justification, excuse and colour of right”, as they are referred to. This is currently in subsection 429(2). The Dairy Farmers of Canada say it must be retained and I agree. This is extremely important.

The Dairy Farmers of Canada state:

Agricultural producers must have access to defenses that provide assurances for legitimate animal-based activities--

They must have that assurance and that is lost in this legislation. The statement continues:

Including these defenses [as they are in the criminal code now] would not diminish the stated intent of this law.

In other words, the government could carry out its goal to protect against cruelty to animals without changing that definition.

In fact, the former justice minister said “what is lawful today will continue to be lawful” after this legislation is passed. If that is the case, if we can do under this new law what we could do under the old, why do we not throw all of this legislation aside, which has serious problems that I and many others have referred to, and put in place a simple piece of legislation which states that if people commit cruelty to animals we will increase the fines and people will be subject to very severe penalties? I support that. My party supports that. I think every member in the House would support that. For a change why do we not see some common sense on the part of the government and do that? We would have the problem solved and the issue dealt with in a way that would not threaten the livelihoods and the very freedom of Canadians.

The legislation, if passed, would truly threaten the very freedom of Canadians and especially those who depend on animals for their livelihood.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is right. Being an animal and pet woman I would say sit or stay, but that would be inappropriate for sure.

Looking further at the idea of companions and pets, I love animals and appreciate them. I lived in the country for many years. It was terrific. However to elevate them to even a similar level to my real life companion, my husband Lew, is a bit much. I am sure hon. members would agree.

We are arguing about whether we can say the word pet or animal. Some animal rights people have great frustrations as well. We have noticed this in some of their literature and lobbying. They talk about researchers. I will make it plain for Hansard so it will go on the record forever. In terms of the research we do in Canada regarding disease, let us make sure it is up front and reasonable. Let us make sure it is all those good things. However I want it on the record that I would sooner have testing and research done on pets and animals than on my mother, my sister or someone like that. Let us be real. Let us be reasonable. That is what is research is about.

As I look at Bill C-15B I think of what was said by the former justice minister who is now the health minister and my next door neighbour in Edmonton Northwest. She stated that is what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful after the bill received royal asset. Let us hope so. However if it was not the former justice minister's intention to change what is lawful today, why did she not simply raise the penalties for existing animal cruelty offences? That would make a great deal of sense.

Let us look at some of the penalties. The bill talks about maximum penalties of $5,000 or $10,000 but I think we all know that rarely if ever do we see maximum penalties. We see minimum payments or penalties, discussions, plea bargaining, et cetera, but rarely do we see maximum penalties. We need to be careful.

The problem or one of the problems with Bill C-15B in its current form is not the penalties for animal abuse but the lack of protection of Canadian citizens from unwarranted and injurious legal action. We can see how this stuff would get tied up in the courts. Lord knows we have enough stuff tied up in the courts now. It is the normal protection of the law which any citizen should have a right to expect.

As I mentioned, I lived in the country and had dogs and cats that were free to roam in the bush. That is a good thing for animals to be able to do. When I had animal rights activists in my office we went through the definitions of pet, animal, companion and whatever. I made it clear that I not only loved animals but had several animals when I lived in the bush. Then I moved to Edmonton North. I do not have any animals. I do not have pets while I live in the city because it is a little too restrictive for them. That was my personal choice.

I found out that someone lived in downtown Toronto and had a couple of cats and a dog or whatever. My friend Fritz who runs hundreds of head of cattle would have something to say about pets, animals or companions being cooped up in an apartment in downtown Toronto. My hon. friend from Lakeland knows exactly what I mean when I talk about cattle country in Heinsburg and animals that are free to roam. People who farm out there take it pretty seriously.

My friend Fritz knows every one of his cattle personally. He knows which is which, when they calf and what they give birth to in the spring. Yet he is being criticized for being cruel to animals. He has had dogs, cats and all kinds of pets. He loves them dearly, feeds them well, shelters them and cares about them. He is not impressed by someone having two or three animals in an apartment in downtown Toronto. He would consider that cruelty to animals. He surely would. He would consider it a terrible fate for any animal. In looking at the definitions we could get into all kinds of arguments about who is cruel and who is not, what is appropriate for animals and what is not.

In fact, the dairy producers are very concerned about the bill as well. In response to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, a member of parliament stated:

Farmers, ranchers and others who legitimately use animals should not have to rely on the judgment of individual crown attorneys for protection from animal rights activists. This protection should come from Parliament and be enshrined in the law.

That is where it should be enshrined: in the legislation, not the regulations. Let us not send this through a whole new flurry of court activity where things continue to go round and round. If in fact the bill is attempting to eliminate cruelty to animals, then let us do it but let us not get into so many of these other areas that will go round and round in the courts. Let us go after cruelty to animals and leave out the rest of it.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate today. We need to spend a few minutes being ultimately reasonable about the whole issue of cruelty to animals. Obviously not one of us in the Chamber would condone such behaviour. It is despicable. When we look at some of the examples with which we have been provided it is a dreadful thing to think anyone would behave in such a way or think it was amusing, helpful or whatever.

If that is all the bill looked at and dealt with there would be no problems or questions from any of the members. However as members can see, Bill C-15B has insidious factors like other legislation often does. We in our party think things should be put in legislation but the government says no, it would rather have them dealt with by regulation. It is a pretty scary pattern we have witnessed from the government time after time.

The amendment we brought forward asks that the government report its findings to the House by December 4, 2002. As members know, sometimes things around here disappear into a great black hole and never surface again. Some of the discussions today, even those by government members, have made us realize Bill C-15B has had several lives. It has not had nine lives but it has had several. It is pretty frustrating to watch because all of us would like to see good, sensible legislation that provides for harsh, swift and sure penalties for those who commit acts of cruelty to animals.

We then get into the grey areas such as not condoning cruelty to animals. We could ask what cruelty means. Some might think it includes beating a dog into shape or the excessive use of force when training an animal. Dairy farmers and cattle producers all have their own definitions of cruelty. I do not think any of us would like the idea of getting a hook through the lip and a club over the head but many sportsmen and fishermen do just that. Mr. Speaker, I know you and I would be quite happy to go out for a seafood supper and enjoy it to the hilt. It is all a matter of definition.

We need a sense of wisdom and reasonableness in the whole debate. There seems to be a backlash from rural members of the government caucus. That is why we said earlier that we should bring the folks in and have a vote on it now. Bill C-15B has had many lives. Yet at the same time it is rather difficult on the government side. We saw the government's bravado in saying bring them in, call in the clowns and let us have a vote. That would be a difficult thing for the government to do right now. Government members are having meetings and there is a lot of concern and lobbying going on.

I mentioned the word lobbying. There has been a enormous lobby with regard to Bill C-15B. Some of my colleagues have already discussed this. I was one of the people lobbied. Mr. Speaker, I know you would find this amusing but of particular concern. Some perfectly decent individuals from an animal rights group came to my office to talk about animals. They asked me if I had a companion. I told them I certainly did. His name is Lew and he is my husband back home. I had to push it a bit further to see what the companion idea was all about.

I do not know if these people ever got around to the word pet. I am rather fond of the word. As members will recall, I lived in the country for many years when I was in the rural constituency of Beaver River. I have had all kinds of pets. I loved them. I treated them well. They were wonderful animals and pets. They were wonderful companions because I lived in the bush on my own. However that is what they were. They were pets.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite when dealing with issues from the agricultural community should remember the old adage about never cussing a farmer with one's mouth full and that there would be more respect in coming to the House chewing on something in order to get into the debate.

To continue, the new U.S. farm bill adds another $4.8 billion per year to U.S. subsidies. That will distort the marketplace and certainly will hurt producers on this side of the border. The country of origin labelling included in that bill would cause anything produced in Canada if it is to be sold in the United States to be labelled as such. The people who will market the products in the United States have already said that they will just separate the two or they will not have Canadian products in their stores. That is another issue our people have to worry about.

A couple of weeks ago the U.S. government put a tariff on incoming steel. The Russians replied by keeping chicken out of Russia. That has started a snowball effect which has driven the price of meat down all across North America. That is something else to worry about.

Input costs, taxes, food safety and the anti-terrorism bill are all issues facing our farmers and then comes Bill C-15B. That is something they are very concerned about.

A full page ad was taken out in the Hill Times by an organization that tried to malign Stephen Harper, the new leader of the Canadian Alliance. It is absolutely unfortunate that money which was probably donated to that organization by people with good intentions was put to that type of use. It is an absolute disgrace.

It is a concern to many that we are allowing a well-organized, well-funded and vocal small number of people to dictate to rural Canadians how they will live their lives and how they will carry out their day to day functions. Of course, their opinion is needed and should be part of the debate but to stoop to that level of discussion is absolutely wrong.

These people have been in my office in the past to discuss issues. I have listened to them and they have listened to me. We have had a pretty good debate, but I am pretty sure what my reply will be the next time that organization phones to have a little bit of this MP's time.

Are we letting a few people dictate to people in our rural communities how they will carry on their livelihood? We have been heavily lobbied on this issue. It is all about the balance. There are people who want the bill passed and there are people who are concerned with some aspects of it.

The underlying message we are getting from everyone, and which our party supports, is that they want the legislation. We need to protect the animals. Anybody who abuses an animal in any way should have the full extent of the law thrown at them.

I want to make sure that people fully understand that, particularly the organization that put the full page ad in the paper today. We have been on the record from day one that we support cruelty to animal legislation. Anyone who abuses an animal in any way should be subject to the full extent of the law.

There are two sides to the issue. We have to be very careful that we come up with a piece of legislation that properly addresses the situation. There is one thing of major concern. I have letters from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Manitoba Cattle Producers, Keystone Agricultural Producers, and Canadians for Medical Progress, who are people concerned with research.

The letters on research are very interesting. One of them is from Pierre Berton, a very famous Canadian. He supports research, as we do. He is very concerned that the bill could affect the type of research needed to bring about cures for many diseases and a better way of life for Canadians. These people have very grave concerns about where the bill could lead us.

Bill C-15B would take the whole animal cruelty aspect out of a certain part of the criminal code and put it into another. This would make the bill a target for well heeled organizations which would challenge absolutely every aspect of it in the courts. It could well change the way producers in Canada are allowed to produce the food we and the world need to sustain life. We must be careful that does not happen.

The new animal cruelty legislation may cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different light. This could have significant and detrimental implications for farmers, hunters and other agriculture producers who are dependant on animals for their livelihood.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association points out in its brief a number of issues it is concerned with. It asked that the animal cruelty provisions not be moved out of the property section of the criminal code. It also asked that the definition of animal be removed or modified to exclude “or any animal that can experience pain”.

It is these two aspect of Bill C-15B that are causing concern. If we go through the letters of the organizations I have mentioned, almost all of them have the same problem with the bill. These are the issues we in my party are trying to bring to the debate.

The government says Bill C-15B would not affect the hunting industry, the way farmers and producers handle animals, or the way research is carried out. If this is so why will it not put into the legislation a clause or two to put all the fears at risk? We have not seen such a clause. It did not come forward in the amendments. The concerns go on. The government and those supporting the bill should put forward amendments we in our party can support. We can then move on.

Moving the animal cruelty provisions from property offences into a new and separate section could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. We want to make sure animals are protected. However if moving the provisions brings about a whole new set of court challenges it could prove detrimental to certain aspects of our society.

The new definition of animal is extremely broad. It includes “a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain”. This would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never before been provided this kind of protection. There is concern about this. There are people who claim plants and all kinds of organisms have the capacity to feel pain. Are we saying they would be part of this? Whether the government likes it or not, that would be the challenge.

There are many issues I want to deal with but 10 minutes does not allow me to. My colleagues will be addressing some of the others. However I would like to add an amendment to the motion. The end of the motion reads:

--taking into consideration the importance of ensuring that the legitimate use of animals by farmers, sportsmen and medical researchers should be protected under this Bill.

I move:

That the motion be amended by adding:

“and that the committee report back to the House no later than December 4, 2002”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address hon. members on the occasion of the consideration of an amendment to the motion to proceed to third reading.

It is time for the House to respond to the expectations of Canadians. Legislation that updates animal cruelty provisions and provides enhanced penalties for animal abusers has been before the House in one form or another since December 1, 1999. That is two and one-half years during which there have been numerous opportunities for organizations from a broad spectrum of interests to come forward and make their views known.

They have shared their views with the Department of Justice, with members of parliament, with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, with the media and with other members of the public. There has been a full comprehensive debate on the issue of the changes that must be made to modernize the animal cruelty provisions. I want to take this opportunity to thank rural caucus members for their extensive contributions to the debate and the shaping of this legislation.

During the two and one-half years, the former minister of justice listened very carefully to the concerns of all Canadians, including industry. In fact, to be absolutely clear about the fact that criminal liability for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect had not been changed, the former minister of justice made several accommodations to critics of BIll C-17 when the animal cruelty provisions were reintroduced as Bill C-15 after an election was called and Bill C-17 died on the order paper. The accommodations did not change the legal test for liability but provided further clarification about the elements of the cruelty offences.

I would like to take this opportunity to briefly review the changes that have been made already to the animal cruelty amendments since Bill C-17 was introduced in the House two and one-half years ago.

Critics of Bill C-17 were concerned that the opening paragraph of the intentional cruelty offences did not set out an express mental element. Even though not required as a matter of law, the section was changed when it was reintroduced into Bill C-15 and retained in Bill C-15B to expressly require that the intentional cruelty offences must be committed either wilfully or recklessly.

The negligence provisions in Bill C-17 were also modified when they were reintroduced in Bill C-15. These modifications were made despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence made it very clear that they were not necessary as a matter of law. Nonetheless, in the interests of providing further clarification, subsection 182.3(1) was modified to include the word “negligently” as well as the word “unnecessary”.

The result is that the wording was changed from “by a failure to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal, causes it pain, suffering or injury” to “negligently causes unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal”. This modification was made even though proof of criminal negligence requires that the prosecutor must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of the accused constituted a marked departure from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.

Another modification between Bill C-17 and Bill C-15 was to accommodate the concern of hunters that the use of the word “when” in the trap shooting offence might be interpreted as restricting the ability of hunters to conduct penned hunting. It should be noted that in the current animal cruelty offences, the word “when” is used in the English version of the criminal code, whereas “au moment de” is used in the French.

The offence in Bill C-15 was modified to indicate that the prohibited conduct related to shooting animals “at the moment” they were liberated. This wording provides greater consistency between the English and French versions of the criminal code.

A definition of negligence was also added to the negligence offences in section 182.3 to make it absolutely clear that a criminal standard of negligence rather than a civil standard was required.

A further change between Bill C-17 and Bill C-15 was to move the animal cruelty offences out of the part of the criminal code dealing with sexual offences and public morals and into a separate part of the code that deals with animal cruelty offences alone. This change addressed the concerns of critics that it was inappropriate to group animal cruelty offences with offences against persons.

After Bill C-15 received second reading on September 26 of last year, it was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with a direction that the committee split the bill into two parts. Bill C-15B contains the provisions regarding cruelty to animals and firearms.

The committee heard from a wide variety of groups with diverse views on the issue of animal cruelty. At the committee hearing the Criminal Lawyers' Association confirmed that removal of the animal cruelty provisions out of the property section would not cause accused persons to lose any available defences. The association did indicate that if there was a desire to make this absolutely clear, one of two options was possible: either to make an express reference to subsection 429(2) of the criminal code which outlines the defences of legal justification, excuse or colour of right; or to specifically confirm application of the common law defences set out in subsection 8(3).

Again, in the interests of accommodation and to reassure critics of the bill, the government introduced a motion adopted by the committee to confirm application of subsection 8(3) of the criminal code. To add clarification to the negligence provisions, the committee adopted a government motion to specify the mental element of “wilfully or recklessly” for the offence of abandoning an animal in paragraph 182.3(1)(b) of Bill C-15B, as well as the mental element of “negligently” for the offence of failure to provide suitable and adequate food, water, air, shelter and care for an animal.

One would have thought that following a suggestion of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, as well as further clarification of the negligence offences, would have caused opposition critics of the bill to agree that all accommodations that could be made without changing the test for legal liability had been made.

Unhappily, with the notable exception of the New Democratic Party, this does not appear to be the case. Critics among opposition parties want more. Meaningful accommodations have been made as a result of extensive representations over two and one-half years.

It is time for the House to act. It is time for the House to answer the expectations of Canadians and to move the legislation forward.

Excise Act, 2001

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems the Bloc is the only party not supporting the legislation. It was carrying on a bit of a filibuster but now government members are getting involved in the filibuster. I think the reason has nothing to do with the bill and its content. The reason is that there are only two serious pieces of legislation before the House. First, there is Bill C-5 the species at risk bill. The government is so split over the bill that there is a huge problem in its caucus about it. It does not want to face the bill again. It put it off yesterday.

Second, Bill C-15B is the next bill scheduled to come before the House. It is both an extremely important piece of legislation and a bad piece of legislation. It has caused an urban rural split in the government caucus with which it does not want to deal.

The government is filibustering its own legislation because there is such a split in its caucus it does not want to deal with the two important pieces of legislation before the House.

I have not seen before in the House of Commons any government with such a thin soup agenda. It has so little of substance to talk about that it is filibustering its own legislation. Government members talk about the bill because they do not want to let things die and admit they have nothing to say or offer the country when it comes to legislation. This is a surprise and it is quite shocking.

We need a government on that side that has issues of substance to deal with on behalf of Canadians. It certainly is not coming from the Liberal government.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-47.

On the face of it, the Bloc Quebecois believes that the provisions in this bill were really acceptable and even necessary. We know the government is looking at changing the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act. I believe the time had finally come to look at this change.

There is something rather incongruous however. The government claims that this bill is replacing almost entirely a good part of the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act. The strange thing is that all the elements already provided for in these acts are in Bill C-47, except for a very important one, that is beer.

The problem is with microbreweries. In this case, the story began during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, when it was asked, following requests from the Canadian council, that a tax reduction be included, which I will explain later.

Because of this nonsense, microbreweries here in Canada are currently paying 28 cents per litre of beer in tax, while in a country such as the United States and even in Europe, the microbrewery industry is protected with a tax of 9 cents a liter.

So it is very strange to see how the government could let this bill be introduced, which says nothing about the beer produced by microbreweries. We got to the Standing Committee on Finance and, through my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, we asked that this bill be complemented by an amendment to reduce the excise tax, particularly for microbreweries.

Yesterday, government members talked about various conflict of interest problems that could arise and they said that there could be no conflict of interest. Further on, I will refer to what happened with the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for London West. For the government, there is no conflict of interest because beer and microbreweries are not mentioned anywhere in the bill. There is absolutely no mention of beer whatsoever. Thus the amendment that my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot wanted to submit was rejected by the chair.

Clause 2 of the bill, which takes up several provisions of the Excise Act and Excise Tax Act, includes a definition of beer. However, there is no provision in the bill about beer. Is it an involuntary omission or worse, should the bill have addressed the issue of beer?

Under pressure from major breweries, they perhaps forgot to remove the definition of beer. Why would the legislator talk about something if he does not intend to go any further? Why include a definition of beer if no provision of the bill deals with beer?

More incredible still is the fact that my colleague and the Canadian Council of Regional Brewers are saying that the time has come to act. People have been asking the government to change the Excise Act and Excise Tax Act since 1997. We have been asking for this change for five years and, yesterday, we were told that results, more figures were needed before a decision could be made whether to go ahead or not. It is just unbelievable.

Five years ago, in 1997, there were 89 microbreweries in Canada. Over the last five years, 38 microbreweries have had to close down and many did so because of that huge excise tax. I mentioned 28¢ a litre. Foreign competitors, from the United States and Europe, pay 9¢ a litre, as I said earlier.

At last, this government has the opportunity to move instead of saying: “Yes we will review the issue; we will look at it; we are waiting for figures”. The government has been looking at those figures since 1997! Microbreweries are asking the government to include an amendment so that the Standing Committee on Finance can look at how to lower those taxes. As chance would have it we are not dealing with it. It is easy to understand now why the committee, chaired by the hon. member for London West, is not dealing with it.

That member was been appointed as chair of that committee a short time ago and we wonder why considering what happened. Her spouse, Mr. Barnes, is a member of the Brewers Association of Canada taxation committee. He is also a director of a multinational or a large national brewery.

Those large breweries say that excise taxes have to be lowered in general, but all the more so for microbreweries. However, I find it strange that the committee chair got a letter from the Brewers Association of Canada saying they do not agree, when we know that the chair's spouse not only sits on its taxation committee but is also its chairman.

The Brewers Association of Canada, of which the committee chair's spouse is a member, says it is in favour of a tax reduction, even more so in the case of microbreweries, but sends the committee chair a letter asking that beer not be included in the bill and tax reductions—indirectly—not be included either in the bill. Yet the association says it is in favour of that reduction. It is important to act immediately, but this association is now telling us not to do it.

Between you and me, when the president received such a letter, knowing that her husband is the director of a large national brewery, that he chairs the taxation committee for the Brewers Association of Canada and that she is the president of a House committee, it seems to me she should have said, and should still say, “I think there is an apparent conflict of interest, if not an actual one. I think it would be a good thing to tell each and every member of the committee that I will not be participating in any discussions on those amendments because, not only is my husband, John Barnes, a member of the association, but he is the chair of the taxation committee of that association”.

I think she should at least have told the members of the committee about that situation, but she did not. She only read the letter and played the game of the big Canadian breweries to harm the microbreweries.

Motion No. 2 gives excessive authority to a committee president. We voted against this motion at the beginning of the 37th parliament. It is already being misused, as we are told that the rules on conflicts of interests apply to ministers, to the Prime Minister, to secretaries of state and parliamentary secretaries, but not to a committee president.

Just imagine, the conflict of interest rules not applying to a committee president, and her actually having more authority than a minister. A minister would not even have the power to do what she did. She took upon herself to refuse to accept the amendments. These were not only amendments from the Bloc Quebecois. We are used to our amendments being constantly rejected at committee.

They are always rejected, and we get calls at our offices from people who say they are Liberals. Here is an example. With respect to Bill C-15B, people who support the bill concerning cruelty to animals and the protection of the latter call me at my office. They are aware of the amendments that were presented. I now send my speeches to all the people who write to me. They can then read the amendments proposed by the Bloc. The people who are in favour of the protection of animals tell us that the right position was to accept the amendments to Bill C-15B proposed by the Bloc. They even say “We will change party because of that”. These are people in the animal industry.

I simply wish to send the following message: through its committees, the government rejects all amendments, not only those from the Bloc Quebecois, but also those from any opposition party. It rejects those from the Bloc in particular because they come from Quebecers and are put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. What the Liberals are doing is incredible.

But there is worse still. Coming back to Bill C-47, how can the members of this House accept such important powers that allow a person to reject amendments coming not just from a political party, but from people affected by these rules, the existing taxation rules?

I will give figures. I said earlier that in 1997, when we started to examine this aspect of the taxation and excise duties, there were 89 microbreweries. Five years later, 38 of these have closed down. There are only 46 left. This is serious. Nearly 40% of the microbreweries have closed down. This has affected the diversity, the people and the jobs that are created in the regions.

The big breweries want to see the microbreweries disappear. There are reasons for that. In 1997, the microbreweries had 5.5% of the market. Today, they have only 4% of the Canadian market. This is 1.5% less. Let us look at what this 1% drop in net profits for microbreweries—a drop caused by shutdowns and by the inability to sell the beer—means for the big breweries. It is a net amount. That is a lot of money for the shareholders.

As we know, one of the big breweries, Labatt, just happens to be established in the finance minister's riding of Lasalle-Émard. It is a bit odd, but this is what is happening once again. This was better, because the big breweries make donations to the Liberal Party. The big breweries, whether Molson or Labatt, give a lot of money to the Liberal Party.

We know why. It is even part of the riding of the Minister of Finance. It is bizarre that the Brewers Association of Canada has written us to say: “Yes, we want a tax cut, but we do not want the amendment to be presented. We do not want any reference to beer, do not want any tax reduction on beer”. Nothing complicated about this; a 1% tax reduction gives them $17 million net in their pockets. Now it is at 1.5%. If you do the calculation, you will see how much money the shareholders are making now, simply by doing away with the possibility of including beer and the tex on beer.

This is not only happening in Quebec. For this reason, when the Bloc Quebecois makes its frequent representations to protect the interests of Quebecers, the interests of other breweries in Canada will also be protected.

Out of the 38 that have closed, 11 were in Quebec, 13 in Ontario and seven in B.C. As well, there were five in Alberta, one in Nova Scotia and one in Manitoba.

The government has told us already in its speeches during the debate: “Yes, they are the ones who asked us to wait before looking at the figures”. Five years is not enough. They still need longer. The calculations are not that difficult. In five years, 38 of 89 breweries have disappeared. In another five years, how many microbreweries will be left? How long will it take for this government to react and protect the microbrewery industry, not just in Quebec but everywhere in Canada, in their own interests? It is in the best interest of their party.

Democracy means respecting the will of the House of Commons. What the government wants is to line its pockets in order to get re-elected. Its interest is precisely this, to protect the big national breweries at the expense of the others, because this is in their best interest financially. Not in the best interests of the public, of society, and even less so of the House of Commons. How can we accept such a situation?

I am somewhat disappointed by the Canadian Alliance's position, which accepts a bill such as this. I agree, and the Bloc Quebecois agrees with what the bill contains. What is put down in black and white is good. Yes, the provisions regarding tobacco are good. We also believe that the changes are good. However, the problem that was raised is much more serious.

The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca reacted last week by raising the Mace to demonstrate the government's lack of democracy in the House. He forcefully expressed to Canadians what is happening here. There is another opportunity to demonstrate what has happened, how the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance and member for London West could act in this manner.

We must stop saying that there is no conflict of interest because the word beer is not included in the bill. I already mentioned that is was supposed to be included, even in the definition. Why then is there no provision regarding beer in this bill? This bill contains nothing on beer because of the government. It did not want to accept the amendment introduced by my Bloc Quebecois colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot. It is rhetoric to say that there is no conflict of interest simply because the word beer is not written in the bill. The government prevented it from being written and it prevented us from studying this amendment, they prevented us from lowering the tax. It is unbelievable. This is their only argument of defence, to say that there is no appearance of conflict of interest.

To close, let me say that it is time that the code of ethics that applies to ministers, to the Prime Minister and to secretaries of state should also apply to chairs of standing committees.

This is important for democracy and out of respect for the opinions of Canadians.

Petitions

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning to present a petition from the riding of Portage--Lisgar signed by 154 of the finest Canadians you will ever meet.

The petitioners express concern about Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation. They have concerns that the bill goes far beyond the government's stated intentions and that it may endanger farmers, ranchers and others who use animals for legitimate and lawful purposes.

The petitioners request that parliament amend the bill in support of fair and co-operative legislation that will not punish those who use livestock in sustaining the Canadian economy.

Child Protection

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member knew what he was talking about he would know we had Bill C-15A in the House. He would also know that there are provisions in the criminal code with respect to child pornography.

What I have said many times during the past weeks is that the government has been working and will keep on working. We will proceed with a good consultation process involving parliamentarians and we will look at the existing provisions to see if we can add more offences to the criminal code.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question many times over the past few days. The member is raising a serious and complex issue. There is no simple solution.

We have Bill C-15A which is pending before the House. Bill C-15A would create new offences with regard to the Internet. It is a step in the right direction. I will say exactly the same thing as the leader of the Alliance Party. We need to get involved in a good consultation process and we will do that with members of parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for this very good question, indeed an important question. Indeed, for the government the protection of our children is a top priority, as well as for the members of parliament on this side of the House of course. We have been working on that. As a good example of what we have been doing, Bill C-15A creates more offences.

Of course we could not agree with the timing aspect of the motion yesterday because it is a complex issue. We need to proceed with more consultation. Indeed, we agree with what was said yesterday by the leader of the Canadian Alliance, that we need consultation. We are going to do it.

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

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake to the amendment to the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-15B. The question is on the subamendment.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment lost.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the subamendment of the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake on the amendment to the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-15B.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

[The Speaker]

The hon. member is correct. Is there consent to proceed with the taking of the vote on the main motion to Bill C-15A?

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion for concurrence of the Senate amendments to Bill C-15A. The question is on the amendment.

Supply

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the Canadian Alliance supply day motion. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kelowna.

Addressing the sexual age of consent in Canada is the supply day motion, and it is long overdue. I have found that when people find out the age of consent in Canada is only 14 years of age most are shocked and outraged. Many were of the belief that the age was at least 16. They often ask why the age is so low and why someone is not doing something to change it. I see the disgust on the faces of parents and grandparents.

It is truly shocking that we live in a country where the government does not see fit to offer legitimate protection to our children.

The motion before us today deals with protecting our children from sexual predators. As the law is currently written, an adult has the legal right to have sexual relations with children as young as 14. At 14 years old these individuals are children.

I have met with members of the Canadian Police Association and have heard their concerns over this issue in the resolutions passed at the association's annual general meeting last fall. One of the topics addressed was the sexual age of consent in Canada. The resolution recommended that parliament “raise the age of consent for children to have sexual relations with older persons to at least age 16”.

Police officers in Canada are on the front lines and see daily what the current law is doing to our children. Our police community see children that are manipulated into lifestyles and situations that they should not even know exist. Parents call asking for help to rescue their children but nothing can be done. Our children are offered no protection. An adult can lure children into a life of prostitution or pornography and there is nothing that parents, support agencies or law enforcement officers can do to help the child.

The government's inaction on the issue of sexual age of consent allows these children to be victimized. The government introduced Bill C-15A to help combat the luring of children over the Internet. While this is a step in the right direction, it offers protection only to those children age 13 years and younger. More needs to be done.

As a grandmother of five granddaughters, it both frightens and disgusts me that the government would choose to endanger the lives of our children. By the inaction and indifference shown by the government, it is apparent that the lives and safety of children are not priorities.

We have debated at length on the protection of species at risk. It would please me to see the government offering at least that much concern to the safety of our nation's children. Are the lives of Canadian children not more important and of more value than the northern cricket frog or the short-horned pygmy lizard? We are offering absolute protection to snails and barn owls accompanied by severe penalties and punishments to offenders, whether their actions were intentional, reckless or not, but child pornographers roam free.

The recent Sharpe case is a glaring example of what awaits our children. Artistic licence is provided as a legitimate defence. How do we explain that to the parents of the children involved?

While the courts are offering little in the way of punishment for such actions, the very least we can do is raise the sexual age of consent as protection for our children. By raising the age we could eliminate a portion of our population that may fall prey to sexual predators and offenders.

Children of the age of 14 are not allowed to consume alcohol, drive a car or vote in an election and yet they are allowed by law to engage in sexual activity with adults. Children of 14 are not emotionally mature enough to make these decisions and are therefore open to the suggestions and manipulations of adults.

We as adults, parents, protectors and legislators have the absolute responsibility to do all that we can to offer protection to our children. It baffles me that the government chooses to ignore the plight of these children.

We are not here to argue morality. We are here to fight for the safety and security of our children.

The former minister of justice told the committee in October of 2001:

I think we will see a consensus is emerging that with certain safeguards we should probably be moving on the age of consent from 14 to 16.

I believe we have more than an emerging consensus on this issue. I believe we should stop talking about making changes. It is the time to act, to implement legislation that will protect our children.

The government's own Department of Justice, in a consultation paper, viewed the current age as being too low to offer adequate protection from adults seeking to exploit these children. It is time that the government pays attention to the wishes of Canadians and to its own justice department.

My oldest granddaughter is 12 years old. She will be turning 13 this summer. It is alarming that she has only one year left of protection from sexual predators under Canadian law. She is a bright and outgoing girl with an amazing future ahead of her but in only one year it will be open season on her and her friends and classmates. Once these children reach the age of 14, the government steps back to let them fend for themselves.

Parents, grandparents, family members and friends will have no legal recourse to try to protect their children. Police fight a losing battle against child pornography and child prostitution as long as the current age of consent remains where it is. We hear the horror stories of young girls and boys working the streets and wonder if something cannot be done to help them. Sadly the answer is often no.

Leading lawmakers and enforcers in Canada wish to see the legal sexual age of consent raised to a minimum of 16. The groups all understand the necessity and urgency for changing the age. The provincial attorneys general and the Canadian Police Association both understand the need. The minister's own department understands the need. The official opposition understands the need. Parents across the country understand the need.

Recent round table discussions held in Ottawa dealt with battling child pornography in Canada. One of the recommendations from that meeting came to the same conclusion, that the sexual age of consent be raised from 14 to 16.

I urge the government to take a serious look at this issue. This is an issue that affects thousands of children every year in our country. Our children rely on us for protection. The government is failing them. The sexual age of consent must be raised to a minimum of 16 years of age. The government must act. Not to do so would be negligent.

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first let me commend the member for his commitment and dedication to an issue as important as protecting children, particularly against sexual abuse perpetrated by adults.

Children represent our future, the future of our country. It falls to us to do everything in our power to protect them and help them grow in an environment free of danger. We all know, we have all seen studies that are unanimous in their findings: abuse, particularly sexual abuse, leaves deep scars. The consequences of such abuse last a lifetime and can be seen in all kinds of insidious problems: an inability to trust, antisocial behaviour, depression and suicide. These are only a few of the consequences of sexual abuse.

Our government has not been idle on this issue. First, Bill C-15A contains a new offence, the purpose of which is to protect our children from pedophiles who use the Internet to lure them into dangerous situations.

I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for York West.

Nor can I forget to mention the public consultations organized by the Department of Justice Canada, under the theme of “Children as Victims in the Criminal Justice System”. The public document examined criminal law reforms to improve the protection of children. Four main themes were examined during these consultations, including the idea of raising the age of consent.

It was found that the issue of age of consent plays an important role in measures to improve the protection of our children. However, make no mistake about it, this issue is too complex to make any quick decisions.

The member's proposal to raise the age of consent is in response to concerns of Canadians. However, we must ensure that our response takes into consideration the complexity of the issue.

The minimum age of consent is being reviewed as part of the public consultation on child victims and the criminal justice system. As a result of this analysis, we will have a clearer picture of all the relevant issues. One of these issues has to do with the age decided upon and its impact on other ages of consent set out the criminal code. Although the criminal code sets the age of consent at 14 for most sexual activities, it sets it at 18 for certain forms of sexual exploitation. Any decision as to the age of consent must avoid the inadvertent lowering of the age of consent for sexual exploitation offences. The result would be incomplete and inadequate protection of children.

We must also ensure that the age decided upon will not have the effect of criminalizing consensual relations between young people in the same age group. Public opinion on the age of consent is varied. Some people are in favour of raising the age of consent to 16, even 18; others want to see it left at 14. Everyone, however, agrees on the need to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the desire to protect children against sexual predators and, on the other, the desire to avoid criminalizing consensual sexual activity between young people. We must also avoid encouraging abusive, non-consensual relations between young people.

Finally, we must ensure that the age of consent is consistent with the age of consent to marriage. With the exception of Ontario and Quebec, the provinces and territories will, in exceptional cases, authorize the marriage of individuals under 16. We must avoid creating a situation where an individual under the age of 16 is allowed to marry but not to consent to sexual relations.

Finally, as we have pointed out, the issue is a complex one with federal, provincial and territorial implications, which cannot be sorted out in one day. It is an important topic, one which concerns people and which requires reflection and a collaborative effort with the provinces and the territories.

There is no doubt that we must ensure that our children are safe from exploitation and sexual abuse by adults, but we must achieve this through a well thought out consultative approach, so that the result serves the interests of Canadians and, above all, our children to the greatest extent possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's important debate on measures to protect children from sexual exploitation. I wish to confirm to the hon. members of the House the Government of Canada's very firm commitment to strengthen the protection afforded to children under criminal law against sexual exploitation and, in fact, against any form of victimization.

While I welcome debate on this very important issue, I find the opposition motion somewhat worrisome. This motion is to adopt immediate legislative provisions that would raise the age of consent to at least 16 years and included measures that would prohibit behaviour related to child pornography.

This motion contains a number of flaws. Legislation with such serious consequences must not be passed in haste. The issue of age of consent affects not only the criminal code, but also a number of provincial statutes. We would not be wise to adopt such an amendment hastily. It is my belief that the motion as it stands would not allow for a careful and thorough analysis.

The Department of Justice is in the process of undertaking public consultations and a comprehensive review of the need for further criminal law reforms to improve the protection of children. This consultation and review is based on four main areas.

First, should we amend the existing offences involving children, or create new ones? Are reforms necessary to better respond to physical and emotional abuse perpetrated against children, child neglect and child homicide, as well as sexual exploitation of children?

Second, should we amend the sentencing principles of the criminal code to guarantee that every sentence truly reflects the gravity of every offence committed against a child?

Third, should there be additional measures to better meet the specific needs and ability of victims who are children and who are witnesses in the criminal justice process?

And finally, fourth—and this is of paramount importance when it comes to today's debate—should the general minimum age of consent to sexual activity be maintained or raised?

In addition to the public consultation component of this project, the department consulted with provincial and territorial criminal justice officials, as well as with individuals involved in child protection, other experts, stakeholders and members of the public. These consultations were concluded last summer.

Federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice recently considered a summary of the results of these consultations at the February meeting. I am pleased to note that all ministers indicated their continuing shared commitment to work together to follow up on these consultations and review. We have directed federal, provincial and territorial senior officials to develop follow up options for our consideration in the coming months.

As I mentioned, one of the issues examined in this consultation is the general minimum age of consent to sexual activity. One of the reasons for the continued interest in the age of consent is the desire to better protect young people against those who seek to exploit them sexually and take advantage of their vulnerability.

However, it is important to mention that the protection now available under criminal law against the sexual exploitation of children is perhaps underestimated. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to provide some information about how the criminal law currently deals with the minimum age of consent to sexual activity.

First, it seems that some people mistakenly believe that the criminal law was amended in 1987 in order to lower the age of consent from 16 to 14. It is true that, at the time, the criminal code provisions on sexual violence against children were overhauled, strengthening and amending the protection of children against sexual violence, but these reform measures did not include lowering the age of consent.

The general minimum age of consent for individual sexual activity has been 14 years of age since 1890 when it was raised from 12 years of age. However, where the sexual activity is not individual, such as child prostitution or child pornography, or where it breaches a relationship of trust or dependence the age of consent is18.

I wish to reassure members of this House. Children are well protected against sexual violence by people in positions of trust, who could force them into the sex trade, and by people who produce or distribute child pornography.

Our existing criminal code is designed to eliminate child pornography, and our ability to prosecute such activities will be increased once Bill C-15A has received royal assent.

That having been said, the government recognizes that we must constantly re-evaluate existing measures for the protection of children against sexual exploitation.

The current opposition motion asks for “measures to prohibit the creation or use of” child pornography. These measures already exist. Making, printing, publishing, importing, distributing, selling or processing child pornography in Canada are offences. This seems fairly comprehensive but the government was not satisfied and in Bill C-15A it seeks to further strengthen our child pornography laws by creating four new offences: transmitting, making available, exporting and accessing.

These amendments are part of Canada's strategy to protect the children of the 21st century. The new offences have in part been introduced to put an end to the phenomenon involving the Internet. In addition to all the government programs aimed at promoting use of the net, we have also examined the Canadian legislation in order to ensure it is current and pertinent to this wired environment.

One of the key questions examined was child protection. To that end Canada has taken part both here and elsewhere in the negotiation of treaties and promotional programs with a view to raising children's awareness of the cyberworld and to protect them from its hazards.

Canada is involved in a transnational initiative aimed at countering the sexual exploitation of children. In the Council of Europe, Canada has taken part in negotiations for the convention on cybercrime, which includes provisions on child pornography along very much the same lines as our Canadian legislation.

Here in Canada, the main focus of such government initiatives as the strategy for safe, prudent and responsible use of the Internet, launched by the industry minister, the justice minister and the secretary of state responsible for multiculturalism this past February, is the protection of children.

In relation to the use of child pornography mentioned in the motion, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sharpe decision found that the possession offence as it related to child pornography was constitutional, and thus possession of child pornography in Canada would remain a crime. However, in that decision, the court found it necessary to carve out two limited exceptions so that the offence would not be overly broad. The court was concerned about infringing on our constitutional right to freedom of expression and drew the line at prohibiting a person's own thoughts.

In this regard the court outlined when possession of child pornography was permissible. These limited exceptions are: any written material or visual representations created by the accused alone and held by the accused alone for his or her own personal use; and, any visual recording, created by or depicting the accused, provided it does not depict illegal sexual activity and is held by the accused exclusively for private use.

In addition to the exceptions set out in Sharpe, the criminal code contains other means of defence against child pornography offences, particularly when there is artistic merit or educational, scientific or medical value.

Recently there was a long debate in the House of Commons on the artistic merit defence. This defence was included in the legislative amendments which led to the creation of the child pornography provisions in 1993. Parliament in its wisdom saw fit to include defences applicable to child pornography related offences in order to ensure constitutionality.

I would like to take this opportunity to underscore the importance of the parliamentary process and the input of parliamentarians, and to state that the vigorous debate on this issue has made it apparent that many parliamentarians are concerned about how courts are interpreting artistic merit in the context of child pornography.

I understand the concerns relating to the artistic merit defence and as a father I can also relate to the motivation behind the opposition motion. As I stated before, such debates should be properly informed by the input of parliamentarians. With that in mind, I believe that this issue should be properly reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The government is committed to the protection of children and on issues such as this, which all Canadians can relate to, we should avail ourselves of as many parliamentary tools as are available.

As far as the aspect of the motion addressing retention or changes to the current provisions on the legal general age of consent to sexual activity are concerned, I would like to point out just how numerous and complex the questions are, and that they clearly require a fine balance between the necessity of protecting young people from exploitation and the need to respect their developing independence.

Some call for the present age of consent to be maintained. They have a number of reasons for this. For example, that the motion calls for the age of consent to be raised in order to better protect children from sexual exploitation, yet the criminal code already bans the sexual exploitation of children. This objective could be achieved by applying the present criminal provisions more strictly as far as perpetrators are concerned, rather than restricting the rights and freedoms of young people.

The present age of consent provisions respect young people's freedom of choice, while providing sufficient protection against sexual exploitation by adults.

Youth engage in sexual activity irrespective of the criminal law. This activity is better addressed through parental guidance. Increasing the age of consent could result in criminalizing the conduct of these youth.

This could have a disproportionate impact on communities where it is considered acceptable for youth to engage in sexual activity at a younger age than in other communities. An increase in the general age of consent could lead to either a denial of or diminished access to sexual health care and services, including access to contraceptives for youth below the age of consent, notwithstanding that they are engaging in sexual activity.

Others support an increase in the age of consent to either 16 or 18 years of age for a variety of reasons, including the belief that persons from other jurisdictions that have a higher age of consent, such as many American states, may come to Canada to prey on 14 and 15 year olds because of the lower age of consent in Canada.

Raising the age to 16 would make Canada's laws more consistent with that of other countries, such as the U.K. and many American states. Fourteen and fifteen year olds lack the mental and emotional maturity to cope with the psychological effects of engaging in sexual activity and, in particular, engaging in sexual activity with older persons. Raising the age to 18 would make the age of consent consistent with child sexual exploitation offences as well as with other laws governing youth, such as those relating to alcohol and tobacco and age of majority.

Thus it is clear that the matter of maintaining or raising the minimum age of consent is not as simple as it may seem. A legislative reform that goes beyond merely forbidding the behaviour of a potential sexual predator may have a number of potential repercussions. These could, for example, include the age of consent to marriage and access to the health system for services relating to the reproductive system and sexuality.

For this reason, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice have called upon their senior departmental staff with expertise in criminal law to draft various options for examination.

This issue can simply be described as whether the existing age of consent to sexual activity should be maintained or increased. I hope that hon. members can appreciate that the issue and our potential response to it is not so simple. There is a divergence of opinion on this matter. All issues must be fully and carefully explored to ensure that children are provided with adequate and appropriate protection.

The issues raised in today's motion are complex and will best be dealt with by adopting a thoughtful, consultative and co-operative approach. It is in this fashion that we will best serve Canadians.

Age of Consent

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows by far that he is not correct. That is not what the parliamentary secretary said yesterday.

He is raising a very important issue. He is raising a complex issue. We know that the government has been working in order to make sure that as a nation we will keep protecting our children. Basically all members of the House are against child pornography. As we said, we have Bill C-15A. We got involved in two cases up to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to keep defending and protecting the provisions that we have within the criminal code.

We are going to keep working. As I said last week, we are going to keep working in order to improve the tools that we have to protect the children of our nation.

Supply

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Provencher for his tireless work on this subject not only here in the federal arena but when he was the attorney general of the province of Manitoba.

He is exactly right. A supply day motion is simply a signal from the House to the government that yes, it better do something about this because the laws are not working. We tried to do that by convincing the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause during the first round of the John Robin Sharpe decision.

However, my colleague from Provencher is also right, that it does not preclude discussions beyond the age of consent and some of the things that are in Bill C-15A. However if the House were to pass it and if enough Liberals, like the member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge who talks a lot about being in favour of protecting kids but we are still looking to see some action, were to support the motion either tonight or tomorrow evening, then the government would have to listen.

The House passed a supply day motion to create a national sex offender registry. All Liberals said they voted for it but they did not do anything about it.

We are putting forward this motion because so many of our constituents and so many Liberals tell us in the cloakrooms, the cafeterias and as we walk around Parliament Hill, that they care about this issue. This is their opportunity to put that into action. Once the House has given its mandate to the government to table some actual legislation that will move the ball forward, we want it to actually do that.

CPIC is not a national sex offender registry. The government failed on that count. This is its opportunity to whittle away that 69% of Canadians who think government is corrupt, and stand up for kids, for the respect of the House and respect the idea that when the House expresses its intent to protect kids the government should listen.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion today.

I feel a little like an expectant father in the sense that much of this debate today, which is certainly long overdue, hopefully will ultimately create an environment whereby members do not fall on a partisan basis on what is being proposed.

The motion itself deals with the more interesting question of consent which is reflected in the actual decision itself. However most Canadians understand this issue from the perspective of the decision by Shaw in Sharpe number two, the most recent one last month, in which the decision was made based on the judge not finding an advocacy or counselling of child pornography or molestation. The second one, which received wider media attention, was on the more limited subject of artistic merit as a defence.

The motion which comes from the Canadian Alliance does not deal contextually with the concerns that have been expressed readily. We have had some debate over Bill C-15. The member for Scarborough Southwest has made some pretty good comments with respect to Internet service providers and the requirements we are making. The government should be lauded for moving in the right direction.

On April 16, a week ago this evening, as is reported in some of the papers today, a meeting did take place. I note that some of the facts and figures that came out of a meeting with experts on the subject of child pornography have found their way into the speeches of hon. colleagues. It is interesting that those speeches were taken to heart because subsequently there was a commitment made by most of those members to deal with the issues as they were raised and there were some 11, and options.

The first option deals with the age of consent being raised from 14 to 16 while maintaining the close in age exemption. The suggestion was that there be an amendment to section 151 to substitute 16 for 14 but with the qualifier to retain the age of 18 as a consent for trust relationships.

A number of other issues were raised, such as eliminate the defence of artistic merit; determine that child pornography, written or otherwise, is a form of hate crime; and require that written child pornography be found to advocate in sin and counsel sexual activity. There would be appropriate changes for that.

Another issue was that private recordings of lawful sexual activity privately held for personal use would be subjected to a constraint. There would be an option to restrict such exceptions to recordings between persons under 18 not engaged in explicit sexual activity, clearly indicating both knowledge and consent that the activity is being recorded, not kept in a manner where it is capable of distribution to others, and possession is for the exclusive personal use or the person's possession.

There was concern about expressive material in issue number five, which was a clarification or writing of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Concern was raised on another issue and an option that was given about the necessity for police to provide copies of every image seized. It is a little like a drug bust, where one would have to haul in the entire containership as opposed to bringing in a sample. This makes the jobs or resources for police unnecessary and depletes the resources in combating child pornography.

There were other sections that dealt with DNA and other sections that dealt with the issue of a primary designated offence. We were also talking about minimum mandatory penalties for those who commit these kinds of activities.

There was the idea of a national child protection strategy and the concern about, as we saw in the Bernardo case, the re-victimization of certain individuals as a result of permitting the defence an opportunity to see the tapes and having to go through legal gymnastics in order to get the tapes destroyed.

There was also a concern about the retention of information by Internet service providers which I alluded to in my debate last week.

It is pretty hard to argue against a motion in which, as poorly worded as it may or may not be, the intent is correct, that there must be action by this parliament. I said so in a letter to the Prime Minister 45 minutes after the final decision of Justice Shaw.

I was involved with the contemplation of the use of the notwithstanding clause back in 1999-2000 at the first round. I have made a number of interventions on this in a number of different forums. There is a way for parliament to work out the entire issue of child protection in an environment where we can ensure that the maximum degree of protection is afforded our children and yes, not be afraid of using the criminal code to do that.

Before we get to the notwithstanding clause and before we put awkwardly worded questions into law, we must first understand the importance of the issue that the public expects us to address. Very clearly, the artistic merit defence as qualified by the Supreme Court of Canada, as qualified by saying artistic merit however small, should never be used as a sop to ignore the real purposeful risk that exists to children as a result of written information.

Why is that critical? It is critical for one simple reason. The people who look at, purvey and create these images do it so they can suppress the cognitive distortions or use as a distortion but suppress what would otherwise be an affront to most people. It normalizes the degradation, the torture, the raping of children. It allows them an opportunity to fulfill the belief that what they are doing can be vindicated and can be acceptable.

Of course, normal people in society cannot deal with this because the question of the community harm standard was removed. We also know on this issue that short of the community not having a role to play, we were also told that any simple, tiny, minute form of artistic merit would be enough to outdistance and outclass the importance of protecting children.

It is clear to me, and I say so respectfully to the judges, that the Supreme Court of Canada got it wrong. Justice Shaw went even further in a couple of areas alluded to by me and the justice critic for the Bloc Quebecois, as to how there were a number of errors committed in law.

Ultimately, an action plan could contemplate the direction to the B.C. supreme court to at least review and appeal the issue as we did in the case of Marshall and in the case of Askov. We said that the supreme court made a decision and the lower courts got it wrong so we are going to refer it back to the supreme court to give a decision. We could look at that as an option. However, for this parliament not to delve into it and deliberately set itself upon the notion of having to tackle this issue head on, in my view is an abdication of our responsibility regardless of what party or what corner of a province or part of the country we come from.

It is for this reason I have often felt it was important. It was good enough for the premier of Manitoba 24 hours after the decision to ask the federal government to consider protecting the interests of children and not perverts. It was good enough for the province of Alberta and for other others to make the comments. It was good enough for 85% of Canadians to say on the question of written information, they do not believe that the question of expression and the freedom to express it should be boundless.

There is a line that has been crossed here not just on who calls the shots in terms of the laws of this country, but also a determination of the rights of individuals. If we are so willing to give the benefit of the doubt in the most minute form to people to express themselves while completely ignoring the life, liberty and security of the person which are also guaranteed in the charter, then who will speak for the children?

I cannot be more forceful on that point. I do not think there is any relevance in this parliament going forward with other ideas, debates and issues if in the first instance we cannot protect the next generation.

What is some 750,000 images of 10,000 different children, some as young as six months of age in my community in Toronto? That is significant. There are things we cannot correct because they deal with social mores but we can at least take the time to consider options here and now that restore not only the integrity and the confidence the public has in this place and the other place, but also the confidence in the next generation.

It would be helpful if opposition members who proposed the motion would at the very least consider the annoying part that has caused some difficulty over the question of consent. If they could qualify that, as we did in issue number one which was referred to a little earlier, it would be extremely helpful. I think we would find that a lot more members would support the resolution.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given the chance to speak to this motion today. However discussion of things such as child pornography and the age of sexual consent brings no joy to me at all. What I personally bring to the House today is a deep, serious concern about the peril of our children, the peril they are in from sexual predators who would destroy their innocence and in essence their very lives, and the alarming lack of support that the government provides our crime fighters and our courts to deal with sexual exploitation of children.

As far as my constituents are concerned, there is no other issue that gets as much attention as our country's lack of comprehensive child pornography laws and our embarrassingly low age of sexual consent. Petition after petition, letter after letter, the message is clear: things need to change and they need to change now.

Two things are very clear to the vast majority of Canadians. Adults having sex with children, whatever the medium it is documented by or on, has no artistic merit. Fourteen year olds do not have the confidence nor emotional maturity to consent to having sex with people possibly twice or three times their age. Those two things are so self-evident that many are flabbergasted by the lax laws our country has on these issues. If we as a nation of compassionate, intelligent people cannot protect the most vulnerable members of our society, then what are we doing? We need to protect our children or we have indeed failed in the creation and maintenance of a just and safe society.

The message the government sends to Canadians about our children is they have no rights as people, they are property to be used and abused as any adult sees fit and it hopes they make it through life, but as a government, it does not bother ensuring their safety. That is wrong and that needs to be changed.

This is not about the morality of the right or the liberalism of the left. This is vital and intrinsic to a functioning healthy society and crosses over every party line. Children cannot be allowed to be sexually abused and used and be expected to grow up into balanced and well-adjusted adults. It is foolish and irresponsible to assume otherwise and do nothing.

A couple of years ago the member from Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge brought together some crime fighters on Parliament Hill. He did the same thing a week ago. However, two years ago when we got together, Detective Matthews from the OPP pornography unit brought an issue to my attention that needed addressing in the criminal code. I brought forward a private member's bill to amend the criminal code to allow for the forfeiture of equipment used in the production and distribution of child pornography. I am proud to say that it is in Bill C-15A and is part of the bill that will hopefully be law soon.

When the member brought these same people back together last week, I was able to attend. What we heard and saw was truly distressing. We heard from the woefully understaffed police agencies on child pornography, from police officers to lawyers to intelligence officers, and the message was loud and clear: Canada provides very little protection for its most helpless citizens.

The Toronto sex crimes police unit showed the round table about 40 seconds the 400,000 images it seized from one arrest in the city. Some of the children were as young as six months old. They were real children. They were being raped, tied up and tortured. It was the most revolting 40 seconds of my life and it is something I never want to have to see again. However it would have been selfish not to have witnessed, to know exactly what was going on and to try to help. It is my duty as an adult, as a father, as a grandfather and as an elected representative to help change things for the better and to ensure that this filth is not permitted to be produced, traded or possessed within our borders.

The John Robin Sharpe case will forever be linked to child pornography. I suppose that is understandable. What we cannot allow is for him to be lauded as a freedom fighter. He is for organizations, such as NAMBLA, that aggressively advocate sex with children claiming to truly understand that children are sexual creatures. Sharpe's writings are not the documents we should be waving around as examples of freedom of thought and expression.

Last month Sharpe was found guilty of possessing boxes of child pornography. However he was found not guilty for the stories he had written and obtained from other pedophiles. Justice Duncan Shaw's reasoning was that however vile they were they had artistic merit.

The guidelines for granting this exception are foggy at best and the laws concerning this area must be specifically and carefully rewritten so as to allow for things like Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet to be studied in schools but to allow the banning of the diatribes filled with the rape and torture of children and luring stories read to children by pedophiles to normalize sex. One thing pointed out to us by these crime fighters was that these writings and pictures were used to brainwash children so they would eventually think it was a normal action. To say that there is any artistic merit in this type of filth is simply unjustified. In a tactic to recruit and groom, as was mentioned earlier, there is one lever that we must take away from child pornographers and pedophiles.

Since Sharpe's textual child pornography had an introduction, a body and a conclusion, while being somewhat grammatically correct, it was considered to have artistic merit. We have to make amendments to ensure that this does not happen again. One psychiatrist who testified at the trial said it was one of the most violent things he had ever read. Yet someone says there is artistic merit.

People promoting hatred through writings are not permitted to use artistic merit as a defence but child pornographers are. If writings and comics that depict children being stalked, kidnapped, tortured, raped, sodomized, murdered and cannibalized are not hate literature, then what is? If a 14 year old is permitted to consent to being videotaped while having sex with a 40 year old man, how can we as a nation say with a straight face that we care about our youth?

There have been a number of meetings on the Hill with people who fight this vile stuff everyday. They have told us that there needs to be a national task force specifically dedicated to fighting child pornography and the spread of this stuff. They do not have the resources. As was pointed out earlier, there is one case in Toronto that has a whole unit tied up. They have to catalogue every one of the 400,000 images seized in this one case and present them in court. This ties up their entire force. Another 400 cases have been reported but they cannot get to them.

In the cases of drug seizures, a sample is good enough as proof in court. They do not have to bring in the two tonnes of marijuana or whatever. A sample is sufficient. I think simple changes in the law such as that would take a tool away from these people when they came to court to fight these things.

If we want to get into the debate about the technicalities of some laws existing and some not, let us forget about this. This is about parliamentarians, parents and grandparents doing something to protect our children. If we cannot put aside some of these party specific issues and come together as a parliament to do something, then something is drastically wrong.

I want to read some quotes by witnesses that the committee heard a week ago today.

Detective Sergeant Gary Ellis in Toronto stated “Police exist to protect the weak from the strong and right now we cannot do that properly”. I thought that was a little misleading but after thinking about it for awhile, I decided he was right. We have the weak when we speak of our children and they are the most vulnerable people in our society. There is an aspect of that quote and I understand what he was getting at.

Detective Bob Matthews spoke about studies and all of this posturing with no concrete action. He stated “We've educated ourselves stupid on this issue”. I agree with him. We have talked and talked and this issue is still in front of us. Let us bloody well do something to change it.

The Toronto chief of police stated “If we can't protect our children, then we should, as a society, fly the white flag or surrender because all is lost”. I agree with that entirely. If we as parliamentarians cannot do what is right for our children, then we have no business being part of this parliament.

A corporal in Interpol stated “It's an explosion. And these are horrible images. There are kids that have been abused to produce those”. In one instance children were as young as six months old. One person who saw some stuff provided by Interpol said that a baby who still had the umbilical cord attached was being sexually abused. When we think about the degree of heinousness this takes to perpetuate, then we have to do everything in our power to provide protection.

Detective Matthews stated “Canadians produce as much or more child pornography, per capita, as any other developed country”. Our lawmakers are saying this to us and it is up to us to do something to help them.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for today's motion. I think that the motion itself speaks very eloquently to an opportunity to bring all sides of the House together, to avoid the contentious issue of having the effect of dropping section 153, consent and age of trust, down to 16 years of age, which I am sure was not the intent of those who drafted the motion. It is nevertheless a very glaring problem with the motion.

As the hon. member knows, as do you, Mr. Speaker, this issue is not new to me. In fact, we had an opportunity to raise the profile of this issue rather significantly last week, with a number of experts as well as our debate on Bill C-15A. I will not bore the House with the details, but I do have a question for the hon. member.

In terms of the motion being debated here today and given issues and options letters we have sent to various attorneys general across Canada, does the member indeed believe that there may have been an error in law committed by Justice Shaw, upon reflection of the supreme court decision of last January, which might provide grounds for an appeal? If I am not mistaken, we still have two or three days to try to encourage the attorney general in the province of British Columbia to enact that as a means of demonstrating that at least on the court side the fundamental flaws in the Shaw decision with respect to Sharpe are being recognized.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this very important motion, this very important issue with which parliamentarians and Canadians have been seized for a number of years and which has been brought sharply into focus, pardon the pun, by the Sharpe decision which has come down from the British Columbia court. This decision, I think, has caused many Canadians to question loopholes and some of the lax criminal justice response we have when dealing with the issue of child pornography.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for St. John's East. As a very fine member of the Progressive Conservative caucus, he is one who for many years has been advocating a stronger position from government in relation to this serious issue of pornography and its distribution.

The motion is a motion which I take to read as taking these steps “including but not limited to”; I see the motion as a gateway to a more activist and more interventionist approach on the part of government when dealing with this issue. Our Progressive Conservative Party wholeheartedly supports any legislation which will help to address and to eventually eradicate child pornography.

The myriad of problems surrounding this issue, including the hamstrung ability of the police to investigate in many instances, as well as the increased use of technology and the proliferation of this type of disgusting material becoming ever more readily available through the Internet, poses serious challenges for the law enforcement community. Investigation on the part of the government into all aspects of what we should do is very timely and extremely important. In fact, it is so important that I can think of no issue that the Department of Justice could be more actively engaged in at this time.

There are positives and negatives that we must look at when considering this issue of age of consent. We look forward to the government clearly putting on the record its position and what active role it might play in assessing the complications of this controversial issue. In fact, I believe we are going to hear divergent opinions on this issue. One of the perverse elements of the way in which the motion currently is worded is that it actually could have a negative impact on some criminal code sections by lowering the current age of 18 to 16. This is what we have to keep in mind. It is not simply a matter of a paintbrush sweeping across the code and stamping the age of 16 as being the appropriate one. There is a danger here.

With respect to this issue, Bill C-15, passed in 1989, addressed the question of age of consent, replacing the prior unsuitable legislation. That bill prohibited adults from engaging in virtually any kind of sexual contact with boys or girls under the age of 14. That bill also made it illegal for adults in positions of trust or authority to have sexual contact with minors between, and here are the key words, the ages of 14 to 18. Therefore, by simply stamping 16 in its place there is a danger that a very naive, unworldly youth of the age of 17 might fall outside the parameters. We have heard the sad tales of people in positions of trust, those involved in the church, those in the school system, foster parents and sadly even parents, who take advantage of youth who are under the age of 18, not 16. We want to be careful not to narrow further the ability of the prosecution to proceed with charges when positions of trust are involved.

I note with interest that in 1981 the current Prime Minister, then the justice minister, proposed Bill C-53, which would have retained a broader version of the prohibition against sexual activity with a young person between those ages of 14 and 18. That bill was not adopted.

Raising the age of consent to 16 would have to be accompanied by an exemption permitting sexual contact with someone between the ages of 14 and 16 if there are only a few years difference between the actual partners. We are into an area of morality and we are into an area of practicality, one in which we would have to proceed with some caution.

The overall effect of the Sharpe decision by Mr. Justice Shaw has many in society recoiling with dismay that a learned judge would in fact open the door to potential pedophiles and those who take advantage of youth, who denigrate images and engage in writings that have a very corrosive effect on societal norms.

Mr. Speaker, as you would be aware, Mr. Justice Shaw in handing down the Sharpe decision in my view broadened the interpretation of the current exemption or defence of artistic merit. Not only did he acquit Mr. Sharpe on some of the charges dealing with the material and whether he was in fact advocating or counselling illegal sexual activity, there was language in the obiter, that is, language in part of his decision, which in my view can be interpreted as, or one could glean that, it is expanding the artistic merit definition. I will quote from page 40 of the decision:

Any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support the defence.

Justice Sharpe went on to state that the “community standards” considered in determining obscenity do not apply, and further, the creator need only point to objective fact to support the defence and then the crown must disprove it.

There are real problems with that. When one looks at the definition of a story, if you will, that would fall into the category of having some artistic merit, it appears that the base level is that the story have a beginning, a plot and a conclusion. The material, however offensive and disgusting, is somehow to be gleaned as having artistic merit if it meets this very base level. I would suggest that we are mandated, obligated, to respond with legislation to close this legislative loophole.

The Progressive Conservative Party has been supportive in the past of the law enforcement community, victims' groups and child advocates who are constantly tasked and constantly struggling with the lack of resources available to them to undertake this monumental task. As I have said before, what could be a more fundamental issue? We know that the lasting impact on victims of sexual abuse is sometimes a life sentence. Very often the mental anguish, the detrimental effect on the development of young people, is everlasting. It is certainly incumbent upon parliament to take every available opportunity to make for a safer and kinder society.

We have heard from victims as recently as today at the justice committee. There was a very telling comment that I think warrants repeating. It dealt with the need for victims to have more support, a stronger voice, an ability to be heard in a substantive way by the triers of fact, by the individuals who ultimately will decide whether a person will be incarcerated and, after the fact, whether the person will be released. It talks directly to the issue of respect for and dignity of victims, whereas victims very often are unwittingly and irreversibly brought into a cold and foreign forum in which they have no control and of which they have no prior knowledge.

It is clear that there has to be an equitable approach taken by the government. This is why we need a victims' ombudsman's office.

We have a budget specifically set aside for the commissioner of corrections to deal with the concerns, some legitimate, of federal inmates. There is a federal budget allocated to ensure that inmates, some of whom are serving time for absolutely heinous crimes and have victimized numerous citizens, have an office where they can go if their steaks are burned, if they are not getting access to the Movie Channel or they do not have the ability to log on.

Yet victims very often are completely ignored. They have no outlet, no central office in the country, where they can go to find out about important things like parole hearings or information pertaining to response to treatment.

In conclusion, we very much support the motion before us, but I would like to seek unanimous consent, if I may, to move an amendment to the motion. I move:

That, after the words “that the government immediately introduce legislation to”, the substitution be made of the words “eliminate the legal loophole of artistic merit and other measures to enhance the protection of children from pedophiles and child pornographers in light of recent court decisions”.

I anxiously await the positive response to my amendment from members present.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning's debate is very important and addresses a very serious matter.

I believe that the Canadian Alliance member who introduced the motion before us has not taken the right approach when it comes to the debate he wants to initiate. If it is true that his objective is to protect young people, he has gone about it the wrong way by wording the motion as he has.

No one can be opposed to the creation of a committee or to the possibility of improving Canadian legislation in order to increase the protection of our children. I would be among the supporters of such a thing, but this is not what we have before us at this time.

If that is what he had in mind, he has gone about it in the wrong way. We could address the entire issue of television violence and the possibility of providing our children with more information in the schools. We could also look at the possibility of holding sensible and balanced discussions on sexuality and young people.

We could also address poverty, the question of extortion in the schools, and the drug issue. Something very close to sexual exploitation can occur when a young person needs money for drugs or something else. We have to look at what is going on in our schools to realize that we can do something about it.

However, this is not how the hon. member has gone about it. Let us not be taken in. In reading today's motion, we can see that it addresses two specific points which come up periodically with the Alliance and before that with the Reform Party.

The first part deals with the age of consent, that is raising the legal age of consent from 14 years to 16. A private member's bill was introduced by the Reform Party during the 36th parliament, and we heard all the speeches then. It did not get through. I will come back to this in more detail later on.

The second part of the motion is in response to the Sharpe judgment. Incidentally, yesterday I listened to speeches in the debate on Bill C-15 that made the hair on my arms stand on end. Whether one agrees or not with the court's ruling is one thing. However, dragging the name of a judge through the mud, as they did, a judge who rendered a decision in the Supreme Court of British Columbia based on the statutes that exist in Canada, that is quite another story.

Justice Shaw rendered a decision. One might argue that is was not the best decision, but then the law must be changed. His decision was based on the law as it currently exists, based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, obviously, but also based on the criminal code.

There is good reason that we do not yet know if this judgment will be appealed or not. That is because there has been no decision yet. It might be wise to give the authorities, the crown attorneys and the government, a chance to decide whether or not they will appeal, but this has yet to happen. However, I challenge the Canadian Alliance to find where the judge made an error in law in this ruling.

Before dragging the judiciary through the mud, as the Alliance did yesterday, which discredits to some extent the position it is taking, I would like them to do some thinking.

I myself have been doing some thinking on the motion we are debating today. Certainly, if I wanted to play petty politics, like the Alliance is doing, I would applaud the motion and say, “Yes, this is terrible. All of these guys who are taking advantage of our young people and abusing them, and so on, they should be thrown in jail, regardless of the legislation and the age”. However, that would not be responsible. We are hear to act responsibly.

Let us compare the past and the present situation. Is there room for improvement? The age of consent of 14 has been around for quite some time. If we look at the criminal code, and even before the criminal code was adopted in 1892, we see that for women—because women accept a great deal—the age of consent has been set at 14 since 1890.

With the introduction of the criminal code, in 1892, this was included, again to protect women. But even then some distinctions had to be made. There were exceptions, because in those days, people were getting married at a very young age, even under 14. All this to say that if we look at the evolution of the legislation, we realize that, since 1892, there was never a full ban on sexual relationships with young girls over the age of 14.

Earlier, a Canadian Alliance member said “I speak as a father”. It just so happens that I too am a father. I have a 12 year old daughter and a nine year old son. They are much more mature than I was when I was their age. Do we have to go backwards? I do not think so. I believe that someone who is not handicapped, who does not have psychological problems, can give consent by age 14. This is not ideal and I do not wish this to anyone, but I think that, in its current wording, and considering the whole related jurisprudence, the criminal code provides good protection. A balance is struck and this is what we must seek.

To engage in petty politics as they want to is one thing, but they should be a little more logical in the process. The political party that is bringing forward this motion to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 is the same party that is largely responsible for the amendments to the Young Offenders Act to lower the age of criminal responsibility from 16 for 14 for serious offences.

Based on the logic of the Canadian Alliance, a 14 year old who commits a criminal act is fully responsible for his actions and should be tried as an adult. Under the recent legislative changes made, provinces such as Manitoba, Alberta or British Columbia will be allowed to try 14 year olds as adults when they commit certain acts. I can assure the House right now that, in Quebec, we will use a ministerial decree to exclude 14 and 15 year olds from these provisions. This will not be the case in the provinces that are represented by the Canadian Alliance, where right wingers are very influent. They will treat 14 year olds like adults when it comes to criminal offences, but these same young persons would not be old enough to give their consent to sexual relations.

Once again, I urge them to be logical. There is an obvious contradiction here. Just now, I heard them say 10 years old. They even want to lower the age at which the Young Offenders Act would apply to ten. I certainly hope that someone, somewhere, will finally draw the line.

It was largely because of them that the legislation was amended. Fourteen and fifteen year olds will be treated like adult criminals, but the age of consent must be raised to sixteen. This makes absolutely no sense. Even in the criminal code, consent per se is not easily established. There are rules, specific criteria for arguing such consent. It is very complex. Even the supreme court has ruled on this more than once; the criteria are very clear.

Since I am an MP from Quebec, I look at what is being done in Quebec. Under the Quebec civil code, a 14 year old is deemed to be of full age for all acts pertaining to his employment or to the practice of his profession. He is also considered to be old enough to enter into contracts alone to meet his ordinary and usual needs. Under the Quebec civil code, a young person is recognized has having the power of discernment of an adult.

That having been said, at some point, it becomes necessary to amend the legislative provisions if it is felt that they do not reflect what society is prepared to tolerate. In Quebec, as far as the civil code is concerned, 14 year olds may act as adults. They can also be emancipated and take responsibility for some of their actions, although they are not adults. We need to be clear about this. As they mature, they are able to make certain distinctions. Fourteen seems to be a good age as far as the provisions of the criminal code go.

So much for the first part. I have taken the time to speak to this at length because it troubles me. This is not the first time the Canadian Alliance has acted in this way. I would like to see this party be logical in its approach to young people. I too want to protect them, but I also do not want to see their rights endangered.

The second part of the opposition motion consists, as I have said, in opposing the finding in the Sharpe case. As we know, the Sharpe case got to the Supreme Court of Canada, and then was brought back before the courts and retried. Justice Shaw of the British Columbia Supreme Court also brought down a verdict.

The second part opposes all of this. Even in connection with the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment in Sharpe, this set some guidelines and directed the debate properly in a free and democratic society such as ours. I therefore cannot understand the tenacity of the Canadian Alliance on this matter, unless it is for political gain and visibility.

As far as the Sharpe decision is concerned, I shall read a brief excerpt from it:

Accordingly, s. 163.1(4) should be upheld on the basis that the definition of “child pornography” in s. 163.1 should be read as though it contained an exception for: (1) any written material or visual representation created by the accused alone, and held by the accused alone exclusively for his or her own personal use.

Thus, this entire aspect was excluded in a way. Once again, this problem is not going to be solved by lowering the age from 16 to 14. People who have problems are going to continue to have them even if the age of consent in the criminal code is raised to 16 years.

The second part of the judgment reads as follows:

(2) any visual recording, created by or depicting the accused, provided it does not depict unlawful sexual activity and is held by the accused exclusively for private use—

This is understandable. The man in question may be unbalanced. I am not familiar with his specific situation. As far as the legal and criminal aspect is concerned, however, as well as application of the criminal code or the charter of rights and freedoms, at some point guidelines have to be set, as I have said. And we are within them.

If we do what the Canadian Alliance wants us to do—I do not know if they have thought about it—which is to go against the ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada, to try to do in the legislative branch what the courts did not do in the judiciary branch, because they applied the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this means that it would even be prepared to promote the use of the notwithstanding clause.

Did the Canadian Alliance say that it was prepared to use the notwithstanding clause to sort of validate the approach that it is proposing in its motion this morning?

I clearly remember that the Canadian Alliance was opposed to using the notwithstanding clause in the fight against organized crime, even though organized crime is a scourge that may be even more serious. I am not saying that pornography is not important. That is not the point. But in terms of the impact, of the monitoring problems, organized crime remains an even broader issue.

I think the Canadian Alliance is failing, both as regards raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 and blocking the decision in Sharpe. Therefore, going ahead with this motion would not make any sense.

If we look at the decision made by Justice Shaw, we realize that even the evidence adduced by the crown was insufficient to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the writings were advocating or encouraging sexual activity with a person under the age of 18.

Also, let us not forget that the individual was found guilty regarding the pictures, the use of films, etc. There is a whole part to which the criminal code could be applied, and properly so, when the evidence was adduced.

As for the other part, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Shaw even said that he did not have proof beyond any reasonable doubt that this individual, through his book, was advocating or encouraging sexual activity with a person under the age of 18.

Again, the Canadian Alliance is going about this the wrong way if it really wants to solve this problem, because the motion that it is moving would do nothing to solve this aspect, given that the judge had no proof. This is why I am saying that the Alliance had no reason to drag the judge's name through the mud because of this decision, because it was well founded when it comes to the issue of proof. This motion will do nothing to solve the problem.

I shall end my remarks here. Obviously, when it comes to the principle, the Bloc Quebecois will always fight to protect young people more. There is no problem when it comes to this.

We have introduced a number of private bills specifically to protect young people, whether it be from violence on television, drugs, or taxing. We have always been ready to intervene, and especially to improve legislation to protect youth. When the issue is clear, we support it. When it is vague, as is the case with the motion before the House, when it is not clear and says just about anything, that is a different story.

Yesterday, during question period, following a question from a member of the Canadian Alliance, I saw that the Liberals are interpreting it quite differently, very broadly. This proves that we do not even understand the motion in the same way. Based on the speeches made this morning, it is clear where the Canadian Alliance is heading with this, without spelling it out in the motion.

For all of these reasons, we do not support the motion, and I personally will be voting against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP I would like to begin by saying how unsatisfactory this is. We are trying to deal with an issue as difficult as the issue the Alliance motion has put before us in the context of a one day debate on a motion which we either have to vote up or down. This is a difficult situation for the House to be put in, for parties to be put in and for individual members to be put in.

Perhaps it is unavoidable in some ways but it seems to me it was avoidable at one point. We had an opportunity to look at these issues in greater depth than we are now able to at least today, but we passed it up. Again it is partly because of the politics that attends this kind of issue.

People want to do a good job writing laws that deal with the issue of child pornography. Very often they are prevented from doing so by being in the position of either passing bad laws or bad motions because there is a willingness on the part of others in our political universe to charge them with not caring enough about child pornography if they do not hurry and pass the motion or the legislation.

In terms of amendments that came back to us from the Senate on Bill C-15A and in terms of this motion, we are now dealing with a situation that would have been preventable in part if we had been able to take the time to do Bill C-15A properly, or that part of Bill C-15 which was carved out of the original Bill C-15. However, because it dealt with child pornography and a number of other issues, and I am as guilty as anyone else in this, we said, no, let us just pass it and get it through.

Eventually the government buckled to the pressure. Instead of having that bill go through committee and having that part dealing with child pornography being considered properly, there was this sense that anyone responsible for any delay on that was somehow an accomplice of child pornography and therefore the bill had to be rushed through. In some sense now we are dealing with the consequences of not being able to look at that bill as thoroughly as we should have. Today we are debating an opposition day motion and we are basically in a similar position.

We are being asked to vote for something which, depending on one's point of view, one could not quarrel with the principle that the government immediately introduce legislation to protect children from sexual predators. Who could be against that? Yet the motion goes on to include thus, thus and thus. It is not well worded in some respects and does not really reflect some of the concerns people genuinely have, in that if we are to implement some of the measures that are included in the “including” part of the motion, there are things that need to be taken into account that are not.

If we were to go back far enough we could fault the government for not bringing in a piece of legislation having to do with child pornography alone. Then we could just deal with that. Instead original Bill C-15 before it was split into Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B, had child pornography and various other amendments to the criminal code having to do with police officers, et cetera. There were a whole bunch of things. Some were quite simple and one could just be for them and pass them. Others, as we have come to know more probably than we would like to through various court decisions, were complicated, such as this child pornography issue.

If the government had introduced that part of Bill C-15 which dealt with child pornography alone and allowed the committee to do a proper job, and if opposition parties had not taken the view that it had to be rushed through, there might have been a better job done. Then we would not be in the position we are in today.

We are of two minds, frankly. One is whether to vote for the general intent of the motion, which is to say that the government should introduce legislation to protect children from sexual predators. But we realize that the House really is not of one mind as to what that legislation might look like. It is a political dilemma in some respects because it goes beyond the principle in the motion to talk about, for instance, raising the legal age of consent to at least 16 years.

I know that members of the Alliance have said it is not their intention in any way to criminalize sexual relations between teenagers. I am glad to hear that, but the motion does not say that. In fact some would argue that the age of consent is 14 years in one respect but 18 years in another respect. What is it that is intended by the legal age of consent being raised to 16 years? What is the intent with respect to the 18 year old threshold that we also find in the law?

Having said that, I myself as the NDP justice critic asked the then minister of justice, now the Minister of Health, when she was before the committee I believe on Bill C-15 whether or not the government was intending to act with respect to the legal age of consent. I do not want to speak for other governments but I believe provincial ministers of justice have raised this with the federal ministry of justice. There is a feeling that something needs to be done about the age of consent. I am not unsupportive of that as the NDP justice critic. However it is a matter of some detail as to how one goes about doing that in the criminal code and the motion does not reflect that.

With respect to the child pornography aspect of the bill, many people are concerned. The member for Palliser stated it well on our behalf yesterday when he read letters from his constituents. People are concerned about the so-called Sharpe decision and the fact that artistic merit was used as a defence against charges of possessing what I believe were stories, which by anyone's judgment except perhaps Mr. Sharpe's and a few others, are offensive. If one takes a certain point of view with respect to child pornography stories, they may well actually contribute to sexual crimes by virtue of their existence and the relationship between their existence and the effect of their existence on the person who has them in their possession.

What we need to debate in the House is the appropriateness of the artistic merit defence when it comes to child pornography. I would bet there would be divisions between individuals within parties on this issue as it is not a question of one party versus another necessarily. There is nothing written in the evidence so to speak which says that child pornography should have this particular defence available to it, even in the very limited form that the supreme court has made it available.

For instance, we do not permit artistic merit to be a defence when it comes to hate. We have carved that out and said that artistic merit does not cut it as a defence when it comes to hate literature. We should look seriously at whether or not we should have a similar, but obviously not identical, carve out, when it comes to child pornography. Just what that would look like would be a matter of some deliberation.

As I have said in the past, the artistic merit defence is something that should be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The member for Palliser said that yesterday on our behalf in the debate on the amendments to Bill C-15A. We need to look at these decisions. We need to hear from people who are making very strong arguments that this is not a defence that should be available.

Of course, we need to hear from people who say that eliminating this defence would in some way or another endanger freedom of expression in other areas of expression. I would hope that even those who are strongly supportive of the artistic merit defence are not doing it on the basis of their attachment to or out of any defence of child pornography. They are doing it presumably because they are concerned about the effect that rejecting such a defence might have in other areas. It seems to me that is the moot point of the issue before us.

I say once again how much I regret that as a House we are not able to deal with this in a satisfactory manner in terms of process. We get rushed when we should not be rushed. Parliament has been rushed a number of times in my experience. A couple of times, certainly in retrospect, people have judged that we have passed bad law or law that would not stand up in the courts, et cetera. Although this is not a piece of legislation, we should consider whether or not we are doing the same thing again today.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the hon. secretary of state for children and youth. It is a big issue.

I remind all members that our motion is not a statement of law. It is not an omnibus bill. It suggests there are a number of other issues the government needs to look at besides those addressed in Bill C-15A. As the hon. secretary of state mentioned, the law already says one cannot exploit a person under the age of 18 for sexual purposes. Now the government is writing a law in Bill C-15A that says one cannot lure a person under the age of 18 for the purpose of sex.

I have two questions for the hon. minister. First, does she believe a 40 year old man living in the United States could communicate with a 14 year old girl in Canada, come to Canada, invite the 14 year old girl to his hotel room, have sex and not be exploitative or have lured?

Second, does the minister believe pornographic material such as that in the case of John Robin Sharpe would be kept private and used only by the creator? Does the minister believe that nonsense?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises questions that obviously make us reflect on where we are in our society and how we try to cope with the problems that society generates through its advances.

When we look at the issues of artistic merit, we also have to look at the areas of trying to balance the freedoms that are set out within our charter of rights and freedoms with the interests of society. One of the interests of society of course is to figure out ways to protect our children. It is very important that we continue to work with and develop ways and means of protecting our children over the course of time as the situation changes.

There is no question that the government believes that we are making advances in the area of child pornography and that we are diminishing its ability to flourish within this country. Through the transnational nature of the entities that are created, we are concerned that if we do not get Bill C-15A passed with the section dealing with Internet luring and the international transport and export of pornography we will fall behind.

We have been a leader and we wish to continue to be a leader in fighting pornography. I wish to encourage members of the opposition to make certain that they support Bill C-15A so that we can minimize any future transactions that may occur in the international scene of the Internet. We must take those steps now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Secretary of State for Children and Youth.

I am pleased to participate in this important debate. I welcome the opportunity to have this discussion to confirm the government's commitment to taking the necessary measures to safeguard our children. The government remains committed to strengthening the criminal law's protection of children from sexual exploitation and all forms of victimization.

Canadians agree that child pornography is one of the most horrible forms of child sexual exploitation. Parliament has ensured that Canada's laws against child pornography are among the toughest in the world. Our law is very clear in prohibiting the creation of child pornography. The criminal code prohibits the making, printing, publishing or possessing for the purpose of publication any child pornography. Our laws strike at the heart of the trade in child pornography. The criminal code prohibits the importing, distributing, selling or possessing for the purpose of distribution any child pornography.

Let us be clear: our criminal code prohibits the possession of child pornography. The supreme court upheld criminalizing possession. One of the reasons parliament criminalized is that we must reduce the market for child pornography and consequently reduce the abuse of children that child pornography often entails.

Our law defines child pornography quite broadly. It is defined as a photographic, film, video or other visual representation that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of 18 years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity. It does not matter whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means. Child pornography can be a photograph, a movie or a computer file. Our law ensures that it is all illegal.

Our law is not restricted to defining child pornography as depicting explicit sexual activity, as is proposed in the motion before us today. The law prohibits any visual representation, the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction for a sexual purpose of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of 18 years. In addition, the criminal code states that child pornography includes any written or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years. That would be an offence under the criminal code.

Our laws against child pornography are among the toughest in the world. The government is committed to being vigilant, both domestically and internationally. The nature of the computer networks and the child pornography rings through which this illicit material is traded crosses borders and requires international co-operation.

The G-8, for example, has consistently acknowledged the economic and social benefits arising from new technologies, but has also recognized that it must combat the use of such technologies for criminal purposes. Canada, along with its G-8 partners, has been active in countering the sexual exploitation of children on the Internet. Perhaps the most far-reaching international legislative initiative in this regard is the Council of Europe's cybercrime convention, which Canada signed in November 2001. The convention has now been signed by 33 countries, including all the members of the G-8 except Russia.

The cybercrime convention, which targets a broad range of computer related crime, addresses child pornography specifically in connection with computer systems and contains provisions to criminalize various aspects of the electronic production, possession and distribution of child pornography. The convention harmonizes laws to help shut down the international production and exchange of child pornography. We have not yet ratified the convention, but we can be proud that our existing law is already consistent with the child pornography provisions in the Council of Europe's cybercrime convention.

Our laws against child pornography are tough and have been upheld by the highest court in the land. The offence of possessing child pornography was challenged last year as being contrary to the freedom of expression and security of a person guaranteed by the charter.

On January 26 last year the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the prohibition of the possession of child pornography. However the court decided that the guarantees protected by our constitution required the recognition of two exceptions where the prohibition's intrusion into free expression and privacy was most pronounced and its benefits most attenuated.

The first exception of excluded material consists of written materials or visual representations made and possessed by the accused for personal use. This exception refers to so-called works of imagination. We must keep in mind two things. First, there are no children involved in the production of these works. Second, although such works of the imagination can be possessed, they cannot be distributed, given away or traded in any manner.

The second exception consists of any visual recording made by the accused or in which the accused is shown provided that: the sexual activity is not unlawful; all parties consent to the making of the representation; and the representation is made exclusively for the person who made it or the person shown in it.

We must understand what this means as well. A person cannot have lawful sexual activity with children, so a person cannot create and possess images depicting such behaviour. The supreme court further stipulated that with respect to the narrow range of lawful sexual activity between 14 and 17 years of age, the individuals involved must consent to the visual recording and the resulting representations are excluded for their use. Although the individuals involved can possess the representations, they cannot give them away, trade them or distribute them.

The highest court in the land found a balance that was consistent with our charter of rights and freedoms. The supreme court upheld the law that parliament enacted. It is possible to amend the law but any changes have to be very carefully crafted to ensure that we prevent harm to children and also retain the constitutional protections that ensure we are free and democratic society.

The government has proposed amendments in Bill C-15A that succeed on both these fronts. Protecting children is a priority in Canada. We continue to fine tune our law to counter the new ways criminals exploit communications technologies to facilitate pedophile activities.

Bill C-15A will amend the criminal code to prohibit transmitting, making available, exporting and accessing child pornography. It will also prohibit possessing child pornography for the purpose of transmission, making available or exportation. These provisions will be particularly helpful in combating child pornography on computer systems, whether it is transmitted by e-mail or accessed through the Internet.

The passage of Bill C-15A should not be delayed any further. A commitment was made to speed the passage of these provisions when Bill C-15 was split. It is now time to honour that commitment. Bill C-15A will provide new ways to strangle the trade in child pornography. It will make our law better so that parliament can fulfill its commitment to protect children.

Clearly this government is dedicated to protecting children. We will take and make every effort to find the ways and means to deal with those who would take electronic technologies and attempt to advance them in a way that is inconsistent with our belief in the way our children should be protected.

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

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

Madam Speaker, a number of statements have been made by hon. members during the last week of debate. I am pleased to have an opportunity to come forward today and give clarification to the issues.

First, I will talk about the status of animals as property. One of the members indicated that animals are treated as property under the criminal code. The hon. member said moving the cruelty provisions out of the property section of the criminal code would confer elevated status or even rights on animals.

As a matter of constitutional law the provinces rather than the federal government are responsible for property and civil rights. There is nothing in Bill C-15B which would in any way affect legislation or common law rules regarding property, many of which have been developed by the provinces.

The ability of humans to own animals is well entrenched in our common law. There is nothing in Bill C-15B which would change the property status of animals. Moving the provisions from one part of the code and putting them in another would not change the status of animals. It is completely misleading to suggest the status of animals would be elevated.

It is extremely important to emphasize that the law states that society has an interest in protecting all animals, whether owned or not, from the infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering, injury or criminal neglect. This is not new. It has been in the criminal code since 1953. Cruelty provisions in one form or another have been in the code since 1892.

The important changes in Bill C-15B regarding animal cruelty are twofold. They would increase penalties. They would also reorganize the provisions to allow for both the mental and physical aspects of offences regarding intentional cruelty and criminal neglect.

Second, I will discuss the notion that Bill C-15B would hamper pest control and industry in general. There has been a great deal of discussion in the House today about this. It has been said that Bill C-15B would prevent farmers from poisoning or killing pests. The tests for liability under Bill C-15B would not be changed even though the provisions would be reorganized and updated. The provisions with regard to killing or poisoning animals without lawful excuse would remain. Lawful excuse would be retained because the killing of animals for food, pest control and so forth has long been recognized by common law and continues to be recognized by case law, statute, regulations, codes of conduct and so forth.

It is equally inaccurate to state that farmers would not be able to kill injured animals to end their suffering. The tests for liability under Bill C-15B would not be changed. Bill C-15B would not make illegal any practice which currently meets the requirements of the law against unnecessary pain, suffering or criminal neglect.

Third, I will talk about the test for negligence. One member has stated that under Bill C-15B the test would be for civil negligence. This is not true. Subclause 182.3(2) specifically defines negligence as a standard of criminal negligence. It says the behaviour of the accused must constitute a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in similar circumstances. The Supreme Court of Canada has expressly stated that in any situation where the possibility of imprisonment exists a standard of criminal as opposed to civil negligence is a constitutional requirement.

Fourth, I will talk about people's alleged vulnerability to vexatious prosecutions. A number of members have complained that Bill C-15B would make industry more vulnerable to vexatious prosecutions by animal rights activists. At the same time they have complained that the proposed screening mechanism of Bill C-15A would expose those accused to the costs of hiring a lawyer.

We cannot have it both ways. The criminal code currently has a number of safety mechanisms which allow the prosecutor to intervene and if necessary, stay a prosecution which is commenced by a person other than a peace officer or a public officer.

Bill C-15A extends this protection to a much earlier stage in the process to a point in time before the potential accused is even charged. The process is not a preliminary hearing. It is a screening process where a judge or a designated justice must be satisfied that there is sufficient reason to proceed before the accused is even required to attend court.

This process forces the prosecutor to assess the strength of the case at the first opportunity and to recommend to the judge or justice that the matter proceed if and only if there is sufficient reason to do so. One important consideration that the prosecutor will consider in making his or her recommendation to the court is whether or not it is in the public interest to proceed, a very important point.

Next I would like to deal with the argument that has been brought forward concerning section 429 and its absence. The argument that the reason subsection 429(2) defences have not been argued in cruelty cases is that their very existence precludes the crown from prosecuting.

The Canadian Criminal Lawyers Association in its testimony before the committee confirmed that removing the cruelty provision from part XI of the criminal code would not diminish any defences available to accused persons. All defences in subsection 429(2) which could possibly be relevant to animal cruelty cases and available under subsection 429(2) are equally available under subsection 8(3) of the criminal code.

It is simply wrong to indicate that the existence of defences acts as a bar to prosecution . Case law has clearly confirmed that there is no onus on the crown to disprove all relevant defences as part of its case. Once the crown has proven all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused bears an evidentiary burden to raise a doubt about one of the elements of the offence. If the accused does so, then the crown must disprove the defence beyond a reasonable doubt. That is very important.

The last issue I would like to deal with is the definition of animal. 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 its everyday meaning, resulting in an interpretation broad enough to include most, if not all, members of the animal kingdom and certainly including many invertebrates. A definition is included in this legislation for the sake of clarity.

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 the protection of the law. But some invertebrates have a developed nervous system and therefore also may 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 creates a mechanism that allows the crown to proceed in appropriate cases. The burden of proof which must be met by the crown is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are three jurisdictions in Canada which have a definition of animal in their respective statutes which is broader than the definition found in Bill C-15B. To date there is no indication that the definition of animal used in these jurisdictions has resulted in inappropriate use of the legislation.

I am very pleased to have had this opportunity to correct some of the information that has been brought forward during the debate.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I intend to make a few brief remarks regarding the subamendment put forward by the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake that says that the committee should report back to the House not later than June 21.

Bill C-15B has passed committee. The New Democratic Party caucus voted in favour of the legislation. We were supportive of government measures to modify sections of the criminal code dealing with cruelty to animals and sections of the Firearms Act making administration of the act and the gun registry system more responsive and easier to access.

Bill C-15B's cruelty to animals provisions would remove offences dealing with animal cruelty from the property crimes section of the criminal code and create a separate section. This is a conceptual shift our caucus has supported throughout the process. Rather than treating crimes against animals as crimes against property the bill would give animals their own status as creatures that can and do feel pain.

Concerns about the potential impact of Bill C-15B on rural and northern constituents were largely put to rest in going through the legislation. Amendments introduced by the former justice minister and supported by the NDP caucus addressed the concerns of farmers, fishers, hunters and trappers about being subject to frivolous prosecution or harassment. Under Bill C-15B they would have available to them many of the defences they possess under the existing code.

A number of animal welfare groups are concerned about the wording dealing with abandonment of animals. The government's recent amendments included the words wilful and reckless. According to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals this would make abandonment charges difficult to prosecute.

Bill C-15B would impact neither normal industry practices nor the legitimate use of animal products in society. Under the bill police forces and societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals would be able to prosecute animal cruelty offences in a stronger fashion.

The gun control and registration portion of the bill deals with modifications to the Canadian gun registration system. The changes were introduced to make the system more accessible and responsive to the demands of users. There was significant opposition from various gun lobby groups on the grounds that there should be no gun registration system at all. However the User Group on Firearms, a consultative body of gun users formed by the government, seemed satisfied with the modifications and the improvements they would make to the system. On the other side, the Coalition for Gun Control did not oppose the amendments.

When the agriculture committee was in New Brunswick last month we had the opportunity to tour the gun registration centre in Miramichi. We were all very pleased to see the image of the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake come up on the screen. We were pleased his application had been accepted and his permit had been mailed to him the day before. I am sure he is proudly showing it to all his friends in Selkirk--Interlake.

I will close by referring to a sad and disturbing matter adjudicated last week in a Toronto courtroom. Two young men drew what seemed like, as the Globe and Mail editorial reported, “extraordinarily light sentences for killing and mutilating a cat and videotaping the spectacle in the name of 'art'”. Animal activists were outraged that one culprit received a 90-day jail term to be served on weekends and the other walked free in lieu of time already served. It was felt the sentencing judge could have been tougher. The two people convicted knew exactly what they were doing when they stole a healthy pet cat and inflicted unspeakable suffering by skinning it alive, dissecting it and gouging out one of its eyes.

Equally evident in court was that the two were in no way inhibited by the law as it currently stands. The law as it currently stands dates back 110 years. The maximum penalty for animal cruelty under the 110 year old act is six months.

Today's Globe and Mail editorial states:

Bill C-15B, which has received second reading by the House of Commons, would raise that maximum to five years. The new legislation would also permit a lifetime ban on pet ownership and increase the ceiling on fines to $10,000.

These useful changes, long overdue, reflect a sea change in public attitudes toward animals over the past century. As well, there is ample evidence that cruelty to animals is not only commonplace but also a threshold to other, more serious aberrant behaviour.

But you would not know that from the resistance the bill has generated among some Canadian Alliance and Tory MPs. For them, the new legislation is a sinister assault on the rights of farmers, ranchers, hunters and other law-abiding folk who work with animals.

Wrong. Under the changes, animal cruelty will have its own section in the Criminal Code. And in case those critics have forgotten, for a crime to occur there has to be intent.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide the Bloc Quebecois' position as regards the amendment to the amendment.

We believe that it is high time to take action on the matter of cruelty to animals, but this does not mean that we should act in haste.

It is true that cruelty to animals is a serious problem that deserves our attention. We are on the record as saying that these are horrible acts of violence committed wilfully, while animals cannot defend themselves, nor assert their rights.

The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-15B for two main reasons: because of the lack of protection for legitimate activities with animals, and also because it takes important powers away from the chief firearms officer.

That being said, we do support the amendment to the amendment to establish a deadline for an indepth study into the provisions of Bill C-15B regarding means of defence. While we support the notion of a new section that would introduce an innovative concept by changing the notion of animals as property, we are opposed to the significant and negative impact this could have for all those who work legitimately as breeders, hunters and researchers.

The amendment is an important one, but it should not be made to the detriment of others. It is true that we no longer view animals in the same way that we used to. However, I would not want this innovation to change the lives of those who have worked for years in the livestock, scientific research or sport sectors.

So the amendment to the amendment sets a deadline by which the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights must report to the House further to its detailed consideration of clause 8 of Bill C-15B.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the amendment to the amendment because it means that there is a reasonable possibility that clause 8 of Bill C-15B will be reviewed in a careful and detailed manner. This clause defines the benchmarks for the protection of legitimate activities in the animal industry.

Bill C-15B raises strong controversy. One of the areas of controversy is the flagrant lack of protection for these legitimate activities in the animal industry. As we have already said, we cannot support Bill C-15B as now worded.

The specific defences provided for in section 429 of the criminal code, which now explicitly protect those who raise livestock, hunters, the animal industry and researchers, are not included in new part V.1 of the criminal code.

The primary purpose of this bill should have been to increase penalties for any reprehensible and violent activity. Furthermore, the term “cruelty” is clear to this effect. The penalty for a cruel offence should be serious enough to deter anyone contemplating it. But this is not the case with Bill C-15B, because it lumps all violent actions together, whether or not cruelty is involved. This is unacceptable.

In committee, we were told that it was not the government's intention to deny the legitimate activities of livestock raising, hunting and research the protection to which they are entitled. But protection is expressly provided for in section 429 of the criminal code, whereas it is not in clause 8 of the bill.

I therefore wonder why these protections in section 429 of the criminal code are not included in new part V.1 of the criminal code. It is simply not logical.

On numerous occasions in committee, we put forward many amendments to this effect. They were all rejected. It is therefore time to go back and take a specific look at the defences provided for, which should be provided for in clause 8.

We could ask ourselves what is really motivating the government right now. Why not include provisions which have been around for a long time?

The Bloc Quebecois has introduced amendments to that effect, but they have all been rejected, as I have said. In our opinion, it is essential to protect animals, and this is a matter of some urgency. It is, however, important to take steps that are both appropriate and prudent if all stakeholders are to be satisfied. This is both possible and attainable.

As I have said, we favour the creation of a new part in the criminal code, to address the protection of animals. It would give them a new definition and a new legal value. We cannot, however, accept this being done without respecting the currently applicable mechanisms of protection, the means of defence listed in section 429.

To do so is tantamount to disrespecting the men and women who have been working in this field for many years. Not including a defence that is currently available is cause for concern.

Does this mean we can no longer count on our legislation? Does this mean that normal activities will soon become illegal? From what we can see, this will indeed be the case.

I wonder about the vision the government has chosen. If this means that our legitimate activities are going to be in a precarious position in future, I am concerned. I am both concerned and disappointed. It seems to me that today we possess all the tools necessary to create an approach that would punish true offenders while protecting farmers, hunters and researchers. From what I see, this approach is far from being as complete and all-encompassing as it could be.

I have already said, and I repeat, the fact that the defences found in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code are not included in the new part V.1 will have the effect of depriving those who legally kill or cause pain to animals of the protection they are currently afforded.

Section 429 of the criminal code sets out that legal justification or excuse and colour of right constitute specific protection to whomever takes part in a legitimate and legal activity. I believe that it is important to include these specific safeguards in part V.1 of the criminal code.

According to the former Minister of Justice, subsection 8(3) of the criminal code will be applied. This type of statement demonstrates incomplete and clearly inadequate intentions. According to officials from the Department of Justice, defences of legal justification or excuse are implied in section 8. This defies logic. It is impossible to shift from specific and explicit provisions to an implicit application without any problems.

For this reason, the Bloc Quebecois insists that these specific defences, currently set out in the criminal code, absolutely must be repeated in the new part V.1 of the criminal code. Furthermore, we believe that sending this aspect of the bill back for study in committee is a good sign.

This review is long overdue. So why rush ahead without thinking now. All the ins and outs of the new provisions must be examined in order to ensure that the scope of Bill C-15B is logical. Care must also be taken to ensure that Bill C-15B really meets the needs of all parties.

We are therefore in favour of increased protection for animals, as well as the explicit inclusion of protection for legitimate animal industry, sport and research activities.

It is obvious to us that Bill C-15B, as now worded, will cause serious difficulties for hunters, medical and scientific researchers, and the entire animal industry. There must therefore be a completely democratic approach in committee, so that all aspects of cruelty to animals can be taken into consideration.

The facts associated with this phenomenon of intolerable violence should be re-evaluated. We must ensure that there can be no possible conflicting interpretations of the new provisions.

This is what is required of us in our role as parliamentarians. Asking the committee to report before the summer shows that we are being diligent as parliamentarians, because we feel that this scourge requires our serious and urgent attention.

I call on the government, on the Minister of Justice, and on his parliamentary secretary, to have a look at this motion and approve it so that we give serious consideration to the defences which I feel should be explicitly included, which take nothing away from the bill and which will protect all stakeholders in the animal industry.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess the Liberals get so many fairy tales at caucus it is a little tough to listen to them here.

As I was saying, the fire consumed 50 of the backbenchers and sent the rest scurrying back into the castle. When King Jean was told of the terrible tragedy he resolved to investigate it himself. To help he took along two of his most trusted knights: Lady Marlene, the keeper of the royal whip; and Lord Goodriavere who had just risen to high rank through faithful service to King Jean.

As they surveyed the scene of the tragedy and saw 50 fried backbenchers they observed three things. First, they said it was too bad. Second, they saw the dragon lying dead from overexertion. Third, they noticed the dragon's fire had ignited a seam of coal in the cave from which smoke continued to billow.

Lady Marlene who is a straightforward woman said the obvious: “The dragon is dead. This is good news. Let us go and tell it to the backbenchers”. However Lord Goodriavere said not so fast. Turning to King Jean he said “I see an opportunity here to maintain and increase our control over the peasants. Let us imply, indirectly of course, that the fiery dragon still lives. We can point to the smoke belching from the cave as evidence of this. Let us tell the backbenchers that henceforth they can only go out of the castle with royal permission and under the supervision of myself and Lady Marlene, for the safety and protection of themselves and the castle of course”.

King Jean thought this was a splendid idea. Thus the myth of the fiery dragon was established to coerce and control the backbenchers of the kingdom.

Like the dragon in the story, it is a myth that a government must resign if a government bill or motion is defeated or if an opposition motion or amendment is passed. The myth is used to coerce government members, especially backbenchers, to vote for government bills and motions with which they and their constituents disagree and vote against opposition motions and amendments with which they substantially agree.

We saw this when Liberal members were forced to vote down compensation for hepatitis C victims. We saw it when they were forced to vote down their own policy to scrap the GST. We saw it when they appointed an ethics counsellor who reports directly to parliament. We saw it last Wednesday when the Liberals forced the withdrawal of a private member's bill instead of giving the House an opportunity to vote on it.

In determining the guilt of the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca it is important to compare his actions to other inappropriate acts. In other words, does his behaviour live up to the standards we have established and does he deserve the punishment mentioned in the government's motion?

Let us look back at the election that first brought the government to power. No motion was tabled criticizing the members who told the public they would scrap the GST and then decided to keep it. No one on that side of the House tabled a motion to admonish the Prime Minister for flip-flopping on free trade. Nothing was done about the broken promise to restore faith in good government.

That is why today in the papers we see a poll that says 71% of Canadians think government is corrupt. Ministers caught in a jam about the truth refused to resign and were never pressured by the Prime Minister to do so. How about ministers or so-called leadership candidates accepting payments from undisclosed interests to finance their undeclared leadership races? How about my favourite issue: closure and time allocation? It has been implemented 75 times. That is a higher number than under any other government in the history of this great nation. It leads to frustration.

Mr. Speaker, you had strong words to describe the abuse of time allocation and closure when you were in opposition. On February 19, 1993 you said:

What we have here is an absolute scandal in terms of the government's unwillingness to listen to the representatives of the people in the House. Never before have we had a government so reluctant to engage in public discussion on the bills brought before this House...I suggest that the government's approach to legislating is frankly a disgrace. It cuts back the time the House is available to sit and then it applies closure to cut off the debate.

If I did not know it I would have thought the Chair was talking about the present government. He would have to work a lot harder because the list of the present government is long compared to the Tory government of the past.

Mr. Speaker, I have one more quote from you. It is a good example of how closure frustrated even a patient man such as yourself. On April 23, 1993 you said of the use of closure:

I suggest this is not the way to run Parliament. This is an abuse of the process of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you. When a government abuses the process as it did with the private member's bill for the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca it results in frustration. It is no way to run a parliament.

I will go over a couple more examples. As hon. members will recall, there was to be an independent judicial inquiry into the Somalia affair. The minister of defence shut it down. Then the Prime Minister decided it would be best if he did not testify before the APEC inquiry. There was also a certain phone call to the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada. I am sure the Chair would agree these actions are better suited for a motion of contempt than the actions of the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

My party has raised many questions of privilege of the House on important matters that attacked the authority and dignity of the House but no action was taken. Not one Liberal stood to support this institution. I will cite a few examples.

Do hon. members remember when the Minister for International Trade sent out a press release on March 30, 1998 entitled “Marchi Meets with Chinese Leaders in Beijing and Announces Canada-China Interparliamentary Group?” At the time there was no Canada-China interparliamentary group. The minister gave the impression the association existed when parliament had not approved it. That is a fine example of the respect the Liberal government gives to parliament.

Let us not forget the naming of the head of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation by the government before there was legislation to set up the foundation. Did the government think this dismissive view of the legislative process was an affront to parliament? No, it defended its actions.

I could supply the House with many more examples. However I will now turn to cases that involved the conduct of hon. members and cases found to be prima facie. In this parliament alone we have had three questions of privilege involving ministers. The Chair found all three to be prima facie. As a result they were referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Let us examine the three cases. First, the present Minister of Health when she was minister of justice leaked the contents of Bill C-15 to the media before it was tabled in the House. She was found to be in contempt by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs but the committee declined to recommend a punishment. It instead gave her a warning. The committee suggested if it ever happened again it would not be so generous. Let us compare this to the current case. They are both affronts to parliament but the Liberal minister received no punishment. She was told not to do it again. She received a mere slap on the wrist.

Second, the same minister was up on the same charge for leaking the contents of Bill C-36. The committee concluded she could not be responsible because it could not find the guilty party who leaked the bill. That is so much for ministerial responsibility. The minister got away twice without punishment.

Third, the minister of defence made misleading statements in the House. This is normally considered a grave matter. What was the outcome of the question of privilege? The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs essentially whitewashed the whole affair. The minister got off without having to receive any punishment whatsoever.

Let us go back to the 35th parliament. We had a case where a Bloc member, Mr. Jacob, wrote a letter to Quebecers in the military suggesting they defect and join a separate Quebec army in the event the referendum result turned out to be a yes. Do hon. members remember that? A Reform member, Mr. Hart, rose in the House and charged Mr. Jacob with sedition. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs considered the matter. The Liberal majority, afraid to upset anyone in a post-referendum atmosphere, concluded that contempt had not occurred and no punishment was deserved.

Let us imagine that. In the U.S. the member would have been sent to prison and put on death row. In Canada we get more upset over someone grabbing the Mace. At least the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca has apologized. Mr. Jacob never apologized to the House for his conduct.

Let us look an identical case which occurred in the 34th parliament. In a similar moment of frustration Ian Waddell grabbed the Mace as the Sergeant-at-Arms was carrying it out of the House. The next day the government House leader moved a motion requiring Mr. Waddell to appear before the bar of the House to be admonished by the Chair. If that was the punishment for touching the Mace in the 34th parliament why is the government House leader in this parliament recommending a more severe punishment?

Criminal Code

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to speak on the subamendment brought forward by the member for Selkirk--Interlake and seconded by the member for Medicine Hat. I think the amendment is realistic. It is a good amendment. There are substantial issues that need to be discussed in the course of bringing this back to the committee, but I think in fairness there needs to be some time limit on this issue.

Every day new issues arise in respect of the bill which warrant the committee looking at this offence. One of the matters that was just raised with me, and I think it is a very significant issue, is the issue of rights of private citizens in respect of initiating prosecutions. As we know, through Bill C-15A there will be a new system. This new system will set up a screening mechanism before a judge. A judge will determine whether the offence in fact should be brought forward to the court.

It has been said by members opposite that the whole nature of the hearing that takes place is that it will be just a summary hearing. It will be a complainant going before a judge to show the evidence. As members know, that kind of arrangement would violate not only our charter of rights but even our basic rules governing natural and fundamental justice. We cannot go into a hearing and say to a judge that we believe there is sufficient evidence in order for this matter to go to hearing. It is the same way that a preliminary hearing used to take place or still does. An information is sworn. The matter is brought before a judge. A judge, on hearing from both the prosecutor and the defence, if the defence wants to submit evidence although there is no requirement for it to do so, will make that determination.

What we have now is a brand new preliminary hearing process that will complicate this proceeding. Those who say that this proceeding will now act as an effective screen to prevent people from having to go to court do not understand the nature of this process, nor do they understand the determination of radical animal rights groups to prosecute individuals.

We must remember, with all respect, that these groups do not have to worry about whether or not there is a conviction. A farmer in my riding, a hunter and a fisherman and others involved in these businesses are under a lot of stress. I think is simply unfair for them to have to face a criminal prosecution.

The other interesting point that now has been drawn to my attention is that we want to make sure that criminal cruelty is treated very severely in respect of animals. I think everyone agrees with that. The Canadian Alliance does not, nor do any of the other opposition parties, I believe, have an objection to the increase in penalties. What we saw the other day in Toronto was quite a surprising decision. I do not know if anyone has had an opportunity to review that decision, but we had a judge commenting on the skinning and otherwise mutilating of a cat over a period of time. He indicated that this was not the worst way in which a cat could die. I am just wondering if that judge could tell the House, in further written reasons perhaps, what he thinks is the worst way a cat could die. I think this shows part of the problem. The problem is not that we do not want stiffer penalties for genuine acts of cruelty, but that the courts today are not imposing the sentences that are already available. In this case the court could have imposed a sentence of two and a half years. Essentially it was time served, and I believe it was house arrest.

What we are going through here is an exercise in futility if the courts themselves do not recognize the seriousness of this offence. If the government wants to get serious about penalties and genuine cruelty penalties, it must put in minimum sentences. However, all that is happening here is that this is just a political statement designed to placate the animal rights organizations, to say, look, we are increasing the penalties, we are taking this more seriously. Everyone involved in the courts knows that is simply a fiction. It will not happen. We have seen it in the case of impaired driving. We have seen it over and over again. Unless there are minimum sentences imposed, the courts do not respond to increases in penalties. It is as simple as that.

The more troubling thing, even more troubling than this decision that came out of Toronto from the judge who felt that being skinned was not the worst way for a cat to die, is what happens now when we create not just a summary conviction offence but a hybrid offence. Is this in fact an indictable offence, then, such that now a private citizen perhaps can arrest a person for walking a dog wearing a choke collar? Can the private citizen saying that this looks like cruel and unusual punishment for the dog, that there is no legal justification for using a choke collar? If the person is placed under arrest, what are the consequences?

I see that my time has almost expired. I will leave it at that for now.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret and trepidation that I rise to speak to Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation. I am sure all members agree that this legislation is seriously needed.

It has been 100 years since the legislation was updated. It is an issue of great importance to the country and an issue that needs to be dealt with by the Parliament of Canada. As I said, I rise with some regret and trepidation because as a member of parliament, a farmer and hunter, I cannot support the legislation. It needs to be improved and modernized.

What we have before us is the complete dereliction of duty by members of the Liberal government. This is a complete denial on their part of grappling with a difficult issue and coming out with an evenhanded and balanced approach to complex problems. This is not what has happened here.

I have no idea how rural members of the Liberal government, the agriculture critics, and the committee members will vote. Actually I have an idea how they will vote, but I do not know where they stand on this issue. I do not know why we have not heard more from the government side on this issue.

Bill C-15B is a bad piece of legislation. Anyone who has taken a moment's time to read it, who has a rudimentary understanding of rural issues, animal husbandry and cruelty toward animals legislation, and anyone who has the barest opinion on this subject cannot support the legislation. There is no way I can envision support for the legislation.

I received a letter from Doug Bacon, president of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture. He writes:

The Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture and its members have been following the progress of the cruelty to animals section of Bill C-15B with close attention. Since a key component of the agricultural industry relies on animals, this proposed legislation has the potential to seriously impact our livelihoods.

We are supportive of many aspects of the legislation, including tougher penalties for animal abuse, and while the previous Minister of Justice was very compelling and her amendments helpful, we are not convinced...

This is from people the legislation is directed toward. The legislation is not directed toward some university student who throws a cat out a window albeit that would be a horrific offence. The legislation is not directed toward pet owners who neglect, abuse and torture pets every day in Canada. The legislation is directed toward people who are legitimate animal owners.

I do not know what category animals would be included once the bill is passed. However I do know in what category they would not be included. They would not be put in the property section of the legislation. What are they then? The government thinks they are kids. They are not kids and are not about to be kids. It is time for the government to wake up and smell the roses. It is time for the government to look at the legislation for what it is.

The letter continues:

Bill C-15B must be amended to ensure legitimate animal practices will not be frivolously targeted. We need your support to ensure:

1. Animal cruelty provisions are put back in Part XI of the Criminal Code. Animals are property and such classification does not impede or prevent appropriate animal care practices;

2. If animal cruelty provisions stay in Part V.1, it must be amended to read, Cruelty to Animals: Private and Public Property.

If pet owners want to think that their animals are somehow public property or somehow different than agricultural or domestic animals, so be it. A provision should be put into the bill to accommodate those people. I happen to disagree with that, but animals should not be put under the provision of being property for farmers because that is a huge mistake which will do nothing but generate millions of dollars worth of lawsuits that are just waiting to happen.

The last amendment reads:

1. The definition of animal be amended as per the testimony of the Criminal Lawyers Association before the Standing Committee.

Mr. Bacon goes on to say:

These changes will not weaken the law but will serve to clearly establish in law the intention to protect the rights of animal users--an intention that has already been communicated by the minister. We are not asking for special treatment under the law, we are only asking for a law that will respect standard animal practices.

The bill was originally introduced in the House of Commons on December 1, 1999, as Bill C-17 and died on the order paper with the call of the election in October 2000. It is currently before parliament as Bill C-15B. It was studied by the justice committee and received testimony from numerous legal experts and representatives from both animal rights groups and organizations representing hunters, anglers, trappers, farmers and other stakeholders.

When re-introducing the bill, the Minister of Justice heeded the concerns of the opposition parties and stakeholders and made amendments from the previous Bill C-17 to provide clarification to the cruelty to animal provisions, encompassing those who willfully, recklessly or without regard to the consequence of their acts, cause unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal. Despite these improvements further amendments were needed before the Progressive Conservative Party could support these provisions dealing with crimes against animals.

It is not because this is not an important issue. It is not because this issue needs to be dealt with. It is because this is a bad piece of legislation. Certainly it is not the job of parliamentarians to leave the decision on what constitutes cruelty up to the courts. If we were to leave every decision that needs to be made in this country up to the courts, we would live to rue that day. We would regret it, it is quite simple. We cannot, as representatives of Canadians and protectors of animal rights, take farm animals out from under the property act. That would be a huge mistake.

It is a mistake that this parliament and other parliaments and Canadians would pay for. It would be impossible to guarantee the safekeeping of every animal owned, and I say owned because they are property, by every farmer in Canada. Without question, the bill needs to come before parliament but it desperately needs to be amended. It needs to be improved upon. We need to put it back in the realm of a bill that when we leave the House after it is passed, because the government will pass it, we can say it is a good piece of legislation and we did the right thing.

I expect there will be many Liberal members of parliament who, if they vote for the bill, will hang their heads in shame after they have done it.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in the debate on Bill C-15B. The bill deals with cruelty to animals and the firearms amendments.

We in the Canadian Alliance in no way condone intentional acts of cruelty toward animals. We support increased penalties. However concerns have been raised that Bill C-15B would make it possible for the courts to interpret some offences in a different light. Concerns have been raised by farmers, hunters and other agricultural producers who depend on animals for their livelihoods that moving the animal cruelty provisions from property offences to a separate section would elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. It is arguable that this is not the intent of the legislation but these concerns have been raised.

I support the firearms section of Bill C-15B although I am opposed to the firearms registry. The section would remove long firearms such as BB guns and pellet guns which are required to be registered under our present firearms legislation. This exemplifies what an unmitigated disaster Bill C-68 has been. The government originally said the legislation would cost tens of millions of dollars. The firearms registry has cost Canadians some half a billion dollars. It has had no impact at all on reducing crime. It is a tax on law abiding citizens.

Bill C-15B is another example of the government completely missing the boat. The government is bringing forward amendments because it realizes how ridiculous it is that BB guns need to be registered. The whole firearms registry is fraught with problems. The government will have to come back and amend the legislation over and over again. Instead of trying to tinker with the bill after spending hundreds of millions of dollars, the best thing the government could have done was repeal the entire long gun registry. I understand why the government is bringing forward the amendments. I only wish it had repealed the entire legislation with respect to the gun registry.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party I am pleased to take part in this important debate. I want to commend my friend from Palliser for his remarks, which I think were very apt and timely.

The debate deals with an issue that has plagued Canadians particularly in recent days and months in the aftermath of what is now known as the Sharpe decision coming out of the British Columbia court of appeal, which in essence creates an exemption for types of child pornography on the basis that they might in some fashion have artistic merit.

I think that on its merits that decision has left Canadians with a great sense of ill ease and abhorrence for child pornography, which is so detrimental to the development of a child and exploits children in a way that has long term and lasting effects on their development.

This decision, if nothing else, has exposed some of the shortcomings in our criminal justice in the way in which we deal with child pornography. Bill C-15A and the amendments which form the subject of this debate touch directly on some of these issues. Yet one could argue that the wording of the amendment that is before us dealing with artistic merit reinforces the Sharpe decision, which is the very reason that we have seen such passionate speeches against the use of the words artistic merit in describing anything that deals with child pornography and has such a detrimental effect.

I can indicate at the outset that the amendment, which proliferates or continues this use of artistic merit to describe either written, photographic or computer generated images giving them some value as artistic merit, must be brought back, as referred to by my friend from Manitoba, to either the justice committee or the House itself. The justice department should make a very indepth effort into defining, within strict parameters, what artistic merit might encompass, perhaps excluding anything to do with child pornography.

Not unlike other pieces of legislation that we have seen come before the House, there were flaws in this bill. Bill C-15A in its origin was an omnibus package that required splitting. It required taking portions of it out and putting it in another bill. There have been ongoing changes and attempts to reconfigure the legislation as it now appears before us.

The government has agreed with a number of the recommended changes from the other Chamber and yet has not agreed with the one which deals with the elimination of the threat of prosecution for Internet service providers and cable companies. That amendment to the legislation is one which is somewhat difficult for many to understand. What it says in essence is that we cannot hold culpable or criminally responsible the Internet provider for the mere transmission of what would be deemed offensive pornographic material.

It follows previous precedent cases involving telephone companies or even the postal service. A supreme court ruling in The Electric Dispatch Company of Toronto v The Bell Telephone Company of Canada, which goes back over 100 years, found that the notion of transmission encompassing the person sending the message and the person receiving it but not the intermediary providing the technical wherewithal for the communication. This was referenced by Pierre Claude Nolin in the other place. One could say that this same argument would apply to the Internet service providers.

If all that companies do that are only acting as intermediaries between two or more persons is provide the means for storing or transmitting digital data for a third party, they might be innocently caught up in the transmission of smut or any offensive material. In this context one would expect there would be the recognition on the part of a trier of fact that the person who transmitted the child pornography without knowledge would not be held liable. However, where the issue is so serious and detrimental to the development of a child and to the spinoff effect there has to again be ironclad wording, very precise and clear language used in reference to that.

An amendment has been moved that essentially would negate the amendment brought forward by the Senate and would send it back for further study, which is perhaps what should happen. It appears that the issue, in the first instance, did not receive the attention it needed.

As we have seen with other bills, the Senate in its wisdom did good work but, because of the broad implications of this, we should take the time to ensure we have it right. For that reason, we in the Progressive Conservative Party feel that we cannot support the Senate amendment with the new and expanding forms of communication over the Internet. It is absolutely pivotal and critical that the legislation be precise and clear. It is meant to update the old sections which were aimed at the same sort of nefarious activity: the spreading of pornographic material that exploits children.

A number of Internet service providers that testified before the justice committee, providers such as AOL Canada, strongly supported the government's effort to limit the existence of child pornography and the proliferation online, and to capture the wrongdoers.

I think it is fair to say that within the industry there is a clear recognition and an acknowledgment that they must co-operate and do everything they can to monitor the service they provide and co-operate with law enforcement in preserving and, in many cases, turning over evidence to the police and to the law enforcement community.

I do not feel the bill captures the necessary tightness to ensure that both Internet service providers and this omnipresent, ever valuable effort to protect children is properly balanced. The possibility of liability attached to the stakeholders who participate in the blocking or the removal of material is still in the current wording and yet by virtue of this amendment we feel there is still some jeopardy that could exist for children.

I would suggest that most Internet service providers are being extremely diligent in their efforts to self-police their systems yet there is concern that by virtue of the wording of the legislation they could get caught in the net or the crackdown on individuals who bring pornography online.

Let us be clear, there is no property in good ideas and no political hay to be made on this issue. There is a very real intent and a very real spirit of co-operation on all sides of the House to ensure that we get this right for the protection of our most vulnerable, our most valued citizens, our children.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, in that vein, acknowledges the spirit and intent of the legislation. My colleague made reference of Rose Dyson, a very distinguished Canadian who has taken upon herself the role of championing the protection of children and Canadians generally from images and acts of sexual violence and violence.

In our last election platform my party brought forward a national strategy to combat child pornography and child abuse. The package included references to Internet safety education for children as well as measures to ensure adequate training for police involved in the tracking of pornography. Extraordinary efforts are underway today throughout the land on behalf of municipalities, provinces and the RCMP to address this ever expanding and very harmful issue that takes place within many communities.

The legislation today deals with a number of elements for protecting society. It also has references to protecting and expanding the sentence range for those who stalk individuals or disarm a police officer.

There is also a very important amendment which touches upon the subject matter of the wrongfully convicted and those who have an opportunity then to bring forward their case when new evidence comes to light or when there has been a miscarriage of justice.

On a number of occasions we have seen instances where new science, such as the use of DNA particularly, has exonerated individuals who were convicted. There is one case that I would suggest has long been a festering sore on the Canadian justice system. That is the case involving Steven Truscott. A book has been written quite recently by a very renowned author, Julian Sher, entitled Until You are Dead , which references the sentence which was handed down to Mr. Truscott as a 14 year old upon being convicted of a murder.

There is a 690 application that has been brought forward on his behalf by a well-known lawyer and defender of the wrongfully accused, James Lockyer. This is before the justice minister as it currently stands. However this new legislation will not impact on that. We implore the justice minister to act with haste, with prudence and with diligence to ensure that the miscarriage of justice is corrected in the very near future.

The way this legislation currently reads, there are concerns particularly given the creation of this loophole that comes from the Sharpe decision that many members have already enunciated. There are a number of ways in which we can improve the child protection measures within the criminal code but many of those efforts and amendments will be in vain if police are not given the support and the necessary tools and resources to address the issue.

There is very much a fiduciary duty on not only the law enforcement community but also on members of parliament, members of the defence bar and members of children's aid to do everything within their means to respond to the issues of child pornography and images and to the written word being used to disparage and degrade children within communities.

The legislation is a step and a move in the right direction. It is very much aimed at expanding the current efforts that are available and the current elements of the criminal code which reference child pornography. Yet the act itself is something that is not directly addressed in such a way that would allow for the eradication of such and allow for police officers to go to the lengths needed to direct all of their attention and resources to the issue itself.

Much of this issue is one of common sense. In terms of clarifying, the amendment of the legislation itself should put greater emphasis on the protection of children. The bill, as it is brought forward, groups a number of criminal code amendments in one and this suggests to me that the proper emphasis is not there. This legislation aimed at child pornography should be standalone, particularly underscored by the decision in Sharpe. I would suggest that there is now an opportunity on the part of the Minister of Justice and the legion of lawyers that he has in his department to pick up this issue and come back with legislation that defines narrowly and strictly when artistic merit might be brought into play as a defence for using and proliferating child pornography.

There is also an important timeline to keep in mind. The clock is running with respect to the appeal itself in British Columbia. That time period expires this week. We are yet to hear a public commitment from the Minister of Justice to put pressure on the attorney general of British Columbia to clearly state that not only will the Government of Canada be pushing for this appeal to be taken but will also join in that appeal as an intervener. As has happened in the past, this should clearly happen and should happen immediately. It is surprising and disheartening I think for most Canadians to know that the government has responded in a very lackadaisical way.

Individuals who are convicted of the heinous crime of pornography against children should be punished and should definitely receive the full extent of the law. There has to be a higher element of deterrent and public example of those who engage in this sort of activity.

The other day there was a private member's bill which looked directly at increasing the sentence for those convicted under sections 152, 153 and 151 of the criminal code. The Progressive Conservative Party certainly agrees and supports the intent of those bills, but recognizes, as most Canadians would recognize, the need for very clear definitions when dealing with the law.

Amendments that are put forward at any time are meant to strip away some of the confusion. My grandfather used to speak about how confusing the law could be. He said “If you are putting a new roof on your house, you do not put the shingles on top. You have to strip some of the old shingles away”. That metaphor is very true of how we draft and craft law in this place.

It seems that far too often we are piling legislation on top of legislation, instead of in some instances removing some of the provisions that simply muddy the waters. Particularly when it deals with issues so fundamental, so clear I think in the minds of Canadians, we certainly should draft legislation that mirrors that and reflects the same clarity of thought and clarity of purpose.

The bill as it stands currently, which deals with the numerous issues I have talked about including the miscarriage of justice, is still in my view somewhat unclear. The one amendment which we support wholeheartedly deals with the miscarriages of justice and calls upon the minister to put certain criteria in place for those who would be involved in the panel and the review of those miscarriages. They have some basic understanding of the criminal justice system and the system itself, be they retired judges, lawyers, defence or crown lawyers in good standing with their provincial bar, or they have had some experience that would lend credibility and a greater understanding to the hearing process. This we see as a very good step toward ensuring that there is no further miscarriage of justice when that panel undertakes its review of the evidence itself.

Again I very much associate myself with the remarks made by previous members that legislation which is clear and which responds to this gaping hole left by the Sharpe decision is necessary. There were old sections in place that dealt with this nefarious activity, but because of changes in technology, changes in the way in which we can communicate images and the written word, this is a modernization attempt. It is an attempt by legislators, by parliament, to respond. Certainly the spreading of pornographic material of children, exploiting children, is perhaps that issue which is most offensive and which most binds Canadians together against some common enemy or some purpose in which we can all agree that there has to be more.

What on earth could be more fundamental than that issue and more fundamental to the role of parliamentarians to respond? Certainly heightened awareness itself is not enough. Families recognize that their children have to be protected. They recognize that the world has changed, that there are in fact greater dangers afoot around every corner. This type of legislation with which we have been charged, to improve and examine, gives us that opportunity.

Two of the three amendments come up short in terms of reaching that standard of clarity and standard of purpose. The average Canadian would expect more and we cannot shy away from it. We should take every opportunity to get it right on an issue such as this.

The transmitting and the making available of this type of material, whether it be to sell or exploit, should be a criminal offence. There should be an effort made to ensure that no person is wrongfully convicted. There is some irony that we find elements of the wrongfully convicted in this very same bill. It is certainly something that undermines the justice system further when a person is wrongfully convicted.

I will close on that note. The Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting the legislation generally, but not the amendments which we feel work contrary to the express purpose of this legislation.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker I am very pleased to rise on this Senate amendment. I would like to say at this time, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince George--Bulkley Valley?

I am opposed to the amendment. Basically it does two things. First, it deals people who innocently have computers systems which have been used for a criminal offence or for child pornography. They would not be convicted of an offence or be charged with an offence.

The problem with the Senate amendment is that while it tries to protect an innocent third party from prosecution if that person did have the criminal intent to commit the crime, it also creates some loopholes for those people who intentionally intend to use the Internet for child pornography. These people could slip through the cracks by having a defence and therefore might not be charged.

Some people have argued the other side. People using other forms of communication other than the Internet could also be innocent. I would argue that with charges related to child pornography, there has to be the mens rea element or intent to commit the offence. We do not need to write that into the statute. The danger of doing that is we could be creating loopholes for those people who intended to use the Internet for child pornography and could use this section in their defence.

Again, we in the Canadian Alliance are opposed to this for that reason. The sections under the criminal code already have the mens rea element, and this does not have to be put into statute.

The second aspect in the Senate amendment is where the accused is charged with an offence where the written material is alleged not to constitute child pornography. It all comes down to artistic merit. This area has huge problems as we have witnessed when the Supreme Court of Canada sent the Robin Sharpe case back to the B.C. supreme court. The court ruled that in certain areas when Robin Sharpe dealt with child pornography, he could not be prosecuted for his violent writings because they were found to have “artistic merit”.

I have a very difficult time with this. They are going down a very dangerous, slippery road. Robin Sharpe originally argued that this was a charter issue and a violation of his freedom of expression to use it for his own personal use. When it went back to the B.C. supreme court, it took one step further, and that was artistic merit.

This is an area where we have to put the rights of society against a possible right, and I do not even argue that it is a right, of an individual. Child pornography deals with the most innocent and vulnerable in our society, and that is our children. We have to use every bit of due diligence to ensure that we as parliamentarians have the correct legislation to protect our children.

In light of the recent B.C. supreme court decision which acquitted Mr. Sharpe in certain cases because of “artistic merit”, we as legislators should focus on that and say no, we will draw clear legislation that makes the use of child pornography a serious crime. The excuse, and I will call it an excuse, of artistic merit will not be tolerated in any way, shape or form.

We have a duty and an obligation as legislators to ensure we protect our children from sexual predators. As we have seen in the past, artistic merit can be interpreted broadly. The people put at risk because of these interpretations, our children, have no way to defend themselves.

I will say on the record that I hope the attorney general in British Columbia will appeal the recent decision of the B.C. supreme court which cited artistic merit as a reason for acquitting Mr. Sharpe. These are the areas we need to focus on.

The Senate has brought back a sub-amendment to ensure the legislation would protect innocent third parties. What it would really do is create loopholes for people who would find a way to use them. People could claim they were innocent third parties while using the Internet to exploit the most vulnerable in society.

For these reasons I will be voting against the Senate sub-amendments on Bill C-15A that are back before the House.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to speak today to Bill C-15A regarding the Senate amendments and to the larger picture with which we have to deal, child pornography.

This is an issue that is very close to my heart. I have a daughter whose career is counselling people who have gone through severe sexual abuse from quite early ages. I have heard some of the horrific stories from her of the results of that abuse and the life changing experience that causes. As my hon. colleagues have pointed out, there is no healing from that.

I certainly appreciate the comments that were made about the need to write the laws in parliament and to see our judiciary back them and enforce them rather than write them. We need to address these issues because of the tremendous, traumatic experience it is for those who are allowed to slip through the cracks.

I thank my hon. colleagues for their presentations and their willingness to stand up and speak to these things.

The bill does do some good. There is new legislation that creates the offence of luring a child by means of a computer system and it uses the same ages that the criminal code already sets out for determining the ages that make using the Internet to lure a child a crime. Accordingly, it is a crime with a maximum punishment of five years to use the Internet in these cases. The age is 18 for prostitution, child pornography, sexual assault, sexual touching or incest where the accused is in a position of trust. It is 16 for abducting an unmarried child from his or her parents and 14 for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and some other things.

I am not a lawyer but I know enough to know that the term luring is open to interpretation. I know what luring is when I am at the trout stream and I am tossing out the lure to draw the fish to my hook but I am not so sure that we can clearly define luring when it comes to sexual predators.

I recently heard about an incident that happened here in Ottawa a number of months ago where a person from another jurisdiction, where the age of consent was higher than in Canada, became acquainted with a 14 year old. He developed a relationship with the 14 year old and invited her to meet him. He came to Ottawa, set up in a hotel and the 14 year old met him. I am sure it could be argued that was the cultivation of a relationship. The distraught mother, having found out something of what was going on, sent the police. Although they found numerous sex toys in the room, they could do nothing because the 14 year old had gone to the hotel to meet this man of her own free will.

Luring was a crime then and it is now but how do we define luring? There are weaknesses here in some of the things we do. We get into the habit of saying things in legalese and it sometimes is more confusese than legalese. We should be able to use common sense and understand that the girl was lured for sexual purposes. It was a tremendous travesty of justice and of the law breaking down and not really protecting her like she should have been protected.

The amendment coming from the Senate adds the following to the legislation:

A custodian of a computer system who merely provides the means or facilities of telecommunication used by another person to commit an offence under subsection 163.1(3) does not commit an offence.

We certainly agree with the protection of those who are innocent third party people who become involved in an offence in an innocent way. In fact, this is the one thing we can commend. We wish that this kind of principle was followed in some other bills like the species at risk act and even in the cruelty to animals act. We believe there needs to be a certain level of knowledge and a certain level of intent before a criminal act is actually performed. Therefore we have no problem with that and we are glad it is there.

Then we move on to this great mysterious line which includes some other words. It goes like this:

Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2), (3), (4), or (4.1), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

What do some of those words mean? First, perhaps the most innocent of those words it would seem would be “educational”. However, in a meeting on the Hill this week where the material was presented to us by some of the members of the Ontario police and the porno unit from Toronto, we were shown copies of the drawings that were done by Mr. John Robin Sharpe. The judge referred to those drawings as having some merit because by watching the sequence of drawings in sort of cartoon form he said that one could notice there was a tremendous ability for the victims to survive and therefore there was some kind of artistic merit. Perhaps he could have said that there was some kind of educational merit to those drawings because they in fact demonstrated that the victims could survive.

I believe that is stretching it way too far. I believe that is stretching the term educational too far. I believe it is stretching artistic merit too far. I would ask the judge, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there would be, for instance, any artistic merit in a sign being carried by a demonstrator on the front lawn of parliament that promoted hate toward, let us say, Muslims, Jews, parliamentarians? If the sign being carried promoted the aspect of killing, hating, wounding or abusing other members of society would the judge say that it was such a beautiful sign, done in such magnificent colours, that it was the most beautiful, colourful sign he or she had ever seen, and that it had such artistic merit that he or she would allow the protestor to carry it? I do not think so. I do not think that would happen.

Yet in that court, looking at those repulsive drawings, a panel of judges of this land could actually say that there was artistic merit. Why would the Senate want to send an amendment sticking those undefined, undetermined words and qualifications back into this legislation? Why would we do that?

I would suggest when it comes to artistic merit, when it comes to educational, scientific or medical purposes, perhaps there are some higher standards on which we should judge whether or not it is right to allow it.

For instance, the supreme court decision in the John Robin Sharpe case, when it defined or allowed for artistic merit, did not take into account the true and accurate reflection of community standards. Yes, I understand that the judge even wrote in his decision that there was no moral standard or community standard that could be applied. Again it is part of the abominable process that allows us to ignore the decency of common people.

Why can we have such laws and judgments that in themselves degrade, depress, demoralize and destroy our own country? Why is that? Why would we again write them in Bill C-15A? What is wrong with applying some community standards?

I would suggest that the court's application of artistic merit did not put a priority on the protection and the rights of children. How can we do that? How can we allow some artist, and I do not care if he is Michelangelo, to come up with material whose sole purpose is to promote the abuse of children?

Let us face it. That kind of pornographic material, especially kiddy porn, is designed to desensitize not only the predator but it is used to slowly expose the children who are targets and victims to the pictures and to the idea of being involved with adults in sexual activity until the children's minds are desensitized to that activity, so that they will be receptive and can be brought in to participate.

These children do not have the ability to weigh out and think the way an adult is supposed to think, although some question of that ability is being pointed out at some levels of our government. We must protect the children. They have no way of knowing where they are going once they start down that path. Those drawings are designed to draw them aside. The Internet is filled with that kind of stuff and if I have time, I will mention more on that.

The supreme court decision did not reflect the spirit of intent of even the term artistic merit. I can understand allowing room for the artists to do things. I do a little artwork myself. I have paintings hanging in my own house that I have painted, but there is nothing like that hanging on my wall. Perhaps I might have a hard time getting someone to judge my paintings as worthy of artistic merit. I am not a great artist but I am kind of proud of what I do. May I say that even my wife likes it, so that makes it pretty good.

There is an understanding here that some room needs to be given for artistic merit. There are some cases where examples need to be depicted for medical or educational purposes. I understand that wholeheartedly. However, to push it out and over the precipice to such an extent that we have done with artistic merit is absolutely absurd. Why would we stick that back into the legislation we are writing to try to protect children over the Internet?

A moment ago my hon. colleague across the way referred to the statistic that was given to us this week by the Toronto child pornography unit. My ears heard its statement this way, that it was so bound up with one case in the courts that it was frozen from examining the 400 others just in Toronto that the unit needed to examine. In the case the unit is working on now, it has confiscated 400,000 images.

Do members know what has to happen in order to prosecute the case? Do members realize that every one of those 400,000 images has to be viewed by the prosecutor's staff, classified, categorized and listed? Then in court, the 400,000 pictures have to be shown to the defence and the defence has to go through them.

We were told that the department was absolutely paralyzed for five to six months because it was using its entire staff simply to categorize these pictures. We are talking about something voluminous, something huge. We are not talking about if, maybe and perhaps these things might happen. The Toronto unit alone has confiscated 750,000 pictures since January 1.

There is a terrible problem out there. We certainly do not need to reinforce the opportunity for this to happen by allowing artistic merit or a lack of the definition of “luring”, little things like that, to give an opening to those who would traffic in child pornography. We do not need to do that.

Mr. David Griffin of the Canadian Police Association said these words, to the best of my being able to write them down, “If you hear the kind of sentences given out by judges to people guilty of these crimes, it would make you sicker than the pictures”. That is where I am coming from. I am sick of the lack of proper treatment of those who are ruining and destroying the lives of our young people by involving them in the production of pornography by feeding them pornography in order to use them in other ways.

We have to tighten this up. This is not yet enough. We need to go much further than this legislation goes. We owe it to the children, to the parents, to the future of this nation to put out legislation that would demonstrate some sort of backbone in parliament.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to a bill referred to the House of Commons by the Senate, Bill C-15A.

At the risk of being extemporaneous, I may have to basically confine my comments to my rudimentary knowledge of the bill, but it is important for us to understand that the context of the bill is a very laudable attempt by the House of Commons to modernize its thinking on the fundamentals of child pornography as it is transmitted and disseminated through the Internet.

It is also equally a bill that has come as a result of a compromise, as has been mentioned earlier by previous members. It is a question of dealing with matters more specifically in a way that would divide this omnibus bill into two areas so that parliament could deal with this very weighty and laudable issue.

I had no idea that the bill was coming up. During the intervention of the member for Provencher, he mentioned a document which I circulated. It is basically an agreement among the 37 members of parliament who attended a meeting which I scheduled in light of the decision, the second round of Sharpe, by Justice Shaw of the B.C. supreme court some three weeks ago. The decision of course, in light of the supreme court decision of the previous year, upheld the validity of the more questionable sections dealing with possession of written material.

This clearly sounded alarm bells for all members of parliament. I want to assure members that the issue of child pornography, and by implication the issue of child pornography for all Canadians, is one that we in our totality do not accept. There is no doubt in the minds of 85% to 90% of Canadians that no amount of the benefit of the doubt should be given to anything other than the protection of children.

It is for this reason that the decision taken by the supreme court, and more recently by Justice Shaw, triggered the need for parliament to act in a way that it was not prepared to do some two and a half years ago. The genesis on this is very clear. Yes, indeed, the hon. member for Provencher mentioned that his side of the House had proposed a motion dealing with the notwithstanding clause. I think there are a panoply of options available to this parliament to address what is for most Canadians a very serious wrong, and I say so respectfully to the supreme court and to the justices with respect to the recent decision.

One of them of course is the notwithstanding issue and the ability of the House to consider in instances where it believes, as it should in this case, that the fundamental right of the protection of children must be paramount.

There is obviously a question that deals with whether or not the Supreme Court of Canada made a correct decision. I will go to section 163 of the SCC decision in January 2001 in which the issue is the defence of artistic merit, which incidentally is contained in the bill but is not amended in the bill proposed through the Senate. It says that where a court finds artistic merit, that it will adjudge that to be a sufficient defence against the prosecutorial powers and the weight of the criminal code as it deals with child pornography.

In essence, the qualification was of such a low threshold that justices in the majority said that artistic merit, however small, would be a sufficient defence to allow somebody who was in possession of written material to provide an excuse or not to be prosecuted. This of course was part and parcel of the decision made just some weeks ago in British Columbia by the same supreme court that earlier referred the issue and referred the child pornography section 163, inter alia, to the Supreme Court of Canada by striking them down.

This has clearly left a vacuum. One can talk of a moral vacuum. One can also speak of a legal vacuum. The reality however is that there is more than just the question of artistic merit. There is also the question of advocacy and counselling, which is really the basis on which the decision was made to allow, in this case, Mr. Sharpe to get off free or receive a get out of jail free card as it relates to written material.

Bill C-15A is an excellent attempt at modernizing parliament's view of child pornography as it is disseminated around the world, but I see two problems.

First, law enforcement agencies across the world and in Canada have readily identified the need for Internet service providers not just to bear some responsibility, but more important, to ensure that the images which they are storing and providing on behalf of clients are also kept for a period of time. The 37 members of parliament who attended the round table function two nights ago know exactly how it is done. There is a technical and serious problem if we do not hold ISP Internet service providers accountable for the undertakings of their accounts. If there is a dissemination of this harmful, deleterious information, then it may be lost forever. That would be the destruction of evidence even if the police and peace officers were able to obtain by warrant or other means the necessary information to provide a conviction.

Bill C-15A also speaks to the shortcomings of resources that can be handled at the House of Commons. This is not a provincial matter, but rather a federal matter that can be dealt with right now in a very timely fashion.

The second concern, which I hope will also be subject to more debate by members of parliament, is the consideration of the much wider impact of artistic merit, which I suspect will create an inordinate amount of controversy over the next few weeks. Parliament has the unique opportunity to begin tackling that. This could be done perhaps with the wisdom of our justice department, the Minister of Justice and his very capable parliamentary secretary who is just a few ridings over from me and a very able member of parliament for the Port Hope and Cobourg area. I am speaking about the member for Northumberland.

I want to talk more broadly about the issue of child pornography because it has been raised in this case.

The hon. member for Provencher talked about my region of Toronto. Many of us were astounded, shocked and probably are still recovering from the idea that there may be as many as 400 pedophiles using the Internet to disseminate material that is directed against children. Our law enforcement agencies are unable to detect these individuals. There is a problem of enforcement. The problem of enforcement is further complicated by the needs, as I was told recently, since January 1.

I pointed out to many colleagues in a letter sent to them some weeks ago that some 750,000 images of over 10,000 different children, some as young as three days old, have been portrayed in pictures seized by police. That is a very small number the police and enforcement agencies have been able to impact. We have a very serious problem that knows no bounds, but for which there must be the blunt instrument and determination of parliament to understand and apply appropriate language.

Most members of parliament should expect to receive within the next 24 hours a copy of proposals and options as well as the issues surrounding child pornography. This material will not just assist this side of the House but will assist all parties to come together on an issue that must not be divided on party lines. I was heartened to hear members of the opposition say that they were not looking to score political points on this. I think they too, as we on this side, recognize the value and importance of getting the wording in the legislation right.

I want to be very careful here. I do not think we should use the notwithstanding clause to protect children until such times as we have exhausted the wording that we think is necessary to protect children. I do not want this House of Commons or parliament to fall or be divided on the basis of semantics, words and language. The irony about words being such an important consideration for the protection of children is that it is simply trivialized by those who say the written word means nothing.

There is an obvious dichotomy that the words have to be written legislatively to protect children against pedophiles. At the same time, the words mean absolutely nothing, particularly when it comes to being in the hands of those who create or possess this information or worse, disseminate it. There is an obvious contradiction there. The House of Commons will have to try to resolve that. It will have to resolve that as quickly as it humanly and possibly can.

I have been challenged by the belief that somehow those who have written information which leads in many cases to the rape, torture and masochism of young children might in some way have some artistic merit and that the merit is somehow subjective.

A child molester and a pedophile are people who have a sickness. These people can never be cured of that sickness. It is a disease. It requires therapy, not obtuse legal reasoning. I cannot give a much better display of where we have surrendered our obligation to posterity than in the case where parliament does not act to fill the void.

I am convinced that the Minister of Justice and parliament are of one mind, that all issues must be put aside until we can deliberate on this issue to ensure the maximum penalties and force of law and to ensure that the charter of rights and freedoms brought forth by the hon. prime minister of many generations ago, Pierre Trudeau, is not intended in any way, shape or form to undermine the rights of children. I point out that while there are those who talk about fundamental freedoms, particularly section 2(b), freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, they certainly would not have precluded the life, the liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The constituency which we are speaking of is a constituency that pervades our society and thankfully so. For if it were not for children we probably would not have a future generation.

Let us understand something about child pornography. When minors are involved in a situation where their names or identities are reproduced around the world and are reproduced permanently, that puts those children in a position of victimization.

The House was in an uproar a few years ago about Martin Cruz, an individual who had been molested by pedophiles. We know what happened to poor Martin after his plea and his passionate coming out to talk to people about this issue. He took his own life because he was tormented by what had happened to him over generations. No human being should suffer that kind of indignity. Whether we talk about the issue of consent, human beings should be put in the position where a person in a position of trust can take advantage of them and forever inflict a wound which can never ever be healed.

I share the frustrations of members of parliament, but I also know that many members of the House have worked diligently and have a pretty good idea of those things that need to be done. We need one important element. This parliament must decide the laws of this land. This parliament must be the vanguard of the rights, the liberties and aspirations of human beings and of Canadian citizens who enjoy benefits and rights thereof.

We need to ensure that the role of the supreme court and the courts are there to interpret the limits of law, not to write in the law. I respectfully submit that in the case of the Supreme Court of Canada on Sharpe, they got it wrong. Parliament must now get it right.

To that end, it is fortuitous that the minister has brought forth through the Senate Bill C-15A.

Its timeliness is not to be gainsaid but it also means that there are opportunities here for us to use this as a model of what we plan to do in the not too distant future.

I know the appeal period for the decision in British Columbia is about to expire. It may be as soon as April 25. On behalf of members of parliament I would like to encourage the attorney general of the province of British Columbia, and by saying encourage I do not to tell him what to do but simply to urge to encourage him to seek the appeal.

Like the hon. member for Provencher, I think there were a number of errors in law. They are too weighty and would probably take me over 10 or 15 minutes to deliberate. I understand, in the interest of time, that what we can do here as a House of Commons is to work diligently, ensure that the amendments reflect the expectations of the public and that we do not get caught in dilatory or nonsensical defences or excuses that somehow obfuscate and derogate our understanding of the importance of protection of people within society who must have the life, liberty and security of person to be able to benefit from the things that make us unique as Canadians.

Parliament had to rush in 1993 to use certain wording. The intent may have been right, the wording may have been wrong but the intent to protect children must always be paramount whether that be a decision of the House of Commons or that supreme court.

We cannot allow people to undertake fishing expeditions at the expense of people who happen to be the most vulnerable in society but who happen to be the most precious constituency that we have in this country.

I boldly commend the Minister of Justice for having the courage to bring this forward. I look forward to working with members of parliament, to look at the number of options that they and experts have raised and to make this parliament not just relevant in our time but relevant for future generations to come.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-15A, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which deals with child pornography.

I will begin by giving a brief background to Bill C-15. The opposition parties and the Bloc Quebecois asked the government to split this bill, because it addressed a lot of unrelated issues.

We asked the government to split Bill C-15 in two distinct pieces of legislation, Bill C-15A, to deal with child pornography, and Bill C-15B, to address firearms and cruelty to animals.

The government agreed. So, I am very pleased to speak, on behalf of my hon. colleague from Berthier--Montcalm, to the amendments made by the Senate. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague for his remarkable work on the issue of justice.

Last week, I attended an event in his riding which brought together over 300 people. It gave me the chance to realize how much his constituents appreciate his excellent work on justice.

I would like to state the Bloc Quebecois' position with regard to the first amendment proposed by the Senate. We are, as is the government, against this amendment. It was aimed at ensuring that people whose equipment is used for illegal purposes, probably without their knowledge, would not be prosecuted. But it opens a door that is wider than the one it is trying to close. This amendment is totally useless. It is even dangerous.

The concept of mens rea is implicit in the criminal code. Therefore, the custodian of a computer that would be used by a third party for illegal purposes cannot be prosecuted if there was no criminal intent, which is required for any criminal offence.

However, with the amendment proposed by the Senate, the custodian would be protected against prosecution even if he or she was fully aware of the purpose for which the equipment was used. The concept of intent is no longer important. Whether that person was aware or not of what was going on, he or she cannot be prosecuted and can therefore facilitate pedophilia with total impunity.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois is against this amendment to Bill C-15A. It is totally useless and even dangerous.

As for the second amendment proposed by the Senate, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of that amendment. It is simply aimed at correcting what was probably an oversight resulting from the creation of a new offence related to juvenile pornography.

Obviously, if we protect from prosecution any person who produces, distributes, sells or possesses juvenile pornography for educational, scientific or medical purposes or in cases where such material has artistic merit, then we must afford the same protection to those who access it. Through this amendment, the senators have shown a lot of imagination in finally clarifying that clause of the bill.

As for the third amendment, we are in favour of it because it specifies those to whom the powers of the Minister of Justice can be delegated.

The old wording read “any individual”. The new wording specifies that the suitable people will be, and I quote:

—any member in good standing of the bar of a province, retired judge or any other individual who, in the opinion of the Minister, has similar background or experience—

With this amendment proposed by the Senate, the minister's powers to act cannot be delegated to just anyone. This is comforting, because we are talking about child pornography, and those to whom the powers of the minister are delegated must at least be competent people who are able to identify the issues involved.

I would have appreciated it if the government had demonstrated as much openness toward the bill that I introduced last week regarding sexual offences, more specifically pedophilia, as it has demonstrated toward Bill C-15A.

My colleague from the Canadian Alliance said earlier that we have the moral right to pass legislation to protect our young people, the children of this country. We, as legislators, must do so, given that young people are not able to.

The issue that my bill dealt with was no bigger than that of child pornography, in Bill C-15A. However, it was a current issue.

Why are these amendments being proposed to the criminal code regarding child pornography on the Internet? Because the criminal code needed updating, and today, 20 years later, we are in the age of the Internet.

This bill allows us to deal with the age of the Internet. Everything that our friend from the Canadian Alliance described, in referring to the meeting that he attended, is true. We can no longer hide our heads in the sand about what is happening on the Internet. It was time to act.

This same openness should have been demonstrated when it comes to criminal acts committed by pedophiles against youth under the age of 14. This is also a current issue.

Last week, instead of being open-minded and acknowledging the problem, instead of realizing that it was no longer an option to keep one's head in the sand about all the sexual offences being perpetrated against our children these days, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice should have demonstrated the same open-mindedness and given some thought to a problem which all members on both sides of the House have been lobbied about at their riding offices or here in the House of Commons. Increasingly, we are talking about pedophilia.

In my riding, and in Quebec, 40,000 people signed a petition calling on the government to take action with respect to pedophilia against young people under the age of 14. This was not just something I dreamed up.

Over 40,000 people signed a petition, which I tabled in the House, calling on the government to amend the criminal code for this offence.

After I spoke last week, I received many calls in my riding, as did other colleagues. People did not understand the government's refusal to take action on this problem, which is just as serious as child pornography.

I am still very moved. I remember all the young people who came to talk to me about this issue in my riding office. They told me “The government must give us some means, it must help us. We cannot act. We are the victims. We do not have the means to overcome this psychological, physical and mental ordeal”.

The purpose of my bill was to open the door a little bit to allow these young people to come and express themselves, to see a ray of light. Indeed, when one opens the door and there is a bright sunshine, a little ray of light brightens up the house. I wanted to help them have that.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice only talked about big money. He said that it would cost too much, that it did not make sense, that the answer was no. He only talked about big money. He did not put himself in the place of the young people who are the victims of these criminal acts. He did not want to do that. He did not even recognize that the problem existed.

I only asked him to allow these young people and their parents to come and tell their story. They could have come to a committee sitting and explained to parliamentarians what they and their parents are going through. We could have finally opened the door a crack and taken a close look at this issue, as we are doing with child pornography on the Internet. My request was rejected. Both times I asked for the unanimous consent of the House, two female government members refused to give that consent. This hurt even more. Us women are confronted with this issue.

It is the same thing with this bill. Yes, the Bloc Quebecois supports amendments Nos. 2 and 3 from the Senate, but it is opposed to amendment No. 1. We had to take action, and this government allowed us to do so. As the Canadian Alliance member said, it designed tools to deal with abnormal things that can be seen on Internet sites involved in child pornography.

Let us face it: there is a growing number of perverts. We are not immune to everything that relates to perversity. We cannot think about all the things that these people can imagine. But today, with these amendments, we can give some powers to people in positions of authority, so that, at last, child pornography on the Internet can be monitored more closely.

There are other problems affecting our young people. The Canadian Alliance member was telling us about assaults on children younger than six, about dreadful photos on the Internet. Everything connected with pedophilia is dreadful. It affects the child's soul as well as his body. His inner being is violated. The member spoke to us of photos on the Net. These young people have been violated to their very core.

I trust that this government, which has shown open-mindedness concerning this problem, will note that in future I will not give up.

I will continue my crusade against pedophilia and will introduce a new bill that will focus even more clearly on sexual acts relating to pedophilia.

We can keep our heads in the sand no longer. As the Canadian Alliance member has said, and I would like to repeat his words, parliament has the moral right to pass legislation to help and protect our children. Our children are our future and they are the ones who will be responsible for the development of this country. If we act, our young people will be able to have a healthy future, psychologically, physically and mentally.

I congratulate the senators for their open-mindedness; their two amendments clarify the issues. We can finally say that they have been able to be of use as far as this bill is concerned.

Child pornography is a major problem. I beg this government not to stop any of its efforts relating to the sexual abuse of children.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise with respect to the issue.

I remind members in the House that in the fall all opposition parties agreed to pass Bill C-15A as quickly as possible if the justice minister would agree to split the omnibus Bill C-15 into two parts. That did occur. Bill C-15 became Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B so we could move ahead as quickly as possible on Bill C-15A as a whole. However in view not only of the comments raised today but of other issues, events have overtaken the legislation. In particular, the decision of the British Columbia supreme court in the Sharpe case has raised new and troubling concerns hon. members will need to address.

Bill C-15A would create the offence of luring a child by means of a computer system. Under this offence a child would be defined by the ages already set out in the criminal code. Accordingly, it would be a crime with a maximum punishment of five years to use the Internet to lure a person under the age of 18 for purposes of prostitution, child pornography, sexual assault, incest or, where the accused is in a position of trust, sexual touching. It would prohibit the use of the Internet for luring persons under the age of 16 for abduction from his or her parents and for luring persons under the age of 14 for sexual interference.

Under Bill C-15A transmitting, making available or exporting child pornography through a computer system would be an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years. The bill would prohibit persons from intentionally accessing child pornography on the Internet. The maximum penalty would be five years and the material could be liable to forfeiture.

A motion has been brought forward to ask that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House disagrees with the amendment. I too have concerns about the clause. Generally speaking we support the intent of the Senate to protect innocent third parties from prosecution without an appropriate level of mens rea. I will not get into the legal discussion because the parliamentary secretary has gone into it in some detail. I agree with many of the parliamentary secretary's comments in that respect.

I will address the concern of mens rea. The government's concern that the protection is too broad and may exempt some offenders is valid. There should be an amendment to require criminal intent or state that there must be a clear expression of criminal intent. I noted with interest the government's position with respect to mens rea. It indicated there is some clarity but has not proceeded in the same fashion with respect to Bill C-5, which has been the subject of substantive and fruitful debate with respect to a number of issues.

Lately it has been more about the protection of property rights. The government should not have the ability to take away people's property without fair and reasonable compensation being determined by the courts or some other objective tribunal. Compensation should never be left solely in the hands of the government. Property is far too important an instrument in our society to be left at the free disposal of government.

Not only did we in my party have concerns with respect to property rights in Bill C-5. We were concerned the bill would not accept one of the most important legal principles in a just and democratic society: that where one is charged with a criminal offence there be an appropriate level of mens rea. We must examine this statute closely to ensure it is there. We do not want to see innocent third parties, whether Internet providers, couriers, truck drivers or anyone, prosecuted for a criminal offence where there is no appropriate level of mens rea.

While the Senate amendment was a valid concern, the response the Senate has provided to the House is not satisfactory in ensuring that while innocent people would be safe from prosecution the guilty would be appropriately convicted where an appropriate level of mens rea was demonstrated in the context of the prosecution.

The second issue I will deal with is much more troubling. The amendment would replace subsections 163.1(6) and (7) of the act with:

(6) Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2), (3), (4), or (4.1), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

I emphasize the words artistic merit.

The amendment would apply existing defences for child pornography to child pornography on the Internet to ensure consistency. This must be carefully considered in light of the March 26, 2002 B.C. supreme court decision on the child pornography case involving Mr. Sharpe. It was ruled that he could not be convicted for his violent writings because they had artistic merit despite being sadomasochistic in nature and glorifying these types of acts by adults in relation to children.

Members on this side of the House and we in the Canadian Alliance believe the decision does not properly reflect society's interest in protecting children from sexual predators. In protecting Mr. Sharpe's violent writings which target vulnerable children the court's interpretation of artistic merit has been too broad.

We urge the British Columbia attorney general to review the case carefully. He has the power to do so. In British Columbia if the attorney general instructs an appeal he must set it out in writing. Whatever the mechanism, whether he personally instructs the appeal or whether it is done by crown prosecutors acting on his behalf, I urge the B.C attorney general to appeal the Sharpe case.

There are a number of other concerns. I will take time to examine a proposal and give credit to the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge. Yes, he is on the other side of the House but I commend him for taking a proactive role in bringing together members of the House with members of the police and other communities to deal with the troubling decision of the B.C. supreme court.

On Tuesday, April 16 almost 30 members of parliament met with police officials, psychiatrists and others related to this important issue who work with the police in prosecuting these matters. We had a profitable discussion. The hon. member for Calgary Southeast was there and contributed in a positive way to the discussion. We saw things that absolutely horrified members of parliament. We heard the anxiety of police and other professionals regarding the problematic issue of child pornography.

The police showed us pictures. They were run of the mill pictures in the context of this horrible activity which showed physical and sexual assaults on children. I am not a good estimator of age but they were very young children. The police told us children as young as six months or younger are subjected to this kind of abuse in Canada and pictures and other materials depicting the abuse are circulated on the Internet or through written documentation.

I can only imagine what it must be like to be a police officer on the front lines trying to protect our society against this filth. They have to examine it on a daily basis to present cases to court and achieve convictions. It is a difficult situation. In one case police seized 400,000 pictures. Can we even imagine 400,000 pictures? The police must go through each and every picture and categorize it to present a brief to defence counsel for the purposes of the defence. One case in Toronto has virtually overwhelmed the unit in charge of these investigations.

The police need our assistance. The children of Canada need our assistance. I examined the provisions of the criminal code this morning. I looked at the defences available with respect to advocating genocide and hate literature. I did not see anything in the criminal code that said people were allowed to advocate the killing of another human being and have an exception of artistic merit.

Can members imagine me standing and arguing in the House that butchers who advocate hate and the murder of human beings should have the defence of artistic merit? It is inconceivable. Yet for some reason parliament has said this when talking about the sexual and violent abuse of children as young as six months and even younger.

There were some horrifying things that were taught to us that evening, sexual assault on children where the umbilical cord was still present. I cannot even imagine it.

When I was a prosecutor I prosecuted pornography cases. I was involved on behalf of the government of Manitoba in the Butler case. This involved so-called adult pornography. I was horrified by some of things I saw. The deterioration of the ability of our law not only to protect adult human beings but now children is very troubling.

In the Butler case the supreme court clearly said that the combination of harm and sexual exploitation was not acceptable. It is sufficient for parliament to prohibit that. We have clear direction from the supreme court in the Butler case that says the combination of those two, the exploitation of sex in conjunction with violence, is wrong and parliament has the legal and moral right to pass laws that prohibit that in respect of adults.

What do we say about children? We say that, yes, we can abuse or depict pictures of children as young as six months old being violently abused. Yet we are worried about the defence of artistic merit. How can there possibly be, in a free, just and democratic society, an ability to ever tolerate that kind of abuse of children? How can the weighing of the interests of freedom of expression against that kind of harm ever come out to that conclusion? Then that kind of material must be banned.

I was troubled by a number of supreme court decisions. I took a position on behalf of the government of Manitoba against it, to see the expansion of freedom of expression to include things beyond our traditional British and Canadian understanding of free expression as relating to the exchange of political ideas and other types of ideas. That was certainly the understanding that most had when we enacted the charter.

I appeared before the supreme court on behalf of the government of Manitoba in the reference to subsection 193.1(1)(c) of the criminal code relating to the communication of prostitution or prostitution-related messages. The Supreme Court of Canada said the communication for sexual purposes on a public street corner was protected by free speech.

It upheld the legislation itself, the prohibition against that, on the basis of subsection 1. As a result the prohibition stood in that case. In the Butler case, it said that pornographic materials fell within subsection 2(b) of the charter of freedom of expression. As a result it upheld the prohibition on the basis of subsection 1. Given the result we wanted, we won the case.

If we look at the reasoning of that decision, there is the genesis of the result we see in the Sharpe decision, the breaking down of the abhorrence of this kind of activity.

The issue that is before us today is much more significant than it would have been even a month ago. When the first Sharpe decision came out members on this side said to use the notwithstanding clause. They said to get rid of that decision because it was wrong, it was perverse. We wanted the government to appeal the decision using the notwithstanding clause right away to stem the tide of this filth.

What was said by ministers on the other side, but not all members on the other side I might add, was that they had faith in the British Columbia court of appeal to do the right thing. The British Columbia court of appeal did not do the right thing. It absolutely did the wrong thing.

As politicians we should not be afraid to say that a court has made a mistake. The courts enter the political arena and make decisions on political bases, no less than members of the House do. The only difference is that if I were to stand in the House and say that freedom of expression should include the sexual exploitation of children, I would be expelled from this House, and rightly so.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we do not have the same kind of control over the judiciary because it is independent. Independence does not mean that it cannot be held accountable. Ultimately it is this House that must hold it accountable if it comes out with perverse decisions.

That is the purpose of the notwithstanding clause, to correct the serious mistakes that have been made that damage the fabric of our nation and destroy the broader societal values that hold our country together. The kind of decisions that were made by Justice Duncan Shaw tears apart the moral fabric of our nation.

We not only have the right but the obligation to move in that direction. When the British Columbia court of appeal failed to do the right thing this House should have done the right thing by passing the notwithstanding clause and appealing that court's decision in the Supreme Court of Canada. The notwithstanding clause is a five year term. It is a temporary override but we should have used it and we should not apologize for it.

Our political agenda is different than the political agenda of the courts. The political agenda of the courts is primarily to defend the individual rights of Canadians. Our responsibility is to look at that decision, weigh it and to say that through the use of the notwithstanding clause the individual rights of a child pornographer to glorify the violent sexual exploitation of children should be subject to the wishes of the people of Canada in preventing that type of activity from occurring.

I want to get back to what the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge said. He prepared an important paper for our discussion on child protection issues and options. He just presented this paper to me and I have had occasion to read some it. The ideas are good ones. They come as a result of the committee meeting that he chaired. True to his word he said he would work quickly on this issue to get something before us so we could consider this at our next meeting.

It is important for us to consider this at our next meeting. The member deserves to be commended. However it is not just the meeting of that group of 30 MPs who need to consider the recommendations that flow out of the discussions that all of us had on Tuesday, April 16.

There are numerous decisions and recommendations made in this paper. In view of the Senate motion, the Sharpe decision, and the work that has been done on this paper we need to think very clearly about what we should be doing as a House.

There are all kinds of amendments. One of the amendments that must be made which is not set out specifically in the member's paper, but which was raised by the police and other members at that meeting, is the keeping of information by Internet providers. It was stressed at the meeting of April 16 that police, in investigating these serious crimes, were met with the challenge that there was no obligation on the part of Internet providers to store information.

One might think that is a huge challenge but it is not. Other countries have laws where they require the retention and storage of this information for six months, a year or otherwise. It can be done. It is done in other countries and it can be done here. We must bear that in mind.

The recommendations, the issues identified and the options set out in this paper must not be considered by only members on this side of the House, backbench members or frontbench members across the way. The Minister of Justice must read this document. This is good work. It is the expression of the careful thought of the people present at that meeting and the expression of the hard work of the hon. member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, and it should not be discarded.

Parliamentarians and ministers stand up, throw their hands up and say what will we do about this? There is a good start here. It is not just because it corresponds with my thoughts on many of the issues. Perhaps it was a happy coincidence but this comes from years of reflection by the member on this issue and by other members on this issue.

There are issues and I want to deal with some of them because they are important. I want the record to show that there are solutions to these problems. It is not sufficient for us to say that the courts have decided and we would like to help the people of Canada but we cannot. To shrug our shoulders is an avoidance of our responsibility.

Parliamentarians, government policy advisers and government lawyers look at the charter as a barrier to social progress and programs that need to be implemented. Instead of looking at what the problem is and setting out a solution that works, often these policy advisers look at the charter, anticipate what the reaction of judges is going to be and then create the policy in that context. The result is a solution that does not work.

We have seen it in the context of the organized crime law. I can tell the House, not because I am a prophet but because I know, that legislation will fail. It will fail because the excuse that was offered consistently in refusing to follow recommendations that would have ensured effective legislation was “our charter does not allow us to do that kind of thing”.

Rather than setting it out in the legislation and addressing the problem, they concerned themselves with what the reaction of the judges would be. We should not do that. We should create solutions that address the problems and then prepare the legal arguments that justify our position. That is the nature of the political debate, or it should be the nature of political debate between the House and the judiciary in the Supreme Court of Canada.

We should not make an apology that we have genuine political differences and genuine differences of interest. We do not think consistently on all occasions. We share general principles to which we want to adhere and see enacted to strengthen our country.

The point I am getting to is the options paper that was written. This paper in a thoughtful way, mindful of constitutional parameters in a general way, suggests solutions that work and presents us with options. There are options that may affect an appropriate result. For example, issue two on page two of the options paper gets right to the Senate amendment and that is why this discussion is relevant. The member has written:

The defence of artistic merit 163.1(6) as currently expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada and interpreted by Justice Shaw exempts child pornography clearly harmful to children as the subject of criminal prosecution.

He brings forward four options, some not necessarily exclusive of each other but options that we should be considering.

The first one is to eliminate the defence of artistic merit to child pornography by repealing section 163.1(6) of the Criminal Code of Canada. People ask how we can repeal the defence of artistic merit when in the judgment of the supreme court there is a reference to artistic merit. Have we constitutionalized the defence of artistic merit in respect of child pornography? We have not done it in respect of hate literature or the advocacy of genocide. Why should children be the subject of abuse, of violent sexual attacks, and allow these sexual predators to rely on artistic merit?

If we amend the legislation to delete artistic merit completely, I want to hear the Supreme Court of Canada say “There is artistic merit in the sexual abuse and the depiction of that sexual abuse of six month old children”. If that is what the court is going to say, then the House has another responsibility and we have alternatives, but let us not anticipate what the court is going to say.

Personally I do not believe that Mr. Justice Shaw got it right. I think he got it wrong. The judiciary should be given a chance. We need to appeal this matter, but in the meantime let us look at the option of eliminating the artistic merit defence. In this respect, I have a serious problem with the motion.

The second option is to amend section 163.1(6) to apply a community standards test similar to the Butler decision. What a wonderful opportunity we have here. If in the context of adult pornography where there is a combination of violence and sex that can be prohibited on the basis of community standards, why would the same defence not be available in the context of child pornography and the abuse of children? Eliminate artistic merit and bring in the community standards test specifically. I am surprised that there is not already implicit in that offence the understanding that somehow the community cannot tolerate this kind of activity.

The third option is directly relevant to some of the comments I have been making. The member has identified the option to include the definition of child pornography as part of the hate crimes section 319, which has a different and more restrictive exemption. Again this is a very different type of exemption. There are exemptions but they are not of the nature that we have seen that allow the child pornographers to do what they do to our children and our grandchildren.

The last option under issue two is to amend section 163.1(6) to exclude material of which a prominent characteristic is not the description of a legal sexual activity involving children or which is not intended for sexual gratification. It is a little more technical but it is an option.

To the minister who might be tempted to throw up his hands and shrug his shoulders, although I have not seen him do that yet and he has not commented on the decision, I would ask him to read this paper before he does that. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to the minister to read the paper and consider our options. Let us not apologize for standing up to protect children from sexual, violent abuse.

In summary, I feel that these are issues which needed to be said. I again thank the member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge for the paper. True to his word, he delivered in record time. On behalf of all the members who are in the House or were at the meeting on April 16, I thank the hon. member. This is a good start and we can conclude on a positive note if the minister and the cabinet consider these options and recommendations very seriously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-15A, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts, in short, the criminal law amendment act, 2001.

Hon. members will be aware that Bill C-15A received third reading and was passed by the Senate on March 19. After careful study and reflection, the Senate adopted three amendments to Bill C-15A. The House now has an opportunity to consider and vote on these amendments. I will briefly summarize the amendments in the order that they appear in the bill. They are as follows.

First is an amendment to clause 5 of the bill to add new subsections 163.1(3.1) and subsection 163.1(3.2) to the criminal code, the effect of which would be to exempt Internet service providers, ISPs, from criminal liability for the new offences of “transmitting”, “making available” and “exporting” child pornography, where the ISP “merely provides the means or facilities of telecommunication”. This is referred to as amendment 1(a) in the message from the Senate.

Second is an addition to clause 5 of Bill C-15A to amend subsection 163.1(6) and subsection 163.1(7) of the criminal code in order to ensure that the defences that are currently available in relation to child pornography offences apply equally to the new offence of accessing child pornography. That is referred to as amendment 1(b) in the message from the Senate.

Third is an amendment to clause 71 of the bill, that is, proposed subsection 696.2(3) of the criminal code, dealing with the process for review of allegations of wrongful conviction which would limit the minister's power to delegate the exercise of the new investigative powers to members of the bar of a province, retired judges or any other individual who, in the opinion of the minister, has similar background or experience. This is referred to as amendment 2 in the message from the Senate.

The government recognizes the important role played by the Senate in its consideration of this legislation. The government accepts the second and third amendments and acknowledges that these changes are improvements to the bill. I urge hon. members to vote in favour of these two amendments. However, the first amendment dealing with the Internet service providers is a different matter. I urge hon. members to reject this change to the bill. Let us look more closely at these amendments.

The second amendment to clause 5 of the bill is a consequential amendment that adds a cross-reference to the new offence of accessing child pornography into subsections 163.1(6) and 163.1(7) of the criminal code. As already noted, the sole effect of this amendment would be to ensure that defences that are currently available in relation to all other child pornography offences apply equally to the offence of “accessing” child pornography under subsection (4.1).

This amendment is necessary to avoid creating an unfair situation where a defence that is available to other and possibly more serious child pornography offences would not be available to a charge of “accessing child pornography”. This amendment corrects an oversight and the government supports it.

Turning to the third amendment, hon. members will be aware that the federal Minister of Justice exercises special post-appellate powers in review of criminal convictions. Proposed subsection 696.2(2) provides the minister with the investigative powers of commissioner under part I of the Inquiries Act. This will provide the minister with the power to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses to provide information.

These additional powers of investigation are needed to improve the range and extent of the reviews of alleged wrongful conviction. Proposed subsection 696.2(3) as passed by the House would have allowed the minister to delegate the exercise of those investigative powers to “any individual”.

An amendment was made to subsection 696.2(3) in the Senate to specifically state that the minister may only delegate the exercise of those investigative powers to “any member in good standing of the bar of a province, retired judge or any other individual who in the opinion of the minister has similar background or experience”.

The government supports this amendment for the following reasons. It is important that those persons investigating cases on behalf of the minister have the ability to obtain the necessary information in order to thoroughly review and investigate a case so that a full report may be made to the minister as to whether or not a remedy is appropriate in a particular case.

Section 690 currently does not provide any powers to compel witnesses to give information or documents. Therefore there is no way that the information sought can be obtained if it cannot be obtained voluntarily.

For these special post-appellate powers to be exercised in a well balanced and reasonable fashion, the Minister of Justice needs to rely on sound legal advice based on good and reliable information.

The highly complex legal nature of these post-appellate conviction reviews requires that the people investigating these matters and eventually providing advice to the Minister of Justice possess a considerable knowledge of criminal law, the law of evidence, police practices and the workings of the judicial process. Therefore a legal background or substantial experience in law should be a requirement for a person to be designated as an investigator with the power to compel the production of evidence and the attendance of witnesses.

The Senate amendment allows the minister to appoint people the minister will trust and directs the minister's choice to persons having specialized legal experience. Again, the government accepts and supports this amendment.

Returning now to the first amendment to clause 5 of the bill, I ask hon. members to give careful consideration to this amendment as it is very problematic. It was made in an attempt to respond to concerns expressed by the Internet service providers to the effect that they could be convicted of “transmitting” or “making available” child pornography without any knowledge or intention to do so simply by virtue of the fact that they provide the “means” by which child pornography is disseminated.

These concerns are not well founded. New child pornography offences in Bill C-15A as well as the existing offences require both a guilty mind and a guilty act, a fact acknowledged by the Internet service providers. As with other criminal code offences, an offence of transmitting child pornography requires two critical components, the first component being an intention to transmit child pornography and the second component being the physical act of transmitting child pornography. Even without the Senate amendment, ISPs would not commit a child pornography offence when they do not have the knowledge of the content of the material stored on or going through their system.

Apart from being unnecessary, there is a more serious problem with the Senate amendment. The amendment exempts the ISPs from criminal liability in all cases where they merely provide the means or facilities of telecommunication. This exemption would apply even in cases where an ISP is aware that it is being used for the dissemination of child pornography because the ISP would still “merely provide the means or facilities of telecommunication”. As I mentioned earlier, ISPs who are unaware that their facilities are being used for such purpose would be insulated from criminal liability without the need for the amendment because they would not have the mental element, or the guilty mind if you will, that is necessary for committing a child pornography offence.

There is another problem with this amendment. The offences proposed by subclause 5(2) are not limited to the commission by means of the Internet. By exempting only the ISPs, the amendment ignores those who are responsible for other means or facilities that may be used for disseminating child pornography. Whether they be a courier, a taxi driver or even a trucker, they could unknowingly be used as a “conduit” or means of transmitting child pornography. Accepting an amendment to protect only one of the actors involved would cast a doubt on the legal fate of the other actors.

For all of these reasons, this amendment should be rejected by the House.

In conclusion, I strongly urge all hon. members to vote in favour of the second and third Senate amendments, amendments 1(b) and 2 in the message from the Senate, and to vote against the first amendment relating to the Internet service providers. That would be amendment 1(a) in the message from the Senate.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, for four days this week the House could have had thoughtful and fulsome debate on the report stage of Bill C-5 about species at risk. Unfortunately, the official opposition did not appear particularly interested in that.

Nevertheless, I will continue to consult with opposition House leaders to try to reach agreement on how to complete the debate on that very important legislation and I hope that there will be more interest shown than we have seen so far.

In the meantime, the House will proceed this afternoon with consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-15A, amending the criminal code. Tomorrow we will debate Bill S-34, respecting royal assent, followed by Bill S-40, respecting financial clearing houses.

On Monday we will return to any unfinished business from this week and, if there is time, we will turn to Bill C-15B, which of course is another criminal code amendment.

Later next week, if Bill C-50, the bill dealing with the WTO, and Bill C-49, dealing with excise, are in fact reported back to the House from committee in time, we will deal with their final stages as well as concluding any business left over from Monday.

As the House already knows, Tuesday, April 23 and Thursday, April 25 will be allotted days.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, we will see what will happen on the Sharpe question. Of course I cannot comment on that specific case for reasons that are obvious.

Of course the government is very committed. We are actively involved in the matter. Bill C-15A will give us another tool in order to make sure that we will keep protecting our children. As I said last week, the Department of Justice is actively looking into it with other members of parliament who are working on the file.

Privilege

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to a notice sent out yesterday by the Standing Committee on Health. The notice misrepresented the role of the House in a way that seriously maligns parliament.

The notice sent out by the health committee indicated that its business for the day was Bill C-53. Bill C-53 was up for debate yesterday and had not yet passed second reading when the notice was sent. The committee chairman had presupposed that the House would pass Bill C-53. While that ended up being the outcome, the committee notice to study Bill C-53 should not have been sent out until the House had made the decision to refer the bill to committee.

I refer the House to a ruling from October 10, 1989. Mr. Speaker Fraser ruled on a similar matter regarding an advertisement put out by parliament before parliament approved it. The Speaker quoted the then member for Windsor West, the recent Deputy Prime Minister, as saying:

--when this advertisement...says in effect there will be a new tax on January 1...the advertisement is intended to convey the idea that Parliament has acted on it because that is, I am sure, the ordinary understanding of Canadians about how a tax like this is finally adopted and comes into effect. That being the case, it is clearly contempt of Parliament because it amounts to a misrepresentation of the role of this House--.

The Speaker's comment in 1989 ruled that the effect of presupposing a decision of the House may tend to diminish the authority of the House in the eyes of the public.

We can draw a parallel between the 1989 case and the recent notice sent out by the health committee. If the committee gives the impression that Bill C-53 received second reading before the vote took place at second reading then its notice conveys the idea, as the former member for Windsor West argued, that the House adopted Bill C-53 at second reading since that would be Canadians' normal understanding of the process. The former Deputy Prime Minister argued that this sort of mockery of the parliamentary system amounts to contempt of parliament.

While the Speaker in 1989 did not rule a prima facie question of privilege he did say:

--I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous.

Mr. Speaker Fraser was in a quandary. He was not sure on which side he should rule so he gave a warning. He warned that next time he would rule on the side of granting a prima facie question of privilege.

This sort of thing has happened many times since those words were spoken. In the last two parliaments the Speaker had a tendency to look the other way. He did so when the Minister for International Trade sent out a press release announcing the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group when no such group existed. He did so when the government announced the appointment of the head of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation before there was legislation to set up the foundation.

A matter was raised by hon. member for Prince George--Peace River regarding the Canadian Wheat Board on February 3, 1998. Another matter was raised on October 28, 1997 regarding the Department of Finance. These complaints headed other warnings.

On November 6, 1997 the Speaker said:

--the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department...are of some concern...This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices...I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it.

These are strong words but such words cannot always be effective in defending the authority of this House. The fact that this behaviour continues undeterred demonstrates that the House must get serious.

Thankfully in this parliament the Speaker has taken these matters seriously. I will comment on two of those cases because they help to establish a pattern involving a particular minister.

Bill C-53 is sponsored by the same minister who was charged with contempt for leaking the contents of Bill C-15 before it was tabled in the House. When the Minister of Health was minister of justice, she was at it again with Bill C-36. Bill C-53 represents the minister's third offence, the latest tragedy to be preformed from her trilogy of contempt.

If the House is to function with authority and dignity then it must be respected, especially by its own members.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege at which time I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Species at Risk Act

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

Mr. Speaker, we are debating the various motions and amendments to Bill C-5, the species at risk act.

This legislation would have a dramatic impact on Canada as a whole in regard to the management of our natural resources and wildlife. It would have an impact on individual Canadians who live on the land and even those who live in the cities who want to enjoy the rural areas and the species living out in the countryside.

The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment along with endangered species. No one on God's green earth wants to see any species disappear. However, we know that over the millions of years that have passed nature itself has determined that some species would not continue to exist. We must have common sense legislation that within reason does as much as it possibly can to protect our endangered species.

The bill would not protect our endangered species in a common sense way. It may not even protect them in an effective way. The bill relies on the big stick. It relies on criminal sanctions when it should rely on some co-operation and some effort to bring Canadians totally on side.

The government has turned against the very Canadians that are most crucial in protecting species at risk, the landowners and land users where the species actually live. In the big cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, the areas where endangered species live have already been paved over so they are now gone from those areas. They may still exist in some other parts of Canada but the city people have already taken care of that. What is left now are the rural areas in Canada where we are trying to protect these endangered species. We are all in favour of that.

Today we are debating the amendments in Group No. 4. In one particular motion there is no requirement to put compensation in the regulations. This has been one of the binding points with rural people, the landowners, those people who would protect endangered species.

If a cattle rancher were to have a 640 acre square section on which there were particular endangered species or multiple endangered species, the government could come in and say that it should be set aside, fenced off and that there should be no use of that land for the raising of cattle because some species may need some heavier grass which should not be grazed down.

I do not know what the scientists may say about that. However, if that were the case there would be limited or no grazing on that land and yet there would be no compensation given to that rancher for that land which was taken out of production.

The government has asked to be trusted on this and said that it would do something for these people. If that were the case, if the minister's intent were true and believable, then what would be wrong with adding that to the legislation? That would get rid of a lot of problems. It would compensate those Canadians who might incur costs while attempting to save and protect endangered species and their habitat across Canada, which is what everyone wants. What is wrong with doing that simple thing?

It reminds me of Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation. What was required in that bill was the addition of one simple little legislative entry stating that under the criminal code the normal practices of farmers, ranchers, other livestock users and medical researchers was legally justified and would not be considered cruelty to animals.

The government could bring in good legislation but fails to do it. I do not understand why. It is like it is against farmers and ranchers. It just behooves me. The fine could be as much as $250,000. That is an awful onerous type of criminal sanction on a given farm and ranch. Many of these farms and ranches only net between $20,000 to $100,000 a year and then the government would try to fine them $250,000. That seems like an awful lot.

The government does not even have to let a landowner know that there is an endangered species on the owner's property. If the farmer or rancher were not aware that an endangered species was on the property, and the government did, the farmer or rancher could inadvertently destroy some habitat, or actually destroy the endangered species itself, and be subject to criminal sanctions because the government would not tell them. It is so ridiculous that the legislation deserves to be voted down.

We have some people in this country who are experts and have had experience with the species at risk legislation in the United States. I also have a friend High River, Alberta, David Pope. He is a lawyer and cattle rancher. I have actually seen his cattle ranch and he is a director of the Western Stock Growers' Association.

The directorship of the Western Stock Growers' Association met on April 9, 2002. The government thinks it has all the farmers onside. There are the Dairy Farmers of Canada. I know many members on the government side support the Dairy Farmers of Canada but the Dairy Farmers of Canada on April 3 wrote a letter to the government asking it not to pass the cruelty to animals amendments.

I am waiting to see that vote when it comes up in the House because I expect the Liberals to vote against the cruelty to animals provisions until we can get a decent bill brought in that takes care of our dairy farmers and does not cause them problems like the government is trying to do. Are Liberals the big protectors of farmers and agriculture? I do not think so.

David Pope said the Western Stock Growers' Association believed that the vast majority of the people involved in raising cattle in Canada would not support a law which would allow their federal government to confiscate their land without fair compensation under the guise of protecting habitat of a species at risk, as well as other issues.

Mr. Pope was born in the United States. He came to Canada and was a teacher, cattle rancher and lawyer. He is well travelled and well experienced. He said the legislation in the United States was terrible. There are many components in the legislation we are trying to pass that contain some of the same defects that were in the American legislation.

He said the federal government would have the legal authority to confiscate land without fair compensation, whether it was private land or crown provincial grazing land, under the guise of protecting the habitat.

A forced reduction of the number of cattle grazed on either private or crown land would not be fairly compensated. This backs up what I said a few minutes ago. We have an economic problem with agriculture. The cycles of prices, and commodity prices in particular, go up and down. Mr. Pope pointed out that as a result we end up with the necessity, when the government negatively impacts agriculture, that it provide some compensation for it.

The federal government is creating new crimes against landowners with fines of up to $50,000 or one year in jail. It would be double that if there was a second conviction. Any of us could easily be convicted of one of these offences without the government having to prove criminal intent.

Bill C-5 is along the lines of the Firearms Act. It would create a whole bunch of rules and regulations. They would be so many and so complex that Canadians could not possibly obey them all. With a vindictive government like this one and the present health minister who is a former justice minister, we would see that vindictiveness come forward and hurt Canadians.

I thank the House for the time to speak today. I will be trying to rise and speak to the bill later.

Pest Control Products Act

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the other vice-chair of the environment committee it is my pleasure to speak to the bill.

As we have heard from my hon. colleague across the way, I was not part of the environment committee when Bill C-53 was discussed so I am not familiar with all the work put into it during that year. However I will add a few comments that might be helpful to the health committee as it looks at the bill.

My involvement with environmental issues dates back to my reading of Silent Spring , Rachel Carson's book that pushed into the forefront the issue of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and so on and the impacts they might have. In those days a lot of mistakes were made. A lot of chemicals were developed that were effective, but no one looked at what they might do to our water and wildlife down the road. No one looked at the cumulative effects they might have for future generations.

I am pleased this piece of legislation is being revised. As the hon. member across the way mentioned, it has not been updated since 1969. An awful lot has changed in the area of chemistry regarding what works, what does not work and all the problems I mentioned.

I recognize the pressure on farmers trying to make a living who have had to deal with low commodity prices, increased input costs and so many environmental concerns. Other legislation before the House, Bill C-15B, is causing major concern regarding the definition of animal and the rights animals should have. We are all against cruelty to animals. However by taking the issue to the extreme we could put an awful lot of pressure on our agriculture community. Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation, could put even more pressure on farmers as it comes through the House later this week.

Now we are discussing pesticides. A lot of farmers are afraid the government will come after them and attack the very things that constitute their way of life and means of income. We want to make sure members of the farm community understand that Bill C-53 would not target them. It would simply modernize a piece of legislation that has not been touched since 1969. I know many farmers who do not like using chemicals. They would rather not have to use them. However using various fungicides, herbicides and pesticides is a matter of survival for them.

Bill C-53 says the federal government would not interfere in the urban use of pesticides. It would leave it to the municipalities. That is a wise decision. It would allow each city to listen to its grassroots and make its own decisions. The most important emphasis for the health committee will be to look at the effect pesticides would have on children, animals and people in the community.

The new farming methods depend fairly heavily on the use of new herbicides and pesticides. Direct seeding is very common across most of western Canada. Saving fuel, reducing CO

2

and preventing erosion are all important when it comes to the new farming techniques. The downside is that farmers are fairly dependent on herbicides and pesticides to keep down weeds, insects and so on.

There is the matter of the runoff of these chemicals into our dugouts, streams and lakes and the effects it might have. We need a full study of water and the implications of pesticide and herbicide use on our water supply. The government has talked but has come forward with very little action regarding the survey of water.

We need to understand our aquifers. We need to understand the environmental implications on a much bigger scale than we now do. That is in the realm of federal concern. The federal government needs to show the provinces it wants to work together to develop a water inventory which includes the runoff of chemicals into our water supply. We have gone far too long without doing adequate studies to know what this means.

As I mentioned, the technology has improved. The modernization of chemicals and use of safer chemicals is all part of the new R and D. Chemical companies know they must have safe products. Because we have had such outdated legislation Canada has been pretty lax in the use of new chemicals. Bill C-53 would move us along those lines.

As has been mentioned before, when an OECD country says a chemical is suspect because it does not do the job it is supposed to and has other effects, Canada will start to look at that. This is a positive move. We need to register these chemicals. We need to understand their implications. These are all positive aspects of Bill C-53.

A big concern I have and that our agriculture and health critics have spoken to is that we need to put this piece of legislation into committee where we can make amendments and so on. However I am a little tainted and unhappy because that is exactly what happened to Bill C-5. Government members, opposition members, environmentalists and so on all found fault with it. It went to committee. We worked for nine months to improve it. All members of the House worked hard and co-operatively on that piece of legislation.

When the government got the legislation back from committee it decided to reverse most of the amendments we had won in committee. If that is the sort of thing that happens with Bill C-53 I will question what the committee is doing or whether it is wasting its time with the amendments. I will get over it. However when I see something sent to committee and have great hopes for amendments, I hope the government will listen to the committee. Committees listen to hundreds of witnesses before making recommendations to make better pieces of legislation.

When we talk about pesticides we should also talk about labelling. All of us have experienced difficulties with labelling. Whether we spray a chemical on our lawn or on a bug we do not want in our roses, we sometimes have difficulty reading the labelling. I have always thought that needed a lot of improvement.

The labelling sometimes talks about the mixing of quantities but talks about spraying only one rose bush. This does not mean much to the user who may not be dealing with only one rose bush. Sometimes it is very unclear what one is supposed to do to safely use a chemical. Farmers have the same difficulty when mixing batches of pesticide. Clear labelling is needed. Anything the committee can do to improve labelling for the use of pesticides would help.

We need to speed up the registration process whether for drugs or the use of pesticides. We need to learn from others. We need to look at what the EU, the Americans and other countries are doing. We need to see why they are outlawing certain chemicals and bringing in new ones. Many new chemicals are cheaper, more effective and do a much better job. We need to be able to speed up the process. Again, I hope the committee deals with the issue of registration.

As I mentioned, the mandatory review of any chemical banned by an OECD country is a good move because it means those 50 some countries have done their research. If they find a reason to ban a certain chemical it is good to evaluate the information. However we want the evaluation to be based on sound science and not the whims or lobbying of chemical companies and agricultural groups. This is something the committee could amend and improve in Bill C-53.

When we put forward a piece of legislation like this we need to recognize that farmers are in competition with members of the European Union and their American colleagues, and that the competition is real. There is an awful lot of work we can do. As long as the committee is given the freedom to bring in the witnesses it wants and put forward the recommendations it wants, and as long as the government is committed to listening, we will go a long way toward having an improved piece of legislation.

As my party's agriculture and health critics have said, we will support this piece of legislation. We will take it to committee. We look forward to getting amendments with respect to labelling, use, evaluation and so on. Provided that all comes together, we look forward to supporting Bill C-53 when it comes to report stage and third reading.

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

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-15B, which refers to the prevention of cruelty to animals act and some aspects of the Firearms Act.

I have spoken to the bill before. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker will recall that I have spoken to the bill a couple of times. I do so from the standpoint of being a farmer for 35 years. I would like to pick up on some of the comments made by my colleague from Edmonton--Strathcona. Although he does not have experience in raising livestock he certainly has made some excellent points about animal welfare.

Some groups nowadays talk about animal rights. I have a bit of a problem with that. I have no problem, however, when we talk about animal welfare. My colleague made the point that not only it is in the farmers' and producers' best interests not to be cruel to livestock, but it is also in their interests to make sure that livestock does not even suffer any undue stress. Stress affects the way the livestock perform.

For instance, in regard to milk cows, I know there are groups in Canada who think that even the taking of milk from a milk cow is somehow a violation of the animal's rights. We can see how I would have a problem with that concept. If milk cows are not properly fed, if they do not have a high protein, fairly high fat and high energy diet, their milk production drops. After all, producing milk does two things. It supplies nutrients to a hungry nation and it supplies a livelihood to the person who does the milking. If the animal is stressed, milk production goes down, the hungry nation goes with less milk, unless more milk cows are provided, and the producer and his family make do with less income. It only follows, then, that it is in the best interests of the livestock producer, the dairy people or the poultry producers to put their animals under the least stress possible for the benefit of everybody, for the benefit of the system, for the benefit of the country, for the benefit of the economy.

I have no problem with dealing harshly with people who deliberately, maliciously and for no reason at all are cruel to animals. I have no problem with dealing severely with them. However, when the point is reached that the penalty for killing one's dog is a more severe penalty than it is for killing one's neighbour or wife, then I think we have crossed the line of common sense, and indeed, reality.

If we need to strengthen the laws to deal more harshly with cruelty to animals, I think it only follows that we need to strengthen the law so that we deal more harshly with people who are cruel to people, not only for murder but for mental cruelty. We all know people who have suffered at the hands of a parent, a sibling or people at school. There is a case in the news right now about a young person who took his own life and the possibility is that he did that as a result of the taunting and teasing received in school. That is the worst form of cruelty, cruelty to the point that it may have driven this young person to end his life at age 14 because he simply just could not bear the thought of continuing this miserable existence and being constantly teased.

If it is necessary to be more severe and have more severe penalties for those who abuse animals then let us balance the scale. Let us put something on the other side of the scale and make the penalties more severe for those people who are cruel and malicious to people.

Over the years we raised thousands of head of cattle for slaughter. According to what I read in the bill, even if one causes instantaneous death to an animal, one might be subject to these severe penalties. I cannot quite comprehend that because oftentimes in the cafeteria we are served roast beef, hamburger or fried chicken. Today the entree was fish. It is necessary to kill these animals to make meat. Someone has to kill these animals and I am sure that we do it in a humane way but under this law if the animal dies immediately it may be subject to penalty. That is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous that in committee at least 150 amendments to the bill were passed. Somehow they were dropped, lost or kicked out somewhere between the committee and the House. What kind of way is that to run the legislature? When we--

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, in listening to my colleague's wisdom on so many issues pertaining to the bill, I was so excited, especially when he mentioned that I was to stand and speak, and how I would delay the bill. I beg to differ on that part because I know that my words will be just illuminating to the other side, to make changes to the bill, to improve the bill and to actually have democracy work in this place once and for all. I know you have faith in me, Madam Speaker, to be able to so do. I hope not to let you down.

As I stand in this place at this time of the day, the energy and the electricity in this place are beyond words. I am so excited to see that there is an audience here who wants to hear what I have to say and what I would like to add to the bill. For the people who have been tuned in watching their legislators talk about the bill, I am sure it has evoked a lot of emotion.

Cruelty to animals is something that all Canadians clearly are concerned about. Almost everyone I know has a pet of some sort at home. They love their animals and they want to make sure those animals are loved and protected and that no one abuses their well-being. I do not think we would find very many Canadians who would disagree with that sort of principle, but in attempting to look at the bill we are discussing here today, Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals bill, there obviously are some concerns, which many of my colleagues have raised during today's debate, as to how in fact this may affect one side of the equation in trying to approach protection of animals.

As I said in one of my earlier comments when I was asking one of my colleagues a question, it seems to me that the government, when producing legislation, tends to try to divide and conquer Canadians rather than bring all stakeholders together, which is such a shame. We saw that sort of attitude when it came to the endangered species legislation. We have seen that sort of attitude with other legislation. Instead of trying to find consensus and bring the various stakeholders together, the attitude is to divide and conquer and see if it can pass legislation where unfortunately one side over the other will be negatively affected.

When I talk about the stakeholders in this case, I am talking about people who are involved in the production of animals in the form of livestock, such as ranchers and farmers, and those who are obviously far from that sort of production and activity, people who live in urban centres or larger towns. Unfortunately many of the arguments on both sides are not coming out. They are not being dealt with effectively and are not being held at merit for the base of their arguments.

In my own riding I have had so many constituents who have taken the time to communicate to me how important they feel the bill is and how they would like me to support it. I think I will support it on that basis because I have had an overwhelming indication from my riding that my constituents would like me to do so. That still does not make it right, because on the other side, the rural arguments I spoke about, there are real concerns. The government has done such a terrible job in trying to raise those effectively so that we can get people on the same page.

We know what the bill is supposed to do. I will just take a moment to read it into the record. The stated purpose of the bill is to consolidate animal cruelty offences and increase the maximum penalties. It also provides a definition of animal and moves cruelty to animals provisions from the property offences part of the criminal code.

A lot of Canadians may ask what has changed since the last time this type of bill was presented in the House or since the last time we debated it. The government has made certain changes from the previously proposed legislation dealing with cruelty to animals, Bill C-17. The main change was a requirement for a person to act “wilfully or recklessly” in killing or harming animals. However, there are still significant concerns that many organizations, businesses and individuals have with respect to the bill. I started to talk about some of those concerns among some industry people. The people who do have concerns about this legislation, and I will go on to talk about some of them, are agricultural groups, farmers and industry workers. As well, one of my colleagues addressed the idea of medical researchers quite thoroughly this afternoon in regard to some of the concerns they have raised.

All these groups have consistently said that they welcome amendments to the criminal code that would clarify and strengthen provisions relating to animal cruelty. They obviously do not condone intentional animal abuse or neglect in any way. Many of these groups obviously rely on the production of livestock. Their whole livelihoods are based on that. In the production process, some of them actually have relationships that are of the utmost respect for these particular animals because they know that their livelihoods are based on that. The last thing they would ever imagine is to put any type of livestock under any form of cruelty. In fact, they look at ways to be able to minimize the risk or hurt to many of these animals in their production processes.

Many of these groups in fact support the intent of the bill, as its objective is to modernize the law and increase penalties for offences relating to animal cruelty and neglect, but they do, however, have some concerns as to how far the bill can then penalize them if there is an unfortunate feeling that there has been neglect on their part. As I have said, many of them have never approached the issue of animal cruelty in a negative way. They do not intent to hurt the animals. Despite the minor improvements to the legislation, these groups advise that the bill requires significant amendments before their concerns are alleviated. There are a number of main concerns they have raised.

I would like to focus on just a couple of these issues. My colleagues have talked about a few of these issues, especially when it comes to the definition of animal. The definition in the bill is so broad that we could have a number of challenges in court and a lot of confusion as to how animals may fall into these categories. It sure raises fear in my mind about what sort of door the government is opening by not looking specifically at how we can tighten up that part of the legislation.

There is also this idea, which I think hits it on the head, of moving the animal cruelty section out of property offences to a new section in its own right. That is seen by many as emphasizing animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. This is a very important point because the significant alteration in the underlying principles of the legislation is something that needs to be carefully considered. The Canadian Alliance told the government in committee, at question period and in other ways, that this is something that really needs to be considered carefully. The Canadian Alliance asked government members to retain the cruelty to animal provisions in the property offences section of the criminal code but they refused.

It becomes a fine line, especially when it comes to the idea of animal welfare and animal rights. That is something we all have to come to terms with, because when it comes to the development and production of many of these animals there is no doubt that the concern among Canadians is that these animals are being treated properly, cared for and not being abused. As I pointed out, many of these groups that have a concern with the change realize that it is the last thing that they do when they approach how to treat these animals. They actually treat them with the utmost respect and try to make it as painless as possible and give them the best conditions they can have outside of the wild.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the whole process of trying to put forward amendments. We in opposition try really hard to work with the government, to improve its legislation and support it where we can, but we are shut out at every turn. The opposition has tried on a number of occasions in committee to make legislation better. We know that there is a majority government and that the government will pass the legislation it wants passed.

What disappoints us is that when we try to put amendments forward and try to work with the government to improve legislation so that everyone can live with it happily ever after, the government is concerned only about itself and its own interests and refuses to bring stakeholders together. That is just a shame. I wish we could work together more effectively to protect animals and to bring all stakeholders together but in fact the government is going to force the opposition to vote against the bill and that will not do animals any good.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to most of the debate here today. I always like to pose questions with regard to government bills.

First, what fruit would the animal cruelty legislation bear? I predict the following. People who see themselves as do-gooders would try to crack down on people running family farms and other operations. Farmers or ranchers practising what they consider to be normal animal husbandry would wind up being called criminals. They would face having to go to court or preliminary hearings. They would have to pay a lot of money to lawyers. The legislation would impose on them yet one more burden in addition to those they already bear in trying to maintain their family farms, cattle ranches or other operations.

Some ministers across the way may be able to eke out a couple of extra campaign workers or votes from their urban constituencies. However at the end of the day the bill would be another pain for the people who deal with animal husbandry on a regular basis. People in urban constituencies think they know better but they live in cities and do not deal with animals that much.

Second, who is asking for Bill C-15B? Who demands this type of legislation? I do not hear veterinarians going hog wild about it and saying we need this type of legislation. It is being promoted by a bunch of people who see it as their moral crusade. I have met with some of these people. They do not deal with animals on a regular basis, certainly not to the same extent as farmers, ranchers, veterinarians or others who make their living dealing with animals.

Again, what fruit would Bill C-15B bear? It would be a burden and a cost on average ranchers and farmers. It would be one more regulatory nightmare they do not need. As a result more of them would face difficulty, financially and otherwise, and we would see an increased corporatization of farms.

Who is pushing for the legislation? The Liberals across the way would fall victim yet again to special interests instead of dealing with the broad cross section of the Canadian public, a public which happens to live in a lot of rural areas on the prairies. These are our votes so why should the Liberals care? They did not care about the wheat board. They did not care about Bill C-68 and the long gun registry. They do not care about farmers or ranchers with regard to Bill C-15B. I guess that is the way the cookie crumbles. That is too bad.

One question I have been asking throughout the day has to do with private property rights and search and seizure. I will relate a story to the House. I recently took in a gun auction on my birthday and was told about someone who had been raided. The police had arrived at the door.

Hon. members should try to imagine this. It is a true story. The person had purchased a firearm at some point. The paperwork was fine. It was absolutely tickety-boo because the person had done everything right. All of a sudden a bunch of police officers in S.W.A.T. team tactical gear arrived at the door at 10 o'clock at night demanding to see all the paperwork and go on a search of the house.

As it turns out, in that case the person was lucky enough to have all the paperwork at hand to show them. That way they did not have to be kept up throughout the night with the police searching farms. Imagine that someone who had their paperwork in proper order had police arrive at their door at 10 p.m. to hassle them. It could potentially have turned into an affair of several hours rooting through that person's home. That is a real consequence of what the government has done with regard to firearms registration. A shame is what it is.

There are a couple of other things I would like to add to the debate which I have not yet done today with all the questions I have asked on this subject. There are things the government can do that will actually go after either the criminal misuse of firearms or terrorists or real criminals. Those are some of the things I would like to see the government focus on. It is a shame it does not.

I have been down to our border posts between Quebec and the United States. There are eight of them along the Quebec border. I have visited them a number of times. Some visits were previous to September 11 and I did not bother to ask very many detailed questions at the time. Subsequently I took the time to ask some of our customs officials what changes they would like to see as we do not seem to get straight answers from the ministers across the way. They do not like to tell us what the problems are or be honest about the problems in their departments or what they actually need.

The customs officials on the front lines say they want sniffer dogs. I do not know if anyone will believe it but for eight border crossings there is one little dog's nose, which is only worth a couple of hours because it gets fatigued and is not able to distinguish between various substances after a few hours of intensive work. One would think that perhaps there would be enough dogs to cover every single border crossing if we were really serious about apprehending criminals.

If people were not just trying to buy votes or looking for a band-aid solution and were really trying to apprehend people who smuggle substances across our borders and if they were really into nabbing criminals and terrorists, there would probably be enough dogs to cover our manned border crossings. But no, instead of having eight dogs, let alone having more for different shifts at 24 hour border crossings, there is just one sniffer dog for all of them. It is ridiculous.

Imagine it is late at night. A car is crossing the border crossing and the customs officer would like to check underneath the vehicle as he or she suspects there may be something wrong. Not only is there a lack of light but it is also drizzling, raining or snowing and visibility is greatly reduced. Perhaps there is even fog, a haze or blowing dust.

Customs officials would like to have a vehicle lift. Rather than relying on a mirror which a person has to use light refraction with in dimly lit circumstances as no one can really see anything, an officer would like to put a questionable vehicle on a lift, raise it up and look underneath. That is entirely reasonable to me.

What customs officials are asking for are not things that aggrandize their own personal titles. They are not asking for executive curls on their uniforms or gold buttons. They are asking for sniffer dogs and vehicle lifts. These are very practical things.

I am going to recap some of the things that have been raised today by my various colleagues, what I think are the best aspects that have been brought forward with this debate.

The government is spending huge amounts of money, $700 million plus, close to $1 billion, on a long gun registry instead of twinning highways or irrigation. Those are things that people in rural communities, the farmers and the ranchers could really use. It is practical, tangible stuff. It provides real, long term benefits. It is actually an enhancement of the Canadian economy and our productivity. For some reason, the government is not considering those things.

The government is continuing to spend money on court challenges programs that allow prisoners to use taxpayer dollars to challenge the government with regard to how many types of toothpaste they have.

Imagine how crazy that is. People would think that prisoners in Canada would be happy just getting one brand of toothpaste. No, they have launched court challenges using our taxpayer dollars over the issue of their not having enough brands of toothpaste to choose from.

I see that my time is up and I have so much more that I could communicate to the House. I will leave hon. members with this thought. This system of either registration or dealing with animal rights aspects of things that interferes with animal husbandry on farms and ranches is ridiculous and is only going to wind up in more red tape and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have time to speak to the bill today.

We have heard several speakers make valuable contributions to the debate, none greater than the justice minister for the Canadian Alliance. I meant to say justice critic for the Canadian Alliance. I jumped the gun a bit. He was the justice minister in Manitoba before he came here, so he has that background. He was also the crown prosecutor in Manitoba so he has seen things from both sides and understands well what happens in courtrooms across the country.

The Alliance justice critic made many good points yesterday that were well worth reading. I encourage anyone interested in the issue to read what he said in yesterday's Hansard . It was an important contribution. He made it clear that he is concerned Bill C-15B would cause extreme hardship down the road for people who work with animals to make a living. It would force them to bear the costs of frivolous court cases brought forward by extreme animal rights activists and other individuals. In some cases neighbours who are ticked off for some reason may phone the police.

Whether a person is innocent or guilty the costs would be there. No one else would pick them up. That kind of burden would in some cases be too much for farmers to bear. They would not be able to handle it. The justice critic for the Canadian Alliance expressed that and many other concerns very well yesterday.

We in the Canadian Alliance fully support increasing penalties for offences related to cruelty to animals if necessary, although I ask why it would be. I am quite familiar with what happens in Alberta regarding the protection of animals. The provincial law is extremely effective. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or SPCA is designated under provincial law as the protector of animals. It is paid to do so. If there is a complaint in Alberta that a pet owner is abusing a pet the SPCA will come in and deal with it. It is extremely effective. It is not overly bureaucratic. At times it may be overly zealous and a bit hard on people accused of doing something wrong, but it is effective overall. Animals are well protected under the current law.

Why do we need Bill C-15B at all, particularly the animal cruelty section? We do not. If there is evidence anywhere across the country that tougher penalties are required let us look at it and perhaps we will impose them. I have not seen the evidence. The government has not presented any such evidence. In Alberta it is not needed. I ask the government to back off on the legislation. It is not too late. I hope that happens.

Bill C-15B if passed would have an extremely negative impact on farmers across the country whether intentional or not, and I believe it is. I believe it is intentional because in the two years since the original version of the bill was introduced we have been saying okay, let us put something in it to protect people who raise animals as a way of making a living. That has not happened, so I have to assume the government is intentionally targeting farmers.

Anyone who knows farmers knows that no one takes better care of animals. Their livelihoods depend on looking after their animals. People whose livelihoods depend on looking after animals are in the vast majority of cases likely to do a good job, and they do.

I was raised on a farm where we raised every kind of animal one can imagine. After finishing university I bought a farm. My neighbours raised livestock. I have a standing joke I have told here before. Because they live on a farm the husband, wife and children are all involved in looking after the animals. On many occasions I have heard wives or husbands say if they were as well looked after as the animals they would be happy. Farmers spend hours caring for their animals. During calving time they are up every couple of hours during the night. One could not ask for better care. In the vast majority of cases animals are extremely well looked after.

In Alberta when someone is not looking after animals properly people will phone the SPCA. Everyone knows the number. It is well advertised. No one has less tolerance for animals being abused than the people who raise them for a living. This includes farmers no matter what type of enterprise they are involved in. No one is more vigilant regarding neighbours who do not do a proper job of looking after animals. We have an effective system in Alberta. Animal abuse on farms is not tolerated.

Why do we need this legislation? Why do we need to put farmers through this? I know what would happen. It happened with the gun bill which has a lot of discretionary application. Bill C-15B would allow police, on a call from a neighbour who is mad for some reason, to go in and press charges. Whether or not people are found innocent the costs of the court case and the time involved would be real and substantial. They would have to be borne by the people defending themselves.

Why do we need more discretionary legislation? Cases like these have already happened under the gun act on many occasions. In my neighbourhood a former employee ticked off with an employer because of a disagreement phoned the police and told them the person had a gun he should not have had. It did not matter whether or not it was true. The police came in. The employer had shells which were collectors' items. They were packaged in the original boxes. The police tore them apart and destroyed them. That should not happen. The police normally would not do that kind of thing but they did in this case. It happens in many cases. I know of others. It caused a great loss to that individual. This type of thing would happen under Bill C-15B.

Whether intentionally or not the government would be putting a great burden on farmers across the country. I care about that. I will not stand by and allow it to happen if I can stop it. That is why I am speaking to this piece of legislation today. It should be thrown out. It would make things worse, not better. It would not do a thing to protect animals from being abused.

In 1994 when the former justice minister talked about how the gun registry would save lives we asked him to show us evidence that it would save even one life. It is recorded in Hansard in a response to a question in question period. The minister said he could not produce evidence because there was none. He said the government simply knew the registry would save lives.

Well, it has not. Nor will it. Bill C-15B would be the same. It would not protect one animal. My opinion is based on knowledge of what is happening in the real world. The government had better become connected with the real world or legislation like this will continue to come forward and cause problems for innocent people.

It is important that the government admits it once again made a mistake and backs off the legislation. If it feels parts of it are necessary let us pick them out, deal with them separately and put in place good legislation, because this is not. Let us throw it out.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-15B. I want to pick up where my friends left off just a moment ago.

Bill C-15B represents a sea change in how government will treat the issue of animal cruelty. The sea change occurs in the fact that the government is preparing to move animal cruelty out of the list of property offences to a new, separate category and, at the same time, define an animal as a vertebrate other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

In a way it is a shocking development. It is more shocking in the sense that the public is largely unaware that this is occurring. Hopefully we are bringing some light to this right now. The reason it is important is that if an animal is not the property of a human being, then who does it belong to? Does that mean that it has self-ownership like human beings? Does that bestow all kinds of rights on animals via the back door without the benefit of a large public debate?

If that is what it is doing, the implications are huge for the country. I wish we had more time to draw attention to this because I really do think that is where this legislation is headed. The government has been completely disingenuous in moving animals into this new category without clearly stating its intent, because what it is now doing is opening the way for the courts to do the clarifying for it.

Other people have spoken in this debate, including my friend from Calgary Southeast, about the tendency of the courts to go ahead and make law on their own. I want to remind people who think that this is some kind of a fantasy, that already the animal rights lobby has stated very clearly that they will go ahead and push this issue in the courts.

I want members to listen to what was said by Liz White, director of legislative revision with the Animal Alliance of Canada. She said:

My worry...is that people will think of this as the means to the end, but really it's [just] the beginning. It doesn't matter what the legislation says, if nobody uses it, nobody takes it to court, nobody tests it.... The onus is on humane societies and other groups on the front lines to push the legislation to the limit, test the parameters of the law and have "the courage of their convictions to lay charges."

I am a pet owner. We have a golden retriever named Jack. We have had many dogs and I have loved each animal we have owned. We have tried very hard to take care of them. As someone who comes from a rural area where we produce animals for human food, I can say that the people who are the most concerned about the good treatment of animals are farmers and ranchers. The first ones to turn in someone who they sense is being cruel to an animal is another farmer or rancher. I can guarantee that is the case. . I know these people and I know that to be true.

Our party has argued that if the issue is that animals are being abused and nothing is being done about it, then by all means we should strengthen the penalties or have more enforcement of the law. We have argued already that we do not have adequate enforcement in Canada today for all kinds of crimes and that instead of making all kinds of new laws, that we should first consider increasing the enforcement.

However, to potentially elevate the status of animals to the point where they have rights on their own is a huge mistake. It certainly is a sneaky way of going about getting something the government may want without involving the public in the debate. It is a serious issue and it has large implications.

If Bill C-15B is enacted it will have a serious impact on rural regions in Canada, and this comes at a time when rural regions are already under assault.

Many of us are deeply concerned about other legislation, such as the endangered species legislation which will have impact on farmers and ranchers. The government has failed to provide a provision in that legislation to remunerate farmers and ranchers whose land is taken out of production in order to protect an endangered species.

Many other pieces of legislation also have huge implications for farmers and ranchers, and Bill C-15B touches on one of them. I am referring to Bill C-68, the firearms legislation, which again is an assault on the rural way of life in Canada. It really indicates a deep misunderstanding of what life is like in rural Canada where a firearm is not a weapon but a tool people use to help them do their jobs.

The government in its wisdom is now going to register firearms across the country at a huge expense to taxpayers. The government has already spent over $600 million and I guarantee it will spend many hundred million dollars more before it gets the job done only to find out that it is completely ineffective and will have no impact. It will not do anything to stop crime because criminals will not register their guns. When will Liberals get that through their heads?

Bill C-15B is wrongheaded in many different ways. I deeply regret that the government has such a shallow understanding of rural Canada. It has completely missed the boat.

I want to touch for a moment on some of the other implications of Bill C-15B. We heard the member for Macleod who is a doctor speak a few minutes ago about the potential impact the legislation would have on medical research. I want members to consider the fact that when animals are used for medical research they are being used to save human lives. However, the government seems to want to place the lives of animals ahead of the lives of humans. This reflects the government's unbelievable mix up of priorities.

The Canadian Medical Association and other research groups, which do fantastic work to protect human lives, are deeply concerned about the legislation. They asked for changes but are not receiving those changes. Many groups have asked for responsible changes. Many groups have asked for changes that would include tougher sentences for people who are convicted of abusing animals but they did not receive those changes. The government has bulldozed straight ahead and has completely caved in to the animal rights lobby in Canada.

We must remember that many of these groups have more respect for an animal's life than they do for a human life. Some of them have blown up trucks, which is what happened a few years ago, and others have destroyed laboratories and all kinds of things. In many cases these people, in their demented view, would put human lives at risk in order to save some animals, mice, rats or whatever, that may be used in a laboratory. It is completely perverse how they have reversed their priorities.

I urge Canadians who are watching today to write to Liberal members of parliament about this issue. It is unbelievable to see these twisted priorities make their way into legislation. When members across the way get the chance to send a message to their own government, I urge them to say that this legislation is completely beyond the pale. I hope they find the courage to do exactly that.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my colleague regarding the critically important distinction between animal rights and animal welfare. While I understand that the bill does not explicitly define an entitlement of animals to rights, we know based on the experience of our charter and judicial activism over the past two decades that there is a tendency in this country for legal activists to consciously expand the meaning of legislation to the point where it no longer in any way resembles the original intent of parliament, particularly with respect to putative rights claims.

In support of my colleague's contention, I would point out the fact that there is a strong and growing movement within certain spheres of academia by certain so-called rights theorists, such as the new head of bioethics at Princeton University, the ignominious Peter Singer, to define animal rights as carrying the same moral quality as human rights. In fact, Dr. Singer proposes that a pig carries more rights than a newborn human infant and in fact has published articles to this effect in prestigious international academic journals. The notion articulated by my colleague is not an outlandish one. In fact, it is very much rooted in new post-modern ethical theories that are being articulated in major western universities. Therefore, the spectre of animal rights is very much a prescient one which should concern all of us in this bill.

I would also point out, in support of my colleague's argument, that the entire tradition of western civilization, the entire intellectual edifice, is predicated in part on the idea that there is a difference in kind and not degree between human beings and animals. While we are all creatures of a common God, mankind is created in the image of that God who grants animals to us for our stewardship. This is an idea which is consistent in every tradition of moral philosophy, from the ancient Hebrew scribes through to the classical Greek philosophers. Aristotle in De Animus articulated this. Thomas Aquinas articulated this in Summa Theologica . Even the enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke articulated the very clear moral distinction between man and beast, to use the traditional language. Therefore, I would support my hon. member's contention on that.

I have a question for him based on the broadening of the definition of “animal”, in fact an entrenchment of a definition which heretofore have been left to the common law. Bill C-15B proposes to define animal as including non-human vertebrates and “any other animal having the capacity to feel pain”.

My colleague from Portage--Lisgar, the official opposition justice critic, has raised a very interesting question which I would like to pose to my colleague from Kootenay--Columbia, namely this: given that the courts in Canada have defined the human fetus, prior to full delivery from its mother, as a non-human and given that the human fetus is clearly a living entity of some sort, in fact a vertebrate, and given that the human fetus according to all scientific evidence begins to feel pain from something like six months from the onset of gestation, would my colleague not agree with me that there are at least very strong potential grounds in the bill that advocates for the rights of the unborn human fetus could use it in a way unintended by the government to assert a right of protection against unreasonable pain for the human fetus? I would like him to comment on that.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again it is my privilege to stand and speak to this bill, although, as with many of the bills that come to us from the Liberals, I can assure everyone that the content of the bill does not contain anything with which I am particularly happy.

The first item that I would like to draw to the attention of members is that in my constituency we have a tremendous number of very responsible firearms owners. They are taking a look at the content of this bill and other provisions that have been brought forward by the Liberals over a period of time with respect to the original bill, Bill C-68, which absolutely makes them want to pull their hair out.

They are looking at the fact, for example, that the government has spent and is in the process of spending more than $700 million on a useless gun registry when in fact the government very proudly talks about the fact that it will be spending $200 million to protect us from terrorism. I think that spending $200 million against terrorists, Osama bin Laden and his ilk, versus $700 million against law-abiding Canadian gun owners is just obscene. I think the tinkering around the edges contained in Bill C-15B is an example of the government making policy and laws on the fly.

The difficulty we have with this is that it is all bits and pieces. This is an omnibus bill. Omnibus, for those who are interested, simply means that it is a catch-all, a bill where the government threw everything into the hat. Originally this was Bill C-15. In this omnibus bill, the government thought it would do more tinkering around the edges with respect to the issue of gun registry. The tinkering around the edges is absolutely inadequate. The only thing we should be doing with respect to the gun registry is immediately withdrawing it and replacing it with measures that would actually make our streets safer.

It must be said that it is understandable that we should know who should be allowed to legally posses and carry firearms. That is logical and totally understandable. I do not see having a licence for that as posing any particular problem. As a matter of fact, it could well be a benefit. It certainly would give the prosecutors and the police in Canada the ability to take action under law that might be required to diffuse particular situations. The whole issue of this useless registry is that it is sending millions and millions of dollars completely down the drain. I say with respect to Bill C-15B and the whole issue of the tinkering with the firearms registry that it is an absolute waste of time and an absolute waste of money.

I also mentioned that the bill is designated as Bill C-15B as opposed to Bill C-15A, which supposedly we will be discussing at some future point in this parliament, because what the government did at the outset was create a grab bag of things that do not relate to each other in any way, shape or form. For example, what indeed does cruelty to animals have to do with the gun registry? I do not see any connection there at all.

Bill C-15A supposedly also has to do with protecting children, and we will be having a debate about that later, as well as the whole issue of safety for police officers. What does that have to do with cruelty to animals? Only when the Canadian Alliance dug in its heels and said no, it would not be going that route, and this goes back to last June, did it finally force the government into a situation where a legitimate vote could take place on the issue of Bill C-15B, primarily on the issue of cruelty to animals.

The fact that it decided to continue to have the catch-all of the change with respect to gun registry still contained in Bill C-15B was something that was really quite unfortunate, but nonetheless those are the choices that the government made.

What does the bill do? First, with respect to cruelty to animals, there is not a person in the House, much less anyone in the Canadian Alliance, who would not want to see the protection of animals. Of course we do. Any humane human being does. The stated purpose of the bill is to consolidate animal cruelty offences and increase the maximum penalties. It also provides the definition of animal and moves cruelty to animals provisions from part XI of the criminal code, property offences.

A couple of days ago when we were speaking at report stage on this, I drew out the point, and I draw it out again, that if we are moving the cruelty to animals provisions from part XI of the criminal code, property offences, to another part of the criminal code, that is not just incidental. I pointed out, hopefully fairly forcefully, that an animal is an animal, a human is a human and a human may own an animal. That is pretty simple and straightforward, but not in the minds of animal activists, particularly extreme animal activists. That is what the Canadian Alliance Party and I are concerned about. We are concerned about the fact that if the definition of animal is removed from property offences and put into a different section, this will really open up the door to the potential of vexatious prosecution.

We have been told not to worry about it, that no crown prosecutors would do anything like that, but I had some action take place in my constituency under Bill C-68, which of course is also covered under Bill C-15. That is why I am speaking to it. We had police who unfortunately exercised authority in an area in which they had no right to exercise authority. Not only was the gun owner in this instance personally out of pocket for the cost of the lawyer, that owner was also personally out of pocket for the cost of a door being broken down. There was no authority. Finally when the matter went to court, at great expense I should say, we ended up with a situation where the judge said the police should not have done that. In other words, whenever there is new legislation there is always a trial of the new legislation, either by the police or, secondly, by the prosecution.

Where are we going by removing animal provisions from part XI of the criminal code? What has changed since Bill C-17, which also dealt with these issues? The government has made certain changes from the previously proposed legislation dealing with cruelty to animals, Bill C-17. The main change was the requirement for a person to act “wilfully or recklessly” in killing or harming animals.

However, many organizations, businesses and individuals still have significant concerns with respect to the bill. Who are they? Agricultural groups, farmers, industry workers and medical researchers have consistently said they welcome amendments to the criminal code that would clarify and strengthen provisions relating to animal cruelty and that they do not condone intentional animal abuse or neglect in any way. Many of these groups in fact support the intent of the bill, as the Canadian Alliance and I do, as its objective is to modernize the law and increase penalties for offences relating to animal cruelty and neglect. However, and this is the however, despite the minor improvements to the legislation, these groups advise that the bill requires significant amendments before their concerns are alleviated.

The Liberals have a terrible tendency that I have noted particularly of late. Perhaps it comes from smugness or complacency or the fact that they feel they know everything and what is best for everybody. I do not know what it is. However we end up with recommendations for legislation, whether it is in Bill C-15B or Bill C-15A, or the species at risk act, SARA, that are heartfelt recommendations that reflect the values and concerns of the people to whom we answer. Liberals just stonewall them or at the very best they take them, tinker with them, pound them down, make them almost useless and then insert them. Then they say “See we made the amendment that you want”.

One of the central concerns with this bill is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. The phrase “legal justification or excuse and with colour of right” in section 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. Note the word “property”. However in the new bill the fact that the animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own would effectively remove those provisions outside of the ambit of that protection.

Our party asked that the government members make the defences in section 429(2) explicit in the new legislation and they refused. This is the kind of pattern that I was talking about where we make any kind of reasonable arguments and we are just simply refused out of hand.

Moving the animal cruelty section out of the ambit of property offences to a new section in its own right is also seen by many as emphasizing animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. I know this is the third or fourth or perhaps the fifth time that I have said it, but those who choose not to listen try to say that I and the people in my party are not concerned about animal welfare. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we want to ensure is animal welfare. What we want to avoid is animal rights.

This significant alteration in the underlying principles of the legislation is something that needs to be carefully considered. The Canadian Alliance asked the government members to retain the cruelty to animals provision in the property offences section of the criminal code but it refused. This is not a small issue. This is a giant issue.

I say again, I and every member of my party are concerned about animal welfare. We support the bill in its intent to protect animal welfare. We reject the bill in terms of animal rights because we know where that is going. We know under animal rights that there are many activists. We have seen them, we have heard of them, we have seen their publicity and we have seen some of their very vicious and dangerous activity in which they have become engaged. We must stay away from it. Yet the government will not do anything about it.

Many groups are concerned that elevating the status of animals from property could in fact have significant and detrimental implications for many legitimate animal dependent businesses. Another major and very serious concern is that the definition of animal is too broad, it is too subjective and it is too ambiguous.

That is so typical of the kind of legislation that the Liberals consistently bring forward. What did I say it was? It was too broad. It was too ambiguous. That is so typical of just about every piece of legislation.

In committee just yesterday we were discussing Bill S-7, which by the way came to us through the back door from the other place. The bill is so incomplete and is such a skeletal kind of issue. I asked the Liberals in the committee how in the world could we possibly pass something like that. I asked how we could even be discussing something like it when we did not know what the rules, the regulations, the implications would be. There is no meat, there is no muscle, there is no sinew on the bones of the words that are on that piece of paper.

Of course the Liberals said they would get around to it, to just give them some time. They said they would go to the CRTC, have some hearings and after the House rubber stamped it they would then know what the legislation would be; years after.

I cite another example in my particular critic role, that of blank recording medium. When that was brought forward in 1997, we were told it would be 25¢ charge per cassette. Five years later in the year 2002, the 25¢ per cassette charge somehow has gone to $200 to $400 per machine on equipment that now has the capacity to record more. Twenty-five cents to $400 strikes me as a bit of a jump.

I say with respect to Bill C-15B, the difficulty we have with it is we simply do not know where it is going because of the imprecision of the definition of animal. The definition marks a significant departure, by providing protection for an extremely wide range of living organisms that have never before been afforded this kind of legal protection. Where is that going? What are the unintended consequences of that? That is a statement of fact, we have no idea where it is going.

In terms of practical difficulties on how this definition is worded, it could potentially cause enormous problems by extending the criminal law to invertebrates, cold-blooded species such as fish, as well as an extremely wide variety of other types of both domestic and wild animals.

There is nothing in the mind of somebody who is an aggressive activist that would amaze me. Aggressive activists will take a look at this legislation and will push it as far as they can conceivably push it. Is it possible that somebody could be harassed by an activist, potentially by somebody in uniform who has an overzealous approach to things, a conservation officer or whomever? Is it not possible that somebody working with fish could end up with a problem because it is not precise?

The Canadian Alliance asked the government members to delete or modify this definition but they refused. In her speech at second reading, the justice minister assured us that what was lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill received royal assent. She promised the House that these changes would not in any way negatively affect the many legitimate activities that involve animals, such as hunting, farming, medical or scientific research.

The minister's statement was self-evident but misleading. Of course the new provisions will not prevent legitimate activities from being carried out. The law only proscribes illegal activities. The problem is and therefore the concern is that these new provisions arguably narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities.

I say again on behalf of the people of Kootenay--Columbia, I have a wonderful group of people in my constituency. We are about 82,000 people strong. We are the backbone of Canada. These are people who love animals. These are people who understand the relationship between animals and nature. These are the hunters. These are the people who go fishing. These are the people who look after the environment in which these animals live. These are the farmers. These are the ranchers. These are the pet owners who treat their animals with respect, as every member of my party does and I do. On their behalf, I stand here and say that this bill must be voted in the negative.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would take a few moments to talk about Bill C-15.

I consider there is a bit of a victory in the bill. My colleagues across the way will be surprised when they hear that. The victory is we started out with Bill C-15. Bill C-15 was an omnibus bill. That omnibus bill had some subjects in it that had nothing whatever to do with agriculture. The victory is that we had the omnibus bill split into two.

One part related to child pornography. That bill was handled very expeditiously in the House.

I give credit to the minister opposite who did that, who listened to the opposition, who forcefully said that an omnibus bill that had many different elements would not allow us to vote fairly. I believe that was a victory for democracy and a victory for the processes in the House. I started with the only positive comments I am going to make directed toward the minister.

I consider myself to be a nature lover, a naturalist. I am an individual who spends quite a bit of my free time outdoors. I am also a pet lover. I have a great interest in pets. We have a dog in our home at present, a cute little Jack Russell Terrier pup called Lloyd. Lloyd, being a pet at home, is very popular, especially with my wife. When I am away from home, this little dog warns her if there is someone around or some animals around and she feels more comfortable. I say that to express my particular feeling about pets and about animals.

I have spent a lot of time hunting. I had a black Labrador Retriever that I trained myself. That dog gave me enormous enjoyment. We would spend many hours together. I taught that dog how to sit, stay, come and go after the pheasants I sought. His name was Sam Hill. Some very interesting commentary has been made about the name Sam Hill. I wanted to name him Boot, but Boot Hill did not seem entirely appropriate.

I will use that preface to say I believe that cruelty to animals and pets is awful and should be punished. It should be punished vigorously. I preface my comments with that, my love for animals, my love for pets and my feeling that animal cruelty is wrong.

I believe however that the bill has taken an approach that is not correct, not accurate, not proper. I will talk about my concerns related to the bill.

Concerns have been directed toward me as an MP who has a very large rural constituency primarily of individuals with livestock, farmers and ranchers. That is one area of significant concern for me as their representative.

The second area of concern relates to medical research. Since I have a medical background and have had quite a bit to do with medical research, the concerns that have been expressed to me by my medical colleagues are significant.

Fishermen, hunters and trappers have also been quite prominent in the letters that I have received in relation to the bill.

Because my colleagues have spent a lot of time on the rural aspects of this issue, let me focus my initial comments on medical research. There is a value toward experimentation that relates to the animal kingdom. I will give some examples.

The use of new medication that has not been tried on humans is often experimentally used on animals. Much of the initial research on stem cells has come from the animal model. I am particularly interested in the use of adult stem cell research and that has borne significant fruit.

Environmental effects on humans is often tested in a way that is gentle and kind and not cruel relating to animals.

I have listened to a number of individuals. I received a letter from an animal activist not so long ago. She wrote that she loved animals more than she loved humans. That sentiment frankly drives some of the individuals who are animal activists.

I do not feel that way. I value humans more than I value animals. The use of animals in medical research is a profound way of protecting humankind. I am quite concerned when my medical colleagues who do animal research are put in a position where they could be not only criticized but prosecuted due to the way the bill is laid out.

Ethical standards for animal research must be fair and they must provide protection for the animals so that there is nothing improper done. Frankly the bill is not adequate in that regard.

I would like to talk briefly about the ranchers that I represent in my riding of Macleod. This is the southwest corner of Alberta in which some of the major ranches exist. I have yet to have one single member of the ranching community express to me satisfaction with the approach of the bill. This is really quite significant because if we do not have the support of those who are the husbands of our livestock, we do not have the support of the main components of those who look after livestock.

My riding is in the west, in the foothills approaching the mountains. It is some of the finest grasslands. There are thousands of ranchers in the area. One would think that I would have one that might say the bill is appropriate, but there has not been a single one and I am in touch with many of them.

Here are the activities that ranchers undertake with their cattle: they brand them, they ear tag them, they vaccinate them, they deworm them, they castrate them, and they squeeze them. They tell me that any one of those activities taken out of context could be criticized as cruel and they believe affected by the legislation.

We represent a huge number of rural constituents. We have sought mechanisms to be certain that these practices would be set aside as normal practices of industry. The amendments we sought that would have done that have been denied us.

The rancher is in a position of authority when it relates to the livestock. That position of authority is one that could be abused. An abuse of that authority should not be tolerated. However their practices are well established and time honoured and I object to the way they can be criticized.

It is not good enough frankly to just criticize a bill and say that it is not sufficient. I believe in being constructive in that regard. We have looked at the broad ways the bill could be and should be improved. I will go over, in a broad sense, where those improvements should have come.

Taking property rights and making them criminal is inappropriate unless the defence for these offences would follow. That has not taken place in the legislation. That leaves those medical researchers and ranchers who may be charged under the act, and it will happen as sure as I stand here, with defences that are less powerful than they should have.

We just heard in the interchange between members about private prosecutions and the frivolous nature of those private prosecutions. I listened to the member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey say that it would be easy for them to be reviewed by a judge.

I have had very little to do with the judicial system, thankfully, but I do know that our judges are profoundly busy and this is not an extra duty that they should have and not an extra duty that they should be asked to entertain. There should have been a review of frivolous prosecutions by the attorney general of each province. That frivolous review would very quickly be set aside. We asked for a review by the attorney general of each province to prevent frivolity and it was denied.

The big improvement was the protection of general industry standards when it came to our ranchers and farmers. That would be so straightforward. Activities such as branding and ear tagging that I mentioned earlier could easily have been looked after in that regard.

I spent a fair amount of time on the animal cruelty portions of the bill but as a representative of rural Canada I would be remiss if I did not talk a bit about the firearms component.

I have vigorously debated against the registration of firearms and I stand here vindicated in some of that criticism. When I originally debated this with the justice minister of the day I said to him as plainly as I could that costs were not being accurately reflected. I did that because I had gone to other jurisdictions that had gone down this road, particularly New Zealand and some states in Australia, and was told that the costs had ballooned. The cost factor was predicted. I am not proud to say this but I feel vindicated in saying that the costs were not properly given to Canadians. The costs have been enormous and have gone up.

The other thing I said to the justice minister at that time was that the compliance rate would be poor. That has not been proven yet because there is no legislation in place to finally force everyone into registering their firearms. To be legal an individual needs an acquisition certificate or a possession certificate.

I am saying again that the compliance rate on firearms registration will not be what is required in order to get the result that the justice minister wanted. We need 100% compliance by all honest citizens to pick out dishonest citizens. I will tell the justice minister again that the compliance rate will never approach 100%. I say that knowing there are constituents of mine who simply do not know where their firearms are today. They do not know where they are because they are certain that the idea of confiscation is there.

The other thing I said to the justice minister was that the bill would have no impact on criminal misuse of firearms. There would be no decrease in suicides. There would be no decrease in murders with long guns. I stand by that statement. I will say it to everyone who will listen. Statistically I know this will not take place by looking at other jurisdictions that tried firearms registration and by looking at what pistol registration has done to criminal misuse, murders and suicides. There has been no impact.

The bill is trying to improve firearms registration and I suppose I should say good luck. I am using this as a platform to say that long gun registration in Canada has been a failure and will continue to be a failure. I wish there could have been a sunset clause in the legislation. I would feel better if there was a sunset clause stating that if there had been no decrease in criminal misuse the bill would be tossed into the dustbin of history.

The only thing that will replace the Firearms Act is a change of government. A change of government is necessary. It will be a sad thing depending on how deeply we go into the hole as it relates to firearms registration in this country.

Let me summarize what I have said on Bill C-15B. It is a victory for those of us who felt the omnibus bill that preceded it was far too broad. The bill was split off and the child pornography section was passed quickly. I do believe that Bill C-15B should have been substantially amended and still could be substantially amended. I stand firmly on that.

I talked about my medical colleagues involved in medical research as being singled out and potentially prosecuted by the bill. I talked about farmers and ranchers in my riding, none of whom support the bill. I predict that they will be prosecuted under the bill as surely as I stand here for things such as branding and dehorning, which are standard practices on farms and ranches.

I am saying that the firearms registration provisions in this country today will be and have been ineffective. They will not be complied with by legitimate honest citizens. The costs are enormous and there will be no impact on the criminal misuse of firearms.

I wish to say a few words on the issue of the medical community and biomedical research. In my training as a surgeon I was involved in the use of animals in a vivisection sense. This was to allow someone doing surgery to actually operate on live tissue rather than doing the dissection that we did on tissue that was preserved. This allowed me, as a young budding surgeon, to be more adept with dissection, identification of nerve tissue and artery, and all the other tissues that are available.

I have had individuals say to me that is a complete total disregard for animals. I object to that. As I said before, I believe there are priorities there. Would anybody like me, as a young surgeon, to not have been experienced with tissue and to experience tissue on their child for the first time doing surgery?

Therefore I say to the animal activists who themselves will someday face surgery, this is one of those practical issues in research in which the use of animals and the use of invertebrates in some cases is valuable for the medical community. I really want to stress that.

I talked about the ethical standards, the fair use of animals to be certain there was no ethical behaviour. That is quite important. I have been able to tour some of the labs that raise animals used in medical research. I have been surprised by how clean and how gentle the animals are treated. They are treated with respect and dignity. That is quite appropriate.

Do I give any credit to the animal activists for that? Yes, I do. Animal activists have a position in this regard in raising public awareness of practices in that regard. Those individuals who are nature lovers and naturalists do take some credit for that and I give them credit for that.

One thing that I do not give them credit for is saying that they love animals more than humans, which is completely inappropriate.

I have not talked much about the definition of animals used in the bill. The definition broadens significantly how animals have been defined in previous legislation. It includes non-human vertebrates and all animals having the capacity to feel pain. I have asked for the definition to be explained to me better. It has not been explained to me well enough for me to understand because every single animal has the capacity to feel pain.

This goes down to the very tiny cell. Cellular animals have the ability to feel pain from heat, not the pain that we would normally talk about from a blow, a scalpel or from a pin prick but from heat. That pain is demonstrated by a withdrawal from that heat. I can see the potential problems of that definition being used in a way that is completely inappropriate.

There are some ethical concerns here as well. They involve issues related to definitions that I believe we have not even considered. In my view, the definition is much too broad. In this legislation we have gone away from animal welfare, which I support, to animal rights. To talk about animal rights is to talk about an area that is very, very dangerous, because there is a hierarchy of activity in this world.

I am opposed to Bill C-15B not on the basis that it goes about trying to prevent cruelty to animals but that it has not ruled out my concerns in relation to animal husbandry, to the ranchers and farmers whom I represent, that it has not adequately represented the concerns of the medical researchers and, finally, that it continues with firearm registration, which is an issue that is completely inappropriate in Canada.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested to hear the comments on Bill C-15-A. It sets up a whole new system of preliminary hearings and will in fact cost farmers more money. Maybe the chicken farmers have more money than other farmers, but I represent a lot of chicken farmers in my riding and I know they do not have the time nor the money to spend on frivolous prosecutions, which they will have to go to court to defend even to get the charge thrown out in that whole preliminary hearing system.

I want to focus on the issue of gophers. I have heard all kinds of discussion about the protection of gophers in other speeches.

When I was young I worked on my uncle's farm. There were two ways to get rid of gophers. One was with a .22. If we did not have the ammunition or the money to buy a .22, the other way was to put water down the hole. When the gopher came up, we disposed of the gopher in the most expeditious way. I am not saying that is the best way to get rid of gophers, but I know that gophers are a huge problem for farmers in western Canada.

Perhaps the member could tell us a little bit about the problems caused to livestock and even humans falling down the gopher holes and breaking their legs.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands knows full well that as the chair of the national rural caucus I have repeatedly led the charge on trying to get a better deal from the government for rural Canada which includes farmers. The member for Selkirk--Interlake is a former RCMP officer. He will be able to tell the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands whether or not what I am about to say is correct.

The member is talking about frivolous vexatious charges. The process that is laid out in Bill C-15A which would deal with the type of charges that could come from Bill C-15-B is very simple. If somebody does not like the way I am operating my chicken farm, he or she can go to a justice of the peace to lay a charge. The justice of the peace then takes the charge to the judge and the crown attorney. They look at the charge and say whether or not it will stand up in court. The member for Selkirk--Interlake knows full well from his past experience that a crown justice will not go to court unless he has a really good chance of winning the case.

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

Try to obey that law, exactly. It was taken to a lawyer and it took one lawyer more than two hours to try to figure out exactly what that section was trying to say and what it was trying to fix.

Changes to the process, the authority and the documentation of the transfer of firearms between dealers and individuals and between individuals are extremely unclear. Even with these amendments it does not help. If these amendments are passed without change it will result in ever escalating error rates, and I talked about those a little in the gun registry, making it even more useless to the police than it is already.

The amendments in the firearms legislation use the words prescribed and regulation somewhat near 30 times. All these words mean is that the government does not know exactly what the amendments mean or how they are to be enacted or enforced. It will just leave these important questions until later, until it gets outside parliament where we do not have the opportunity to debate them.

It used the same technique 75 times in Bill C-68 and we have seen how good the results were in that bill.

Bill C-15B does other things like transfer the powers to a provincial minister to exempt employees and businesses from applications of the Firearms Act. It gives any designated firearms officer any of the duties and functions of the chief firearms officer. The act gives the CFO a considerable amount of power, even some of the powers of a provincial minister.

The bill amends the definition of a firearm. The government is trying to ensure that millions of air guns and pellet rifles will no longer be considered firearms under this law, which they have been up until now if one can possibly imagine that. Our children are not even allowed to go out and go clinking because their guns are considered to be firearms under the legislation.

This new wording is confusing. The definition has not achieved its objective. In fact some legal interpretations say paint ball markers will now become firearms.

In 1995 the justice minister ignored 250 amendments proposed by our party. The government ignored many of the substantive amendments proposed by the Liberal dominated standing committee at the time. It has taken five years and $600 million for the government to see that it has made mistakes.

We have an admission of how well it has worked with the fact that this legislation has come back to the House this time. The government has had to introduce a 20 page bill and 160 clauses of amendments to try to correct its previous legislation.

Actually it has worked so well that the government had to rebate the fees to register guns. The government has gone out to the provinces and said that it will make that free. It charged people $18, then turned around and said it would make it free. It had to rebate the money to the people at an estimated cost of $25 each. So that was another real money maker for this program. No wonder the bill continues to climb.

Yesterday the parliamentary secretary gave us a warning that we should heed. I would suggest that what he said threatens the freedom of all Canadians. The quote that I think I accurately heard was that the success of Bill C-15B builds on the success of the firearms legislation so far. There are two mistakes there. First, Bill C-68 has been a complete failure. Second, Bill C-15B continues that way of error.

What concerned me more than that was that he then said that this would lead to the next step which was the fulfillment of the United Nations firearm protocol. This protocol calls for the removal of all firearms from all civilians, that means every Canadian except for the police and the military.

Interestingly enough, this has been taken up by at least two cabinet ministers. When Bill C-68 was brought in, the minister of justice apparently said that and this fall one of the other cabinet ministers said that as well. Canadians need to understand that the noose is tightening, not loosening, on their ability to own guns and on their gun ownership. Actually, I would suggest to Canadians that the government is in fact coming to take their guns.

Ironically, one thing the bill does is it encourages people to use guns, at the same time the government is trying to stop that. There is an infamous use it or lose it provision that is built into the bill. The section gives the CFO the authority to refuse or revoke a licence and a registration for restricted firearms if the owner cannot prove the firearm was used for the purpose for which it was originally purchased. If the person originally bought it for target shooting and if it could be proven that it was not used for that but was used fairly regularly, the authority would be able to remove the gun from the owner.

The government has widened that a little so that it only changes to include any purpose at all listed in section 28. People need to be aware that the clause is there.

There are a number of other critical areas that are not addressed in the bill. They include things like the criminalization of paperwork. If paperwork is sent in and there is an honest mistake in it or if the people employed at the firearms centre make a mistake, then it is the individual's fault who submitted the paperwork and the person is seen as a criminal.

Second, it gives extended search and seizure powers to the police. The police basically have unlimited powers to come into a person's place of residence and try to force the person to co-operate with them. I think we would find that this is odious to all citizens.

Third, registration has been a problem. It is interesting that people I have talked to have registered several guns. I know one gentleman who registered five weapons. He got back 10 registration certificates. He had more registration certificates than he had guns. I am not sure what people will do with those certificates.

There has been arbitrary prohibition and confiscation. The bill addresses only part of that. If members look at page 15 of the bill, the customs agents at the border are allowed to confiscate guns as people come across the border. They are not obligated to give the guns back, even if the person just wants to return to the country from where they came.

One of the main problems is massive non-compliance. We see the failure of the system. I mentioned earlier that we have lost 38,000 gun owners. I do not know where they have gone to, but they have moved from their addresses and the government cannot find them.

We have large concerns about privatization. As this is privatized who will be responsible for keeping the important information dealing with this system?

I would like to suggest that the Alliance does have some positive suggestions dealing with the legislation. We presented a large number of good amendments. We would suggest that it keep part XI in the code as it is presently. We would ask the government to resist turning this agenda over to those people who have no connection and little understanding of animal rights. It is interesting that there was no consultation with the producers, farmers and those people who are involved actively with animals.

We would ask that the government leave the definition of animal undefined, that it increase the penalties as in part XI of the code and, uniquely, that it begin to apply and actually enforce the law.

That has been the main problem with the law up to now, the animal rights part of it in particular. They have not applied the penalties that are there and people have turned around and said that the legislation is defective. If they increase the penalties and have the heart to apply those penalties in the animal rights areas, the legislation will work. We look forward to that.

As my colleague from Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca said, it is important that we defeat this bill. We certainly look forward to doing that in the near future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as others have, to speak to Bill C-15B. The bill deals with two main items: animal rights and the issue of animal cruelty. It also deals with firearms. I would like to speak first to the section dealing with animals and animal cruelty.

My first question is, what does the bill change? If we were to take a look at the old Part XI which deals with wilful and forbidden acts to certain property, where it talks about cruelty to animals, it states:

Every one commits an offence who wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird.

It is straightforward and easy to understand. It is clear and concise. The government could have fixed this legislation by increasing the penalties for abuse to animals. It would have taken very little to fix this legislation. Rather than do that it has chosen to introduce a whole new section to the criminal code called cruelty to animals. This has a number of defects to it.

We have tried to improve this legislation with amendments as recent as today. My colleague from Selkirk--Interlake made a good amendment the other night. It was to protect primary producers, farmers and ranchers by amending clause 8 to read: “who wilfully or recklessly”. He added the words: “and in contravention of generally accepted industry standards”. He threw that in to protect farmers and ranchers. The government turned the amendment down. My question is, why?

As my colleague previously pointed out we see the government in the hands of so many special interest groups that it does not seem to be able to govern for the benefit of the general Canadian public. There is a total disconnect with rural Canada. It is obvious in so much of its legislation, which I will address in a few minutes.

The legislation is flawed right from the beginning. The first part states:

In this Part, ‘‘animal’’ means a vertebrate, other than a human being, and anyother animal that has the capacity to feel pain.”

I have asked this question before. It seems such a strange matter that I ask why we would define anything by its capacity to feel pain. In the old legislation it said that we commit an offence if we have injured or caused suffering to an animal or a bird. That is pretty straightforward. The definition has now been broadened to the point that we are not even sure what it means. It seems to me that the government should be aware of what an animal is. We do not need this definition. It does not contribute to clarity of the legislation.

The parliamentary secretary spoke yesterday and what I heard was not of comfort to me. I am not sure if he understands the implication of the legislation. He should. He is supposed to have been working on it. However, there are a number of things he said that concerned me.

First, he said that the clarity and certainty of the legislation is achieved. I would suggest that is hardly true. I have talked a bit about the definition being vague and hard to understand. Second, the old bill was far cleaner and clearer. There was no complicated understanding of it. It could have been left. It would have been clearer.

I find it interesting that once again the government has used that old liberal method of legislating which is that we use the extreme to justify the average. We have seen that in so much of its legislation over the years. I noticed the parliamentary secretary used a couple of examples of why the legislation was justified. One of them was that he wanted to defend against people tying animals to railway tracks. Then he used the famous urban myth of people putting poodles in the microwave oven and that we needed to stop people from doing that.

I have an objection that I have had for years. We take extreme examples and then make legislation that will deal with them and apply it to our entire culture. We have seen this so many times.

The parliamentary secretary also said that the government has stated repeatedly that what is lawful today would stay lawful. We have heard the former justice minister saying that as well. I find it interesting that once the legislation is passed it is not the government's decision whether what is lawful today would stay lawful. Judges would indeed decide this.

I have a quote from one of the animal rights activists and I will not even give her the publicity of using her name. She said:

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

The intent to use this legislation as a tool to restrict the use of animals in things like research and agriculture seems clear. I find it frustrating as a former producer involved in agriculture that farmers have more reason to be responsible toward their animals than anyone else does. In 40 years of living in a small community, I can think of only one occasion on which it was necessary for officials to deal with animal abuse. It involved an elderly person who was not taking care of her cattle herd and the RM took care of the problem. It took the cattle away and fed them as they should have been.

This bill has a number of main legislative weaknesses which I would like to speak about for a few minutes. First, the definition of animal, as I have mentioned, is far too broad.

The second legislative weakness, as my colleague from Provencher mentioned, is it fails to maintain traditional defences, particularly the one of “legal justification, excuse and colour of right”, that currently exists under subsection 429(2). These must be retained to protect producers and people who are involved with normal animal husbandry as part of their lives.

Third, the bill fails to maintain animals as property. It moves them to the criminal code, which clearly does not need to happen. Canadian agriculture has always been based on the idea of ownership of animals. The government is changing the legal status of animals and it is directly affecting the farmer's position. The legal right to use animals for food production comes from the proprietary rights of farmers and producers to those animals.

This change will lead to a risk of prosecution for farmers. We already have a history of frivolous prosecutions as I think the member for Provencher just mentioned. Drs. Rapley and Wolf of the University of Western Ontario found out about this problem several years ago.

Again one of the animal fanatic groups writes in its literature “This elevation of animals in our moral and legal view is precedent setting and will have far reaching effects”. I find it interesting, as the member for Selkirk--Interlake said, that this lobby group is actively raising money for the government and for the Liberal Party in election campaigns. It makes one wonder for whom this legislation is written. It is certainly not for the Canadian public.

I would like to move on to the second half of the bill which deals with firearms legislation. We are all fairly familiar with Bill C-68 which has been an ongoing joke in parts of the country. It was passed with great fanfare and greater opposition several years ago. It was interesting that a bill that was to have cost $80 million has blossomed into something over $700 million officially. It has apparently has cost around $1 billion so far. It takes $100 million each year to keep this bureaucracy going.

I would to remind some of my colleagues that indeed that could pay for another two new Challenger jets for the cabinet if this was set aside. We have pleaded with the Liberals on the grounds that it could put more police officers on the frontlines. They do not seem interested in hearing that but they may certainly be interested in hearing that it could have two additional Challenger jets.

The government continues to tout its polling. We heard yesterday that the majority of people apparently support Bill C-68 but that in fact is not true. If people are told that something was free and then asked if they want it, they will usually say yes. On the issue of gun control, if we asked people if they knew that this was going to cost $1 billion, that it would continue to climb and would they support it, we would get a completely different answer, which is that most Canadians do not support it and have no interest in supporting it.

The bill and the amendments to it have been a complete failure. I find it interesting that the government now admits that it has 320,000 plus gun owners who have not yet registered. We do not know what the real number is. The government has always lowered those figures, so it is probably far more than that.

Even more interesting than that, since January of this year the government has lost 38,000 gun owners. It decided it was going to run this free registration of guns for people and sent notices to the people who had already registered. As it turned out, the 38,000 certificates that went out to gun owners were returned by the post office. Somehow those people are lost. That is just one example of how the legislation has been a complete failure.

As well, six provinces and two territories continue to oppose Bill C-68. I find it interesting that non-residents can be exempted from the Firearms Act but not Canadian citizens under the amendments. I guess the question is: what is equal protection and equal benefit under the law?

Fourth, aboriginal groups have just said that they will continue to ignore Bill C-68. The government obviously has no intention of holding them accountable.

I have a few statistics I found interesting because Statistics Canada keeps a very close watch on Canadians. I will read a couple of those dealing with the gun registration.

Of the 542 homicides in Canada in 2000, stabbing, beating and strangulation accounted for 58% of them and firearms for less than one third of them. It is fairly obvious that violent individuals are the problem more than are the guns.

Of the 183 firearms homicides in 2000: 58% were committed with handguns which is interesting because handguns have been registered since 1934 so obviously the registration is working very well; 8% were committed with firearms that are completely prohibited; and 31% were committed with a rifle or shotgun.

The 67 years of registering handguns demonstrates that registration is a complete flop. Despite 67 years of mandatory handgun registration, the use of handguns in firearms homicides has been increasing since 1974. Conversely, firearms homicides with rifles and shotguns that were not registered dropped steadily over the same 27 year period. It makes a sane person wonder why the government would commit 1,800 staff and waste more than $700 million trying to register these rifles and shotguns.

Of the 110 handgun homicides committed between 1997 and 2000, 69% of the guns were not even registered. This is despite the fact that the law has been in effect since 1934. Does the failure of gun registration as an effective government policy get any more obvious than this?

However there may be another suggestion. In 2000, 67% of persons accused of homicide had a criminal record and 69% of them had previously been convicted of violent crimes. At the same time, 52% of homicide victims also had criminal records. Obviously the government is hitting the wrong target by requiring innocent farmers, hunters and recreational shooters to register their firearms. Criminals are the real target, not duck hunters. The government made the wrong choice six years ago and it is making the wrong one again.

I will quote Ontario Solicitor General Bob Runciman who told the Senate standing committee in 1995 that in national terms $85 million, which was the initial estimate, would put 1,000 customs agents on the border, $500 million would put an extra 5,900 police officers on the street. The federal alternative is to use the money to register every shotgun and bolt action .22 in Canada. It takes no great brilliance to figure out which would have a greater impact on crime.

There are a dozen other problems with the legislation. I guess for years judges have complained that the firearms legislation is so poorly drafted that they cannot even understand it or make it enforceable.

I want to read one of the amendments in the bill and see if anyone here can figure out what it is talking about. Plain English might be a little better.

Subclause 10(3) says the following:

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend and fellow physician for this question because one of the statements that the former minister of justice put out was that Bill C-68 would make Canada safer by reducing suicides.

As my hon. friend knows full well individuals who are about to commit suicide will not be getting a firearms acquisition certificate. They will not take a course. They will not have the waiting time and they will not going acquire that weapon and then shoot themselves in the head. I have seen many people kill themselves, some with firearms but most people actually kill themselves through other means.

Bill C-68 will not decrease suicide. We get accused of being against gun control and against public safety because we are against Bill C-68 but the fact is that we are in favour of public health. We are in favour of keeping Canada safe. That is why the majority of police officers, 70% to 95% of frontline police officers, are opposed to Bill C-68, son of Bill C-68, and Bill C-15B that we are debating today. Why would police officers be opposed to that? Surely they would be in favour of public safety. So are we. That is why we are opposed to this.

The bill would draw valuable resources away from where it ought to be, away from police officers who can apprehend the criminals who are using this; away from the justice time that we can use to prosecute individuals who are serious, violent offenders; away from the money and resources needed to put those same violent offenders behind bars so they will not prey upon innocent Canadian civilians. That is why we are in favour of laws that will ensure that there will be people at the border to apprehend the illegal weapons coming into this country.

The Alliance is in favour of public security, we are against cruelty to animals and we are opposed to Bill C-15B because it is a very bad bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question that the public may want to ask is why does Pierre Berton, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, and the Coalition for Biomedical and Health Research stand shoulder to shoulder with the Canadian Alliance in opposition to Bill C-15B? Is it because we are in favour of animal cruelty? Absolutely not. The reason why we stand shoulder to shoulder with Pierre Berton, the veterinarians and those engaged in biomedical research is because we are opposed to animal cruelty, but we are also opposed to a bill that would curtail, hamstring and prevent biomedical research, adequate animal husbandry and the actions that vets have to take in the treatment and care of animals in distress.

We are in favour of good laws that will prevent cruelty to animals or laws that will prosecute aggressively with heavy penalties those individuals who commit cruelty to animals. We are in favour of good laws that will ensure that animals are treated humanely in animal husbandry, in the veterinary sciences and in biomedical research. In fact those laws exist already. We are not in favour of a situation that leaves the law wide open to the prosecution of researchers, vets and people engaged in animal husbandry who are treating animals humanely. We want to ensure that the bill will not become a political tool for radical organizations like Lifeforce that would adhere to a warped sense and misguided sense of humanity toward animals and human beings.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the last participant in this discussion is a medical doctor. He is certainly well respected in his field. He would have some expertise to offer the House on the whole issue of what the animal rights organizations are saying in terms of their refusal to in any way give medical researchers, scientists and doctors protection in respect of the important work that they do in the area of health research.

My concern with the bill is that in moving these subsections out of the property rights sections we have moved them into a separate section where only the general defences under subsection 8(3) apply, sections that have always applied to all of the various offences in the criminal code. We have removed those specific defences that were particularly focused on these kinds of offences. Where we do not have in many provinces specific authorization to conduct work on animals in furtherance of health care and medical research we are leaving these researchers vulnerable. Indeed, we are then leaving health care vulnerable.

Would the hon. member agree with a letter written by Pierre Berton, who is the senior patron of Canadians for Medical Progress? He gave that letter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He took the position that the radical animal rights activists were misguided in their support of Bill C-15B. He stated:

One glaring example of a Canadian private prosecution undertaken by the Life-Force component of the animal-rights movement against Dr. William Rapley and Dr. Bernard Wolfe of the University of Western Ontario, ground through the courts in London, Ontario in 1985, and was finally thrown out of the courts because of its frivolous and malicious nature. The private prosecution was undertaken because the public prosecutor had refused to lay charges. There have also been many such cases in different U.S. jurisdictions over the year.

He goes on to say that the decision to move animals from the property section in Bill C-15B would most surely open the door to an abundance of similar, frivolous private prosecution from the animal rights movement against the research enterprise in the future.

Does the hon. member have any comments to add to what I consider remarks made by a distinguished Canadian?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is telling that the House leader from the government referred to Bill C-15B as an act to deal with animal cruelty. It speaks to the subterfuge taking place on the part of the government.

Yes, the bill does have something to do with animal cruelty but it also has a lot to do with the firearms legislation. Some 22 pages and hundreds of clauses are going to be changed.

In the first part of my speech I dealt with animal cruelty. In this part of my speech I will deal with firearms.

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the Canadian Alliance is firmly in favour of public safety and good, sensible gun control. However we oppose Bill C-15B because of the amendments to the current Firearms Act, Bill C-68, which is a sham. The bill is unworkable. Rather than increasing public security it actually decreases it. I will tell the House why.

As I mentioned before, the bill is costing some $600 million, and the money would have been better spent on increasing public safety. It could have been better spent on putting more police officers on the street and on our judicial system. We need to ensure that individuals who commit crimes will receive the penalties they deserve. We also need to ensure that individuals who commit firearms offences or violent acts against others will be put in jail for a long time.

When people commit an act with a firearm a number of things happen. First, if they are convicted their penalty runs concurrently not consecutively to their other offence. Therefore there is no real penalty for committing an offence with a firearm.

Second, in order to get an expeditious conviction on the original offence, the firearms weapons offence is often plea bargained away to get a quick conviction on the other offence. The person who has actually put a gun to someone's head is assured of no penalty for using the weapon in that manner.

Third, the bill does nothing to address the influx of weapons into this country by criminals. Criminals do not take a course to get a firearms acquisition certificate. They engage in the waiting time to get a firearm. The firearms they get are smuggled in and then used to commit a crime.

We support a firearms acquisition certificate. We support courses and lead time. Thankfully we are not like the United States which has liberal gun controls that enable individuals to use guns and enable weapons to get into the hands of those who should not have them. We are thankful that in this country we have historically had good gun control laws that prevent that from happening.

However, the problem we have is that Bill C-68 and the son of Bill C-68, Bill C-15B, do not do that. We importune the government to change the bill and do what we ask in the name of public security.

One of the arguments the Minister of Justice had used was that the bill would decrease the number of suicides. People who want to commit suicide will not get a firearms acquisition certificate just to blow their head off. The gun is often acquired illegally through other means or stolen. All too often a person commits suicide through another means.

Similarly, if we look at the murders in the country, some 700 to 800 murders are committed every year. One-third of those murders are committed through the use of a firearm.

I encourage questions on the issue since there is a lot of debate from both side. We do not support the bill because we in the Alliance are in favour of tough laws against animal cruelty. We are in favour of good sensible gun control laws but we will not support a bill that will do the opposite for the Canadian public.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child Pornography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That the amendment be amended by adding:

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

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant

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

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

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

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

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadians for Medical Progress also stated that it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have two suggestions. The Canadian Alliance is demanding two major changes to Bill C-15B. The first is that the bill's definition of an animal must be amended. The current definition reads:

--a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every one commits an offence who

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

negligently injures an animal while it is being conveyed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The report also stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on Bill C-15B, the legislation dealing with animal cruelty and amendments to the Firearms Act.

I will not get into much detail on the firearms registry other than to say that gun control and the registry are two absolutely different things.

The citizens of this country realize that this registry has been one of the greatest boondoggles we have ever seen in the history of law enforcement. The government has dumped $700 million down the toilet for no apparent public safety purpose. In fact it continues to spend $100 million a year to prosecute duck hunters, farmers and others.

My colleague who just spoke indicated that there are offences occurring in respect of sawed off shotguns. Sawed off shotguns are prohibited. We cannot register sawed off shotguns. The things he said have nothing to do with reality. The only reality that we have seen with this gun registry is to strip frontline police officers of the resources that they need to fight crime effectively.

We on our side will continue to oppose this registry that takes resources away from our frontline police officers and gives jobs to bureaucrats. There is nothing wrong with bureaucrats, I was one for many years, but let us put bureaucrats to good use. I am sure they do not want to be sitting there spending taxpayers money for no apparent valid purpose.

Moving on from the firearms amendments, the most contentious aspects of the bill concern the proposed changes to the animal cruelty sections of the criminal code. I have in fact received hundreds of letters regarding the bill. Letters in favour have been almost exclusively from large urban area such as Toronto and Vancouver and their surrounding areas. The letters opposed have been exclusively from rural areas.

Farmers from my riding of Provencher and from all across Canada are very worried that the legislation and the impact it will have will undoubtedly impact negatively on their livelihood. They are afraid that one day the provisions that we are debating could put them in front of a judge for practices that they, their parents and their grandparents have been carrying out for generations. Many of my constituents perceive this bill as just one more example of how the government has pitted urban Canadians against rural Canadians to gain political favour among a small but powerful circle of special interest groups.

A 1998 Department of Justice consultation document acknowledged that well organized groups can and do initiate letter writing campaigns on this issue and that such campaigns can have an influence on government policy. For several years now organizations, such as the Animal Alliance of Canada and Zoocheck Canada, have been appealing to Canadians and to the government on an emotional rather than a rational level, using slogans such as “They're getting away with murder”.

During the past several years a great deal of misinformation has been circulated by animal rights groups, by the press and by individuals who believe that we need to pass the legislation in order to prevent horrific crimes against animals, such as those we have heard about over the past several months, including some of the ones referred to by the Liberal member who spoke previously, stories of cat skinnings and of dogs being starved, tortured or otherwise abused or neglected.

The extensive media coverage on this issue seems to indicate that many Canadians have been advised that somehow we do not already have laws to prosecute those who skin cats and drag dogs behind vehicles for pleasure. This erroneous idea, which has been perpetuated by animal rights groups in Canada, is completely false.

The animal cruelty laws on the books are good laws. They already criminalize intentional acts of cruelty against animals and there is no urgent need for that aspect of the law to be changed. The penalties for these offences are admittedly inadequate and I strongly support raising the penalties for these offences but the laws themselves must not be changed in the manner proposed by the legislation.

The issue is not whether or not we support legislation to deal with cruelty to animals. It is not about whether the majority of Canadians support this concept, because clearly they do. The issue is about the implications that this poorly drafted and poorly thought out legislation could have on potentially a very large number of Canadians.

To those who claim that something must be done about animal abuse, I agree. Those who intentionally abuse or neglect animals must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No one wants to see animals abused. I own a dog and I do not use that term apologetically. I own a dog and I would be shocked and angry if he were harmed in any way.

My colleagues and I in the Canadian Alliance abhor animal cruelty and, as I have said, strongly support changes to the law that would strengthen the penalties for animal cruelty offences. However, we do not support the amendments to the criminal code found in Bill C-15B because they will significantly alter the ability of farmers, ranchers and medical researchers, among others, to engage in the legitimate and beneficial activities that they presently undertake.

One of the biggest problems in the legislation is the issue of animal cruelty offences being moved out of the property section of the criminal code. A few weeks ago in the London Free Press a journalist wrote that listing animal cruelty offences under the property section, as they currently are, is “a lot like saying hitting your horse with a 2x4 is akin to bashing your refrigerator”. The mistaken logic in this argument, apart from the unreasonable implication that a judge cannot tell the difference between a refrigerator and a horse, is at odds with the fact that people naturally have an interest in protecting their property, not harming it.

The overwhelming majority of animal owners, be they ranchers or dog lovers, have an overriding interest in ensuring the health and safety of an animal that they have purchased and cared for over time. In any case, the removal of the animal cruelty offences from the property section of the criminal code, as this legislation proposes to do, will have both a lasting symbolic effect as well as causing practical difficulties for many Canadians.

Moving animal cruelty offences out of the property section of the code is applauded by extreme animal rights movements because it will cause a fundamental change in the way that animals are perceived in our society and it will certainly change the way the courts view these offences. Judges will take into account these changes and attempt to interpret the reasoning and the intent behind it when applying the legislation to any future prosecutions laid under these provisions.

The prior justice minister and the justice department claim that moving the animal cruelty offences out of the property rights section has no legal significance. The member just stated that the minister has said that what was lawful before remains lawful now, so in essence there is no legal significance to this. If there is no legal significance to this, if what is lawful now remains lawful with this new legislation, it begs the question, why do it at all? If we are saying to judges that we are altering the legislation substantially but it is of no legal consequence, I can hardly believe that a judge would think that parliament would go through this exercise in order to do absolutely nothing.

Let us not mislead anyone. These provisions are making substantive changes. What is lawful now may well not be lawful tomorrow if the bill is passed. If that is not the case, why make these changes?

Although the former minister of justice who introduced Bill C-15B stated that it was not her intention to substantially change the law governing animal cruelty, in fact the proposals would remove the defences currently applicable to those who engage in activities ranging from traditional and legitimate farming practices to medical research that ultimately benefits the development of better health care for all of us.

Radical animal rights groups in Canada certainly will use this new legislation as the basis for legal harassment and unjust prosecutions, and in fact already have stated their intention to do so. The cost of defending an unjust prosecution, even if there eventually is a not guilty verdict, is a burden that ordinary Canadians cannot afford, nor should they be subjected to this burden. The animal rights lobby has argued consistently that legal rights for animals cannot be achieved until animals are no longer considered property under the law. I want to give the House just a few examples that illustrate the true intentions of these groups.

A lawyer for the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Lesli Bisgould, has been quoted as saying:

In fact, the legal status of animals today is analogous with that of oppressed groups in society over the past century, the right not to be seen as a means to an end, the right not to be property.

In a 1999 recommendation to the justice department, the Ontario SPCA said that pets should:

...become literally a part of the family and any abuse, wilful or otherwise, would be treated the same as abuse of a child.

Such groups who would chose to compare the life of an animal to the life of a human child should not be taken seriously, especially given the fact that they represent only a minute percentage of Canadian society, yet we have a Liberal government adopting that philosophy. They are the groups that are influencing government policy. They are the groups saying that animals are equivalent to children. It demeans children. It demeans human beings. This is the type of philosophy that the Liberal government is asking Canadians to accept.

Liz White, the director of the Animal Alliance of Canada, has stated in particular reference to this legislation:

I can't overstate the importance of this change. This elevation of animals in our moral and legal view is precedent setting and will have far, far reaching effects.

At least this individual is telling the people of Canada the truth. She is saying that what is lawful today will not be lawful tomorrow because these animal rights groups that have the inside track to the federal government, to the federal Department of Justice, will ensure that these prosecutions are undertaken.

She has also told her membership this:

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

This is nothing about reforming the law. This is everything about adopting a radical animal rights agenda in order to prosecute farmers and others in the food production industry, as well as medical researchers.

A spokesman for the Voice for Animals Society in Edmonton made a statement in the Edmonton Sun on June 6, 2001, in reference to cattle branding, a practice which, I understand, has been going on for some time. It is lawful today to brand cattle. The spokesperson stated:

I sincerely hope the new law does lead to [court action]. We need to fundamentally reconsider some of these practices.

This is in reference to cattle branding. The spokesperson also stated:

I think that's what this law is for, to challenge the thinking. Cattlemen just want it to be business as usual.

That is what the minister has said, that it will be business as usual, that the law is not changing. That is what the member across the way has said, that the law today will be the law tomorrow. What is lawful today will be lawful tomorrow.

However, we know from these changes, and any reasonable lawyer, which is not an oxymoron as I am a lawyer myself, reading these provisions will understand, that something substantive has happened here in the House. If nothing substantive has happened, what are we doing here? Why make all these changes if there are no substantive changes?

I was a former prosecutor. I can just imagine appearing before the judge saying “Well, Your Honour, there have been substantial movements in these sections, substantial changes in the wording. We have taken these offences out of the property sections and moved them to a new part, but, Your Honour, I want you to think nothing of it. Nothing has really happened. There have been no substantive changes made”.

The defences that apply to the property sections, which now do not apply to these new sections, do not make any difference because apparently, from the reasoning across the way, those defences in the criminal code were mere window dressing. The member opposite said that in 40 years those defences have never been used. Does he not get the connection as to why those defences have never been used? Does anyone know why they have never been used? Because they would not allow an unjust prosecution to be commenced.

Those defences in the code stop the offence from being charged. A prosecutor looking at the property section would say there is a section he would like to use prosecute a person who commits an offence, but then he would say there seem to be these defences there, so he could not prosecute. The defences are there. These things never come to court, so of course they are never used in court.

The thinking across the way astounds me. The problem is, I do not think any of these people have ever been inside a court and have actually heard judges or lawyers make arguments. This seems to be an academic's dream and a cattleman's nightmare.

The intention of these groups is clear. As soon as the legislation is passed into law their members will commence private prosecution against farmers, ranchers, researchers and anyone else presently using animals for lawful and legitimate purposes. Most, if not all, of these charges may eventually be thrown out by the presiding judge, but the fact is that such prosecutions not only will tie up our courts and our justice system needlessly, they will cause great expense to the very people who cannot afford to be abused in this way.

I can just picture myself in front of one of my farmers who is charged under this private prosecution and saying that there is this great new thing that we do; we go up in front of a judge who is going to clear whether or not that charge can proceed. What we are doing is imposing a whole new system of preliminary hearings. On the one hand the former minister of justice has introduced legislation disposing of preliminary hearings. The defence lawyers were very angry about that because preliminary hearings are a good way to make money. Now what the government has done is institute preliminary hearings to see whether or not private prosecution should proceed.

The accused would go in front of a judge. Even if he is unjustly accused he has to hire a lawyer and argue against this. That is what a screening process is. It would be a legal hearing with all the attendant costs. What this does is fly in face of common law tradition, which states that the attorney general of the province can come into court and stay the charge if it is a frivolous prosecution. In respect of contentious charges, there are often sections in the criminal code that say that the prosecution shall not be commenced without the consent of the attorney general.

Rather than simply putting in that kind of provision, what has the government done? It has instituted a bureaucratic nightmare that will impact adversely on the pocketbook of somebody who has been unjustly prosecuted. That is what this is all about. This is the biggest piece of nonsense I have seen introduced in legislation in years. Believe me, I have seen a lot of nonsense and I have had to prosecute under it, but this is one of the biggest pieces of nonsense. Somehow the government is trying to tell the people of Canada that it is doing this for their own protection.

I could go on for hours outlining what appear to be the intentions of the animal rights lobby, but one of the most alarming aspects of this campaign is revealed in a fundraising letter from Liz White of the Animal Alliance. She stated:

Getting our politicians to pass good animal protection laws is about reward and punishment--rewarding them for doing a good job and punishing them for doing a poor one.

That is interesting. She continued, stating that:

The Liberals have done a good job on Bill C-15B--

She says it has done a good job on Bill C-15B and I say it has done a good job on the Canadian people. She continued, stating that:

--and our first chance to reward them will be in the upcoming byelection in Calgary Southwest.

She also referred to the last federal election in the former justice minister's riding. She stated:

Because of a commitment made by the Minister of Justice...in the House of Commons to pass C15B, Environment Voters campaigned for her re-election. Under attack by hunters and gun owners and a cabal of extremist right wing groups, [the minister] was in a losing campaign. Environment Voters stepped in and championed her election...Good to her word, [the minister] introduced the breakthrough animal protection legislation.

Talk about reward and punishment. According to the people who have supported and who have stood shoulder to shoulder with the former justice minister, the bill is the political payoff that that minister has to pay. Her own supporters are saying that and acknowledging it publicly. Is it not nice to know that these groups view Bill C-15B as a political payoff for the minister having introduced legislation in accordance with a radical agenda. Unfortunately the Liberals will not be running a campaign in Calgary Southwest.

The fact of the matter is that the goal of these groups is to fundamentally change the way in which animals are viewed in society. The Liberals continue to claim in committee hearings and in the media that frivolous, nuisance prosecutions will not be pursued and that they do not intend to prosecute farmers, hunters or medical researchers carrying out lawful activities. Yet their private statements to their own members is radically different from what they are telling the public, and I have quoted them extensively.

In a posting on an Internet chat site called Animal Rights News one subscriber wrote in reference to justice committee proceedings. It said:

The good news is that animal rights groups have researchers, hunters, fur people, farmers and other animal exploiters shaking in their boots and they feel that we are a real and genuine threat to their barbaric ways.

These are the groups who are supporting this legislation, who supported the former justice minister and who said publicly that the law as it is today will be the same tomorrow and we are going through this exercise of changing the law. We obviously are changing it for substantive reasons and those reasons are, simply put, a political payoff as these groups have acknowledged.

The extreme nature of their agenda is demonstrated by the fact that they claim that using animals for food, research, clothing or even as pets as people have done since the beginning of human civilizations, are “barbaric” practices and should be stopped.

I would now like to quote from a letter written by Pierre Berton, senior patron of Canadians for Medical Progress to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, that refutes the common claim by many of these radical groups and by government members themselves that private prosecutions will not be pursued using this new legislation. He stated:

One glaring example of a Canadian private prosecution undertaken by the Life-Force component of the animal-rights movement against Dr. William Rapley and Dr. Bernard Wolfe of the University of Western Ontario, ground through the courts in London, Ontario in 1985, and was finally thrown out of the courts because of its frivolous and malicious nature. The private prosecution was undertaken because the public prosecutor had refused to lay charges. There have also been many such cases in different U.S. jurisdictions over the year

He went on to say:

The decision to move animals from the Property section in Bill C15-B, will most surely open the door to an abundance of similar frivolous private prosecutions from the animal rights movement, against the research enterprise, in the future.

This is the eminent Pierre Berton telling us as we on this side of the House already know, that these animal rights activists will attempt to disrupt medical research that means a difference in our health care standards in this country.

This legislation would not only change fundamentally the way in which animals are viewed by the courts and by society, but moving animal cruelty offences out of the property section into a section or a part of its own removes the legal protections currently in place.

The phrase “legal justification or excuse and colour of right” in section 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any type of property offence and protects them from the charges being laid in the first place. Courts have held that these defences apply where the accused had the honest belief in a state of facts which, if true, would constitute a legal justification or excuse. For example, an honest but mistaken belief that it was necessary to kill an animal to put it out of its misery after a person had accidentally shot and wounded it while trying to frighten it off the land would be sufficient to provide a colour of right defence under these provisions.

This also applies to the performance of research on animals and a range of other legitimate activities. However, in the new bill, the fact that the animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own would remove these provisions outside the scope of that protection and, therefore, charges could be laid, whereas previously the charges could not be laid.

The Canadian Alliance asked the government members to make the defences in section 429(2) explicit in the new legislation, but they refused. I believe it was my colleague from the Bloc who made that amendment.

In justice committee proceedings, the minister's parliamentary secretary attempted to assure the committee that it was the government's intention that the defences in section 429(2) of the code would continue to apply to cruelty to animals offences and that these defences were implicit in the new legislation. However, when the amendments were moved that would have made these defences explicit, the government members opposed them.

If these defences are already implicit, what possible objection could there be to make them explicit, other than to deny these protections to farmers and others who will be subjected to unfair prosecutions?

Instead of making these defences explicit in the legislation, the minister amended the bill to confirm that the common law defences available under section 8(3) of the criminal code would continue to apply to any cruelty to animal offences. This of course is meaningless. Section 8(3) already applies to the entire criminal code. Making that amendment does nothing. What the Liberals are trying to do is evade the direct, explicit protection that those defences in section 429(2) would have provided to these farmers.

Furthermore, as noted by the Canadian Council for Animal Care in committee testimony, these defences in section 8(3) do not necessarily encompass a recognition of the lawfulness of using animals for research and medical testing. Although common law defences could encompass activities authorized by statutes, such as the slaughter of animals for food, laws authorizing animal use in research only applies to six of the thirteen provinces and territories, and there is no federal legislation authorizing this kind of activity. Needless to say, many medical research groups and universities are very concerned with the implications this bill may bring if it is passed as currently written.

In answer to these concerns, and I need to reiterate this again, the former minister amended the bill to provide this screening mechanism which she claimed was a powerful tool to prevent frivolous private prosecutions.

What kind of a system is it? Well the mechanism would allow a provincial court judge to prescreen such prosecutions and decide whether they should proceed. The provincial judge does not get a file on his or her desk in his or her chambers and consider this. This is a prescreening that occurs in open court. This is a legal process and at a legal process I am sure the animal rights groups will have their lawyers there. Now we have the farmer or medical researcher being prosecuted.

My colleague across the way says that they do not need a lawyer. If the animal rights groups have all of the lawyers, we cannot have the farmer sitting there without a lawyer, and we know it will be an expensive process.

I want to reiterate what I said. What we are doing is creating a whole new class of preliminary hearings with day after day of evidence to see whether there is a reasonable basis for the charge to be laid. That is essentially what a preliminary hearing does. Now we are putting it in there instead of a simple provision that says that the consent of the attorney general in the province where the prosecution is taking place must be obtained before the prosecution proceedings.

Why do they not trust the public prosecutors? The Liberals do not trust them because the public prosecutes do not have a political agenda to go after farmers and medical researchers. They have not been bought off by the animal rights activists who are collecting on a debt their minister incurred during the last federal election, as the animal rights people have indicated.

Instead of alleviating the fears of farmers and other groups who rely on animals for their livelihood, this process being put into place by the government will only lengthen an already cumbersome and expensive legal process to which this farmer or medical researcher would be subjected.

It might be all right for Liberals with deep pockets to be prosecuted for this kind of an offence. They can hire all the lawyers, appear in front of the judge and argue with the animal rights activists. However there are a lot of people in my riding who earn a living the honest way, on the farm, producing food for the people of Canada. They will be taking the brunt of this radical animal rights agenda.

None of the concerns raised in committee hearings or in the House of Commons by those in favour of Bill C-15B would address the pressing need to ensure that cruelty to animals would be more effectively addressed by these amendments.

None of these examples demonstrated that. In fact even the provisions to increase the penalties are really a fiction because we know that those maximum penalties under the existing law are rarely, if ever, imposed. Therefore we can increase the penalties all we want. It will not make a difference if the judges do not impose or the prosecutors do not request those maximum penalties.

There are many other points that I would like to make in respect to this case but I think that the drift of the debate has gone far enough. I realize my time is drawing to a close, but the House and the committee needs to consider this further. Therefore I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefore:

“Bill C-15B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering clause 8, taking into consideration the importance of ensuring that the legitimate use of animals by farmers, sportsmen and medical researchers should be protected under this bill.

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

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to re-emphasize that through this process the number of revocations is 32 times higher than the total of the previous five years under the old program.

The licensing phase of the program has also produced a very successful compliance rate of about 90%. As we know firearm owners had to apply for a firearms licence by January 1, 2001. Eligible firearm owners who applied by the deadline should now have their firearms licence. We are now dealing with a small percentage of applications that need follow up due to incomplete forms or that require further review for public safety reasons.

We have now turned to the next phase of this important public safety program, the registration of firearms by January 1, 2003. As part of our commitment to facilitate compliance with the firearms program, firearm registration is now easier than ever. On a region by region basis licensed firearm owners have received a personalized registration form in the mail offering a limited time to register their firearms without charge. Another new feature is an online firearm registration process.

Despite the efforts of some opponents of this program to prevent Canadians from registering their firearms the response to these initiatives has been extremely positive. The amendments proposed in Bill C-15B would build on the success of the firearms program to date and the lessons learned, and I admit there have been lessons learned, from the licensing experience.

We are not changing the basic policy goals of the program such as the firearm registration deadline, nor the government's commitment to public safety. Instead, we are putting forth administrative changes that would facilitate compliance with the program and continue to ensure a high level of service to clients. These are a direct response to extensive consultations with program partners and stakeholders, including the policing community, gun owners and other Canadians.

These administrative changes would allow us to simplify the processes and requirements for firearm owners. At the same time it would strengthen the program's contribution to public safety.

Client service and efficiency would be enhanced by designing a more streamlined system. This would include simplifying firearm licence renewals and the registration process. Preprocessing of visitors bringing guns into Canada would also make the border process more efficient.

We would improve efficiency and reduce costs. For example, we intend to balance the workload associated with the program by staggering the firearms licence renewals. This would avoid a surge of applications in a five year cycle pattern.

We would improve the day to day administration of the firearms program by ensuring more direct accountability. We would achieve this by consolidating operational authority under the program through the Canadian firearms commissioner who would report directly to the Minister of Justice.

Other amendments would allow us to enhance border controls when it comes to firearm imports and exports and to meet our commitments under international agreements. This would include the recently finalized United Nations firearms protocol which supports Canadian policies and would be an additional tool in helping to curb the illegal trafficking of firearms.

We have heard and carefully considered the views of various individuals and organizations that appeared before the committee. In its testimony we heard the law enforcement community reaffirm its support for this program and its essential crime fighting tools.

The Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police outlined the significant public safety benefits of this program which combined the screening of applicants, tracking of firearms and minimum mandatory sentencing to help deter, prevent and prosecute firearm crime in Canada.

We have also heard the minister's user group on firearms maintain that these amendments are an important step forward in ensuring a fair balance between the interests of responsible firearm owners and our shared objective of public safety.

In response to specific issues raised, the government has responded with technical amendments that were adopted by the committee. I am confident that these will go a long way toward addressing any lingering concerns.

The government is committed to enhancing the safety of Canadians inside and outside of their homes. The amendments to the Firearms Act included in Bill C-15B will help ensure that the key public safety goals of the Firearms Act are met while ensuring that the administration of the program is more efficient, effective and client friendly.

Both the firearms and cruelty to animals provisions of Bill C-15B are supported by a large majority of Canadians. I urge the House to give this important legislation its final approval.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Madam Speaker, for example, in respect of cruelty offences which either prohibit conduct outright or which prohibit causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury, the defence of duress might apply in an exceptional circumstance.

Colour of right, mentioned in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code, has two alternative meanings. In the context of property offences, colour of right is used to justify actions on the basis that the accused had possessory or proprietary rights to the property. Colour of right is referred to in subsection 429(2) because that part of the code deals with property offences.

Case law has also confirmed that the term colour of right is used to denote an honest belief in a state of facts which, if it actually existed, would at law justify or excuse the act done.

The courts have said that when used in this sense colour of right is merely a particular application of the doctrine of mistake of fact. Mistake of fact is a common law defence and all common law defences are preserved by subsection 8(3) of the criminal code.

There is case law that expressly states that even if subsection 429(2) of the criminal code did not apply a defence based on raising a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused had colour of right would be available to an accused at common law.

To make its intent absolutely clear in the application of common law offences to cruelty offences the committee amended Bill C-15B to expressly refer subsection 8(3) of the criminal code. This means that all defences that could possibly be relevant in intentional cruelty and criminal neglect cases are expressly made applicable.

I would like to address one further concern that has been expressed by members of the House. Some members have suggested that the provisions of Bill C-15B would invite animal rights activists to use the criminal courts to challenge industry and research practices or to bring frivolous or vexatious prosecution. Even though there is no evidence that frivolous or vexatious prosecutions have been a problem over the past 50 years I draw the attention of members of the House to the provisions of an omnibus bill which was recently considered and passed by the House and is now returning to the House from the Senate.

Bill C-15A would provide important protections for persons who may be the subject of an information laid by a private individual. Because all of the animal cruelty offences in Bill C-15B are hybrid offences, with the exception of a breach of prohibition or restitution order, they would be subject to procedures for indictable offences.

Bill C-15A would provide that where an information is laid by an individual who is not a public or peace officer the justice who receives the information must refer it to a provincial court judge or a designated justice. In Quebec the relevant judge is a judge of the court of Quebec.

The judge or designated justice who receives the information must hold a hearing at which the attorney general has the right to attend, cross-examine and call witnesses and to present relevant evidence. It is only after this hearing has been held and only if the judge or designated justice considers that the case for issuing a summons or warrant has been made out that the accused would even be brought to court. This procedure would apply to all indictable offences and would offer an effective means by which allegations of animal cruelty made by persons other than public or peace officers could be assessed before a potential accused is put in jeopardy.

I would like to emphasize that there is a greater societal interest which is achieved by treating cruelty to animals more seriously. There is increasing scientific evidence that shows a correlation between animal cruelty and subsequent violence against humans. Our judges, health professionals and law enforcement officers are beginning to recognize and address animal abuse as an aspect of a bigger problem of violence in our society. I ask the House to do the same.

I would like to turn now to the proposed administrative improvement to the firearms program. Canada's firearms program is a practical and common sense approach to gun safety that works to keep firearms from those who should not have them while encouraging safe and responsible gun use by legitimate firearm owners. This is achieved with the licensing of firearm owners and firearm registration. Some of the program's opponents will tell us that targeting Uncle George's duck gun would do nothing to prevent crime. They are just plain wrong.

In 1998, 63% of all female domestic homicide victims were shot with ordinary rifles and shotguns. A further 21% were shot with sawed-off shotguns and rifles. In the home Uncle George's duck gun can have tragic consequences.

Canadians remain steadfast in their support for this public safety initiative. The government's approach to preventing firearm deaths, injuries and crimes is a clear reflection of Canadian values and principles. Poll after poll shows the overwhelming majority of Canadians support gun control and support the important public safety framework of the Firearms Act. In fact, an Environics poll taken late last year showed that the majority of the supporters of all political parties in the House supported the firearms program.

Our national investment in this program is already paying off in terms of public safety benefits and in compliance. Enhanced screening of firearms licence applicants and continuous eligibility screening of licence holders is already leading to safer homes and communities by keeping firearms from those who should not have them.

Since December 1, 1998, over 4,000 licences have been refused or revoked by public safety authorities. The number of revocations is 32 times higher than the total of the--

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the House of Commons about the provisions of Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code, dealing with cruelty to animals and firearms, and the Firearms Act.

Before turning to the substance of the bill, I would first like to acknowledge the very fine work that was conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in its careful review. The applause I hear is a worthy statement of how we feel about that work because it did a very careful review of all the provisions in Bill C-15B.

The committee had the benefit of hearing from a wide spectrum of witnesses with a wealth of experience and knowledge. This information assisted the committee in its review and modification of Bill C-15B. I am grateful to the committee for its work in advancing the debate and understanding of the legislation.

Turning now to the content of the bill, I will start with consideration of the animal cruelty provisions.

I am pleased to say that there is overwhelming support for the objective of Bill C-15B to modernize and update the sections of the criminal code dealing with animal cruelty. This objective has three aspects.

The first aspect is to recognize animal cruelty offences for what they are. Animal cruelty offences are crimes of violence. They ought to be treated as such. Their seriousness ought to be reflected in the penalties available for these offences.

The vast majority of Canadians who have voiced their opinion on this subject have made it very clear that they want cruelty offences to be treated more seriously. The public was consistent in its message on this point during the consultations in 1998 when the department solicited views on the current animal cruelty provisions in the criminal code. They have continued to voice their support in increased penalties, as evidenced by the many petitions and letters the Department of Justice and members of parliament have received over the past three years.

The Canadian public is demanding that our laws on animal cruelty be updated and the penalties increased. In this regard, it should be noted that the committee adopted an amendment to raise the maximum fines available for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect offences when prosecuted by summary conviction to $10,000 and $5,000 respectively.

This brings me to the second aspect of modernizing the law on animal cruelty.

In the course of discussions on Bill C-15B, some people have suggested that there is no need to change the current provisions of the code beyond raising the penalties. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the anachronisms and unnecessary complexities of the current law.

In some of the current animal cruelty provisions in the criminal code, the proprietary status of an animal determines whether or not a successful prosecution can be brought, even though the basic policy of the cruelty provisions is to protect all animals from intentional cruelty and criminal neglect. An example of this is section 445 of the criminal code which only applies to animals kept for “a lawful purpose”.

Bill C-15B addresses the unnecessary complexity of the current law. Let me give an example.

It appears that subsection 446(1)(a) of the criminal code is restricted to wilful infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. This provision however must be read in conjunction with subsection 429(1), which states that wilfully includes recklessly. Further, it is only through reading subsection 446(3) that it is clear that paragraph 446(1)(a) actually creates two offences: one of intentional cruelty and the other of causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury through criminal neglect.

Bill C-15B rids the law of these complexities and anachronisms and clearly sets out two main categories of offences: intentional acts of cruelty and those acts which cause pain, suffering or injury to animals by reason of criminal negligence. The creation of these two categories of offences in Bill C-15B provides clarity in the law in terms of precisely defining the mental and physical elements of the offences. Clarity and precision in the law operate to the benefit of all Canadians.

In the interest of promoting certainty in the law, I would like to note for the record that based on a concern raised by research and industry about the applicable level of criminal intent in one of the criminal neglect provisions the committee adopted an amendment. The amendment specifies that the offence of abandonment must be committed with “wilful or reckless” intent and that all other offences in the criminal neglect section must meet a standard of criminal as opposed to civil negligence.

A third aspect to modernizing the law is to fill a gap in the law. At the present time a person who has a lawful purpose for killing an animal but who does so brutally and viciously cannot be charged with cruelty unless they also cause unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to the animal.

Bill C-15B creates a new offence of intentionally killing an animal brutally or viciously whether or not the animal suffers pain. For example, 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.

In my remarks today I would like to address a point about which there appears to be much confusion. Some members have suggested to the House that if the defences in subsection 429(2) did not exist, industry would be guilty of committing cruelty offences. The main animal cruelty offence of causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury is structured in such a way that industry and research practices are factored into determining whether a cruelty offence has even been committed. This is an extremely important point and I would like to take a few minutes to elaborate on it.

The first part of the analysis in determining whether an offence of causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury has been committed is to examine the lawfulness of the purpose for which the pain was inflicted. On the basis of the recognition of industry and research practices in case law, common law, codes of practice, provincial, territorial and federal legislation and conventions concerning animal use, there is absolutely no question that the use of animals in industry or research always has been and will continue to be legal.

Even if the purpose is legal, the inquiry does not end there. The second issue to examine is whether or not the means used to achieve the purpose imposed avoidable pain, having regard to other means reasonably available “given costs and social priorities” as noted by the court in the leading case on cruelty.

An offence of causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury is only made out if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused inflicted avoidable pain on an animal in these circumstances. This has been the test for liability in the criminal code for this offence since 1953 and it continues to be the test.

The government has stated repeatedly that what is lawful today will remain lawful after Bill C-15B comes into force. It is simply not an accurate statement of the law to suggest that because of subsection 429(2) of the criminal code, industry is effectively exempt from animal cruelty provisions because they have a lawful purpose for inflicting pain, suffering or injury. No one is exempt from the application of the criminal law on animal cruelty. They never have been and they will not be in the future.

Reasonable industry practices are not criminal because they do not meet the threshold of criminal liability and not because they are exempt.

Members of the House may be reassured to know that a witness who appeared before the committee on behalf of the Criminal Lawyers Association stated that it was the view of its members that moving the cruelty provisions out of part XI of the criminal code was appropriate and that no defences were lost to accused persons because of this move.

I have a last word on the issue of defences. Over the past 50 years the defences in subsection 429(2) have never been raised in a reported case involving the intentional infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. There is an obvious reason for this. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances giving rise to a defence for intentional cruelty offences.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.56 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of Bill C-15B.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)

Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by over 1,000 people in my riding which is the most recent manifestation of interest in Bill C-15B which the House is considering. This legislation deals with cruelty to animals, particularly pets.

These petitioners point to several recent highly publicized examples of animal abuse and neglect. Sadly, some of those were in the general Peterborough area. For example, the cruel drowning of a German shepherd which resulted in the establishment of the Lost Shepherd Society which is behind this particular petition, and a dog that was dragged behind a pick-up truck and badly injured as a result.

This petition includes the signatures of many frontline workers: veterinarians, people who work and volunteer in humane societies and so on. They know Bill C-15B is before the House and they call upon parliament to expedite Bill C-15B in the process of enacting it into law and ask all members to act in good conscience in voting for the legislation.

Pest Control Products Act

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

Madam Speaker, as my learned colleague said, I am the chief agriculture critic for the Canadian Alliance. I will be taking a bit more of an agriculture perspective on the bill.

The bill we are presently debating would enact the pest control products act. It is the primary legislation that would control the import, manufacture, sale and use of all pesticides including insecticides, herbicides and fungicides in Canada.

The bill was first introduced in 1969 and has not been significantly updated since that time. It is a positive note that the Liberal government has finally gotten around to updating the bill. In fact it has some potential to improve on the environmental aspects of the chemicals that we use at the present time.

The bill essentially would strengthen health and environmental protection, make the registration system more transparent and strengthen post-registration control of pesticides.

With regard to industry's reaction, the Sierra Club is not too happy with it and would like to see more of a complete ban on pesticides. I had the pleasure of hearing Sharon Labchuk from Earth Action speak in Prince Edward Island. The MPs from Prince Edward Island had better take notice of Ms. Labchuk's comments because the small land area that is in Prince Edward Island will be seriously affected by what the minister is saying, which is that this accidental spray contamination, as she would say, off the very field that it is being applied to will come under the intense pressure in Prince Edward Island. I will be interested to see whether those members from Prince Edward Island can support the full impact of the bill.

The Canadian Alliance certainly wants to examine the bill and in particular the minister's speech in which she talked about using the precautionary principle. She talked about the potential impact of chemicals, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides.

She then used a term that will take a lot of examination. She tried to define some kind of value. That will no doubt be the value of the bureaucrats and the value of the ministers and those elected officials at the given time in the future. Who knows whether the values they have could be to the extreme of saying that there should be no chemicals in use whatsoever.

The concern with this is that it seems like the government is moving away from science based decision making and moving into this quasi-philosophical method of assessing our chemicals and their impact on the environment and people. I think that is a dangerous thing on first blush.

The second question I posed to the minister, as she and her government move into this area of fuzziness, as it would appear to be, concerned the trade implications if the government were to use this as a non-tariff trade barrier to harass importers of foodstuffs into our country.

These are a couple of our major concerns.

I note that Mr. Lorne Hepworth, president of CropLife Canada which represents the chemical industry, said that most of the practices outlined in the legislation were already in practice. The industry has done a lot up to this point to make sure that not only are the chemicals and pesticides effective but that they are safe for the environment and safe for people.

The bill would require that it be implemented once it is passed and in a logical, efficient and effective way.

This brings me to the current operations under the director, Claire Franklin, of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. It would not matter how good a bill the House passed with the way the PMRA is being run at the present time. From the presentation Ms. Franklin gave to the agriculture committee some time ago, there is little hope of seeing any positive legislation implemented in a way that will satisfy the industry, the farmers and the environmentalists because of the inefficiencies and the philosophical attitude of the agency which is not in keeping with the attitude of the majority of Canadians.

The mismanagement at the PMRA is costing farmers money because they do not have access to newer, cheaper and more effective chemicals. These chemicals are in use in other countries. Were they brought into Canada, we would have less toxic chemicals that are more effective, that is, the new generation. That is not happening on a regular or timely basis because of the department.

The minister has had quite the history in the House. The minister is presently in charge of Health Canada. We see that as the provincial budgets come down, all the provinces will be spending over 40% of their budgets on health care. It is the minister's responsibility that health care is becoming untenable.

We are still battling it out in the House over her Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation. Once again, as late as April 3, the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and many other common sense average Canadian groups which are trying to make the economy of the country work and people who are trying to have their families and businesses progress in essence were hung out to dry. This lowers my confidence in the legislation. I mentioned the precautionary principle and the definition of some kind of value and the term “potential impact”, as things that I am not sure the minister is really going to deliver as more effective or better for industry and for Canadians as a whole.

The rigidity of the PMRA's bureaucracy is denying access to those cheaper chemicals in other countries. The Farmers of North America Inc. is one group trying to import chemicals that are used just a few miles across the border. The EPA in the United States is probably much more strict in regard to its regulations, legislation and examination of chemicals than we are here in Canada. Our rigid ineffective PMRA will not let those chemicals come in. Maybe it is not because the officials do not want to; it is just that they are so bound up in their own bureaucracy and the system is everything and effectiveness is nothing. We are being hurt very badly by not having access to those better chemicals and getting rid of the ones that are toxic that could and should be replaced. We will see if the legislation actually does that.

The Canadian Alliance always has some solutions. In regard to Health Canada and the PMRA, we should work more closely with regulatory bodies in other countries. For example, the PMRA should accept data from tests done in other countries if the products will be used under similar conditions in Canada.

This would reduce the time required to move new products through the Canadian system. As well it would reduce the licensing costs for chemical companies and therefore increase the likelihood that they would apply for a Canadian licence.

At the present time our market is fairly small in regard to a lot of agriculture production and chemical use. As a result it does not necessarily pay to go through the full bureaucratic process in Canada of up to four years of evidence given to the government to try to get a chemical in that is licensed as safe in the United States.

The process for re-evaluation of older chemicals consumes a great deal of the PMRA's resources. There are about 7,000 chemicals registered for use in Canada at the present time. That was the last figure I saw. We have two problems. One is that the government is not putting enough resources into re-evaluating these older chemicals. I do not want my granddaughter, my children, neighbours or others to be hurt by chemicals that are no longer considered safe. In fact for many of these chemicals, if the PMRA were to get off its butt, we would have the new ones that are less toxic brought into Canada which would make things safer for the environment and for all of us.

The process for re-evaluation of older chemicals consumes a great deal of the resources. The efficiency of the PMRA would be dramatically increased if it would accept the data from recent pesticide evaluations done by capable regulatory agencies in other countries. The legislation fails to force the PMRA to consider scientific research done in other jurisdictions. Furthermore, the bill will force additional re-evaluations on the PMRA for all pesticides older than 15 years which will be reviewed automatically even if there is no reason to suspect that their toxicity or safety is in question.

The PMRA should only review existing pesticides if suitable and effective alternatives exist. That is a very important point. It needs to prioritize what it is doing in government. That way it can get at the real problem chemicals while not looking at the others. From what I heard at the agriculture committee when the director and others were making their presentations, this is certainly not being done.

The transparency at the agency certainly has to be improved. The bill does improve the transparency of the agency in Canada's pesticide approval process and I give credit for that.

As I said, the bill has the potential to do some good but with the PMRA's bureaucratic intransigence, I suspect it may not accomplish what it is intended to do. That will depend on good solid direction from the minister. That cannot be emphasized enough. To this point the previous ministers have not given that kind of good solid direction. Absolutely every presenter that has come before the committee in regard to the PMRA's activities has been critical of its operation.

I have indicated I do not have much faith in the minister being able to do the job. However, she does have the confidence of the Prime Minister to do it, so we will just have to see. As I say, a lot of us on this side of the House do not have much hope.

We have some additional unanswered questions with respect to the PMRA. Why does the pesticide approval process in the United States occur much faster than in Canada? Why has the PMRA failed to increase its acceptance of data from reputable scientific bodies from other countries?

The efficiency of the PMRA would be significantly improved if it accepted the data from pesticide re-evaluations. There is no evidence that accepting data on pesticide research done in other countries poses any threat to Canadian health and safety. Still the government has the philosophy and obviously has given instructions to the PMRA that it is not to be the case that those studies and scientific examinations can be admitted into Canada.

We would like to know what the environmental impact is of Canada falling behind in the licensing of new and more effective pesticides. I have outlined some of the concerns in that regard. Certainly the safety of the environment and individual Canadians is one of the big things.

The government is not going to take into full consideration the trade impact and how it will be used by the minister when we talk about the precautionary principle. The minister talked about the potential impact of chemicals without really having a scientific basis for it. She talked about values. Anytime a Liberal uses the word values, man, I run for cover just like most of my neighbours do. That is scary because Liberal values represent virtually no Canadian but it will be their values that they want to push onto the rest of us.

At the present time the Crompton Corporation is suing the Canadian government for $100 million. It claims that Canada had no scientific basis to ban the chemical Lindane.

The government up to the present has shown a great deal of incompetence in regard to the operation of the health ministry as it pertains to the Pest Control Products Act and also in regard to the regulatory agency that is supposed to protect Canadians and facilitate industry, agriculture and the quality of life for all Canadians.

Reports have indicated that the PMRA is 40% less efficient than other countries, particularly the United States and Australia. This is in regard to efficiency in getting pesticide applications through the process. During 2000-01 a total of 22 minor use registrations were approved by the PMRA. Eighteen were for food use and four were for non-food use. During the same period over 1,200 minor use registrations were approved in the United States. More than 500 were for food use and over 700 were for non-food use.

The fact is that our industry, our farmers and our agricultural sector are competing directly head to head with the United States on virtually every commodity, with the exception of peanuts and some of the things grown in the tropics. There is a lot of work to be done. Canada imports U.S. fruits and vegetables grown using new chemicals not yet approved for use in Canada. It seems somewhat illogical that Canada would accept produce grown with more chemicals used by U.S. farmers but would refuse to license the pesticides themselves.

With that I will conclude by saying that the minister's speech should give all of us cause for concern. We should examine her words very carefully. We should examine this legislation before we throw our support wholeheartedly behind it.

We know of the pesticide anti-chemical bias in the government as evidenced by some of the bills that have been brought forward. In particular the one that really bothered me and a lot of Liberals attempted to say that somehow genetically modified foods were dangerous and scary. That was brought forward by a private member from the Liberal side. It was not based on science. It was based on bunk.

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

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise and speak on the bill, but once again I have to shake my head when I think about how the good idea of protecting animals could result in such a bad piece of legislation. I guess we should not be all that surprised. It seems to be a trend in the government, which has somehow managed to take an idea such as safer streets and turn it into a $700 million attack on law-abiding citizens with gun control. We can see a sort of trend coming forward from the government. We have the responsibility to make effective legislation, the responsibility for the needs of all Canadians. This attack on rural Canadians must stop.

Canadians are supportive of the current legislation of protecting animals under the criminal code. Instead of strengthening the penalties that violators face under the current legislation, the justice minister has brought forward a far-reaching piece of legislation.

There are two major concerns that I have about Bill C-15B. First, the definition of an animal is way too broad. The bill's proposed definition of an animal includes non-human vertebrates and all animals having the capacity to feel pain. Let us just take a couple of examples that would fit into those categories.

Rats feel pain and have vertebrae. I come from a province that is rat-free. We spend millions of dollars a year dealing with the problems of rat control within our province. Because of the natural boundaries of the Rockies on one side, we pushed back the rat population as much as we possibly could into Saskatchewan, yet under the application of the bill that could put in jeopardy. As well, the gopher problem is rampant in the prairies. The member from Lakeland, who sits next to me, could be called to task under the bill for bringing forward a private member's bill to introduce gopher poison.

It is not so much that we have a problem with the criminal code or with protection of animal rights, which we believe in; it is how the bill can be applied that gives us a great deal of concern. The new definition would provide new legal protection for a number of living organisms which have never before been provided with that kind of protection. My second concern with this piece of legislation is that it removes a protection currently provided under section 429(2) of the criminal code for persons who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justifiable practices, moving animal cruelty from under the umbrella of property offences into a new section emphasizing animal rights as opposed to animal welfare.

This throws it wide open to jurisdictional interpretation, where judges are allowed to perhaps favour special interest groups when it comes to animal rights. I see this change elevating the costs that are already overburdening our court system as frivolous lawsuits from animal rights activists skyrocket.

In my riding of Yellowhead, raising animals on farms for food has been a way of life for generations. I have raised dairy cattle and beef cattle and I currently raise elk at the same time. I know a little about what happens. The reality is that if we treat our animals poorly they will not be healthy. Sick and injured animals are not able to be productive and if they are not able to be productive, one is not going to be a farmer for long. I do not believe that is actually is happening on most of our farms that deal with the husbandry of animals. The fear of much of the agricultural community in my riding is that they have had the experience of activist judges or aggressive animal rights activists calling the shots. The skills of raising animals on farms have been developed and handed down from generation to generation.

Madam Speaker, if you have ever been on a farm you will know that everything that happens with regard to animals is not necessarily pleasant. Castration, dehorning and vaccinations might be seen by the outside viewer as harming the animal. The truth is that they are necessary for the strengthening and survival of the herd. It is not much different from a spoonful of honey making the medicine go down for children. We must do it because we love the child. Most farmers I know love their animals, look after them and do whatever is necessary to keep them healthy.

We must look at what motivated the former Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Edmonton West, to give animals special status. In a fundraising letter in the winter of 2002 the director of the Animal Alliance of Canada claimed responsibility for the minister's narrow election win. Could Bill C-15B be political payback for its work on her behalf?

I cannot emphasize enough the importance the Canadian Alliance puts on the welfare and safety of animals. The provisions currently in force within the criminal code could provide the required protection through increased penalties for violators. The scope of Bill C-15B is not clearly outlined. It would provide the government another opportunity to target law abiding farmers and hunters as criminals. I therefore cannot support Bill C-15B.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to offer a few remarks at the report stage of Bill C-15B, the second part of the justice omnibus bill, which deals with changes to the gun control registry and cruelty to animals. The section I want to speak to in this group of amendments strengthens the sections of the criminal code dealing with cruelty to animals. I support the proposed amendments and am proud to say that my constituents have been very vocal about supporting these amendments as well.

Our laws relating to cruelty to animals are written to exclusively benefit the human. Currently the legislative architecture of the criminal code leaves animals with the legal standing of property. A court must now define the abuses or neglect of an animal as an offence against the right of property. This offers the same protections and defences to the accused as someone who allegedly steals cars or forges credit cards. I find it disturbing that sections of the criminal code which currently forbid cruelty to animals are treated in the same way as possible offences of cruelty to computer equipment.

I am sad to say that after listening to the low level of the attacks on the government position in this debate I am left with the impression that some commenting on this matter care more for their cars or their computers than for their pets or for the animals that provide us with food or clothing.

No one suggests making assault or murder an offence against property. Offences against people are in a much more serious category, with harsher penalties and fewer defences, to reflect the more serious harm our society believes takes place when we commit a crime against a living person as opposed to a crime against property.

I believe that animals are living creatures as well. They feel pain and share this great planet with us. They are a critical part of our ecosystem. They provide comfort, food, clothing, companionship, loyalty and endless entertainment. They deserve better than to be given only the protection of property. That is why I and every single caller to my constituency office support this bill giving animals their own status as creatures that can feel pain.

The vicious opposition being brought to bear against the bill by the Alliance opposition party originally puzzled me. After all, concerns of farmers, fishermen, hunters and trappers were dealt with by ensuring that they would still have many of the defences they possess in the existing code available to them and would therefore not be subject to frivolous prosecution or harassment, but I understand the Alliance position a little better now that I have heard this debate. Their position reflects their new leader's attitude toward Canada, which some of us call the fortress Alberta position. Their opposition has little to do with protection of animals or with the bill.

Listen to what we have heard so far today. The Alliance members suggest that we oppose this and also oppose the bill to protect endangered species, as the Klein government has called on them to do. After all, as Klein says, property should have more protection than endangered species. They are saying to oppose the bill and to kill Canada's support for the Kyoto protocols to reduce greenhouse gases and to stop climate change, as Ralph Klein has said they must, because it would cost our poor struggling oil companies some profit. They oppose any attempt to stop global warming but also say that we should kill the bill and start to compensate farmers and cattlemen who are suffering through an extended drought in western Canada.

The bill is not about Kyoto, but I hope they remember that droughts are probably caused by climate change and if they want to help drought stricken farmers we should support Kyoto. One member even accused the former minister of justice of pandering to special interests and playing politics, saying that is why there is support for the bill. As far as I can tell, the bill is not about the last election or deals made by the former minister of justice. It is about animal rights.

Here is my position and I hope it is more to the point than some of the others that have been put on the record today. Animals should have more rights than property. Endangered species are animals as well and therefore they should have rights too. While the bill is not perfect and some of the loopholes such as the inclusion of the words “wilful” and “reckless” introduced by the government water down the original intent, we should pass this and try to improve on it later. I support animal rights and I, along with my other colleagues in the New Democratic Party, will be in support of Bill C-15B at report stage.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-15B and also to mention the title of the bill in starting. I want to talk today about judicial activism. Before I go any further, for the edification of the few Liberals who are in the House to listen to this, I point out that this does relate specifically to the bill. They do not have to call me on it because I intend to relate this clearly to the bill before the House.

In the case of judicial activism, there is a lot of talk of this in the public today. A lot of people are very upset with a lot of the decisions that are coming down these days by judges in our courts. As a result, they are calling for an overhaul of the judicial system itself, how we select our judges, the terms, the conditions under which they serve and so on.

An example of the kinds of things that are bothering members of the public under judicial activism is conditional release, a provision provided by the Liberal government in the House. Under conditional release judges may sentence people to serve their sentence entirely in the public without ever having to go to jail. The idea behind this apparently is that if the judges feel there is no risk to society with the person not being incarcerated, then they do not have to sentence them to actual prison time.

The Canadian public was alarmed and shocked when they found that people who were committing very serious violent offences, such as violent rapes, were being sentenced under this provision for conditional sentencing and were ending up not serving any time in jail. The public was outraged, and rightly so. People brought that to us and we in turn brought that to the House. We raised the issue in parliament. The response by the minister of justice at that time, who is now the Minister of Industry, was that it was never his intention that this should apply to violent offenders. Yet to this day that provision has never been changed.

Some time ago I did a study, along with other members of the House, of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. In the process of doing the study, we talked to all kinds of people involved in the corrections and justice system in the country. Some of the people we talked to were judges.

In talking to one particular judge, as an aside he brought up the subject of judicial activism. He said that he was not one to stand before us and say that none of the decisions made by his colleagues, the other judges, were made poorly. However he said that before we started to worry about changing the judges and judicial activism, we first should fix our legislation. He said that we could not keep writing legislation that caused them to be forced to consider anything brought forward by the attorneys for those who they were dealing with if the legislation provided the possibility of that. In the example of conditional sentencing, legislation did not preclude conditional sentencing being given to violent offenders and therefore they had to consider it.

That brings me to Bill C-15B, particularly the provision dealing with the penalties for cruelty to animals.

This places us in an awkward position, as many bills crafted by the Liberal government do, in that we support the motherhood issue of preventing cruelty to animals, and surely everyone in the House does. The question is not on the motherhood statement but rather on the application.

The previous minister of justice so often said that it was not their intention, then she carried on with whatever related to the particular bill of the day that she was involved in.

In this case she informed us that it was not her intention or the intention of the government that this would be applied arbitrarily to those who dealt with animals through farming, ranching and other forms of legitimate practices with animals. Yet the way the bill is crafted, there will certainly be those who will interpret it that way.

Just like in the case of conditional sentencing, where a judge says he or she has no choice but to consider that type of sentence because it does not preclude using that on a violent offender, there will be those who will raise charges against innocent people, who, through natural acts of animal husbandry, have not willfully harmed or been cruel to an animal. There are those who will nonetheless raise these types of prospects and the courts will have to look at them and in some cases convict people whom, according to the minister herself, harm was never intended to through the bill.

Her comment that anything that is legal today will be legal after the bill passes makes little sense given that she attempted to change so many things that are currently in place. If her only intention was to deal with genuine cruelty to animals, which should be dealt with, then all she had to do was raise the fines, the sentences and the penalties for those who are willfully cruel to animals. To do otherwise is to open up yet another Pandora's box. We have seen it with a variety of different judicial acts. We are seeing it even in the endangered species bill, wherein the government acknowledges the onus on the government to show that somebody willfully harmed an endangered species or its habitat but even if people do it accidentally they can still be charged.

The government's own response to that was that the government would rather leave it that way because it would make it easier to prosecute people in general and then consider special circumstances in the sentencing of people who are convicted of doing something without even knowing or being able to know that they were damaging habitat or the species itself. That kind of absurdity suggests that we will be allowing innocent people to be convicted and then say that it is okay because they will only get a tap on the wrist as their penalty. Nonetheless, it will still leave them with a criminal record. In light of September 11 and people with criminal records appearing at the borders, I can see the kinds of arguments they will have with American customs agents when they try to explain that their crimes were not really serious crimes because the government recognizes that they were really innocent and just convicted them because it was more convenient to do so.

That kind of absurdity in the crafting of bills is the same thing we are seeing in this provision in Bill C-15B. It is one of the reasons that the opposition often gets placed in the very awkward position of having to vote against bills that perhaps have good intent but are so poorly written and could so easily be corrected. It is a very frustrating thing in the House.

In the future, when you will still be elected, Madam Speaker, but the government will no longer be the government and you will have to sit in opposition, I am sure you will be thankful that the new government will not write bills in the same reckless and incoherent manner that the government does today.

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

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again participate in the debate on Bill C-15B at report stage. I believe I addressed the bill at second reading but in view of the government's position on the bill I do not think one can revisit one's concerns often enough.

If the evidence I have seen is any indication of the reasons for bringing the bill forward by the former justice minister, it is for all the wrong reasons. I have a fundraising letter in my office from an animal rights group suggesting that the bringing forward of the bill to the House of Commons by the former justice minister was a payoff for supporting her in a very close election race in the last election. I am really concerned that the bill was brought forward for that reason.

I really think this whole recognition of animals in a Walt Disney sort of animated way leaves the wrong impression and creates these kind of extreme animal rights groups that want to elevate the status of animals to the status of humans with human rights. It is quite ridiculous.

As a person who has been involved in animal husbandry all of my life and who grew up in a family that was sustained through hunting, fishing and the traditional practices that many people today, particularly our aboriginal people in Canada, still maintain is a necessary part of our culture and our very existence, I feel the bill could threaten those ways of life and for reasons that are not necessary.

I think everyone here would agree that we need to enforce the law. Although I am not certain, we may even need to put in place more severe penalties or more severe procedures to punish real cruelty to animals which does exist and does happen. I think the member who spoke previously pointed out some examples which I certainly would not deny. However, life sometimes requires acts that would not be considered kind to animals, whether that be in the slaughter of animals for food, in the husbandry of livestock when someone is ranching or the harvesting of wildlife for sustenance.

If people ever lived in a rural setting and been part of that life they would recognize that it would not be a kind world if domesticated animals were left to fend on their own. I still support the concept of ownership of animals but part of the whole aspect of having animals in the property rights section is a responsibility to look after one's animals in a humane and decent way. I have always taken great pride in the way I looked after my animals and took care of them. If we do that animals are quite content, quite happy and life is as it should be. In those instances where it is necessary to neuter animals or to dehorn cattle, for example, these are not pleasant jobs but they are necessary and part of that culture and lifestyle.

Anyone who has ever been out in the wild or for that matter has watched films showing the taking of animals by wolves, by coyotes and by predators has observed cruelty to the extreme.

There really is nothing more cruel than a wolf taking down a deer or a moose and eating it alive. It is not a pleasant sight. Reality is that life is not always kind and nature is not always kind.

The problem here is that we are going to the extreme. Anybody, whether a person who owns pets or is involved in animal husbandry, who is not terrified when they look at the bill and terrified at the prospect of being maliciously prosecuted by some organizations with very deep pockets is foolish. While someone may or may not eventually find justice, and I would hope they would, our justice system process is extremely expensive and one most of us cannot afford, particularly when we are seeking justice through court action brought on by a group of animal rights people or by the Government of Canada with extremely deep pockets. One could certainly face bankruptcy and destruction of their family. We have seen all kinds of examples of that. As members of parliament, every day we hear from people involved in those kinds of situations and who are trying to defend themselves against a corporation or a government entity with deep pockets. It is a frightening procedure and totally unnecessary.

I myself have seen incidents of unnecessary animal cruelty by those who keep animals for pets or for sustenance. My observation is that we are not enforcing the existing law as we should be. We could do a lot more.

I have watched people in my neighbourhood who I do not think intended any cruelty or intended to be unkind to their animals. They were raised in an urban environment and lived in the country and thought it would be a wonderful thing to raise their own wheat and produce meat raised without pesticides and all the rest of it. That is the kind of mentality of people who move to the country because they do have that right and it is maybe a good thing to do.

In this particular instance these people did not have any idea what those animals needed in the way of being looked after properly with the intention of being turned into food at some point. Those animals were terribly abused. My wife phoned the local animal cruelty authorities on a number of occasions. It was not until one animal was dead and the other very close to death that the authorities were willing to do anything.

Before we go down the road we are going down and make a real mistake, we could do a lot more by simply tightening up existing laws and leaving animal cruelty under the property section in the legislation. I think the minister could accomplish what he is attempting to accomplish without endangering an entire way of life and an entire culture of many Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the previous speaker for his remarks.

In going through Bill C-15B, it is important to keep in context how the legislation came about. It originally was before the House in the form of what is called an omnibus bill. There were a number of very complex and unrelated subjects that found themselves in the bill which caused a great deal of consternation I think for many members of parliament. It is a usual tactic that the government has employed to have its way, that is to essentially include a number of issues with which most if not all members agree and couple them with other pieces of legislation that the government would like to slide in, putting members of parliament in the uncomfortable position of voting against things of which they actually are in favour.

The strategical tactics unfortunately have blurred much of the merit of this particular bill. However the former minister of justice did climb down from her lofty position and agreed to some extent to split off parts of the bill to allow members to vote more freely and more in line with the wishes of their constituents and their own comfort levels.

We have before us a bill with a number of important amendments, which I would hope the government would consider, that would improve and in fact very much ameliorate the ability of the legislation to address the principle issue, and that is: helping to eradicate and give our law enforcement officials greater ability to enforce laws which are meant to curtail cruelty to animals.

We in the coalition are very supportive of any initiative that will bring about legislation dealing with crimes against animals. This legislation very much puts forward the spirit that we need to punish those who intentionally abuse or neglect animals. Cruelty to animals is an issue that has received significant public attention of late. In recent years psychologists have drawn clear parallels between a child's cruelty to animals and subsequent cruelty toward human beings in his or her adult life as one element to take into consideration.

We support as well the government's decision to put forward an ability for judges to remove barriers, to heighten the sentences and heighten the degree of deterrence that should emerge from cases where there is clear-cut, proven on evidence cases of animal abuse.

We do not, I hasten to add, adhere to the government's position in the legislation that to achieve the deterrents and to achieve the heightened degree of accountability, the government must remove the criminal code provisions dealing with animals from the property section of the code.

The proprietary aspects of animal abuse have always been very important in the prosecution of animal cruelty cases. Moving the animal cruelty provisions out of part XI of the criminal code removes the protection of legitimate based businesses that relate to animals and animal husbandry. By virtue of taking that section out of section 429(2) of the criminal code, this important ability to protect oneself by virtue of the law is removed. Let us be very clear about that.

The current section in the property law allows for legal justification, or excuse or colour of right to be claimed by a person who might be charged. Therefore it affords legal protection for acts which have always been seen as legitimate and outside the gamut of animal cruelty and always based upon the evidence. It is inappropriate and misleading in a malicious way to suggest that somehow removing these sections will protect animals any further than it currently does.

It currently is illegal to perpetrate any sort of cruelty against animals. The problem has been in the prosecution of these offences and further in the ability of the police to lay charges. That also ties very much into the resource allocation currently available for police in the country. Removing the cruelty to animals provisions from this section is of particular concern to hunters, trappers, farmers and to researchers. There is an important element in the use of animals for genetic research. People like John and Jessie Davidson would be the first to say that genetic research is something that has to be given a higher priority by the Parliament of Canada and the people of Canada.

These legitimate individuals who work and depend on animals for their livelihood have expressed very clearly to the government their concerns. They came before a committee. There was extensive study of this issue. Everything the bill seeks to achieve could be achieved by bringing about the amendments but leaving the current sections in the property section of the criminal code. Everything that is sought to be accomplished could be done so in that fashion.

We share the concerns of many Canadians, though, who have spoken about the definition of an animal. Any animal that has the capacity to feel pain does encompass in a large way any sort of cruelty that might be perpetrated. Yet through this definition, the government is putting at risk many activities that currently occur. We have heard examples of those. A farmer who puts a noose around an animal's neck to lead it to pasture or to pull it out of danger could potentially be charged.

We have heard ludicrous examples, such as putting a worm on a hook or boiling a live lobster. Potentially, if taken to the extreme, these types of activities could result in prosecutions. The sad reality of that is that the cost that would be expended and the delay in following through with these types of prosecutions, whether they be brought about by the crown or private prosecutions which currently can occur, would bankrupt and put out of business a lot of individuals who currently rely on animals for their livelihood.

Even the intentional act of stepping on a spider was one example that was given as cruelty to an animal.

My comments are in no way an attempt to make light of a serious situation but to point out that this type of law is very dangerous and should not be proceeded with in this fashion. This law could place fishermen, farmers, hunters, trappers, furriers or any individual that associates with animals at risk of frivolous prosecution and those who espouse radical views about animal protection.

The ensuing lawsuits could paralyze and bankrupt some businesses. It is well intended and there are many individuals who are well intended in their efforts to protect animals, but the reality is the horrific cases of animal abuse are currently illegal. It is a matter of enabling our system further to resource and through attention and priorizing the prosecutions for these types of offences. We support strengthening the criminal code and provisions dealing with animals and many of the improvements that are envisioned by the bill. This punishment and resource question is where the problem lies.

The minister did at least realize the carelessness that occurred in the drafting of the original bill, Bill C-17, and she was careful to now inject the word “wilful” with respect to cruelty and unnecessary pain being perpetrated in the drafting of this new bill.

Regrettably, the former minister did not see the need to keep the animal cruelty sections within the property sections of the criminal code. Thus, this improved legislation would not provide the adequate protection with which the majority of animal business people would be concerned. For that reason, sadly we are unable to support the bill.

We believe the legislation is needed and that further legislation is needed to prevent needless animal pain and suffering. An example that comes to mind is the case that many of us were transfixed on a few years ago when we heard about a Rottweiler dog that was dragged on a chain behind a pick-up truck. There was a case very recently in Kingston that was reported in the Kingston Whig-Standard of horrible abuse to a cat named Solitaire that was bloodied and battered. These type of cases are extremely offensive to the sensibilities of most Canadians.

The traditional practices of hunting, fishing and farming do not fit into the category of mean spirited violence, yet they could very much be caught up by virtue of these changes.

It is imperative that animal cruelty legislation be clearly designated to target those who would engage in brutal, deliberate acts against animals. Just as the other parts of this legislation which deal with firearms legislation, it is fine to try to redefine what the legislation does, yet we know it has been a complete and utter failure. The cost is prohibitive. The intent is such that individuals will not voluntarily participate.

For those reasons, and for reasons which I would like to elaborate on but due to limitations of time I cannot, our coalition cannot support the bill. We would be hopeful that the government would be willing to accept the amendments which would take away those sections which very much undermine the spirit and intent of the bill.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was quoting directly from the letter and I appreciate that. The dairy farmers go on to say:

Former Justice Minister...repeatedly met farmers' concerns with the statement that “what is lawful today will continue to be lawful”. If the government wants to ensure this, the defences currently available should not be removed.

The third point the dairy farmers make is the definition of animal cruelty in the bill must be amended.

Defining “animal” as “a vertebrate other than a human, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain” is too broad. As it is written, Bill C-15B threatens to subject farmers to protracted litigation as meaning is given to this definition through judicial interpretation. More importantly, this broad definition is not necessary to achieving the Government's goal of legislation.

The dairy farmers go on to say:

Prime Minister, no group of people in this country is more concerned about animal welfare than agricultural producers. Farmers set and follow high standards of animal care and treatment, and we believe those who neglect or viciously kill animals should be punished with the full force of law. However, Bill C-15B moves far beyond punishing those who neglect or viciously kill animals. The Bill unnecessarily elevates the legal status of animals and puts powerful legal tools into the hands of animal rights activists to lay animal cruelty charges against producers. At the same time, the Bill takes away defenses that should be available to farmers who responsibly produce Canada's food.

The three changes we have suggested will ensure that the law is fair and just, and will in no way detract from the Government's goal of increasing penalties for animal abuse offenses. I trust you will give careful consideration to these concerns, and on behalf of Canada's dairy producers, I thank you for your attention to this important matter.

The letter is signed by Leo Bertoia, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada.

I believe that the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada makes a compelling case for changes to the bill. I think the last thing we want, and I would suggest that it is not the intention of the government, is to have farmers brought before the courts on frivolous charges of abuse. However it is implicit in the bill that that is a possibility.

It is also a possibility that fishermen and others who handle animals in the prosecution of business could in fact be brought forward on charges of cruelty to animals for doing what is normal and expected business practices. They are not practices which are intentionally hurtful but they are the usual practices of either agriculture or fishing.

I urge the government to reconsider the bill and to take into consideration the changes that have been suggested by the Dairy Farmers of Canada and by my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I will make it clear that my party supports stiffer penalties for animal cruelty and is against animal cruelty. It is an issue of concern to us. However the direction the government has taken is clearly wrong. There are other ways to achieve its objective.

I will give an example of the danger that could befall us if we follow the direction the government has taken. Recently in Denmark a fishmonger was convicted and fined $150 in court for having a live fish in his stall. This is the possibility that exists when we elevate the status of animals from property into some sort of nebulous, quasi-human status. What would the penalty be for a fisherman who caught a fish on a hook and brought it in? Obviously the animal is under stress when that happens. What would happen if a fisherman caught a fish in a gill net and the fish smothered, which is what they do in gill nets? Would the fisherman be brought forward in court and fined on that basis? Who knows?

The concern goes beyond that. There is concern in the agricultural community. The parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture has suggested the concerns are of no effect. He and the government assure us we do not need to worry about inappropriate interference in the agriculture business not to mention the fishing industry if Bill C-15B is brought into place. However there is considerable concern in the agricultural industry.

I will read into the record a letter by Leo Bertoia, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada. The letter is directed to the Prime Minister. It is interesting that the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada would go beyond the agriculture minister and the justice minister and make his point directly to the Prime Minister. He states:

Dear Prime Minister Chrétien,

The cruelty to animals section of Bill C-15B places Canada's dairy producers at unnecessary risk of prosecution for engaging in normal animal handling practices. Dairy Farmers of Canada recommends that three changes be made to the Bill to ensure that farmers can continue, without extraordinary legal burdens and intrusions, to provide top-quality, safe, and affordable food for Canadians.

1. The current status of animals as “property” in the Criminal Code must be maintained.

Canada's agriculture industry is based on the principal of ownership of animals: a farmer's legal right to use animals for food production stems from his proprietary right in these animals. By moving the cruelty to animals provisions out of the special property section and creating a new section, the Government is changing the legal status of animals. This shift could lead to an unprecedented risk of prosecution of farmers who use animals for food production, as a farmer's right to use his animals would have to be reconciled with the new status of animals under the Criminal Code.

Humane treatment is not compromised by an animal's designation as property. The Government could maintain the current status of animals as property under the Criminal Code and still meet its stated goal of the legislation, which is to increase penalties for animal abuse and neglect.

1. The defenses of “legal justification, excuse and colour of right” that currently exist under subsection 429(2) must be retained.

Agricultural producers must have access to defenses that provide assurances for legitimate animal-based activities and businesses. Including these defenses would not diminish the stated intent of the law. Former Justice Minister Anne McLellan repeatedly met farmers' concerns with the statement that--

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague who just spoke and also my friend from Lakeland who spoke a minute ago on their speeches. They touched on many of the concerns the Alliance has with Bill C-15B.

I want to point out that in a way Bill C-15B underlines the misunderstanding or the lack of appreciation that the government has for farmers and ranchers in Canada. This is one of many pieces of legislation and initiatives that the government has taken that really make it difficult for farmers to make a go of it today.

I refer to the endangered species legislation which would not properly compensate farmers and ranchers whose land would be taken out of production because of the legislation. This comes at a time when farmers are already in straitened circumstances. I refer to Kyoto which potentially could have tremendous negative consequences for farmers and ranchers. I refer to the government's unwillingness to address the drought situation in the prairies and the lack of a suitable farm safety net that would allow farmers and ranchers to make it through tough times when European and American farmers are receiving heavy subsidies that distort the market.

On top of all of that this really causes me to wonder whether or not the government understands what is going on in rural Canada. It seems to be completely insensitive on the issue.

My friend mentioned the problem of gophers on the prairies. I can assure members that this is a real problem. A couple of years ago a farmer just outside of Seven Persons, Alberta called to say he was being overrun by gophers. Times were tough on the farm and he complained about putting seed in the ground only to have swarms of gophers consume everything he had planted. It is difficult to deal with that kind of situation without the support of government.

In Alberta there is a real move to deal with the problem of swarms of gophers that cause all kinds of destruction not only to crops but leave holes that cattle step in and break legs, and cause destruction to underground wiring and so on. Many people are concerned to start to deal with the gopher issue the way that they have always dealt with it in the past which is to use poison in some cases or shoot them in other cases.

They are concerned that the government will be lobbied hard by animal rights radicals to stop that activity which they need to do to protect their livelihood. It is quite common for farmers to protect lambs at lambing season against predators such as coyotes and foxes. They need to know that they can do that and not fear being pursued by the government because radical animal activists have been pushing the government hard on this issue.

In northern parts of the country ravens are a problem. They go after the eyes of newborn livestock. Farmers and ranchers need to know that they can protect their livestock and property and that the government will support them. The government has failed to make its intentions clear by not allowing us to pass some of the amendments that the Canadian Alliance had proposed.

We are very concerned that the government is mixed up in its priorities. It seems to be on the verge of granting all kinds of rights to animals at the behest of radical animal activists while at the same time making the livelihood of farming and ranching very precarious. We urge the government to keep this in mind when it proposes to pass Bill C-15B. Other members on the government side who will speak to this come from rural areas.

I note for a fact that they are hearing from farmers and ranchers in their areas. I hope they will have the courage to stand and let the government know that it is unacceptable to start to raise the rights of animals up to the same plane as those of human beings. We are hearing that kind of rhetoric from animal activists.

Members must remember it is not unrealistic to suspect that animal activists will push very hard to take whatever crack that the government gives them in the legislation and pursue it in the courts to make it very difficult for farmers and ranchers to do what they need to do. We need to remember some of the statements that they have already made about going hard after government backbenchers who do not support their point of view. They have made public statements along those lines.

We also know that they have condoned violence and have used violence. They have acted as terrorists, blowing up trucks that belong to fish companies, for instance. They have done all kinds of things to protest the idea that people can own animals and that animals are not on the same plane as human beings.

We know what these people are willing to do and have done in the past. The government is playing far too much to their agenda by going as far as it has gone with Bill C-15B.

Canadian farmers and ranchers want one sign that the government is sensitive to the situation they are in today. So far in the House I cannot think of a single piece of legislation in the nine years I have been here where it has shown some awareness that there needs to be reform that favours farmers and ranchers and is not always against them.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would reflect what my colleague has just said. Clearly there is a concern about the abuse of animals. There is not one member of the House of Commons who is not concerned to see that steps are taken for proper protection of animals, but it is not quite that simple. The difficulty is that in this law we are opening up to attack a lot of people who own animals, whether they are domesticated animals or animals which are farmed.

I would like to read a couple of comments from people who love the kind of wording that is included in the legislation. The California based animal rights organization In the Defence of Animals, IDA, launched a campaign called “They are not our property; we are not their owners”. According to the IDA website the campaign proposes nothing less than to change society's relationship with animals. The following few quotations indicate that the campaign has strong support among animal rights activists. The quotations also reinforce the argument that the concept of property is fundamental to understanding the animal rights agenda.

Lynn Manheim, a columnist for Letters for Animals said:

Ultimately there can be no real progress until society undergoes a paradigm shift, a new way of looking at the world which opens the door to new systems of interacting with it. We have seen most strikingly with the women's movement, language plays an essential part in such a shift. Establishing legal rights for animals will be virtually impossible while they continue to be called and though of as “its” and “things”.

Alan Berger, executive director of the Animal Protection Institution said:

Animal Protection Institute is pleased to endorse IDA's They are not our Property...campaign. Society's perception of animals as property must be changed before legal rights for animals can be established. The time is right to make such a change.

This one is from Kristin von Kreisler, author of

The Compassion of Animals:

IDA's They are not our property campaign will prod us along in our moral evolution. Just as we have moved beyond “owning” people after the Civil War, we now need to move beyond “owning” animals, who deserve a far greater understanding in our society than simply being treated as property or things.

This is one from Jane Goodall of the Jane Goodall Institute:

In the legal sense, animals are regarded as “things”, mere objects that can be bought, sold, discarded or destroyed at an owner's whim. Only when animals can be regarded as “persons” in the eyes of the law will it be possible to give teeth to the often fuzzy laws protecting animals from abuse.

Let me repeat the objective of this particular activist: Only when animals can be regarded as persons in the eyes of the law will it be possible to give teeth to the often fuzzy laws protecting animals from abuse.

Those are the people and the organizations the government is not taking into account. The wording of its legislation is simply not precise enough to stop this kind of fuzzy headed thinking.

This quote is from Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, author of When Elephants Weep and

Dogs Never Lie About Love:

How can we own another person? We cannot. Why then should we think we can own another being, a dog, a cat or a horse? The law may tell us we can, but the law also told us in the past that men owned their wives, parents their children, slaveowners their slaves. I now realize how wrong it is to consider myself an animal “owner”. Language is no trivial matter, how we use it affects how we think and then how we act.

We can no longer own a dog, a cat or a horse. Perhaps this person would also like to give them the vote. I do not know. This is another quote:

I looked up the word “property” in the dictionary. It said, “a thing or things owned”. To me, this makes it clear that, by definition, animals can never be considered property. A “thing” cannot love. A “thing” cannot act from compassion. A “thing” will never risk its own life to help a stranger or even a friend.

This is so fuzzy it is almost, in my humble opinion, slightly humorous. But it is not humorous because we are talking about the lives and the livelihood of people who are involved in the agricultural industry.

We are talking about the potential effect of criminal prosecution against anybody who owns an animal. As human beings we can own animals. Let us be clear, that is exactly where I am coming from.

When we look at the various motions by the member for Selkirk--Interlake that clause 8 be deleted, if we are unable to pass the amendments that are required to prevent harassment prosecutions of farmers, ranchers, medical researchers and all other Canadians who use animals for their livelihood, we should delete the entire animal cruelty section. That is where we are coming from. We must be more precise.

There is another motion we will be opposing. It is Motion No. 4 by the member Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot which states:

That Bill C-15B, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 3 with the following:

“other animal that has the capacity to experience pain.”

We are opposing it because the amendment simply changes the definition of animal from a vertebrate other than a human being to any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain, with emphasis on the word feel, a vertebrate other than a human being and any other animal who has the capacity to experience pain. We are opposed to either definition as both broaden the term “animal” in the context of criminal code offences.

We are aggressively opposed to Bill C-15B for the simple reason that it opens the door to fuzzy headed thinking about the ownership of animals and the ability of people to work with animals within our society in the humane ways in which they are presently working with them.

Again I want to make it perfectly clear that every member of the Canadian Alliance and I as the member for Kootenay--Columbia are concerned about the potential abuse of animals, livestock and domestic animals. We are all concerned about that. However the proposed law does not cut it. It is far too imprecise. That imprecision will open the door to the potential criminal prosecution of people in my constituency and any other rural constituency where people are dealing with domesticated animals or livestock.

The member for Selkirk--Interlake has moved Motion No. 5 which states:

That Bill C-15B, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 3 with the following:

“who, wilfully or recklessly, and in contravention of generally accepted industry standards,”

The amendment is designed to better protect farmers, ranchers, medical researchers and others who depend upon animals for their livelihood from nuisance prosecutions by animal rights activists. Any member in the House, anybody reading Hansard , anybody watching this debate on television who does not believe that the bill will not open farmers, ranchers and dog owners to the potential of criminal action as a result of the activity of animal rights activists probably does not know what day of the week it is.

The former Minister of Justice called on a number of amendments that will actually straighten out a certain amount of this badly flawed bill. We are not in opposition just to be in opposition. In fact with respect to Motion No. 6 the opposition will vote in favour of the government's amendment to its own bill. It takes some tiny steps toward resolving this imprecise situation of which I spoke.

We have gone over the bill with a fine-toothed comb. On balance, unfortunately there is a tremendous amount lacking and a tremendous amount of potential danger within Bill C-15B.

Species at Risk Act

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member opposite for her presentation. It takes courage to stand in the House against one's own government. I am pleased to see her do that. She puts a lot of time and effort into the environment committee and takes it seriously.

I commend the hon. member for Churchill River for his comments about aboriginal involvement. The aboriginals have a theory that anything we do must be considered seven generations down the road. Perhaps if we did that we would all be in better shape today.

There are a lot of things going on in legislation before the House that are of concern to people in rural areas of the country who make a living from the land, the sea and Canada's resources. The bounty we have in Canada is unbelievable.

Let us look at the logging sector. A softwood lumber dispute has the whole sector in crisis. It does not look like it will be resolved. Today is the day it should be resolved but it does not look like it will happen. A pine beetle infestation due to the mild winter is devastating the forests of British Columbia and putting the province's forestry industry in trouble.

Let us look at farming. Last year was a disastrous year from coast to coast in the agriculture community due to low commodity prices and drought. In my area of southern Alberta the drought is severe and has not yet given any indication it will let go. The foreign subsidies that drive down commodity prices and distort production are killing our farm communities.

Let us look at the fishermen who make their living from the sea. Let us look at the mismanagement that has taken place there. Fish stocks are running out. Fishermen in Canada can no longer make a living. An emergency debate on the whole fishing industry in Canada has been applied for and agreed to for this evening.

Yesterday we debated Bill C-15B on cruelty to animals, a bill which has a lot of people concerned in the rural parts of the country.

The list goes on. The resource sector in Canada is concerned about the Kyoto protocol and some of the things it could do. We have the species at risk legislation. Today a bill was introduced to modernize the Pest Control Products Act. The bill would have ramifications throughout the resource and agriculture sectors.

If we add all of these things together, and they keep piling up, it is no wonder people in the agriculture, resource and fishing industries are terrified about the things that could happen to them. If passed as it is some of the legislation could be far reaching and devastating to many sectors.

What does the government do when developing a bill? The opposition is involved in the process. The bill is sent to committee. Expert witnesses from across the country are brought in to give their opinions. People from different sectors are brought in to talk about the bill and the problems associated with it. Hundreds of hours are involved in the process. The government brings hundreds of witnesses to Ottawa at great expense. It is not only at great expense to the government. It is at great expense to the witnesses who take time to come and bear witness under the guise that what they say will be listened to.

The committee listened. It made amendment after amendment. It went through Bill C-5 clause by clause. As the previous speaker indicated, committee members from all parties worked together to come up with a bill everyone could agree with.

The bill left committee. Before it came back to the House the government introduced amendments to take it back to where it was before the committee had a chance at it. The hundreds of witnesses, all the hours and all the expense of bringing in expert witnesses to present their cases was thrown out. That is an absolute shame. It derides the value of committees. It derides the value of the House when a government can do that.

As we have heard, many members on the government side of the House are concerned about what has happened. They work in good faith at the committee level as we all do. What we put forward should be considered. It was completely thrown out. The consultation process we asked for at committee stage was completely ignored. We asked for consultation with all sectors. It happened but the advice was ignored.

I would not be surprised if in years to come we invited industry representatives to present at committees and they refused. They use their own time to come and testify and the government does not listen to them anyway, so why should they?

The consultation we asked for at this stage did not happen. We have asked for consultation after Bill C-5 is implemented. That has been eroded as well. We have put forward an amendment to take care of the issue.

The government is proposing that if the minister became aware of an endangered species he or she would not have to make it public. We agreed to this to a certain extent because if people wanted to come and look it could harm the endangered species. However the person or company who owns the land should be notified if a species is there. Whether an area is on water or land the people in control of it should know the species is there so they can help make arrangements to protect it.

Under Bill C-5 affected landowners would not be notified if endangered species were on their land. Let us think about that. There are people trying to make a living as ranchers, farmers or fishermen who may not realize there is an endangered species in the area. Let us suppose it somehow gets reported to the Minister of the Environment. If these people did something to harm the species all the power, weight and heavy handed approach of Bill C-5 would come to bear on them. The government has taken out the aspect of mens rea which says the harm must be done willingly. That is gone. It absolutely terrifies people to think this could happen.

Let us look at the resource sector. People working in the bush surveying or doing whatever they do may not know an endangered species is nearby. They would be inadvertently affected because the whole weight of Bill C-5 could be thrown at them including jail time and huge fines. That is absolutely wrong.

Consultation did take place but it was not heeded. That is a huge problem. The issue of consultation and proper notification of affected landowners needs to be addressed before Bill C-5 goes forward.

We talked about the compensation issue at other stages of the bill. The whole idea of consultation would affect the ultimate compensation. If landowners do not realize there are endangered species on their property and the Minister of the Environment moves to affect their livelihoods they should be fully compensated for the income they lose.

We have talked a lot about the urban rural split. There is not really a split. This is an issue for which all of society is responsible. A few people in urban centres cannot dictate to the entire rural population how to operate their farms, ranches or resource industries. If people in urban centres want to do that then all people need to be responsible for compensation under Bill C-5.

This is something we want as citizens and as a nation. Everyone wants legislation that will adequately protect species at risk. However if we do not do it in the proper way the bill will not protect endangered species. It will do more to harm them.

Consultation, compensation and the whole idea of jurisdiction need to be addressed before Bill C-5 can be an effective piece of legislation. We have the support of all opposition parties regarding the amendments that need to be turned down and the ones that need to be approved. I urge all government members to listen to the people from the environment committee, the hon. member for Davenport and others on that side of the House when they say the amendments need to be made for the legislation to truly work.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we received a lot of data from census Canada showing that a shrinking number of Canadians live in what is truly called rural Canada.

The vast majority of people in Canada live in a centre of 10,000 plus. As a result of that, one can take a look at many bills that come before the House, certainly Bill C-5 at the present time. Bill C-5 only involves a very small group of people who live in the rural area.

Yesterday we discussed Bill C-15B. Were the people in the ranching business consulted? Was the dairy industry or the hog industry consulted? No. These people were not consulted and yet they are the ones who will be the most affected.

This morning in the veterans affairs committee we had what I considered very good consultation. We had a gentleman who was very knowledgeable about the subject and we asked questions and so on.

The vast majority of people who this bill would affect were never consulted. Today we have a new president of the Saskatchewan Stock Growers' Association. He lives in a little area north of the No. 1 highway in Gouldtown, Saskatchewan. Was the Saskatchewan Stock Growers' Association consulted about the effects of Bill C-5? No. Yet its members own millions of acres of grazing land and they were not consulted.

If we were going to pass legislation applicable to a mass urban area like Ottawa or Toronto, there would be public consultation all over the place but when we deal with basic, rural agricultural problems, it does not matter any more because if we took all the people engaged in agriculture and spread them across Canada there would not be a voting block anyway. It really would not change the composition of members in the House. It is not a big issue except for those who happen to live there.

I was in Guelph, Ontario two weeks ago. The people there asked me to give a talk on how the agri-industry could continue to operate with such bills as C-5, C-15B and Kyoto, especially since it was not consulted on any of them?

I have seen a lot of the government's perception of consultation. Some crown corporations that are going to raise their rates put advertisements in the paper and invite the public to come. Three people may show up. The most common thing heard is that the government will simply go ahead and act anyway.

I am familiar with a provincial government issuing an environmental regulation to a group of people who for years used particular patches of land for grazing their animals.

Instead of telling them they could only use the land for grazing during a certain period of the year, the ruling came down stating that the piece of land had to be divided into three sections and that only one of those sections could be grazed every third year to preserve the nesting of certain birds. In order to make that land worthwhile, they had to put in miles of ineffective fencing.

This is very strange legislation. If a landowner or a land renter accidentally hurts or kills a particular animal, he or she must prove due diligence; that is, that he or she did everything possible beforehand to find out if that endangered species was on the land.

When the Rafferty dam was created in Saskatchewan we found that rare species of animals, animals which had never lived in the area before, moved in because of the water. Some people who graze their cattle near that dam still do not know that those animals are there. Under this legislation they would have to prove that they were guilty without due knowledge of what was happening. That is contrary to every other law we have in Canada which states that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

I know what people will say. They will say that the government would never do that. I know people will say that we would have a logical excuse. However, under this bill, the landowner has to prove that he is innocent.

I really believe that we in rural Canada from coast to coast are being totally ignored. Yesterday we talked about the cruelty to animals bill. The government never once consulted, learned about or asked about established practices that have been going on in this country since before Confederation and yet, under the proposed legislation, it will have the right to give its interpretation of such things as suffering and the right to say that a particular practice will no longer continue even though it never consulted with the people involved prior to the bill coming to the House.

The committee which studied Bill C-5 never heard from the people actually involved in land ownership. We did have good representation from industry and from some cattlemen but we never really heard from the national cattlemen's organization.

The government has never had the courage to say that the practices, such as branding, which have been going on forever in this country, will no longer be required. Instead, it waits. Let it say that a person who has an endangered species without knowing it is guilty of not protecting it. How can we protect something if we do not know it is there?

I found some endangered species on a piece of property and I reported them. The owners of thee property and the environment people were very happy about that. However if an individual visits someone who owns land and a particular endangered species is destroyed unknowingly on that piece of land, such as being ridden over by a horse, or an endangered piece of vegetation was trampled on, then they are guilty. We have to go back and change that part of the bill.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond in the affirmative. The government's agenda is of course a fruitful one.

This afternoon, we will continue with report stage of the species at risk legislation, Bill C-5.

Tomorrow, we will return to debate on Bill C-50 respecting the WTO. If this is concluded, we will call Bill C-47, the excise amendments.

The two weeks following this one constitute the Easter adjournment. When we return on April 8 we will resume debate on criminal code amendments, Bill C-15B, and commence consideration of the pest control legislation that the Minister of Health has introduced today.

In addition there is a very lengthy agenda of important business for Canadians. I look forward to the ample co-operation of all members of the House of Commons to move forward in an expeditious manner.

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

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the amendments to Bill C-15B.

The bill has been before the House for some time. It was before the House as part of an even broader omnibus bill but after pressure from the opposition, that bill was split. It was the right thing to do, but it is still a very broad reaching bill.

Today we are discussing the amendments that have been put forth on the legislation.

The Canadian Alliance has concerns about this legislation because of the not only possible but the probable impact on farmers, trappers and other people who work with animals as a way of making a living.

Most of us know that no one treats their animals better than farmers do. Many of my neighbours half jokingly have said to me that if their husbands or wives treated them as well as they treated the cows, the horses or the other animals, they would be delighted. The point is that farmers are good custodians of animals. Good husbandry is something to be expected of farmers. It is a rare exception when animals are treated in any way but an exemplary fashion by farmers.

For that reason and for other reasons, we have great concerns about the legislation going ahead unamended. The impact will be substantial. People who only have the best intentions and really care about animals will be impacted in a negative way.

That is why we and others have put forth amendments which will at least change this legislation to make it something which we could support. No party in the House has a more deep appreciation of animals and caring for animals than the Canadian Alliance has. There are many people in our caucus who live on farms, who have worked with animals on farms and therefore understand that animals must be treated extremely well.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to speak to Bill C-15B which contains unfortunately provisions that are continuations of some of the greatest flaws in the legislative drafting practices of the current government. It behooves us to look at what some of these themes are and to think about what could be done to avoid doing them both in this law and other laws in the future.

There are three themes. First, this is an omnibus bill, but not as bad as it started off being. However it is still an omnibus bill dealing with more than one topic. Second, it strips basic legal protections from individuals who are accused of making offences under the law. This is a current theme that is also quite strong in Liberal legislative drafting practices. Third, it contains vague regulatory guarantees and requires us to take it on faith that the government would undertake the protections that it has refused to place within the law. At the very same time we are finding these guarantees withheld we are told to trust the government. The guarantees would be placed in the regulations at a later point in time subject to the government's arbitrary will.

These are three themes that are strongly present in the general legislative practices of the government. For example, Bill C-36 was an extraordinary omnibus bill that contained provisions like rules relating to the Internet and appointment of judges as well as the enactment of provisions relating to preventative search and detention, and provisions that related to the enactment of United Nations conventions and so on.

This law follows the same general pattern. It contains unrelated provisions dealing with cruelty to animals and dealing with firearms. I cannot see any reason why these two subject matters are contained in the same bill. There is no logical connection between them whatsoever.

The bill was worse before. It contained measures relating to child pornography which fortunately were split away from the bill and are now contained in Bill C-15A.

It is difficult to deal intelligently and to vote rationally on a bill that is effectively a package deal, a part of which might or might not be acceptable to an individual member. How does one vote one's conscience when something good and bad is contained in the same bill?

To some degree we have divided the good from the bad in the bill, but the bill should have been subdivided into several sub-measures.

This is a trend that has existed in Canadian legislative practice for some length of time. It has been a disastrous practice that nearly split up the country on some occasions. I am thinking of the Meech Lake accord which contained five unrelated constitutional amendments as a single package. They all had to be passed. Most Canadians were quite comfortable with certain aspects of the Meech Lake accord. Other aspects were quite contentious, particularly the distinct society clause. However they all had to be done together.

The Charlottetown accord was even worse. It was a package that effectively would have gutted the entire Constitution and cobbled it back together in a vast document that was several times as long as the entire United States constitution. It was presented as a single package deal. Had it been broken into a series of smaller items not all of them could have be passed, but many could have been. Some of them were good; a lot of them were terrible.

This practice has continued on in Bill C-15B and it should be stopped. It should not be a practice that occurs at all in Canadian legislation.

I will turn to the stripping of basic legal protections. This is another thing that occurs frequently in current Liberal legislation. I recall Bill C-36 and the way in which basic legal protections of Canadians were stripped away under the preventive detention provisions of that bill. That bill made it possible to be prosecuted for one's religious beliefs. Amazing, but true.

Bill C-5 has provisions which I am attempting to amend. I have several amendments before the House that deal with the question of mens rea, whether one must have a guilty mind prior to being found guilty of destroying an animal habitat or destroying an endangered species. That law denies the requirement that one must have a guilty mind, a mens rea, in order to be found culpable.

This law does much the same thing. I will say it is not as bad in this respect as Bill C-5, but it is still problematic. It takes the aspects of the criminal code that deal with animal cruelty and removes them from the property offences section and moves them to a special new section.

I cannot determine what the legislative reason for this is, that is to say what is the need for this, but I can determine what the result would be. The result is we would remove the various protections that are built in under the property parts of the criminal code. There are certain basic protections that are not accompanying this section of the law as it moves from one part of the criminal code to the other.

The phrase legal justification or excuse and with colour of right in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. That would cease to be available as a protection.

It is a funny thing that those on the government side of the House are always happy to attack members on this side of the House as somehow being out to strip those who are accused of offences against the law of their legal protections and legal rights. The fact is, and the record will show this, it has been entirely the other way during the course of the government.

This law would strip those who are accused of offences of basic protections. Protections, which are inherent to our traditional rule of law, to the common law, and to our entire legal structure, would once again be stripped out in Bill C-15B, Bill C-5, and Bill C-36. This is a consistent, unacceptable, inexcusable and entirely avoidable pattern.

The meritorious goals found in parts of each of these three pieces of legislation could all have been achieved without stripping Canadians of these basic legal protections. They are absolutely not needed. That should be corrected in this law. Or, potentially, if the government were unwilling to protect it, then the law in my opinion, on that basis alone, should be dropped from the order paper.

I want to turn to the offer of vague regulatory guarantees that protections which are not included in the law would be included later on. We are told by the minister that this would be taken care of. There would be protections for those who are accused or charged, but they would not be included in the law, they would be included elsewhere.

The record of governments, not this government in particular but of governments in general, of protecting individuals administratively when they are not protected by law is very poor. That is the whole reason why our system of government is based upon the rule of law.

I encourage the minister and all members of the government to look at the classic academic text written by Albert Venn Dicey which deals with the question of the rule of law. It is a book called An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution published in the 1880s and republished in many editions prior to Dicey's death around the time of the first world war. He deals with the question of the rule of law at length.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-15 regarding cruelty to animals. I am in a sense sorry to have to do this because we certainly support the intent of the legislation, which has as its objective to modernize the law and increase penalties for offences related to animal cruelty. Unfortunately, we believe there are some areas that need to have greater attention and that have caused undue fear among some sectors of our society, especially agriculture and animal husbandry and those kinds of things. I believe we have to listen to those people and take them into consideration. It is unfortunate that it has been so difficult to get this across and to see changes made that would adequately address these fears that people have.

Agricultural groups, farmers, industry workers and medical researchers have all consistently said that they welcome the amendments to the criminal code that would clarify and strengthen provisions relating to animal cruelty and that they do not condone intentional animal abuse or neglect in any way. It is not that these groups do not agree with protecting animals. It is more that they disagree with the way we are trying to go about it than anything else.

The Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association, in a letter to me this week, wrote about its members' concerns. First, its members state:

Moving the animal cruelty provisions out of Part XI of the Criminal Code and moving them to Part VI is inappropriate. Animals are property and do not have equal rights to humans--inclusion of the provisions as a subsection of the Sexual Offences, Public Morals and Disorderly Conduct equals animal and human rights. If this move is legally justified, the title of Part VI should be changed to “Cruelty to Animals: Private and Public Property”.

The association has the phrase “animals are property and do not have equal rights to humans” in bold.

The association in its second concern states:

If the animal cruelty provisions are moved to a new section, we request the inclusion of the words “legal justification, excuse and colour of right”. This currently applies to the animal cruelty provisions by virtue of subsection 429(2).

Third, the association states:

The definition of animal to include “any animal capable of feeling pain” is far too broad and should be dropped. Dr. Clement Gauthier stated in his testimony to the Standing Committee that scientists do not yet agree on what animals feel pain and the definition is broader than that of the Canadian Council on Animal Care. Dr. Gauthier's opinion was supported by the Criminal Lawyers' Association.

This association is just one of many organizations with concerns about this law. We share those concerns. We also share the understanding that we do need to guard against some of the horrendous acts of cruelty that do occasionally happen to animals. However, we also understand that there are differences in viewpoints from some people to others, from those who have only seen the little pets in the house to those who have grown up on the farm and have had to deal with some of the realities of life on the farm with animals.

What are some of the main concerns we want to address here? One is that in the legislation there seems to be less protection for those involved in animal husbandry. I use that word because I want to define husbandry. It is interesting that we would attach that word to the science of taking care of animals.

Knowing something of biblical things I am aware that the Bible talks about what it takes to be a good husband. A husband is one who gives his utmost for the proper care of a wife.

In scripture we find the husbandman of a vineyard. That husbandman is responsible for the very best care of that vineyard but sometimes that care includes pruning and digging around the base. Occasionally some plants must have their roots trimmed and different things. Different plants require different things for that husbandman to take care of them.

That certainly is the case when it comes to animal husbandry. Certain kinds of animals require to be hurt in order for them to be unable to cause greater damage to others in the herd or in the flock as the case may be. Those who raise turkeys or chickens must sometimes take precautions to keep them from injuring one another.

We talked about the dehorning of cattle. That is for the protection of the owner, the husbandman of the cattle, the one that is responsible for the entire herd not just for that one animal. For someone who has never seen a horn taken off of an animal it is a gory sight. The horn is taken off so that it cannot gore something, but it is a bloody sight. If people with a bend toward protecting animals were to see that they would be very upset because it is an upsetting sight.

One of our speakers talked about the paste that his father used to put on the young bull calf's horn to keep it from growing. That was a newer technology causing hopefully less pain. I can see a time when a number of operations on a cattle raising operation might reach a new level which might be less harmful or less painful to an animal. If a particular rancher could not afford it, did not know about it or had not made that change in technology, he or she could foreseeable be arrested simply because of using an older method.

We heard from the former justice minister that what is legal and lawful today would continue to be legal and lawful and she would see to that. However, as the House knows, we have a new Minister of Justice who might not necessarily agree with that stance.

I want to mention the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. We believe that it is a huge step. It is a part of an outside if not a hidden inside agenda, but at least it is an agenda of organizations on the outside to try to get the status of animals raised to equal the status of human beings. We ought to first work a little harder at protecting human beings.

There are humans that are killed legally every day in Canada. We do not seem to be worried about that. This is simply because of choices of convenience. We ought to be worried about our own survival as well.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House today to take part in this debate on Bill C-15B, entitled an act to amend the criminal code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and to amend the Firearms Act.

I want to begin by stating categorically that I am a great lover of animals. I have a wonderful little dog at home that is probably the joy of my little girl's life and probably thinks I am the best guy in the world too. It is not a question of us on this side of the House and in this party not loving animals or caring for them. We certainly do.

I think that perhaps in our society very often we see great pendulum swings in the mood of society, in the way we approach social issues. If there is a great public outcry about a certain subject, the pendulum swings one way. Then it swings the other way as there is a public outcry on the other side of the issue. It is quite clear in our society, particularly North American society, and with the increase in technological advances and communication we have heard of a number of recent incidents in which animals have been used cruelly and sometimes killed outright by people who have absolutely no right to ever do anything like that.

I suppose that in response to those kinds of incidents, about which we have all heard, there are definitely lobby groups in our society that have pushed the government to bring in stricter laws and stricter controls in terms of cruelty to animals. Of course the government has also lumped in a bunch of other things in the bill, just to confuse the issue.

The stated purpose of the bill, of course, is to amend the criminal code by consolidating animal cruelty offences and increasing the maximum penalties. The bill also adds administrative provisions that are intended to simplify applications for the Firearms Act. Bill C-15B reintroduces the proposed amendments to the cruelty to animals provisions of the criminal code that were introduced in Bill C-17 during the last parliament, with certain changes. We remember some of the outcry at that time about this legislation. Unfortunately, even though there are a few minor improvements to this legislation, there are many people out there in our country who are very concerned about the legislation. In particular, people who are engaged in the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their livelihoods have a great number of concerns about the bill.

I know that government legislation cannot satisfy everybody. It will not satisfy everybody. However, when sufficiently large numbers of people in our country have registered tremendous disapproval of the bill, it is important for us as legislators to take into account their concerns. There are a number of groups across the country that simply do not feel the government is listening to their concerns. They do not feel that we have to go this far to satisfy one group and to perhaps somehow eliminate cruelty to animals.

What we are saying in our opposition to a number of clauses in the bill is that we do not have to go this far. One concern with the bill is that the definition of the word “animal” is far too broad. The proposed definition of animal in Bill C-15B includes non-human vertebrates and all animals having “the capacity to feel pain”.

Let me show how we can go from the sublime to the ridiculous on something like this. I happen to be a fisherman. That is what I do with my spare time outside the House of Commons. Of course I would rather be here, but in those times when I cannot be here I go fishing, I work in my garden or I take my wife out to dinner, not particularly in that order of priority, but we do have lives outside the House, do we not? I enjoy fishing.

Fishing, of course, means that at times one has to put a worm on a hook. Unfortunately I have not been able to communicate very well with the bait I use, so I have no authoritative voice with which to say whether or not the worm I use actually feels pain. However, in the enjoyment of my sport, shared with perhaps millions of others in the country, I have come to the conclusion that it is probably okay for me to do that and to pursue fishing without the possibility of coming under some kind of cloud of suspicion that I am being cruel to the worm.

However, there just may be someone in my area or in the country who feels otherwise. It is quite possible that some day I might have worm police knocking on my door to tell me I am being cruel to the worms and that under the provisions of Bill C-15B, which would have been passed in the House by that time, they have to take me into custody.

Of course, that would never occur, would it? To go from the sublime to the ridiculous in such a way simply could not happen, could it? However, it might just happen and it might happen for anybody else engaged in any sporting activity in the country that has long been recognized as recreational or that sometimes, for the benefit of those who need the food, is something that is quite legitimate and within the law.

When we see the pendulum in our society move from one pole to the other, very often things like this get caught in the middle. I believe, and I am sure many of my hon. colleagues in the House believe, that we need to have balance in the legislation. The government is not providing balance.

Another key concern is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. Think of all the farmers across the country who are engaged in animal husbandry of some kind or another who could possibly, and I am not saying that they would, be brought before the bar of justice because under the legislation they would be accused of somehow being cruel to animals. What does that do to the agricultural community in the country, which is suffering more and more every day? It is just one more nail in the coffin of the agricultural community in many ways.

We ought to think very carefully about these kinds of considerations and consequences before we pass this kind of draconian legislation.

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today and say a few words regarding Bill C-15B, which is an act to amend the criminal code, specifically cruelty to animals and firearms.

I have spent the last 35 years of my life in agriculture, raising cattle and horses and I have had farm dogs. I now have an eight pound Maltese that pretty much rules our household, so I think I speak with a certain amount of expertise.

However, I think I bring some expertise to the debate. I find it rather ironic that the urban lobby obviously has had so much influence into the writing of the bill and has put a yoke around agriculture's neck. Without a profitable agriculture industry, people in the urban centres will get hungry in a hurry. They are dependent on agriculture producers being efficient and providing them with not only an abundant, but a cheap source of food.

When I read things in the bill such as clause 182.2(b) which says:

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

(b) kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed, brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately;

Livestock producers allow their animals to be killed. We are now saying that because this was done wilfully someone would decide, probably in a court, whether it was done recklessly. They would probably also decide in a court whether the animal was killed brutally or viciously, and that is all very subjective. It is not something that can be defined easily. It would be left up to people who probably any aspect of cattle husbandry would be a revelation them. It would be left up to people in the city, probably a jury of people who did not know anything about cattle or animal husbandry, to define whether I allowed my stock to be killed brutally or viciously or that I wilfully allowed them to be killed and was reckless about it, even though the animal died immediately.

I said that I have been farming for 35 years. I have not figured out a way that I could eat beef without first killing the cow. It has to die before it can be eaten. It is just common sense. It is the same thing with a chicken.

I know there are many producers in the House. I know there are many people here who produce cattle. I know we certainly have some very prominent chicken producers in this parliament as well. I cannot understand why more members of the government are not objecting to the way the bill is written. I think it is ridiculous.

I believe that this will be a millstone hung around the neck of agricultural producers and we do not need it. We already have to put up with low commodity prices, with the uncertainties of weather, too much precipitation or too little precipitation, pests and diseases in our crops, our cattle and in our livestock in general. There is the possibility of all kinds of other problems, weed infestations and so forth with which we have to put up. To have this very subjective piece of legislation placed on us is something we certainly do not need.

The past minister speaking at second reading in this place has said “what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent”. That is what the minister promised in the House. She also went on to say that these changes would in no way negatively affect the many legitimate activities that involved animals, such as hunting, farming, medical or scientific research. I take some comfort in that statement.

However, if the previous minister was sincere about that, and I assume she was, then why has the present minister not simply put that into the legislation? Although I am not a lawyer, I believe that would go a long way in alleviating some of the concerns that the agriculture industry has.

One of the things that the minister mentioned was hunting. I used to hunt too. Before I got this job, I had time to do lots of things. I was able to go big game hunting. My goal in hunting was to find an animal for which I had a proper licence, to kill it as quickly as I could, usually with a shot to the head, neck or lungs, which would knock the animal down. I would rush there and let the blood out of the animal which helped to cool the body as part of the process of butchering. I would kill the animal as quickly as I possibly could.

In the law of physics on rifles and so forth, if the bullet on the way between me and the animal should actually touch a branch or something, it will deflect a certain amount and it may miss my target by as much as foot of where I actually shot, hit the animal and knock it down. However the animal may would jump up and run off into the bush before I have the chance to get another shot at it.

Hunters under those circumstances have absolutely the best of intentions but, through no fault of their own and through extenuating circumstances, have these wounded animals run off on them. Hunters do their utmost best to track that animal down, dispatch it, put it out of its misery and take the meat home. That is the object of going hunting. I never was one of those hunters who went out strictly for the trophies. I went there because I like wild meat. I like elk, moose and deer. Those are the animals we hunted in the foothills of Alberta.

I see that as a problem. This proposed legislation will effectively drive a stake through the heart of hunters. Hunting is a very important thing. The most dangerous North American animal is not the grizzly bear, the wolf, the wolverine or any of those carnivores. It is the white-tailed deer. The reason it is the most dangerous animal in North America is more people are killed hitting white-tailed deer on the highways with their cars or dodging them and getting into oncoming traffic than by any other animal in North America.

Do members know anybody who has hit a deer? I think everybody in this place knows somebody who has hit a deer. I have hit them myself. One day my wife was going down the road and I told her that if she saw a deer about to cross the road, or if one crossed in front of her, to slow down. Where there is one deer there will be others and they follow one behind the other. She did exactly as I suggested. She slowed down, missed the first deer and watched another one run by. Then a deer came out and ran into the side of her car. Even though my wife was stopped, she got hit by a deer.

That probably is a sideline to the point I was trying to get across. My point is this legislation is not accomplishing what it is attempting to accomplish. I agree with what it is attempting to do. I agree that we should be touch on people who intentionally are cruel to animals. I know that the farmers I have as neighbours would never intentionally do that. If they fail to provide adequate feed, bedding and water, it simply takes money out of their back pockets because the animals do so poorly.

Anyone who deliberately neglects animals or is cruel to them ought to be punished very severely. However this is having a punishing effect on people who are legitimately trying to make a living and provide food for our friends in the cities.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and add my comments to the bill under discussion.

The issue has raised more interest in my constituency than many others. I just completed a tour of two dozen communities in my riding. It is a rural riding composed of a great many communities, most of whom are dependent on the agriculture industry. Within the communities there is tremendous concern about Bill C-15B because of the importance of the agriculture industry. In reviewing the correspondence I have received and the views of various organizations regarding the issue I find myself supportive of the concerns expressed by a number of the groups.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture whose president is fellow Manitoban Mr. Bob Friesen has communicated to me its concerns about a number of issues. Not the least of these is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same legal protection currently given to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. That is a serious concern. I am sure it is not held by farmers alone. However most farmers engaged in the business of livestock will have concerns about that aspect of the bill.

Concerns have come to me from other groups as well. Keystone Agricultural Producers, a Manitoba farm association, is a strong and active group. It has communicated concerns about animal cruelty provisions being moved from the general classification of property offences into a separate section of their own. It is concerned that elevating the status of animals from property could cause significant detriment to legitimate livestock dependent businesses. A great many of these operate across Canada but my riding in particular is home to a tremendous number of them.

I do not mean to single out any one group, but in my riding of Portage--Lisgar a number of Hutterite colonies are actively involved in livestock industries. More Hutterite colonies that operate agricultural enterprises dealing with livestock are in my riding than any other riding in Canada. This concern is shared by the hon. member for Provencher who has done such a tremendous job in advocating against this piece of legislation.

My colleague from the region, the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake who is our agriculture critic, has similar concerns. We are afraid agricultural operations would be negatively affected by the legislation.

Although concerns about the bill are not limited to agricultural organizations I have had numerous communications from organizations such as the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association which is concerned about the definition of animal. The definition is so broad, subjective and ambiguous it could include non-human vertebrates and any animal that has the capacity to feel pain. Livestock operators concerned about pests on their property might be so impeded they would be unable to operate their businesses effectively for profit.

The legitimate concerns of farm organizations have not been addressed by the government's proposed amendments.

As I said, concerns about the bill are not exclusive to agricultural organizations. I will quote a letter written by Mr. Pierre Burton, a well known Canadian, on behalf of Canadians for Medical Progress Inc. He states:

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

Many Canadians are concerned this is a wrong headed piece of legislation, and legitimately so.

Recently in Manitoba protests have been staged by so-called animal rights activists. For some time in our province we have seen protests designed to disrupt legitimate livestock operations. These groups seem willing to go to schoolyards and tell children that milk causes cancer. They dump hundreds if not thousands of gallons of animal waste on the streets to protest against what is called the Pregnant Mare Urine operation. Manitoba now has dozens of these protests.

The sensationalizing of concern to the detriment of legitimate farm operations has frightened many farmers and people who support the agricultural industry. It makes them fearful that people such as Liz White, director of the Animal Alliance of Canada, are not sincere when they say the ramifications of the legislation would have no impact on agricultural producers. Yet when we look at the past records of such organizations we cannot help but be concerned.

I will quote from a fundraising letter Ms. White put out for her organization. These organizations depend on sensationalizing their programs so they can raise funds from principally urban people who think every living creature is a Walt Disney creature that should be treated like their little chihuahua dog. There is a difference but Liz White does not seem to think so. She states:

Bill C-15B, which makes changes to the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code, recognizes for the first time that animals are not just “property,” but rather beings in their own right who feel pain and are therefore deserving of legal protections.

I can't overstate the importance of this change. This elevation of animals in our moral and legal view is precedent setting and will have far, far reaching effects. We'll make sure of that.

That is a threat. It is a threat to farmers, fishermen and hunters in my area and across Canada. It is a threat that they will see protests about the size of their poultry cages, the way they look after their hogs, or their failure to massage their ducks' bellies frequently enough to satisfy this group. It is a threat to people who milk cows. It is a threat to people who make their living in an industry under attack by the government and by circumstances not of its own making.

Bill C-15B would continue the Liberal government's sad trend of pitting rural people against urban people in a destructive way. We can look at Bill C-68, the firearms legislation. We can look at the way the government has ignored the need for infrastructure and renewal of roads and drainage systems in western Canada since the end of the Crow rate. We can look at the species at risk legislation under which farmers would be assumed guilty and not innocent. Unlike the minister of defence who was assumed innocent on the basis of ignorance, farmers could be ignorant and assumed guilty. It is something of a contradiction.

This is the problem we have with the government. It does not seem to understand that respecting landowners and people who practise agriculture and animal husbandry is a far better approach to making legislation that protects animals than the approach it is taking. The government's approach is disrespectful and sad.

I will quote a letter I received from the Bob Friesen of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, an organization concerned about the issue. It says:

The government has been working hard to move agriculture beyond crisis management--

I take exception to that aspect of the letter. However it goes on:

--so it would be counterproductive if this proposed legislation ties up farmers' time and money in frivolous court cases.

That is exactly what it would do. That is what it is designed to do. Farmers do not need the hassle. They have enough challenges without adding Bill C-15B to the pie.

The letter from Bob Friesen goes on to state:

--we are not convinced this proposed legislation will prevent generally accepted and best methods of animal management from being brought before the courts.

That is not at all the way to deal fairly with farmers. I grew up on a farm. Our family has a century farm in Manitoba. I understand very well how our agricultural producers have treated their livestock. They treat it well because their livelihood depends on the mutualism of the relationship.

I far sooner would trust the farmers of my riding to protect their animals, their livestock and look after them well than I would ever trust the government or anyone who drew up a bill like this. It is a shame and a sham. The government should withdraw it.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-15B is part of the bill we had asked the justice minister for some time to separate. This has been done and we appreciate that because there were two very conflicting aspects in one bill. One aspect was cruelty to animals. The other dealt with the protection of our children from child pornography and luring on the Internet. We appreciated that aspect and supported that part, but we had some concerns with the cruelty to animals portion.

As my colleague has stated, we in no way condone cruelty to animals. There should be strong legislation in place to deal with anyone who abuses animals in any way. Our concern comes when we look at the agricultural community, people who raise and use animals in their businesses, such as fishermen and farmers.

We are concerned that if certain aspects of the bill are carried out to the degree we think some people will want to push them, it will put animal husbandry practices into question and it will put the people who raise the food we need in harm's way. The whole issue of protecting animals is a balancing act, as is every bill that comes to the House. We cannot go too far one way or we intrude in one area, but we have to go far enough to make sure that what we are trying to do gets done. This is no exception.

We have received in my office, as I am sure have all members in the House, countless letters of support for the bill from animal rights groups. They are doing their job. They are making sure we are aware that this legislation is in front of us, that we need to be aware that cruelty to animals is a problem and that there needs to be strong legislation to protect animals. On the other side we also are receiving letters from people who are concerned for the way of life they have created and the fact that the bill, if it is put into law the way it exists, could very well jeopardize the actions that they take.

People in the agricultural industry and the people who deal with animals are very cognizant of how to treat animals. They do it in the best way they can because it is to their advantage to do that. An animal that is treated properly is one that meets the requirements of the final process. There are all kinds of examples I could put forward about the industry which has governed itself. It has brought forward its own means of regulation to make sure that what is done and what the animals face is right.

The University of Lethbridge is in my riding. Like many universities across the country, it does research. That is another aspect where we have to make sure the animals are treated properly. We have seen a huge movement in the right direction as far as how animals that are kept for research are handled. On the other hand we have seen some people outside the research circles who really do need firm legislation and should be put out of business. That hopefully is where the legislation will lead. We hope it will not lead to the detriment of research and to our agricultural community in general.

We have brought forward suggestions from time to time on what we think needs to be done with some aspects of the bill regarding protection of animals. We hope the government will recognize that the concerns we are bringing forward are indeed legitimate and need to be addressed. If the government can in any way through changes to this legislation recognize all sides of the issue, then that is what should be done to make sure people can buy into this and buy into the fact that our animals need to be protected and treated fairly.

One of ways Bill C-15B differs from Bill C-17 that was before the last parliament is that a person would have to act willfully or recklessly in killing or harming an animal. Many organizations, businesses and individuals have a significant concern with respect to this aspect of the bill, namely that we would need to prove a person was wilful and reckless in his or her treatment. The bill could then come into effect and the law could be applied to the person.

The intent of Bill C-15B is fine. Cruelty to animals is something many of us do not understand. However we need to make sure the bill does not go too far. It must not hamper legal and rightful agricultural producers and others by wrongly accusing them of cruelty.

The idea of elevating the status of animals from property into something higher has many people concerned and rightly so. It would open up a whole different area of legal challenges. At what point would we stop? Do plants feel pain? We would be opening up a whole new area that could and would be challenged because there are people who would take it to the maximum degree.

The definition of animal under the bill would include non-human vertebrates and other animals that have the capacity to feel pain. The definition marks a significant departure. It would provide protection for an extremely wide range of living organisms which have never before been afforded this kind of legal protection. This piece of legislation would change the scope of what is currently in place.

The definition has practical difficulties. As worded it could cause enormous problems by extending the criminal law to invertebrates, cold blooded species such as fish, and an extremely wide variety of domestic and wild animals. It would affect the entire fishing industry by raising concerns about how hooks should be baited and how fish are handled after they are caught. It should be done in a humane way but it still needs to be done.

We have asked the government to delete or modify the definition but it has not. The issue could be a major concern as the bill proceeds.

The previous justice minister assured us in a speech that activities that are lawful and legitimate today would remain lawful after the bill received royal assent. The statement was intended to put at ease some of the concerns being raised at the time. She promised the House the changes would in no way negatively affect the many legitimate activities that involve animals such as hunting, farming or medical and scientific research.

We hope we can hold the new justice minister to the words of his predecessor. The words mean a lot. They have gone a long way to relieving the concerns of some people. We hope we can make sure they come true.

The previous justice minister's statement was self evident but it could be misleading. She said the provisions would not prevent legitimate activities from being carried out but that the law would proscribe only illegal activities. That is a bit of a play on words that negates what she meant to say in the first place. We are concerned the new provisions would narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activity.

These are just some of the issues. As Bill C-15B progresses through the House and we get an opportunity to rise and speak to it we will bring out other aspects.

We in our party support cruelty to animals legislation. However we want to make sure it addresses the issue without invading other parts of society.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals bill, is a war on the agricultural industry and the fishing industry in Canada. Farmers, ranchers and fishers must be made aware that the bill will negatively affect their livelihood. This is not fearmongering. This is reality.

The justice minister said that the bill will not change things, that what was lawful before will still be lawful. If the bill has no effect, then what is its purpose to the agricultural industry and fishers?

We are told that the bill will not affect legitimate practices. What it does do is narrow the definition of what those legitimate practices are. This will have a huge effect on animal based businesses and practices.

I live in a rural area on a farm. The legislation causes huge problems for the surrounding farms and ranches in the area. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has moved into our province. Under its mandate we cannot put a culvert in a road that goes between two sloughs on our farm because we might affect the fish population. There has not been a fish in our sloughs as long as I have lived there. In fact, it is hard for the frogs to live there.

That shows what happens when bureaucracy goes amok. The rules and regulations of the fisheries department make no sense whatsoever to prairie farmers. Fisheries people have been moved from the oceans to central Saskatchewan to make rules and regulations. That scares me because the same thing could happen in the bill.

Animal rights groups have said that in order to be proven effective, the legislation will have to be challenged in court. Agriculturalists and fishers could have their whole lifestyle as well as their livelihood taken away from them because of this legislation. We have to make sure that Canadian chicken farmers and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association understand what is in the bill and that they look at it closely.

My husband and I are environmentalists. My husband has farmed for over 36 years. He is one of the first no-till farmers in our area. He looks after the land. He has stopped the land from blowing away. He looks after the environment. We protect our animals.

Under this law if someone complained that a cow was fenced in, the cow would be allowed to roam free. That has not happened for a long time in the prairies and I hope it never happens again.

This is what lies ahead for our agricultural industry if we do not speak against the legislation and if we do not challenge the government to change the bill to help us. We look after our animals. We will not abuse animals. We do everything not to hurt them. We have to make sure that the bill does not go through.

Animal rights groups have said that the government will have to take agriculturalists and fishers to court. Court challenges lie ahead for fishers and the agricultural industry. Hardworking Canadians cannot afford to fight court battles against well-funded activist groups.

My colleague's motion which would seek wilful and reckless actions as being guidelines for prosecution would help to protect farmers, ranchers, researchers and others with legitimate animal based occupations from nuisance prosecutions. As we saw in Bill C-5, the government is content to categorize all actions as criminal. There must be protection in place for those with legitimate uses for animals.

How can we criminalize every young or old hunter who wants to shoot an animal for food? How can we penalize those people? They need those animals for food. They buy a licence to hunt. The animals are used for food. Many people only eat animals they harvest from the wild. We cannot make that against the law.

The agricultural industry in Canada has been abandoned by the government. Legislation such as Bill C-15B will do additional damage to an already struggling business, a business that is groping for anything that can help it. It does not need to be loaded down with any more rules and regulations by a government that wants to impose them on us.

Moving animals from property offences into the criminal code leads us away from animal welfare into the land of animal rights. This is a scary proposition for many Canadians who use animals for legitimate purposes.

The very definition of animal in the legislation needs to be changed. The current definition is far too broad. It is too inclusive and will lead to problems for law-abiding citizens.

A leisurely day of fishing can now be met with court challenges on animal cruelty. How many times have we sat in a boat and fished? How many times have we sat on the edge of a riverbank with our grandchildren to enjoy a wonderful afternoon of fishing? That could be challenged in court.

The Canadian government would like to assure Canadians that petty things like that will not happen. The legislation however opens the door for exactly that scenario. The government's blatant pandering to special interests is horrific. A letter from the Animal Alliance of Canada is a perfect example:

Bill C-15B, which makes changes to the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code, recognizes for the first time that animals are not just 'property', but rather beings in their own right...I can't overstate the importance of this change...It started in the last federal election. Because of a commitment by the (previous) Minister of Justice in the House of Commons to pass Bill C-15B (we) campaigned for her re-election. Under attack by hunters and gun owners and a cabal of extremist right wing groups, (she) was in a losing campaign. (We) stepped in a championed her election...(she) won by 700 votes.

Instead of championing for the stability of law-abiding animal based industries and businesses, the government caters to a special interest group. That is totally unbelievable.

My colleagues and I in no way support cruelty to animals. However we do support law-abiding Canadians who are involved in animal based businesses and industry. We cannot support the bill as it stands since it seriously jeopardizes Canadians from engaging in legal, moral and ethical animal practices.

The government must look at the broader picture and the repercussions the bill will have on the industry instead of its blatantly pandering to lobby groups that have no idea of what they can do to the economy of the agricultural community and the fishing industry.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I was particularly interested in a lot of the things that the member for Souris--Moose Mountain had to say. It would behoove the Liberal members opposite to be interested in what he had to say.

The bill clearly pits rural Canada against urban Canada. Unfortunately we have allowed the concerns of a few to dictate and prejudice the concerns of many.

Not only is the legislation ill-founded and ill-fated, both pieces of the bill, the cruelty to animal section and the gun registration section, makes criminals out of honest citizens. It is past time that we stopped doing that.

I do not think there is anyone in the House who is against modernizing the cruelty to animals legislation, but this legislation is not it. This is terrible legislation that would affect this nation from coast to coast and make criminals out of honest citizens.

The member for Souris--Moose Mountain spoke about farm practices that we do all the time, whether we are in Alberta, in western Canada, or in Nova Scotia. Castration and tail docking for lambs are farm practices carried out every day. They are not carried out with intentional cruelty. They are not done in some belligerent, cruel manner to cause undue harm to the animals. They are done for specific reasons. The bill could possibly make those practices criminal offences.

Under sections of the bill, hunters and trappers, honest men and women, honest citizens of Canada, who have never been arrested, who have never received even a traffic ticket in their lives and who have never gone through a stop sign, could be treated as criminals. It is incredible.

It is the view of the PC/DRC coalition that legislation is needed to punish those who intentionally abuse and neglect animals. We are not questioning that for a moment. However this legislation is not it.

Cruelty to animals is an issue that has received a lot of publicity in recent years, and deservedly so. We are looking at a poor attempt by the government to deal with that specific issue but Bill C-15B is not it.

If the government had been even remotely serious about doing something about cruelty to animals, it would not have put it together in an omnibus bill. It would have put together one bill, a stand on its own, cruelty against animals bill. Instead it has lumped it together with some firearms registration that was not well thought out either.

There is absolutely no way that any thinking member of parliament, or any sentient being, which I think is the wording for cruelty to animals, who feels pain can look at the legislation and not find something wrong with it. It is absolutely incredible.

We do want to support parts of the legislation, especially preventing cruelty against animals, but other parts of the legislation prevent us from supporting the good parts.

It is time for the government to get it right. It should put this to committee, find an answer to this serious question and do something about it.

I find it offensive that the propriety aspects of animal use in this legislation, and those aspects of this legislation have always been important to animal cruelty legislation and laws, the way that it is put into this legislation moves the animal cruelty provisions out of part IX of the criminal code and removes the protection that animal users had in section 429(2). This important section currently permits acts done with legal justification or excuse or with colour of right.

Therefore removing cruelty to animals provisions from this section is of particular concern to me as a hunter, a trapper and a farmer. I am guilty under this legislation and can probably expect to go in prison. It is unbelievable. The legislation would make a group of individuals, unwittingly and unjustly, in contravention of the law under section 182.2(1)(a) and 182.2(1)(b) of the proposed legislation.

I had this discussion with some Liberal members earlier. They told me there was nothing to be afraid of and nothing to worry about in the legislation. My NDP colleagues also said that it would be left up to the courts to decide. I am not willing to do that. I can tell members that when people go to court they are there for one reason: One of the parties in that courtroom has lied. One of the parties has unjustifiably defended something or accused the other party of something and the judge has to resolve it.

That is not how we need to resolve this. We need to resolve this in a fair and equitable manner that considers all the facts.

We share the concerns of Canadians about the definition of animal as being “any animal that has the capacity to feel pain”. I am forgetting a lot of my biology but I think it can be shown that animals, right down to multicelled creatures, feel pain and are actually affected by electrical shock or by acid. Certainly they are not sentient beings but they do have the ability to feel pain.

I do not know when the fishing season opens in the rest of the country, but come April 1 in Nova Scotia, when the fishing season begins, a lot of boys and girls will be put at risk when they put a worm on their hooks.

Someone may think that is incredulous but that is the way the bill reads and we will leave it up to some judge somewhere to make that decision. We can be sure the decision will be headed to the supreme court and we can be sure of what will happen there.

The legislation would place fishermen, farmers, hunters, trappers and all those good Liberals who want to boil a lobster, at risk. Forget the people who actually make a living in the country by raising livestock: cattle, hogs, chickens. Chicken farmers have to use euthanasia daily. Rather than have a sick bird infect the entire the flock, they put the chicken down as humanely as possible. However, that would be a deliberate act of violence under this legislation.

The PC/DRC coalition supports strengthening the laws to protect animals from undue cruelty. We certainly do not support this legislation and we cannot support it.

In the fishery in eastern and western Canada and in the Arctic, fish are caught in nets and caught on hooks. It is not some deliberate way to torture an animal but under the legislation those people would suddenly become criminals. It is unbelievable how poorly crafted the legislation is.

There has been $800 million already spent on the gun registry. Where is it headed? I have no idea.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-15B is unofficially a declared war on agriculture in every province of Canada. It is a declared war on practices that have existed long before we became a nation. It is a declared war on a multimillion dollar industry across Canada.

The question that all agriculture groups across Canada are asking is simple. If it is not the minister's intention to change what is lawful today, why does she not simply raise the penalties for existing cruelty to animals? That is the question being asked. Why does that not happen?

Every agricultural group across Canada is threatened by this piece of legislation. In my area it will soon be calving time on farms and ranches. After calving time comes the annual round up. The bill would provide the minister with the right to declare that the practice of castration is harmful. The minister has a right to declare that these animals must be put under so there is no pain, which would cost ranchers and farmers millions of dollars. That right remains with the government. The act of branding undoubtedly will come under the jurisdiction of the act.

Let us look at more. I have heard people talking about chickens no longer being allowed to be housed in cages, that they must roam freely about and have so many square feet per bird. Let us think about what people will pay for eggs.

Let us look at the organization called PETA that tried to sell the idea that cow's milk was harmful to children because extracting the milk hurt cows. Why does the minister not declare what constitutes cruelty? Could we trust the government to determine the definition of cruelty? I think not.

I have another extremely important question. How does a group calling itself the Animal Alliance of Canada get a charitable donation number from the government? How does it do that? It will use its propaganda in the upcoming byelection in Calgary Southwest. The government must have responsibility for these actions.

Let me quote from some of the documents I have before me. One is a letter written by the director of the Animal Alliance of Canada which states:

Bill C-15B, which makes changes to the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code, recognizes for the first time that animals are not just “property”, but rather beings in their own right who feel pain and are therefore deserving of legal protections.

The letter goes on to say:

I can't overstate the importance of this change. This elevation of animals in our moral and legal view is precedent setting and will have far, far reaching effects. We'll make sure of that.

This is a letter from the director of the Animal Alliance of Canada who then goes on to state in support of the bill that it will cost Canadians millions and may drive some people totally out of agriculture. She continues:

Getting our politicians to pass good animal protection laws is about reward and punishment--rewarding them for doing a good job and punishing them for doing a poor one.

The House has not heard anything yet. Members should listen carefully to the following:

The Liberals have done a good job on Bill C-15B--

They should tell the hundreds of thousands of farmers, ranchers and hunters from coast to coast that this same group, which had the charitable donation, wrote this letter to go out as a fundraiser.

The Liberals go on to say:

--our first chance to reward them will be in the upcoming by-election in Calgary Southwest, Preston Manning's old electoral district.

I hope ranchers and farmers from coast to coast will listen to this last bit.

With your help, Animal Alliance's political arm, Environment Voters, will run a campaign in the by-election to help the Liberal candidate get elected. It'll be a tough fight. This is the Canadian Alliance's heartland. Nevertheless, if the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives split the right wing vote, it's possible for the Liberal candidate to win.

That would be funny if it were not so pitiful. We finally got the government to bring forward this bill out of an omnibus bill but it is about to destroy industry in my constituency in my province and industries from coast to coast that are asking for support on this side of the House. I can assure the House that the rural caucus on that side of the House cannot with good conscience ever stand in this House and vote for this bill.

I cannot believe that would be possible. I cannot believe the members I know, who raise chickens, hogs, cattle and so on, would have the fortitude to stand up and vote for this bill.

My colleagues on this side of the House have always said that we should put in tougher penalties for cruelty. If the minister were to state it now, this bill would not even be necessary. Are we going to cave in to the lobbyists?

In conclusion, the most recent census shows very clearly that the number of people in rural Saskatchewan is declining. It is a mind process over there. Which is more important, the lobby groups and the number of x s they can make or the industry from coast to coast? That truly is the question.

I am asking the House and pleading with the members opposite, for goodness sake, for the welfare of Canada, block the bill and destroy it before it becomes law.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to state the position of the Bloc Quebecois. We believe that cruelty to animals should have been dealt with in legislation a long time ago.

Cruelty to animals is a serious problem that deserves the full attention of the House. We are talking here about people who wilfully commit horrible acts of violence against defenceless creatures.

There is something new and interesting in Bill C-15B in that it creates a new part V1 in the criminal code. This part is strictly dedicated to the protection of animals against cruelty. However, the bill also amends the Firearms Act to give more powers to the registrar of firearms, which results in decreased powers for the chief firearms officer, who falls under Quebec's jurisdiction.

With regard to cruelty to animals, we believe that changes to our criminal code to reflect reality are long overdue, particularly since the majority of provisions dealing with cruelty to animals date back to the end of the 19th century. Our attitude toward animals has greatly changed since then. Animals are no longer considered as property but as beings.

Since it was first introduced, Bill C-15B has been generating strong reactions, and it has also been facing diverging interests. At the very beginning, the Bloc Quebecois gave its agreement in principle to the bill, but we cannot support it in its present form, because it does not transfer the specific means of defence provided under section 429 of the criminal code, so as to explicitly protect animal breeders, hunters, the animal industry and researchers under the new part V1.

We think that the primary objective of this bill should be to impose penalties for cruelty to animals. However, because it is obviously flawed, this legislation is unacceptable.

If the government's goal is not to deny legitimate activities from the explicit protection afforded under section 429 of the criminal code, then I wonder why this protection is not included in the new part. The current wording is too uncertain for us to give our support. We proposed amendments specifically to incorporate the means of defence provided under section 429 of the criminal code to the new part proposed in the bill, but they were all rejected.

We support increased protection for animals, and we support creating a new part in the criminal code that would deal with animals. This would solve current problems relating to damages in cruelty cases, since animals are now considered to be “goods” under part XI. We also think that the penalties relating to voluntary acts of cruelty to animals should be increased.

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

Stakeholders from the legitimate animal industry are worried and for good reason. The definition of “animal” in the bill is too broad and too vague. Moreover, the bill does not define the notion of killing an animal without any legitimate reason. The risks of legal proceedings exist and will have to be constantly monitored. Therefore, Bill C-15B could cause problems, including to animal breeders, to the sports hunting industry, to medical and scientific researchers, and to the whole animal industry.

The Bloc Quebecois tried to find a compromise for all the parties involved, but our amendments to that effect were all rejected in committee.

As regards the notion of pain, the Bloc Quebecois fears that the crown may not be able to prove which animals can feel pain other than by resorting to expert opinions, which would increase the costs involved in any proceedings. This also increases the risks that these proceedings may not be carried out fully due to a lack of means and resources. In fact, the crown may well have to meet twice the burden of proof in that it will be required to prove that the animal in question can feel pain, and that it did indeed feel pain.

We would like to clarify that we support increasing sentences, but during the testimony in committee we pointed out that the law enforcement and legal communities need the necessary resources to process complaints regarding cruelty to animals.

We believe that we need to raise awareness among police and legal authorities about this tragedy. We were stunned to learn that, according to police associations, there are no problems. In fact, their presentation on the bill dealt only with the provisions related to firearms.

Animal rights groups, in their presentations, told us that very few complaints lead to charges being laid, and that the number of charges resulting in penalties is virtually non-existent.

The fact that the means of defence is not included in the new part V1 could have the effect of depriving those who legitimately and legally kill animals or cause them pain from the protection currently afforded them under subsection 429(2) of the criminal code. It is therefore essential to reiterate these means of defence in the new part.

Section 429 of the criminal code stipulates that a legal justification or excuse and the colour of right are there to grant specific protection to whomever participates in a legitimate and legal activity.

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

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

The minister—the former minister, I should say—the Deputy Minister and the parliamentary secretary to the former minister of justice told us in committee that subsection 8(3) of the criminal code would apply, and this concerns us. This addition is not enough and is far from being complete. These same people told us that defences of legal justification or excuse, or colour of right are implicit in section 8. We have serious reservations about this.

I wish to remind the House that there is a principle of law which says that the legislator is not deemed to speak in vain. So why specify section 429 at a time when animals were goods, and not incorporate it in this bill? I find this omission very worrisome, and those representing breeders, the livestock industry, hunters and researchers are quite right to wonder about the legislator's real intentions.

Accordingly, if a general clause applies to the entire bill, we must obviously conclude that a specific clause applies only to a specific section of the bill.

Therefore, since the provisions of section 429 are not repeated in part V1 of the criminal code, it would be incorrect to believe that it also applied to another section of the criminal code. This is completely contrary to the principles of law and it is why it is essential that there be express provision for the means of defence identified so as to include them in the new part V1.

We can understand that the public is very attached to the moral principle of the protection and the well-being of animals, and many people are concerned about this issue and feel that animals should be better protected against criminal behaviour. The Bloc Quebecois agrees completely.

We therefore feel that it is essential that judges, crown attorneys and special officers of the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals should be given the authority to charge and fine those who commit acts of violence against animals.

Now, in another vein, we are also opposed to the provisions having to do with amendments to the Firearms Act. It is clear from the proposed amendments that the purpose of this bill is to take away a number of powers and responsibilities of the chief firearms officer, which now come under the jurisdiction of the government of Quebec.

The government of Quebec created the bodies responsible for issuing licences, the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec. Now Bill C-15B is creating a new position, the firearms commissioner, which will have the effect of diminishing the powers currently under the responsibility of the chief firearms officer.

The proposed provisions are therefore taking powers delegated to Quebec and placing them back under federal government control. It seems that the primary objective of these new provisions is to privatize services relating to the registration and licensing of firearms, thus stripping Quebec of all its responsibilities.

In conclusion, we are opposed to Bill C-15B because it does not provide explicit and specific protection for the legitimate activities of animal husbandry, sport hunting or research, and because it takes away from Quebec the power to enforce the Firearms Act.

Privilege

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of the government, its track record of intimidation and ruthlessness are cause for concern. You must take these factors into consideration in your role as defender of the minority against the tyranny of this majority.

I will give you, Mr. Speaker, another example as to why you should not allow this matter to proceed.

I participated in three contempt charges against a minister at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Despite the testimony, the Liberal majority on the committee failed to take any action to curtail ministers from making a mockery of parliament and members of parliament. They did not invoke any consequences to the former minister of justice with respect to her briefing the media on Bill C-15 ahead of members and before the bill was tabled in the House. They let her off the hook entirely the second time when Bill C-36 was also leaked to the media.

It appears that the outcome of the question of privilege involving the minister of defence is heading in the same direction of a Liberal cover-up as a result of public comments made in advance of the Standing Committee and Procedure and House Affairs report to the House.

We have witnessed over the years the persuasive powers of the Prime Minister in directing the Liberal majority in the House. I cannot accept that the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary has been permitted to pursue this question of privilege if the government were not concerned that the truth could become known to the Canadian people. This is obviously just an intimidation tactic.

My colleagues have already made the point that the use of words such as deliberately misleading outside the House, under these circumstances, is perfectly in order and does not amount to contempt. No statements contributed to me and my colleagues in any way tarnish the reputation of the minister of defence. Public debate has already passed comment on the competence of the minister.

The point I do want to make is the fact that there is a real attempt on behalf of the government members and the Prime Minister's deputy minister to intimidate opposition members. In this situation, the only protection afforded to us is your decision not to allow the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary to move his motion because once the motion is moved, our fate is in the hands of the Liberal majority, which is controlled by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister is bent on defending his minister at all costs. His determination and ruthlessness in doing so has no bounds.

We had an example the other week, during the election of the chairman of the finance committee. The government whip was threatening opposition members and staff, as well as government members, to get the Prime Minister's choice for chairman elected.

It would be irresponsible to hand over to the majority Liberal government the fate of opposition members whose only crime is that we were being effective members of the opposition. That is what you are charged with protecting. In this scenario, that means you should sooner as opposed to later rule that this matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

From a communications point of view, bringing this matter up in the way the parliamentary secretary has done, has been calculated as doing less damage than a positive finding in the committee. If the actions of the defence minister embarrasses the government, then why is it inviting more debate in the House? If it is worried about hearing the words deliberately misleading associated with the minister of defence, then I point out that because of this question of privilege I have heard those words again several times.

I looked at the Hansard from February 28, when the parliamentary secretary first brought up this matter. The words deliberately misleading were mentioned at least six times in the short debate on the question of privilege of that day. I would not be surprised if it is repeated a few more times before we complete today.

Maybe now the parliamentary secretary gets it. The issue is before parliament in a formal way, as a formal charge. Therefore, we can say the D word and the M word. We are not fooling anyone by not saying them. Everyone knows what the issue is.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the parliamentary secretary, I stand by my statement. I will not be intimidated. This I do to protect our democratic institution and the rights of all Canadians.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will conclude the third reading stage of Bill C-49, the Budget Implementation Act, 2001.

Monday and Tuesday shall be allotted days.

Next Wednesday we will consider report stage of Bill C-15, certain amendments to the criminal code. On Thursday, March 21, I expect to return to report stage of Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation or perhaps other unfinished business. On Friday, March 23, we will again consider Bill C-50 respecting the WTO followed by Bill C-47, the excise tax amendments.

With respect to the specific legislation that the House leader for the official opposition has referred to I will pursue that matter with the solicitor general to determine what plans he may have.

Species at Risk Act

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one casualty of a huge dimension accompanied this bill. That casualty will probably do more harm than the government can ever do by passing this legislation. I am talking about the casualty that was brought upon the committee that worked on the bill.

I volunteered to sit on the committee. Many people will say that members of parliament should never volunteer for anything because that always means a lot of work. However I volunteered to be on the committee because this bill will have huge ramifications where I live. I wanted to make sure that I could act in the best interests and seek the best solutions for my constituents.

The committee was chaired by an outstanding member of parliament. He is a very wise man and a man who has the respect of the entire committee. I also had the honour of working with my party's chief critic, the member for Red Deer. He knows the bill and knows what we are talking about. He has spoken many times in the House.

It was one of the few committees where I saw members on both sides working for the common good. Members worked to make sure the bill would be accepted by the government and the bill with our amendments would be welcomed and accepted across Canada.

It is true that some 127 very qualified witnesses appeared before the committee. We gave them our undivided attention. In their profession as scientists we listened carefully to their suggestions and drafted many of the amendments based on their attendance. There were some 300 amendments.

The casualty came after the break. There were all these outstanding people, from the chairman to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. People on both sides of the House just slumped down in their seats when they saw what happened. It was my hope, after all the committees I have sat on, that the valuable work of a committee would finally be realized. I really thought that for the first time I would see something produced in the nature of amendments that would fulfill the dream of Canadians from ocean to ocean to ocean. That did not take place.

It seems very strange that somehow the Minister of the Environment can put his hand in his hat and flick out $45 million as a cost for the operation of this bill. We have no idea where he got that number. There is no study. We presented no papers. He just said $45 million. The minister simply cannot do that and make it acceptable to the House.

The government has slashed our amendments and the bill as it is now is a total insult to the scientific community in Canada. The last time the scientific community was completely ignored in Canada was when the scientists told us that we were going too far and that we had better stop the reaping of the cod.

The politicians said they did not have to listen. They did their own business and the fishery on the east coast did its own.

Scientists made it clear that we cannot develop the bill with an open door policy. Having an open door policy on a bill of this magnitude is like having an open door to one's house. The heat and cold can come in. The pets can go out or the kids can come in. Anything can happen with an open door policy.

The government would want all of the power of the bill to remain in cabinet. It would ignore the scientists, witnesses and those who have studied habitat. It wants to take complete control. Scientists want to do science but the government wants to do it its way. These decisions should not be left to cabinet alone. There is too much proof in our history of what happens when cabinet alone makes decisions. We need to listen to scientists.

In committee we heard from various people who would be affected by the legislation, people in industry, people who own private property, aboriginal property, crown land, provincial and federal land. We now find in the bill that there would be some exemptions.

I live very close to the 49th parallel. I watch white tail deer go back and forth. They do not know whether they are in Canada or the United States. Rare species do not know when they arrive at the border. An animal does not know when it is moving from a protected area to a non-protected area.

The government has put restrictions based on racial groups within this bill. That simply will not work. Everyone in committee said that would not work so that was thrown out. The government came back with a better decision.

I do not know why the minister wants to have everything left up to him and cabinet, exclusive of the biologists and those who have studied habitat, especially after we have worked so hard on the bill in committee.

If the government had paid attention to the recommendations of the committee that studied this issue Canadians from coast to coast would be relieved of all the apprehension and all the worry they presently have with the bill. With the slashing of amendments people from coast to coast have more apprehension than ever. I know people in my area have more apprehension than ever.

If we put this bill with Bill C-15, the cruelty to animals bill, and the Kyoto agreement, we have more mistrust than we need.

A great bunch of people worked in committee. I say that in all honesty. The people I feel most sorry for are not those of us who sat in the opposition chairs in committee, but the fine chairman and the people on the government side of the House who watched their dreams and aspirations go down the drain. They put in hundreds of hours and listened to hundreds of witnesses. That should never happen in a democratic society.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin speaking to the bill, I would like to mention that we heard the government time after time today ask why the opposition was putting forward so many speakers to the bill. Is it that there are that many farmers concerned? The question is not how many farmers are concerned but how many less farmers there will be if legislation like this is implemented. There is a huge outcry from farmers and all those involved in agriculture, but the big reason we put this many members up is that we see in Bill C-5 an intrusion into the rights of enjoyment of property. We see an intrusion into property rights as a whole. It is not only a pleasure to rise to speak to the bill but I believe it is my responsibility.

Although this legislation has been around for some time, I have anxiously been awaiting the opportunity to speak to the endangered species bill. The first opportunity I had to speak to the bill came earlier this week, on Monday afternoon, and now again I get the chance to register my constituents' complete opposition to the various provisions of this proposed legislation.

Last week while the House of Commons was in recess I had the opportunity to travel throughout my riding. I attended over 27 meetings. I met with police services boards, the RCMP, a number of town councils, chambers of commerce, learning and sexual assault centres, senior groups, military officers from the Wainwright Training Centre, a number of business persons and public and high school students.

At each one of these stops, particularly at the schools and the chambers of commerce, I provided an overview of what was happening in parliament. I gave a brief account of the anti-terrorism legislation that we put through last fall at breakneck speed, which all members of the House worked together to pass, a bill that responded to the threat of terrorism in our country. I also explained my role to them as a member of parliament, my role as their federal representative and how, whenever and wherever possible, I represented their views, the views of the farmers, those involved in agriculture, those living in Crowfoot and those living here in Ottawa. I used both Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B to exemplify my point and to show how, with certain pieces of federal legislation, the opinions of my constituents vary greatly with the opinions of the government and of the government members' constituents, particularly, I may add, those members who represent urban areas.

Time and again we have witnessed legislation that has been brought forward in the House that has pitted rural Canadians against urban Canadians. This is particularly true with Bill C-5.

Farmers and ranchers represent the rural population in Canada. When I consider the riding of Crowfoot and I think of the huge number of farmers and ranchers who live in Crowfoot and those who are retiring to other communities, they certainly represent the majority of my riding. Ranchers and farmers in Crowfoot farm on average perhaps 1,500 to 2,000 acres of land. Many ranches are 5,000 acres of land or larger. Some farms are smaller. Some have 160 acres and some have 320 acres.

I own a small business and I also own a farm. I am the fourth generation on that farm. I say this to make it very clear in this place that the people of Crowfoot respect the land. They are good stewards of the land. They all have been extremely proud landowners for generations and have looked after their land.

Under the proposed legislation that is before us today, the proud landowners of Crowfoot and other places in western Canada could lose their land if bureaucrats, who are far removed from the situation and from the prairies, designate it as a critical habitat for an endangered species. Nothing in the bill compels Ottawa to fully compensate landowners at fair market value for the loss of their property.

I cannot begin to explain to members of the House who do not represent rural ridings the devastation that has been experienced in farming over the last few years. Parts of my riding of Crowfoot such as Castor, Hanna, Oyen, Consort, Coronation, and Provost to a certain degree, have never been drier than they are right now because they have been affected by the drought. As I travelled through my riding last week, one farmer said to me that if the drought does not finish him off this year the grasshoppers will. This is a very serious problem in Crowfoot.

Farmers do not need made in Ottawa laws such as Bill C-5 to drive them any further into the ground. Many of my constituents are struggling to survive. They are struggling to keep their farms viable so they do not lose their land. Any part of the land, any loss, any number of acres that might be taken out of production can completely drive them under and make their farming unprofitable.

As their representative, I am not willing to stand back. I will not stand by complacently and watch the demise of the family farm in this country happen any faster than it is already. I will do everything in my power to see that farmers of Crowfoot, of Alberta and of all of western Canada survive, and that means voting against the bill in its present form. That means taking a look at bills like Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals bill. That means looking at other bills that come into this place from the perspective of their effect on the riding of Crowfoot. How will they affect Camrose, Wainwright and other centres and the individuals living there?

As stated earlier, there have been far too many instances where this Liberal government has brought in legislation that pits rural Canadians against urban Canadians. This was particularly evident with Bill C-68, the firearms legislation.

Last week when I explained Bill C-5 to students and explained the fact that their parents could have land confiscated or taken out of production without adequate compensation, for many it was reminiscent of 1995 when the government first introduced the firearms legislation banning a number of commonly owned guns and requiring registration of all long guns in Canada for the very first time.

A senior justice official once said to the committee reviewing previous firearms legislation:

A look at the history of gun control in Canada shows that it developed through several stages in relation--

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-5. As was the case with Bill C-15B on animal cruelty, the Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that protection of our wild species is essential.

That protection must not, however, be done just any old way, nor used as a band aid solution. We need concrete measures to ensure that there is additional protection and that it is workable. We need to seek to really enhance the protection of our ecosystems and endangered species.

I could have been really committed to such a bill, because of the unique and endangered ecosystems in my riding. I am aware of the need to find a concrete and workable solution.

We believe, however, that it is possible to create standards with a view to improving and enhancing the status of endangered species and ecosystems while at the same time respecting Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and avoiding needless interference.

As was the case with Bill C-10, we see that there is a proposal to establish additional authorities, thus duplicating what is already in place. Why do so, if not to do away with the possibility of a partnership between the federal government and Quebec?

It seems to us that it would be wiser and more appropriate to direct resources properly toward programs which already are meeting the needs. It strikes us as totally pointless to waste money creating something that already exists and is working, rather than consolidating what is already in place with some tangible and real resources.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that it is essential to point out again that these duplications are not only pointless, but also harmful in that they are perpetuating and increasing the delay, and that is precisely what we do not have: time.

The Bloc Quebecois can see that the environment is one area in which there is a shared jurisdiction between the federal government and the government of Quebec. The federal government must not, however, take advantage of this pseudo-authorization to usurp powers that do not belong to it. That is exactly what the minister responsible for implementing this bill is trying to do. This we cannot accept. This approach is both inconceivable and unacceptable.

This kind of intrusion means administrative duplication, which inevitably results in a very cumbersome bureaucracy that quickly becomes outdated. Such bureaucracy adds nothing to the objectives of the bill in terms of protection, which include, as stated in the preamble, respecting our commitments under the United Nations convention on the conservation of biological diversity, setting priorities and recognizing everyone's role in the conservation of wildlife. But it is only in the last part of the preamble that the word protection is mentioned for the first time. We see a lack of consistency and a lack of vision on that issue.

I find it unfortunate that, on such a sensitive issue, the federal government would choose to serve its own interest instead of those it purports to serve. Of course, it talks about shared jurisdiction but this so-called sharing is more of a one-way street, which is not desirable or beneficial to anyone.

Sharing necessarily implies some form of dialogue, interaction or at least discussion between the parties. However, such is not the case under this bill. In fact, one might think that with this bill the minister is trying to give himself broader decision making powers at the expense of the provinces. What kind of expertise can the minister have that would justify such powers?

I fail to see any sharing in this bill, just interference. The minister is using this bill to give himself considerable discretionary powers without showing any respect for the constitutional division of powers and responsibilities.

Interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions will not help protect species at risk. How else are we expected to react when Quebec's legislation in this area is totally ignored? I think that true sharing would require that Quebec's relevant legislative provisions be taken into account, but that is not the purpose of this bill.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that consultations would have been desirable and beneficial for everyone, but once again, the federal government would rather ignore the established facts and lists, do as it pleases and attempt yet again to centralize powers.

We support measures to provide sufficient protection for species at risk, but we cannot support this bill which denies Quebec and the provinces their unique responsibilities for managing wildlife.

We believe that we must act quickly to protect species at risk, but the federal government will not succeed by appropriating powers unduly. We believe that an active and productive dialogue between the federal government and Quebec is necessary to try to find an appropriate solution to this urgent situation. We will not give blind consent just because they have proposed legislation on the issue. This bill must meet the needs of the situation.

Given that reference is made in the preamble to national identity, I have to wonder how the bill is appropriate. I see it as an attempt by the minister to appropriate powers, thereby breaching the division of powers as defined in the constitution.

I hope and wish for concrete measures to be implemented to protect species at risk, but before I give my support, the objectives need to be clearly identified and prioritized. This is not what I see in Bill C-5.

I will wait for a bill that respects jurisdictions and contains an objective to preserve before giving my support. Because of the disrespectful wording and the underhanded objectives of Bill C-5, I cannot give it my support.

It is clear that the primary purpose of this bill is political. The first line of the preamble equates Canada's natural heritage and our national identity. Yet, natural heritage existed well before we arrived and will be there long after we are gone.

Criminal Code

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-408 addresses an important issue for many Canadians. It proposes to eliminate the term “illegitimate” in two federal statutes, the criminal code and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

Before I turn to an examination of the bill, I would first like to commend the hon. member for his dedication and his commitment to the eradication of this antiquated concept and language from federal law. He has continued to bring this important issue before the House in a number of private member's bills over the passage of several years. His hard work and his personal commitment to the belief that all Canadian children deserve the same protection under law and to be treated with the same dignity by the law is very much appreciated by Canadians.

I know I share the view of many in the House in thanking him for his role and his contribution. Children should be included in and protected by our laws without regard to the relationship of their parents. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that the concept of illegitimacy no longer exists in any federal law.

The issue is not new to the House. The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, that was enacted by parliament in June 2000, accomplished several goals, one of which was removing the last remaining references to illegitimacy in seven federal statutes, including the second statute proposed for amendment in Bill C-408. These amendments specifically address the concerns of the hon. member and that he had previously brought before the House.

Let me point out that these amendments in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act to remove references to illegitimacy do not actually change the substance of the law. The seven statutes included all children. The references to illegitimate children that have now been removed were actually the earlier attempts of the House to ensure that children born to unmarried parents were included in eligibility for benefits.

Until recently, if a specific statute referred to the child of a person, some doubt existed in law about whether this referred only to children born to married parents. In order to make it clear that the law was intended to include all children, the acts were amended many years ago to specify that a child meant both legitimate and illegitimate children but this was in an effort to be inclusive in providing benefits.

More recently, with new international commitments and changes in our law, these specific references are no longer legally necessary. It is now clear in law that a reference to a child of a person would include any child, whether the parents were married or unmarried. Clearly the goal of this government is similar to that of governments that passed those earlier amendments; that is, all children, regardless of the relationship of their parents, deserve the same protection and treatment under the law. I have no doubt that all members support this worthy goal.

With more modern law, we can now remove the references in our statutes to the concept of illegitimacy without risking some children being left out of legal protections. Removing these references will help in turn to eradicating any discrimination or differentiation in the treatment for children.

The Government of Canada continues to emphasize the importance of families and of supporting families as set out in the Speech from the Throne last year. The government means that all families with children are important--married couples, common law couples and lone parents--so that no Canadian children will be stigmatized by something so clearly not within their control.

Bill C-408 supports the work accomplished in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act. The first provision of the bill proposes an amendment to the criminal code to change the definition of child to remove the reference to an illegitimate child. This amendment addresses a definition which was repealed by Bill C-15A and was passed by the House last fall.

The second provision of Bill C-408 would bring the amendment made in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act into force as of December 31, 2001. The reference in the statute to legitimate and illegitimate descendants in the definition of the “Inuk of Fort George” or the “Inuit of Fort George” was removed.

It is true that it has not yet been brought into force. However this is for a good reason. The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act is a federal statute based on negotiated agreements: the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement and the northeastern Quebec agreement. Therefore the amendments to this act must be discussed with the Cree, the Naskapi and the Inuit prior to being brought into force. These discussions were raised at both the House standing committee and the committee of the Senate during the passage of the modernization act.

I understand from officials of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that consultations with the Inuit are underway. It is hoped that some agreement is possible through that process, following which the amendment would be brought into force. However it is clear I am sure to members of the House that bringing this provision into force at this time might jeopardize that ongoing process.

Although the reference to legitimate and illegitimate may unfortunately remain in one statute for a short while longer, the effect on the children covered by the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act would not change; that is, they would continue to be included.

In closing let me emphasize that the government believes that there is no longer any place in federal legislation for the use of language such as “illegitimate” or “children born out of wedlock”, with two small exceptions, one of which is currently under consideration by the Senate in Bill C-15A, federal law no longer distinguishes between children on that basis, and this last remaining stigma of another era will finally be gone.

The intention of this bill is laudable and the government will be acting to implement its intent.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was planning to go with a long speech on this important subject, but since the bill has been on the order paper I have been given every necessary assurance by the government to move forward with the content of the bill.

The government is known, not only here in North America but around the world, as a leader for its progressive agenda on the issue of children. As a signator to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child the government has taken a tremendous amount of action to fulfill its commitment.

Bill C-408 falls within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. There is legislation before the other House, Bill C-15A, which will be dealt with tomorrow on a clause by clause basis. Under the leadership of the government the legislation would remove all references to the word illegitimate when it comes to children. This would be a victory not only for the House but for all children across the country.

A second component of the bill would affect native children. I have been given assurances that the government is in the process of negotiating with the native community. I am confident that at the end of negotiations the second part of the bill will be dealt with positively and expeditiously.

I am delighted with the government's leadership. It has not only listened but taken action. It cares about the children of Canada and of the world.

Supply

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the Canadian Alliance supply day motion. The motion is in response to the government failing to establish a national sex offender registry.

In a motion adopted by the House in March 2001, the deadline for the introduction of the registry was January 30. That day has now passed with no action on the part of the government.

Canada is quickly becoming a haven for sex offenders. A B.C. court ruled that child pornography was okay. The logic behind that decision eludes me. How can it be okay for our children to be violated in such a manner? How is it okay to allow adults to use, abuse and endanger our children?

It was the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that put forward the motion for the registry. How is justice served by ignoring the recommendations of the committee? How is justice served by allowing our children to face horrific circumstances perpetrated by adults? How are the human rights of our children being protected by ignoring their plight?

Unwilling to wait for the federal government to do something about the safety of children, the Ontario government initiated its own updated and more advanced sex offender registry. This is surely a source of comfort for the parents in that province. I applaud the Ontario government for its forethought and action in this matter.

Why does the federal government continue to drag its feet on this matter? Are the children in other parts of the country not important? Does it believe that if it ignores the issue the rest of the provinces will follow Ontario's lead and initiate their own registries?

Is it not the responsibility of the government to look after the welfare of all children in Canada? Once sex offenders move out of Ontario, tracking them is left to the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC, a system that is not effective. A national registry is needed in order to track the whereabouts of these offenders.

The solicitor general touts the performance of the CPIC system as being all that Canadians need. That system cannot provide jurisdictional searches, radius searches or searches by physical descriptors. It also does not have the ability to include photographs.

Also lacking in the current system is the legislation necessary to force offenders to register and keep their information current. Pedophiles are given great opportunities to abuse our children in Canada. They are legally allowed to engage in sexual activity with a consenting 14 year old. The sexual age of consent in Canada is 14 years of age. Fourteen year old children--and at 14 they are just children--are legally allowed to make crucial decisions concerning their sexual activities. Children of that age possess neither the maturity nor the life experience to make such critical decisions.

The former minister of justice was approached in connection to raising the age of sexual consent. It currently stands at 14 years of age. The government has refused to act to protect our children.

It is a pedophile's dream to be in a country that legally allows sexual activity with children as young as 14. Due to their lack of maturity and experience, these children are easy prey. It is much easier to induce and persuade them to commit acts that are not in their best interests than it would be with a person who is older.

Parents are helpless against these persuasions and inducements. Police associations and family and social agencies agree that the age of consent must be raised. Parents who are actively trying to get their children off the streets and away from pedophiles, pimps and others are offered no help from the justice system. If the child is 14, he or she is allowed to make these decisions. Law enforcement agencies and other departments are unable to help the parents save their children.

A 14 year old is entitled under the laws of Canada to make these unhealthy decisions. A 40 year old man is legally allowed to live with a 14 year old girl. Parents and law enforcement and social agencies are helpless to intervene. While the age of consent is 14, pedophiles and other deviants are able to legally engage in sexual activity with our children.

Early sexual activity in children often leads to increased promiscuity, teenage pregnancy, higher rates of sexually transmitted disease, a tendency to drop out of school, and an increased chance of deviant behaviour later in life. There is a marked increase in the rate of HIV infection among young heterosexual girls in our country.

Early sexual activity and abuse inflicted by older partners leads to increased emotional and social problems in children. Our children should be given every opportunity to have happy, healthy, normal lives. It is not sufficient to have band aid solutions to the problem. We put money into programs to keep kids in school and numerous other social programs. Why do we not give kids a chance by fixing a law that has their best interests in mind?

The attempt to protect our children by way of Bill C-15 as it pertains to the luring of children over the Internet is a start. However with the current age of sexual consent at 14 the new law would only apply to children 13 years of age and younger.

An entire age group of children is being ignored in Canada. At 18 one is an adult and, in the majority of cases, fully capable of making serious decisions about one's actions and future. Those 13 years of age and younger are protected under the law. However the age group of 14 to 17 is offered no protection. This is sending a dangerous message to pedophiles and deviants. I am disgusted to think our country has become a destination of choice for men and women who seek out younger children.

While the government continues to ignore the plight of children 14 years of age and older it is also doing a great disservice to those who are 13 and younger. While these children are protected from pedophiles and abusers under the law they are not fully protected due to limitations on law enforcement agencies to adequately track the movement of pedophiles. Law enforcement agencies are limited due to the government's inaction in implementing an effective sex offender registry.

It has been said time and again that children are our future. We in our party believe that. However the government seems comfortable in the knowledge that it is depriving many of our children from having a future. Children are forced into sexual slavery every day by child molesters, pedophiles and pimps. They are legally allowed to do so under Canadian law at the moment.

Our children deserve the best protection we are able to provide. By doing nothing we send a message that they are not important. The government must act immediately to implement a working, viable sex offender registry. Let us give our children the future they deserve.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Langley--Abbotsford on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Justice.

We on this side of the House are unequivocal in our support for any feasible measure that will effectively protect our children, indeed all of our citizens, from sexual predators. At the same time, however, I would urge all members to exercise caution and not jump at any measure that promises a quick fix, that claims to be a cure-all for this most pressing problem. I fear that a temptation in the specific area of sex offender registries is to leap first and look later. That appears to have happened all too often in some jurisdictions that have gone before us.

In fact this morning in the justice committee the hon. member for Prince Albert commented that often we are too quick to pass laws, to push a button that makes us feel good, but we are weak in evaluating and monitoring. Now the opposition wishes to charge forward on this issue. It seems to pick whatever process best suits its political purposes. What hypocrisy.

For example, over the last decade, the number of registries of sex offenders has jumped from a few isolated ones to registries in the 50 American states, in the United Kingdom, in Scotland, Ireland and even recently in Canada, in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia.

Given the implementation of these registries, one might easily assume that these registries stop sex offenders in their tracks. With all of these registries by now, one might assume there are all kinds of studies that empirically support such claims. Imagine my surprise when I found out that not one single study has been published that empirically concludes that sex offender registries reduce reoffending rates. Imagine my surprise when I found out that in many jurisdictions quite the opposite has happened.

For example, in the majority of states in America that have implemented a sex offender registry, anyone, even those of us sitting at home in Canada, can log on to the Internet and see pictures and addresses of every known sex offender living in that state. In many cases their pictures will be available like that for the rest of their lives. Has that active publication of personal information reduced sex crimes? Apparently not.

Here in Canada where sex offender registries have yet to have any impact on available data, the incidence of violent sexual offences per capita has been steadily dropping over the past few years. This is not the case however in most U.S. jurisdictions that publish the names of sex offenders over the Internet. At the same time these states have all experienced atrocious acts of vigilantism against these offenders. While some may say “Very good, they deserve it”, I and the government could never condone any such system that invited retaliation.

The question is, why would anyone pass a sex offender registry law that to date seems to have had so little positive effect? All too often these policies are drafted in haste, in a crisis situation born of desperation. All too often we have seen an isolated tragedy involving a sex offender and a child which causes an immediate legislative call to arms. In their haste, as has often been the case in this highly emotional issue, legislators fail to understand all the consequences of their emotionally drafted bills.

In almost every single case where a legislative body has passed a sex offender registry bill, the same scenario was played out: a painful and highly publicized case of kidnapping and murder of a child, followed by community outrage, calls for action and passionate speeches calling for new and better tools to combat this problem. Were the resulting registries always the best tools for the job? Was careful analysis of sex offender traits and trends used to model and shape a policy designed to reduce reoffending? Were legislators solely dedicated to finding the right policies? Or were there other factors at play, factors such as revenge, blame and politics?

How well did the resulting registries work? Did sex offenders all stop offending? The data suggests otherwise. For example, in one of the most comprehensive recidivist studies ever undertaken, a recent study by the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives looked at over 45,000 historical sex offenders in the United States and concluded that 87% of these convicted offenders do not commit another sex offence after release. This rate is substantially better than that observed for other forms of property and violent crimes. Yet sex offender registries typically target 100% of convicted offenders regardless of their determined threat or likelihood of recidivism based on a personal profile. In most cases all of these offenders are required to register for the rest of their lives.

Instead of focusing its efforts on, for example, the 13% who are likely to reoffend, police forces in the states that have sex offender registries must spend their resources on monitoring 100% of all convicted sex offenders, over 200,000 of them to date in the United States, regardless of their likelihood of reoffending. Most criminology experts argue that the registry concept is incredibly inefficient.

Many of the American registries are facing a new threat from their state and federal supreme courts where rights based challenges against lifelong mandatory registration requirements are starting to proceed through the appeals process. The news is not great. Many states, including Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey, have had their respective registries struck down in whole or in part as a result of clashes with state constitutional rights, few of which are as stringent as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Certainly there are lessons to be learned from these experiences.

When the United Kingdom drafted its sex offender registry and forced Ray Whiting to register for his sex offence related murder of Jason Swift, how did it happen that after his statutory release for that crime he managed to rape and murder yet another victim, young Sarah Payne? Why did the local police admit that the U.K. sex offender registry, as it existed, was of little use in monitoring the offender, or in preventing the subsequent crime, or in treating the offender, or in investigating and apprehending that offender?

Why did subsequent inquiries conclude that toughening the existing sex offender registry would have had little impact in preventing cases like the Sarah Payne tragedy? Why was it that most experts concluded that Whiting's failure to receive therapy and assistance in integrating into the community was the chief factor that caused this tragedy? Why did the U.K. government introduce in the following year a new sex offender registry law?

What then do we make of sex offender registries? Are they perfect? Certainly not. Are we intent on repeating these types of mistakes? Hopefully not. Can we learn from the experience of others? I sincerely hope so.

The motion before us today is an example of the desire to sprint ahead without having examined all the pitfalls that may lay ahead. The implication of this motion is that the government is doing nothing while our children remain in danger. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like to note the solicitor general's efforts to date on this matter. The solicitor general rose in the House last March and stated emphatically that he supported the motion by the member for Langley--Abbotsford, as did all members present, because this nation already possessed one of the most technologically advanced criminal registries in the world, the Canadian Police Information Centre. We know it as CPIC. Further, he told the House that his department would begin evaluating potential improvements to CPIC in the specific areas of sex offences, citing the criticism that CPIC was not address searchable by police officers.

In a very short period of time he fulfilled that commitment when he announced on September 11 last year that a new database within the CPIC system was to be created: the sex offender category. Further, he announced that the database would be address searchable and would be up and running within a year, funded completely by the federal government.

That is not all the government has done in recent years to combat the dangers of sexual predators. In 1997 we proclaimed Bill C-55 which strengthened the dangerous offender rules in part XXIV of the criminal code and also created a new sentencing provision called long term offender.

As a result of these changes, prosecutors in almost every province are aggressively pursuing dangerous offender and long term offender designations. In fact, since 1997 the number of successful dangerous offender applications has doubled each year.

The 1997 legislative package also created a new category called the long term offender. It targeted individuals who were clearly a threat but who would not meet the threshold as a dangerous offender. This new designation recognized that released sex offenders who received supervision and treatment in the community experienced dramatically lower recidivist rates than offenders who were released at warrant expiry without conditions for supervision or treatment.

In addition to their custodial period, long term offenders can be sentenced to up to 10 years of community supervision and conditions following the termination of their custodial period. This innovative measure has already resulted in over 100 successful long term offender applications.

The government also recognized that there were new emerging areas of sex crimes that needed to be targeted specifically. In 1997 and later in 1999, parliament passed important measures to protect children from being drawn into the sex trade. A new offence of aggravated procuring was created, with a minimum five year sentence, to deal with those who use violence against a child and force that child into prostitution related activity. Special protections were instituted to make it easier for children to testify in court against pimps.

Bill C-15A, which is now before the House, contains new provisions that would make it an offence to lure minors over the Internet for the purpose of committing a sexual offence. However, none of these initiatives happened overnight.

While I agree with my colleagues that this is an urgent problem, cobbling together a mandatory sex offender registry without looking at all the issues, all the details and all the facts will not result in good legislation.

Instead, the solicitor general has taken a different approach. He has asked his officials to work with all the provinces and territories to fully explore the issue, to determine what is and what is not feasible in the Canadian context, to determine what works and what does not, and to find out where some jurisdictions have succeeded and where others have failed. I fully support this approach and this side of the House fully supports this approach. It is obvious to me that the provinces also support this approach. Why else would they be participating fully in the federal-provincial-territorial working group on high risk offenders currently seized with this matter?

Canadians must abide by many rules, many laws and many conventions that are uniquely Canadian. The division of powers between federal and provincial governments is quite different from that found in, for example, the United States or the conventions and laws of the unitary styled United Kingdom. We have a constitution, including a charter of rights, that is unique and, while similar, is different from the American bill of rights. Any proposed national sex offender registry can only be successful if it is designed and drafted within this unique Canadian context.

It is for those specific reasons that there are high level discussions taking place among the federal, provincial and territorial officials on what kind of registry system would be workable in the very unique Canadian context. From the issue of charter and privacy challenges, to how information could be transferred from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from computer system to computer system, to whether non-compliance should be a criminal code offence, there are many choices and the solicitor general is looking for a consensus among our partners before proceeding further.

That approach makes sense. If we are going to have a registry, we should have one that works, that is efficient and affordable, that will recognize the impact of the charter of rights and freedoms, that is not in breach of federal or provincial privacy laws, that local police agencies will have the ability and resources to administer, one for which all provinces and territories from coast to coast to coast can agree on a consistent approach, and one that will not drive convicted sex offenders underground with changed identities and no hope of rehabilitation.

In closing, I must decline to support the motion, not because I do not wish to protect our children from sex offenders, because I do, but because I insist that my government does more than just pretend to protect our children from sex offenders. I will not support any measure that is not properly understood, not completely explored and does not receive full scrutiny at every level.

No measure within the criminal justice system exists in a vacuum, sex offender registries included. The task of preventing recidivism by sex offenders needs an effective, multi-faceted approach, from investigation to capture, from charge to prosecution, from sentence to release and, finally, from community supervision and treatment to rehabilitation.

A sex offender registry, in whatever form it ultimately may take, is just one piece of this very big puzzle. It will be no panacea, but if we do it right and do it carefully maybe it can work. If we are careful it will not be a strain on police resources, it will not drive violent sexual predators underground and it will not bring a flood of charter challenges.

I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to give our federal-provincial-territorial officials a chance to do their work, to reach a consensus and to evaluate the options. At that time we will be in a much better position to know where we should be headed, what legislation to support and how best to make our children safe.

Let us take the necessary time to study the issue carefully and positively. Let is take the necessary measures to enact effective strategies that will protect our children and indeed to protect all Canadians.

Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from the citizens of the Peterborough area who support Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation.

The petitioners have been stimulated by several highly publicized examples of animal abuse. They point out that workers such as veterinarians, humane societies and others are becoming frustrated in the daily duties they are required to perform. The petitioners believe Bill C-15B would allow much more significant consequences to apply to those who abuse or neglect animals.

These citizens call on parliament to expedite Bill C-15B. Like me, they regret that the opposition has delayed proceedings today so we will not receive it before Christmas.

Bill C-15A

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

Mr. Speaker, here is one more reason parliament must show some leadership on the issue of home invasions. A woman who took part in an extremely violent home invasion in 1998 was given a conditional sentence of two years less a day for her part. As everyone knows by now, this means serving a sentence at home.

Sandra Rickovic and two others tied up and pistol whipped jeweller Jitendra Goldsmith and his wife. Their two young children were locked in a basement room at gunpoint while the grandmother escaped out a back door with a seven month old baby. Goldsmith, who operated a home business in Vancouver, lost nearly $400,000 in the robbery and was not insured.

Another of the home invaders, David Anthony Labadie, was convicted of break and enter, robbery, wearing a mask, using an imitation handgun, unlawful confinement and assault causing bodily harm. For his efforts he received a paltry seven years while the crown wanted fourteen.

In Bill C-15A parliament made home invasion an aggravating factor for sentencing. I supported that. If this is any indication of what we can expect from the courts there will be no alternative but to legislate mandatory minimum sentences for these vicious crimes.

Nuclear Fuel Waste Act

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following with great interest the debate on Bill C-27, the nuclear fuel waste act. It is important legislation for the whole country, but I regret it has been drawn out to the point that we will not reach Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation, before Christmas.

The hon. member and his colleagues are obviously interested in and well informed on this issue. They have been talking about nuclear power and nuclear fission. One of the solutions to the waste problem, and in the long run to the problems that face our nuclear power industry, is nuclear fusion, not fission.

Where do the hon. member and his colleagues and perhaps Quebec Hydro stand on the ITER project? It is a proposal that has been discussed for three years. It would bring scientists from Japan, the European Union, the United States and elsewhere to Canada to participate in a sophisticated international study of nuclear fusion for many years. What do the member and his colleagues think of that as a solution to the nuclear waste problem?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the third reading debate on Bill C-27, the nuclear safety bill.

Then we will proceed to the consideration of Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments, at report stage, followed by the third reading debate on Bill C-43, the technical amendments bill. Consideration of these bills will continue tomorrow.

For next week, which of course commences on January 28, we will resume the budget debate and we will proceed, as quickly as possible after the budget debate concludes, to the legislation emanating from the budget, in other words, the budget implementation bill or bills.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all hon. members and, in particular, the House leaders of various political parties, including those who have gone on to bigger and better things, for their continued co-operation during the entire year 200. They have made this year a productive legislative year. As a matter of fact it has been the most productive year in the five years that I have been House leader. It has been a banner year. I thank all hon. members for making it possible for the House, this parliament and this government to legislate in such an effective way on behalf of Canadians.

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

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have already had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-15, Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B. I was not expecting to speak to the bill, but the lack of speakers from other parties has allowed me the opportunity. That is not an attack on any other party. I appreciate the opportunity to recollect some of the concerns that the bill brings forward.

When Bill C-15 initially came forward we were disturbed by what we saw. We saw an omnibus bill that brought in many good things, but there were a number of specifics that were worrisome to the Canadian Alliance as well as to other members of the opposition.

We applaud the government for splitting the bill after pressure from the opposition. It allowed for quicker passage of Bill C-15A which dealt with child luring, disarming of a police officer and other items. It allowed us the opportunity to take the second portion of Bill C-15, study it and bring witnesses forward so that we could deal with the concerns regarding the cruelty to animal clause and the firearms issue. That is exactly what happened over the last month.

It has been a busy three months since September 11. When we have not been dealing with terrorism bills in the justice committee, we have been dealing with the cruelty to animal clause.

For us to stand in the House to explain the frustration in the agricultural sector over the last few years, it would be an understatement no matter what we tried to say. We have watched as commodity prices have fallen and input costs have gone up. Other government practices have been ineffective. Many of the agriculture programs that we would have liked to have seen from the government have been forgotten, put on the back burner or totally ignored. Due to the lack of government support there have been steps taken by the federal Liberals that would actually raise additional concerns for our farming community and food production groups.

What we see in Bill C-15B is exactly one of the concerns. This is a bill that is very divisive. It pits urban against rural. It is much like Bill C-68, the gun registration bill, which was a divisive bill. The Liberal government said we needed Bill C-68, but it pitted the urban sector against the rural sector.

Legislation dealing with cruelty to animals does the same. The agriculture sector in western Canada would say to those who are involved in defined cruelty to animal cases that there should be tougher and harsher sentences. Cruelty to animals charges should be taken seriously. Agriculture would say those who willfully bring pain on animals or refuse to look after animals need to be prosecuted.

The bill takes some of the practices that our ranching and farming communities are involved in and puts them into question. Regardless of what the minister said about acceptable practices when she came to committee, animal extremist groups and other animal rights groups have said that we need to use the legislation as a basis to bring forward prosecutions. We need to push the legislation on to the front burner and use it as a reason to prosecute.

One individual who spoke in committee referred to the legislation as only the beginning. She said the onus was on humane societies and other groups on the frontlines to push the legislation to the limit, to test the parameters of the law, and to have the courage and the conviction to lay charges. She warned us not to make any mistake about it because that was what it was all about.

What was she saying? She was saying that in Bill C-15B we have the opportunity to take the legislation that was asked for and make it a springboard for prosecutions of our farmers, ranchers, trappers, including aboriginals and all others it would affect.

I have been on the farm for 40 years. I understand a number of things about farming. One of the concerns that has been brought forward so eloquently by the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands is that the margins are simply not there to be brought and hauled before a federal or provincial court to fight a prosecution for the sake of the humane society getting it on the agenda. Farmers and ranchers move back in fear of having to defend common practices of farming.

The government says to trust it. It has said that a few times. It said that Bill C-68 would cost $85 million. We find our trust level around the Liberal government diminishing as time goes on because Bill C-68 has cost $685 million. Who knows where it will end? Perhaps it will be at least $1 billion.

I want to mention that we have seen other bills come forward too. We have seen the species at risk bill. The phone in my constituency office in Crowfoot rings constantly. I have received hundreds of letters dealing with the species at risk bill. The government is saying that to keep these species it needs to take farmland or any type of land and protect it. It says that there would not be any compensation, or maybe a little compensation, but to trust it because it would not take huge numbers of acres; just what it needed.

The calls keep coming. We have received numerous calls and correspondences from individuals who have grave concerns about how this would impact on their livelihood and on legitimate activities.

The moving of these sections from the property section into a separate section in the criminal code is something which causes great concern. For example, section 445 deals with wilfully and without lawful excuse killing, maiming, wounding, poisoning or injuring dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and kept for a lawful purpose. We have heard the member for Cypress Hills--Grassland talk about the changing of the definition of animal to something that feels pain.

A few nights ago in the House we discussed the strychnine bill. Gophers feel pain. It is not necessarily an acceptable practice by a lot of animal rights groups but it is another case of an exercise that is needed on ranches and farms. We support any kind of bill that would genuinely deter cruelty to animals. Bill C-15B does not. It is an attack on western agriculture and farming practices. Even though amendments have been brought forward in good will they do not suffice.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am perhaps just following up on the comments of the hon. member who just spoke. I would point out that whenever we consider anything the government has done or is doing, we always do it with a certain degree suspicion because of its actions in the past.

I am not sure if I would completely agree with him that government members are acting in the most forthright manner in how they have handled the bill. It took a lot of effort by a great many individuals out in the real world, as well as all the opposition parties, to get them to split the bill into two bills. There has been considerable debate about that.

The one thing I would agree with him on is that at least we have had substantial debate on this bill and on this issue throughout its course through the Chamber. I only wish the Liberals would have applied that same high degree of debate and committee time to other legislation, notably Bill C-36, instead of invoking time allocation and ramming it through the House.

I will now focus my comments on report stage of Bill 15B, specifically the amendments that are before the House dealing with those sections and clauses that deal with the cruelty to animals. Like many who have spoke before me, I have heard from a great many of my constituents concerning this issue. I think all parliamentarians, regardless of party, have heard loud and clear from their constituents.

Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, this is an issue that to some degree pits urban versus rural people. Being from a riding that is roughly a quarter of the geographic size of British Columbia, a huge rural riding, the eighth largest riding in the country, obviously this bill and the way that the law, once enacted, could be interpreted by the courts is of great concern to the rural folks of Prince George--Peace River. They have made their concerns known to me.

Who are the stakeholders who have the greatest concerns with this legislation? Again, as other speakers from the coalition and other parties have stated, they are quite numerous. Medical researchers have been greatly concerned about the legislation because of the work they do in trying to advance the cause of disease prevention. Trappers certainly have reason to be concerned about it.

I want to specifically address hunters, guiding and outfitting and the economic benefit that this brings to my home province of British Columbia, specifically to my region of northeastern British Columbia, the Peace River--Prince George area. I also want to mention the potential for low income, local hunters as well. When we talk about big game hunting, we are not dealing specifically with guiding and outfitting. We are also dealing with the local hunters who are in many cases low income people who rely upon wild meat to provide a certain amount of sustenance to their families.

I remember my own youth. I am not sure exactly how much meat would have been in our diet, if we would not have had my father out hunting and getting the odd moose, or caribou or deer to put meat on the family table.

As well, people have raised concerns about the aboriginals. They have talked about their concerns with Bill C-15B and the provisions on cruelty to animals. The member from the Canadian Alliance who spoke before me is a past farmer like myself. He spoke quite eloquently about the potential impact on the agricultural sector industry and on people from his riding in Saskatchewan.

Let us use the case of farmers for example. If farmers had to spend time in the courts and incurred costs to defend themselves because of provisions of the law that would see them subjected to charges of cruelty to animals for their practices in the husbandry of animals and the way they raise their livestock, obviously at some point those costs would have to be passed on to the consumer. Although urban people may say that legislation such as Bill C-15B does not directly impact them, down the road it very well may.

Another stakeholder of concern is the rodeo industry. What will it mean for the Calgary Stampede, the Williams Lake rodeo and such organizations depending on the interpretation of the law down the road?

I am in support of the two amendments that I put forward on behalf of my colleague for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough who originally had the amendments in his name. I am disappointed that Motion No. 3 was ruled out of order because a similar motion had been made at committee stage. Therefore it was dropped and we will not get to vote on it at report stage. That motion would have removed the definition of “animal”. It is of great concern. My colleague from the Canadian Alliance spoke about that a few minutes ago.

Motion No. 9, which is also in my name, deals with the deletion of a clause that would move cruelty to animals from part XI to part VI which would take it away from the classification it has always had. For some 50 years we have had animals protected under the property section of the criminal code. Motion No. 9 would see that maintained for the future, rather than see it moved.

If the intent of the legislation is to increase the penalties to those who abuse animals, then obviously we would all find ourselves in agreement with the intent of the legislation. No one, except the cruellest of the cruel, would want to see insufficient laws or penalties in our country to deter abuse of animals. With the possible exception of child abuse, I cannot think of anything more horrendous than abusing a defenceless animal. If that was the case and the legislation was specifically targeted to that and it was very clearly defined, we would not have the problems that we see with the legislation. Unfortunately it is not clearly defined.

Interestingly enough, when I was having my morning coffee at home and was reading through the paper, I noticed a story in the Ottawa Citizen about a case of animal abuse and cruelty. A Belleville man who apparently had been out hunting after dark had mistakenly shot a pony instead of a deer. The article says he was drunk and stoned at the time. He received what I would classify as quite a harsh sentence. According to the story the man received five months for killing the pony and for animal cruelty and two months for an unrelated assault charge. In addition he received a fine.

The point I am making is that the laws we already have obviously can deal very harshly with those that are involved in the abuse of animals. That is good and is something we all support.

I would suggest that Bill C-15B is causing great concern for a number of industries. I wish I had more time to get into the potential impact it might have on industries such as guiding and outfitting, big game hunting and some of the other industries that are especially important not only to Prince George--Peace River but to all of British Columbia. Maybe at third reading I will have a chance to make those additional points.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments this afternoon on this debate. It was suggested a little earlier this afternoon, by I believe it was the member for Provencher, that we were watering down the amendment proposed by the member for Oshawa. I would suggest that is simply not the case. What we are in fact doing is simply clarifying it and making it such that it will stand the scrutiny of time and of the courts.

With respect to Motion No. 6, the new offence created by the motion introduced by our colleague the member for Oshawa, as presently worded, would extend application of the offence provisions to law enforcement animals whether or not they are actively engaged in law enforcement at the time the offence is committed.

This runs directly counter to the policy of the animal cruelty provisions as a whole. It retains the notion that particular animals should be treated differently from other animals. It is also unclear from the amendment whether these provisions would override the general cruelty to animal provisions elsewhere in Part V.I when offences are committed in respect of law enforcement animals. In some cases, there may be an overlap between elements of an offence under the amendments versus an offence listed in either subsection 182.2 or subsection 182.3 of Bill C-15B.

The offence provision, as redrafted, makes it clear that the law enforcement animals are being protected because of the risk that they face on a daily basis in the course of assisting peace officers and public officers. The offence applies when they are aiding or assisting a peace officer or a public officer engaged in the execution of their duties or a person aiding the officer. The offence in the amendment would criminalize the actions of anyone who wilfully or recklessly poisons, injures or kills a law enforcement animal while it is aiding or assisting a police officer or public officer in his or her work.

For accuracy, clarity and certainty in the law two references had to be changed: peace officer or public officer is well-known in criminal law and was substituted for the term law enforcement personnel. The notion of assault could not be retained because the assault provisions of the criminal code relate only to human beings.

The amendment does not include an offence of poisoning a law enforcement animal while it is kenneled, penned, transported or otherwise held because these are activities that are already covered in the general cruelty to animal provisions. Animals in these circumstances are not actively engaged in assisting a police officer or public officer and therefore a provision creating a specific offence for law enforcement animals in these situations would tend to undermine the policy of the cruelty provisions as a whole, that specific animals should not be given preferential treatment over other animals per se.

The amendment would also modify the restitution provision to make it comply with the requirements of criminal law. The courts have said that a restitution order in a criminal context must be logically related to the objectives of sentencing. The courts have held that a restitution is part of the overall punishment and must consider the total impact of the punishment, as well as the impact of the restitution order on the rehabilitation of the offender.

The Supreme Court of Canada has said that restitution orders should not be made where there is any serious contest on legal or factual issues about damages. That is why there is a requirement in the general restitution provisions in section 738 of the criminal code that the damages must be readily ascertainable.

Symmetry, clarity and certainty in the law is achieved if the restitution order in the context of law enforcement animals is similar to the restitution provisions in Part XXIII of the criminal code regarding sentencing.

Just before I leave this part, again I would like to compliment the member for Oshawa for bringing forth his amendment and bringing it to our attention and to the attention of the committee. It certainly has been an area of concern for him and for many of our police officers who have these animals that assist in law enforcement.

I would also like to make one further comment. I believe it was again the member for Provencher who suggested that the so-called screening amendment was being advanced in a sort of underhanded or less than straightforward way. I would simply point out the fact that this amendment was advanced in Bill C-15A, was considered by the justice committee and this House, was voted on I believe by the government as well as by the official opposition and passed.

It has gone through. We looked at it for roughly six months. It has been considered by the committee. We heard witnesses on it, and it certainly cannot be said that we are doing anything in a perhaps less than straightforward manner. It has been dealt with under Bill-15A and that party voted for Bill-15A.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-15. I come from an agricultural area. I am proud of that. I make as much mention of it as I possibly can.

Many of my friends are both ranchers and farmers. They live on the land. Animals are a big part of their lives. These are people who spend their time, especially in the spring, going out at night to check their animals and spend time with them. They spend their days gearing their lives to their animals. They go out in the middle of winter in the thickest of blizzards to find their animals when they need to. They love their way of life and what it is all about. It can also be said that they love their animals.

My wife has an uncle who has cattle. I had cattle for a few years myself. One time I was telling him about the curse of owning the beasts. He commented that “Cows know what they need to know in order to be cows”. I have found that to be true. That is about all they know but it is enough for them.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have had the opportunity to calve out cows. I see you are nodding in the affirmative. We all know what an experience it can be. We go out in the middle of the night and find a cow that is trying to calve and having problems. We try to convince her to find her way into the barn when she wants to go in the other direction or anywhere but where we would like her to. We get her in the barn. She is fighting against calving but we manage to get the chains on and pull out the calf. We all know the feeling of satisfaction that comes from that. I have friends who have done it many times over the years and who do it very well.

I farmed for 25 years before I had the privilege of coming here. I only know of one case of what I would call animal abuse. In our part of the world which is southwestern Saskatchewan when there is abuse of animals the rural municipality is normally responsible for coming in. In the case I am thinking of an older person was no longer able to look after her animals. She had quit feeding them properly. My father-in-law happened to be the reeve at the time and was responsible. The rural municipality went in, seized the animals, got them the food and water they needed and was then responsible for selling the animals.

In 25 years of farming and 40 plus years of living in a rural community this is the only example I can only talk about in our area where people had trouble looking after their animals or were neglecting them.

This is why I have such a concern about the legislation. The definition of an animal would be changed. I think it has been put forward by people who are out of touch and have little information or connection with animals or animal life. The new definition is extremely broad. It describes an animal as:

--a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

The new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never before been provided this kind of protection.

I have not heard a lot of discussion about the definition but it strikes me that there is a bizarre aspect to it. The definition centres on the capacity to feel pain. I do not know if members have thought about it but I have never heard a definition that defined something by its capacity to feel pain.

This suggests that the people who came up with the definition have their own agenda. We heard that in committee where animal rights organizations made it clear they would take the legislation to the limit when they get the opportunity by challenging people about their animal care.

Moving the animal cruelty provisions from property offences to a new and separate section would elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the court. I assume that is the goal of the people defining them, but it is not a goal we need. Through the centuries and the millennia animals have been seen as property. We are now faced with a substantial change in their legal position.

The Lawyers Weekly has written that we have upgraded the standing of animals to creatures deserving of protection in their own right because of their capacity to suffer. This comes back to what I was saying. The definition is a strange one with a political agenda behind it.

The changes that the legislation will bring about would have a tremendous impact for many who are dependent upon agriculture and animals for their livelihoods, such as farmers and ranchers who are very responsible in dealing with their animals. Hunters obviously at some point will also be impacted by the legislation. Groups are already saying they will use this against hunters who hunt for the sake of sport and for conservation.

It is very interesting that we are moving into an area where we talk more and more about the environment, how important it is and how we need the government to interfere in it. I will talk a bit here about the agriculture department and its commitment to doing that as well.

We now have more animal life than we have ever had in my area. Over the last few years the farming communities have become much more responsible because of some of the changes in the hunting regulations. We are getting to the point where a lot of animals are becoming pests. I heard other MPs talking about deer coming into their backyards and eating the fruit off their apple trees and coyotes bothering their domestic animals and those kinds of things. The other day a Banff news report said it was having trouble. People were being told to make sure they did not act like prey because of the cougars, which are only too happy to look at people in that way.

Another group the legislation will affect is aboriginal people. I know they have a cultural connection to the wildlife and to their history which involved that. If the legislation is applied fairly across the country, it will also impact on them.

One of the most bizarre things about the entire legislation is the definition. We are in a situation now where animals will have more protection than human beings. In particular I am thinking of fetuses in their mothers' wombs. Research has consistently shown that fetuses react to pain and that they pull away from it. There are a number of videos that have been made showing the impact of them being torn from the womb and being destroyed. They react against the invasion of the womb by trying to get away. I would suggest that that probably is suffering as well.

We are walking into a situation where the government is willing to protect animal life at a level that it certainly is not extending for human beings. What are we coming to? We have some strange things happening in our country.

One amendment which has been put forward is the provision that a person must be acting willfully or recklessly in killing or harming animals. That is an improvement over the original bill, but it begins to leave the responsibility for determining these kinds of things to the courts. We have seen some of the present rulings by the courts, which do not leave a lot of us with great comfort. The judiciary is becoming more and more under the influence of many different radical pressures and organizations.

Another amendment, Motion No. 5, which was put forward by the member for Selkirk--Interlake, suggested applying generally accepted standards to animal treatment rather than the willfully or recklessly clause as suggested by the government. My colleague from the NDP said that he had some concerns about that. I do not think we have to say that if one small community does something then we call that generally accepted standards. However amending the clause as suggested in Motion No. 5 is a good option.

Farmers are being pushed from every side these days. They are trying to make a living. In many ways it seems like our agriculture department is more concerned about pushing environmental issues than it is about protecting agricultural producers. Farmers, as agricultural producers, do not ask for special treatment and they are not asking for special treatment with the bill either.

In conclusion, the Alliance members have had some positive suggestions. We have offered a number of solutions and presented a number of good amendments. I would like to suggest that we keep part XI in the code as it presently is. Just leave things alone. The law is working well. We need to enforce it. We are in favour of increasing the penalties if need be. Let us do that, but let us enforce it and apply it in those few situations where we have problems.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has supported the bill throughout, including some of the amendments that went through at committee stage. We supported it because we felt it was important.

We are at one of those times in our evolution as a society when we recognize that animals should be treated differently from other physical property. We should therefore create new provisions in our criminal law system for dealing with them. The underlying principle of Bill C-15B is one we strongly support.

We have heard a lot of criticism of the bill from the other opposition parties. However let us look at the section that would establish what an offence is. The terminology the bill uses and the behaviour and conduct it would prohibit make it hard to imagine there would be negative impacts anywhere near the extent suggested by some members of the House.

I grew up in a farming community. Just about all farmers I have ever had contact with were proud of the work they did and careful about the way they treated their animals. However that was not 100%. We have all heard stories and known of incidents where animals were not treated properly. The bill would go some distance in addressing how to deal with that type of conduct.

Some suggest Bill C-15B would inhibit the farming industry and hunters. That is not the case. It would prohibit behaviour that as a civilized society we are no longer prepared to tolerate. To suggest it would wipe out the hunting industry in Canada is fearmongering. To suggest it would seriously impede farming operations is not accurate.

With regard to the amendments that have been proposed, the first one would eliminate the whole intent of the bill. It would take out the willful and reckless conduct that leads to prohibited conduct. It is not a motion we can support given that it would remove the philosophical underpinnings of the bill.

Motion No. 5 would introduce the concept of generally accepted industry standards. When I saw this I asked whether it meant that if a puppy mill had industry standards we would work to those. If a course of conduct is not acceptable by general standards in other parts of the country but is acceptable in a local community, are we stuck with having to live with it? These are not the kinds of criteria we want in the bill.

A member of the Alliance Party talked about government Motion No. 6 that deals with how someone would be prosecuted should a police animal be injured or killed. We supported the amendment. We were not prepared to live with the wording that was there before. We supported the amendment because in such circumstances we need a concept of mens rea.

The bill did not have it before. This would introduce it. It is an appropriate amendment for dealing with situations where individuals are attacked by police animals or vice versa.

We had a provision before that would not have introduced any concept of mens rea or intent. It was more a negligence type of concept. In those circumstances it was not appropriate. We are quite happy the minister has seen fit to move the amendment.

We have heard significant criticism by the Alliance member from Manitoba about the screening process the minister proposes to introduce. I have difficulty with that criticism. As a former justice minister in that province the member should be aware that it is quite common to put a screening process in place whether it is done by a federal attorney general or a provincial justice minister.

We have done so when dealing with prosecutions for impaired driving, spousal and child abuse, and assault. We have done it for proper policy reasons: to use the system more efficiently, more appropriately and in most cases more extensively.

To deal with the fear people rightly have of the potential for frivolous prosecutions it is appropriate to put a screening mechanism into place. It will probably not be there forever. Assuming the bill gets passed into law, as we get decisions from the courts and it becomes clear what charges are appropriate the screening process will no longer be necessary.

The screening process is not a big deal. It is appropriate to deal with the fear, some of which is unfounded but which is out there in some communities, that extremists on the animal rights side of the equation would bring frivolous charges and people would be forced to hire lawyers and incur the costs of defending themselves.

We have a system across the country that allows charges to be screened out by a justice of the peace before they are laid. That methodology can be employed here successfully and appropriately.

In its totality the bill, like any other bill, is not perfect. It has been drafted by humans. Could it be done better? Perhaps it could, but I do not share some of the accusations against it. The former attorney general for Manitoba said the defences are no longer available. The defence of necessity is always available. I learned that in law school and have studied it through. It is still there.

If one is in a hunting or camping situation and is attacked by an animal, a bear in particular, one has the right to defend oneself. This includes killing the animal if that is the only way to preserve one's health and safety.

The provisions are still there. Members are suggesting we must write them into the section. They are not necessary. Nor are a number of the other amendments. The provisions are already in the bill. The amendments are not appropriate for what the bill is attempting to do.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address Bill C-15B. The title of the bill is an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

This bill was introduced at first reading on March 14, 2001, and at second reading on May 3 and 7, but it was not reviewed in committee before the summer recess of the 37th parliament.

The bill was split in two. It was the government's response to hundreds of letters and thousands of signatures from people asking for a more effective act regarding treatment, protection and penalties relating to animal cruelty.

Since most of the provisions of the criminal code on these issues dated back to the late 19th century, a growing number of associations and groups called for the legislation to be modernized, for the scope of the various offences to be considerably broadened, and for harsher penalties to be imposed for animal cruelty offences.

Because there is considerable support for a reform of the part of the criminal code dealing with animal cruelty, Bill C-15B gives rise to strong reactions and conflicting interests.

Initially, the Bloc Quebecois supported several elements of the bill, including the creation of a new part in the criminal code, which would see the transfer of provisions dealing with animals from part XI of the code, entitled “Wilful and Forbidden Acts in Respect of Certain Property”, to a new part 5.1, entitled “CrueIty to Animals”. However, the Bloc Quebecois can no longer support the bill, because it does not protect, among others, the legitimate activities of breeders, farmers, researchers, hunters and so on.

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

However, while the Minister of Justice claims that the bill does not deprive the animal industry from its revenues, it would have been important to specify this in the legislation, so as to reassure the animal, farming, medical and sports industry regarding any risk of frivolous action.

This was not done. The minister simply amended the bill by adding the defences in paragraph 8(3) of the criminal code. The minister and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights rejected the Bloc Quebecois' amendments, which would have explicitly added as a defence acting with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

The Bloc Quebecois was in favour of the bill in principle if it could have been amended to reflect the means of defence earlier allowed in part XI of the criminal code. That is why the Bloc Quebecois asked that the means of defence in article 429 of the criminal code be added explicitly to new part 5.1 of the criminal code.

According to my colleague, who defended this position in committee, these amendments were not accepted by the government members. In all committees, all we hear from these members is no, no, no.

The Bloc Quebecois is also opposed to the bill because it seeks to take away a number of powers and responsibilities which now fall under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and give them to the chief firearms officer.

Since the gun registration scheme was first introduced, the Government of Quebec has set up agencies responsible for issuing permits—the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec. Briefly, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill because it does not explicitly protect the legitimate activities of the animal industry, hunters and those doing research, and it takes away the Government of Quebec's authority to enforce the Firearms Act.

Bill C-15B contains the present provisions of the criminal code concerning cruelty to animals and adds a number of new provisions. Since animals are now considered goods and not human beings, the offences and recourses possible are essentially minor.

Enforcement of the legislation as it now stands results only in damages for loss of goods. In addition, because sentences are lenient, they encourage repeat offences. Animal rights groups have repeatedly called for better protection with respect to cruelty to animals. Respect for human beings begins with respect for animals.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of increased protection for animals, but only provided there is protection for legitimate activities involving animals, animal husbandry, sport hunting and fishing, and research. Such is not the case, even after the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, for all of them were rejected. The purpose of those amendments was to improve this aspect of the bill.

The initial premise has to be that all those involved directly or indirectly in the livestock industry judge this bill unacceptable in its present form. For the great majority of them, these new provisions are likely to increase the possibility of criminal charges against those who work in the industry or who engage in recreational activities such as hunting and fishing.

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

I would also like to mention that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is asking that the current wording of the provisions of Bill C-15B regarding cruelty to animals not be kept as is, but that it be amended to provide the agri-food sector with the legal protection that its members currently enjoy under the criminal code. It is a protection they deserve.

In conclusion, producers are asking for the protection of their livelihood and for the assurance that they will not be prosecuted for activities related to their work. The definition of animal could be a source of problems.

I would like to conclude by saying that the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois would have clarified certain provisions of the bill and would have made a clear distinction between hunters and people who voluntarily hurt animals just for the sake of seeing them suffer.

Unfortunately, the federal government has shown again its unwillingness to listen and its conviction that it knows it all. Had it been open to our excellent amendments, we could have supported this bill. However, such was not the case, and we will vote against the bill, because it needed to be improved.

It is obvious, with Bill C-27, Bill C-36, the one regarding marine conservation areas and all the bills that come before the House, that the government does not want to listen. It sees the opposition as totally useless.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to take part in the report stage of Bill C-15B.

I come from a rural riding. From my rural perspective, the bill is a threat to the livelihood of the people who live in my riding. It is certainly a dangerous and unnecessary move to take this out of the property section of the criminal code.

This afternoon we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice say that the government's poll indicated somehow that Canadians support this. Unfortunately this is one of those bills that divide rural and urban Canadians.

We all know that the majority of Canadians, 75%, perhaps 85%, live in urban settings. Urban residents' optics and perspectives on animals are very different. There is a difference in optics in how they see their pets compared to the perspective of those who make a living raising animals.

I must say first that I had the opportunity to sit in on the justice meeting and listen to the witnesses on the bill, witnesses who came from the medical research community, the animal rights community and the trapping association. I must say that this bill is not about cruelty to animals legislation. This is a bill that moves toward the humanization of animals in the country.

The medical researchers in our universities are very concerned. They are concerned about the ways in which they use animals to do medical research for our benefit, for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, and for our children's benefit.

As well, the trapping association is concerned even though they have humane traps. With new technology, trappers have changed their methodology. This whole issue of trapping affects the aboriginal community in my riding. I have 15 aboriginal bands in my riding. They have a right to trap and hunt. Many still make their livelihoods through trapping. They say the bill puts them at risk. In fact we need to remind the House that this country was built on the trapping and trading of the beaver pelt. If that had not taken place this country would probably never have been developed.

I must remind the government members in the House that the agricultural industry in Ontario is second in terms of dollars to the auto industry. Those members must be told that again and again. If they do not believe that the bill and these amendments are a threat to the agricultural industry, certainly for those who raise chickens, hogs and other animals we consume, they are basically ignoring what is happening.

I come from a rural riding where farming, the raising of cattle, swine, chicken, elk and horses, as well as trapping are the economic backbone of Dauphin--Swan River. I hope this will be addressed by government members.

Tens of thousands of chickens and cows are slaughtered every day for human consumption. We have heard Liberal members talk about the debate over suffering and pain. That is an ongoing debate. The problem is, once we take this out of the property section of the criminal code and start perceiving animals from the perspective of humanity, then we are really on the slippery slope to something we may regret down the road.

I will relate to the House my own experience. Over 20 years ago I raised weanling pigs. One has to castrate pigs while they are still small weanlings. If urbanites watched me castrating these little weanling pigs in a barn, what would they think about cruelty to animals? Their optics would certainly be different from my optics.

In fact, tourism in my riding is a huge part of the economy. The bill would attack tourism in regard to the of hunting of wild game. Again, this relates to hunting by aboriginal people. I have not heard anyone speak on behalf of the aboriginal community today. Their traditional hunting patterns are put at risk by the bill.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

Today we are debating the motions in amendment that have been tabled. We have heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice refute, reject and announce clearly that the Liberal majority will oppose the motions tabled, which we are currently debating, with the exception of Motion No. 6, tabled by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Obviously, it is fair to think, and I say this to my learned colleague, whose Motion No. 4 was rejected, that the Minister of Justice alone is right in this parliament and that all those tabling amendments, with the exception of the Minister of Justice, have them rejected.

It is especially important since Motion No. 7, which I tabled, was further to Motion No. 6 of the Minister of Justice, who wanted particular attention paid to law enforcement animals.

Given their nature and the cost of training them and so on, the bill provides for substantial fines for those who, out of cruelty, destroy these animals.

My Motion No. 7 reads as follows:

(1) In this section, “service animal” means a dog or any other animal used by a person with a disability.

The parliamentary secretary says very candidly that we must protect animals, as suggested in the motion of the Minister of Justice. The minister's motion protects law enforcement animals. However, the Bloc Quebecois motion to protect a service animal is not accepted by parliament, because there is no clear definition of a person with a disability.

We heard a lot of things in the past year, but this takes the cake. I cannot believe that we would have to justify the term “disability”, or the expression “a person with a disability”. People with a disability should not have to come to the House or wherever to explain the nature of their disability.

Again, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is lacking sensitivity when he says that this motion about a “service animal” cannot be accepted, because the definition of a person with a disability is too vague. This is an insult to all Quebecers and Canadians who have a disability.

We are not yet at the division stage, but as far as the Minister of Justice's proposal goes, relating to protection for a law enforcement animal, I trust that hon. members will understand that the same protection is being requested for a service animal, meaning a dog or any other animal used by a person with a disability.

I trust that the same protection and same penalties will be set for those who might harm these animals, which are so very useful to those badly in need of them in our democratic and free society.

Once again, we have a fine example of the mentality of the Liberal government, which announced “Zero. We are keeping none of these”. They are the only possessors of the truth.

What is more, it is not just anybody who holds the power. The Liberal member who has just seen his Motion No. 4 defeated has seen very clearly that the only person entitled to settle all differences of opinion in this House is the Minister of Justice. She is probably the only one capable of understanding how parliament works and the only one deemed capable of settling differences and ensuring, in the end, that there is protection for animals and all those who call upon the House for protection.

Once again, I repeat to Quebecers and Canadians that there are some things that are acceptable and tolerable. But there are others that are less so, and we have a striking example of that before us.

The only motion that gets passed is the motion by the Minister of Justice on the protection of law enforcement animals. Among the others rejected was mine, for the protection of “service animals, that is a dog or other animal used by a person with a disability.

As for this, I simply cannot understand why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice came to explain to us that the problem with the motion was basically the fact that the expression person with a disability was not clear. They are worried that people without a disability will ask for protection under this clause of the bill.

There are some things I am prepared to hear in the House, but there are others that really have me stymied, and the Liberal members never cease to surprise me.

We have been told that the motions we moved will be rejected. Therefore members ought not to be surprised that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill if it is not amended.

People need to understand. The Bloc Quebecois agreed to the legislation being amended, that there be a bill to amend the criminal code, in order to increase intolerance of persons who are cruel toward animals, or those who misuse firearms.

We had wanted to support the bill. The bill, as introduced, has some problems—I mentioned one—regarding service animals. But there are problems as regards ranchers, farmers, hunters and researchers.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary spoke to us about amendments to section 8.3 of the criminal code moved in committee. This is an amendment by my colleague, the member for Châteauguay, an expert on the criminal code.

His amendment stated quite simply that ranchers, farmers, hunters and fishers should have the right to a defence of justification or an authorized excuse and colour of right.

Bill C-15B, as introduced, removes the right of defence from ranchers, farmers, hunters and researchers.

Today, the parliamentary secretary even said that although it was not explicitly laid out in the legislation, there would still be the same effect, that we must not worry and that even if the amendment were rejected, the result would be the same in the end.

In law, clarity is vital. I find fault with the Liberal majority, the Liberal members who sit on committee, who failed to understand that we really wanted to protect producers, farmers, hunters and fishers, many of whom earn their living in the animal production field so they would feel comfortable practicing their profession, their sport. The aim is to ensure reasonable and fair defence. We are talking legal justification, excuse or colour of right.

This is the reason for Amendment No. 8, which provides for access to experts for these people, in the event they are charged under this bill, to explain to them how to carry on their sport or their work without being charged with cruelty to animals.

We must always be able to express our opinions in the House or in committee with arguments that are neither unreasonable nor frivolous, as the Chair has said. They do not want frivolous amendments, and none was moved with respect to Bill C-15B. That is the fact of the matter.

The government is trying to get us to believe this bill says something it does not.

The Bloc Quebecois will oppose the bill simply because there is no guarantee to producers, farmers, researchers and hunters of legal justification, excuse or colour of right.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-15B be amended by deleting Clause 9.

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

Mr. Speaker, the amendments we are putting forward are an effort to make the bill better and reflect what is needed in Canada by way of protection for animals but also for the protection of the livestock industry in this country, the way of life of hunters, trappers, fishermen, and all those who use animals in the normal course of earning their livelihood or in their cultural way of life. Across the country this includes hunting and other pursuits that happen to involve animals.

Motion No. 1 is a reflection of the fact that we in the Canadian Alliance would like to have full protection for the livestock industry up front. By up front I mean that in the bill itself it is clearly and explicitly stated that farmers and ranchers can carry out their normal activities without fear of malicious prosecution.

Mr. Owen has advanced the idea, and it is in Bill C-15A a related bill, that there would be a preliminary hearing type of situation where a complaint or criminal charge is laid by a private individual. There would be a court process by which the informant, the private individual, could go before the judge. The attorney general of the province would be there. This process would determine whether or not it was a vexatious, malicious type of prosecution. It specifically says that the person accused does not necessarily have to be there.

It seems that the person who is the subject of the information complaint, the person charged, would be absent. In any court proceeding that I am aware of, it is vital that the accused be able to protect himself from a legal point of view at all stages of the complaint. In an information and complaint that is malicious and vexatious in nature, by an animal rights group for instance, what will happen is that group will be at an in camera hearing and the charge will be thrown out because it is malicious and vexatious. However, it will never come to the public view that the animal welfare groups are trying to use the law to cause problems for the livestock industry.

My amendment would delete clause 8. It seems to me if we cannot have full protection for our livestock industry and users of animals, we would be better off staying with the present legislation which is in effect until it is repealed and this legislation is put in its place. The purpose of the motion is to delete the cruelty to animals amendments and leave the law as it is until the government can come up with better cruelty to animals amendments.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-15B, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 6 the following:

“182.7(1) In this section, “service animal” means a dog or any other animal used by a person with a disability.

(2) Every one commits an offence who

(a) assaults, injures or causes the death of a service animal; or

(b) assaults, injures, causes the death of or poisons, or in any way attempts to poison, a service animal while it is kenneled, penned, transported or otherwise held.

(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (2)(a) or (b) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or emprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months or both.

(4) The court, in addition to any sentence that it may impose under subsection (3), must order the offender to pay all restitution costs, including training costs, resulting from the service animal's being killed or otherwise rendered unable to perform its duties.”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-15B, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 6 the following:

“182.8 The court may order the production of any additional evidence or the issuance of a summons to any persons, including experts, whose testimony the court considers appropriate or necessary to confirm evidence relating to any section in this Part.”

[Bob Nault, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-15B, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 43 on page 5 and lines 1 to 16 on page 6 with the following:

“182.6 (1) In this section, “law enforcement animal” means a dog, a horse or any other animal used by a peace officer or public officer in the execution of their duties.

(2) Every one commits an offence who wilfully or recklessly poisons, injures or kills a law enforcement animal while it is aiding or assisting a peace officer or public officer engaged in the execution of their duties or a person acting in aid of such an officer.

(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (2) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months, or to both.

(4) The court may, in addition to any other sentence that it may impose under subsection (3), order the accused to pay all reasonable costs associated with the loss of or injury to the law enforcement animal as a result of the commission of the offence if the costs are readily ascertainable.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-15B, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 3 with the following:

“who, wilfully or recklessly, and in contravention of generally accepted industry standards,”

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-15B, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 3 with the following:

“other animal that has the capacity to experience pain.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-15B be amended by deleting Clause 8.

[The Speaker]

There are nine motions in amendment on the notice paper at report stage of Bill C-15B.

Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will not be selected by the Chair as they are identical to motions proposed and defeated in committee. All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions and amendments at report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 and 4 to 9 will be grouped for debate. The voting pattern is available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 and 4 to 9 to the House.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with Bill C-24, the organized crime legislation, which is currently before the House, and at least consider the Senate's amendments to Bill C-24.

This will be followed by Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments, as I announced yesterday to the House leaders of the other parties.

Then, if there is any time remaining today, we will continue with Bill C-27, the nuclear safety bill.

Tomorrow, we hope to pass Bill C-46, the ignition interlock device bill sponsored by the Minister of Justice, at all stages. I thank the leaders of all parties for having consented to move this through all stages before the holidays.

We will then call report stage and second reading of Bill C-23, the competition legislation. If there is any time left tomorrow, we will turn to report stage and third reading of Bill C-43, the technical amendments bill.

On Monday, we will return to the bills I have listed, and those that have not been completed, that is unfinished business from today and tomorrow.

I would remind hon. members that the budget will be presented at 4 p.m. on Monday, of course, and the budget debate, that is the debate on the amendment to the amendment—in the improbable event of some hon. members wishing to propose an amendment to the amendment—would take place on Tuesday and Wednesday, with division at the end of the day, on Wednesday.

The business scheduled for Thursday and Friday of next week, if the House is sitting, would be Bill C-42.

Petitions

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions dealing with the wanton cruelty to or torture of animals. The petitioners feel that it is a serious criminal offence and that the penalties should reflect that. They call upon parliament to pass Bill C-15B forthwith.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, now that the committees have reported. There has been consultation among House leaders and I believe you would find unanimous consent to the following order to offer convenience to hon. members. I move:

That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice, the report stages of Bill C-15B and Bill C-44 may be taken up on or after Thursday, December 6.

In other words, the bills that were just reported could be taken up tomorrow.

Committees of the House

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to its order of reference of Wednesday, September 26, the committee has considered Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act and has agreed to report it with amendment. I thank members of the committee and staff for great work in very short order.

Strychnine Solutions

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is again an honour to stand in the House and debate issues that are of concern to the people of Crowfoot, to western Canada and I am sure to all Canada.

The picture is a serene one. The picture is one of a lake, the sun setting and the call of the loon whistling out over the twilight and through the calm of the day at the close of sunset. It is the song of peace and happiness as well as of western Canada and Alberta.

The song of the loon is not the song that has the people of Crowfoot worried. The song that has the people of Crowfoot worried is the little squeak of a gopher or Richardson's ground squirrel. It is a beautiful little tune, is it not? For some that little tune is not one of beauty but of horror with increased frequency. In fact not only is it sung by the gophers, but by hundreds of farmers who sit in their trucks trying to whistle a gopher up a hole so they can rid the world of one of the worst pests the agricultural sector of western Canada has.

For me to stand in the House and try to create a picture of the threat of the Richardson's ground squirrel or the gopher on farming communities would not bring justice to it. I would not do a good job.

This past year was my first year as a member of parliament. I live and work as a farmer and have cattle on my little ranch. I have spent a lot of my time in Ottawa and throughout my constituency. I have not obviously spent the time on my farm that I would have liked. One of the very first things I realized when I went home in the spring was that we had a huge gopher problem. This is not something new. It has been around for a long time. We know the damage the Richardson's ground squirrel or the gopher can do on an agricultural operation.

In the fall or spring when we walk out on our farms and see the huge patches of crop or pasture that have been eaten down and destroyed, we realize that we have a problem. This is not a problem of little animals. It is a problem of economy. This a problem of the bottom line, margins and trying to make it. When we see literally hundreds and hundreds of gophers in a very small pasture, we recognize we have a problem.

Why do I say hundreds and hundreds? When a person buys a box of 22 gauge shells there are 50 in a box. When that person puts four or five boxes in the ashtray of his or her pick-up truck, continuously loads the rifle and runs out of shells after having shot 100 gophers, that person realizes there are probably three or four times that many that are never seen. It is a huge problem.

I thank the member for Lakeland for being so adamant in bringing this bill to the House. I went around my constituency calling on many municipal governments. As a new member, I wondered what the concerns would be of municipal governments or counties like Provost or Flagstaff or many of the special areas in my riding. It was not going to be housing so much. A lot of it was the family farm and agricultural concerns. When I visited those municipal counties, offices and governments, by far the largest issue brought forward was the problem with gophers and the fact that the strychnine poison, or gopher poison as we call it, had been taken off the market.

There was a recess in the debate on the bill. The government eventually came forward with strychnine last year but it was a little too late. Although there was some definite advantage to having it, the farming community needed the strychnine poison at the right time, which was when gophers were breeding and the young were being raised. This was the concern that my constituents and councillors in many different counties brought forward.

We stand in the House many times and we talk about bills. We bring forward evidence that we use to build a debate. We use evidence to bring forward our arguments.

When we go to Motion No. P-3 and the decision of the government to remove the 5% strychnine from shelves across western Canada, we look for evidence. We ask the government, why would it remove poison that the farmers and those involved in agriculture depend on? We would say, show us the science.

The member for Lakeland has continually brought this problem to the House. I asked him to please show me the science and the reason that the government gives for pulling the use of strychnine. The concern the hon. member brought forward was that there just is no evidence. Science has not proven that there is any huge risk to the environment, but the government pulled it regardless. This huge decision was made but no evidence was brought forward.

We look at issues. We look at bills. We look at legislation that hurts. There are many different pieces of legislation the government has brought forward. I will go back to Bill C-68. I do not believe there has ever been a bill that has divided urban and rural like Bill C-68 has. It has hurt the farmer, the rancher in central Alberta and all across Canada. It has hurt them. Bill C-68 has given the farmers and ranchers the feeling that the government believes they are the criminals in waiting, so to speak.

The government said Bill C-68 was going to cost $85 million. It has ended up costing $685 million. My constituents ask why does the government not care? Why does the government not care about what is happening out west?

Now there is Bill C-15B regarding cruelty to animals. Bill C-15B will put at risk my constituents, the farmers, the ranchers, the individuals who raise cattle and hogs and the individuals who make a livelihood from that. Different individuals have come forward as witnesses and said that the bill will allow prosecutions to come against the agricultural sector. It is another knock, another hit, another concern that our farmers have.

I applaud the government for listening. I believe it will make amendments because I cannot believe for one moment that the government would allow the bill to pass as it is. Even the Liberal government must understand that it is absolutely saying goodbye to the west and a lot of the industries: the cattle industry, the chicken and poultry industry. It is causing much concern there. I believe the government will make amendments that will to some degree satisfy my party. I hope the government will accept our amendments.

There is no reason that the government should not be able to say that we will bring back the strychnine poisoning that would help the farmers and ranchers in dealing with one of the big threats to their crops and their economy. It would be a gesture of goodwill and good faith. I hope the government will move in that way.

I remember one day in my previous life my brother and I had to treat a sick calf. We did not think the calf could react quickly and we had to employ the rope horses that we have on the farm. Both of us went out through the pasture and began to look for the calf which had taken off into the trees. All of a sudden in a flash out came the calf. My brother spun his rope horse around and took off after the calf. He brought the rope out and all of a sudden down went the horse. Luckily I was there. My brother was not hurt, but the horse was hurt. The horse did not break a leg, but the horse was hurt. Why was the horse hurt? Because he had stepped in a badger hole.

As we watch the gopher population rise, the unfortunate thing in the part of the world where I come from is that the badger moves in and digs holes that cannot be seen by cattle and horses which step in them. For the Liberals sitting across the way, in the space from in front of the Clerk's table to that desk in the aisle for example, there could be 30 or 40 gopher holes. We are not talking about a small number.

This is a concern for the people of Crowfoot. I am out of time, so I thank the member for Lakeland for the opportunity to speak to this issue. I ask the government to please bring back the strychnine so that we can rid our farms and ranches of a huge problem.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the government is working not only here at home but abroad to deal with the problems and the horror of child pornography.

In fact we could have had laws in place protecting our children further against child pornography had the opposition and others not stonewalled the passage of Bill C-15. Months ago we could have had new laws in the country protecting our children. They should look at themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is working very hard with a number of agencies, levels of government and our allies to deal with the problem of the abuse and exploitation of children.

Let me reassure the hon. member that not only do we have provisions in the code dealing with child pornography now, Bill C-15A, which the justice committee considered some time ago and is now before the Senate, further enhances our ability to fight child pornography. We will continue to work with our allies and police forces around the world to track down--

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

They can be as upset as they want to be, but on Bill C-36, staying right on this point, it was the government House leader who stated:

I cannot say much more other than to apologize on behalf of whoever is guilty of this. I use the word guilty because that is what comes to mind, given the respect that I have for this institution. Anyone who breaches that respect is guilty of an offence in my book.

That is what the government House leader said: “Anyone who breaches that respect is guilty of an offence in my book”. The government House leader said “I believe the House leader for the Conservatives referred to this as privileged information”. Our House leader said “Actually it is more than that. It is secret in the very sense of government secrecy”.

If this is true, why did the committee conclude that no breach of privilege occurred? Why did the Liberal majority on the committee defeat two motions from the opposition that were designed to garner more information, including a motion to call as witnesses representatives of Deloitte & Touche?

When the opposition members on the committee learned that the PCO had the Deloitte & Touche report edited prior to its delivery to the committee, they moved a motion to see the unedited version and the Liberal majority defeated that motion. It is unbelievable.

I do not know how the committee will explain why it concluded that no breach of privilege had occurred when it tabled its report. If no breach had occurred, then what about the doctrine of ministerial responsibility? Who will take responsibility for the breach of secrecy? The Minister of Justice apologized for the leaking of information on Bill C-15. The government House leader has apologized to the House for the premature leaking of information on Bill C-36.

However, the contents of Bill C-42 were also leaked. Is the government expecting the House to accept another apology from another minister, if indeed that comes forward, just to move on to the next leak?

If the committee has already decided not to report that a breach of privilege has occurred, I hope the committee has the sense to address the principle of ministerial accountability.

I hope the committee follows its own advice from the Bill C-15 report, in which it concluded, then, that an apology, and this is what it said, would not be accepted if this were to happen again.

These were very disturbing elements of the whole development process of Bill C-36: leak the information ahead to get the government's own spin on it and then, when we try to respond to the spin, bring in closure and slam the door on debate. That is unacceptable.

The bill is not perfect. We have plainly identified that. I have also said throughout my speech that it is a start. As leader of the official opposition, I urge all my colleagues on this side of the House, especially those in the PC/DR coalition, to join with us and support the bill, imperfect as it is, even if we have to hold our noses at the process or at some aspects of the legislation. Canadians deserve some protection. Some is better than none.

To conclude, I would like to say again that I am disappointed in the way that the bill was conducted through the House. Canadians deserve better than this.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

There is nothing to call for order about. She took responsibility when she leaked the contents of Bill C-15. The committee charged her with contempt. That is a matter of fact. It is not a matter of order. It is a matter of disorder.

In its report on Bill C-15 the committee stated:

This incident highlights a concern shared by all members of the Committee: apparent departmental ignorance of or disrespect for the role of House of Commons and its Members. Even if the result is unintended, the House should not tolerate such ignorance within the government administration to undermine the perception of Parliament’s constitutional role in legislating. The rights of the House and its Members in this role are central to our constitutional and democratic government.

This is a severe indictment.

Then for some reason the committee decided to abandon its responsibilities in the incident related to Bill C-36, even though Deloitte & Touche, the firm hired to investigate the Bill C-36 leak, stated on page 11 of its report to the committee:

The disquieting aspect, however, is that a small portion of the article contains or alludes to information, which, at the time prior to the tabling of the bill itself, was classified secret and was subject to protection as a confidence of cabinet.

This would confirm what the government House leader stated during the debate on the question of privilege.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I do not often respond to ridiculous interjections but a Liberal member just said “what about forgiveness”. To forgive somebody who killed 3,000 people and send a message to him that, hey pal, it is not a problem, he will be up for parole; that is not forgiveness following that act, that is stupidity.

The bill does not make it illegal to be a member of a terrorist organization. Those who are thinking of fleeing to a country where they can still be a member of their terrorist organization though banned from doing so in other freedom-loving countries would be welcome here in Canada. That is ridiculous.

By saying “recognized terrorist organization”, I mean one that has met the burden of proof that is set out in the bill to be included in the list of entities. The minister maintains she has done this for the purpose of targeting terrorist acts and terrorist activity, but we are all aware that joining a terrorist organization has only one purpose: to participate in or to facilitate terrorist activity. That is the only reason for joining.

The minister has argued that banning membership may contravene the right to freedom of association. Surely our courts would rule that such misguided tolerance is an affront to the rule of law and abuse of the concept of freedom of association.

By far the most glaring omission of Bill C-36 is the minister's failure to deal with the issue of extradition. The Canadian Alliance long before September 11 had called for prompt extradition of foreign nationals who are charged with acts of terrorism. We will continue to ask the government to take steps to ensure that Canada no longer remains a safe haven for terrorists who come to Canada to escape the consequences of their actions in other countries. These terrorists should never be allowed to exist freely in our society and endanger Canadian citizens.

Canada quite rightly has earned a reputation of being welcoming to people from all over the world who want to come here to love and respect freedom and liberty, to pursue their hopes and dreams and see their children grow up to pursue and achieve their hopes and dreams. That is a reputation of which we are proud. But we also have a reputation of being a haven for those who do not respect freedom and liberties and for those who would tear freedom and liberty from others and those who would destroy life in the process and then would come to Canada knowing that our legislation would keep them from facing the consequences of their actions in other jurisdictions. That is ridiculous. That door must be slammed.

In addition to these shortcomings, unfortunately, the Liberal government has not yet allocated sufficient resources to the military, to police services or to the intelligence activities that we must have if we are going to properly fight terrorism.

It is no secret that the costs of fighting terrorism and organized crime are huge. These are huge costs. In a recent case that was prosecuted in Edmonton, it took $5 million to convict just three members of the Hell's Angels. Convicting terrorists will be no different. They will use every legal loophole and other means available to them to fight their convictions. The cost will be significant.

In a written brief submitted to the justice committee last spring, the Canadian Police Association wrote of the extraordinary fiscal consequences that the police face when they are investigating and prosecuting these kinds of crimes. They said that these fiscal consequences “defy any modern sense of efficiency or effectiveness”.

Although Bill C-36 will to some extent help to combat terrorism, this legislation in itself is not enough to effectively prevent terrorist activity on Canadian soil. Bill C-36 is only one piece of a very necessary puzzle. There need to be other issues addressed also, such as tightening our refugee determination system and giving powers to CSIS to operate overseas.

If we do not tighten our refugee determination system, then the genuine refugees, who should be here in this country experiencing freedom for the first time in their lives, will be jeopardized by those who continue to abuse the system and continue to be allowed to abuse the system because Bill C-36 will not slam the door on that abuse the way it should.

The legislation will be of no use whatsoever if we do not also have the resources in place to enforce it. Norman Inkster, the former commissioner of the RCMP, supports the bill's provisions that allow police to perform preventive arrest, as do we, but there have to be safeguards provided. He has said that other measures must be added, such as stepping up screening procedures at Canada's overseas missions and harmonizing border policies with the United States. He was clear on that and we are clear on that, as are many other associations and provinces.

Mr. Inkster believes it will be easier to deal with this issue offshore than it is to deal with the people when they are inside our borders and that makes ultimate sense. The former RCMP commissioner says that Canada should definitely be gathering information overseas and more important, Canada should be more diligent in whom we allow into the country in the first place.

Another RCMP officer, Sergeant Philippe Lapierre of the National Security Investigation Section, the counterterrorism branch of the RCMP, said at a conference on money laundering in Montreal that some people are sent here with a mission and some people come and are recruited, but once here, they all have the same modus operandi. Then he described what they do when they come here. These are the illegal ones who should not be here, who are allowed to get through and will continue to be allowed to get through by the gaping holes left in the legislation.

He also said that the first step is they claim refugee status, allowing them to remain in Canada as long as their claim is working its way through the cumbersome refugee determination process. He went on to say that the second step is to claim Canadian social benefits, applying for welfare and health cards, to ensure a stream of income. He said that the third step is to become involved in petty crime, such as theft and credit card fraud. Then he said that the fourth step is to launder their money through legal businesses that are set up as fronts. If we are to break this terrorist modus operandi, we must start at the front end and stop false refugee claimants who are security threats from getting into the country in the first place.

Every time we talk about the gaping holes in our refugee determination system, the government assures us that all will be well under the panacea of Bill C-11, but Bill C-11 was in the pipeline long before September 11. It is not a bill designed to deal with the clear and present danger of international terrorists coming into our country.

As a matter of fact, Bill C-11 creates a whole new level of appeals for refugee claimants. In some ways, it makes the matter worse. This vaunted front end screening the minister talks about simply means that we will begin security checks a few weeks earlier in a process that could take 18 months to complete just at the preliminary stage.

What is completely lacking in the bill is the kind of tough measures that are found in comparable U.S. and U.K. legislation.

If refugees arrive in the country on airplanes or on ships without documentation, they must be detained until it can be determined what their true identity is. That has to be checked against existing databases. Then and only then can a determination be made that they are not a security threat, because to have arrived here either by airplane or ship from an international destination, they had to have some kind of document or paper in their possession to get on that plane or that ship. That means somewhere in the process of coming over here, they destroyed their documents. They threw them overboard, tore them up, or did something to them. That automatically makes them suspicious. Those individuals need to be detained until they can be cleared totally of being any threat to security.

Nothing in Bill C-11 addresses these issues. Nothing in Bill C-36 and nothing in Bill C-42 addresses these issues.

In addition to dealing with potential security risks before people show up in the country, we need to provide more resources to the RCMP. The RCMP has served a vital role in the protection of Canadians over the years of our history. This national police force is a source of pride and comfort to Canadians.

Funding problems facing the RCMP during the last decade are well documented. The 2000 Conference Board of Canada report finds that in the past decade, the RCMP lost 2,200 positions and close to $175 million in funding. The report found the results of these cuts were heavy workloads, inadequate operating budgets in the field, loss of trust in senior management and officers who were overworked and demoralized.

Examples of the repercussion of Liberal funding cuts to the RCMP are all over the place. In 1999 in British Columbia the RCMP reported being understaffed and overworked. One 30 month investigation involved numerous hours of unpaid overtime due to an acute lack of financial resources. In RCMP A division, which operates in Ottawa, investigators were denied voice mail, cellphones and pagers. They were even told that they could not spend $20 for new business cards. That is no way to treat the men and women who are serving with their lives to protect Canadians.

In British Columbia the RCMP closed dozens of commercial crime files because there simply were not enough resources to investigate those files. Some officers were responding to calls with their own personal vehicles. This situation existed before September 11. Now post-September 11, we find a massive reallocation of limited resources to the fight against terrorism. What we do not see is a commitment from the government to provide long term, stable and sufficient funding for the force.

This piecemeal approach that the Liberals have taken does not address the severe shortage in human resources that is facing the RCMP. What is most disturbing however is the contradictory messages that we are receiving from the leadership of the RCMP and from those who represent the front line officers.

The front line officers have recognized the desperate situation. They are calling for action. RCMP Sergeant Mike Niebudek revealed that the new war on terrorism has put a severe strain on a force whose resources were already stretched to the limit. David Griffin, who is a Canadian Police Association representative, stated recently: “Before September 11, new squads were being created within the RCMP to deal with organized crime. That priority is being abandoned”. That is what he said. The priority of organized crime is being abandoned. That is simply unacceptable. We cannot simply drop everything that the RCMP was working on prior to September 11, but the funding situation is driving it in that direction.

Statistics Canada just released its statistics for homicide in Canada. It found that over the past five years gang related murders in Canada have more than tripled. The solicitor general must realize that the RCMP needs the resources not only for the fight on terrorism which is so important, but to continue to ensure that Canadians are protected from other threats. What will be done to ensure that in the effort to fight terrorism other responsibilities of the RCMP will not be dropped?

The RCMP has been chronically underfunded by the Liberal government. The Canadian Police Association has recognized this. It passed a resolution at its 2001 annual meeting calling on the federal government to increase funding. The resolution states:

Whereas the RCMP budget has been reduced to the point the force cannot meet its obligations in many parts of Canada,

Whereas RCMP officers are being removed from federal services to augment shortfalls in municipal and provincial complement, and

Whereas the Government of Canada does not adequately fund the RCMP budget as it pertains to areas of federal and national responsibilities, and

Whereas these responsibilities provide vital support to all police agencies in Canada.

The resolution concludes by saying:

Be it resolved that the Canadian Police Association, in co-operation with its member associations, implores the government--

Our police officers should not have to come on bended knees, begging and imploring the government. They are literally begging the Government of Canada “to provide adequate funding to the RCMP budget, to maximize the effectiveness of federal and national policing responsibilities”. The association passed that resolution before September 11.

According to Statistics Canada, there were 5,180 RCMP officers designated as federal in 1994. These officers handled criminal investigations involving organized crime, immigration fraud, money laundering and drug trafficking. Last year that number had dropped to only 4,341 personnel. That is a drop of 839 people through a period now of increased threats from terrorism and organized crime, not to mention an increase in the population.

The threats from organized crime, drug trafficking and immigration fraud did not go away after September 11. They are still here and perhaps even enhanced, yet we hear reports of up to 2,000 mounties being reassigned to investigate terrorist threats. Even Commissioner Zaccardelli has stated that the RCMP is curtailing some work as an effect of the reallocation of these human resources.

We hope the upcoming budget will address the crucial need for more resources for the RCMP. We will be watching very carefully to see that it does.

Another area where the government has shown great neglect, which the bill and actions taken by the government to date have done nothing to address, is CSIS.

Wesley Wark, a University of Toronto associate professor, who was speaking before the justice committee, said that we are at a crisis point in the evolution of Canadian security and intelligence. He believes that parliament has turned a blind eye in the past to security and intelligence matters.

I would only debate with him that parliament has not turned a blind eye to security and intelligence matters. The Canadian Alliance official opposition has had both eyes on that target. The federal government has turned its eyes away from these concerns.

The Toronto professor pointed out that while the United States spends $30 billion a year on intelligence collection and on analysis, Canada spends a laughable fragment of that sum on these matters. That is not acceptable. He also said that CSIS needs more money, something we have been pushing for a long time but to no avail. Even this expert said that money alone is not enough.

CSIS is on the front line protecting Canadians from terrorism. Over the past years CSIS has warned of the threat that terrorists pose to Canada and its allies. However, like the RCMP, funding cuts to CSIS have undermined its ability to operate effectively. According to its 2000 public report, financial resources were $244 million in 1993. In 1999 the figure was down to $179 million. The number of people working for CSIS went from 2,760 in 1993 to less than 2,000 in 1999. This represents a 40% decline in human resources for Canada's counterintelligence service. Today the budget for CSIS is only $194 million and it employs just over 2,000 people.

The lack of both human and financial resources has left the agency and its workers swamped with work, as are RCMP officers. Threat assessments are conducted in years rather than days according to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The agency simply was not a priority of the government.

According to the solicitor general's 2001 estimates, funding for CSIS would decline further, unbelievably, to $169 million in 2002. This was despite the warning that the terrorist threat to Canada and its allies was at an all time high. This was before September 11.

Paule Gauthier, chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, says that the extra $10 million that was announced for CSIS will go largely toward new equipment. What is needed is long term, reliable funding that will enable this important agency to employ the human resources necessary to deal with the mountains of information that must be processed. Dealing with potential threats expediently and efficiently is what CSIS needs to do but it is unable to do that because of the resource cuts the government has hit it with over the last years.

It is the responsibility of CSIS to perform background checks on immigrants and refugee claimants. The Security Intelligence Review Committee reports that CSIS is so overloaded with work it can take years to determine if a person poses a security threat. That is simply not acceptable. The chair of the committee, Paule Gauthier, stated that the agency needed more resources and that it was stretched to the maximum. The screening of refugees and immigrants is one of the most important elements in this fight against terrorism and it requires adequate human resources.

The government's priorities simply must change. We all know the Liberal leadership race is on and the ministers seem to be funding their own pet projects to the detriment of Canada's security. We continue to hear, regardless of what is leaked out in the headlines, that the Minister of Industry wants $1.5 billion for broad band Internet access. Canadians already lead most other nations in the world in terms of personally making the choice to get on the Internet and to have their own personal computers at home. Canadians have done this on their own initiative and yet the minister wants $1.5 billion to enhance chat lines.

The Minister of Justice has asked for an additional $114 million to top up the over $500 million that taxpayers have had to pay out for a firearms registry system that simply is not working.

To put these costs in perspective, we must remember that the total budget for CSIS is under $200 million. We have been told that the accumulated cost of the firearms registry system, which is not working, will be $685 million this year. Where are the priorities? We ask people to think in these terms: $200 million for the war on terrorism and $685 million for the war on duck hunters. The government has to get its priorities in order.

The government must address CSIS funding if Bill C-36 is to be effective at all and not simply a paper tiger.

CSIS also needs, to quote Dr. Wark:

--talent and expertise, and, above all, highly-trained analysts to make sense of the information that is going to be collected by Canadian operatives and be passed to Canada, if we stay in the alliance game, by our allies.

That is absolutely necessary.

He went on to say:

--making sense of the information that comes into a security and intelligence community, putting the pieces of the puzzle together, analysing it well, packaging it in a credible way that will be read and understood.

It is equally and vitally important in Dr. Wark's perspective.

Dr. Wark also believes that there is an enormous deficiency in terms of the way in which intelligence gets to cabinet level for decision making. I feel like making an analogy about intelligence and cabinet level decision making but I am resisting. Dr. Wark ponders the idea of the creation of a cabinet level ministerial position responsible for national security and intelligence. I am not saying I am completely in agreement at this time with that proposition but I do think we need to bring together all the departments responsible for analytical issues in the security and intelligence field. That definitely has to happen.

Furthermore, concurring with the Toronto professor, I believe we need a foreign secret service capacity. Right now under the CSIS Act, CSIS has a restricted mandate for collecting foreign intelligence. That is not good enough today in the war on terrorism.

Dr. Wark goes on to say:

We need such a capacity for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to allow Canada to continue to play a role as an independent actor in the global intelligence business; and, in addition, to allow Canada to maintain its place at the allied intelligence table, which has historically been so vital to any of the successes it has had in that field.

If Canada is not there carrying the weight and carrying the freight, it will be excluded from a position of prominence around that intelligence gathering table internationally. We cannot afford that.

Former RCMP commissioner, Norman Inkster, and former CSIS deputy director, James Corcoran, believe that the CSIS Act requires a full overhaul and they have therefore urged the government to review that 1984 act, and we agree with them.

Under Bill C-36, the CSIS Act has received a minor amendment in that it adds the terms “religious or ideological” to the definition of a security threat. I do not see bin Laden and his troops shivering in fear when they read that.

Appearing before the Senate defence committee, both Inkster and Corcoran said “within Canada needs to be removed from the act to give CSIS a clear international mandate”.

So again, there are still large weaknesses in the powers that are given to the RCMP and to CSIS under the bill, and there is still no guarantee that the resources they will need to be effective, even with this somewhat weakened bill, will be there for them.

Nonetheless, there are provisions in the bill which we support, as I have said, and we will vote for the bill on third reading despite the shabby way the government has dealt with it in the House.

These elements are of grave concern to Canadians, especially in the area of supporting those security forces that need to be there for us.

In 1998, CSIS stated that some 50 international terrorist groups were operating in Canada and that the names included some of the most deadly enemies of peace and democracy in the world today. Some of the groups that were banned by the British terrorism act of 2000 and are known to have operated, and do operate in Canada, are the Babbar Khalsa, the International Sikh Youth Federation, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Kurdistan Workers Party and the Irish Republican Army.

The Kelly report, a recent report from the Senate special committee, stated in 1999 that Canada was a primary venue of opportunity to support, plan or mount terrorist attacks, contrary to what some people wishfully think.

What happened in New York City can happen here, perhaps even worse. Attacks like the New York City attack could be planned and orchestrated from Canadian soil by groups attempting to take advantage of the weaknesses of our legislation.

In 1999, Canada signed the UN international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. We need to do more. We need to take extra steps in that regard.

If a government like the United States seeks people accused of terrorism in Canada, we must be convinced that there is reasonable evidence. This is a very important point.

I know some of our colleagues in the House have some sensitivity on this. If there is reasonable evidence, we should turn terrorists over, regardless of the fact that they may face a penalty in that country, for instance in the United States, that would not apply here. That move would require a change in Canadian law to send a signal to terrorists that they cannot take advantage of Canada to avoid facing justice for their crimes.

One can only imagine the outrage if one of the perpetrators of the acts in New York City and Washington, perhaps even the criminal mastermind who so carefully co-ordinated the flight schedules of the terrorists, found his way to Canada and we found ourselves unable to extradite such a person to the United States to face justice. Canadian law must address this possibility now because Canadian citizens will demand it.

Before concluding I must turn to address my friends in the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition. The Canadian Alliance was pleased that they supported our September 18 motion calling for tough anti-terrorism legislation. At the time and in the days immediately following September 11, they did seem to stand with us in supporting tough action on terrorism, but as the days went by various interest groups started criticizing the bill for giving Canadian police the same kinds of powers as those of police in the United States, Britain and Europe. The interest groups say there are valid concerns about information and privacy rights under the bill and say that we need parliamentary review.

We are pleased that the government has made some amendments in the area, but Canadians deserve tough anti-terrorism legislation to protect them. Our police deserve the powers and resources they need to break up terrorist cells in Canada. Our biggest concern is that the bill is not tough enough in some areas and does nothing to provide the resources that our police and security services need.

Very soon we will all have a fundamental choice. Our colleagues in the PC/DRC will have a fundamental choice. Will they stand with the lobbyists and special interest groups who do not believe in giving police officers the powers they need to do their job or will they stand up for the safety and security of Canadians and our allies? That will be the vital question that we will be asking today, tomorrow and in the days ahead.

We have asked for and received, not perfectly, some of the steps necessary to review the legislation in a proper way at a proper time. In a time of crisis, a time of war, we do recognize that certain liberties we may enjoy at a certain time may in fact be somewhat curtailed because of a crisis that is upon us. That should not be permanent, but it must be in place so that we can prevent the terrible acts happening that otherwise would were it not in effect.

That is why we support the government on the provisions it made. We deplore its complete lack of recognition of the gaping holes that it leaves unattended. We also recognize that there are provisions in place to, at a convenient and proper time, review the legislation and make adjustments if necessary.

The official opposition will continue to ask for the kinds of changes that we feel are necessary to restore confidence to our citizens, confidence in safety and security, confidence in the markets and confidence that we continue to grow both socially and economically.

However, the one thing we cannot afford is complacency. As Edmund Burke famously said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”. Changing laws alone will not stop terrorism. We are legislators and drafting and changing laws is what we do.

Let it not be said after the next horrific terrorist incident that it happened because the good men and good women of the House chose to do nothing.

There was an unfortunate incident that took place in the development and discussion of Bill C-36. It must be addressed. We were all dismayed when we learned earlier that the contents of the bill were actually leaked to the media before being tabled in the House. Our House leader raised it as a question of privilege.

The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. What is disturbing is that the committee was too quick to give up. More disturbing was the fact that nobody on the government side took responsibility for this glaring act of abuse of the parliamentary process. When the minister leaked the contents of Bill C-15, she took responsibility.

Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first is initiated by the Lost Shepherd society of Peterborough concerning Bill C-15, the animal cruelty legislation. The people from my riding who signed this support this legislation. They point out that recently there have been several very highly publicized examples of animal abuse and neglect including, I might add, some in the general Peterborough area. They point out that frontline workers such as veterinarians, humane societies and others are becoming more frustrated in their daily duties as they are required to deal with the results of this cruelty.

They note that legislation has already been introduced in the House in the form of Bill C-15, which will allow for much more significant consequences to apply for the abuse and neglect of pets, and also note that this legislation allows for feedback of recompense to humane societies. They call upon parliament to expedite Bill C-15 in the process of enacting it into law and ask all members to exercise good conscience in so doing.

Privilege

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

That is the Globe and Mail story entitled, “Ottawa takes aim at bioterror; Second terrorism bill toughens penalties and loosens air passenger privacy rules”, by Steven Chase and Campbell Clark with reports from Brian Laghi, Daniel Leblanc and Shawn McCarthy.

This is exactly the story to which I am referring. It goes on with a number of such speculated things, a couple of them which happen to be correct, I will admit that, particularly the one that says the bill deals with bioterrorism. That is the title of the bill. It would not be surprising that the bill dealt with that which was in the title. In terms of what would such bioterrorism measures include, Canada has signed a convention. It is all in a public convention and it is in the title of the bill.

The reporters are very smart but the one who concluded that what is in the title of the bill and what is in the international convention we signed, and he speculated that was in the bill, frankly that does not require rocket science. Most people could have speculated on that particular one.

Let us listen to some more. This time it is the National Post story:

Sources said the government is considering creating a new agency of government responsible for transport security, reporting to Transport Canada.

That is not in the bill at all. Let me read further. The Ottawa Citizen has a story by Rick Mofina. This is a real good one. It says:

On Monday, Parliament gave notice of a new bill entitled--

Mr. Speaker, you being the expert on parliamentary procedure that you are, how does parliament give notice of a bill? This mechanism does not exist. I as leader of the government in the House give notice of all government bills pursuant to authority given to me by cabinet. Parliament does not give notice of a bill. The article goes on to say:

Meanwhile, the global pact on germ warfare is under review at an ongoing conference concerning the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, ratified by 144 countries, including Canada.

All of this was obvious to anyone who read the title of the bill that was presented in the House today, just in case somebody says, “Oh yes, but the bill was presented today, we did not know the title”. I would bet that is what the hon. member who is heckling was going to say.

That was put on the notice paper, at the back of the order paper under the Roman numerals on the first page, two days ago. That is where that piece of brilliant information comes from.

I do not know where the evidence is of a leak this time. First, there has been an unfair comparison made with Bill C-15. Second, a whole pile of what I saw was factually inaccurate. Third, the little bit of it that was, was very easy to speculate on, such as reading the title of the bill which again is not rocket science.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe this time the hon. member does not have the story correct at all for a number of reasons which I intend to explain to the Chair and all members.

First, the member is conveniently mixing up the issue of Bill C-15 which was not the issue of a leak at all, as he knows. The issue involving Bill C-15 had to do with an administrative procedure used by officials for briefing the media. It was a form of briefing offered to the media ahead of MPs which was obviously wrong. It was corrected.

I issued instructions which are now in the public domain. As a matter of fact, this morning a briefing was offered to MPs and no briefing to the media. In any case, had one been offered to the media, it would have been no sooner than the one offered to members and only if they were locked up. I will get into the content of what was in the Globe and Mail in a minute.

That is the mistake, I will be generous, that the member makes when he compares this to Bill C-15.

I want to get into what the member alleges are leaks. There are a number of newspaper articles. I will quote a few of them. Part of the article says:

Today's new bill had been expected earlier but was delayed until today because it needed more work, Liberal House Leader Don Boudria told reporters.

Some secret that was that I revealed to the reporters so far. The reporter speculated that cabinet is debating whether to transfer the responsibility for airport security screening to a non-profit corporation or to local airport authorities. I will not say whether cabinet is or is not debating that, but regardless whether it is debating it or not, it is not in the bill.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to Bill C-42, a bill that was tabled earlier today and debated during question period.

Like Bill C-36, Bill C-42 was drafted to address the security issues facing Canadians as a result of the attack on the United States on September 11. Once again the security of the very bills designed to protect the security of Canadians has been breached. The government indicated that the bill was not ready to be tabled in the House yesterday, yet its contents were leaked to the media.

There was an article in the Globe and Mail by Steven Chase and Campbell Clark which reports “the legislation will include stopgap immigration enforcement measures similar to ones contained in immigration Bill C-11, that will not be in effect until late spring 2002, government sources said”. The article goes on with details of the bill, quoting government sources.

This is also within the context of the fact that yesterday in question period we asked substantive questions of the government about the contents of the security bill. The government said it could not answer the questions and that it was going to be tabled tomorrow. At the same time that it was not answering our questions, it was answering questions from the Globe and Mail on the phone to meet its four o'clock deadline.

As with the cases of Bill C-15 and Bill C-36, the media received an extensive briefing before members were and before the bill was tabled. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and her department were held in contempt of the House for leaking the contents of Bill C-15. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is presently looking into the leak of Bill C-36. The deputy clerk of the privy council appeared before the committee this morning and reported on his investigation into the Bill C-36 case.

In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-15 you stated:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence.

Not the Globe and Mail , the House.

The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent role which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to the media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

In this case it is clear that information concerning legislation...was given to members of the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House.

I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House.

This matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee concluded:

The committee believes that the protocol of the Department of Justice whereby no briefings or briefing material should be provided with respect to a bill on notice until its introduction in the House of Commons should be adopted as a standard policy by all government departments. We believe that such a policy is respectful of the House of Commons and its members. It recognizes the legislative role of parliament, and is consistent with parliamentary privilege and the conventions of parliament.

The committee noted that the adoption of such a policy should not be viewed as preventing the provisions of courtesy copies of government bills on a confidential basis to opposition critics shortly before their introduction. The committee went on to state:

This incident highlights a concern shared by all members of the Committee: apparent departmental ignorance of or disrespect for the role of the House of Commons and its members. Even if the result is unintended, the House should not tolerate such ignorance within the government administration to undermine the perception of parliament's constitutional role in legislating. The rights of the House and its Members in this role are central to our constitutional and democratic government.

Finally, the committee heeded this warning:

Failure to adopt appropriate measures could lead to a reoccurrence of this problem, in which case the House would have to consider using its power in a more severe way.... The acceptance of an apology will not necessarily be considered a sufficient response.

Despite this warning, the government proceeded to leak the contents of Bill C-36 and yesterday it leaked the contents of Bill C-42.

On the privy council website it describes ministerial responsibility as:

Ministerial responsibility is a fundamental principle of the constitution.... This responsibility is honed by the ever present possibility that in particular circumstances ministers may be embarrassed, suffer loss of prestige weakening themselves and the government, jeopardize their standing with their colleagues and hence their political future, or even be forced to submit to public enquiry possibly resulting in censure and loss of office as a result of the way in which their power has been used.

We have already embarrassed the government with the Bill C-36 and Bill C-15 cases.

We have had a public inquiry through the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We have had a minister censured and charged with contempt. The only thing left to do is to call for the minister's resignation.

It is time for action, not more studies and not more warnings. The minister should take responsibility for this action. Mr. Speaker, if you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to that effect.

Criminal Code

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that our government continues to listen to the concerns of firearm dealers and owners. They have important points to make and we are very attuned to what they are saying. That is why an amnesty is currently in place for prohibited handguns and unregistered restricted firearms until December 31, 2001.

The amnesty allows individuals who purchased prohibited, that is short barrelled .25 calibre or .32 calibre, handguns after the intended prohibition was announced in February 1995, and dealers who were left with inventory, to take appropriate action as required. The amnesty also protects individuals who may have come into possession of an unregistered restricted firearm, often through an estate, allowing them the opportunity to either register or dispose of it without fear or repercussion.

Responding to concerns from the public and the policing community, the government announced the prohibition of these handguns in February 1995. Incidentally, the police were at the justice committee last night and both the chiefs of police and the Canadian Association of Police again reaffirmed their strong views that this was appropriate and good legislation, and I think the record should reflect that.

However, all individuals who had registered or who had applied to register a prohibited handgun at that time were grandfathered and can continue to use their firearm with the appropriate authorization.

While the prohibition of these easily concealed firearms is in the interest of public safety and security, the government also recognizes the difficult situation of businesses that were caught with large inventories of short barrelled .25 calibre or .32 calibre handguns on February 14, 1995. This situation is addressed in amendments proposed in Bill C-15, which would grandfather these inventories, and was also addressed last year in Bill C-17.

Grandfathering these inventories would mean that businesses could dispose of the prohibited handguns by selling them to individuals who are grandfathered to possess such handguns and licensed to acquire them. This would help businesses and would not affect public safety as only licensed individuals could acquire them.

Another proposed amendment would change the grandfathering date for prohibited handguns to December 1, 1998, from February 14, 1995, so that correctly licensed individuals who lawfully acquired and registered a handgun while it was still restricted, that is between February 14, 1995 and December 1, 1998, can keep it.

Public safety would be maintained with the proposed changes because only those who were already in legal possession of these handguns since December 1, 1998, and who are properly trained and licensed to use prohibited handguns would be able to keep them. Ownership of prohibited handguns would continue to be limited to a very small number of individuals with grandfathered privileges.

Given the government's resolve to address these issues through Bill C-15B, the amnesty was recently extended until the end of this year to continue to protect both dealer inventories and individuals in possession of prohibited handguns until parliament completes its consideration of Bill C-15. I think that represents the values of Canadians and the values of this parliament.

Committees of the House

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 26, in relation to Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code and the Firearms Act.

The committee requests a one week extension to December 6 to report the bill back to the House of Commons.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation among House leaders and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding the order of September 26, 2001, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be instructed to report Bill C-15B no later than Thursday, December 6, 2001; and

That the House shall not sit on November 23, 2001, provided that, if any bill is reported from committee on November 22, 2001, the report stage of the said bill may be taken up on or after November 26, 2001 and notices of proposed amendments at the said report stage may be given at any time before 2 p.m. on November 23, 2001 and shall be duly printed in the Order Paper and Notice Paper for November 26, 2001; and

That, notwithstanding the calendar tabled by the Speaker pursuant to Standing Order 28(2)(b), the sitting weeks between the last Monday in January and the Monday following Easter Monday in 2002 shall be the weeks commencing January 28, February 4, February 18, February 25, March 11 and March 18.

(Motion agreed to)

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the Minister of Transport with contempt. The minister has brought the authority and dignity of the House into question and has breached the new procedure that was established by the adoption of the first report of the modernization committee.

On Thursday, October 25, while the House was in session, the minister held a press conference to announce a $75 million bailout for Canada 3000. While this brand of disrespect is not uncommon for the Liberal government, I believe that this is the first time that such an act has occurred since the adoption of the first report of the modernization committee. At page 4 of that report the committee states:

Concerns have been expressed that government announcements, regarding legislation or policies, are increasingly made outside the House of Commons. While this is by no means a recent phenomenon, it continues to be a source of concern. The Committee is recommending two initiatives to address it.

First, it is important that more ministerial statements and announcements be made in the House of Commons. In particular, topical developments, or foreseeable policy decisions, should be made first—or, at least, concurrently—in the chamber. Ministers, and their departments, need to be encouraged to make use of the forum provided by the House of Commons. Not only will this enhance the pre-eminence of Parliament, but it will also reiterate the legislative underpinning for governmental decisions.

The committee recommended that the government make greater use of ministerial statements in the Chamber and that the House leaders be advised in advance of these statements.

I was not advised of this announcement. When I stood in the House on Thursday and asked the Thursday question, the government House leader had the opportunity right there and then, but failed to do so.

There was no reason why the Minister of Transport could not have advised the opposition and there were no procedural difficulties preventing the Minister of Transport from making his announcement in the House. I am certain that all parties would have extended every courtesy to the minister if he had chosen to respect the House and make his announcement here.

It is important to know that the House adjourned early on that day for lack of business. It adjourned early last Monday and Friday and it adjourned early on Friday, October 19, and on Monday, October 22, so wherein lies the problem with debating these issues on the floor of the House? A $75 million bailout is no small change. Where does the minister think the authority to spend the $75 million comes from?

The government and its departments are continuously making a habit of mocking the parliamentary system in this manner. We have had the deliberate leaking to the media of contents of Bill C-15 and, more recently, of the anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36.

One of the reasons the modernization committee felt it necessary to address the issue was that in the last two parliaments the government got away with mocking the legislative process at every turn, belittling the role of members of parliament. I will cite a few of the more serious examples.

On Thursday, October 23, 1997, the government announced that provincial and federal governments had constituted a nominating committee to nominate candidates for the new Canada pension plan investment board. The nominating committee was provided for under subclause 10(2) of Bill C-2. The House had not yet adopted Bill C-2.

On January 21, 1998, the minister responsible for the wheat board met in Regina to discuss the rules for the election of directors to the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors, as proposed in Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4 tabled at report stage by opposition members were scheduled for debate in the House. While the House debated how many directors should be farmer elected versus being government appointees, the minister was holding meetings as though the bill was already law.

When the Canadian millennium scholarship fund was being established, a published article in the Toronto Star announced that Yves Landry had been named as the head of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Mr. Landry was quoted as saying “I am only one member of the board and my job is to be a facilitator”. There was no legislation before the House setting up the foundation, nor had the budget announcement allocating $2.5 billion in revenue to the foundation been adopted.

The Minister for International Trade announced on March 30, 1998, the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group. At that time, the House had not set up a Canada-China interparliamentary group.

Finally, the date of the last budget that was delivered in the House, so long ago we have probably forgotten, was announced by the Prime Minister outside the House.

Each disrespectful act we allow to stand unchallenged becomes a precedent that serves afterwards to justify more acts of disrespect. The modernization committee recognized this and felt it necessary to make a statement.

The adoption of this report outlined what standard the House expected from ministers in this regard.

On page 119 of Erskine May there is a reference regarding a select committee that was appointed to inquire into the conduct and activities of members and to consider whether any such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House and whether any such activities were:

--conduct...inconsistent with the standards the House was entitled to expect from its Members.

The minister cannot claim ignorance because the House pronounced itself on this issue through the adoption of the modernization committee report. When the Minister of Transport made his announcement outside the House on Thursday, October 25 while there was still an opportunity to make it inside, his conduct was clearly inconsistent with the standards the House was entitled to expect from him. As a consequence the minister is in contempt of the House.

The other related parliamentary tradition that the government likes to forget about is the issue of and respect for the doctrine of ministerial responsibility.

The Minister of Transport and the rest of his colleagues, and particularly the Minister of Justice, should review the definition of ministerial responsibility from page 63 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May. It states:

—ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament—

Where can we find the truthful and accurate information regarding the decision to hand out $75 million to Canada 3000? Not in Hansard of Thursday, October 25. Where it was found was in the Globe and Mail of October 26.

I am beginning to think that being held in contempt in the House is of little concern to the government. Let us look at the example of the Minister of Justice who was held in contempt for leaking to the media the contents of Bill C-15.

When I appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to review another charge of contempt involving the minister, I pointed out that we no longer respect, to the same degree as in the past, the principle that ministers have a duty to parliament to account and to be held to account for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments.

I cited the example from 1976 involving the Hon. André Ouellet, the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs. Mr. Ouellet made a comment on the acquittal by Mr. Justice Mackay of the sugar companies accused of forming cartels and combines. As a result, Mr. Justice Mackay cited him for contempt of court. He was found guilty of the charge and resigned his cabinet post over the incident.

A charge of contempt by the House should be considered just as serious, if not more serious, as a contempt charge in a court. Unfortunately the Minister of Justice chose not to take responsibility in the time honoured tradition of ministerial accountability, as did Mr. Ouellet.

Getting back to this case, I will conclude my remarks by saying that had I had an opportunity to respond to this announcement by the Minister of Transport I might have asked the minister why he can justify giving Canada 3000 $75 million but cannot spend one dime on the softwood lumber industry that lost millions of dollars over a trade dispute with the United States. Thousands of people are out of work as a result and thousands more are expected to lose their jobs.

Also, what about the farmers who suffered through this summer's drought?

These are some of the questions we might have asked if the minister had given us an opportunity, but we did not. The minister might want to talk about timing, about how the House was not sitting. It was not sitting because the government chose not to have it sitting. It adjourned early. We have adjourned early too many days over the last little while.

Certainly I saw the minister on television that night at 7 p.m. The House adjourned early,and I cannot remember if it was 3 p.m. or 4 p.m., but surely he must have made the decision earlier in the day. He could have spoken to the government House leader and made sure it was put on the agenda so that we could have done it in the House and it could have been done properly.

Mr. Speaker, if you find that we have a case of privilege, I am prepared to move the proper motion.

Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition from citizens of the Peterborough area who are very concerned about cruelty to pets. The petitioners point to several very highly publicized recent examples of animal abuse and neglect, some of them sadly in our part of Ontario.

Frontline workers such veterinarians, humane societies and others are becoming frustrated with what they face regularly from the results of animal cruelty. They point out that legislation has been introduced in the form of Bill C-15 which would allow much more significant consequences to apply to those abusing or neglecting animals.

They call upon parliament to expedite Bill C-15 to get it into law and all members of the House to exercise good conscience in so doing.

Privilege

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of privilege relating to an event that occurred during oral question period but, rather, a question of privilege that results from a briefing session on Bill C-36 given this morning by the Department of Justice.

I want to put this question of privilege in its proper context and to stress once again the indifference shown by this minister and her department toward the members of this House and their right to information, which is a priority. We saw the Minister of Justice's way of doing things with Bill C-15, which resulted in a question of privilege on the part of the hon. member for Provencher. That question was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons amended the directives for members of the Privy Council Office.

As regards Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, a lot of information was released even before the bill was introduced in this House on Monday. One simply has to read the October 13 edition of the National Post , which included whole parts of the bill and which came out before the briefing session organized by the Minister of Justice on Monday morning, the day that Bill C-36 was introduced in the House.

Our right to information as duly elected members of this House, which is a priority, was once again violated. This leak about Bill C-36 in the National Post was the subject of a--

Criminal Law Amendment Act (2001)

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

Mr. Speaker, I was discussing section 690 of the criminal code which deals with miscarriages of justice. Members would know that currently there is a case on the landscape regarding Steven Truscott, who was convicted of murder at age 14 on very speculative and circumstantial evidence. A book has been published with respect to his case and there is also a section 690 application forthcoming from Mr. Truscott and his lawyer.

The House would know that appellate courts usually hear wrongful conviction cases and grant remedies. After the judicial avenues have all been exhausted, section 690 of the criminal code empowers the justice minister to review alleged wrongful convictions. The courts may not have detected or may not have been privy to certain information that was available at the time and therefore may not have granted the proper remedies.

Many observers and critics have looked at the new proposed section and view it with somewhat of a jaded eye since the proposed amendments do not accomplish much. They still leave the power of overturning the conviction in the hands of the minister.

In the British example it is put before an impartial body that reviews the evidence with greater impartial investigative powers. Many lawyers, including a very eminent lawyer, James Lockyer who works with the AIDWYC group, maintain that it is much better to put this power in the hands of an impartial arbitrator or adjudicator.

The elements of wrongful convictions and the harm that can flow are substantial and severe. I hope the Minister of Justice would continue to examine it. I hope that passing the amendments under section 690 would not preclude revisiting this when greater evidence is brought forward.

The House would also know that there is a hearing under way at this time that may bring to light new evidence that would bear on this section.

Generally speaking the legislation that we have before us is something that is very positive. It allows crown prosecutors greater powers with respect to the laying of certain charges. Crown prosecutors like Kathy Pentz of the Nova Scotia public prosecution service and prosecutors from across the country will be pleased when they are informed of these new criminal code sections that would come into effect upon the passage of the legislation.

I was encouraged to see that the department would now undertake to prepare documents that would accompany changes to the criminal code. These would be made available to the provincial attorneys general and the counterparts of the minister at the federal level to allow for a quick synergy or transition into being of these sections.

The coalition is supportive of the bill. We raised a number of amendments at the committee stage and we were given an opportunity to hear from numerous witnesses on this omnibus bill. I alluded earlier to the fact that this legislation was split into eight sections. The bill before us, Bill C-15A, has been whittled down to contain six of the positive elements that we fully support.

The legislation talks about the need to create a higher penalty standard for disarming a police officer. It talks about upping the ante in terms of sentencing ranges that could be meted out for home invasion. Members of the coalition and other members of the House would have preferred that a separate distinct offence for home invasion was brought into the criminal code to reflect the seriousness of that type of criminal behaviour.

An offender who enters a home knowing that the person is in the house and attempts to commit a robbery or a burglary that very often results in a physical confrontation merits a separate criminal code offence that would be more of a deterrent. It would have a greater impact in the criminal justice system if it were considered a separate, stand alone offence.

I referred at the very outset to the changes in the criminal code that pertain to the broadcasting of pornographic material over the Internet. Internet service providers, particularly smaller Internet service providers, raised their concerns in committee. Amendments were put forward that would have provided greater certainty for those individuals, but those amendments were defeated by the Liberal majority.

Internet service providers such as AOL Canada strongly supported the government's effort to limit the existence of child pornography online and to capture the wrongdoers. However it felt the bill should have been amended to eliminate what it felt was the possibility of liability attached to the stakeholders who participate in the blocking or the removal of the material.

These Internet service providers are being very diligent in their efforts to self-police their systems. Yet they were concerned that by virtue of the wording of this legislation they could get caught in the net of cracking down on individuals who bring forward online pornography.

The legislation includes the wording “actual or constructive knowledge” and therein lies the problem. What constitutes actual knowledge, particularly constructive knowledge in the online context? The amendments I put forward were rejected. Yet any person who knowingly transmits, sells, imports or is in possession of this type of material can be prosecuted under offences that pertain to child pornography.

I realize that this is a comprehensive bill. I will now deal with criminal harassment. Senator Oliver of the other place has been extremely diligent in pursuing this issue to increase the penalties for those who engage in harassment or stalking, as it is more commonly known.

Stalking is an offence that has come to public knowledge in the past number of years. Women are most often the victims of such harassment and have their entire lives disrupted by persistent phone calls, mail, or by having an individual follow them on many occasions. This type of behaviour can be very dangerous. It is often a precursor to physical assaults and sexual assaults.

The coalition is supportive that penalties for convictions for criminal harassment would be raised. It was the Conservative government in 1993 that introduced through Bill C-126 amendments to the criminal code which first put this offence into legislation. The maximum penalty at that time was five years. This legislation would increase that penalty to 10 years.

We view the legislation as positive and a step in the right direction to ensure greater public safety. It would provide a greater deterrence to offenders who after due process have been convicted under criminal code sections. We look forward to it becoming part of the criminal code along with the other consequential pieces of legislation that are amended by its passage. The coalition will be supporting this legislation.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking House leaders of all parties for their co-operation in these particularly tumultuous times. I think indeed the nation is well served by their co-operation.

This afternoon we will continue with the consideration of Bill C-15A, respecting child pornography and other amendments to the criminal code. I understand that consideration of that is nearing its end.

After that I will call the resumption of consideration of Bill C-35, respecting foreign missions. Should that consideration terminate before the end of the day, I do not propose to call other bills today.

On Friday we will deal with report stage and third reading of Bill S-23, the Customs Act amendments.

On Monday we will debate Bill C-37, the Alberta-Saskatchewan land claims bill, as well as any other legislation that may not have been completed under consideration over the next couple of days.

Next Tuesday shall be an allotted day. I believe it is in the name of the Canadian Alliance again.

On Wednesday we will consider Bill C-32 concerning Costa Rican trade.

I was asked a question regarding the preparation of the second omnibus bill further to the first one that is presently, as of an hour or two ago, before committee. I do not have a timeline on that yet.

As well, I am not aware whether the next bill would be a compendium of bills such as the first one was or perhaps only one or two in a separate manner. However I will try to obtain as much information as possible for the House leaders meeting next Tuesday so that I can make that information available through the House leaders to all colleagues.

Anti-terrorism Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-15A. As the House will know, the legislation was somewhat controversial in that we had an opportunity to pass the bill last June at the close of the session. There was much willingness on the part of the opposition to divide the bill and take away its more controversial elements that dealt with cruelty to animals and firearms legislation.

To her credit the minister, after much kicking and screaming, finally agreed to do just that and as a result we have a piece of legislation that is much more workable. The co-operative effort on the part of all members of the justice committee has been admirable in that regard.

As I mentioned, the bill deals with more or less contentious elements of the criminal code and can generally be seen as a positive bill. It goes beyond mere housekeeping. It would create new offences aimed specifically to protect children from stalking and the perpetration of pornographic material on the Internet.

Bill C-15A is a an attempt at modernization. With new and expanding forms of communication over the Internet this type of legislation is necessary. It is an update of old sections that were aimed at the same nefarious activity: the spreading of pornographic material that exploits children.

What on earth could be more important to us in the Chamber? In a time of heightened awareness of families and the need to protect people, it is exactly the type of legislation we should be charged with.

As has been mentioned by previous speakers, the sections of the bill that define age of consent are cause for concern for me and members of the coalition. There is an anomaly in Bill C-15A whereby a person under the age of 14 could be victimized. We should consider raising the age of consent to 16. This would make it more consistent with other elements of the criminal code. I believe in fairness that the minister and her department are open to doing that. To that end we hope to see more legislation forthcoming in the days and weeks to come.

Section 8 of the bill would create the offence of luring on the Internet whereby any person commits an offence who communicates by means of a computer with individuals under the age of 18. There is an attempt to make the legislation more in line and consistent.

One area that causes me concern, Mr. Speaker, is the area that pertains to section 690 of the criminal code, a section with which you would be familiar from your previous incarnation as a lawyer. Miscarriages of justice can result in terrible atrocities. In Canada there have been such atrocities in the cases of Mr. Morin, Mr. Milgaard and others who are still out there.

One that comes immediately to mind is the saga of Steven Truscott. There is a recent book about the issue by Julian Sher called Until You Are Dead: Steven Truscott's Long Ride into History . I believe there will be a section 690 application forthcoming to the minister to deal with this case. Section 690 would not be amended in any great way by the current legislation. It would still permit the minister to have final say in these matters.

We are about to begin question period. I hope to have an opportunity to continue my remarks at the close of question period.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have some brief remarks as we enter the final stages of this piece of legislation. After much deliberation and travail, the government saw the wisdom of listening to the opposition and splitting the bill. The legislation we now have before us is not controversial and not opposed by the opposition. It will proceed through the House at an expeditious pace.

The legislation will not be held back by the fact that it was originally tied to other pieces of legislation which were controversial in some parts of the House. Those pieces of legislation are now being dealt with separately. We notice that sometimes after much persistence the opposition does get its way. I am glad the government listened in this case. We applaud that fact.

Even though there was merit in rushing the legislation through, one of the downsides was that we could have heard from more witnesses than we did on some of the more technologically and legally complex issues having to do with the Internet, et cetera. We heard from some witnesses on that, but had we been able to do it at a leisurely pace we could have learned more. I regret we were not able to do so.

We know that the justice committee is not only seized with Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B but it is also seized with Bill C-36, the anti-terrorist legislation. We cannot always give a piece of legislation the kind of attention we might otherwise want to give it in a different context.

The issue of luring on the Internet, with which the government and all of us will have to deal at some point, was raised. Other members may have already referenced the whole question of age of consent. We have this glaring loophole in the law that would permit 40 year olds to exploit people who are 14 or over on the Internet because we do not have a law which is adequate to the circumstances that can now be created on the Internet.

We have to do it sensitively because we do not want to criminalize certain behaviours between people, particularly teenagers who are close in age. There must be a way to look at this issue with sensitivity in mind, but nevertheless laws must be created that would prevent or at least punish that kind of activity.

There is one caveat I would enter and one concern I would register, presumably along with other members. Provincial ministers of justice, the justice committee and the government should look at recommendations regarding the age of consent. I hope that some day we will deal with the issue of age of consent in the House.

What we have before us is good legislation. Some of the legislation is long overdue, but nevertheless better late than never. Let us get it into law and see how it works, and we can fix it after that if it needs further attention.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, but I wanted to comment on this bill.

In its first form, in May or June of this year, we supported most of the provisions of Bill C-15. We asked that the bill be split to speed things up. It took some time, but we were successful in the end and the bill was split.

There is nothing wrong with the part that we are considering today. There is agreement; many groups have asked for certain changes over the years, including those that are to be found in this part, and we agree with them.

These include the whole issue of sexual exploitation involving the use of the Internet. The criminal code was not responding to today's reality. These sections of the code needed updating and modernizing, and the bill does this. There is no problem adopting these amendments.

The other amendment found in this bill increases the maximum penalty for criminal harassment. If we look at the case law, if we look at what is being done in this field, it becomes clear that we needed to act on adjusting the maximum penalty in this precise case.

Then, they made home invasions an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. That was what the Canadian Police Association and the Fédération des policiers et policières du Québec asked for. There were private members' bills introduced to amend the criminal code in this regard, but they were not passed at all stages. It is understandable that the Bloc Quebecois today supports such an amendment. This is a request by the police, justified by what is happening in home invasions.

Another change is making the disarming or attempted disarming of a police officer a specific offence. Clearly the police argued in favour of this provision. They expressed their point of view. We also heard experts on this question in committee. Although I was not too hot about this idea at the start, I was convinced in committee. It is necessary. Working hard in committee and listening to the witnesses who come forward means we hear interesting points of view that convince us and support our position to support a given bill or clause or not to.

In this case, the witnesses I heard convinced me that we could amend the criminal code and add this offence to it.

The other amendment, which we have already spoken of, is the codification and clarification of applications for review by the Minister of Justice of miscarriages of justice.

I would have liked the minister to be somewhat more attentive to our remarks. We wanted a process different from the one in C-15A, like what they have in Great Britain, on which the government seems to have drawn for its amendments to the criminal code. I would have preferred a much more independent tribunal instead of having the decision come from the Minister of Justice. I am sure that, at some point, the Minister of Justice will be judge and jury in some matter. At that point, the minister would be in an awkward position, and would she make the right decision to correct a miscarriage of justice?

I know that the minister is of good faith and so is everyone else here, but I would have liked something surer for those who have been victims of a miscarriage of justice, so that they could have all the tools to ensure that justice is truly done.

In law, not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done. I am not sure, given how the minister and the Liberal government opposite drafted these provisions, that the accused will come to the conclusion that justice was done and seen to have been done, particularly when the miscarriage of justice may result from the work of the Department of Justice and it is the Minister of Justice who is called upon to decide whether or not there was indeed a miscarriage of justice.

However, we did support this bill so as to not block it and ensure that it would be passed rather quickly, since the other provisions are not controversial.

It is from that perspective that we are letting this go, but we will take a close look at what will happen and we will be prepared to present amendments later on if we deem appropriate to do so.

The bill also includes a series of reforms and seeks to modernize criminal proceedings regarding the disclosure of evidence and certain rules relating to electronic documents. These things did not exist 20 years ago, but they are now part of our lives. The bill also deals with remote appearances, a plea comprehension inquiry scheme, private prosecutions, the selection of alternate jurors and a restriction on the use of agents. All this is part of a modernizing effort to update and clarify the criminal code. There is no problem and this is why we give our support.

I will conclude by raising a question that came to mind when I was listening to some witnesses. The Canadian Alliance member referred to it earlier. It has to do with the issue of consent regarding sexual relations. The hon. member wants the age of consent to be raised from 14 to 16 years. The argument used by the Canadian Alliance member and by groups such as the Canadian Police Association is that a 14 year old is not mature enough to give his or her consent to a sexual relation with an older person.

Members of the Canadian Alliance and others who want to change the age of consent think that 14 year olds are not sufficiently responsible and mature and are unable to take a decision of this magnitude, i.e. to have sexual relations with an older person, which will have an impact on them for the rest of their life.

But, when it comes to the Young Offenders Act, these same people want the age to be lowered from 18 to 16 or from 16 to 14. They would even like to lower the age of criminality, if possible.

I fail to see how these young people are not sufficiently mature at 14 to make an informed decision about whether or not to consent to sexual relations with an older person, but would be mature enough at the age of 16, or 14 in a criminal case, where they would receive an adult sentence. According to them, at that age adolescents are responsible, they are supposed to know what they are doing and they are old enough to commit a criminal offence and so forth.

Let us have a bit of logic. The position being defended by these groups is not logical when it comes to the age at which adolescents can consent to sexual relations versus the age at which they can be considered young offenders.

This bothered me a bit in committee. I explained how I saw it and I asked witnesses what they thought. They had no answer, because there is none. It is not logical.

Should the age of consent to sexual relations be raised from 14 to 16? I have no firm opinion on this. But I do know that someone under the age of 18 cannot be judged like an adult because he does not have an adult's sense of responsibility.

These are children, adolescents, I realize, not as developed as adults and needing to be treated accordingly. What I am asking the Canadian Alliance and the government as well, as they also seem to be interested in this approach, is to look at the situation very seriously and logically.

The fact that the bill has been divided has made it possible for us to address the problematical parts--as we are doing--that is everything that relates to firearms and cruelty to animals. If we had listened to the government over there, probably the whole thing would have been passed now, and in a rush. Fortunately, they were told to take the time to examine the issue in this House.

The exact same thing is happening with the anti-terrorism bill. Yes, legislation is required, but let us take the time to consider all the ins and outs of the bill properly.

The same things goes for Bill C-15A. I thank the government for having understood, after this was called for repeatedly by the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties, that the bill had to be split. They have done so. Today, Bill C-15A will be passed; so much the better. Then we can focus on Bill C-15B and hope that, for that part as well, the Minister of Justice will listen to the opposition and make appropriate amendments.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my remarks brief today as I think we all want to see the bill move forward without unnecessary delay. I would once again like to thank the minister for consenting to split the bill, a move which has enabled the House to adopt quickly the relatively noncontentious provisions of the bill while allowing the more contentious provisions now found in Bill C-15B to be debated at greater length. Most important, now that the bill has been split we can get down to the business of protecting children from sexual predators on the Internet, something that members of the Canadian Alliance have been supporting strongly from the beginning.

Although all opposition parties have agreed to pass Bill C-15A as quickly as possible, I would like to mention again a few of the concerns I have regarding the bill so that perhaps at some time in the future we can revisit these provisions and make further amendments.

One of the matters that causes the greatest concern for me is related to the creation of the offences relative to the sexual exploitation of children. With the current age of sexual consent at 14, this long needed legislation to protect children from Internet predators will be provided only to children under 14 years of age. I believe that is too low and that the age should be raised to 16, not just for these offences but for all offences relating to the sexual exploitation of children by adults. I need not recount to the House the devastating effects that sexual predators can have on 14 year old and 15 year old children. I have commended this suggestion that the age be raised to the minister's staff for consideration.

In respect of increasing the maximum penalty for criminal harassment, I have concerns about the lack of minimum penalties. It seems it is often futile to increase maximum penalties, in this case from 5 years to 10 years, when the courts do not reflect that increase in their sentencing. In light of the reluctance of the courts to reflect these kinds of changes and our lenient parole laws, these changes the minister is introducing may not prove to be effective.

In respect of home invasions, the provisions in the bill are a step in the right direction, however, my position is that it should be a separate offence, not simply an aggravating factor in sentencing. Parliament needs to send a clear message to the court of the seriousness of these types of offences.

In respect to the new offence of disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer, the Canadian Alliance and I myself have been very supportive of this and believe it is long overdue. We need to provide our law enforcement officials with the support that the new offence would provide to them.

The last comment I want to make is with respect to the preliminary inquiries. Preliminary inquiries, particularly in light of charter guarantees and the court cases arising out of these charter guarantees, could be eliminated entirely. In fact, many judges I hear from consider them to be very ineffective. Even years ago when I was a prosecutor doing preliminary hearings it was suggested by many provincial court judges that the time could have been spent doing substantive work rather than preliminary inquiries. Preliminary inquiries simply slow down procedure and create backlog without a substantive contribution to the administration of justice in Canada.

Understandably defence lawyers are very concerned about the entire loss of the preliminary hearing, however, I think we need to revisit the issue and ensure that while we have safeguarded the rights of the accused, preliminary inquiries have done nothing to protect the rights of the accused and certainly have contributed to problems in the efficient and fair administration of justice. There has been abuse of preliminary inquiries in the past and I think the legislation is a recognition of that. All the attorneys general of the provinces support this step and indeed I believe they would like to see it go further.

I want to put on the record in the House the comments from the justice minister at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with respect to a question I asked her on October 3. I think it is important that this is on the record in the House.

She stated and I quote:

Regarding preliminary inquiries, this is an instalment. I think the provinces and territories would like us to look at more radical reform as it relates to preliminary inquiries. You rightly identified that there is grave concern from the criminal defence bar, and that is something we will continue to work on. What we're doing here is streamlining the use of the preliminary inquiry.

She continued on with respect to the age of consent, the other issue I spoke to. She said:

With regard to age of consent--from 14 to 16--we have our child as victim consultation paper. We discussed that at our federal-provincial justice ministers' meeting in September in Nova Scotia. Those consultations will be concluded and reported on by December 31 of this year, and I think we will see that a consensus is emerging that with certain safeguards we should probably be moving on the age of consent from 14 to 16. But as with some of these things, they look simple on the surface, but they're not quite so simple. It requires a fair number of changes to the code; we're going to have to review all those sections where age is found. But it's certainly an issue very much on our agenda.

Although I want to see the bill passed into law quickly and without further delay, I hope the minister will take my concerns into account and honour the commitments she made in committee, and that we will review the legislation at some time in the future for possible improvements.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise today to introduce the debate at third reading of Bill C-15A, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts.

Hon. members will recall that Bill C-15A contains the amendments introduced in the House as Bill C-15, the criminal law omnibus bill, minus the proposed amendments dealing with cruelty to animals and those in relation to the firearms registration program. It was the wisdom of the House that the cruelty to animals and firearms amendments be dealt with as a separate piece of legislation, Bill C-15B.

Bill C-15B is now being studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and will be reported back to the House in accordance with the will of the House on or before November 30. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, under the able leadership of the hon. member for Fredericton, conducted a thorough examination of Bill C-15A and reported it back to the chamber on October 5.

Let me remind hon. members of the various components of the bill. They are: measures that provide additional protection to children from sexual exploitation, including sexual exploitation involving use of the Internet; proposed amendments to strengthen the law in the areas of criminal harassment, home invasions and disarming a police officer; amendments to review the process for allegations of miscarriage of justice; criminal procedure reform amendments; and finally, amendments to the National Capital Act and the National Defence Act.

Each and every part of Bill C-15A contains necessary amendments designed to improve the administration of criminal justice in the country. I do not propose to review details of the bill with the House; we reviewed the details during second reading and they have not changed. I would, however, like to refer to some of the matters that were dealt with during committee hearings.

Concerning the measures for the protection of children against sexual exploitation, I am pleased to note that there was a great deal of support expressed for these amendments during committee proceedings and we know that there is a great deal of support for these amendments on both sides of the House. The committee heard witnesses, and all those who spoke on these measures expressed support for them. These amendments create an offence of luring, to criminalize those who communicate with children in order to facilitate the commission of a child sexual exploitation offence against children. They create new offences of exporting, transmitting, making available and accessing child pornography in order to ensure that the child pornography is prohibited at all stages from production to consumption, whether or not a computer system is used in the commission of an offence.

Concerns were raised that these new offences could make Internet service providers, ISPs, criminally liable when acting as mere conduits for child pornography without knowledge of or control over the material. This is not the case. In order to commit any of the child pornography offences, Internet service providers, like anybody else, must know that they are dealing with child pornography.

Other provisions would also contribute to the protection of children. Judges would be given the authority to order the deletion of child pornography from the Internet after giving the person who posted the material an opportunity to be heard. Deletion could be ordered even in cases where the person who posted the material cannot be found or is outside the country. The provisions would allow forfeiture of instruments used in the commission of a child pornography offence that are owned by the person found guilty of the offence. Property rights of innocent third parties would be protected. All child pornography offences and offences of luring would be added to the list of offences for which a judge is authorized to make an order to keep a person away from children. Finally, the bill would facilitate the prosecution in Canada of Canadians who commit a sexual offence against children in a foreign country.

All these measures would contribute to the better protection of our children from sexual exploitation and I urge hon. members to support the government in the speedy passage of the legislation.

Bill C-15A also proposes to: increase the maximum penalty for criminal harassment; require judges to consider home invasions as an aggravating factor at the time of sentencing; and enact a new offence of disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer.

The standing committee heard the overwhelming support of the police community for the latter measure, the new offence of disarming a police officer, and the clear support of witnesses for the other measures as well.

We are confident that these reforms would strengthen the criminal justice system.

As I have already noted, Bill C-15A's proposed reforms that would provide children with increased protection from sexual exploitation have been very much welcomed by all members of the House. I do recognize, however, that some hon. members have said that these do not go far enough and that we need to do more to protect our children. In this regard concerns were expressed in committee about the current provisions concerning the age of consent.

Late in 1999 the Department of Justice launched a comprehensive review and consultation on the need for criminal law and policy reforms related to the definition of specific offences against children, the age of consent to sexual activity, children's testimony and sentencing. The minister is looking forward to receiving a final report on the results of this review and consultation by the end of this year and to the opportunity to discuss options for further reform with her federal, provincial and territorial counterparts thereafter.

Another area of the bill that had received attention in the committee hearings is the proposed amendments to the process for review of alleged wrongful convictions. Bill C-15A contains very important amendments to the conviction review process. These amendments would make the review of alleged wrongful conviction cases in Canada more efficient, open and accountable. These amendments would address the concerns of critics of the current section 690 conviction review process.

As we heard during the committee proceedings, some feel that Canada requires a formal independent body to review wrongful convictions, similar to the criminal cases review commission which was created in 1997 in Great Britain.

Prior to introducing these amendments the minister met with British officials and extensively studied the British system. The minister concluded that an independent body was inappropriate in the Canadian context. The Canadian experience with cases of wrongful conviction bears little resemblance to that of the United Kingdom. For example, the British criminal cases review commission, as it is called there, was established because of a perceived conflict of interest of the home secretary, who is responsible for policing and prisons as well as for the review of allegations of wrongful conviction. Many of these cases involved allegations of misconduct by police.

The Minister of Justice is not in the same perceived conflict of interest as the case of the home secretary in Great Britain. In Canada the Minister of Justice is not responsible for the police or the prison system. Furthermore, the provinces are largely responsible for prosecutions.

One of the key criticisms of the current conviction review process in Canada is how long it takes to review an application. However, as we have learned from the British example, the creation of an independent body will not necessarily lead to timely reviews.

After an extensive consultation process, the minister was convinced that the ultimate decision making in post-appellate conviction review should remain with the federal Minister of Justice. This recognizes and maintains the traditional jurisdiction of the courts while providing a fair and just remedy in those exceptional cases that have somehow fallen through the cracks of the conventional justice system. The minister is accountable to parliament and to the people of Canada.

I want to note that the reforms before us today in Bill C-15A propose a number of new features that would substantially improve the review process that exists today. Section 690 of the criminal code does not currently state when one is eligible to apply for a review. The proposed amendments clarify eligibility to apply for a review: the person must have exhausted all avenues of appeal. This amendment would make it clear that the conviction review process is not an alternative to the judicial system.

The power to review alleged wrongful convictions would be expanded to include the review of summary conviction cases. There is a need to set out the procedural requirements for conviction reviews as it is not clear under the present law how one applies for a review and what documents are required to file an application. The amendments would allow for the enactment of regulations setting out the form, information and documents needed to apply for a conviction review. This would make the process much more accessible.

Critics claim that the current process of conviction review is secretive, as applicants are unaware of the review process. The amendments provide that the stages of the review process would be set out in regulations. This would assist applicants by making the entire process of conviction review more open and understandable.

Section 690 does not currently provide powers of investigation. Under the proposed amendments, those investigating applications on behalf of the minister would have the appropriate investigating powers. This would enhance the thoroughness, effectiveness and timeliness of the review process.

As well, the factors that would be considered in determining when an applicant may be entitled to a remedy are clearly set out in the proposed amendment. Ministers of Justice will be held more accountable in that they will be required to provide an annual report to parliament with respect to applications for a conviction review. A special adviser will be appointed from outside the Department of Justice to oversee the review of alleged wrongful convictions and that person will report directly to the Minister of Justice, thereby adding a degree of independence from the department.

The government is confident that these amendments are the most efficient and effective way to improve the post-appellate, extrajudicial conviction review process at the present time and hence deserve the support of the House.

For all of these reasons I urge the House to move forward expeditiously with the important and worthwhile amendments contained in Bill C-15A.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification. On today's order paper under Bill C-15A there is a notice of motion. I am not aware that it was withdrawn. Was that withdrawn?

Privilege

[The Speaker]

The Chair is prepared to make a ruling on the matter now before the House. I wish to thank the hon. House Leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Berthier--Montcalm, the hon. government House leader, the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona for their opinions on this matter.

I have to say at once this appears to be similar to the issue raised earlier before me with respect to Bill C-15. In my opinion it appears that there has been again a breach of the privileges of the House in relation to this piece of legislation.

The hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona in his remarks tried to assist the Chair by suggesting that it was for the Chair to investigate the matter and come up with the name of the culprit and so on. I respect his opinion of course in all matters, but in this matter I think his view is perhaps wrong. There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has a fearsome chairman, quite able to extract information from witnesses who appear before the committee, with the aid of the capable members who form that committee of the House.

Accordingly, in my view this is a matter which ought to be sent to the committee. I am sure the hon. House leader of the official opposition will want to move a motion, which the Chair is prepared to entertain at this time, as a motion following upon a breach of the privileges of the House.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take note of the apologies of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons but, again, it is not the first time that this has happened. Perhaps this is not exactly what happened with Bill C-15, but it did occur with this bill.

I can also think of the Young Offenders Act. This is often forgotten, but the media had been informed. Large parts of the young offenders legislation were published in the newspapers before the opposition had even dealt with it.

Today, it is Bill C-36. It is as if whenever a bill could generate controversy, an attempt is made to inform or provide information during the weekend, when members are in their ridings. The result is that the newspapers make mention of the major points of these bills and the public begins to form an opinion on an issue before parliamentarians deal with this issue.

I know that the House leader is sincere. I take note of his remarks and apologies, but this is not enough.

Will the House leader ensure that there are clear rules for his ministers, for cabinet, to prevent such leaks, so that the media do not get information before the members of this House have had an opportunity to deal with it?

This is the first thing that the House leader should do. Will there be clear rules to ensure that this never happens again? Second, who is the smart aleck who gave that information, it is not the secretary who typed this, but someone who had access to privileged information? Will that person be disciplined for what he or she has done? This is a serious attack on the work of parliamentarians. The public official who did this has no respect for the work of parliamentarians in this House.

I would like the House leader to rise and to tell us very clearly what he intends to do to find the guilty party and provide all cabinet members with very clear rules so that this never happens again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the things that the hon. member has just said. I do not agree with all of them, and I will discuss some of the differences between this issue and that of Bill C-15. However I agree with many of the underlying themes and I would invite the hon. member to allow me to explain.

There were administrative errors made with Bill C-15. I will not say that there were no errors in judgment made by whoever committed the act of deliberately or negligently giving information to the media before the House. Whoever did this did not have my approval or the approval of any minister on this side of the House. What was done was wrong.

The difference between this and Bill C-15 is the following. People with good intentions saw fit to provide a briefing to the media while neglecting to make the same offer to members of parliament and, even worse, gave the information under embargo without taking the precaution of having a lock up so that members of the media could leave the environment in which the briefing had been given.

They then proceeded to breach the embargo which had been made available to them and proceeded to interview members of parliament who had not received the information. That is a very big difference. This does not take away from the gravity of what the hon. member has just said, but it is not analogous to the other situation.

Measures were put in place since Bill C-15. The hon. member has correctly referred to the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I congratulate the committee and all its members for their work.

Measures were taken and a cabinet directive was issued. Summaries of the cabinet directive were made public. It gave instructions to public servants and others that when briefings were given to the media they had to be given in a lock up environment and in virtually all cases they had to be made available to members of parliament.

This morning I personally organized a briefing for members of parliament. Therefore I know it was held. As is the case, members of parliament were permitted to leave the briefing before the introduction of the bill. However staff members could not leave. They were in lock up until the introduction of the bill. On that issue I personally took all precautionary measures available to me.

Last Friday afternoon I received a copy of Bill C-36. As is my role as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, I do what is known as a review of the bill. I took precautions then and earlier with the minister and all of her staff to ensure that the bill was not in any way given to the media or otherwise. I was given that assurance by everyone I spoke to.

On Saturday I saw extracts from the bill in the media. They were not all factually correct but enough of them were that it caused me to be as concerned as the hon. member when raising this question in the House.

I cannot say much more other than to apologize on behalf of whoever is guilty of this. I use the word guilty because that is what comes to mind, given the respect that I have for this institution. Anyone who breaches that respect is guilty of an offence in my book. The problem is that we do not know who it is.

Notwithstanding what occurred I take this opportunity to congratulate all House leaders, regardless of the offence which occurred, for the courtesies that were given to me, to the Minister of Justice and to the government this morning for the purpose of the introduction of the bill. The gesture was even more courteous, given what occurred presumably between Friday and Saturday. I am afraid I have no other remedy than another apology on behalf of whoever the culprit is that committed this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to Bill C-36 which was tabled earlier today. Bill C-36 was drafted to address security issues facing Canadians as a result of the attack on the United States on September 11. It is particularly unfortunate that the security of the very bill designed to protect the security of Canadians has been breached.

On the weekend the National Post reported the contents of Bill C-36 and indicated that it was briefed by officials from the Department of Justice. The article published on October 13 entitled “New Bill to Pin Down Terrorism” described the bill in detail and quoted officials from the department. For example, the article declared:

One official described the list of terrorist groups as an “evergreen document that can be updated fairly regularly” with names being added or deleted as circumstances change.

This official is quoted extensively throughout the article. I do not know of any member of the opposition who has been given this type of briefing prior to today. Two of my members who were at the briefing said they could have got all they wanted out of the National Post .

Even if a member had received such a briefing, I draw attention to the case of Bill C-15. As you are aware, the Minister of Justice and her department have been down this road before. As you are also aware in the case of Bill C-15, the House was very lenient toward the minister considering the severity of this type of disrespect for the role of the House of Commons and its members.

On March 15 the Speaker ruled on the question of privilege of the member for Provencher regarding an incident whereby the media were briefed before members of parliament on Bill C-15. The Speaker indicated there were two important issues in the case: the matter of the embargoed briefing to the media and the issue of the access of members to information required to fulfill their duties. In your ruling you said:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation. To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone. In this case it is clear that information concerning legislation, although denied to members, was given to members of the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House. I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House.

This matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee concluded:

--the protocol of the Department of Justice whereby no briefings or briefing material should be provided with respect to a bill on notice until its introduction in the House of Commons should be adopted as a standard policy by all government departments. We believe that such a policy is respectful of the House of Commons and its members. It recognizes the legislative role of parliament, and is consistent with parliamentary privilege and conventions of parliament.

The committee noted that the adoption of such a policy should not be viewed as preventing the provisions of courtesy copies of government bills on a confidential basis to opposition critics shortly before their introduction. The committee went on to say:

--this incident highlights a concern shared by all members of the committee: apparent departmental ignorance of or disrespect for the role of the House of Commons and its members. Even if the result is unintended, the House should not tolerate such ignorance within the government administration to undermine the perception of parliament's constitutional role in legislating. The rights of the House and its members in this role are central to our constitutional and democratic government.

The committee heeded this warning:

Failure to adopt appropriate measures could lead to a reoccurrence of this problem in which case the House would have to consider using its power in a more severe way. The acceptance of an apology will not necessarily be considered a sufficient response.

With respect to Bill C-36 it is clear that members of the media were told of the contents of the bill on the weekend ahead of members and before its introduction in the House.

It is also clear that no effective measures to secure the rights of the House and its members were put in place. Like Bill C-15, the minister and her officials have shown contempt for the House. If you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Committees of the House

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to its order of reference of Wednesday, September 26, 2001, the committee has considered Bill C-15A, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts, and has agreed to report it with amendments.

Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons

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

There is nothing out of order about referring to the government in the collective sense, I would remind the hon. member.

If there is no one on the government side to talk to, then what is the point? What is the point of the opposition speaking? Who are we speaking to?

I think one of the recommendations in the modernization committee report, which is that the whips come up with a plan to have committees meet at times other than when the House is sitting is in fact one of the best recommendations in this committee report, because we cannot continue like this. We cannot do our job properly if we have to be in two or three places at the same time. While I am here I am not at the justice committee, of which I am also a member and which is sitting right now, hearing witnesses on Bill C-15. I cannot be in both places at once.

That may happen from time to time but it should not be a regular occurrence. It should not be something that members have to deal with all the time, constantly having to choose between the Chamber and committee. I would certainly urge that after the passage of this report the whips get busy right away. It may mean that committees would have to sit, God forbid, on Mondays or on Thursday evenings or on Fridays. Committees always sat on those days when I first came here. They sat Monday through Friday. We did not get a week back in the riding after every three or four weeks either.

As far as I am concerned, the whole place has become kind of wimpy as far as work schedules are concerned. We should be making better use of our time and not trying to telescope the work of the House and the committees into this smaller and smaller period, which is getting to be about two and a half days now. It just makes for a lack of quality time, shall we say, here in the House of Commons and in committee. I am very much concerned about it. One of the reasons I called quorum was to make that point.

I want to read to the House something from the committee report and highlight a few things. Let me read what the report says under “Ministerial Statements”.

I hear a cellphone, and that is another thing I do not like, having cellphones in the House of Commons. We should have a rule against it. We should not have to listen to cellphones going off when--

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start this morning by thanking all members of the committee for the work they have done on the modernization of parliament. I specifically thank the clerks, Audrey O'Brien and Diane Diotte, for the great job they did in assisting the committee through all the work, as well as our researcher, James Robertson. They did a commendable job.

I also thank the Deputy Speaker, the member for Stormont--Dundas--Charlottenburgh, who acted as chair for the committee which had to come up with a unanimous report. It is not always easy to be a chair and deal with all the political parties in this type of debate. I congratulate members for the work they did. I thank them on behalf of all parliamentarians and all Canadians.

Democratizing government and improving its accountability are bedrock Alliance principles. When the 37th parliament began the Liberal government was not interested in reforming parliament in a meaningful way. It started off on the wrong foot. The only reform pursued by the government was the restriction of the ability of members to submit amendments at report stage. The scheme was so unpopular it required the use of closure to ram it through.

Despite that start the House established a modernization committee. I commend the government House leader for agreeing to the parliamentary reforms in the report. Most of the proposals tend to favour the opposition. I think the government House leader recognizes that over time the opposition has lost a great deal of procedural ground.

As a result parliament has been on the brink of becoming dysfunctional. The government's powers are sweeping. If the opposition is to provide the necessary checks and balances it must be accorded certain rights. An opposing view is crucial to the functioning of parliament.

Stanley Knowles, who was a fierce defender of the rights of the opposition, said:

--you do not have full political democracy let alone the economic as well as political democracy unless you include a full and unquestioned recognition of the rights and functions of the opposition to the government of the day. Only in this way can you protect the rights of minorities. Only in this way can you make sure that the force of public opinion will be brought to bear on the legislative process.

Another respected parliamentarian, former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, believed that:

If Parliament is to be preserved as a living institution His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions...The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends.

Our goal should be to work toward establishing equality of strength between the government and the opposition. While the report is moving in the right direction we still have a long way to go. I am pleased the government House leader talked about digesting the report for a while and looking forward to making further changes in the future.

Many of the ideas and concepts in the modernization committee's report came from the Alliance Party's parliamentary reform package, building trust, that it launched at the beginning of parliament. We approved allowing candidates for speaker to make speeches prior to their election. This would let all members see and hear the candidates in the Chamber before there is a vote.

Another change pertains to the use of written questions and the reference of unanswered questions to a standing committee. This would increase the opposition's long term ability to hold the government accountable for its actions, something we have not been able to do in the history of this parliament. It is an important change.

There is a requirement for the minister sponsoring any bill whose passage involves closure or time allocation to justify the use of closure in a 30 minute question and answer session. This would make the government pay a political price each time it invoked closure.

It would ensure Canadians received an explanation from the minister. They would be entitled to an explanation not from the minister's parliamentary secretary or the government House leader but from the minister responsible. The minister would need to explain why the bill needed to have closure in the House. It is an important move.

The approval of the House of the appointment of the clerk of the House and officers of parliament would recognize that they report to parliament and not to cabinet or the Prime Minister. That is a positive move.

Requiring that annual reports of officers of parliament be referred to and considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would ensure that elected parliamentarians gave them careful and timely consideration.

The televising of committees should be expanded. Committees are where most of the real work of parliament happens. Up to now few have been televised. The proposal would have them videotaped and made available to CPAC and the press gallery.

In this time of crisis due to terrorism and the prospect of going to war it will be especially important that all major committee hearings over the next few weeks are televised across the nation. People should be able to see the head of CSIS, the head of our defence forces and the ministers in charge being questioned by all members of the House. That will be very important. It is a crucial part of the report.

The committee recommended an improvement to the way the estimates are considered. Each year the Leader of the Opposition, in consultation with opposition House leaders, would be empowered to refer the estimates of two departments to committee of the whole. Ministers would be required to defend their estimates in the House for up to five hours. This would improve and highlight the accountability process of the estimates.

This is done in provincial legislatures now. When I was minister of the environment in British Columbia I would sometimes be questioned in the house by the opposition for hours and days on the estimates in my department. That would happen here with only two ministers but it is a good start. It would bring accountability to each minister.

Witnesses in committee would be reminded that they are required to tell the truth when appearing before a committee. They would be informed by the chairman of the consequences if they do not. That is important.

I would be remiss not to mention the report's unfortunate omissions. We have a lot more work to do. I am pleased that the government House leader agrees with that. The committee did not consider tackling the issue of free votes.

The McGrath committee studied the confidence convention and concluded that only explicit motions of confidence or matters central to the government's platform should be treated as confidence. All references to confidence were expunged from the standing orders that regulate the functioning of parliament.

Despite these reforms most votes of parliament still take place along strict party lines. Recently the opposition adjourned the House on a Thursday afternoon. Some members wondered if that could be considered a matter of confidence. This is a clear sign that members need to be reminded about the confidence convention.

The hon. member for Calgary Southwest described this point in a speech he delivered in the House in April 1998. He said:

There is a myth in the House that lurking out there somewhere is the fiery dragon of the confidence convention, the erroneous belief studiously cultivated by the government that if a government bill or motion is defeated, or an opposition bill, motion or amendment is passed, this obliges the government to resign. This myth is used to coerce government members, especially backbenchers, to vote for government bills and motions with which they and their constituents disagree and to vote against opposition bills, motions and amendments with which they substantially agree. The reality is that the fiery dragon of the confidence convention in its traditional form is dead. The sooner the House officially recognizes that fact, the better for all.

We did not recommend changing any rules because there are no relevant rules to change. We wanted to reaffirm what the rules are. We could adopt a motion that says the House shall not consider the vote on any motion to be a question of confidence in the government unless the motion is directly related to the government's budget or the motion is explicitly worded as a question of confidence.

We were hoping the committee would recommend wording to clarify ministerial responsibility. We have a lot of documents written by the PCO and academics, but the House has never made a statement of its own. It is ironic because ministers are responsible to the House.

The U.K. passed a resolution regarding ministerial accountability. It can be found on page 63 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May. We should come up with our own wording. The statement should include the usual constitutional references and some additional statements to address recent issues.

The House should urge the Prime Minister to make important announcements in the House and not at Liberal fundraisers. The ethics counsellor still reports to the Prime Minister instead of to the House regarding the ethics of cabinet ministers.

The election of standing committee chairmen and vice-chairmen by secret ballot were not included in the report. It would have brought more autonomy to committees. The election of the Speaker by secret ballot was designed to take the choice away from the Prime Minister and give it to the entire House. Since committees are creatures of the House and the independence of chairmen is as important to members when they are in committee as when they are in the House, the secret ballot procedure used to select the Speaker should be applied to the election of standing committee chairmen and vice-chairmen.

Removing parliamentary secretaries from committees was another proposal the government felt it could not live with. This would have strengthened the independence of committees. Committees will continue to be impeded by the interference of cabinet through parliamentary secretaries.

There was progress on closure and time allocation. While the committee recommended a 30 minute question period before a motion of time allocation or closure is moved, it could have gone further. It could have recommended that the Speaker be granted more authority to deny a motion from being put if he felt the rights of the minority were being infringed.

The committee also failed to come up with an agreement on adding a question and comment period to a minister's speech on second and third reading stages of a bill. We will therefore have to continue the practice of allowing ministers to drone on for 40 minutes without an opportunity to challenge what they are saying. The most interesting and informative aspect of debate is the question and comment period. The bill would deny us that on most important speeches.

Regrettably there is no progress on private members' business, just the expression that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should deal with it.

Our supply motion last June was designed to commit the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to come up with a workable proposal allowing for all items to be votable by November 1. The recent survey by the subcommittee on private members' business indicated that over 70% of the members were unhappy with how the system works. An overwhelming majority wanted all items in the House to be votable. We hope that will happen by November 1.

The committee did not see fit to come up with a workable procedure to deal with omnibus bills. The way we presently deal with omnibus bills is described on page 619 of Marleau and Montpetit. It suggests that historically disputes over omnibus bills are brought about by political interaction. It describes on page 618 how the opposition paralyzed the House for 14 days in 1982. Surely there is a better way to resolve disputes of this kind.

Our most recent example of Bill C-15 was handled in a similar although less severe way. Apart from the begging of all opposition parties, the official opposition had to threaten the smooth and timely manner that legislation is processed through the House. There must be a better way.

The Speaker could be given the authority to divide a bill if in his opinion the omnibus nature of a bill prevents members from casting their votes responsibly and intelligibly on behalf of their constituents. I do not see why committees cannot be given the authority to divide a bill without having to seek the authority of the House.

There may also be a simpler solution. The government could negotiate with the opposition what principles are to be lumped together in an omnibus bill before tabling the legislation. This would eliminate unnecessary procedural battles in the House.

I thank all my colleagues and the House leaders in this institution for the changes that took place. They are not perfect but we are certainly moving forward.

Committees of the House

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to its order of reference of Wednesday, September 26, 2001, the committee has considered Bill C-15, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts, and has agreed to report that it has been divided into two bills.

Agriculture

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your patience here tonight and your presence is certainly appreciated.

Although the recent crisis in the United States has overshadowed the more common domestic problems in Canada, we must not forget about the stresses and setbacks of our citizens. The people I would like to talk about today are our Canadian farmers.

Over the past several years it has been clear that the federal government is unwilling or indeed unable to come to grips with a serious farm income problem in Canada. While the federal and provincial ministers recently announced a long term vision for the future of agriculture, this proposal ignored the immediate income crisis facing grain and oilseeds farmers.

While continuing to develop a long term goal for Canadian agriculture is important, more immediate steps need to be taken to ensure that farm families can afford to stay on the farm. Canada needs to develop a plan to put more money into the pockets of farmers immediately. However, instead of implementing practical solutions, the federal government has shown nothing but inaction. Its failure to recognize the grave income problem our farmers face will mean that many families will lose their farms, indeed many corporations who run farms will lose their business.

This is not just a problem in western Canada. This year in particular we have heard how Canadian farmers from coast to coast are suffering severe drought conditions as well as extremely low commodity prices.

If Canadians want to know where the water went, it went to southeastern Manitoba where we have been suffering nothing but flood. Fields are under water and we have serious problems with getting our crops in. We have serious problems with our forage crops and with cattle. In my riding we have had an abundance of water. If there was a way to distribute this water across the prairies or into Ontario, I would love to see that solution. However that is the reality of dealing with weather in Canada.

Speaking specifically of the drought situation, the federal agency that was set up to help farmers and ranchers with their problem with the lack of water, the PFRA ran out of money just four days after the beginning of this fiscal year.

Crops of all kinds have been seriously affected this season. A Statistics Canada survey of 5,900 Saskatchewan farmers suggested that spring wheat production will fall 18% from last year. Canola production will fall 38%. Durum wheat will fall 49% from last year to the lowest level in recent history. Corn production is down 20% and soybean production is down 25%.

Problems like drought cannot always be anticipated or prevented and for that reason it is extremely crucial that government improve upon the existing safety net programs to ensure that they meet the needs of farmers.

Sadly, the federal Liberal government continues to fail Canadian farmers with its lack of an effective agriculture policy. The Canadian wheat farmer receives only 11% of his income from government. Compare that to 58% for European grain farmers and 46% for American farmers. Yet instead of providing direct support for Canadian farmers until we can persuade the Europeans and the Americans to reduce their subsidy levels our minister of agriculture simply shrugs and says, “If you don't like it get out of the business”.

I was very pleased to hear my colleague from Peace River mention the national security aspect of food production because one need only look at history to realize that when we lose control of food production we lose our country. It is an inevitable connection. If we ignore food production here and allow others to produce it, we will lose our country. This is a national security issue that the government simply does not recognize.

Farmers have been ignored and sidelined by the federal Liberal government for years, but our nation rests on the backs of these farmers. Now Canadian farmers are having to face not just what have become the more common problems of debt, drought and flood. They are being hit from all sides by ill-advised government policies. For example, the legislation dealing with cruelty to animals, Bill C-15 currently before the House, has the potential to adversely affect normal farming practices. In the bill we see significant alterations in the underlying principles related to animal offences. It is something that needs to be very carefully considered.

The justice minister has attempted to assure members of the House and the Canadian public that the bill is not intended to target farmers or others who use animals legitimately. She has promised that these changes do not in any way negatively affect the many legitimate activities that involve animals such as hunting, farming, medical or scientific research. I can only ask this question. If it is not intended to change legitimately the way we deal with animals, then why do we need these substantive changes? It is creating anxiety and concerns among farmers.

If the minister were to stand and say that we needed tougher penalties against those who were cruel to animals, I and I think every member of the House would agree with that, but there is something much more behind this legislation. It has nothing to do with more severe penalties. There is an animal rights agenda here that is designed to drive farmers out of business and the Liberal government is buying into the policy. No member across the way will stand up and tell farmers that they will not allow a narrow political agenda to jeopardize the farmers' livelihoods.

The other issue again is ill-advised government policy driven not by members of the House, not the two good Liberal members I see across the way, but by the secret bureaucrats who drive these agendas. Who are they? Who would have advised the minister to introduce this type of legislation? Probably the same bureaucrats or policy advisers who brought in Bill C-68.

What does that have to do with agriculture? It has everything to do with agriculture. It criminalizes activities of hunters and farmers. It is just another government program to worry about; half a billion dollars that it has been dumped down the drain. That half billion dollars could go to our farmers in direct supports. It could go to national security. However, to set up programs to aggravate hunters and farmers and to allow criminals to escape simply is not acceptable.

I have had the opportunity to put a few thoughts on the record. I thank the House for its patience and indulgence.

International Boundary Waters Treaty Act

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-6, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

As we all know, water represents an inestimable resource for humans. We all agree that it is vital to life on Earth. However, contrary to what was long believed, it is not an inexhaustible resource.

This is why it is important to recognize that even if the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River system accounts for one fifth of the world's fresh water resources, it is not unlimited. Moreover, in recent years, discoveries and research on greenhouse gases and on the potential risks of a rise in temperatures have increased our awareness of the fragility of our resources and of the threats to these resources.

Because of climatic risks, increased desertification worldwide, limited supplies of drinking water around the world and energy development based on this resource, the idea of exporting large quantities of water on tanker ships or of diverting rivers has emerged as a serious option in the past ten years or so in Quebec and Canada. To environmental threats to water supplies is added a new and significant threat of bulk water exports and large scale diversion of our lakes and rivers.

There is no doubt that bulk water exports offer significant economic possibilities. It is because of this potential that some provinces have examined the possibility of issuing permits to companies to allow them to consider bulk water exports.

In the early eighties, following a drought in California, British Columbia delivered such permits to five Canadian companies and one American one. However, over the years, the province changed its position and, concerned about the possible impact of such business on B.C.'s natural resources, it passed legislation to prohibit bulk water exports.

We know that the possibility of issuing similar permits was examined by other provinces. The case of Newfoundland recently made headlines. The province quickly gave up the idea, but the possibility remains. This, combined with the recent lawsuit by the California-based company Sun Belt Water against the Government of British Columbia, raises concerns and brings back the issue of trade risks associated with exporting this resource. In this context, the federal government has been promising to legislate for the past year

It is in this context that the Minister of the Environment introduced Bill C-15 in the last parliament. Bill C-6 is therefore an exact replica of it.

Permit me to provide a little background. On February 10, 1999, Canada and the United States gave the International Joint Commission, or IJC, the mandate to study the matter. After noting a growing number of proposals to export water from the Great Lakes and other areas of the United States and Canada, the two countries agreed to ask the commission to study the issue and make recommendations within the following year. A preliminary report was tabled on August 18, 2000, and the final report of the IJC was tabled on February 22, 2001.

In its preliminary report, the International Joint Commission recommended that, during the next six months it would need to complete its study, the federal, provincial and state governments prohibit bulk removal or sale of water. It emphasized a number of points worth mentioning here.

It indicated:

—there is never a surplus of water in the Great Lakes system, that bulk removals of water could reduce the resilience of the system, and that there is a lack of adequate information about withdrawals of groundwater

There is a problem here, because groundwater can have a major impact on the integrity and quality of ecosystems. The report also points out that it is impossible to forecast the demand for water. Moreover, the possibility of climate change and all sorts of natural factors make it impossible to evaluate with any degree of certainty the level and rate of flow of the Great Lakes over the next few years.

The final report includes these three conclusions:

The waters of the Great Lakes are a nonrenewable resource; on average less than 1% of the waters of the Great Lakes is renewed annually.

If all interests in the Basin are considered, there is never a surplus of water in the Great Lakes system. Every drop of water has several potential uses.

International trade law obligations—including the provisions of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)—do not prevent Canada and the United States from taking measures to protect their water resources and preserve the integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.

Canada and the United States cannot be compelled by trade laws to endanger the waters of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

In early February, the federal Minister of the Environment proposed to his provincial and territorial counterparts a Canada-wide accord to prevent bulk water removal from watersheds.

The response of the provinces was rather lukewarm. Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan said they would indicate their positions later, while the government of Quebec dissociated itself, saying that it found the accord premature and felt that its Bill 73, an act to protect water resources, was sufficient. It said it would await the public hearings of the BAPE before defining its comprehensive water strategy.

We should note, however, that Quebec established a moratorium on the issue of new licenses to pump underground water.

Three major problems may be raised in connection with the bill before us today, namely, the definition of watershed, the extensive powers accorded the federal minister in connection with exceptions and with licensed activities and the usefulness of the bill we are looking at.

Because of these three, Bill C-6 goes beyond federal areas of jurisdiction and encroaches on provincial jurisdictions.

The fact that the concept of watershed is not defined in the bill is of obvious concern, but the fact that it is the governor in council who defines it by regulation and on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs will not be readily supported. This concept is, clearly, very risky for the division of jurisdictions and for the ownership of natural resources, which is essentially provincial.

In a document dated February 10, 1999, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade indicated clearly what constituted a watershed, and I quote:

—a land area draining into a common watercourse. Often called a catchment area, drainage basin or river basin.

Examples of watersheds in Canada include Atlantic (including the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River), Hudson Bay, Pacific and Arctic. A single watershed can cover a relatively large section of the Canadian landscape. For example, the Great Lakes waters are not restricted to the lakes themselves but include the many rivers and their tributaries that ultimately flow into the Great Lakes.

Why not specify this in the bill? Why not specify what a watershed, or catchment basin, is? The definition given in the regulations has a strong likelihood of being the same as the one set out in February 1999, and thus will directly encroach, and with force of law, on provincial jurisdictions in this area.

This is very serious. The powers given to the Minister of Foreign Affairs are considerable. From granting permits to selecting the types of projects that may be eligible, and including practices that may be exempt from application of the law, the minister is, in our opinion, padding the responsibilities conferred upon him by the Constitution.

The amendments made to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act might enable the Minister of Foreign Affairs to interfere in the management of Quebec's natural resources. Yet these provisions are clearly contrary to established law and the division of powers between the provincial and federal levels. Section 109 of the constitution awards incontestable property rights to the provinces. This, in conjunction with sections 92.5, 92.13 and 92A, elicited from Senator Gérald Beaudoin, in his work on the Canadian Constitution, the following comment in respect of the provinces, that they have:

broad powers relating to land development, acquisition and management, natural resource development and sales; what we are thinking of here specifically is the development of Quebec's hydro-electric resources... As well, according to the jurisprudence, the expression “lands” in section 92.5 also extends to waters and to mines.

Thus, these are flagrant encroachments into areas of provincial jurisdiction. As well, the pertinence of this bill bears questioning.

To protect water resources from the disastrous effects of unlimited trade, Canada, Mexico and the United States declared in 1993 that “the NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any party”. The federal government is therefore saying that, given the existence of this joint statement, as long as water is not considered a good or a product or is in its natural state, it does not come under the provisions of trade agreements, including NAFTA and WTO. But nothing could be less certain.

Such a statement, even if it is jointly issued, would not stand up under arbitration because, as provided for in the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties, the context, factors outside the scope of an international treaty or convention, cannot be used to interpret it unless the text itself remains obscure and the parties agree on the relevance of the outside factors.

Since the United States made it very clear on the very day this joint statement was issued that nothing in it in any way changed NAFTA, it is therefore legitimate to say that water might become a good within the meaning of the various international trade agreements. In fact, from the moment that Canada exports this resource, it becomes a good within the meaning of NAFTA and GATT. Even if it were not legally considered a product, it could be the object of proceedings under chapter 11 of NAFTA on investments, services, and under the national treaty.

Furthermore, it is clear that if the federal government issues export licences, water will henceforth be considered a marketable commodity within the meaning of these trade agreements.

In short, the federal government boasts that its bill is consistent with its constitutional responsibilities and with Canada's international trade obligations. We do not agree. Contrary to what it says, the government, through Bill C-6, is overstepping its constitutional jurisdiction with respect to boundary waters, is interfering in Quebec's jurisdiction with regard to drinking water, and is, in reality, offering no satisfactory guarantees as to the impact of this bill on international trade agreements.

Although the protection of water resources is vitally important, as it stands, Bill C-6 strikes us as risky and contrary to the way jurisdictions are divided between the federal and provincial governments. In fact, it has considerable potential of encroachment on provincial areas of jurisdiction, while not providing any additional protection against bulk water exports. The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the principle underlying Bill-6.

Far from us the idea of questioning the need to protect Canada's water resources and to support bulk water exports. The IJC's preliminary report sounds, and rightly so, the alarm and it reminds those who are in favour of an aggressive marketing approach of the need to deal with these issues with greater insight, while also giving more importance to the protection of our ecosystems.

However, natural resource management is the provinces' responsibility. Through Bill C-6, the federal government is grabbing the power to eventually get involved in provincial jurisdictions. We are thinking here of the all important hydroelectricity sector.

It goes without saying that indepth studies on the development of our water supply are essential. Before considering marketing this resource, it is vital to fully understand the whole issue, so as to ensure that decisions take into account the well-being of Quebecers and of future generations.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been consultation among all parties in the House in relation to the disposition of Bill C-15. If the House agrees I would like to offer the following motion to be adopted without debate. I move:

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 the committee be instructed to divide the bill into two bills, the first containing the provisions of Bill C-15 respecting protection of children from sexual exploitation, criminal harassment, disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer, home invasions, allegations of miscarriages of justice and reform and modernization of criminal procedures, and the second containing the provisions of Bill C-15 respecting cruelty to animals and the Firearms Act; and

That the committee be instructed to report the first bill no later than October 31, 2001 and the second bill no later than November 30, 2001.

International Boundary Waters Treaty Act

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

No, it is not important, it is relative. If one weighs 300 pounds, it is 92%; if one weighs 100 pounds, this should be about the same, unless the person is drying up.

In terms of the water that we use directly, that we drink, this would represent, according to analyses, less than 1% of the water required for domestic and hygienic uses. We see then that the water we use, whether in the industrial or the institutional sector, and for all the other domestic uses, including washing clothes and dishes, cooking, using the toilet, showering, bathing, there is less than 1% left for drinking. There are also exterior uses, that is, for watering the grass and the garden, washing the car and cleaning the yard. It is often in domestic uses that people are being asked to be careful about the amount of water they use.

So, it is always people who are being asked to make some efforts, but it is rarely industries, institutions, and probably even less people who would think about selling water. We know this could be quite a lucrative business.

For example, concerning water treatment, we get water for free. Of course, infrastructures have been built; 27 kilometres of pipes represent major infrastructures. There is no value to add at this stage, but there is a treatment cost of about 30 cents per cubic meter. So I figure that some people would be tempted to sell bulk water.

Still in my introduction, I would also just like to inform members of the House about a small example of an environmental disaster, of a troubling situation in the Aral Sea, and I quote:

The problem of the vanishing Aral Sea has become a serious ecological problem, a national catastrophe even. The origin of the problem dates back a very long time, but it has taken on a new dimension in recent decades.

The construction of irrigation systems throughout central Asia, and particularly the development of water supplies for major residential and industrial sites, has causes a terrible ecological catastrophe: the death of the Aral Sea.

Not long ago, governments were still boasting about the new irrigated lands recovered from the desert and the steppes, forgetting that the water used had come from the Aral Sea and its two sources. Today, the entire area around the Aral Sea has been affected by this ecological disaster. Between 1911 and 1962, the depth of the Aral Sea was 53.4 metres. The water volume was 1,064 cubic kilometres and the sea's surface 66,000 square kilometres. At that time, the sea played a central role for transportation, industry and fishing, and also regulated the climate.

Around 1994, the water depth dropped to the 32.5 metre level, from 53.4 to 32.5. Its volume was less than 400 cubic kilometres—as opposed to 1,064 it had dropped to 400—while the surface had been reduced to 32,500 square kilometres—a drop from 66,000 to 32,500.

This is a true ecological disaster. Judging by the great thirst some in North America have for the water of Quebec, the water of Canada, the water of the Great Lakes, there is a potential risk of ecological disaster here as well.

As we know—despite the rain outside at the present time—we tend to think of the water levels in lakes and rivers staying the same. This is absolutely wrong. The levels of the seas are rising, constantly, while the levels of lakes and rivers is dropping, and rapidly at that. This is not even taking into account all the analyses that could be done on water tables and the impacts of industry and agriculture, and particularly of high population densities in a given area, requiring heavy demands for water to be met.

There is runoff water. When a drop takes I do not know how long to reach a river after falling on earth, it is purified, contributes to the water table and goes down the river. It could take a fairly long time. Now, a drop falls on the sidewalk, on the ashphalt and reaches the river in a few minutes or hours.

This is a sort of introduction, to describe my involvement in matters involving water.

Let us move on now to setting the context of this whole issue of water and the treaties on boundary waters.

As I said earlier, water is a limited resource, despite what we might think. For example, the report prepared by the International Joint Commission in 1999 provided that:

Although the total volume in the lakes is vast, on average less than 1 percent of the waters of the Great Lakes is renewed annually by precipitation, surface water runoff, and inflow from groundwater sources. Under the circumstances, we must recognize that, while the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River system represents one fifth of the earth's fresh water, this resource is not unlimited.

Furthermore, in recent years, discoveries and research on the greenhouse effect and the potential risks of increased temperatures have made underscored the great fragility of the resource and the pressure it is under.

Because of climactic risks, increased desertification worldwide, limited supplies of drinking water around the world and energy development based on this resource, the idea of exporting large quantities of water on tanker ships or of diverting rivers has emerged as a serious option in the past ten years or so in Quebec and Canada.

So, to environmental threats to water supplies is added a new and significant threat of bulk water exports and large scale diversion of our lakes and rivers.

There is no doubt that bulk water exports offer significant economic possibilities. It is because of this potential that some provinces have examined the possibility of issuing to companies permits allowing them to consider bulk water exports.

In the early eighties, following a drought in California, British Columbia delivered such permits to five Canadian and one American companies. However, over the years, the province changed its position and, concerned about the possible impact of such trade on B.C.'s natural resources, it decided to prohibit bulk water exports through provincial legislation.

We know that the possibility of issuing similar permits was examined by other provinces. The case of Newfoundland recently made headlines. The province quickly gave up the idea, but the possibility remains. This, combined with the recent lawsuit by the California-based company Sun Belt Water against the government of British Columbia, raises concerns and brings back the issue of trade risks associated with exporting this resource.

In this context, the federal government has been promising to legislate for the past year. But what about the federal strategy so far?

The federal government announced in early 2000 that it intended to act more directly in the matter of water export and introduced a three pronged strategy. That strategy follows from a motion on water protection passed by the House of Commons on February 9, 1999.

There are three parts to the strategy: first, changes to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act in order to give the federal government regulatory power over the bulk removal of boundary waters; second, a joint reference, with the United States and the IJC, to investigate the effects of consumption, diversion and removal of water, including for export purposes, in boundary waters; and third, a proposal to develop, in co-operation with the provinces and territories, a Canada-wide accord on bulk water removal so as to protect Canadian water basins.

On February 10, 1999, Canada and the United States appointed the IJC. After noting a growing number of proposals to export water from the Great Lakes and other areas of the United States and Canada, the two countries agreed to ask the commission to study the issue and make recommendations within the next year. A preliminary report was tabled on August 18, 1999 and the final report of the IJC was tabled on February 22, 2000.

In its preliminary report, the International Joint Commission recommended that during the next six months it would need to complete its study, the federal, provincial and state governments prohibit bulk removal or sale of water. It emphasized a number of points worth mentioning here.

First, it indicates that there is no surplus in the Great Lakes system and that bulk removal of water could reduce the system's resiliency, or resistance to stress.

Second, information on removal of underground water is definitely inadequate. There is a problem here, because underground water can have a major impact on the integrity and quality of ecosystems.

The report also points out that it is impossible to forecast the demand for water. Moreover, the possibility of climate change and, more recently, all sorts of natural factors make it impossible to evaluate with any degree of certainty the level and rate of flow of the Great Lakes over the next few years.

In its final report entitled “Protection of Waters of the Great Lakes” of February 2000, the IJC concluded that the Great Lakes needed to be protected, especially in view of cumulative uncertainties, pressures and repercussions of removals, of consumption and of demographic and economic growth, as well as of climate change.

The report includes the following conclusions: first, the water of the Great Lakes is a critical resource. On an average annual basis, less than 1% of the water in the Great Lakes system is renewed.

Second, if all interests in the basin are considered, there is never a surplus of water in the Great Lakes system; every drop of water has several potential uses.

Third, International trade law obligations, including the provisions of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, WTO agreements, and the GATT, do not prevent Canada and the United States from taking measures to protect their water resources and preserve the integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem, to the extent that decision makers do not discriminate against individuals from other countries in implementing these measures. Canada and the United States cannot be forced by trade laws to jeopardize the waters of the Great Lakes' ecosystem.

Let us have a look at Bill C-6 and examine the context briefly. This bill is the direct result of the strategy the federal government made public in February 1999. It concerns its will to regulate the removal of water in boundary waters.

The federal government says that the intent of this bill is to facilitate the implementation of the boundary waters treaty, a treaty that also deals with other issues arising along the border between Canada and the United States. Thus, the amendments prohibit water removal and the transfer of boundary waters out of their watershed.

Also, under the proposed amendments, activities affecting the flow and the natural level of water on the American side of the border would depend on the delivery of a license by the foreign affairs department.

So the federal government suggests adding sections 10 through 26 to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

Sections 11 and 12 deal with the licences required when boundary waters are used, obstructed or diverted in a manner that affects the natural level or flow of the waters. These two sections specify that such licences do not apply in respect of the ordinary use of waters for domestic or sanitary purposes. The licensing allocation plan would not apply either to the traditional uses, like the removal for agricultural or industrial uses within the basin.

In the same way, no person could, except in accordance with a licence issued under section 16, construct or maintain any remedial or protective work or any dam or other obstruction in waters flowing from boundary waters, or in downstream waters of rivers flowing across the international boundary, the effect of which is or is likely to raise in any way the natural level of waters on the other side of the international boundary. This provision would not apply in respect of the exceptions specified in the regulations.

Section 13 prohibits any bulk removal of boundary waters from the water basins. The general provisions of this bill specify that sections 11 to 13 do not apply to projects undertaken before the coming into force of these sections, unless the effects are still perceived after their coming into force.

Clauses 16 through 20 set out the minister's powers and provide an overview of his ability to issue and revoke permits and to charge penalties.

Clause 20 states that the minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, enter into an agreement or arrangement with the government of one or more provinces respecting the activities referred to in sections 11 to 13, although not specifying what such an agreement would be.

Clause 21 addresses the regulations under the act which would guide the minister's decisions. Among other things, it states that the minister could, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations defining water basins, specifying exceptions, and unlike the old Bill C-15, the government can identify exceptions from clause 13(1), which is the heart of the bill, prescribe classes of licences and determine persons eligible to hold such licences, and the form such applications and licences must take.

What are the issues involved in Bill C-6?

Although the entire population acknowledges that water resources need to be protected, it is far from obvious that Bill C-6 will actually protect them any better. In fact, one would be justified to wonder whether the Liberal government is not taking advantage of the panic situation about protecting our waters to grab powers that are outside its jurisdiction.

There are three major problems that must be raised in connection with the bill we are looking at today. The first relates to the definition of water basin. The second concerns the number of powers assigned to the federal minister in connection with exceptions and with licensing activities. The third relates to the pointlessness of the bill we are looking at.

Because of these three, Bill C-6 goes beyond federal areas of jurisdiction and encroaches on provincial jurisdictions, including those of Quebec, of course.

How much time do I have remaining, Madam Speaker?

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening for several hours now to this debate on the two motions, the amendment and the amendment to the amendment on the possibility of splitting Bill C-15, an omnibus bill.

It seems to me that there is a fairly strong consensus among those who have spoken so far. Unfortunately, the government members have been rather quiet, but it seems to me that a lot of common sense has been reiterated since the start, namely that a number of parts of the bill on which there is consensus in the House could be passed quickly.

There is consensus on the whole part on measures to improve the protection of children as there is on amendments to the criminal code on harassment. There is consensus on a series of provisions in the bill. The problem at the moment is that there is a much more thorny part, which concerns the rather vague definitions involving the section on the protection of animals. There are concerns and apprehensions about some of the definitions.

In order to do our job properly, we must spend some time there. Energy is required on it. Not everyone is convinced that the bill as worded in this part, although the objective is good, is well structured and will stand up to the many questions we receive from farmers and hunters and other groups.

The proposal of the opposition parties is fairly simple “If you want to move quickly, split the bill”. This would allow everyone to do their job properly.

I heard my colleague from Berthier--Montcalm say “Listen, when a bill like this ends up in committee, where on the same day, in the same week, such different questions will have to be studied requiring experts who will talk of controlling pornographic material on the Internet or of some other aspect such as police protection or of cruelty to animals, are the members going to be able to do a real and valid job?” We can assume it is unlikely.

For those who have not followed this closely and who are listening today, an omnibus bill is a catch-all bill into which one puts almost anything so that there are a few very controversial measures mixed in with some good ones. Then will tell those who do not support the entire bill “You did not want to support this major part of the bill which was so good for everyone”.

I see members in the House who said exactly the same thing when they were on this side. It seems that when one walks the twelve feet that separate us, one leaves a number of things behind forever. This contributes to the skepticism people feel towards our institutions and our work. It discredits what we do.

This is a wonderful opportunity and there is good faith on the part of opposition members. This week, on an issue which took up a lot of time, which is very important and which has been in the news for a week, we behaved responsibly. We co-operated with the government. We supported it.

Now it is the opposition parties who are appealing to the government. They are saying “Please, let us do our job. Split this bill. Let us quickly pass the parts we all agree on, and we will take the time to look at what is contentious”.

The Bloc Quebecois tends to be in favour of the bill. Our support is far from guaranteed. Unless changes in attitude, and in substance, are forthcoming, the government could find itself pretty isolated. I hope that there will be government members who will come to their senses and add their voices to ours so that members can do their job properly.

Since I have one minute left, I will conclude by saying that this is a responsible attitude on the part of the opposition parties, who are making an appeal to the government. We should pass the motion to split the bill. Let us quickly pass the part having to do with children, the part on which there is consensus, and examine in greater depth the rest of the bill, which is the subject of disagreement and debate.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of constituents in the Saskatoon--Wanuskewin riding, but also on behalf of a good many people across our country who have great concerns about the very manner in which the bill is before us today. It has been mentioned countless times already. It is a very sad day. It shows us something of the dysfunction in our present parliamentary system. We need to be able to break these things up so we can get the best kind of legislation put into place for the good of the Canadian public.

As has been referred to before, the bill contains a number of virtually unrelated things, a real potluck of justice issues. There is no compelling reason that they have to be placed together in this manner. No satisfactory reasons have been provided to me as to why such things as provisions dealing with child luring and child pornography over the Internet, animal cruelty, amendments to the Firearms Act, criminal harassment, disarming a peace officer and criminal procedural reform have to be together.

Many of us would agree with a number of those topics, but there are some other things that we have concerns about in respect to others. It is fairly deceitful, and we could use stronger language, that a Liberal government would even want to do this when there is no compelling reason.

The various elements of the bill seem to have been grouped together deliberately in a tactical strategic manner in order to compel opposition members of all the parties here to raise concerns. It is not just the Canadian Alliance. The Bloc, the Progressive Conservative Party and the NDP have also raised concerns about Bill C-15 and its omnibus nature. The bill is designed to confuse the public, to obfuscate, to possibly embarrass members by obscuring the real reasons members may wish to hold up, slow down or vote against a piece of legislation. The public and members of parliament actually would agree with many things in the bigger bill. Certain of the topics we do agree with.

The process is less than transparent. It is sad for democracy that it has come forward in this rather deceptive manner.

Quite a number of members of Parliament live in rural ridings, and I am one of them. Thirty-five per cent of the population of the riding of Saskatoon--Wanuskewin lives in the rural part. Farmers, ranchers and others who use animals legitimately have voiced reasonable and serious concerns. Anyone looking at them would say that they have brought forward valid concerns, particularly those regarding some of the implications of the bill with regard to the cruelty provisions.

It really puts a member in a somewhat untenable position where he or she would appear to be voting against some good laws to protect children from dangerous predators. These are aspects that we would agree with and would want to have in place the sooner the better.

Placing animals and children in the same bill really demeans the value of human life. It puts them on the same level and it ought not to do so. It also prevents the House from fully considering the impact of the animal cruelty provisions. It does not allow for fine tuning so that no harm is done to those who make their livelihood from tagging, branding and handling animals in certain ways and that the provisions do not adversely affect the economic circumstances of many rural people of Canada including those in my riding of Saskatoon--Wanuskewin. With Bill C-15, there is a possible allowance for prosecuting these people under criminal law.

The Canadian Alliance does not condone animal abuse and would fully support the aim of a bill to increase penalties for those practising intentional animal cruelty. However we are opposed to substantive changes to the law that would change the definition of what constitutes a criminal offence in terms of animal cruelty.

The Minister of Justice tries to reassure us that she does not want to prohibit presently acceptable and legitimate activities in Canada in relation to the agriculture or fur industries. Why then does she not simply increase the penalties for practices that are already criminal offences and make that particularly clear in Bill C-15?

The manner in which she has gone about this breeds discouragement and discontent. It does not serve the Canadians well. It makes for a fair bit of cynicism in a populace where there is already a lower voter turnout. We need to be doing all that we can to heighten regard and respect for the Parliament of Canada.

The approach taken by the Liberal government to lawmaking shows a very callous disregard to the real needs of the public across Canada and to the constituents who expect us as individual members to serve their best interests in the House.

We have pleaded with the minister and the House leader to split off those provisions dealing with animal cruelty and amendments to the Firearms Act. Bloc members that supported the firearms provisions have concerns now as they are hearing from constituents across their province. That is all the more reason for some of that to be split off and provided for in a separate manner.

The very technique of bringing forward a motion to split the bill would accommodate the need to move those provisions that have broad consensus. We could move them forward quickly, get the protection for children and various other areas in respect to police and so on, and subject the others to a more rigorous and full debate for better legislation. That is what we are all wanting and hoping to come out of the House.

I want the public to know that we have asked for this time and again. Canadian Alliance members will find it necessary to vote against Bill C-15 because of some of the wrong elements we find in it.

We would like to do that in a show of collegiality. Unfortunately it would not be if there is no splitting of Bill C-15. Many of us in good conscience will not be able to support Bill C-15 unless at a late hour there will be some provision to split it so that we can end up with some better legislation for all Canadians as a result.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to know why we have spent one day on the amended motion. One really only has to see the content of Bill C-15, and one will immediately realize that something is not right.

Without going into the details about each of the elements, since they have already been discussed at length today, upon reading the omnibus bill, one will see that it creates a new offence to protect children against sexual exploitation, notably sexual exploitation through games or the use of the Internet.

The bill increases the maximum sentence in cases of criminal harassment. It makes home invasion an aggravating factor in sentencing. It creates an offence of disarming, or attempting to disarm, a peace officer. It increases the penalties for offences related to cruelty to animals. New definitions are provided on this subject.

The bill codifies and clarifies the application process for ministerial review in cases of alleged miscarriage of justice. The bill confers certain powers to the minister. It reforms criminal procedure and modernizes it with respect to aspects related to preliminary inquiry procedures, disclosure of evidence, and case management and preliminary inquiries.

The bill sets out regulations for electronic documents and remote appearances. It outlines a complete system for pleas, private prosecutions, alternate juror selection, restrictions on the use of agents and it amends the Firearms Act using certain criminal code provisions.

Once we have seen that, we are entitled to move to the next question: is it unreasonable for the opposition to call for the Liberals to break up this bill? Is it unreasonable?

This is not just a question that involves the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative Party or the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative coalition. It is not a question that concerns a single political party. It is a matter of simple common sense. It is a matter of simple opposition common sense, some might say, because opposition members are the only ones who think this way.

What I have learned from the eloquent speech by the government House leader is that, when he was in opposition, he called for exactly the same thing from the Progressive Conservative government of the day, that is not to present omnibus bills like Bill C-15 we have before us at this time, so that the opposition, as well as the government MPs, might to do their jobs properly.

Today, is it unreasonable to ask the government to split this bill? Why would it not be made into three separate bills, because there really are three categories? Not three categories of offence, but three categories of functioning for the House to get its job done properly.

We have the category on which everyone agrees: child protection, increased sentences for sexual harassment, and a reform and modernization of the justice system to speed up trials. Everyone agrees on that. Why does the government not introduce a bill that includes these three? If that was what we had before us in the House today we would have passed it right away and it would be a fait accompli.

The second category, perhaps, is one on which the House is not unanimous, but we have heard talk of it, we have already discussed it, either in the House or private members bills, or on the Standing Committee on Justice, or in briefs from the Canadian Police Association or from lobbyists.

These issues are home invasions, which are an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. The bill also creates an offence of disarming, or attempting to disarm, a peace officer. Then there is the review process following a miscarriage of justice.

This is another category, not that we fully support everything that is included in that category, particularly as regards miscarriage of justice. I find it unacceptable that the Minister of Justice, in her great wisdom, can decide whether or not to compensate. This issue could have been dealt with quickly since we had already discussed it. This is the second category. Another bill would have been needed. We would have fully co-operated, since everyone knows the issues here. We know where we are headed. We are either for it or against it, but we know where we are headed and we know where we stand.

The last category is the one with a capital “P” for problematic, since it is the whole issue of firearms. Is there a more problematic issue right now than the registration of firearms? The Bloc Quebecois supported the principle of gun registration.

If we look at what is currently being done in the area of registration, I think we should be very careful with any amendment to this legislation, because it is not an easy thing to do. Let us be clear. Currently, there are over 100,000 firearms owners in Quebec who have problems with the Firearms Act, particularly as regards the procurement of ammunition.

We do not question the principle. We simply want to point out that this is a sensitive and complex issue. We do not want to mix this with the protection of children. Are we clear on this?

The other part deals with cruelty to animals. We support the principle that we must modernize the criminal code, which dates back a long, long time, as regards the issue of animal cruelty. We support the principle, but is it normal to include such a broad definition? Is it normal to tell a fisherman that he must make sure that his catches are indeed dead? He is being told that if he puts a fish in his boat when it is still alive, this amounts to cruelty to a vertebrate, since the fish is a vertebrate.

This is an important issue. We could easily have split Bill C-15 in three different parts to speed up its passage.

Why are we making such a request? Simply because we want the House to be able to make an informed decision when the time comes to vote on these important provisions of the criminal code.

First, the House must have all the information it needs to decide if it wants to pass this bill or not. This information will help members to do their job properly. When I say that, I mean that they must study the bill carefully and try not to forget anything.

Let us imagine for a moment that Bill C-15 is not split and that it goes to the justice committee as it is now. In the same day, the committee will hear hunters and fishers, psychologists who will talk about the protection of children, computer experts and police officers.

I know that Liberal members often play musical chairs in these committees. Three quarters of them do not follow the same committee regularly. What would they do in the clause by clause study other than say yes to everything, as the Minister of Justice would tell them to do? Is that the Liberal government's idea of enhancing the role of members of parliament? I do not think so.

I could go on for hours about this bill and explain how the government is going about it the wrong way. However since I have only a few minutes or a few seconds left, I would like to correct a statement made by the Liberal government. It said this morning that when it introduced this omnibus bill in June 2000, the opposition did not react.

I would invite the members opposite to examine Bill C-36 introduced in the 36th parliament and they will see that the whole issue of cruelty to animals was not included in that bill.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hour is waxing on and we have heard a lot of discussion regarding the bill, but in case we have people tuning in at this late hour I will review some of the aspects of the bill that we are discussing.

It is a multifaceted bill, a broad brush touching on a wide range of issues in at least eight and possibly more different areas of law, many of them totally unrelated, as has been mentioned time and again by members on both sides of the House.

The omnibus bill covers measures such as adding offences and other measures that are intended to protect children from sexual exploitation, especially over the Internet. It would increase the maximum penalty for criminal harassment. It would make home invasions an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing. It would add the offence of disarming or attempting to disarm a police officer. It increases maximum penalties for animal cruelty offences. It would revise the application process to the Minister of Justice for miscarriages of justice. It would reform the process for preliminary inquiries and other criminal procedures. It would add administrative provisions to the Firearms Act and things as far fetched and wide ranging as making amendments to the National Defence Act and the National Capital Act.

As has been mentioned time and again in the House, for the government to bring forth such a wide ranging array of issues under one bill is not only unpalatable but many would argue that it violates the very basis of the democratic principle and spirit that the House purports to represent.

I believe there are many issues in the bill on which members would agree almost immediately. I will talk about some of those issues but there are other issues in the bill that are very controversial and that do need to be discussed.

I think many members on both sides of the House will have difficulty voting on the bill because it causes a fundamental conflict of interest in very clear issues that we can support and other issues that we cannot support. By lumping so many different and controversial issues together under one bill, the government has actually taken away the opportunity for members to represent their own integrity on the issues and also constituents we represent. I would like to talk about some of those issues. The new legislation would create an offence for luring a child by means of a computer system.

This is good stuff. I think all parties are in agreement that this type of luring of children is not acceptable. It is an offence to all of us that this technology, which has been a blessing and a help for communication purposes and for transmissions in many other ways in our society, has been used in such a demeaning manner to abuse our children.

However the legislation brings in penalties that are consistent with other levels of crime in determining the age of the victims and so on; 18 years old for prostitution and child pornography, sexual assault and incest or, where the accused is in a position of trust, sexual touching; 16 years old for abducting an unmarried child from his or her parents; 14 years old for sexual interference or invitation to sexual touching, bestiality in the person's presence, exposure or harbouring.

The bill would also create an offence for transmitting, making available or exporting child pornography through a computer system with a maximum penalty of 10 years. The bill would prohibit a person from intentionally accessing child pornography on the Internet with a maximum penalty of five years.

The material is not clear how the courts would determine whether someone had intentionally viewed child pornography or with what objectives the person had viewed it. There are some challenges in relation to this. Furthermore, it is not clear which websites the law would apply to.

For example, if a Canadian viewed a website based outside Canada, what jurisdiction, if any, would the courts have over the person?

This part of the bill has many very good and commendable aspects to it but we are sure it will create some problems in administration.

The maximum sentence for criminal harassment would be increased from 5 years to 10 years. We think this is a very commendable issue. I am sure there would be a broad consensus among all parties for bringing in tougher penalties for criminal harassment. In order to maintain a secure society, it is necessary that we tighten up in this area.

I think we all know persons who have been injured by criminal harassment and have not had the adequate protection of the law to this point. I am aware of people in my own riding who have been stalked, which has caused them tremendous fear. Some have been followed night after night or have been threatened but no action has been taken. The police have trouble pressing charges until an act is actually committed.

We therefore applaud changes that will toughen up the penalties for stalking and for criminal harassment.

The bill also deals with animal cruelty offences. Many people in my riding and elsewhere applaud the changes in terms of animal cruelty. We have all known of instances where animals are abused and most of us own pets. In my case, we have a large number of animals of various varieties on our hobby farm in British Columbia. We have horses, dogs and cats. We have had turkeys and other animals.

We have had cases of abuse in our community where animals have not been adequately cared for and where people have not adequately provided for food for their animals, where animals have been left chained for long periods of time and where animals have given birth but no one was in attendance. We do not need to go on with horror stories. We have seen instances where animals have been left in the fields with a calf partly birthed and crows having picked the eyes out of the calf and the young heifer is left there on the verge of death. These kinds of things cause a terrible angst in the community as people become aware of these issues. We need to see measures brought in to toughen up cruelty to animals, and most of us would support that.

There are problems with the legislation because of the way it is defined. There seems to be some confusion between animal welfare and animal rights. While these measures are applauded by people who have seen horrors and animal abuse, there are those who use animals in other traditional ways. From the beginning of recorded history, mankind has hunted animals and fished for food. Those who have been involved in the animal agriculture and animal husbandry are raising some very serious concerns as to how their treatment of animals will be perceived under this legislation.

In my riding people have called me to say that they want to see Bill C-15 passed because they have seen horrors in their communities of people who have been negligent in looking after their animals. They want to know why it has been held up. We have had to time and again explain to people that the way the legislation is written and the definitions leave big questions.

We do not take a lot of comfort from the notion that the justice minister has declared that when the bill is passed things will continue and that what was legal before will remain legal afterwards. With these definitions being as they are, we wonder whether her word will stand or, if she is replaced as justice minister and another justice minister takes her place, whether this will be interpreted in the same way, or will the minister be there to explain to the courts what was really meant when the language is as confusing or as loose as it is.

There are some very serious issues that need to be clarified on behalf of our agriculture community and those who are traditional hunters.

Examples were mentioned earlier of routine animal husbandry procedures, such as punching a tag in a cow's ear. This could be perceived under this legislation as causing injury. I believe the definition states that anything which causes pain to all animals having the capacity to feel pain, includes non-human vertebrates. We might wonder what a salmon feels when it is hooked on its way in to being caught and how we might interpret that.

I see that my time is winding up. As opposition members there are many aspects of the bill that we would like and which I would personally like to support. However, because of the confusing, contradictory and controversial areas that we cannot support, there is a conflict and we are not able to support the bill as it is written.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the progressive conservative democratic representative coalition. I echo some of the comments made by my colleague from Elk Island in his lengthy but very important introduction to the bill, as well as follow-up comments by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre.

We have seen this tactic employed by the government all too often in this place. An omnibus bill is placed before the House forcing members of parliament to vote against things that they support or do not support.

That is a very bad thing to do. It sends a message not only to members of parliament but to the people we represent that rather than working in the spirit of co-operation with honest give and take, being partisan is more important than doing the business of the nation in a way that would include others.

That is a shame. The people of our country are looking to us for leadership. We have been pitted against one another for far too long in this place because of the way the government has proceeded with pieces of legislation.

The government would be better served if it were to do just what my colleagues have said in debate and separate the bill into separate bills because there are very contentious issues for members of different parties. Many of us in opposition have made the point that we could support many of the items in the bill but cannot support others.

If the government were to proceed with goodwill and leadership, it would stop implementing this practice. That would be reflected in the will of the people as well. They would look to this place as a place where we are doing the nation's business in a less partisan way.

Members of the opposition can come up with some good ideas. Members of the government can come up with some good ideas that the opposition can support. It can go both ways and it needs to happen more often.

The government, with its majority, has the ability to lead in that area. We find ourselves asking for the tone to be changed, for the direction to be changed and for leadership to be shown. If the government were to lead in this way, the people would follow. It would be to its benefit and to the benefit of our nation.

I hope the practice of bringing in omnibus bills does not continue in this parliament. Omnibus bills are in many ways simply designed to put people in an awkward position.

Clause 13 would add subsection 164.2 to the act. It deals with the forfeiture of materials and equipment that would be seized from individuals who produce child pornography. This part of the bill is actually something that my colleague from Lethbridge brought forward in a private member's bill. He worked very hard to bring it forward and it was incorporated into the bill with some changes.

My Alliance colleague from Lethbridge is one who would not often blow his own horn, so to speak, so we need to do that for him tonight and congratulate him on his good work. Often as members we do not see the efforts of our good hard work that go into private members' business actually come to pass in the form of changing government legislation. The member from Lethbridge has been very effective and has helped to make a very important change to the bill.

At the same time, going back to an earlier comment I made, he will be placed in the awkward position of perhaps having to vote against the very bill that includes content from his own private member's bill which was included in the bill of the Minister of Justice. That is a shame. That is why we ask that these kinds of bills be separated into their subject areas so we can have an honest debate and questioning of the government and the government can show some leadership rather than the continued process we see over and over again.

Many of my colleagues have pointed to other specifics within the bill. Earlier today my colleague from the Bloc did a very good job of outlining the problems with regard to the gun registry and the impact that the bill will have on it. He indicated that this was simply not the right tool to use to get to a good goal and that the bill before us did not address the issue.

We debated Bill C-68, the gun registry legislation, long ago in this place. We know that has been a very costly piece of legislation and has not had the end effect. It is a laudable goal to reduce crimes committed by those who would use weapons in committing their offences, but the legislation does not have an impact on what it is intended to do. That is also a shame.

Those resources could have been put into other areas. The bill does not help to fix that problem. It only makes it worse in many of the ways that were pointed out by my colleagues earlier.

That is something we see over and over again. We have an opportunity now for the government to make some positive changes and to go in a direction that is needed for many reasons. Yet it fails to do so. We implore the government to change its attitude in the way it proceeds with legislation such as Bill C-15.

I will close by saying that I hope the comments made by members of the opposition this evening and earlier today will have an impact and an effect on the government and make it change its mind and its direction. Unfortunately many of us have been here long enough to know that raising good points, sound arguments and good ideas--

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

He noticed just by looking at me sideways. One of the items on the menu is a beautiful steak with all the side orders, the trimmings and everything. But I am told that I cannot have it unless I also eat the gravel that is sprinkled on top. Gravel is not very tasty and it chips my teeth, but I am told that I cannot have the steak unless I eat the gravel.

I have another example, and this one is going to be even more crude. This one is turkey with all the trimmings. We are coming up to Thanksgiving soon both in the United States and Canada. What a meaningful Thanksgiving it will be this year because of the recent incident. How grateful we are that we live in a country that has freedom, freedom of movement and freedom to live. But I am thinking of that turkey and in among the turkey are the feathers, because the feathers were not taken off the bird before it was cooked. I am told that I have to eat the feathers as well as that wonderful turkey that I like so much.

In all these different instances I am not given a choice. So it is here with this bill. I am being asked to either vote for these elements en masse or against them en masse.

The reason that it is so crass is I am sure that it is exactly along the lines of what I saw in the 1993 in the election.

One of my colleagues at that time, the member now for Edmonton North then from Beaver River, was running in the election. A brochure was sent out in her riding which listed all the things she had voted for or against. These were things that no doubt the people in that constituency either did or did not want. They used it for straight political reasons. In the midst of a vote, and this is almost always true, it is very seldom that we get a vote which we can support wholeheartedly.

When we have a bill like this, which has some things that are so objectionable, we cannot in conscience vote for it and represent our constituents. However, at the same time there is another element in that same bill that I could never vote against. How am I going to win?

I really think that perhaps the Speaker should intervene here. The Speaker should say that we need to guarantee the freedom of members of parliament to vote the way they believe their constituents would want them to vote.

Since this bill puts the members of parliament into such a dilemma, the Speaker should say that he will not accept the bill in its present form. Maybe the Speaker should say to the government that the bill should be divided and brought back for us to debate it, amend it and vote on it. Maybe that would be the solution. After all, the role of the Speaker is to ensure that the rights of parliamentarians are maintained.

I do not think that this means or any other means is an acceptable means to force me to vote opposite to the way I should on certain issues.

The Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act state, among other things, that if someone were to offer me money to try to persuade me to vote differently from what I might vote, it would be considered a high crime. This could result in both the person offering the money and the member of parliament, if he or she were stupid enough to accept the offer, landing in jail, and rightly so.

Why should the person who offers a bribe go to jail, when the government forces me to vote contrary to my beliefs and it does not go to jail? I would like to see all the Liberals in jail. We cannot do this to a person and maintain the integrity of parliament. Think about it. I do not think enough thought has gone into that.

That is by way of introduction to the particular bill. A few things really bother me about the bill, but some things I could probably support. For example, in our modern electronic age it is now possible very easily to transmit information electronically via computers, e-mail and the Internet. One thing in the bill, which I do not think has been mentioned in the debate so far, is that the bill permits the acceptance into evidence of electronically transmitted information. That is perfectly good. It is wonderful that we can communicate quickly and easily.

Another part of the bill is good. It provides that a witness or even an accused does not have to physically be in the court if, by some electronic conferencing means, it can be shown to the satisfaction of the court that all of them are able to see and hear each other simultaneously. That is a good move. It could save our country millions of dollars of costs in getting witnesses to court, as long as the courts are satisfied that there is no coercion and that all statements are freely made. I would vote for that because it is a good one.

I am sensitive to another part of the bill because of my past experience. Those who know me know will know what I am talking about. I have some affinity for people with handicaps because I had a sister who was severely handicapped. There are provisions in the bill that make it easier for them to testify, either as an accused or as a witness.

In the opinion of the judge, if a person feels intimidated in a public court with everyone watching, this bill would allow that person to be a witness from behind a curtain without being visible. Another very important thing is it could be arranged, for example, for the victim not to be in a position to physically see the accused. It is a very important thing in terms of victims' rights. I want to support that. I want to vote yes when the vote comes up for Bill C-15 because of some of those issues.

The bill talks about the issue of child pornography. I know that some of my other colleagues have already entered into the debate on that issue. I strongly want to vote in favour of anything that will reduce these vile attacks on our children. Whether it is an attack of physically using a child, which is absolutely unthinkable in my mind, or whether it is in the realm of cartoons and does not actually involve a child in their production, the very idea we would promote that in our society is such that I want to be against it.

The bill takes a few tepid steps in improving protection for children and in reducing the child pornography industry. I want to vote in favour of that but I do not want to vote in favour of some of the other things.

I am appalled at what little protection we give to children in our society. The age of consent is presently 14. That is unbelievable. We have friends who are a generation beneath us, but their children are growing up now. I am thinking right now of a specific family. They have a wonderful family with three children.

I cannot imagine someone actually enticing or intimidating this young lady, who is a couple months older than 14, into some of these heinous acts, whether by Internet or otherwise, and getting away with it because the age of consent is 14. The bill happens to talk about using the Internet as a means of enticing children.

I am opposed to the age of consent being 14. It should be at least 16, but preferably 18. If we are not ready to protect our children in society, then our society is going downhill. We need to take very strong steps in that regard.

Then there is the issue of cruelty to animals. This is one item that is very badly done in the bill. For the life of me I cannot condone for an instant deliberate cruelty to animals. I have heard of such situations. There was one situation in the Edmonton area next to my riding.

A lady had a house full of cats, which happens from time to time in different cities, but it was unreal how those animals suffered. I believe there were 50 to 100 of them in the house and they were not properly fed. In fact many of them had died. The people who went into the house said the stench was horrific, yet this woman lived with these cats. Obviously, this person was mentally ill and needed help. What happens to those animals is unconscionable.

I want to make it very clear that I am not in any way in favour or will I condone the wilful torture or inhumane treatment of animals.

I grew up on a farm in Saskatchewan. The things that needed to be done to train animals were well within the limits of reasonableness, yet not clearly defined in this particular bill.

Trying to train any animal, whether it is a dolphin at the zoo or an elephant, a combination of reward and punishment is used. That is the only way to train them. Some would think it is very cruel for a guy like me to get on a little pony to try and break it, yet it is a very good way of breaking it. I do not mean physically breaking its back, although that is a possibility. If a heavy person gets on an animal it tires more quickly and is brought to subjection more quickly. That is part of training an animal.

There are other things. I do not know how many members have a dog. How does one train a dog so that it behaves in a socially acceptable manner when living in a house with humans? I do not know of any little puppy that will respond to anything other than a small amount of physical punishment. It is not harmful, yet there would be some that would say it is cruel.

I think of the way we treated our animals on the farm. My dad was always very careful. However the bill says that everyone commits an offence who wilfully or recklessly causes, or being the owner, permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or who kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed, brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately.

When I was young we used to go fishing. It was part of our food supply. When a fish is pulled out of the water it has that mean, ugly hook in its mouth, which is pretty cruel. Then the fish is killed. Some people just allow it to die of asphyxiation. Others use some other means to kill the fish. Does it mean that sport fishing now will be illegal? To me that is pretty brutal. If it was done to a human it certainly would be considered brutal. Yet it says that if one allows it to be done, brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately, one is guilty.

We cannot have that. The bill will put at risk everyone who goes out sport fishing and actually uses the fish for food, which is a proper function. Here we have a Liberal bill and I am being told I have to vote for that.

I also think of animals. When we were on the farm we used to slaughter them. Nowadays they are taken to the abattoir and it is done professionally. However when I was a youngster we used to do that ourselves on the farm. My father used to point the rifle right in the middle of the animal's head and it died instantly. Again, if we did that to a human it would be considered brutal and vicious.

The words brutal and vicious are undefined. In this case the animal died, in my opinion, within milliseconds. Yet, according to the bill, that farmer, hunter or native in the North country who takes down a moose are all at risk because they have done something which is vicious and brutal.

I cannot support the bill if it has that kind of a clause in it. I plead with the government and the Speaker. Let us divide these things out. Let us talk about them one at a time. It would not take any longer. In fact it would take less time because we would be able to deal with each issue separately, get it to where we want it to be, have the vote and it would be done.

As it is right now, we are going to be hung up on this because we cannot reach an agreement on these things. It puts us into such a conundrum to be going frontward and backward on issues at the same time.

There is a limit to how far we can do that. I believe that democracy is eroded by the fact that these things are all in the bill. There are others, but I am out of time so cannot elaborate on the others. However, that is the essence of what I want to say today. I really wish that the government would reconsider and even at this stage, second reading of the bill, pull it back, divide it out and let us have some parliamentary co-operation here, which is what allows us to do our job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to Bill C-15 earlier and pointed out that the provisions in C-15 as they pertain to the Firearms Act are part of this hidden agenda, this attempt to obtain a goal by indirect means. To further bolster the arguments and the positions I have put forward in this debate, I would like to put forward in the form of a question to my learned colleague from the Bloc Quebecois something from the Canadian Shooting Sports Association.

The infamous use it or lose it provisions were softened slightly in Bill C-15 but are still there. This action gives the CFO, the chief firearms officer, the authority to refuse or revoke a licence and/or registration for restricted firearms if the owner cannot prove the firearm was used for the purpose for which it was originally purchased, for example, target shooting or collecting.

The association was hopeful that the whole provision would be removed but says that the government gave in to the wailing of the Coalition for Gun Control and kept it in with a slight change. Instead of insisting that the gun be used for the original purpose, it will change to include any purpose listed in section 28, which refers to the protection of life, lawful profession, target shooting and collecting.

Just because a piece of property that was bought with after-tax income or earnings is sitting on a shelf and locked up according to the regulations, why should any government, bordering on the label of big brother government, come in and take that lawfully owned property just because it has not been used for a year? I would like the member to talk about civil liberties and the rights that Canadians should have to own property. Just because it may not be used, the government is saying it will come and take it away.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of people who are listening, I am pleased, once again, to make a summary of the context of Bill C-15, which the government has called an omnibus bill.

As I said earlier in jest, I compared this omnibus bill to a bus bill carrying an unlimited number of passengers. The government has included in this bill all the amendments it could think of, that is to say amendments to the criminal code.

What makes the situation awkward is that we find in the same bill amendments creating new offenses to provide protection to children from sexual exploitation, including sexual exploitation involving use of the Internet. The bill also increases the maximum penalty for criminal harassment; it makes home invasion an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes and it creates an offence of disarming, or attempting to disarm, a peace officer.

The bill also contains a whole part that increases sentences for offenses involving cruelty against animals. This is where we have a problem.

The bill contains a whole part we support. All members who spoke on the bill, members of the opposition, said they were eager to have this bill quickly passed and implemented.

We agree with offences relating to sexual exploitation of children, the increase of the maximum penalty for criminal harassment, making home invasion an aggravating circumstance and the new offence of disarming a peace officer.

As far as the increase in penalties for cruelty to animals is concerned, this is a situation that is hard to introduce into a single bill. It creates difficulties for an MP like myself, from the riding of Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, the only federal riding between two metropolitan communities, Montreal to the east and the Outaouais region to the west. It is the only riding where the land is considered 50% agricultural and 50% forest, lakes and mountains.

We can therefore consider ourselves as part of the food basket for Greater Montreal and also for the Outaouais, while also being part of their playground.

Obviously, everything that could affect farmers and the work they do affects me directly. As for Bill C-15, given the increased penalties for cruelty to animals, I will reread a change to the designation of the term “animal”, which is “...a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain”.

Obviously, any vertebrate that has the capacity to feel pain leads us to think that anyone involved in animal husbandry may be liable to be charged under the criminal code under new clause 182 and those that follow, and even sentenced to up to five years in prison.

There are still many broad discussions required on this. What we are telling the government is that this is not over, that the discussions have not been completed as far as cruelty to animals and the penalties for it are concerned.

In this connection, I refer to where the text states that everyone commits an offence who “without lawful excuse, kills an animal” or “without lawful excuse, poisons an animal, places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by an animal”.

As far as agriculture is concerned, one thinks of rodents and so on, but the words that are the most striking are “without lawful excuse”, because there is no definition. The only words used are without lawful excuse.

This led to confusion. The Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, the Ontario Farm Federation and the Fédération des producteurs de volailles du Québec have all expressed strong opposition and want much greater clarity in the definition of the word animal and in the definition of the meaning of without lawful excuse.

The pressing problems must be resolved in the short term. We can never say it enough, the matter of child pornography must be regulated quickly. In the same bill, the government introduced the matter of cruelty to animals, which the various stakeholders from the agricultural community have not finished discussing.

I mentioned earlier that 50% of my riding is forest, mountains and lakes. It therefore is a playground for some people. The hunting and fishing associations, the people who operate the wildlife preserve in keeping with all the regulations and laws, with the necessary permits, all may be afraid as of today to enjoy their sport and fear being accused of a criminal offence if the fish or game is not killed immediately and suffers a bit.

On behalf of the farmers in the riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, hunting and fishing associations, owners of hunting dogs and a very popular activity covering part of the riding, we are asking the question. All we want is to support the bill in connection with child pornography, an increase in the number of criminal offences in cases of criminal harassment and the creation of a new penalty for those who disarm peace officers in the course of their duty. We agree with this part of the bill.

We want the section of the bill dealing with cruelty to animals withdrawn from the bill and referred to various committees for discussion and expansion. That way the farmers of the riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, Quebec and Canada will not be penalized and neither will hunters and fishers who enjoy their favourite sport within the law and with the necessary permits.

Farmers should not be penalized by a bill that would threaten the way they earn their livelihood, just as hunters and fishers should not be penalized for practicing their sport.

These days, my riding is all the more affected because the Mirabel airport is located on its territory. That airport was built right in the middle of an agricultural area. As we know, this was the largest expropriation, the largest displacement of people, second only to the terrible events that took place in Acadia.

This was a huge federal operation. We still do not have what was promised back then, when the project to build Mirabel airport in an agricultural zone was being implemented. The government had promised to build highways, to build highway 13, highway 50 and a bullet train that would travel to the airport terminal. In 2001, more than 30 years later, highways 13 and 50 have yet to be completed, and we are still without a high speed train, even though there is an airport terminal.

With any bill, any proposal from the federal government, people in my riding of Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel are all the more concerned when they are told: “Do not worry. This is not a problem. All those who practice their sport or who have a farming operation will not be affected by this bill”.

Again, we cannot trust the government when we read the text, the definitions and the explanations on what may be deemed to be cruelty to animals. Let me repeat the definition of the word animal:

—a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

This means that a farmer, a hunter or a fisher is likely to think that if he does not immediately kill the product of his work or the target of his sport, if there is any kind of suffering for any reason whatsoever, he could be accused of having committed a criminal act. This makes us all the more eager to ask questions.

We should ensure that this whole portion of the bill concerning cruelty to animals is referred to committee so that those who earn their living honorably by farming, those who enjoy sports and who respect the laws, hunters, fishers and owners of hunting dogs, can practise their sport and indulge in their hobby or do their work without being constantly harassed by a neighbour or anyone else who might accuse them for who knows what reason of a criminal act.

I am rereading this section of the bill where it says that a person could be charged with a criminal offence if he:

c) kills an animal without lawful excuse;

No definition of “lawful excuse” is given.

d) without lawful excuse, poisons an animal, places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by an animal--

I repeat, there are vermin and things for which many solutions are available in the interests of greater cleanliness and an improved quality of life.

What I, my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, and all members who have introduced bills and made speeches in the House are requesting is that the government split its bill, because an omnibus bill is a bill into which, I am joking, but that is how it looks, just about everything can be thrown, with no restrictions. That is why I described this bill as a catch-all bill or bus. At least we know how many passengers a bus can carry but, with an omnibus bill, there can be a series of amendments. When it is passed, it is passed in its entirety, and no part can be left out.

When government officials make recommendations, it is very difficult later on to make even a single change. Very important talks are taking place between the major bodies which speak for farmers throughout Quebec and Canada, and between the major associations representing hunters, fishers and owners of hunting dogs, those who use our forests, the wildlife on our lands, for recreational purposes, who show respect for their sport, comply with the rules and have the necessary licences. These people who earn their living from the land and use it for recreation have serious questions about this bill.

It would not be unthinkable for the government to decide, for once, to agree with the opposition and quickly pass and I cannot stress this enough, all of the amendments relative to the protection of children against sexual exploitation, criminal harassment, amendments regarding the disarming of a peace officer or increasing the sentencing for perpetrators of home invasions. We are ready and willing to pass this part of the bill very quickly, so that people will feel better protected.

As for the rest, for those provisions dealing with the implications of cruelty to animals, all of the definitions, protection for those who are involved in certain sports and who make an honest living, in order to spare them being punished by a bill that we passed in haste, we ask that the bill be split. We are still waiting to hear why the whole cruelty to animals issue is included in the same bill as protecting children from sexual exploitation. This is an aberration. It is allowed, because it is an omnibus bill, as it is called.

If there is one duty we owe to ourselves as parliamentarians in this House, it is to make sure that bills are clear, so that citizens not be left in doubt when it comes to issues such as the protection of children and cruelty to animals.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before commenting on Bill C-15, I would like to remind the House of the geographic situation of my riding of Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, which is the only riding located between two metropolitan communities, those being Montreal and the Outaouais, further to the west.

Fifty per cent of the riding is farmland, and 50% is covered by forests, mountains and lakes. We may therefore consider ourselves to be part of the refrigerator for the urban sector of Montreal and the Outaouais and, at the same time, the playground for these same sectors.

We therefore understand that a bill such as Bill C-15 has a direct impact on us, not because we are not aware that it could and will address some very important problems.

When we talk about child pornography, the sexual exploitation of children, home invasions, and creating an offence for disarming, or attempting to disarm, a peace officer, we can only be in favour of this part of the bill.

This is an omnibus bill. To use a more down to earth term for those who are listening to us, it is a “catch-all”. In other words, the same document includes amendments that are all very important, taken individually, but when lumped together into one document, can lead to great confusion. That is what we are trying to get across to the Liberal members, to the ministers and to the Prime Minister.

What we are saying is that, as far as animal cruelty is concerned, we have some serious problems with the definition of the term “animal” and the definition of what constitutes cruelty to animals.

So that everyone will understand properly, the definition is a broad one, and reads this way:

“animal” means a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain

The term animal is used in order to focus the bill, and as well offences are created which involve prison sentences. The list of offences reads as follows:

182.2 (1) Every one commits an offence who...

c) kills an animal without lawful excuse;

d) without lawful excuse, poisons an animal, places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by an animal...

For the farmers of Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, this is a far too broad definition and a category of offences which makes the mere act of being a farmer and raising animals for meat liable to lead to criminal charges.

This does not include vermin. If a farmer has a large amount of land, if he is lucky enough to have it, then there will be vermin, rodents. If a person wants to get rid of them, he might be accused of a criminal act.

This has led a number of the hon. members who have spoken against this bill in this House to say that, while favourable to a large part of this bill, there is the whole matter of animal cruelty. It would therefore be advisable for this matter to be referred to committee, where it can be discussed so that no farmer in my riding, or anywhere in Quebec or in Canada, is liable to be charged for earning a living in the most honourable activity of farming.

We could add to this that the hunting and fishing associations dotting our province--I repeat, we are part of the Montreal metropolitan and the Outaouais metropolitan communities--have suffered serious indirect effects in connection with amendments, gun registration and so on.

In addition, hunters and fishers merely enjoying their sport, fishing and killing a fish without a legitimate excuse, or letting it live, not killing it directly or immediately, could be liable to face immediate criminal proceedings.

Obviously, the government will understand that this situation, this “catch-all” bill as I have named it, includes a variety of laws, that are quite acceptable. The people of the riding of Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel agree with changes to the provisions on protecting children against sexual exploitation, protecting children against sexual harassment, additional protection that would make those who disarm peace officers liable to face greater penalty, or protection against home invasions.

The people of Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel would support, they would pass a bill on this, and on their behalf, I would be prepared to pass such a bill. However, as far as we are concerned, the whole matter of cruelty to animals should not be included in the same bill. Protection of children against sexual harassment and cruelty to animals are two matters that must be totally separate. The bill must be divided, split.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again that was a fine speech and contribution to the debate in parliament. I spoke earlier about a hidden agenda, which to me really means a government is trying to accomplish an objective through indirect means.

I will not go back into legislation over the course of the last few years, but the legislation in Bill C-15 in regard to animal cruelty would still make it illegal to have pheasants in captivity and release them into a cornfield for the purposes of hunting. There is no difference between hunting a pheasant that has been released and one that happens to just walk by in the cornfield.

We have the issues of the cost of federal and provincial licences with regard to hunting, the cost of registering firearms, the cost of getting permits to possess the firearms, the cost of driving out to a hunting area and the cost of having some food and whatever else. It is becoming such a hassle to be a hunter and, as a result, we find many people are no longer taking up the sport because of all these impediments.

The hidden agenda of the anti-hunting and animal rights lobby group, which the government listened to with the legislation, is to stop any use of animals by humans for food. They are trying to totally disarm Canadians because as people give up hunting they do not have a need for firearms and do not want to spend money for a licence.

Bill C-15 is one more step in the hidden agenda of disarming the Canadian population by making it illegal to hunt captive animals. The definition of animals will possibly allow for the prosecution of a farmer who does a normal thing like putting an ear tag in a cow because it requires punching a hole in the ear which causes a moment of pain.

Could the hon. member comment on that and, in particular, does he believe there is a hidden agenda in the bill?

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you back in the chair. I hope you had a good summer holiday. What puzzles me is simple. Government members were members of the opposition prior to 1993. They know how important a role the opposition plays in a democracy.

Those members have actual experience at being in the opposition. Those members stood in this place and held the government accountable. We can quote Hansard time after time to indicate what they said was important for democracy. What puzzles me is that, now they are on the other side, whatever they said while they were on this side has gone out the window. It is amazing that when they were in opposition they were pointing to weaknesses in our democracy. They are ignoring their own advice now that they are on the other side.

Many people listening to the debate may be wondering what we are talking about with regard to this omnibus bill. If I were listening to this debate I would have to ask myself the same. What exactly is the issue? Let me state this in plain and simple terms so people can understand what we are saying.

The government has brought in a bill containing a number of virtually unrelated justice issues that have been lumped into one piece of legislation. It makes it extremely difficult to debate these issues that are important to Canadians. They cannot be brushed aside. This is not a housekeeping bill.

I will talk about some of the issues. Child luring and child pornography over the Internet are extremely important issues, considering what is happening with the Internet. It is accessible to a huge number of people. This is a new menace which needs to be controlled and discussed at length.

The issue of animal cruelty is included in the bill. I have received a huge number of postcards from people regarding the pros and cons of what is considered animal cruelty. I am sure every MP has received a huge number of letters from people concerned about the issue. Canadians living in rural regions who deal with animals on a day to day basis have a different perspective because their living depends on it. They want more clarification so they do not break the law.

My colleague, the most senior member in the Canadian Alliance caucus and probably in the House, talked about shooting squirrels and sitting in jail for a long period of time. I hope it does not come to that. He was trying to illustrate the simple point that the bill did not have a lot of clarity.

The bill also contains amendments to the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, which is a totally different subject altogether. Criminal harassment is also contained in the bill, as is the issue of disarming a police officer. This is a very serious issue that we need to discuss to see what punishment should be given and what criminal procedure should be followed. This legislation needs a lot of discussion.

We are discussing many issues that are contained in one bill. We are saying that we cannot have a proper debate on all these important issues because members of parliament are not able to speak about the concerns of their constituents.

This is a bill drafted by bureaucrats who wanted it passed. They should not have sent it to the House of Commons. They should have done it under regulations. The bill does not have the input of the representatives of the people of Canada. It has the writings of the bureaucrats who do not represent the elected people of Canada. Bureaucrats do not get feedback from the people; elected representatives do.

I have been the CIDA critic and I know the government spends millions of dollars in bringing people from fledgling democracies to Canada to show them how democracy works. Over the period of 100 years this Chamber has built itself into a very respectable place where we debate issues. However when bills such as this one are introduced, democratic rights are trampled.

What is democracy? Democracy is where a government is accountable on issues of the day. It is the right of Canadians to speak through their elected representatives who sit in the House.

Then we get something like this, an omnibus bill written by bureaucrats, where we cannot discuss the issues in more depth to present the views of all Canadians. We have a big, diverse country containing diverse views. The government likes to use the word diversity and how it is the defender of diversity. Diversity also includes the points of view from coast to coast to coast, from urban to rural areas.

We do not have the opportunity of doing that because everything is lumped together in the bill and by 5.30 p.m. it will be all over. It will be pushed through.

The bill was written by bureaucrats who sit in Ottawa and do not represent the diversity of Canada. Members of parliament represent those diverse views.

When speaking to people who have come to see democracy in action, I have said that we have to be vigilant not to let the rights of the opposition be eroded because that right is the right of the people to hold a government accountable. When that erosion happens then we have to speak. Bill C-15 is an example of that.

Many members on the other side have also recognized that. When they were in opposition they understood the important role of the opposition. They too are saying that they see the danger and warning signals in Bill C-15. However they cannot say anything. Nevertheless they do have concern.

There are currently five members of the government here. In the last one and a half hours I have been sitting in the Chamber I have not even seen one of them stand.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, before getting to the main thrust of my speech, I would like to take a mere 30 seconds to extend my best wishes to our new whip here in the House, the hon. member for Témiscamingue, and his great team.

We all know about his promotion, and I am sure my enthusiasm is shared by others, knowing that he will acquit himself of his duties with a combination of two facets of his personality, good old-fashioned authoritarianism and unceasing generosity.

It is, however, somewhat incredible that we are faced here with a bill that is so unpalatable, so inconsistent, so unacceptably flawed as far as its definitions go, such an incoherent mishmash.

Madam Speaker, I was elected when you were, in 1993, although I am your junior by a few years, and I would never have believed at that time that I would one day end up in this House being forced to speak to a bill as inconsistent as this one.

How can people claim to be part of a properly functioning system if they are in government and expect legislators to properly acquit themselves, with due care and professional conscience, of their task of examining legislation, and yet come up with a bill that is totally impossible to grasp?

We would have understood had the government chosen to deal with such an important issue as animal cruelty. Of course, there is a new school of thought, of which we are aware because people make representations to us as their elected representatives. We know that the issue of animal cruelty requires a tightening of existing legislative provisions, including those contained in the criminal code.

We would have understood had the government chosen to validate its bill. Contrary to my colleagues, I am not one of those who will not get to the bottom of the issue. I would have been extremely happy to do my job as a parliamentarian, to listen to what people in our communities had to say on this issue of animal cruelty and to do whatever I could to ensure we have the best legislation possible.

But it is not what this is about. The same bill deals with the offence of disarming a police officer, the Firearms Registration Act, and the process for reviewing allegations of miscarriage of justice.

Could anyone give me an explanation? I would ask my colleagues in the government majority, who have become cruelly silent in this debate, to tell me how all this was presented to them in caucus. Can anybody on the government side tell us what the connection is between the process for reviewing allegations of miscarriage of justice, gun control--members will notice that my colleagues are constantly urging me on, which gives me the impression that I am really giving my best--animal cruelty, imposing harsher penalties, disarming a police officer, and the Firearms Act?

Nobody can. I hope that during the period of questions and comments, someone on the government side will rise, and on the pretext of asking me a question, answer this one.

Let us make no mistake, the member for Berthier--Montcalm, whom you hold in high esteem, as do I, rose in this House and made it clear that we support certain provisions without reservation.

For example, there is the whole matter--an important one--of the sexual exploitation of children in a way that did not exist when we were children, but that has taken on massive importance in the past ten years, and more specifically in the past five. I refer to the Internet.

These are important provisions, which must be included in the criminal code and require us, as parliamentarians, to hold a proper debate. But, for heaven's sake, how can they ask us to vote on this sort of indigestible mishmash of a bill?

I cannot imagine that. There are responsible drafters at the Department of Justice. There are people who no doubt said to the government “It is really not very reasonable to combine a variety of problems that have nothing to do with one another in a single bill”.

If, for those who have just joined us, we had to summarize the bill, I would say there are eight major focuses.

As I have just mentioned, there are references to the establishment of new offences in order to protect children from sexual exploitation, including that which involves the Internet.

The member for Berthier--Montcalm will shake his head to correct me if I am wrong, since his legal knowledge is well known, but I think this arises from a court decision. Does it not arise from a decision by the BC supreme court? The member is nodding, so I guess I am not mistaken.

The second focus of the bill consists of increasing the maximum penalty for criminal harassment. This is an important provision.

With the third point, things start to drift a bit. In fact, if the philosopher Pascal were here, he would say of this bill that the centre is everywhere and the periphery nowhere to be seen. The third focus of this bill makes home invasions an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

So, we have gone from cruelty to animals, to child pornography, to sexual harassment, to home invasions. It is hard to find a common thread in such a hodgepodge.

Fourth, the bill proposes a new offence, that of disarming, or attempting to disarm, a peace officer. This is an important provision. Every year, law enforcement officers attend an awareness day on Parliament Hill. For several years now, I have been meeting with them, as have a number of my colleagues, and I therefore know that this was one of the things they were asking for. Should this be included in a bill like the one before us? I have my doubts.

The fifth focus of the bill is to increase the penalties for cruelty to animals. Say again—just when you think you've heard everything—I must point out how vague this bill is and how open to criticism the definitions are.

The proposed definition for “animal”—obviously the question arises and we must be clear—is as follows:

“animal” means a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

The question that arises is whether a farmer who deliberately poisons a rat will be charged under clause 15 of the bill. There is no immediate answer to this question on the strength of the proposed definitions.

Let me be clear. There are several important provisions in the bill which we support, but the debate we have been invited to take part in today has to do with the amendment moved by the Canadian Alliance members regarding the need to divide the bill.

The hon. member for Berthier--Montcalm told me earlier, and he knows these issues well, that this bill could easily be split into three different bills. Based on the various provisions, there could have been three bills that could have followed the course of parliamentary process that we are all familiar with: tabling of the bill, second reading, referral to a committee, third reading, debate and referral to the other place.

Again, I hope that someone from the government side will stand up and explain to us what the rush is to pass such a patchwork of measures in this omnibus bill. We need to give the government a serious warning. We have had it with this idea of tabling omnibus legislation which leads to a certain amount of confusion. We rush them through and, in the end, this creates, again, inconsistency.

We were not elected to the House to be confused. I think we need to recall what the philosopher Boileau said “What is conceived well is expressed clearly, and the words to say it arrive with ease”.

But that is not how it starts, it starts as follows:

Clarity of thought for some Remains a goal not often won As through a cloud there comes no sun

I must say in all friendship to the Minister of Justice this day has definitely not come in her case, because her mind is fogged by thick clouds. Indeed, it takes some nerve to dare introduce Bill C-15, an omnibus bill governed by eight different principles dealing with eight different issues that have nothing to do with one another, except for the fact, of course, that they are all included in the criminal code.

The best thing that could happen would be to see the pages go around the House and pick up the copies of this bill, and the Minister of Justice go back to the drawing board and table, as the hon. member for Berthier--Montcalm rightly pointed out, two or three bills. Then I can assure hon. members that we would make a contribution to the review of this bill, in a serious and reasonable fashion and with the good faith that has always characterized the Bloc Quebecois.

Far from me the idea of downplaying the issues of animal cruelty, sexual harassment or child pornography on the Internet which, as we know, was ruled on by the court.

We should not be proud of what is going on today. Not only is there no reason to be proud, but it is an ugly thing to want to use one's majority to confound the opposition. I should point out that this is our third mandate here and we have seen quite a few of these malicious attempts.

If I could make a wish it would be that both sides, the government and the opposition, would put an end to this practice of introducing omnibus bills and instead take the time required to table bills dealing with very definite issues.

When the issues are very specific, it is easy for us legislators to understand the government's objectives. Let us do our work properly in the House, in committee and at third reading. Is this not what the voters who mandated us here expect? Is this not a legitimate expectation on the part of our fellow citizens? Unfortunately, as I said, this is not what is going on today.

We must ask our fellow citizens what attitude they wish us to adopt. The terrible thing about the situation we are in today—the member for Berthier--Montcalm admitted this just now—is that we lose either way. For instance, we want very clear restrictions on child pornography on the Internet; we hope that the legislation will included tougher provisions in the criminal code.

We can go along with one very particular dimension of Bill C-15. But how can we ignore our desire to hold a real debate on the issue of child pornography when at the same time there are provisions regarding the mechanisms for review of judicial errors? The issue of judicial errors is not an insignificant one. The member for Repentigny himself introduced a private member's bill on this issue.

Let us remember that there have been a number of judicial errors. People have been locked away for 15, 20, 25 years in jail on the strength of facts that turned out not to be accurate. We have some only too concrete examples of people whose lives were ruined because justice made a mistake.

Furthermore, if I may approach this with my customary frankness, the Marshall Commission was created to look into this problem.

The Marshall Commission recommended that when it was a question of reviewing judicial errors and deciding on corrective action, it should be possible to operate with complete freedom from any sort of political interference and that there should be an independent body which would ensure a fair and equitable review, guided by the principles of basic justice and of natural justice.

My understanding of the bill before us is that this is not the direction in which the government is urging us to go, because this decision will lie with the Minister of Justice. Once again, this is not personal. We are not saying that the Minister of Justice is incapable of making good decisions. We are saying “Why not go along with a trend we are seeing in public administration, which is to separate the legislative arm from the executive arm so that the people making the decisions are independent, free from any political interference?”

As we can well realize, we have before us someone who is sad. Unfortunately, I believe we will be extremely aggressive in this instance, as a group of parliamentarians, and will do our best in order to gain an end: the breaking up of this bill. I do not think that is anything unreasonable.

I can see my colleagues in the government majority, and they will agree with me that everyone stands to gain from having clear ideas when involved in politics, that everyone gains if we all understand what we are voting on.

There is one important point to be raised. Does Bill C-15 have to be the government's priority? In my riding, four bars have been blown up, so far. The biker gang wars are on again in Montreal, although some people may be under the illusion that things had calmed down. That is not so. Bars are being blown up. It started in Saint-Henri, and now it has spread to Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. The member for Berthier—Montcalm and myself, along with our colleague, the critic for the solicitor general, have worked very, very hard in parliamentary committee to improve Bill C-95, which has now become Bill C-24.

The bill is not perfect, as we know. At least the offences have been described better. Aggravating circumstances have been added. The definitions are better, so that some people who were not covered in the past now are. With Bill C-24, people at any place in the legal system will be better protected.

We would have liked to have seen the process take a better course than this. There were many other priorities for the government than to bring Bill C-15 before us.

I will make a short digression into the area of health, which is my primary area of responsibility after all. The hon. member for Drummond, who is no hothead, not one to get carried out or to lack judgment—in fact her judgment is very sound when she addressed these issues—made a comment in connection with the bill proposed by the government on the new technologies of assisted reproduction that it has a constant tendency to resort to omnibus bills. It was were not able to immediately propose to us a bill that would have banned cloning for reproductive purposes, as well as for therapeutic purposes.

The opposition has worked hard to help with a problem and a bill like this one. I repeat, why do we have such an ill-conceived bill, one that is likely to implode because of all the contradictions it contains? We could have had a debate on reproductive technologies, because—let us not forget—there is a legal void at the moment.

It is not unthinkable that a researcher in Italy, Germany, France or anywhere else in the world could arrive in Canada and start playing around with human embryos and end up in a situation where genetic engineering could lead to cloning. Our hands would be totally tied.

As we saw this summer, there is a legal void, because there is nothing in the criminal code to allow the crown to take action on this basis. This is something we could have done.

In closing, I would say the best thing we could do would be to decide to split the bill. The government should act on this request. Once the bill is split, the government could count on the opposition to do its usual responsible and thorough work.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, my friend is absolutely correct.

One of the things that I think most turns off Canadians is the government using its ability to set the legislative agenda to play political games. There is no question that this is what it has done for Bill C-15, knowing that it can count on the public's lack of understanding of how complicated the bill is to try to trap opposition members. It is completely disingenuous.

What a responsible government would do when it comes to bills like Bill C-15 is divide them. That is clearly what opposition members have been asking for.

The government has claimed in the last several months that it is committed to reforming the House of Commons. It could start by ensuring that we would not have omnibus bills any more by ensuring that there is a provision to divide up these bills. We could change the standing orders to empower the Speaker to divide bills that are omnibus bills. There would be nothing wrong with doing that.

I completely agree with my friend that if the government is committed to democratic reform that is a good place to start.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fine speech and the question at the end of it. The hon. member has asked me a very specific question. I can tell him that there are a number of aspects of the bill that the Canadian Alliance agrees with.

We agree with stiff penalties for luring children through the Internet. We would pass that quickly. We agree with provisions against child pornography. We would pass that quickly. We agree with provisions that provide a penalty for trying to disarm a peace officer. We would pass that quickly. Those are things we agree with. We have no problem with them.

More to some of the things that my friend said in his discourse, the thing that concerns me most of all about what is happening in this place today is its lack of relevance to where the public is at today. The public is gripped by what the future holds for it as a result of the World Trade Center bombings and the attack on the Pentagon. The Canadian public wants to know what the implications are for it.

Why are we not debating those things in the House of Commons? We are here to do the people's business. I can state that today Bill C-15 is not the people's business. They want these other issues addressed.

I would urge the Prime Minister and the House leader from the government side to remember that they are here and have an obligation to serve the public. They are not doing that when we are debating bills that to a large degree are simply not relevant in the context of what has happened in the United States in the last nine days.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of the previous speaker. Indeed, the first part of it concerned the conduct of the Liberal government. We have to acknowledge that the Canadian Alliance member was right.

We do have a strange government. It says one thing and does another. It tells the people one thing but, in practice, does something else. We could give many examples of this.

I will give an example similar to the one the member gave, and it concerns organized crime. This is a very important matter. Everyone has debated it here in the House. We quickly passed the bill in June in order to implement it as quickly as possible. Bill C-24 is before the other House as is another very important bill, Bill C-7, the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Liberal government says that public safety is important and that it wants to do its utmost to, in addition to having anti-gang legislation, amend the anti-gang legislation, which has not yet been passed in the Senate, and add amendments in order to fight terrorism. Well, we might have thought the government would instruct the other House to have Bill C-24 examined as quickly as possible in order to be put into effect. Well no, it did not.

The Liberal government instructed the Senate not to pass as quickly as possible the anti-gang legislation, the legislation to fight organized crime, not to make amendments to cover terrorism, as the Prime Minister has been saying since the start of the conflict; no, the government instructed the other House to pass Bill C-7. Declaring war against young offenders will certainly settle the affairs of the world. This is an example of the sort of speech the government makes here for public ears. But, the reality of the matter is something else again.

The Canadian Alliance member is right: we should be discussing something other than a bill as complicated and controversial as Bill C-15. If hon. members took a good look at this legislation, they would agree that it is inconsistent. We cannot deal with and put on the same footing—after all, we are amending the criminal code—the protection of children, the vulnerability of childhood, and the protection of animals. This does not make any sense.

We could pass very quickly all the provisions that have to do with the protection of children, such as Internet games and issues. We could also adopt very quickly provisions dealing with penalties as they relate to harassment. We could adopt them today if the government was willing to co-operate by simply splitting the bill.

There are controversial clauses, such as those on animal cruelty. I can understand the hon. member from western Canada whose constituents are very concerned with this bill, because back home in Quebec, we also have farmers, people who work with animals, hunters, fishers, research laboratories and universities that are concerned. Instead of discussing a bill that no one wants or that is largely controversial, we could have talked about the preparation of the strikes that the United States are about to make. We could have talked about how to help small and medium size businesses, companies, and how to improve our border services. We could have talked about the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, about public safety. But no, we are not talking about these issues.

Could the Canadian Alliance member tell us which parts of the bill we could quickly adopt because they are not being challenged by his party, and could he point out those that are more controversial and require a more indepth review? Could we split this bill in two?

We could adopt one part quickly and take more time to properly review the other part.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House to speak to Bill C-15. Before I begin my speech I want to say hi to Mike Harris. I am not referring to Mike Harris, the premier of Ontario, although I admire him very much, but to Mike Harris, the son of our whip who is in the lobby today. He is a great guy and is the biggest fan of the Prince George Cougars.

The other day my wife and I were walking by the U.S. embassy. I was just amazed at the outpouring of sympathy for what has happened in the United States. Canadians from across the country have showered the U.S. embassy with flowers, cards and their thoughts about how much they feel for the people of the United States and for the people around the world who were affected by the World Trade Center bombing. I do not think there is anyone who would not be moved by this outpouring of sympathy for our friends in the United States.

On behalf of the residents of the Medicine Hat constituency, I offer our sympathies to Ambassador Cellucci, President Bush and the people of the United States. The Americans are our best friends and have been throughout our time as a country. We have to stand with them in these difficult times.

As we debate Bill C-15 there are many people that feel there are more important things to be debating than Bill C-15. In light of the attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the plane crash in Pennsylvania, many people have questioned whether or not Canada is prepared to deal with the sorts of events that occurred south of the border.

They feel, and rightly so, that this is the place where we should be debating those things, not just for one or two days but until there is some sense that Canada has a handle on some of the implications of those attacks and some of the planning that needs to occur for us to go forward. There are many aspects to it.

I do not want this to be a partisan debate but I do feel there is real concern about parliament being relevant at a critical time like this one. Although there are very important elements to Bill C-15, the issues of safety and security should be brought forward for serious debate in which we lay out some of the public's concerns.

For example, there are issues about the safety of our international border: whether or not proper screening is done of people who come into this country, whether or not proper resources are devoted to gathering intelligence, and whether or not the people crossing our borders are coming here for the right reasons.

I hasten to add that the huge majority of people who come to this country are here for the right reasons. They are good and responsible people who want to come and contribute to this country. However there are people who come here for all of the wrong reasons.

There have been reports of people connected to terrorist organizations who have come to Canada. They may even be connected to the World Trade Center bombing. People are rightly concerned about this issue. They want to know that our government has taken steps to deal with such things and that it has not been negligent at some point in the past. These things should be debated in this place.

Some of the other implications that flow from it are equally important. People are now concerned about what provisions are in place when it comes to air travel. If there is to be less air travel, that will have an impact on the economy and on the viability of air carriers. Air Canada is asking for $3 billion to bail it out of trouble.

Those are the sorts of things we should be debating today as opposed to Bill C-15. We should be debating the state of the Canadian military. We talked a bit about it in question period, but that debate should not be limited to question period. These are the things that grip the country. I do not understand and I am sure the public does not understand why we cannot have free ranging debates in this place when these are the things that concern the public.

One of the things that must concern the public in the wake of the World Trade Center attack is the impact it will have on the Canadian economy. People were simply so gripped by what was going on in the United States that they sat in front of their televisions for two and a half or three days. This had an economic impact as will a border between Canada and the U.S. that may be more restricted in the future than it has been up until now.

We need to figure out what we can do to ensure that we have the free flow of goods and services back and forth across that border because it is a huge part of Canada's GDP. Our exports to the U.S. alone are something like 34% of GDP and total trade with the U.S. is something like 43% of GDP. Those are huge figures.

If there are restrictions at the border as a result, they will have profound impact on the Canadian economy. They could have a very large impact on our ability to maintain a balanced budget. They may also have an impact on our ability to fund some programs when we know there is a demand to put funding into defence, foreign affairs, intelligence gathering and better screening of our borders. Those are the things we should be debating today.

The World Trade Center attack has also pointed to the disconnect between what is important to the country today and what the business of parliament is today. We should not forget that as we go forward.

I hope the House leaders will see the contradiction between what is important to the public and what is going on in the House and take steps to rectify it because we are not truly doing the business the public wants us to do.

Having said all of that, I will now proceed with my speech on Bill C-15. There are some important provisions in the bill that are meritorious, deserve the attention of the House and speedy passage. A couple of them are the aspects that relate to child pornography and the luring of children.

As has been made clear by my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance and by other members in this place, we are in a position where members on the opposition benches would be quite prepared to pass those aspects of the bill immediately if we could divide the bill and deal in a more thoughtful way with the other things that are not as critical and to which everyone agrees. We want to deal with those things, but when it comes to some of the other provisions we are deeply concerned.

One of the things in Bill C-15 that troubles people in rural areas is the provisions that deal with animal cruelty.

Members of the House and the public should consider what Bill C-15 is like from the perspective of farmers or ranchers in southern Alberta. They see provisions in Bill C-15 that impede their ability to make a living at a time when they are under tremendous strain.

We have had two years of drought in my riding and no measurable precipitation this past August. It was the worst period of drought since 1888. Farmers were plowing under fields in July. There was no runoff from snowfall in the spring because there simply was no snow.

There was no water for the livestock. Herds had to be dispersed in the very first part of the spring. Usually ranchers are able to graze their cattle all summer on the pastures but that was not an option this year because they did not even have water at the beginning of the year. There was no water at all and they had to disperse their herds. If there was enough water to keep the herds going, there was not enough grass in the pasture so they had to feed their cattle with hay which becomes very expensive. There was a huge impact on the livestock industry. With respect to grains and oilseeds, again there was no moisture. Fields were plowed under. Crops were plowed under. It has been an absolute wreck when it comes to those issues.

There are several irrigation districts in my riding. Because there was so little snowpack in the mountains this year, only the irrigation districts which had a very large capacity for storing water were able to irrigate through the entire growing season. In some of the irrigation districts, land that is typically irrigated land, there was not enough water to get to some of the crops. The less valuable crops such as grains did not get irrigation water. They were coming in at 10 bushels on the acre when they would typically come in at 40, 50 or 60 bushels on the acre.

It has been a terrible year when it comes to weather conditions in southern Alberta and it has had an impact on the agricultural industry. That comes on top of bad conditions the year before.

Bill C-15 on top of all that is basically a way to kick those producers when they are down. In Bill C-15 they see all kinds of impediments to their being able to do their jobs and make a livelihood. What are the impediments?

There are provisions in Bill C-15 that would make it an offence to harm animals in any way. The problem is that the legislation itself is very unclear about what constitutes harm. For instance in animal husbandry when bull calves have to be castrated, branded or provided with an ear tag, the ranchers are concerned that would be against the law. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association and others have raised this concern.

Some people on the other side have assured us that it would not be a problem, but, in the end because the bill is not clear, it could be left to the discretion of a judge. It could be left to someone to interpret. We are asking either to make this provision much more clear by making amendments to the bill or simply to scrap this provision for now until it is sorted out.

The concern is that if it is not made clear, at some point an animal rights group or whatever will challenge it in the courts. There is the possibility that a judge could read it in such a way as to make it very difficult, if not impossible, for farmers and ranchers to treat livestock in a way that is necessary for them to raise livestock for food and that sort of thing.

Those are the sorts of concerns we have with Bill C-15. I do not understand why there could not be a clarification in the bill that would make it very clear what kinds of practices are allowed when dealing with livestock, for instance. Then we could put the minds of farmers and ranchers at ease.

I want to underline how important that is to people in my riding especially at a time when things have been so difficult for farmers and ranchers.

I want to talk about other provisions in the bill. I have already touched on them briefly, but I think it bears repeating that the official opposition and people on the opposition benches in general, object to the idea that so many different aspects of the criminal code and other acts are being dealt with in what is an omnibus bill. The problem with an omnibus bill is that very often there are some things that people in the opposition support and other things that they do not support. I cannot help but think there is a little mischief going on when it comes to the government putting so many different things in one bill. It puts us in a position where if we oppose the bill for very good reasons, the government can claim that we do not support provisions to track down people who are engaged in child pornography which of course is fiction.

We do support those provisions. That is why we have been arguing for the last number of speeches that the bill should be split. We do support provisions to go after child pornographers. We do support laws that ensure that people who try to lure children through the Internet are dealt with in a very tough manner under the criminal code. We believe in those things. However, we do not support the idea of an omnibus bill like this one which makes it difficult to separate out all the different aspects of it and to vote in a way that expresses how we feel about the bill in general. I simply had to make that point.

I will conclude where I began, which is to say that in the wake of the World Trade Center bombings, many parliamentarians are deeply concerned that this is not the appropriate time to conduct business as usual in the House of Commons. These are extraordinary times. We should be dealing with the issues that the country is concerned about, the issues that have gripped people for the last eight or nine days. If the government ever wanted to demonstrate goodwill toward reforming parliament and ensuring that the public is not cynical about how this place operates, this would be a perfect opportunity to suspend the usual business to engage in some of the discussions I mentioned at the outset that really do have a deep and profound impact on the day to day goings on of the Canadian public.

Madam Speaker, I move:

That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word “principles” the following:

Such as: child luring and child pornography over the Internet; animal cruelty; amendments to the Firearms Act; criminal harassment; home invasions; disarming, or attempting to disarm, a peace officer; reforming criminal procedure; and allegations of miscarriage of justice.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to what the hon. member said, and indeed, he is right on a number of points.

I would simply like the hon. member to enlighten the House. I want to make sure that I understood the thrust of his speech. Everyone knows that there are a number of subjects covered in the omnibus bill, Bill C-15, before the House. There are a number of subjects amended in the criminal code.

Am I correct in understanding that he would like the government to follow up on the opposition's request to split Bill C-15 into several bills, including one that could deal with, as the hon. member stated so well, sexual exploitation and the whole issue of the use of the Internet in order to gain access to children. Another bill could deal with criminal harassment, and another with home invasion.

Am I correct in understanding that a number of these bills would not be contested by his party, in other words, that they would give their consent fairly quickly? Or perhaps he could even give it immediately and tell the government “Here are the subjects on which we agree and on which we would like to proceed quickly. Here are the other subjects that we consider problematic, and in which the House should invest more time, in order to examine some particular aspect of the bill, because it deserves a more in-depth study”.

My question is quite simple. I would like to hear from the hon. member from the New Democratic Party what exactly is not contested by his party and that he would like to have passed quickly, and what is problematic. Could he distinguish between the two so that it can be determined as specifically as possible which elements of the bill are problematic and which are not?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debate on Bill C-15, the criminal code amendments. Time permitting, I would like to start with Bill C-6, the water export bill. If there is agreement, which I intend to seek very shortly, a take note debate would follow after 8.30 p.m., pursuant to requests made in the House by some hon. members, on the Prime Minister's forthcoming visit to the United States of America to meet the president.

On Friday, we will commence second reading of Bill S-23, the Customs Act, and if necessary, Bill C-6, the water bill.

On Monday, we will deal with Bill C-30, the courts administration bill, followed by second reading of Bill C-27, regarding nuclear waste.

Next Tuesday shall be an allotted day, in the name of the Bloc Quebecois.

Next Wednesday we will deal with the Nunavut water and surface rights bills which was introduced earlier this day.

As I mentioned earlier, I draw to the attention of House that there were some consultations earlier today. Given these consultations, I will propose a motion now to the House. However, for the benefit of House leaders, it will be slightly amended because I will have to remove some words in order to seek what I believe is the common ground. If the House leaders have the text of the motion, I will start in the second sentence, not the first. I move:

That, at 8.30 p.m. this day, the House shall continue to sit and shall resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider a motion “That the committee take note of the planned meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States” provided that, during consideration thereof: (1) the Speaker may from time to time act as Chair of the committee; (2) the Chair of the committee shall not receive any quorum call or any motion except the motion “That the committee do now rise”; (3) when no Member rises to speak, or at 12 a.m., whichever is earlier, the committee shall rise; and (4) when the committee rises the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting day.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the omnibus bill raises a number of questions. It raises questions in my own riding of Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre because people cannot imagine why we would combine such a wide diversity of topics into one bill and why that would have to be.

What is the purpose of Bill C-15? We have heard mention of hidden agendas and that sort of thing, but what really is the purpose of Bill C-15? It is said that the purpose of Bill C-15 is to amend the criminal code and the criminal law in certain ways.

I looked at the ways we are suggesting to amend it and some amendments intend to protect children from sexual predators, especially on the Internet; some deal with criminal harassment; some deal with aggravated home invasions; some deal with disarming of police officers; some revise the process of going to the Minister of Justice for miscarriages of justice; and some reform the process for preliminary inquiries and that process within the judicial system. Those relate to people.

Then all of a sudden I am reminded that there is also something to increase the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals which of course there is no problem with except for the lack of some of the clarification we have mentioned.

Then we come to the section about guns. We have gone from people to animals and now to guns. This again just further helps the administration to pass awful legislation that has not been successful and is not working properly, is not being enforced and is not being obeyed. We need to admit that.

It then moves to include other acts.

What is the real purpose of Bill C-15? Is it for the protection of our children? Certainly the bill does offer some protection from sexual exploitation, especially over the Internet, and it increases the penalties. We applaud and appreciate that. It is a good part of the bill and we offer our full support. Let me remind the House that except for the stubbornness of the minister and the government, that provision could have been law months ago and they chose not to allow that to happen.

Perhaps the bill was proposed for the protection of animals? The bill offers protection for animals but it is unreasonable to elevate their protection to the same level as people. The legislation makes it possible for one to be convicted of abusing animals in the same way one would be convicted of abusing a person.

I support the legislation to protect against the abuse of animals, but this legislation imposes serious ramifications regarding animal agriculture.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the problem. I am sure there are many government members in the backbenches that would also like to have this bill split apart but who know that is not possible because of the whipped vote that will no doubt happen on this.

When bad legislation comes forward in the House, such as some but not all portions of Bill C-15, no member should ever vote for an omnibus bill that includes changes that are 100% opposable, in this case the animal cruelty provision by every farm organization in the country, including the dairy farmers of Canada. The dairy farmers of Canada of course milk cows. Anyone who alleges any kind of cruelty there is way out to lunch, even though I know they have.

I agree that the legislation has to be split into individual votable issues that are unrelated so that the true feeling of parliament is known and constituents are fully and properly represented.

Unfortunately, when there are some good and some bad issues because the government has lumped the issues all together, it leaves us no choice but to throw it all out and then, hopefully in years to come, it will come back with separate legislation for each issue. It should let the Canadian public have a say on each issue as opposed to forcing us to vote for something that is bad and dead wrong.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that members of the official opposition do not need any help from us in terms of embarrassing themselves. They are able to do that quite well themselves.

In responding to what the hon. member believes is a serious issue, we on this side of the House have said consistently that we are ready to move on Bill C-15. We will pass Bill C-15 today if the official opposition is willing to move.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned over Liberals ignoring the safety of children.

Members of the Manitoba legislature are expressing concern that unless the Liberals stop playing partisan politics with Bill C-15 provincial initiatives to assist children will fail. Why does the Minister of Justice allow partisan Liberal politics to stand in the way of important provincial initiatives?

Supply

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be able to enter into this important debate. I was curiously interested in the comments of other members who thought that we as official opposition would have used this occasion, the last supply day motion before summertime when we go to work in our ridings, for a substantial debate on some big issue.

One of the issues listed was the splitting of Bill C-15 into its component parts so that we could deal with problems important to Canadians and to parliamentarians in a reasonable manner. Those problems could be solved instead of playing political games with them as the Minister of Justice is prone to do. Other issues were mentioned as well.

I have a reasonable response to that charge. With the passage of this bill I hope it will do something very important for parliament so that the work of members will be enhanced and all those problems will have another avenue in which they can be addressed through private members' business.

The way private members' business is run right now is disgraceful. We spend many days in the House. Today is the 77th sitting day of the House since the election. During that time we have spent most of the time debating government bills but some time on supply day motions and some time on private members' business.

As a member who spends a lot of time in the House paying attention to what goes on here, I have observed that probably the best ideas and the ones that are most relevant to ordinary citizens come from private members' business.

Many times the government brings forward legislation which obviously is designed simply to facilitate the work of government bureaucrats. Ideas bubble up through the departments to the minister. The minister says to go ahead and draft a bill to be presented in the House. With the government having a majority, we go through the motions of debating it but it is automatically passed. Many of those things are administrative in nature.

Then there are others where frankly the government totally misses the boat on the aspirations of ordinary Canadians with respect to everything from taxes to the justice system, to the way parliament works.

The debate we have brought forward today will further the work of parliament. Hopefully it will enable us as parliamentarians to do a much better job than we have been able to do because of the restrictions placed upon us.

Members of the public who may be watching television today should know that private members' business is not a very high priority of the government. As a matter of fact, the present standing orders relegate private members' business to the least desirable hours of the day.

On Monday it is the first item, the assumption being that it is difficult for members to get back here after having been in their ridings on the weekend. Thus private members' business is considered while there is nobody here. I resent that because it is very important. Members should be here to hear the arguments and the debates.

On Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday private members' business is taken up in the very last hour of the day when members are off to receptions and other meetings. They are tired and finished for the day, so there is not a very great number of members who pay attention to private members' business on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

On Friday it takes place again in the very last hour of sitting. That is the day when anyone who happens to be left in Ottawa, not having gone home on Thursday, might be here for a debate. In any case members are eager to go and most of them are totally unaware of private members' business.

I have made it a point to pay attention every day to the goings on in the House, including private members' business. As I have said, my observation is that the best ideas, the most relevant to Canadians, are brought forward by ordinary members who go to their ridings on the weekends. During the weeks when we are able to meet with our constituents we get ideas and bring them back as private members' business.

I have an issue which I have not yet formulated a private member's bill on. I do not know whether there is any point. Not long ago a person said that he had to quit his job to look after his ailing wife. If it were his handicapped child he would get a tax credit, but because he is doing it for his wife there is no tax credit. Would that not be a perfect private member's bill? We could include a recognition that some people have to do this for members of their family who are ill.

I did a little mathematics, as I am prone to do. I looked at the total number of bills and motions introduced during the time I have been in parliament. I was first elected in the fall of 1993. Since then, according to the numbers I was given, there have been 4,136 private members' bills and motions introduced. Some of them were repeats. Many bills and motions are prepared which are never selected in the random draw, so members reintroduce them after prorogation of the House or after an election. Of those 4,136 private members' bills, only 11.8% were selected in the random draw.

I would like to say something about the random draw. When I was a kid at camp many years ago we had a rule. When we went for meals no one was allowed seconds until everyone had a first. I think we should use that principle here.

I have been here since 1993. I have had private members' bills in the hopper. My name has been there but I was not one of the lucky ones to have my name drawn. Therefore I have not been able to put forward a private member's bill.

I propose that the system should be changed. At some point in time all currently elected members of parliament should be put on a random order list. I would be willing to provide the computerized process to do that, if necessary. Everyone would be on the list and no one would get back on it until he or she gets to the bottom. It would go sequentially.

If we are interrupted by an election or there are members that resign for some other reason, their names would be taken off the list and be replaced by other members' names being added to the bottom of the list as they are elected. I would like very much to support that notion.

I also believe that every bill should be votable. I do not have the fear of some that the House of Commons will become irrelevant or that members will waste their time. If we had a rule that each member could only have one bill or motion before all other members have had one, we could be assured that no member would waste that opportunity. They would put up their very best bill, their very best motion, to have it debated and voted upon. If it is a dumb motion or dumb bill the House would rule on it and it would be defeated, provided that we have a free vote on such things.

I have another concern. If every bill is votable I fear the government will start interfering and will start pushing party discipline on the outcome of the votes on private members' business. Some private members' bills could serve to be a slight embarrassment to the government.

I have used up my speaking time, but I look forward to questions and comments which I am sure will come after question period today.

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

The hon. member who is yapping now knows nothing about silence. He could not be further from it. It is unfortunate that we will not have an opportunity to debate these important pieces of legislation before the House recesses.

It would have been the preference of the Progressive Conservative Party to bring Bill C-15 forward, split it, pass it through the Chamber and put it into law before the House recesses. If we had an opportunity to discuss issues of health, taxation and all sorts of other issues that impact on the private sector we would be far—

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

Madam Speaker, I as well am pleased, as my predecessor the member for Brandon—Souris indicated, to take part in the debate. I commend the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing forward this matter.

I have the greatest respect for the work he does both in the House and in the committee, but I must echo some of the remarks of my colleague from the Conservative Party. There is an issue that would have been very timely and that is the issue of Bill C-15. I fully acknowledge what the hon. member has said, that this matter has been brought forward, not only by his party but by the Conservatives and perhaps by other parties as well. We would very much have liked to see that piece of legislation enacted, legislation that is so important to Canadians and that would have such a profound effect on the law enforcement community in terms of bolstering its ability to combat pornography on the Internet, to combat stalking of children on the Internet, to bring in legislation to protect police officers from those who act violently towards them to try to disarm them.

All of this legislation and more is packed together in the form of an omnibus bill. For those who are not familiar with that term, it means broad legislation that brings together a number of different elements, albeit under the criminal code. Some parties in the House, including the party of the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, take great umbrage at and have great difficulty with the fact that cruelty to animals provisions and firearms provisions are included in some of the changes proposed by Bill C-15.

That is not to say that this type of legislation in and of itself does not have to be examined. The cruelty provisions in particular are such that we in the Conservative Party and others would like to see them examined. That is why those provisions should be given greater scrutiny at the committee. They should be severed out along with the firearms legislation, which has no connection whatsoever to stalking on the Internet or the perpetration of child pornography.

That bill in its current form is difficult to accept from the opposition's perspective, because we may be vehemently opposed to certain elements of it and yet it is presented in such a way that if we do not take all of the legislation part and parcel, if we were to vote against it, we would be in the terrible position of voting against 90% of what we believe in because of the 10% we have difficulty with. It is akin to going to a yard sale, seeing a box of items and wanting to buy 90% of those items. There are a number of items that we do not want to have anything to do with and yet we are told to take it all or take nothing.

What we are suggesting, and have suggested adamantly, is to simply sever part of that bill, to sever out part of that legislation, and we can completely pass the bill. We could pass the bill without delay. It would go on to the Senate and could come into being before we recess. Why are we in such a hurry to leave? Some legislation we can pass very quickly. MPs' pay is an example. We can put that through post haste without any delays, yet this important legislation that would impact on peoples' lives is going to languish on the order paper over the summer.

This supply day motion is on an important issue that is receiving attention in a number of committees, not only in the procedure and House affairs committee. We had an opportunity to review this exact issue at a recent special committee that was chaired by the Deputy Speaker of the House. This committee has been meeting over the past number of months and has now tabled a report which will be the subject of a debate in the House at some point in the near future.

Unfortunately the clock is running again and the government is champing at the bit to shut down the House of Commons. In fact there was a motion moved today by the House leader for the government. What that motion does, Madam Speaker, as you know, is essentially limit any real examination or any real opportunity on the part of the opposition to stand up and vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to the PCs for supporting making all private members' business votable.

The question was raised as to why the Alliance did not put a more significant motion forward, such as Bill C-15. The member should realize that we have been addressing the Bill C-15 issue every day in question period. As to his suggestion that I should have brought forth the gun control issue as it relates to Bill C-15, the PC member misses the point of this debate, that is, unless we change the system we will be able to do very little to change what happens in the House.

All of us in opposition have been frustrated by the government's ability to block our initiatives. We could debate Bill C-15 all day. We could bring all our concerns forward. It would probably have little effect.

However because of the change we are proposing today, if we have concerns we can bring them forward. That is the whole point of this debate. If we have concerns about certain bills we have very few mechanisms to address them, unless we change the way we do things. That is what we are proposing here.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise in perhaps this next to last debate of this session of parliament, and to do so on a supply motion of the Alliance Party.

As for the motion itself, I will speak to that. I agree with a lot of what is in the motion, and certainly the party I represent will be supporting it for any number of reasons. I will get into that.

The first thing I should mention is that I had hoped that the final supply day of the Alliance Party could have put a topic on the floor of the Chamber that was a bit more pertinent to the issues of the day. I can think of any number. Perhaps Bill C-15 could have been one.

We sat in this Chamber and talked about the Minister of Justice not being prepared to split a justice bill, which I think each and every member of the House could accept, with respect to Internet pornography and stalking legislation. It simply would be a matter of splitting off what I consider to be two areas of Bill C-15 which have no business being in the omnibus bill. They are the issues of gun control and cruelty to animals, which are very specifically pertinent to me because I am a member who represents a rural riding.

That issue could well have been debated. In fact, the government of the day could have been taken to task for not doing something that it should have done in order to get the legislation through the House.

Another issue of which the member is very cognizant, and he certainly is a member who is prepared to have a lot of political capital expended on it, is gun control. We perhaps should have had the opportunity to have a debate on the floor of the House today, as it pertains to Bill C-15 as well.

We have a government that has not put a budget together for the House for almost a year and a half. It will be two years before we have a budget. That is a very important issue which we should be talking about today before we break for the summer. However, what we are talking about is private members' business, which is important, but not as I understand it of the most prevalent importance as we head into the summer.

I would also like to say now that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. He can take that particular concept from there.

Regarding private members' business, I sit on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and also on the private members' business committee, so I perhaps have some knowledge of which I speak. That may be corrected under questions and comments I am sure.

This is an issue, as the learned member from the NDP knows, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona who has been here since then, since 1979. We know there is an evolution with respect to private members' business. We know that ultimately there will be refinements and changes to a system. We as a society change over the years. We as a House change over the years. We as members of the House representing our own respective constituencies change over the years and require and demand more ability to stand in the House and speak on issues that are very important and prevalent to us.

The member talked about 1979 and referred to newer members in the House and not older members. Obviously since 1979 he would have to refer to himself as an older member. However, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona. Being here for that length of time, he knows how difficult it is to move this House and governments of any guise, whether they be Liberal or Conservative, to make the necessary changes within the procedures of House affairs.

I am one who specifically believes unequivocally that all private members' business should be votable. I can speak to some experience as recent as last week when I put forward a bill to the House which had been diligently worked on over the last number of months. I felt very strongly about the bill because it specifically impacted my constituents. It dealt with safety nets for agriculture because I felt it was very important that we come to some resolution on that issue. I put forward a bill which in my opinion would have taken us in that direction. Lo and behold the bill was deemed not votable.

A number of members from the Alliance Party and the New Democratic Party, and I spoke in favour of that piece of legislation. Unfortunately, it was limited to one hour of debate, was not votable and died when I gave my final five minutes of comments. That piece of legislation will no longer have a chance to go through the House.

I speak of my own personal experience but every member sitting in the House has had the same experience and can say the same thing. They believe very strongly that with their particular issue it is important to have the vehicle, not only to debate in the House but also to give everybody the opportunity to stand on his or her feet and say yea or nay to that particular piece of legislation. I would love to see the committee work toward that end, and we are. The motion by the member for Yorkton—Melville would also assist us to work toward that end.

Recently in committee we discussed suggestions to change the current model to allow all bills to be votable. There was some difficulty trying to massage this through the necessary model and process.

For example, it was suggested that 264 members of the House could have a private member's bill that was votable. What is the model? Does each member of the House get one votable bill per parliament? Perhaps. This would mean there would be 66 per year depending on when the Prime Minister called an election. That figure of 66 was based on an average of four years, but it could be three and a half or two and a half years. We do not know. However we will use the average of four years.

A survey was conducted and it was found that not all members wanted to have a votable bill or motion. Some did not wish to go through the process or they wished, for their own reasons, not to have that particular tool. That is their decision to make. Nobody should be forced to have a votable motion or bill. However, in my opinion, those who wish to have a votable item should have the ability to have at least one that is votable throughout a parliament. That can be accomplished.

It was also suggested that there should be some criteria available to stop what others may consider to be frivolous. What one person deems frivolous, another person may well deem very serious. Criteria have to be established. Currently within the guise of private members' business there are some criteria already established, but they have to be changed and massaged.

However, it is a fairly reasonable start to say that if a bill proposed by member x conformed to the list of criteria, then it should go forward as a private member's bill, votable within a parliament. If for some reason a committee felt that it did not conform to that criteria, there could be an appeal process built into the system. The appeal process could be to a non-partisan, all party committee. It could be an appeal process from the Speaker or an appeal process from House leaders. Maybe that would be the vehicle to use to make sure that the bill conformed to what we considered to be the criteria.

However what I am saying is that anything is possible. I think we all agree that members should have the right to have their bills voted on. We all agree that there should be a move in that direction.

The motion we have before us today says that the report should be tabled before parliament by November 2001, and I will add please. The committee is working toward that. The timeline may well be a bit limited. As the member for Yorkton—Melville well knows, the wheels of this place move somewhat slowly. Perhaps we will have a break this summer, perhaps not. We may sit until August, who knows. If that is the case, we can keep the committee going. If not, the committee will break. Only coming back in September does not leave a long time to have this report tabled in the House.

Suffice it to say the member is right and the motion is right. We will support it going forward. Hopefully an evolution of this Chamber, this House, ultimately will come up with a solution whereby all members will be happy. By the way, that solution may last for only a short period of time because not all members are happy with everything that is done. We may well have to look at adjustments in the future.

Criminal Code

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to do something that does not happen very often, at least for me, and that is to praise a government bill. I am actually surprised that Liberals would do the right thing on this issue. I know it was very difficult for them given the fact that in committee most of the Liberals had trouble supporting the bill. In fact, in committee the Canadian Alliance had to encourage them to do the right thing.

I am pleased to see that the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice have brought the bill forward and have, I think, moved in the right direction. I would like to thank the minister for bringing forward this bill as well as the members who have worked so hard to get this vital legislation before the House.

Both government and opposition members have taken the proposed legislation very seriously during the course of debate in committee work and I am relatively satisfied with what has been accomplished here to date. At long last we have legislation that gives the police many of the tools they have been asking for and, I might add, not simply because the police have been asking for it. I believe that they have been asking for these tools for solid public policy reasons.

We have known for years now that our law enforcement officials are at a severe disadvantage in their efforts to combat organized crime. We know that sophisticated criminal organizations have access to virtually unlimited resources, state of the art technology and unlimited funds, all derived from their illegal activities, while our police forces are barely getting by.

When the solicitor general indicated that this was not a blank cheque for the police, it would have been nice of him to say at least that it would have been a bigger cheque in order to fund some of these operations. I do not think the police forces expect a blank cheque in terms of either the legislation or the funding, but I think an increase in the amount of money available to conduct this very worthwhile endeavour is of course necessary. Frontline officers feel that they are fighting a battle without ammunition.

Bill C-24 is in many ways a long overdue response to a number of concerns raised over the years by federal, provincial and municipal law enforcement officials.

My praise is not entirely unqualified. Bill C-24 is a great step forward but we must not close the book on this issue. We must continue to ask ourselves as elected representatives what we can do to ensure that our law enforcement officials have the necessary tools for keeping Canadians safe and secure in an ever changing world.

We must recognize that police power must be exercised for the common good of the public. Police power is certainly a very important one not simply for itself but for of us to enable society to proceed and to develop in an orderly fashion.

I echo the comments of RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli who said that Bill C-24 was a work in progress. He said that many of the amendments in Bill C-24 were absolutely critical, but he hoped for more work in this area. He hoped that we as parliamentarians would keep the radar screen alive. The commissioner is all too aware of the ever changing nature of organized crime and that these kinds of criminals always seem to be two or three steps ahead of the law.

Beyond the very real need to continue our legislative work in the area of our justice system I have to say, as I alluded to earlier, that I continue to be disappointed with the level of funding that the government has provided to fight organized crime. Given the fact that a relatively simple prosecution under legislation like this could cost up to $10 million or more, the $200 million over five years the minister has announced is really a small amount of money.

It seems strange to say that $200 million is a small amount of money, but when we look at each individual case and the costs involved, it is a staggering amount. I have had experience in the provincial sphere of being responsible for the costs and the administration of those types of cases.

We must make the money available for our police. If we do not, it does not matter how good the legislation is or how good our intentions are. If organized crime realizes that frontline police officers do not have the necessary funding in place, all of this is for naught, and that would be a disappointment.

During committee testimony on May 10, Toronto city police Chief Fantino and Winnipeg police Chief Jack Ewatski both indicated that the new funding they were to receive was insufficient. Chief Fantino said he felt totally inadequate in his ability to direct resources away from the day to day pressing issues he had to contend with. He stated:

I do not have any direct federal funding to help me dedicate the necessary resources to sustain the very labour-intensive, difficult work that has to be done in this area to the extent that we should.

I have to wonder about the $100 million we are putting into a failed long gun registry. Everybody has acknowledged that the long gun registry has failed. It is not doing the job and it will never do it. Yet through blind political allegiance to a failed idea the Liberal government continues to pump $100 million into a registry that has not worked and will not work. The only thing it is doing is destroying the hunting industry and the tourism industry in my area.

I do not understand it. If we gave that $100 million to frontline police officers and asked them if they could do better than the long gun registry, there would not be a police officer or even a police chief who paid lip service to the long gun registry who would not say, given that choice, that they would put it into frontline policing. Why? It is because every police officer in the country cares about reducing crime and is not concerned about a failed political agenda.

Directing resources into very complex investigations often puts tremendous pressure on routine policing operations. Our frontline police officers are saying that they feel like beggars trying to find the resources to do the things of national priority. Because of the lack of resources our municipal forces may not be able to support additional investigations regardless of the legislation we pass today.

I urge the minister and the solicitor general to take a look at areas where we can find existing funding that is not being used appropriately. If we want to find $100 million today, we can find it in the failed long gun registry which is making criminals of ordinary hunters and farmers and destroying tourism and other industries in constituencies such as mine.

Why will the minister not listen? Why will the minister not do anything? The answer is simple. The minister would rather spend $100 million a year than face the political embarrassment of saying that they have made a mistake and have to find a policy that will stop criminals.

There has been a fair amount of public debate on certain aspects of the legislation, particularly in the area of the immunity provisions for peace officers. I should like to discuss that briefly because it is a very important topic.

The legislation would not give police officers any additional rights that they did not enjoy over the last 100 years or so. They always assumed that they had a measure of protection when conducting investigations where in certain situations they were called upon to break the law. That is a very difficult thing for a police officer or anyone to do. Yet it was a necessary aspect of carrying out some very delicate operations.

Police chiefs and crown prosecutors knew about it. It was accepted. It was done in the vast majority of cases in a responsible manner because police officers knew of their responsibilities to our citizens. Crown attorneys and police chiefs who supervised police officers understood it was necessary but uncomfortable, given the fact that it was a breaking of the law.

Therefore the legislation sets out in statutory form with clear criteria the conditions under which this may occur. This is not granting police officers new powers or new steps that they did not exercise before. It simply is a response to the Supreme Court of Canada.

For those concerned about constitutional issues, if one looks at the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada and the legislation in place, I do not think the Supreme Court of Canada was asking that there be any pre-authorization by judicial figures in this matter. It simply said that police officers do not enjoy an immunity in respect of these matters.

If we as a society expect police forces to do the necessary things on our behalf, we must give them legal sanction to do it. I liken it a bit to war because when we are dealing with crime we are at war. In the context of war, our soldiers must do things that would not be otherwise acceptable in society. Our soldiers kill on behalf of our country when it is necessary for them to do so. All of us regret the killing and no one believes that killing is good. Yet as a civilized society we understand that at times it will occur and we give police officers that legislated common law immunity.

In the very same way we are giving our police officers that immunity, but that immunity is very clearly defined and closely supervised. It complies in every respect with the concerns of the Supreme Court of Canada in its judgment in Campbell and Shirose. Given the nature of undercover operations and general policing activities, this immunity is essential in continued efforts in our war against crime and organized crime in particular.

Despite initial misgivings many concerned people, including a number of committee members and witnesses, ultimately expressed support for these provisions in Bill C-24. Provincial and municipal leaders and law enforcement officials alike have recognized that there may be concerns regarding the potential for abuse of these powers that could harm innocent third parties.

However, in light of the fact that criminal organizations have increased in sophistication to such a degree that police cannot keep up with them, there is a general consensus that police must have the ability to conduct undercover operations and reverse sting operations to make a significant impact in this area. Later I will talk about innocent third parties because it is an important issue that the bill overlooks.

After careful consideration of the provisions in Bill C-24 members of the committee as well as a number of witnesses decided that these concessions were necessary to allow police to carry out its duties effectively.

Legislation is not always a precise art. I recognize the difficulties the minister had in weighing some of the concerns on both sides of the issue. I am satisfied the minister has been reasonably prudent and careful in ensuring appropriate checks and balances are provided in the legislation to protect the public.

At the same time these protections are not so overly restrictive that they would impede police investigations. They would also provide police protection from prosecution in very specific and carefully delineated circumstances. I put on record that there are only clearly delineated circumstances where this authority can be exercised.

Ultimately by supporting these provisions we have respected the decisions made by justice department officials who have reviewed the law, who have considered the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Campbell and Shirose, who have dealt with police officers on a day to day basis over the years, and who have listened to the provincial attorneys general across Canada that are on the frontline of fighting crime.

However, should these provisions require improvement, an amendment was passed in committee that would provide yet another check. With this amendment parliament would now conduct a mandatory review of the sections in the criminal code dealing with these provisions every three years.

The three year time frame is appropriate and prudent. If any concerns arise in the operation of this bill, and I certainly hope that is not the case at least in respect of substantive concerns, in three years we will be here to review the matter and make appropriate corrections. We should not leave it for the next group of members to fix any problems that might arise.

While many of us recognize that the legislation may not be perfect, our support for these provisions stems from the fact that the safety and security of Canadians continues to be a considerable risk as a result of criminal activity, and citizens want protection by our police who they understand must be governed by reasonable laws and reasonable conditions. Generally speaking, the bill reflects that reasonableness.

I was also pleased to see that the minister took the suggestion from the Canadian Alliance to include provincial leaders in the list of justice system participants, thereby extending to them additional protection against intimidation from criminal organizations. That protection must be recognized given that they, even much more than many of us, are involved in the front lines of fighting organized crime.

The minister took this one step further and added municipal leaders to the list, and I commend her for that initiative.

I would also like to thank my colleague from the Bloc from Berthier—Montcalm who brought forth an amendment to extend this protection to journalists as well. We are all aware of the important role that journalists play in our society. They are fundamental to free speech in a democratic society and as a part of the exercise of free speech, they are engaged in the fight against organized crime.

As a number of recent cases demonstrate, journalists who serve the public interest by reporting on organized crime are very much in need of and deserve enhanced protection under our criminal law.

I want to briefly deal with the concern that I raised in committee and which, unfortunately, the committee voted against. I introduced an amendment that would have ensured the right for innocent third parties to sue for damages that were caused by a peace officer carrying out his or her duties.

I was disappointed that the amendment was defeated, since it was a very worthwhile amendment that deserved our consideration. The main thrust of the amendment was that a private, law-abiding citizen should not be penalized if his or her property was destroyed in the course of a police investigation or action, even when the police were acting in the context of the authority of this proposed legislation.

Some of the members in committee said that it was a matter for provincial rights because they dealt with civil property and civil rights under section 92 of the Canada Act, 1867. That is not entirely correct. What in fact we may be doing is granting an immunity from civil process by this section. I simply wanted that amendment, given the priority of criminal law when it comes into conflict with the property and civil rights, as a matter of clarification so every that judge was assured that this legislation would not interfere with property and civil rights and that the innocent third parties would still have the right to sue where their property was damaged.

If we expect our citizens to co-operate in this fight, the least we can do is compensate them for any damage that they might suffer as a result of police actions. Although the amendment was not supported in committee, it is an important issue to consider for the future.

The bill is a very important step forward, but I express the concern that there is a lack of funding. I hope the justice minister will ask her colleagues to consider allocating to our police forces and to frontline police officers, the funding they so desperately need.

I certainly hope she will be open to consider future amendments to the criminal code that will further streamline our justice system. We have made great gains with Bill C-24 but we must not become complacent. We need to continually revisit this issue in order to combat organized crime effectively at a national level and to offer all Canadians the greatest possible protection from this kind of criminal activity.

I also want to stress that this bill is an example where all parties in the House can move together. Yes, we might disagree on certain aspects, but I think that the disagreements were relatively minor. What I appreciated about dealing with this bill was that I did not feel that there was an underlying political agenda to embarrass one political party or another.

I wish the minister would take the goodwill she has earned and the good work she has done on the bill and turn that goodwill and that good work to Bill C-15, where I think the most crass Liberal politics is at work. That is very unfortunate.

Government members have placed together child protection laws, firearms long gun registry laws and treatment of animal laws into one bill. Of course we know what the politics behind it are. They want us as opposition members to vote against the bill, then they will come into my riding and say that I did not like children, or that I did not want the protection for children, or that I did not want police officers to have additional protection and therefore I voted against the disarming of police officer section, or that I did not want to see an increase for penalties for home invasion so I voted against the bill.

In fact government members know what the truth is. They knew that we could not support amendments to the gun registry, which is sending $100 million a year literally down the toilet. That and that is why they put it all into one bill. They knew that people in my riding, hard-working farmers and those involved in the animal husbandry industry, in food production, in livestock and otherwise, had legitimate concerns about the treatment of animals laws. What did they do to avoid discussion? They put it all into one bill.

If I ask my colleagues to vote for the bill, because we want to protect children, or we want to create an offence of home invasion or at least increase the penalties in that respect, then they will go to my constituents and say that I flip-flopped on Bill C-68 and now voted for provisions of long gun registry. They may say that I do not care about the livestock industry because I voted for the treatment of animal sections that may imperil their livelihood.

The people of my riding work hard. They are an industrious people. Yet government legislation has destroyed their livelihood in respect of the hunting industry. It has destroyed their livelihood in respect of tourism. Political pride, nothing less, prevents the government from standing up and saying it made a mistake and can we work together to fix that problem.

I want the members opposite to know that on Bill C-15, I am prepared to work in the same open way that members of the opposition, regardless of party, worked to get Bill C-24 through to protect our people. I would be willing to do that with Bill C-15. Why will Liberals not do it? Political pride.

I would ask the minister to reconsider her position, look at the good she has done here, take that good and put it to use in terms of the political mileage she has gained now on this bill and do the right thing, which is split Bill C-15.

Cruelty To Animals

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, among other things, Bill C-15 enhances maximum penalties for cruelty to animals. This sends a clear message that abusing animals is a form of violence that cannot be tolerated and that must be treated seriously.

Nothing in the bill puts at risk lawful and humane activities involving animals for such purposes as agriculture. It does not affect the way that cattle branding takes place. The justice minister made changes to the bill requested by farmers to make the intent of the law clearer. The law unmistakably focuses on intentional and negligent acts against animals.

Parliament Of Canada Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I am pleased to take part in this debate. It is one of the dark days for parliament, as we prepare for the summer recess. Members of parliament are in a very uncomfortable position of being presented with an option of enhancing their own rate of pay rather than dealing with issues that we all know in our heart of hearts are much higher on Canadians' list of priorities.

I would like to speak a moment about the bill itself and the issues that present themselves. This has come about after a great deal of consternation over many years about the compensation package. Without getting into the actual merits of the pension and the rate of pay, when one looks at what the bill tries to accomplish, we understand that much of what will be accomplished is the removal of this uncomfortable situation for future parliaments, the removal of the unjust ability that members of parliament have currently in the legislation to increase and ameliorate their own rates of pay.

The bill would take future pay raises out of our hands at least directly and tie them into the Judges Act. That is really cold comfort to many Canadians right now who are struggling with difficult economic situations or who are currently engaged in strikes and labour disputes within their own fields. That is really something that does not seem to appease those individuals. Yet I would suggest that it will be for the betterment of parliament that this spectacle of standing up and voting ourselves a raise will be removed.

There are other elements that the bill attempts to address. It attempts to bring rates of pay more in line with professions of equal status or equal value in the country. The increase that is being brought in arguably could be merited and could be justified if it was perhaps going to be brought in over a period of time. That is the 5% or 4% of 6%, whatever the determined amount, would be phased in over a period of time.

Perhaps more appropriately and more palatable would be to increase it in the future, which is what the Progressive Conservative Party tried to do in an amendment that was moved yesterday. It said in effect that this raise would only occur and would only take effect after the commencement of the 38th parliament, after the next election. That would, at the very least, give Canadians the opportunity to know upfront what members of parliament intended to do in terms of voting themselves a raise before they cast their vote. That is what would be accomplished if that were to occur.

Like many members of parliament, I stand here today not proud. There is no joy among many members as we prepare for the vote this evening. We have added to this discomfort this new opt in provision which was not included in the Lumley report.

I suggest that what the Prime Minister intends to do is to further embarrass parliamentarians and essentially send the message that if we dare oppose or dare say anything publicly against the pay schedule, we will be punished because the media will be watching, our constituents will be watching, and if we dare opt in later, we will be labelled hypocrites. We will wear that crown of thorns.

This trap, this hole in ice which has been left for members to fall through if they have the audacity to stand up and oppose what the Prime Minister has put before us has grave implications because as has been mentioned, this is permanent. Of course things can change quite radically around here. It seems the law of the land can be stripped away with legislation. We know that, yet this legislation is laid before us with this gaping hole, this bear trap, ready to clamp down on us if we say anything in opposition.

It is the timing, and perhaps the rate of pay, more than anything else that offends Canadians. I have heard this from my constituents and from steelworkers in Trenton who are about to be laid off. I have heard it from workers in the health profession who are labouring under extremely difficult situations. I have heard it from factory workers and fishermen whose industry has collapsed right out from under them.

It will take a most telling human toll on members of parliament when the House recesses and we go back to our constituencies, look them in the eye at summer events and justify our own existence. The real debate we will embark on this summer is justifying our own existence and somehow proving that we are worth it to Canadians. We will have to prove to our constituents that they were right in electing us and that this pay is merited and justified, not only the salary we used to receive but the new salary.

Inevitably there is a sense of uncomfortable shame welling up in all of us as we prepare for the vote tonight. At the very least there has been an opportunity for some discourse and that discourse may lead to some backlash, but at least it is open and transparent in the sense we are being forced to justify our decisions.

I will very likely be taking this pay raise. I do not think I should be prevented from standing here and criticizing the timing, the mechanism or the way in which the bill was brought in or be in a position of playing the role of a martyr. That famous word of an unparliamentary nature, hypocrisy, which we cannot utter in this Chamber, is what will rain down on us.

In order to fan the flames of that sentiment, the Prime Minister stuck in a cute little clause that is meant to intimidate. It is meant as hush money for members of the opposition and perhaps members of the backbench more particularly.

The backlash inevitably will come and deservedly so. If we as a parliament collectively cannot get our priorities right, if we cannot somehow in a more appropriate way align the priorities of the country, whether they be legislative priorities or priorities of debate, we deserve the backlash. We deserve the heat and it will come.

There is ample opportunity to bring in legislation in the form of Bill C-15 which would protect children from stalkers on the Internet and would improve the sentencing schedules for police who are victims of attempts by someone to disarm them. Many other very important pieces of legislation on the order paper will languish away. Some may disappear. Some may be dropped from the order paper depending on how things unfold when we return in the fall.

If we are to justify both in the Chamber in front of the cameras and in the foyer why this is happening, we should also be prepared to examine why it is that we are not prepared to stay a little longer if we have to, to sit a little later if we have to, to bring in legislation like Bill C-15. That would perhaps in some small way, in some tiny, minute way, indicate that we are thinking about more important issues than the one that has brought shame on the House in the last days of parliament before the summer recess.

Members of my party will be voting freely on the bill. No party discipline will rain down on anyone who votes their conscience or the wishes of their constituents. We will be voting freely. Clearly there is an indication that there will be a split among many parties on how to handle it, as there should be. This is something that will, if nothing else, cause some reflection on the worth of our work and the emphasis that we place on certain elements of that work whether it be legislative or constituency work.

After all members of parliament have voted and go home I encourage them to reflect upon the overall picture of what we are trying to accomplish. Maybe we will be able to band together in some small way and make different decisions in the future as to what are the priorities of the House and what the priorities should be.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows or should recall from yesterday, we on this side of the House offered to pass Bill C-15 in its entirety.

I believe the government House leader did seek unanimous consent from opposition parties and that it was refused. It seems to me it is the opposition that is holding up Bill C-15, not us.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member concedes that much of this legislation has been before the House in earlier parliaments. It is unfortunate that the opposition has not been able to get its act together and work with us to pass Bill C-15.

How long does it take? We are ready to act this afternoon. We would call upon them to join with us to pass Bill C-15.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has identified only some of the important elements found in Bill C-15. In fact Bill C-15 deals with amendments to the criminal law.

What I would simply ask members of the official opposition is why, if they are so keenly interested in the legislation, they do not do what the right hon. Prime Minister has suggested.

We will be here this afternoon to pass Bill C-15. We would ask them to be here. Let us just do it.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 has four significant issues in this omnibus bill: sexual predators, firearms, cruelty to animals, and disarming police officers.

All these issues deserve consideration in and of themselves, but the Liberal government lumped all together is suggesting that it wants to push them through the House fast, knowing full well they would not go through the House fast. I would like to know why.

Rights Of Children

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

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no need to split the bill. As the right hon. Prime Minister has said, everyone on this side of the House is ready to stand in their place and pass Bill C-15 this afternoon. Let us do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. Prime Minister has just said, everyone on this side of the House is ready to pass Bill C-15 this afternoon. Let us do it.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is failing Canadian children. It has refused to establish an effective sexual offender registry. Now Bill C-15 has vulnerable children being forced to carry the government's political baggage.

Why will the Minister of Justice not quit playing American style politics and pass the bill on a stand alone basis to protect children?

Parliament Of Canada Act

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

And the private sector also. The issue of MPs' salaries has always been a contentious one. Accordingly, the Canadian Alliance will treat each vote on the bill as a free vote for our members.

The member over there can smile and laugh but that is what the House is all about; it is about integrity and making one's position and one's point with a free vote.

If members of that party over there want to talk about integrity, I would ask them to talk about the minister for multiculturalism and her integrity about flags burning in Prince George. If they want to about integrity, we will talk about that. If they want to talk about integrity, let us talk about Bill C-15 and how they will not split a bill that is very important for all Canadians. We are prepared to do that.

The government also did one thing that was not put in the report by the commission. The commission recommended that it be retroactive to April 1. The government wants it to be January 1. That is greedy and not acceptable. It should be April 1, which is our fiscal year. That would have been fine with members on this side.

It has also been the policy of the Canadian Alliance that our constituents have their say on the issue of MPs' salary increases. Accordingly, we will move at the report stage that the increase, if passed, come into force after the next general election. This fulfils our policy that voters be involved in the issue.

There is a strange twist in Bill C-28, and it is something that I think should be talked about. I have checked for precedent, including with the crucible of our parliamentary system Westminster. I can find no precedent. Bill C-28 calls for an opting in, in order to receive a salary increase. I have heard of opting out, which of course we saw in the issue of MP pensions. However Bill C-28 has an implied threat that if anyone does not sign on in 90 days, then one does not receive the salary increase.

The Prime Minister's threat of a week ago has come home to roost. It is intimidation, which I find unparliamentary. The government, obviously as instructed by the Prime Minister, is entertaining the notion of two classes of MPs. Rather than take the recorded vote as final determination on the bill, and consequently salary increases, the government is holding MPs hostage to another step in the process: sign a document within 90 days of passage of this bill indicating they are opting in or they will receive less than other colleagues.

Even the House leader said that is unacceptable. Nobody in the House should be earning any different from anybody else, yet it is in the bill.

Is this not a form of double jeopardy? It certainly is stealthy politics in an already sensitive and contentious issue. Why would the government want to add further dimension to the issue other than to embarrass certain MPs from certain parties? Passage of a bill on third reading in our parliamentary system is final determination. Does the government have the constitutional right to alter this entrenched process? That is a very good question.

The new way of determining the outcome of articles in legislation may even contravene pay equity. Does the government have the right to establish two classes of MPs? I may not be stretching the point by saying that this opting in initiative may be an affront to parliament itself.

Section 31 of the charter of rights and freedoms states that nothing in the charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority. Is the government overextending its legislative powers by the addition of this fourth step, the new opting in requirements in Bill C-28?

The nuances of opting out of something as opposed to being forced to opt into something that the majority of parliament may pass is not subtle. It is a dynamic and dramatic departure from legislative precedent and nothing but intimidation and mendacity on the part of the government.

There is an implied threat in Bill C-28 that has no place in our parliament. Politics may ensue during debate on a bill, but I do not believe that a political manipulation should be encapsulated in a bill and then foisted on MPs after passage of a bill. It is a mockery of our process and diminishes the significance of the three stages of the passing of legislation. Why have debate? We could anonymously sign on to any initiative and that would determine the outcome. Has the government become that arrogant?

In view of that clause of the bill, I move:

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

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, since the principle of the bill contravenes the spirit of pay equity by establishing a two tier pay scheme for Members of Parliament.”

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess there is one thing we could say, and that is the official opposition is expert when it comes to splitting or dividing.

As I have said on any number of occasions in the House, we are ready to move on Bill C-15. Bill C-15 deals with major amendments to the criminal code. Many of these amendments have been before the House for months. It is unconscionable that those people are playing petty politics with this legislation.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are disturbed by the Liberal partisan politics behind Bill C-15. Debates about the sexual exploitation of children and the treatment of animals should not be lumped together.

Why will the minister not rise above partisan politics and work with the opposition to protect our children?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, we on this side of the House are ready to move on Bill C-15 right now.

I would ask all of you this afternoon to inform our government House leader that you are willing to move on Bill C-15.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice advised the House and all Canadians that Bill C-15 dealt only with amendments to the criminal code. She knows that is not correct. The title of the bill itself makes that clear.

Why will the minister not stop playing American style politics and instead work with the opposition to protect children from sexual predators? Why will she not split the bill?

Government Of Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in the House, the opposition knows full well that we are ready to move on Bill C-15.

In fact it is the opposition that is stonewalling. It is the opposition that is playing petty politics with Bill C-15. Everyone on this side of the House is ready to move.

Committees Of The House

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Yes, it is. It is perhaps unfortunate that it needed to happen today in the views of some members when the government response is only a couple of days away. It would be preferable, I think, for all in the House to have the government response before we engage in a debate of this nature.

However I could not help but note that a lot of the debate that has occurred here had to do with a statute that is not even the subject matter of the motion. It had to do with a bill we call Bill C-15, a bill to revise the Criminal Code of Canada.

I suggest that the debate we are engaging in on the 14th report of the standing committee is not really what the mover wanted to talk about at all. In fact there are other agendas in place. I have to note as well, as we all will, that we are moving toward the end of a sitting of the House. We are moving toward the end of our work. We are not all finished yet but we certainly have an obvious short list of items that we want to complete within the next week or two. As a result, there are any number of other political agendas being put forward by individual members or political parties.

I heard earlier the oft repeated mantra from across the way that the government is somehow arrogant. Of course, sitting with the government I reject that totally. The government is simply pursuing its legislative agenda, 90% of which has been on the order paper for a very long time. Members opposite know that. I do not mind hearing the mantra of arrogance repeated but I also have to point out that most of the members opposite, in the sense that they continue with the mantra, are simply continuing their membership in the ranks of the perpetually indignant. We all accept that in opposition they do have a role and that they are doing their best to fulfil it today.

I encourage members, if they are interested in the progress of Bill C-15 amending the criminal code, that they direct their attention to that outside the debate here. I do not think it is particularly relevant to the privilege matter that was discussed in the 14th report. I direct members' attention again to the fact that a government response will be tabled in the House within a couple of days and that the reported had been adopted unanimously at committee.

Having said that, I think it is appropriate to move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I listened with some sympathy with respect to his discussion of the report, which was actually the topic of the motion.

However, in terms of Bill C-15, and I hope the hon. member will reply to this, it does seem to me that there must be parts of that bill that he has serious concerns about. There are the firearms part, the animal cruelty part and the law enforcement officer part. Generally speaking, I support all three of those components. I have my concerns about some parts of them, but that is normal as legislation moves through the House of Commons.

If the member is so concerned about it, would he now give us an indication of which parts of those individual areas of the legislation he disagrees with?

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I concur as much as I can possibly concur with what the hon. member has just said.

There is a contempt for members of the opposition and even for backbenchers on the Liberal side that has been shown over and over by the government. Instead of using the ploy of enhancing the salaries of members of parliament in order to try to give them more dignity in the public eye, it is about time that the occasion be used to recognize that members of parliament are elected by their respective constituencies, are here to do a job and should be heard.

I am deeply offended by Bill C-15 and the move the government is making here by mixing into the motion many very good items with a few totally deplorable items. I have used this analogy before: we get a bowl of really nice pudding—I like custard pudding—but in it is a bunch of gravel and we are supposed to eat the whole thing. I am using the example of gravel in order to try to be polite because there are other things that come to mind which the Liberals mix into good parts of a bill.

Bill C-15, the bill under discussion here, in fact has some very good parts, as the member has pointed out, but what has the government done? It has thrown into it things that are totally offensive to most Canadians. The members of parliament on this side and the other side would love to express that, but they cannot because it is all tied together in one big package. It is an all or nothing thing.

The government is doing the same thing with MPs' salaries. There are some good things and a bunch of stuff that is bad. We cannot amend it. The government will not accept it. In its arrogance and its majority here it just does whatever it wants. The Prime Minister acts like a dictator. He says it and it is done. That is very offensive.

I would like to congratulate the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for what he is doing today and I give him 100% support for this motion. I also believe that this report should be accepted. I would like to see the House seized with this issue before any other because of the importance of the protection of our children and our society. I would like the member's comments on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend your wisdom of that point. If the hon. government whip who has just joined us would unplug her ears and plug in her earpiece, she would know very clearly that this is extremely relevant and important, and I invite her to listen to my remarks.

What the opposition, and I suggest many in her own government, would like to see happen is for the minister to simply divide up the omnibus bill and remove two rather controversial elements of the legislation. They would be returned in stand alone form and would advance, if she would agree to this, and improve in their standing and speed in which they would pass in the fall. By doing this, it would allow Canadians to have the benefit of this new legislation which would attach specifically to Internet stalking and pornography being sent around the country in this new way. This very nefarious practice could be addressed by bringing in this type of legislation now.

Why would we hesitate? That is the question that we are left to ponder. Why would the Minister of Justice refuse the opportunity to bring forward this very positive legislation supported by the opposition and by her own government? It seems she simply is doing this out of some defiance or stubbornness because it was an idea that originated on the other side of the House.

This is a practice that unfortunately we see far too often. Ideas somehow on this side of the House are lesser ideas or are ideas that somehow should not be given the same credence; the same way the Prime Minister would have Canadians accept that if members of this side of the House in the opposition do not get down on their knees, kiss his ring, ask for contrition and ask that we be given a pay raise, we do not get it.

This perpetrates again this idea that we have two separate classes of members of parliament. We have those who bow down and support the Prime Minister in his every effort and those who do not for some reason. They try to fulfil their role in opposition legitimately by questioning his ideas and vision, if there is one. This is the type of attitude.

We can talk endlessly about ways to modernize parliament. We can talk about procedural change and the way to empower members of the opposition and backbench Liberals. Yet it is this palace guard, pinnacle top-down approach, which we have seen from the Prime Minister in particular, that squashes that. It absolutely goes against any type of individual thought. It is meant entirely to put down anyone that might have an original idea.

If parliament is supposed to improve its lot, if we are to somehow improve the way in which Canadians view the legitimacy and the relevance of the Chamber, that has to change. Unfortunately, we can do everything in our power to try to change procedurally the way that the House works, but as long as this attitude exists, as long as there is this Prime Minister in place, as long as the PMO is going to view any sort of legitimate dissent or questioning of this unfettered power that has now accrued in the PMO, we are not going to see an improvement of this place. We are not going to see members of parliament encouraged to step forward into the breach on occasion against the power and the winds of change.

This is yet another example. We have a very clear, common sense opportunity to bring forward a piece of legislation that would protect children. It would increase the ability of our justice system to deal with individuals who act violently toward police. It would increase the ability of our justice system to respond appropriately and proportionately to those who engage in the very disturbing practice of harassment, of targeting a person and terrorizing his or her life.

The practice of criminal harassment, colloquially known as stalking, is something that has, for reasons that defy logic, taken on a whole new meaning. Quite frequently we see individuals, usually women, subjected to this very disturbing approach that destabilizes a people's lives. It injects itself into their stability or the way in which they can carry on their normal practices.

Again, this is important legislation. This is the type of bill that should be brought forward with great haste. What is the deterrent? What is blocking our ability to do that? It is the Minister of Justice who has the power and is embodied with the responsibility to protect Canadians in the first instance and to take every opportunity to bring forward this type of legislation.

I commend her for bringing it this far, but we are at the goal line. We are just about to bring the legislation forward through the House, on through the other place, into practice and into being law. Yet the minister, defying all logic, defying all reasonable approach by the opposition, and I suggest by lobbying within her own ranks, is refusing to do so, and is refusing to even answer why.

When questions were posed to her in the House of Commons, she pointed the finger in her academic, professorial way and accusatorially told the opposition that it was playing politics. We are playing politics because we want to support a government bill? That is playing politics? We are trying to bring it in so that it will be the practice to protect Canadians. That is playing politics? She is denying the opposition an opportunity to work with government simply because she feels perhaps this idea is coming from a place outside of her political world, a place outside the government's world, because only good ideas come from the government benches. That is inevitably what we are left to ponder. Why can the opposition not originate a good idea? It can, and I think most Canadians recognize that.

The minister of justice has a lot to answer. She seems, for reasons known only to her, to have dug in and said the government will not bring the bill forward. It will not allow Canadians to have this protective, positive legislation in place before the recess, because it has bigger priorities. It has to get pay raises through. It has to somehow improve its own lot and not that of those who would be affected by this type of criminal activity.

This report speaks volumes. This report came about as a result of the same type of action and pattern of arrogance that Canadians sadly have come to expect and have borne witness to during this government's administration. We saw the minister brought before a committee because of this type of action before, yet it does not seem to have had the desired effect. It does not seem to have made any kind of an imprint on the minister's mind as to why she should perhaps listen on occasion to the opposition and why she might somehow open her eyes to the fact that the opposition is not always out for blood. It is not always out to try in a partisan way to embarrass the government. There are occasions where we simply want to try to support the government. This is just one of those occasions.

This is a bill that very clearly would improve the criminal justice system in the country. All it takes is a little compromise. All it takes is the minister's recognition that to give a little she would get a lot. She would get the support of this party, and I am sure other parties in the House, to bring forward Bill C-15 in a new, revamped way that would attach to these provisions and remove some of the controversial provisions.

As I said before, those issues that deal with firearms and cruelty to animals would return in the fall in a stand alone form, advancing from where they currently sit on the order paper. They would move in a more rapid pace when we return in the fall.

It seems so logical, so common sense, yet the minister has chosen to simply ignore this request, which was first brought forward through the government House leader. She was approached in a number of ways and in a number of forms. I know the member for Provencher wrote to her with a very similar straightforward request and was flatly turned down with no reasons given. That is not accountability and that is not good enough.

The Minister of Justice has something to answer to here. Because of this report, there should be a bit of a sword of Damocles hanging over her head. She has exhibited this type of strident attitude before, ignoring the pleas of the opposition and ignoring the wishes of Canadians who predominantly would support any efforts to bring in legislation that would protect them, their children, their homes and their law enforcement community.

This is the reason behind bringing this matter forward. We in the opposition have on occasion limited opportunity to ask the questions and bring forward legitimate issues. The government sets the agenda to a large extent, particularly the legislative agenda and the priorities.

Again we are left to wonder why is it that we would rush headlong into a bill that enhances our pay and our pensions? Why is that the priority before we go home? Why, in the remaining days of parliament, will members of the House and members of the Senate be dealing with that? Surely it is not consistent with what Canadians expect? Surely this is not where we should be focusing our efforts in the remaining time that we have in the Parliament of Canada. If we have an opportunity of choice between taking a pay raise or helping children, surely the answer is obvious. Why the minister of justice cannot see that and embrace that is beyond comprehension.

I commend the Minister of Justice for coming before the committee and making proper apologies. She admitted there was something wrong. She was prepared to make changes to ensure that this type of practice would not occur again. Yet at the very first instance, when an occasion arose where the minister could show a little understanding and willingness to compromise and work with the opposition not against it on behalf of Canadians on a very legitimate issue, her bill, she did not.

This is not something that originates from the opposition side. We simply are saying to the minister “Let us pass the bill. Let us get this legislation through quickly”. We want to work with her and support the legislation because it is such a positive initiative.

However, no, it does not seem like that will happen, and why? We have not heard from the minister yet. I guess the response is just because, much like the Prime Minister, because the government can. Why do animals do certain things to themselves? Because they can. As vulgar as that may sound that appears to be the response we get. There is no response because the power is there to do so and therefore the government is prepared to exercise it.

That is what enrages opposition members. That is what offends Canadians. They see that members of the Parliament of Canada cannot work together on such positive issues as protecting children and improving the way in which our justice system works. What is more fundamental than that? What is more important than that? Surely it is not pay raises. Surely it is not the way in which we can improve our own lot in life. We are elected to come here to bring forward important pieces of legislation that would do very good things.

With that, my time has expired. We would hope that we might hear at some point from the government at least, if not the minister herself, as to why this seemingly indefensible position has been taken by the minister and her department.

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

Madam Speaker, I move that the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on Wednesday, May 9, be concurred in.

This particular report, as many will recall, came about as a result of the actions, not personally on the part of the Minister of Justice but more so within her department and the decision that was taken to release information about Bill C-15 that is currently before the House. The information was provided to members of the media in the form of a briefing to which members of parliament were not invited, nor were members of their staff.

It resulted in a complaint and a point of privilege that was raised on March 14 by the hon. member for Provencher. The question was deemed to be a breach of privilege by the Speaker at the time and it led to a referral to the procedure and House affairs committee where there was some deliberation which resulted in the minister herself and members of the staff appearing before the committee.

It was truly an affront I believe to all members of parliament that the minister in her wisdom and her department decided to exclude members of parliament from information on a bill which can be deemed fairly important and substantive. It takes the form of an omnibus bill, which means there are number of pieces of legislation that are put together in somewhat of an artificial form, I would suggest, in this instance because the amendments to the criminal code are completely unrelated. This is what has caused a lot of concern for members of the opposition and, I suspect, there are members on the government side who are equally uncomfortable with how the bill appears before this Chamber.

I would deem the legislation itself to be very important. It touches upon such issues as stalking and increasing the penalties that would be attached to that. It deals specifically with and creates a new offence for criminal harassment on the Internet and approaches, in a new and innovative way, the manner in which our current criminal procedure can attach to those who choose this nefarious means to harass and to stalk, in particular, children, and the availability of pornography on the Internet and the way that is dispersed.

What really offends members of the Progressive Conservative Party is that we are faced with an opportunity to bring this type of legislation into the House of Commons to pass before the recess. The Minister of Justice, for reasons perhaps known only to her, is dragging her feet on this in denying the House and thereby denying the country the ability to bring the legislation forward.

The opposition stance has been consistent in the past number of weeks which is that within the omnibus bill there are very controversial provisions that deal specifically with cruelty to animals. That is not to suggest for a moment that this type of legislation is not needed as well. It is a matter for which all members of parliament are concerned but there are elements of the bill dealing with cruelty to animals and with firearms that have caused some consternation throughout the country. Members specifically are concerned on behalf of their constituents about how this will affect legitimate professions and practices as it relates to animals, trappers, hunters and cattlemen. Those who are dealing daily, as part of their profession, with animals are very concerned about how these new criminal code provisions and amendments will affect them and their livelihood.

For that reason, there has to be an opportunity to examine in detail and hear from some of these witnesses at that committee. That opportunity would come through committee.

The reality, in terms of how the procedure could unfold, is the minister has been given a very legitimate offer from the opposition to sever out parts of this omnibus bill and bring it back in the fall when the entire bill under the current schedule will be revisited. Certain sections of that bill could be taken out. Then the Internet pornography sections, specifically the stalking provisions that would increase the current criminal sanctions for stalking, could be dealt with. This initiative was taken by Senator Oliver in the other place and is one that he pursued vigorously over the past number of years. Suffice it to say that the Progressive Conservative Party is very supportive of that provision and others.

It would also increase the sentences, specifically creating a new offence for disarming a police officer.

I know, Madam Speaker, you have more than just a passing knowledge and understanding of these types of bills and omnibus pieces of legislation. However, what has happened and what is offensive is the minister has decided to force feed the entire bill to the House of Commons. In a very strident and stubborn way she has said that she refuses to take out those sections which attach controversy and raise the ire of many in the country. Therefore, she is willing to stand pat and let the entire legislation be deferred and stalled on the order paper until next fall.

In plain speak, that is not good enough. Members of the opposition do not accept this. When we look at the priorities of the government, we are left only to wonder as to why we would be rushing headlong toward bringing in a piece of legislation which would increase our remuneration. When we have an opportunity to bring in a very positive piece of legislation that is supported by all members of the opposition, and obviously members of the government, by simply making a very small concession, I would suggest that would lead a piece of legislation—

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is right. Canadians do know who is playing politics, and that is all the opposition parties over there.

We have made it absolutely plain that Bill C-15 deals with nothing more than amendments to the criminal code. Many of these amendments to the criminal code were in fact introduced before the last election.

There is no excuse for all those learned men and women on that side of the House not to work with us to move the bill forward quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, by splitting Bill C-15 and removing the very controversial animal cruelty and firearms provisions much good would flow. Children would be given greater protection from demented Internet stalkers. We could have some tough new provisions introduced through the criminal code.

Why has the justice minister dug in her heels and refused to allow quick passage of very positive criminal code amendments? Clearly Canadians know who is playing politics here. It is the very stubborn minister of justice.

Gun Control

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

Mr. Speaker, I have only two things to say. First, in relation to Bill C-15, why does the opposition not stop playing politics and pass the amendments to the criminal code?

Second, I would ask the hon. member why he does not join the vast majority of Canadians and support our gun control regulations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has not been able to convince her cabinet colleagues that Bill C-15 needs to be passed before the summer recess. Consequently she will now be forced to proclaim yet another amnesty for the owners of more than half a million legally owned and registered handguns that the government banned six years ago with Bill C-68. This is the fourth amnesty since December 1998.

Her own actions and the Bill C-15 amendments prove that these firearms are not dangerous at all when in the hands of law abiding, responsible owners. Instead of proclaiming amnesty after amnesty why does she not admit they were wrong to ban these registered firearms in the first place?

Justice

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP disagrees with the minister. Canadians are very disappointed with the justice minister's refusal to co-operate with the opposition to pass long needed laws dealing with child predators on the Internet.

The minister is now prepared to delay the legislation. This is unacceptable to Canadians. Why will the Minister of Justice not put politics aside and ensure that the provisions in Bill C-15 dealing with child predators are passed as quickly as possible?

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

Mr. Speaker, the provisions to which the hon. member refers are amendments to the criminal code.

Bill C-15 which is before the House is legislation, all of which deals with amendments to the criminal code, many of which were before the House before the last election. There is absolutely no excuse for any hon. member of the House not to have informed himself or herself in relation to the legislation and be prepared to move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Given the complexity and the mixture of subjects contained in omnibus Bill C-15 currently stalled on the order paper, the sections respecting child pornography and sexual exploitation of children clearly should have formed the subject matter of a separate bill. Protection of Canada's children should be paramount. Why is this subject not a priority for the government?

Will the Minister of Justice simply remove the controversial cruelty to animal provisions and the firearms provisions to allow the bill speedy passage through the House before the summer recess?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell the hon. member that not only do Canadians care about the protection of their children but we care.

That is why I would ask the hon. member and the official opposition to stop their game playing on Bill C-15. It includes important provisions to protect our children. What do they want to do? They want to play their silly little games around firearms, their silly little games. They are supposed to protect the children of the country.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again on Bill C-10, which is going through another life cycle. At the beginning of the 36th parliament it was Bill C-48 and at the end of the 36th parliament it became Bill C-8.

I was pleased to be critic at the time for Canadian heritage and I spent some time on the bill. However it now rises again. These things seem to die on the order paper fairly regularly. The bill originated in 1988 when the Mulroney government introduced the National Parks Act that would permit the establishment of marine parks.

I will not go through all the details but I will hit a few high points about the intent of the legislation. I do not think anyone in the House or across the country would disagree that environmental protection and sustainability are paramount. Whether they pertain to national parks, marine areas or regulating the pollution of large companies, environmental protection and sustainable development are very important issues.

However these issues do not fall specifically within the jurisdictional power of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We talk about ecosystems, fish, aquaculture and so on. It would be wise to place some of the responsibility for these issues with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We could then talk about the Department of the Environment and how important it is to look at environmental sustainability in the whole area of marine conservation parks.

I also sense frustration with the amount of input parliament would have. I am not sure if this place is becoming more and more irrelevant.

Bill C-10 would pare down anything parliament would have to say on the issue. It would limit parliamentary input by giving cabinet the authority to create marine conservation areas on crown land without going through the normal legislative process. The question is, why bother with this place at all? Cabinet might as well get together, have coffee, bring up an order in council and throw a dart and pick a marine conservation area.

A lot of people and advisory committees have done an incredible amount of work on this issue. I have seen the maps and the areas and they seem well thought out. However the whole idea of going to cabinet and just zipping something through in a morning session, or maybe not even that long, maybe even before coffee, is no good. The House of Commons is where such debate should take place.

We know in the years we have been here that the amount of discussion and the power of parliament itself has been pared down. Members have also witnessed incredible growth in government. Budgets have ballooned. The debt has certainly ballooned and hopefully we are starting to control that. The annual deficit is somewhat under control. That is probably a good start.

Let us look at the amount of governing that would occur under marine conservations areas. Once a marine conservation area is established the minister may maintain and operate the facilities, conduct scientific research and monitor and carry out studies based on traditional ecological knowledge of the areas.

That is a nice tidy sentence. We can all guess where it may lead. It could lead to mushrooming bureaucracies, advisory committees and all kinds of studies and scientific research. Such things are essential but if they are not monitored they could fly loose. The legislation could be an entity unto itself. When members see the mushroom cloud it places under the government, a cloud with no checks or balances that will only get bigger and bigger, they should be careful.

This whole area unnecessarily expands the minister's domain to areas that fall outside her ministerial responsibility. The minister talks about marine conservation areas, which is again a nice thought and something that perhaps needs to happen sooner or later to a degree, but it is by order in council and should be under DFO control as much as anything else.

What about the Minister of the Environment? The bill would require the heritage minister to establish a management plan for marine conservation, ecosystem protection, human use and zoning. Somewhere in there surely the Minister of the Environment and his department should be involved. We then start saying that it is this department or that department and the whole thing blows loose because it gets bigger and bigger rather than adopting tighter checks and balances.

In addition, each marine conservation area would require the establishment of a management advisory committee to review and implement management plans. For every marine park or conservation area there needs to be a whole advisory committee. I am not necessarily questioning the wisdom of that. A lot of people have a lot of expertise in the area and I do not. I certainly respect the ability of advisory committees to review and implement plans.

However where does it stop? That is the question. This thing will get bigger and bigger. There must be rules and regulations and the government needs to come forward with them. Unfortunately we see no checks and balances in this piece of legislation.

Ministers have all kinds of power, which we have certainly seen. I could digress and talk about Bill C-15, the enormous omnibus justice bill, but there is no point in getting into that right now. It is certainly before the House. It is an unbelievable piece of legislation and an example of phenomenal ministerial power. I hope it gets chunked down into bite size pieces so we can deal with each section on its own.

Regarding ministerial powers and perhaps overuse of powers, the minister states that commercial fishing and shipping would be appropriate in conservation areas. I would like an expert to tell us those things rather than the minister.

In the last bill we talked about whether the minister would be able to curtail or eliminate commercial flights over marine conservation areas. What would that do to small charter companies that fly over the ocean three-quarters of their lives on the B.C. straits?

The clauses would allow commercial fishing according to the minister's will. All aquaculture fisheries management, marine navigation and marine safety plans would then be subject to the approval of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Heritage. Do we not see the thing getting bigger and bigger? It looks like mushrooming to me.

The whole idea of putting regulations into place is essential. However, how do we enforce them? We have seen all kinds of legislation over the years where regulations were put in place and not enforced. How do we enforce regulations? That is the frustration we see with the National Parks Act.

My colleague talked about Kootenay Park, Banff, Jasper and Yoho. The parallel is that the National Parks Act does not give park wardens sufficient authority to enforce the law. Park wardens drive around in their brown trucks. We see them all the time. I live very close to Elk Island National Park. It is 45 minutes east of my home in Edmonton. Lew and I ride out there a lot. We see park wardens and we know they are people we ought to respect.

I am a law-abiding citizen. When I see the rangers' authority I do not try to pull anything on them. We have gone around and around the block in the House about sidearms for park rangers. If a person is up to no good or wants to poach moose, elk or bison, they know park wardens are fairly powerless. The government is very irresponsible in terms of the National Parks Act.

The parallel can then be drawn: What would the government do with the marine conservation act? The director of Parks Canada has suggested allowing the RCMP to get involved. That is good, but there are lots of parks where the RCMP is more than a 12 minute drive away. Park wardens should have all the power and authority vested in them by the government and the minister to protect both wildlife and public safety.

For marine conservation acts the record is not stellar. We must ask what would happen. Would people be chased around in boats? Is that what enforcing the regulations would come to?

Let us look at the history of the legislation. This is the third swing around. Who knows when it might get passed? Is the government really committed to the legislation? It has died on the order paper a couple of times, as I mentioned. Will we put regulations in place that the minister will live by, or is this a grandiose plan that will not be enforced?

Many think parliament is irrelevant. A proposed amendment structure in the legislation would allow 20 days for amendments and a three hour debate on them. Such amendments may affect shipping lanes, commercial fishing, sport fishing, aquaculture, commercial flights, and who knows what. Recreational boating may not be allowed in some areas. If an amendment is put forward there would be only three hours to debate it. That is almost an admission that parliament is irrelevant and does not matter. Decisions would be made around the cabinet table.

The legislation would severely limit the ability of parliamentarians to consider all options when new marine areas are set up. The bill would give the Minister of Canadian Heritage free rein to create unlimited advisory committees for each marine conservation area. We know where that could go when people are absolutely unchecked.

Limitations on the size and structure of each committee must be established in the legislation. We need to make sure the parameters are in place. If we get an unlimited number of people with unlimited amounts of salary, and it looks like a big pot out of which we can draw cash, we all know that it could go on for a very long time. It may need to be studied for a little longer and, because it is important, we may need to bring in 15 experts. The thing needs some parameters in place but unfortunately we are not seeing that at this time.

I will wrap up by drawing a parallel with the land national parks and some of the things going on there. The parks of Banff and Jasper are absolutely glorious. They have a lot of building projects going on. The minister took her first swing out to those parks last summer or the summer before and was able to see first hand how fabulous these parks are and how important it is that we balance economic and sustainable development with environmental protection.

We want to make sure there is a balance in nature. We may not be able to please both sides of the equation but if I want to go to a park or spend money on a hotel or in a restaurant, I want to be able to do that. If I have the money to go camping in Jasper Park, I want to be able to go there and enjoy the pristine wilderness, have a campfire outside my camper and enjoy the campground. I am not sure that anyone ought to be telling me that I cannot do that.

It would be the same if we were talking about a marine conservation area. It is important that I am able to make use of that area but at the same time I do not want heavyhanded regulations. I want wisdom, not advisory committees. This may sound foolish, coming around in boats, but there needs to be absolute common sense from the government. I do not think we see that to this extent with some of the things I have discussed. I hope the government takes into account, when it swings through the legislation again, that too many rules and regulations certainly are unwise. At the same time, this just cannot be an open can or basket for people to help themselves.

I am really nervous about the fact that the minister would have far too much power and that it would be essential for joint ministries to work together. If we look at heritage we see that we have a marvellous heritage. We can also look at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment. I certainly hope that no one is just trying to make a legacy for themselves. That would surely be unwise and people would be able to see right through that.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the first opportunity I have had to respond to the hon. member in that capacity. Let me begin by congratulating her on the position she holds.

This afternoon we will continue consideration of Bill S-11, followed by Bill S-16 respecting money laundering. As a matter of fact the debate on Bill S-11 may have collapsed just before question period. That means we will start with Bill S-16 respecting money laundering, followed by Bill C-14, the shipping legislation. Afterward, if there is any time left, we will resume debate on Bill C-10 regarding marine parks.

On Friday we will begin consideration of Bill C-22 respecting income tax amendments at report stage and third reading. We will then return to the list I have just described should we not have completed Bill C-14, Bill C-10 or Bill S-16, for that matter.

On Monday next, if necessary, we will resume consideration of Bill C-22, followed by Bill C-17, the innovation foundation bill, at third reading. We will then return to the list that I described a while ago.

On Tuesday it is my hope that we will be able to commence and hopefully complete the third reading of Bill C-26, the tobacco taxation bill, as well as the second reading of Bill C-15, the criminal code.

Next Wednesday it is my intention to call Bill C-7, the youth justice bill at report stage. We also hope to deal next week with Bill S-3 respecting motor vehicles, Bill C-11, the immigration legislation, if reported, and Bill C-24, organized crime. As well there has been some discussion among political parties and hopefully we can deal with Bill S-24 respecting the aboriginal community of Kanesatake at all stages in the House of Commons, provided that it has been reported to the House from the other place.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in this debate.

This is a very important debate. To pick up on the tone of my learned colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona, opposition and government members alike find themselves in the unfortunate situation of having to debate a bill of substance and importance that has been essentially cross-threaded and put together in a way that is unsettling and disquieting for many Canadians outside of parliament. The bill brings together a number of criminal code amendments that are inconsequential and do not connect in any rational way.

Bill C-15 touches upon issues of wrongful conviction, disarming a police officer, cruelty to animals, amendments to the Firearms Act and the National Defence Act, and home invasion. Some of the issues are straightforward and deal with changes or modernization within the criminal code. One such change would acknowledge the seriousness of trying to take away a police officer's weapon. Such changes to the act would allow the judiciary to respond in a more proportional way.

However the bill has controversial aspects as well, particularly as they relate to firearms legislation which a growing number of Canadians are finding cumbersome, unenforceable and intrusive.

Perhaps more graphic are concerns over the cruelty to animals provisions. However, because of the omnibus nature of the legislation, it is before us as a package. Hon. members opposite applaud that because they know it forces members of the opposition to vote for the entire package. Such members may support nine-tenths of the bill yet find in it something unacceptable to themselves, to their constituents or to the interests they represent.

We saw unanimous consent today for Bill S-4. The bill went through at record pace. We debated all stages and passed the legislation with the greatest spirit of co-operation. Bill C-15 is the antithesis of that. The government is force feeding the opposition and saying that while we may not like some of the bill we must take it all. The bill contains very good and needed legislation. However, it is like vanilla ice cream with a little motor oil poured on that the government is telling us to eat.

Short of dividing up the bill, taking out the offensive legislation and studying it separately, there is no way to allow opposition members the opportunity to deal with it when it comes to a vote. They can do nothing more than put comments on the record. At the end of the day the final verdict will be whether we support the legislation or not.

Let us delve into the substance of the bill. The brave new interconnected world is posing new and sadly innovative ways in which to transport information. That of course has implications for things like pornography. Purveyors of child pornography have in recent years taken advantage of the new technology. Internet sites and chat rooms are not generally controlled or monitored. That raises questions about the responsibility of owners and managers of computer networks, such as private Internet access providers and universities, for the content of the websites and chat rooms they offer their customers.

Courts in Canada and elsewhere have given little direction in this new area of technology. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, 2000 annual report states:

The distribution of child pornography is growing proportionately with the continuing expansion of Internet use. Chat rooms available throughout the Internet global community further facilitate and compound this problem. The use of the Internet has helped pornographers to present and promote their point of view.

This is a very disturbing trend. The legislation would at least attempt to control or police the Internet.

Bill C-15 deals with the issue in the following ways. It talks about the luring of a child via the Internet. Clause 14 of the bill adds the offence of luring. The clause states that every person commits an offence who, by means of a computer, communicates with persons in various age groups and does so for the purposes of facilitating the commission of the following offences: sexual touching, making of child pornography, procuring prostitution of a child under the age of 18, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon or threats, and aggravated assault. These of course are some of the more serious and damaging offences that can be committed under the criminal code. Any means, therefore, by which those offences can be perpetrated should be governed by criminal legislation. The bill would do that.

It is not a defence, I might add, for the accused to say they believed the child was over a certain age, whether 18, 16 or 14, unless reasonable steps can be demonstrated to ascertain the age of the child. This is a responsible interpretation and expansion of the criminal law and it would certainly stabilize efforts to police the Internet.

Further to that point, sub-section 11(2) of Bill C-15 adds a new offence. Under the bill, the making, distribution and sale of child pornography would also be criminal code offences when committed via the Internet. This is in keeping with supreme court decisions, the Queen v Sharpe being the most recent case in which the judges had an opportunity to deliberate on the subject. The sentence for this type of offence would lead to a person being liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or an offence punishable on summary conviction. The Conservative Party is in favour of this type of policing.

This new provision would not criminalize the inadvertent viewing of child pornography on the Internet. The accused must have had knowledge of the presence of child pornography on the site or the specific intention to use it. However, the bill would perhaps open the door for the justice department to further expand on the ways it can prevent and hopefully deter pornography on the Internet. Bill C-15 gives a rather vague commitment to do so in the future and any type of sexual exploitation is something that we must condemn in the strongest possible terms. The Liberal government could have passed measures in advance of the supreme court ruling in Sharpe. One of the minister's favourite phrases “In a timely fashion,” is code for “When we get around to it”.

Recent examples are the Youth Criminal Justice Act which has taken seven years to reach fruition. It is now of being jammed through without proper consultation on some of the changes it would bring in.

In the last general election, the Conservative Party was the only party to propose a national strategy to combat child pornography. Our proposal would have included Internet safety education for children, the training of police in the tracking of pornography and the revamping of current laws to ensure we were not facilitating high tech prostitution. We would suggest, in a constructive way, that this is another area the government and the Minister of Justice look at exploring.

Concern has been expressed by Internet service providers and the high tech industry generally that subclause 163.1(3) would subject Internet servers to criminal liability for third party content unless they could prove they did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the material. We will perhaps have an opportunity to delve into those issues at the committee level when we hear from those affected by the legislation. We look forward to getting their perspectives in the hope of amending or tightening up the provisions.

It is certainly a positive step, as I indicated. We must ensure that child pornography is not stored on or made available through Canadian computer systems without being subject to the criminal code.

Possible amendments to the section would require that Internet service providers, in particular large providers, such as AOL, be able to police sites and access information. This would come at great expense but steps have already been taken to do just that. Service providers hire staff to take complaints from their users. They also monitor Internet chat rooms and supply information to the proper authorities if they have reason to believe these nefarious activities are taking place.

Other aspects of the bill that have been touched upon are the provisions that affect paintball operators. That is the extreme sport, as it is sometimes called, with respect to the use of paintballs. The limit of velocity at which paintballs can leave the guns is, I understand, 5.7 joules. I suspect the minister's intention was to ban certain types of pellet guns but the limit also affects paintball users and operators. There is concern that the technical description of the velocity limit may need to be amended with respect to paintballs.

It is my understanding, from talking to people who manage those activities, that they are already taking steps to adhere to safety standards. The bill as it is drafted would have serious implications for those types of businesses with respect to the pointing of a firearm. If the description of the velocity is not amended it may make it a criminal offence to participate in such activities.

Home invasion and criminal harassment are other areas of the bill that we support unequivocally. Under clause 23 of the bill the courts must consider break and enter, robbery and extortion as aggressive and aggravating circumstances. They must consider whether a dwelling house was occupied at the time of the offence.

I realize we must start question period so I will continue my remarks at the conclusion of question period.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus we find ourselves generally speaking in support of the bill at second reading. There is much work to be done in committee as some members have already pointed out.

I want to begin by saying how much I regret that the government has decided to bring in an omnibus bill of this kind. In listening to the debate it is already clear that we could have had a different scenario before us. It could have been more pleasing to parliamentarians and more pleasing to the public in terms of passing expeditiously a number of measures that have broad support in the House and among the Canadian public.

That is not the situation we are faced with. Bill C-15 is an omnibus bill containing controversial items which have the prospect of delaying the passage of the legislation, and I find that very regrettable.

Would it not have been better if parliament could speak swiftly and emphatically, with one voice, on matters such as: the luring of children on the Internet for the purposes of sexual exploitation, child pornography with respect to the Internet, the seriousness with which we want the criminal code to take the act of home invasion, and the disarming of police officers?

This is a short list of the kinds of things that are in the bill. We could have said with one voice that we want these things to happen quickly. We know that our laws need to be updated with respect to the new phenomena of the Internet and all the criminal possibilities for the exploitation of children that the Internet provides.

It is something that is long overdue because it is not as if the Internet just showed up yesterday. It has been around for a long time, yet it is only now that we have legislation before us. It is better late than never. It would have been better if we had been presented with a legislative scenario in which we could have proceeded to do that right away.

The same applies to home invasion. This is a relatively new phenomena but it has been around for far too many years already. There has been a cry on the part of the Canadian public for the criminal code and our laws to reflect the seriousness with which people regard home invasions. This is not just any sort of ordinary break and enter, not that we should convey any kind of ordinariness on acts of break and enter, but home invasion. Some of the things that have gone on offend the senses of propriety, decency and morality of all Canadians. It is something that we could have proceeded with quite expeditiously.

We could have also proceeded swiftly with the new provisions having to do with the luring of children on the Internet. This also applies to the disarming of police officers. It is not so long ago that the Canadian Police Association had its week of lobbying here. I am sure that it found very few members of parliament who said that they were against bringing in the provision dealing with the act of disarming police officers. That too could have been proceeded with expeditiously.

Perhaps those things could have gone into an omnibus bill and they could have been done all at once. What makes an omnibus bill offensive is not necessarily what is in it but what the government may be trying to bury within it that it would rather not deal with on its own.

We have a couple of examples of that, and I am not saying that because I am necessarily opposed to what the government is doing in the bill. It just makes for bad politics in the best sense of the word politics. It makes it hard for parliament to speak clearly about these issues if we must always be speaking about more than one issue at the same time when we are speaking about a particular bill.

It may look like good politics in the more pejorative and cynical sense from the point of view of the government that it insert something that is obviously controversial and was controversial in the last parliament. I refer, for example, to the provisions having to do with cruelty to animals. Instead of having them in a separate bill, the government put them in the omnibus bill. People who have concerns about that, whether they be right or wrong, would be open to the charge that they are holding up new provisions for dealing with the luring of children on the Internet when what they are really trying to debate is the merits of what the government is doing with respect to cruelty to animals.

If it is true, as the member from the Alliance alleges, that the way in which the legislation is drafted represents a conceptual transition or a conceptual leap from regarding animals as property to regarding animals as having rights, this is a significant conceptual development. If it is done in a certain way it may be a conceptual development that my colleagues and I would be in favour of and that would not be unreasonable with respect to all the things many people would have to continue to do, whether they be hunters, fishermen, farmers or whatever the case may be.

However it is something that merits debate in its own right. It should have been dealt with in a separate piece of legislation rather than in the context of all the other things I have already spoken about. It could have been dealt with in a way that reflects the agreement that exists among members of parliament about those provisions.

We do not want to bring legislation forward, particularly if we are trying to make some kind of moral statement, which I presume we are trying to do in Bill C-15, about luring on the Internet, child pornography, home invasion and the disarming of police officers, in a way that ascribes controversy to those measures by tacking them on to things which are controversial. Why would we not want to do that in a way that conveys the full measure of support that exists in parliament and in the Canadian public?

This is the argument to be made for splitting the bill. I do not know if the government is open to that but I doubt it. It seems that it has already made a decision not to do that because it has taken formerly separate pieces of legislation and put them into the omnibus bill. I regret it has done that for all the reasons I have already discussed.

There will be a lot of work to do in committee, particularly with the issue having to do with cruelty to animals, not just in terms of that conceptual leap but in terms of definitions and just exactly what is meant here. It may be that I do not know what the government has in mind. There are issues to be looked at in terms of cruelty to animals that may not have to do with the destruction of animals but with the treatment of animals in factory farms. I am not even sure it comes within the ambit of the legislation but I know there are many Canadians who are becoming concerned with the way in which their food is being produced, as well as the living conditions of animals. In some cases it is more the pre-dying conditions of animals that are raised and harvested for human food purposes. This is something that obviously has to continue to happen but surely there must be a way in some instances to do this better than we do now. However, that may well be outside the range of the bill, and I digress.

Another area of controversy in the bill has to do with the firearms legislation. Bill C-15 proposes to put in place certain efficiencies with respect to registration so that people can register on line, et cetera. It would change some definitions.

Here again, although very few of us in the House would look forward to a debate centred specifically on this legislation, or on firearms registration and control because it has been so controversial, I still have to say that it would have been better to deal with this by itself. There is already a lot of suspicion out in the community about what the government may or may not be up to with firearms registration, and changing definitions in the body of a big omnibus bill gives rise to a lot of anxiety and suspicion, which may or may not be warranted.

I and perhaps other members of parliament have had a great deal of mail from people who enjoy the sport of paintball. People wonder whether or not the definitions in the bill are designed in some way, either accidentally or intentionally, to eliminate the game of paintball. I had my staff check with the firearms control folks and they say that paintball will not be covered, but others say that it might be. Therefore this is obviously something that we need to address in committee not just with respect to paintball but with respect to any new definition of what constitutes a firearm.

If it is the government's intention to restrict things that are not now restricted, such as the registration of things that are now not registered, it should be very upfront about it. It should not hide it in some type of microcosmic detail about length or width of a barrel, how many joules, how many feet per second or whatever it is that is used to describe the speed of what comes out of the cannon. It should be very clear with the Canadian public about what it is up to. At this point I do not have that feeling. Maybe the government is not up to anything at all but it has not been very clear about making that clear either. This is something that will have to be dealt with in committee.

As the member from the Bloc said, another element of the bill deals with the whole question of judicial error, wrongful conviction and the setting up of new procedures in respect of that. Again, this is something that could have been done better on its own. After what we have learned with regard to Donald Marshall, Guy Morin, David Milgaard and variety of other occasions, surely an attempt to put in place new provisions with respect to how we deal with wrongful conviction or judicial error would have been something that would have merited its own legislation and debate and yet the government has chosen not to do that.

For all those reasons I want to register our strongest objection to the way in which the government is dealing with the bill and the fact that it brought in the bill in the first place as an omnibus bill.

The minister in her presentation said that we had an omnibus bill in 1994 and 1996 and she cited examples as if it were some kind of virtue or justifying precedent. The fact is omnibus bills have always been offensive to members of parliament. Omnibus bills have always allowed governments to put members of the opposition, and presumably many of their own backbenchers, in a difficult position. Members who want to vote for A and are against B must choose to vote for A and explain why they also voted for B, or vice versa. It does not make for good law-making. It does not make for good politics in the sense of having clarity as to what people are for and against.

This is the same government that brought in the clarity bill which said it was important that the question and the verdict be clear. The government is engaged in an exercise that is quite the opposite. It is engaged in an exercise which, by design, is intended to confuse Canadians as to who is for what and in what context.

Having said that, I look forward to the bill going to committee and to hearing what I am sure will be a great many witnesses. I am sure we will hear concerns about its cruelty to animal clauses, its firearms control and registration clauses and perhaps a number of other issues. I regret very much that we could not have dealt today with some of the clauses having to do with child pornography, luring on the Internet, home invasion and disarming a police officer. I regret that we could not have dealt with that in the same way we dealt with Bill S-4 earlier. I do not think we would have or should have dealt with it that quickly. It certainly could have gone to committee, witnesses could have been heard and this kind of thing could have been on the books very soon. Instead, because the government chose to play politics with other things in the bill, it may well take a lot longer. The Liberals will answer to the public for that, not the opposition.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15, at this stage. It is a very important bill.

Before discussing the legislation further, I would like to repeat what I have already said on other omnibus bills. I think it is inappropriate that so many different things should be put into such an important bill.

In the bill, there are provisions on animal cruelty offences, on the sexual exploitation of children involving the use of the Internet and on sexual harassment. Amendments are proposed with regard to the way in which this will be brought to court. The bill deals with harassment, home invasion, disarming a police officer, judicial errors—all this is very important—and with the whole issue of criminal procedure, which is also very important.

In the bill, some things need no explanation. We totally agree with some of the changes the minister is introducing; we were hoping for them. We commend the minister for the changes that she is proposing. However, there are certain aberrations. What do we do? We do not support the bill because part of it does not interest us and part of it goes against certain positions of Quebec or of our party?

However, with regard to the sexual exploitation of children and the modernization of the criminal code to take into account today's reality in terms of the Internet, we are in agreement. What are we supposed to do? Vote against the bill?

I think the Minister of Justice is not disinterested. I believe she knows very well what she is doing. We lack neither time nor opportunity in the House of Commons to study subjects one after the other, in their proper context and with the help of experts in each field. We have what we need to do good work. Why use an omnibus bill like this to confuse the issues?

It will be strange when the bill is in committee to hear people from humane societies, crown attorneys speaking on criminal proceedings and university professors speaking on research. At one point, we will have to focus on a subject in particular. It will take a lot of time if we really want to do good work and hear witnesses. In the end, we are not saving any time.

I do not think the legislator works better when the government introduces a series of changes in an catch-all bill. In this sense, I believe the minister failed. I think we could have worked diligently on amending bills as we did earlier with Bill S-4. That is a very good example, in my opinion.

When all the parties in the House get along, partisanship can be set aside and we can move ahead with a bill to improve the justice system and better meet the concerns of people. We had a demonstration of that this morning by all the parties. We co-operated and were able to go through all the stages in the same day, with the result that Bill S-4 has now been passed.

I am convinced that the same could have been done regarding the sexual exploitation of children. We could have done it to modernize the criminal code regarding the criminal use of the Internet and make this an offence. It should be pointed out that these changes are often made in response to decisions by the higher courts. This whole part of the criminal code could have been passed very quickly, so that these provisions could take effect as soon as possible.

There are also other issues, such as disarming a policeman. This has been a concern of police officers, including the RCMP, municipal police forces and the Quebec Provincial Police, for a long time. We have already heard a number of witnesses. The spokespersons for political parties, including the Liberal Party, the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois and the others, are all aware that police officers want this amendment. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that if the government introduced a bill that dealt strictly with this issue, we would pass it more quickly.

As I said at the beginning, the bill contains amendments to which I am totally opposed, perhaps not in principle as such but with respect to how they are worded. It seems that the legislator, or those who took the time to draft the bill, forgot certain particular situations. Quite honestly, if the government had produced bills addressing each situation separately, the House of Commons would have passed them very quickly.

Once again the Department of Justice appears to be out of touch with the public. We have seen, and are still seeing, the results of this with the whole issue of young offenders in Quebec, where nobody is in favour of this bill. The minister does not even want to hear from the representatives from Quebec in committee. The government has bulldozed right over everything, as only it can do. We will eventually end up with this bill at third reading.

To show just how strange things sometimes are in the life of the Minister of Justice, the young offenders bill has not even been passed at third reading and we realize that we are going to repeal the Young Offenders Act with Bill C-7, which we recently passed. We realize that certain of the clauses in this bill amend the Young Offenders Act. We are amending this legislation when we know that we have a bill that is going to repeal it.

I would like to describe the context in which the bill seems to have been drafted, and particularly to point out the government's, or the Minister of Justice's, lack of understanding of what is going on within that department. Apart from coming here to the House and listening to what we have to say, I do not get the impression that the minister has much control over her department. She needs to keep much more of an eye on things because this is very important.

I have been an MP since 1993. If there is one bill that has been very hard to get through this House and that has divided just about all caucuses, it has been the firearms legislation. The minister has seen fit to change certain aspects of the Firearms Act with Bill C-15, as well as certain definitions in the criminal code, and this has greatly expanded the definition of a firearm. The legislation we had was already hard to understand and now, with the amendment the minister is bringing in with Bill C-15, I must say the definition of a firearm will be as clear as mud.

One of the clauses that surprised me when I examined Bill C-15 was clause 4. It says, and I will take the time to read it because it is somewhat complex, that subparagraphs 84(3)( d )(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code are replaced by the following:

(i) a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules, or (ii) a shot, bullet or other projectile that is designed or adapted to attain a velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or an energy exceeding 5.7 Joules.

I am just a lawyer; I do not know whether it will take engineers to enforce the Firearms Act in future because apparently a series of multiplicative factors are needed to arrive at the number of joules: the length of the barrel, the radius of the barrel, the size of the bullet, the weight, multiplied, divided—I no longer know what all—to calculate the number of joules. With a definition like this, I have serious doubts with respect to an industry that is in full expansion in Canada and Quebec. I am referring to the whole paintball industry.

I think the biggest operation in all of Canada is located in my riding—its sales are considerable—and it is called BigFoot PaintBall. I am told that, obviously, the rubber bullet filled with paint does not travel 152.4 metres per second, but has a muzzle energy around 12 joules.

Will these guns that look like something from out of this world with their silver and blue and all sorts of other colours have to be registered?

The department assures me that this is not the intent. I read the definition, I read the provision that applies in such cases, and it is “or”. It is “either or” the way I see it. If it is not, I hope they will correct it. But “either” the bullet travels faster than 152.4 metres a second “or” it develops a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 joules.

Under such an interpretation, the gun belonging to my constituent, who earns a living with it in paintball, a new sport, should be registered.

I cannot support such a law because it totally distorts the point of registering firearms. As regards my position, which I spoke of at the start, do I vote for or against the bill given this aberration in it? I think we will vote for it and try to convince the minister she is headed in the wrong direction in certain respects, in certain ways the bill is drafted.

There is no doubt that if the past is any indication of things to come, I have little chance but we will try. We have succeeded on a few occasions in getting certain things changed in the department. We will continue to do so.

The drafting of Bill C-15, in certain cases, is confusing and will have to be given careful consideration. However, we could have amended the bill with a series of small bills, which could have been quickly passed. With regard to the more complicated bills that do not get the unanimous approval of the House, more time and effort could have gone into understanding and improving them but the minister decided otherwise.

Another point has to do with the whole question of child pornography. As drafted, I think this part of the bill is in keeping with requests made and decisions given by the courts. It also updates legislation. So, there is no problem.

The other issue that concerns me is animal cruelty. At the present time, we have legislation. I agree its provisions are obsolete. This whole part has not been changed recently. It no longer properly reflects reality. It is not as modern as we could wish. There is an approach that deals in a modern way with the improvement of legislation. There is another approach, which is too broad and which encompasses almost anything and, once again, does not achieve the objective sought.

Sincerely, I agree with the principle of protecting animals. I am against cruelty toward any kind of animals. I will tell the House a story showing how sensitive I am. Once I accidentally hit a cat that was roaming the street and I stopped to see whether I could save it. It was an accident. Thus, I want to show the House that I am in favour of protecting animals and I think the current legislation does not achieve this objective.

The way this provision is written, I understand the people who are worried and who feel targeted by it, while they are doing nothing illegal and they are not being cruel to animals. The definition is so broad that I understand them. The minister will also have to understand the people who are concerned.

In the definition of cruelty to animals, which is totally new and which applies to many animals, the bill says:

182.1 In this Part, “animal” means a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

This provision includes just about every animal, from a little mouse to a moose in northern Quebec. It also includes fish, not just endangered whales and belugas but all vertebrates. Frogs are also targeted since they are vertebrates—at least I think so, I am a lawyer, not a biologist—but I think they are.

The definition is very broad. There is a whole series of issues relating to cruelty to the animals, namely any vertebrate that has the capacity “to feel pain”.

The bill also provides that:

182.2(1) Every one commits an offence who, wilfully or recklessly: a ) causes...unnecessary...suffering or injury to an animal

What does this mean? The clause also says: b ) kills an animal...brutally or viciously...

If the bill is passed without being amended, will a person who hunts with a bow, which is legal, now commit an offence if he continues to hunt with a bow?

When I go fishing, the fish that I catch does not seem to like to get caught by a hook. Am I guilty of cruelty to that animal, to that vertebrate? These issues must be raised. This is a very broad definition and this is why I understand all the hunting and fishing associations' concerns. I received letters from people in my riding who practice these sports, since there is a lot of hunting and fishing in Berthier—Montcalm. It is a beautiful riding. Mr. Speaker, let me know if you ever want to go hunting or fishing in my riding.

People in my riding are interested in this legislation. Sports associations from across Canada and Quebec also sent me e-mails and letters saying “Listen, this is dangerous”.

The legislation really needs to be looked at in order to see what its objective was. It then becomes clear that, although the present wording may attain the objective, it will end up covering a lot of people who were not necessarily meant to be part of it.

I have touched on just two points but there are a number of actions the legislators may consider cruelty to animals. I wonder where this leaves the pig farmer, for instance. With the definitions given, I am a bit worried for farmers.

For instance, where the shipping of animals is concerned, clause 182.3 (1) ( c ) reads:

negligently injures an animal while it is being conveyed.

I do not know if the minister has ever seen how pigs are loaded onto trucks and chickens into cages for shipping and so on, but the expression “negligently” is very broad, as is “injures an animal while it is being conveyed”.

Very often, any manner of unexpected event can occur. Even with the best of intentions and care for the animals being shipped, sometimes an animal gets injured. Its leg may be broken, or something of the sort.

In the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, we have poultry farms. I have seen such things as a whole shipment of chickens being suffocated by the heat, something that was unavoidable because the outside temperature was 35 degrees Celsius, with high humidity and no wind.

Could the person shipping these chickens be charged with “negligently injuring an animal while it is being conveyed”, in this case of causing its death? I wonder, and I am not the only one.

As I was saying, there are all those involved in hunting and fishing. Then there are the farmers as well who are also raising such questions. We have received a letter from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture raising objections to certain points in the bill and asking us to look into certain things or to propose amendments. Quebec farmers have also made us aware of this problem. Some pig farmers have telephoned me to check out certain things they had heard.

Hunters, fishers, farmers and even academics are asking questions. On April 6, we received in our offices a copy of a letter from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada to the Minister of Justice. I will read the resolution adopted by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, which is very significant and speaks for itself. The letter concerns Bill C-15, which we are currently studying. The resolution reads as follows:

That the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada make known, in the strongest possible terms, to the Minister of Justice and the chair of the House of Commons' Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that it and the institutions that are members of it fear that the proposed changes to the Criminal Code on the treatment of animals inadvertently threatens legitimate university research done using animals, in accordance with the standards recognized in Canada and abroad of the Canadian Council on Animal Care.

It is clear from the wording that even academics, professors and those doing research, who have a highly developed professional conscience, have doubts about these provisions.

The number of people who have doubts about the very ordinary but very badly drafted provisions is beginning to add up: hunters, fishers, farmers, producers, professors, academics, researchers and all that.

My colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville will speak on the part concerning the protection of animals and all that concerns this issue once I have finished speaking. I know that there is a whole very important issue here.

One thing that is missing right now but that could have been changed given the objective pursued is the recovery of costs.

Breeders and people who keep animals are currently being prosecuted for cruelty under existing provisions, and it is difficult to recover all the expenses incurred to get to the animals, try to save them, care for them and so on.

Today, proposed amendments to Bill C-15 are designed to facilitate cost recovery, or at least to try to recover some money. This is fine. However, the same goal could have been achieved with more restrictive provisions and definitions, such as those I mentioned earlier, to deal specifically with the cruelty, not in a restrictive way but in a more targeted way.

I am convinced that we will have good discussions in committee on this, because it is a very important issue.

Other amendments included in the bill concern the whole issue of miscarriage of justice. A fellow Bloc Quebecois member took a very close look at this issue. He has already proposed amendments to the criminal code. He has introduced a bill to facilitate future prosecutions and the compensation of individuals, men and women alike, who have been treated unfairly or have been found guilty when in fact they were not.

The whole issue of miscarriage of justice is very important. It is an issue that has interested the Bloc Quebecois for a long time. The hon. member for Repentigny has been following it closely. He even had a constituent, whose name I forget, who was finally found not guilty and had his rights restored. However, this individual had to live through being unfairly accused and being found guilty of an offence when he was not guilty.

This whole issue is important, hence our support. But here again, this section is in the bill, which contains certain provisions with which we are not in agreement.

The same question I had at the beginning arises. Do I or do I not support the bill? We will probably support it again but we will try to improve as much as possible all these provisions which, as far as judicial errors are concerned, are not a problem.

The minister could have introduced a bill amending the whole issue of judicial errors. First, this would have shown that this is an issue of importance both to the minister and to the government. Everything seems to have been thrown into a huge salad bowl, as it were, and mixed around as if to get rid of it. This would have shown the government's interest.

Second, the bill could have been passed very quickly, so that the new legislation could be implemented as quickly as possible because, when we look at the provisions proposed by the Minister of Justice regarding judicial errors, we see that they are not necessarily simple. It is not because we support it that it is simple. The implementation is very complex. Care must be taken to ensure that errors are not made with respect to the judicial errors themselves.

This must be applicable to everyone. Everyone must be treated equitably, without political interference. The approach must be acceptable to everyone.

We seem to be getting there. It could have been passed. If it were passed quickly, the people who implement it will be able to become familiar with this new legislation and do a more effective job as quickly as possible.

Once again, by introducing an omnibus bill, the minister deprives herself of any possibility of proceeding rapidly in the sections not contested by anyone in the House.

I will try, as we go along, to separate them and I think in fact that this was already done with another bill. We will see if it is possible to do so. I will look at this with the House law clerks in order to see whether certain parts of the bill can be separated before the vote. It would be very interesting for everyone if we could do this.

The last section deals with firearms. It is certain that it is intended as a response to certain problems, because the minister has a problem when its comes to applying the Firearms Act.

Hon. members will recall that the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour of this bill, but under circumstances which included certain comments by the minister of the day which led us to believe that the Firearms Act would be implemented and certain common objectives would be achieved.

What they were saying at that time was that implementation of the Firearms Act would cost some $100 million to $125 million and would thereafter be self-sustaining, year after year, by licence fees and so on. Here we are in 2001 and firearms are not even all registered in Quebec. Perhaps 65% or 70% are.

For the implementation of this act we are talking not $125 million but more like $875 million. Now they are telling us that it will not be self-sustaining but will instead cost some $100 million to $150 million a year.

If I had been given the right figures in 1995, perhaps our position would be different. We might have voted in favour but our position might have been a bit different.

Now we have amendments to Bill C-15 that amend the already very complex regulations of the Firearms Act. I would hope that the final result of all that will be a faster or improved way to register firearms. I say in all honesty that when I see how things work at the Department of Justice, I have my doubts. At the point we have reached, however, we will trust the government on the registration of firearms.

I would like to point out that there is a whole other aspect that is not a source of problems either. Many amendments have been made with respect to Nunavut, including certain regulations and procedures, and so on, which apply only there. There is no problem, and I think these amendments were sought by the local community.

As I was saying earlier, other provisions in the bill amend the Young Offenders Act. I find it very strange that the Minister of Justice is changing a law she well knows will be repealed shortly by her decision, especially the way she is going about it, not wanting to hear any witnesses from Quebec. The National Defence Act, the National Capital Act and other similar acts are being amended as well.

As members can see, I have tried to do a very quick overview. This bill will come before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I will be there, as I am for each and every bill. I know that the member for Terrebonne—Blainville will closely follow the deliberations of the justice committee and consideration of this bill, because she is very interested in certain aspects of it. I invite her to come to the committee meetings and I am sure that together we will do a good job with Bill C-15.

On this note, I will reiterate our final position. Even though we have a problem with many provisions of Bill C-15, we will support it at second reading, while hoping that we can convince the Minister of Justice, or rather her department, since it is obviously the department that is calling the shots, that they are off track with some definitions, which are much too broad. There are also a number of difficulties with procedures regarding arms, paintballs, the number of joules and the number of metres per second being much too complex. A cumulative process, not an either or situation, is required. We will try to propose all sorts of amendments to the Minister of Justice, to improve this bill.

I know that there are hunters, producers and farmers who are listening to us, as well as people involved in the sale of firearms and paintballs. I want them to know that we will review this bill as thoroughly as we can in order to be able to propose the necessary amendments to make it acceptable and to ensure that it will achieve its objectives.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate today in debate on Bill C-15, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts. When the bill was first introduced almost two months ago, one of my new colleagues asked “Animal cruelty, child pornography, and firearms, what do any of these issues have to do with one another?” and said he did not understand why they would all be put in one bill.

While past practice has often demonstrated that logic is not essential to the legislative process or for the legislative provisions themselves, there is a clear logic to grouping together the diverse provisions of this bill. It is a Machiavellian logic motivated by the politics of cynicism. It is a logic that raises the spectre of the worst of the American legislative process.

It is a logic that attempts to coerce agreement from opposition parties by requiring their consent to a political agenda of flawed partisan legislation as a precondition to the enactment of legislation widely recognized as necessary for the protection of the most vulnerable in our society. How else can one logically explain, for example, the coupling of the provisions seeking to amend the fundamentally flawed legislation concerning the billion dollar long gun registry failure with provisions that seek to protect our children from sexual predators?

This omnibus bill is a deliberate and cynical attempt to curtail any substantive debate on the flaws of the political agenda evident in the long gun registry provisions and to require members either to accept legislation that our constituents fundamentally disagree with or to vote against legislation that our constituents would never want to oppose, such as laws aimed at protecting children.

There is no question that there are some good provisions in the bill. Most important, the legislation contains long overdue laws against luring children over the Internet for the purposes of committing a sexual offence. I commend these initial efforts to protect children from criminals using the Internet.

The Canadian Alliance has consistently called for legislation to protect children from those who keep finding ways to prey on their vulnerability. Law enforcement agencies and child care agencies regularly advise the public through the media or otherwise that predators frequently use the Internet, mask their identities and pretend to be children or young adults in order to lure children into a situation where they could be sexually abused. These situations are becoming more common and I am relieved to see that the government has finally recognized the great need to amend the law. It is a good first step, at any rate.

However, I have serious doubts whether the legislation, which attempts to provide protection to children from sexual predators, will be either effective or sufficiently broad. The same government that has to date failed to create an effective national sex offender registry now wants us to believe it can keep track of the criminals who lure children over the Internet or who deal in child pornography. Why should we believe that it would follow through with effective measures that enforce the legislation?

Furthermore, these provisions would only provide legislative protection for children who are less than 14 years of age. Canadians would be shocked to learn that even under this legislation an adult could lure a 14 year old girl or a 14 year old boy over the Internet with no legal consequences. Parents and children deserve a greater measure of assistance and protection from these predators.

I agree with those law enforcement and child care agencies that recommend that the law set out for child luring should be extended to all children under the age of 16. This way parents and other concerned authorities would have some legal recourse to protect children of 14 and 15 years of age who fall prey to sexual predators they encounter over the Internet.

There are also new offences set out for transmitting, accessing or distributing child pornography over the Internet, punishable by a maximum of 10 years. This is a laudable goal, but I would be interested in being advised of the practical difficulties involved with these kinds of investigations and prosecutions in order to determine whether these legislative proposals meet those very real concerns.

Similarly, I would like to point out that in Bill C-15, although there are provisions for substantial maximum sentences for accessing child pornography, luring children for sexual purposes, animal cruelty, criminal harassment and a variety of other offences, the legislation will be ineffective if judges will not impose appropriate sentences.

When maximum sentences are increased it is rare to see a proportionate increase in sentences, as many judges simply ignore the direction signalled by parliament when it enacts these changes in legislation. Not only do the appeal courts appear to be reluctant to establish sentencing ranges that are proportionate to the crime committed and the legislative penalty provided, there is a corresponding reluctance on the part of the government to send clear, legislative directions to the courts that the sentences imposed on many serious and repeat offenders are simply inadequate.

This apparent reluctance on the part of the government is compounded by the imposition of new and fundamentally misleading sentencing tools that encourage the pretence that offenders are in fact imprisoned, while the truth is that they are free to exploit more victims in our communities.

I refer of course to the practice of authorizing and imposing conditional sentences. As crown attorneys continue to advise, the enforcement of breeches of these conditional sentences are increasingly rare because of the lack of adequate resources to apply these very complex provisions. Then the failure to provide the appropriate resources fulfils another political agenda of the Liberal government to make it appear that these sentencing provisions are in fact working because there are so few reported breeches.

Accordingly, unless the government takes the necessary steps to implement effective and truthful sentencing in the Canadian justice system, these important child protection provisions in the bill will simply be another example of the failure of our laws to protect the vulnerable in our society.

In terms of the animal cruelty sections of the bill, I am aware that the government has made certain changes from the previously proposed legislation, Bill C-17. However there are still significant concerns that many organizations, businesses and individuals have in respect of these provisions.

I know that some of my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance will go into further detail on many of these issues, but I would also like to touch briefly on the issue on behalf of the various groups that took the time to contact me personally to raise their concerns. These groups included the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Ontario Farm Animal Council, the Ontario Veal Association and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

These organizations have consistently said that they welcome amendments to the criminal code that would clarify and strengthen provisions relating to animal cruelty and that they do not condone intentional animal abuse or neglect in any way. Many of these groups support the intent of the bill as its objective is to modernize the law and increase penalties for offences relating to animal cruelty and neglect. However, despite the minor improvements to this legislation, they advise that this bill requires significant amendments before it becomes acceptable to the vast majority of hunters and farmers, many of whom are dependent on the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their livelihood.

One of the central concerns with the bill is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. The phrase “legal justification, excuse or colour of right” in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. However in the new bill, the fact that the animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own would effectively remove these provisions outside the ambit of that protection.

Moving the animal cruelty sections out of the ambit of property offences to a new section in its own right is also seen by many as emphasizing animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. This significant alteration in the underlying principles of the legislation is something that needs to be carefully considered. These groups are concerned that elevating the status of animals from property could in fact have significant and detrimental implications for many legitimate animal dependent businesses.

Another major and very serious concern is that the definition of animal is too broad, subjective and ambiguous. The proposed definition of animal in Bill C-15 includes non-human vertebrates and all animals having the capacity to feel pain. This definition marks a significant departure by providing protection for an extremely wide range of living organisms which have never before been afforded this kind of legal protection.

In terms of practical difficulties, this definition as worded could cause potentially enormous problems by extending the criminal law to invertebrates, cold blooded species such as fish, as well as the extremely wide variety of other types of both domestic and wild animals.

In her speech last Thursday, the justice minister assured us that what was lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill received royal assent. She promised the House that these changes would not in any way negatively affect the many legitimate activities that involve animals, such as hunting, farming or medical and scientific research.

Her statement was at the same time self-evident, but also misleading. Of course the new provisions would not prevent legitimate activities from being carried out. The law only prescribes illegal activities. The problem is, and therefore the concern, that these new provisions would arguably narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities by increasing the scope of this provision.

If it is not the minister's intent to prohibit the presently acceptable and legitimate activities in Canadian agricultural or fur industries, I would suggest that the wording of the legislation be amended to clarify the intent of these provisions. If it is not amended, I and many of my colleagues will have a very difficult time supporting the bill.

The riding of Provencher, which I have the honour to represent, is primarily a rural riding. The farmers and hunters and other businesses associated with those activities have enough to worry about these days without having to wonder if they are going to be criminalized for practices they have been carrying out their entire lives. I have the option of voting against the bill on the basis that farmers and others who use animals legitimately have voiced reasonable and serious concerns regarding the implications the bill would present. However, in this case I would also be voting against new laws to protect children.

It is a difficult situation and one of which I am certain will be exploited by the Liberals for crass political advantage. It is truly unfortunate that the minister is asking us to consider provisions that deal with the lives of children in the same context with provisions that impose conditions on how farmers and hunters and related businesses should handle animals.

There is no legal requirement to proceed to weigh the merits of this bill on the basis of such inappropriate relative comparison. It demeans the value of human life and at the same time prevents the House from fully considering the impact of the animal cruelty provisions on the economic circumstances of many rural people of Canada.

Bill C-15 contains a number of good things. As I have said, it contains updated legislation to protect children to some extent from sexual predators on the Internet. It would make viewing, transmitting and distributing child pornography over the Internet an offence punishable by up to 10 years.

More important, the bill would increase protection for police by creating the new offence of disarming a police officer. The bill outlines reforms to rules governing criminal procedure. These are procedural reforms that are long overdue. Much of this legislation in the bill is in fact badly needed. The opposition has been calling for these provisions for years. Personally, I am relieved to see that the measures are being finally introduced.

As I have said before, I would like to support the bill. The bill presents a very difficult situation. I am disappointed that the government would put such diverse and I would argue completely unrelated issues in the same bill. As I stated earlier, I see this approach to lawmaking as a blatant and cynical political move on the part of the Liberal government to force flawed legislation through the House. More important, it shows a callous disregard to the constituents who have asked us to serve their best interest in the House.

I would ask the minister to consider introducing a motion to split this legislative package into several bills. That would remove the provisions that have a broad base of support in the House so that those provisions could be fast tracked and proclaimed. We saw an example of that this morning with Bill S-4.

Members in the House are willing to co-operate. I believe that on many provisions there is broad if not unanimous consensus in the House to move them forward. The technique of bringing forward a motion to split the bill would accommodate the need to move those provisions that do have that broad consensus, while subjecting the others to a more rigorous debate and, I suggest, to better legislation. If need be, I am prepared to sit down with representatives from all parties to facilitate that discussion.

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

moved that Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin second reading debate on Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts.

As omnibus bills before it, Bill C-15 has a number of diverse elements. Most recently we have seen examples of omnibus bills: Bill C-51 in 1999, Bill C-17 in 1996 and Bill C-42 in 1994. These examples demonstrate that the practice of introducing criminal amendments through an omnibus bill is a longstanding practice and one that has served the criminal justice system well.

The amendments proposed in the criminal law amendment act, 2001 respond to serious crimes against children and other vulnerable members of society, provide additional safeguards for the law enforcement community, strengthen our laws concerning cruelty to animals, make administrative and procedural improvements to the justice system, and make administrative amendments to the Firearms Act.

First I will deal with the proposed amendments to better protect our children. The provisions that deal with protecting children respond to the government's commitment in the Speech from the Throne to safeguard children from criminals on the Internet and to ensure that children are protected from those who would prey upon their vulnerability. They also respond to a consensus of ministers responsible for justice at the last FPT meeting to create an offence of Internet luring.

The Internet is a new technology that can be used to stimulate the communication of ideas and facilitate research, but, as with any instrument, when placed in the wrong hands it can be used for ill and to cause harm. Canadians will not tolerate a situation where individuals, from the safety and secrecy of their house, use the anonymity of the Internet to lure children into situations where they can be exploited sexually.

The new offence seeks to address what has been reported as a growing phenomenon not only in our country but globally. It criminalizes communicating through a computer system for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against a child or the abduction of a child.

We also want to ensure that those who view, or transmit child pornography to others, will not escape criminal liability by using new technologies.

We will extend the scope of current child pornography offences to make it clearer that actions that constitute an offence when committed with traditional means remain an offence when committed with electronic means.

Bill C-15 seeks to create four new offences: an offence of transmitting child pornography to cover one to one distribution, such as e-mail sent to one person only; an offence of making child pornography available to cover those who post child pornography on a publicly accessible website but take no other steps to distribute it; an offence of exporting child pornography to meet our international obligation; and an offence of accessing child pornography to capture those who intentionally view child pornography on the net but where the legal notion of possession may be problematic. The offence is defined to ensure that inadvertent viewing would not be caught under this offence.

I will now turn to three other proposed measures to better protect vulnerable Canadians. The first measure I wish to mention is the offence of criminal harassment, or stalking as it is sometimes referred to. This is a serious offence that can have a devastating effect upon the emotional and physical well-being of the victim.

In Bill C-15, this government is taking strong measures to ensure that the criminal justice system treats criminal harassment as the serious offence that we know it to be.

The government's response to this issue is twofold: first, to strengthen the existing legislation; and, second, to strengthen enforcement of the law through comprehensive guidelines for criminal justice personnel on criminal harassment.

Bill C-15 responds to our first commitment by proposing to increase the maximum penalty for criminal harassment when prosecuted on indictment from five to ten years. This sends a strong signal to would-be stalkers. Criminal harassment is a serious offence and its sentence would now better reflect this serious nature.

With respect to our second commitment relating to enhancing the enforcement of the criminal harassment provisions, I am pleased to note that together with our federal, provincial and territorial counterparts a handbook for police and crown prosecutors on criminal harassment was developed and released in December 1999. The handbook provides a practical set of guidelines for criminal justice personnel on all aspects of a criminal harassment case, including victim safety.

I now wish to address the difficult issue of home invasions, one that has been raised by a number of my colleagues on all sides of the House. The term home invasion is generally used to describe a robbery or break and enter of a private residence when the perpetrator forces entry while the occupants are at home, and this is key, and the perpetrator threatens to use or does use violence against the occupants.

The proposed amendment to the criminal code would indicate that where the offender's conduct was in the nature of a home invasion the court must consider this to be an aggravating factor when determining the sentence to be imposed. Such an amendment would provide clear direction to the courts and would express parliament's view that home invasion is a grave form of criminal conduct which must be dealt with appropriately during the sentencing process.

Another important measure proposed in Bill C-15 is the new offence of disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer. This new offence would apply to anyone who tries to take away an officer's weapon when the officer is acting in the course of his or her duties. It is proposed that this new offence carry a maximum penalty of five years to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to send a clear message that taking or attempting to take a police officer's weapon would not be tolerated. The safety of police officers is a priority for the government.

The criminal law amendment act, 2001, would revive amendments introduced in the last parliament dealing with cruelty to animals. The proposed reforms have two primary objectives: to simplify and better organize the existing laws and to enhance the penalties for animal cruelty.

In particular we are increasing the penalties for animal cruelty offences with the highest penalty being five years in prison, up from the current maximum of six months. We would eliminate the current limit of two years maximum duration for an order prohibiting the offender from possessing animals and would include a new power for the court to order as part of a sentence that the offender repay to a humane society the reasonable costs associated with the care of the animal.

I would like to make clear this afternoon that these changes do not in any way negatively affect the many legitimate activities that involve animals, such as hunting, farming, or medical and scientific research. These are regulated activities subject to specific technical rules and regulations and codes of practice. The criminal law is not being used to establish or modify industry standards but rather to prohibit conduct that is grossly unacceptable. Simply put, what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent.

The law already requires that we treat animals humanely and with respect. These amendments would ensure that the law can adequately deal with those who would wilfully abuse animals. I believe that all members of the House can support this principle. There is no subject on which I receive more mail from Canadians on a weekly basis than on the question of modernizing our laws in relation to cruelty to animals.

I would like to speak now in relation to the proposed amendments concerning firearms. The Canadian firearms program is an example of the preventive approach our government takes to public safety. Moreover, the program is already achieving higher levels of public safety for all Canadians and the facts demonstrate it.

Since December 1, 1998, more than 3,000 licences have been refused or revoked by public safety authorities. The number of revocations is 26 times higher than the total of the five previous years. Overall the licensing compliance rate in Canada is now over 90%.

However, we have learned from the licensing experience. We have also listened to the concerns of gun owners and other Canadians about program efficiency and client service. We are proposing administrative changes to facilitate the registration process and to continue to ensure a high level of service to clients. These administrative changes do not affect the deadline of January 1, 2003, for registration of all firearms nor the government's commitment to public safety.

We are responding to the needs and wishes of Canadians and firearms owners by proposing changes that will make the program more user friendly, more cost efficient and client oriented. We will design a more streamlined system by simplifying the licence renewal process, by redesigning the registration process and by making better use of new and emerging Internet technology, for example, by allowing for registration of firearms online. We also intend to improve efficiency and reduce costs, for example, by staggering firearms licence renewals to avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles.

With these amendments, we will reach a balance between the interests of responsible firearms owners and our shared objective of public safety.

The efficiency of any criminal justice system depends upon its ability to protect the innocent while bringing those who are guilty of crime to justice. Despite all the precautions that our justice system takes to avoid the conviction of an innocent person, no system is infallible. Wrongful convictions can occur and regrettably have occurred in the past. The names Donald Marshall, David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin make my point.

In such cases our entire justice system finds itself in disrepute. That is why Bill C-15 includes important improvements to section 690 of the criminal code, the conviction review process. It is a final safety net for those who are the victims of wrongful conviction.

In October 1998 we released a public consultation paper seeking submissions on how our conviction review process could be improved. The consultations informed the measures now found in Bill C-15.

The ultimate decision making authority in criminal conviction reviews will remain with the federal Minister of Justice, who is accountable to parliament and to the people of Canada. The Minister of Justice can recognize and maintain the traditional jurisdiction of the courts while providing a fair and just remedy in those exceptional cases that have somehow fallen through the cracks of the conventional justice system.

However, maintaining the status quo is not an acceptable option. Therefore the amendments to section 690 will provide investigative powers to those investigating cases on behalf of the Minister of Justice. This will allow investigators to compel witnesses to testify and documents to be produced.

In order to make the conviction review process more open and accountable, ministers of justice will now be required to provide an annual report to parliament and a website will be created to give applicants information on the process.

I believe that these amendments are the most efficient and effective way to improve the post-appellant extrajudicial conviction review process in Canada.

Let me turn briefly to the area of criminal procedure reform. The Department of Justice has been working closely with the provinces and territories on criminal procedure reform for some years. This work is now in its third phase.

The objectives of phase three are to simplify trial procedure, modernize the criminal justice system and enhance its efficiency through the increased use of technology, better protect victims and witnesses in criminal trials, and provide speedy trials in accordance with charter requirements.

We are trying to bring criminal procedure into the 21st century. This phase reflects our efforts to modernize our procedure without in any way reducing the measure of justice provided by the system.

As I said at the outset, the provinces and territories support these reforms. As they are responsible for the administration of justice, I believe that we should do our best to give them the tools they need to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the criminal justice system.

In conclusion, I am sure the standing committee will give Bill C-15 its usual thorough review and examination. I believe it contains a number of important improvements to the criminal justice system and measures that will contribute to the protection and safety of all Canadians. I call on all members of the House to support the bill.

With consent, I would move that the debate on Bill C-15 do now adjourn.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my opposition counterpart for this excellent question.

This afternoon we will continue with Bill C-6, the water export bill. If this business is finished earlier than the end of the day, which I understand it might be, I would then propose to call Bill C-15, the criminal code amendment. If that is the case, I would ask for the minister and the official opposition to speak. After that, I would adjourn the debate and we would not proceed further.

I want to take this opportunity to indicate that it had been my original intention to call this bill last Monday. However I was informed that the text I had and the text that was provided to other hon. members was not the same. I apologize for the differences that appeared in the texts. It is my intention to at least start Bill C-15 this afternoon. I will get back to the next time we will consider Bill C-15 in a moment.

Tomorrow there has been an all party agreement to consider Bill S-5, the legislation regarding the Blue Water Bridge, at all stages.

We would then deal with Bill S-2 respecting marine liability. That would probably be the end of the consideration of legislation for tomorrow. As a matter of fact I do not propose calling anything else given the progress today.

There has also been similar all party agreement to consider Bill S-4 regarding civil harmonization of civil law at all stages on Monday. We would do second reading stage and by unanimous consent the bill would go to committee of the whole and subsequently third reading all in the same day. This would be followed by Bill C-15, which we will start later this afternoon pursuant to the remarks I just made.

After question period on Monday, regardless of the progress, I would propose to call Bill S-17, the patent legislation. Tuesday shall be an opposition day.

Next Wednesday and Thursday we will be looking at cleaning up any leftover legislation that I have just described and also adding: Bill C-17, the innovation foundation bill; Bill S-11, the business corporation bill; Bill S-16, respecting money laundering; and Bill C-14, the shipping act amendments to the list of matters that may come up.

I will also be speaking to other House leaders about arranging early consideration, and hopefully we can do that now, about Bill C-7, the youth justice bill, given that the committee has now concluded its consideration of this bill.

This is the program I offer to the House for the upcoming week. I thank hon. members on all sides of the House for their usual co-operation.

Bill C-15

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's desire to bring clarity to this important point, one of considerable concern to a great many Canadians.

I want to underscore for the House that the animal cruelty provisions in Bill C-15 in no way outlaw current lawful practices such as farming, sport fishing or hunting. The proposed law targets those who wilfully abuse or harm animals.

These provisions are part of the government's ongoing efforts to modernize the criminal code for the 21st century and to reflect the values of Canadians.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am asking this question because my constituents in Yukon have an interest in the wording of Bill C-15. Canadians agree that cruelty to animals should be prohibited in society. While we must not put at risk the current legal practices of fishing and hunting, we must stop the worst cases of cruelty and abuse.

Could the Minister of Justice reassure Canadians that the wording of Bill C-15 will be clear and precise enough to target the true abuse of animals?

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this private member's bill. I am also honoured to follow my colleague from Provencher and attach myself to his remarks.

The bill has a great deal of pragmatism and takes a practical common sense approach to the very real problem of home invasion. I commend the hon. member for his intent and his perseverance in bringing the matter to the forefront.

The bill would amend the criminal code to provide for minimum mandatory imprisonment of two years upon a second or subsequent conviction for breaking and entering in relation to a dwelling house. The dwelling house is the key principle. The home is the castle, the sacrosanct place where Canadians first and foremost should feel a sense of security.

This offence has become rampant not just in cities and towns but in rural Canada. In isolated areas the chances of home invasion are sometimes increased by the isolation.

Sadly, this crime is on the rise among youth and particularly young women. It is popular among gangs because of the lucrative rewards involved. I say rewards in a negative sense because those who engage in the activity seem to feel they can achieve something by breaking into people's homes and taking their possessions.

The real danger is when individuals are at home and find someone in their domain, particularly at night under the cover of darkness. The potential for violence is very real. It has happened on numerous occasions when individuals were protecting their home, their possessions and their loved ones. It is a recipe for disaster and violence. Why would we as legislators in the Parliament of Canada not want to put great emphasis on something that is happening with alarming frequency?

Many have complained about the legislation. The parliamentary secretary has referred to it as infringing upon judicial jurisdiction. He says that it would infringe upon a judge's natural task of assessing each case separately. Surely the emphasis by judges is always upon the facts in a particular case.

When we talk about recidivism and repeat offences, the scales of justice must be tipped in favour of protecting the public. The scales of justice must be tipped toward deterrence and denunciation of that particular type of offence.

If we do not take the chance that has been put before us with the legislation, we will miss the opportunity to send a message to those offenders who choose to act in this way and who watch with some glee when a light sentence is handed down, to the horror of victims and to those living in fear of having their home invaded, their possessions stolen or to potentially face violence in their homes where they should feel most secure.

The Conservative Party supports the principle of the bill which recognizes the public safety concerns that arise from such offences. The type of offence that is portrayed in the bill endangers people's lives. That is part of the entire equation. That is why the judiciary in some instances must be reminded of the important message of deterrence.

Home invasion is described as breaking and entering into a home when the invader either knows or ought to know that the dwelling is occupied. Currently such an offence is considered by judges to be an aggravating factor. This comes from Bill C-15 wherein it talks about it being an aggravating factor in cases stemming from break and enter, assault and drug related offences, depending on the particular case. Breaking into a home when the offender knows that the individual is at home is a penetrating statement of the obvious. That is an aggravating factor. What could be more aggravating and what could be more distressing to an individual?

The Liberal government's response to this issue has been nothing more than the typical Liberal legislative half measure to please everyone and to appear to be addressing the problem when the upshot of the legislation really falls far short of what it should be achieving.

Bill C-15, which was tabled in a previous parliament and is now back in its watered down form, does not really achieve that goal. It does not achieve the message of deterrence. It does not achieve the goal of sending a clear direction to the judiciary or to the general public that public safety has to take priority when it comes to this type of offence.

In light of public demand for this type of legislation, the federal Minister of Justice had an opportunity to send that message to those who invade homes and to those who put their own lives in jeopardy. In some sense this type of situation almost encourages vigilante justice because of the sheer frustration that exists on the part of those who have been victimized and those who see offenders constantly being treated leniently by the system. They are then left to feel that they have no recourse but to take the law into their own hands. Nobody wants to condone or encourage that but that is very much the sense that I get from talking to people who have been victims of this type of offence.

Bill C-15 had the potential to correct this anomaly and correct the impression that home invasion would be treated with a strong hand. It did not happen. There is a strong faction in the Liberal Party who would like to embrace the legislation and the ideal that we have to do more to deter those who choose to break and enter into people's homes.

Judges definitely have a great deal of discretion when looking at sentencing. It seems to me that if we break and enter on one occasion and we are caught, apprehended and brought to justice and we do it again, a two year mandatory minimum sentence sends a very clear and concise message that it will not be tolerated.

We should not shy away from this type of direction to the judiciary. There are occasions where the offence is so serious and the implications so grave that there should be a legislative directive. Why on earth would we shirk that duty?

In terms of the Criminal Code of Canada that is very much within the domain of those who dwell in these hallowed halls and who look for ways to improve upon legislation. The criminal code was a product of this Chamber many years ago. It has been subject to all sorts of amendments. Why should we for a moment believe that it is not proper to bring forward this type of amendment?

Home invaders have been victimizing Canadians from coast to coast. This is not a regional epidemic. It has been happening with alarming numbers throughout the country. Senior citizens appear to be those most vulnerable and those most affected. The terror and the mental anguish that result from this type of crime is something that is very lasting.

I am sure members can relate to the fear that people would feel when their home has been invaded even if they were not at home at the time. Their sense of security is shattered every time they come into their home after something like this has happened, where their personal belongings have been tampered with. They are looking behind doors and always wanting the lights on. I have heard these remarks from seniors who have been victimized by home invasion. This type of mental anguish is incalculable. It is difficult for a sentencing judge to take into consideration just how disruptive and how unsettling this is for a person.

I know that many Nova Scotians were very pleased that the Conservative government of John Hamm responded by handing down tougher sentencing directions for home invasions. The justice minister, Michael Baker, took a very lead role and position with his provincial counterparts in lobbying the federal justice minister to enact legislation to create a separate criminal code offence for home invasion which accomplished very much of what the hon. member from Calgary intends his private member's bill to do.

Justice Minister Baker argued that a separate offence could give the court an opportunity to send that clear message but also provide an opportunity for communities to more effectively measure the impact and therefore deal with the problem of home invasion specifically.

I have before the House a private member's motion that deals with marrying this exact initiative on the part of Nova Scotia. The bill, although impugned to effect judicial discretion, would very much assist judges in putting the emphasis that many of them would like to put on this type of offence.

I would be more comforted if there was a limitation on the timeframe in which the offences occurred. I would favour the mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of two years if there was a subsequent conviction within a set period of time, for example five years. This would do away with the possible anomaly of having committed an offence as a youth and then 10 or 15 years later a subsequent offence.

I support the bill in principle. I would hope that all members give it due consideration and embrace this type of initiative. I congratulate the member for Calgary East.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-290, an act to amend the criminal code with respect to breaking and entering, which has been introduced by the hon. member for Calgary East.

The safety and security of Canadians within their own homes is a key priority for the Government of Canada. The government has responded to concerns about home invasions by including section 23 in Bill C-15, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, introduced on March 14, 2001.

Proposed amendments to the criminal code would indicate that where the offender's conduct was in the nature of a home invasion, the court must consider this to be an aggravating factor when determining the sentence to be imposed.

Bill C-290 would amend subsection 348(1)(d) of the criminal code by providing, in the case of a first offence, for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and in the case of second or subsequent offence, a maximum life sentence and a minimum sentence of two years imprisonment.

Section 348 of the code 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. I would add that 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. In fact, surveys conducted by the Canadian Sentencing Commission in the mid-1980s showed that the public has very little knowledge of either maximum or minimum penalties generally and that many were taken aback by the severity of the existing maxima.

The current maximum penalties for breaking and entering and robbery demonstrate that the government recognizes this conduct is of serious nature which may have significant impacts upon its victims. The sanctity of an individual's home as a place of safety and one free from intrusion has been recognized at 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 subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The criminal code states 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 in the criminal code include denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring those who would commit offences and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders in acknowledging the harm they have done to victims and to the community.

The government shares the concerns of Canadians with regard to the relatively new phenomenon of home invasion robberies which occur while the home is occupied. To protect the right of individuals to feel secure in their own homes and to address the need for denunciation and deterrence, courts across Canada have been imposing stiff sentences for this crime.

The proposed amendment signals that home invasions are a serious crime that should be met with significant penalties. In addition to the maximum life imprisonment already in the criminal code for breaking and entering into a dwelling house, Bill C-290 would provide a mandatory minimum of two years' imprisonment for a second or subsequent offence.

Canada has historically utilized mandatory minimum sentences with restraint and allowed courts the discretion to fashion sentences proportionate to the gravity of the offence and conduct of the offender. Judges, who have the benefit of knowing all the facts and evidence regarding the offence and the offender, are well placed to determine the appropriate sentence in individual cases. Such circumstances must be weighed in light of the sentencing principles I have outlined.

There is no clearly demonstrated need for a minimum penalty for second or subsequent convictions for breaking and entering into a dwelling house given the high maximum penalty already in the code. Courts also take into account whether an offender has previous convictions for the same or related offences. A prior criminal record is an aggravating factor and the greatest predictor of a longer sentence.

With respect to home invasion, the creation of an aggravating sentencing provision in Bill C-15 would encourage judges to use the tough penalties already available. As noted, courts throughout Canada are already doing so in recognition of the seriousness of this offence and its devastating impact upon victims.

I recognize the concerns of the hon. member for Calgary East with respect to breaking and entering. However I believe the existing penalty of life imprisonment for this offence and clause 23 of Bill C-15 clearly demonstrate our commitment to providing safe homes for all Canadians.

Gun Registry

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.

The ludicrous, unenforceable long gun registry has taken a new twist. Omnibus Bill C-15 will designate paint ball players and operators as criminals. Because of the definition of firearms and the velocity at which these projectiles are fired, thousands would automatically be charged and I suspect many businesses will go under.

Will the minister agree that the focus should be on combating real firearms violence, not games or sports that are a legitimate form of entertainment? Will she commit to amending this anomaly in Bill C-15?

Charities Registration (Security Information) Act

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly to the referral of Bill C-16 to committee. It is a procedure that is not used all that often.

Bill C-16 is a bill which is well suited to this kind of examination in committee before second reading so that no parties in the House, and particularly the government, find themselves committed to any particular position on the bill. It leaves the way open for members on the committee to explore all the various concerns that a great many people have expressed about the bill.

Having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General, it seemed to me that he made a speech that was more appropriate for a traditional second reading debate in which he vigorously defended the bill and the government's position on the bill. That is not what should be happening now. The bill is going to committee before second reading presumably because the government has some sense that there are things which need to be looked at before any final commitment on the part of the government is made to the passage of the bill.

There would be an opportunity for people to come forward, as they have been doing through correspondence to various members of parliament, particularly those associated with this file, and express their concerns on the record before the committee.

Another bill which may be suited to this kind of process would be a bill that the government could bring forward having to do with workplace safety and changes to the criminal code with respect to the charging of companies or individuals of companies responsible for the death of workers on the job through corporate negligence.

I am referring to a bill that existed in the last parliament that was sometimes called the Westray bill. Our party was pushing that bill in the last parliament, particularly our leader, the hon. member for Halifax. We were urging the government to act on that particular issue.

It would seem to me if the Minister of Justice, as she has said to me, wants to hear from more Canadians, if she is not prepared to act on the Westray file at this moment, that bringing forward a piece of legislation and referring it to committee before second reading so that more people could be heard on that particular subject would be a good idea.

I make no apologies for using the opportunity when we are employing that process with respect to Bill C-16 to say that there are other issues which are equally important and which I think the government should act on by using this particular process. One of them could certainly be acting on the Westray file, that is to say, changing the criminal code in such a way that the kind of activity that led to that particular tragedy would be the kind of activity that could be gone after much more efficiently than it can be gone after now.

With respect to Bill C-16, there is no need to speak at great length about the bill. We want to see it go to committee. I would say that the government should be open, as I think I already know it is, as to whether or not it finally should go to the justice and human rights committee because the justice and human rights committee is a very busy committee. We have Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act, Bill C-15, the omnibus amendments to the criminal code and the organized crime bill, and there will be more. I would hope the government would consider whether or not at some point, perhaps in discussion with House leaders, if we could agree to send this bill for this kind of an examination to some other committee, a committee that can do it sooner. It is not because we do not want to do it in the justice committee, but perhaps we could agree to send it to some other committee whose calendar of work would permit it to do this earlier.

Surely all Canadians would agree that if this is a problem that needs to be addressed then it should be addressed sooner rather than later. I put it on the record that we should look at perhaps where we might refer this bill for this kind of study. We could always change it by unanimous consent.

A number of groups have already expressed concern about the bill, but I will say briefly that we in the NDP support the principle of the bill, which is that taxpayers should not be funding, surreptitiously or innocently by virtue of deception any particular organization or terrorism activity either here or in any other country.

If my understanding of the bill is correct, I think what the government has in mind here is terrorism abroad. When I listened to the Alliance spokesperson complain that the bill does not fight terrorism in the many ways that he thinks it should, he may be right that there are other things the government could be doing to fight terrorism, but the bill is directed toward amendments that need to be made to the charities act.

In fairness to the government, we could say that it should be doing this, that and the other thing, and that all may be true, but the bill itself, it seems to me, zeros in on a particular problem and that is, how can we prevent the Canadian taxpayer from subsidizing terrorism through the charities act? How can we do that in a way that does not interfere with the legitimate activities of a great many charities which may in fact be configured in relationship, not necessarily to another country or to a cause in another country, but configured culturally or ethnically in a way that leaves them open to that suspicion or may in fact, depending on what is actually the case, leave them open to being used in that particular way?

Many of the groups that would fall into that category have a legitimate concern, I think, that they not be dragged through a process in which, even if at the end of that process they are found to be innocent, they would nevertheless have expended a great deal of time, energy and perhaps reputation in defending themselves against that charge. How can we balance that concern with the very real concern that some organizations may actually be or may be tempted to be or may in the past have been or may in the future act in such a way that the moneys which Canadians give to them, which are tax deductible, are used in some way or another for terrorism?

I will end by saying that one of the things we need to keep in mind while trying to find this balance is that we also need to do a lot more critical thinking about what constitutes terrorism, particularly when we are talking about terrorism abroad, which is mostly the kind of terrorism we are talking about. It is sometimes a very political matter what is defined as terrorism, which is obviously unacceptable, and what is defined as resistance or legitimate rebellion or whatever.

One is reminded of a time in the House when one left oneself open to very severe criticism if one spoke in any sort of supportive way of the African National Congress and the anti-apartheid movement. Yet there were acts of violence associated with the anti-apartheid movement and the African National Congress within South Africa. Would that have meant in the context of this bill that anti-apartheid groups in Canada who were raising money for the cause of anti-apartheid in South Africa could have been dragged through the process that this bill lays out?

I ask that question because it is a legitimate concern. The task of the committee will be to address that concern while at the same time respecting the principle of the bill that Canadian taxpayers should not be funding terrorism.

Criminal Code

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the private member's bill introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

The bill would amend sections of the criminal code that deal with prohibited sexual acts committed with children under the age of 14 and in the presence of children under the age of 14. The bill would extend the prohibition to acts committed with children under the age of 16 or in the presence of children under the age of 16.

This is the fourth time the hon. member has introduced this bill. His perseverance and dedication on behalf of children and families needs to be recognized and commended. It is a valuable bill and one that aims to protect the young and vulnerable in our society from sexual predators.

As a former police officer, the hon. member has no doubt witnessed first hand the devastating effects on 14 and 15 year old children who have been victims of the manipulation and coercion of adult sexual predators.

A person under the age of 16 is still considered a child in our society, deserving and requiring protection. Although the law states that a 14 year old has the legal authority to consent to sex with an adult, a person must be a full 18 years of age to participate in pornography. This is because the creation of permanent records of teenagers' sexual activities has consequences which children of that age may not have sufficient maturity to understand.

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Sharpe, aside from two exceptions, substantially upheld this law. However one could argue that the average 14 year old or 15 year old does not have the maturity, confidence or understanding to make a rational decision to become sexually involved with an adult. With regard to children 14 years of age and older, parents really have no legal recourse if they find that their child has been enticed into a sexual relationship with an adult.

On this note I believe that the reintroduction of this bill is very timely. It goes to answer some of the concerns raised by the secretary of state or the parliamentary assistant to the minister.

With Bill C-15 the government has recently introduced long needed legislation to protect children from Internet predators. Unfortunately, with the current age of sexual consent, this protection is only substantially provided to children under 14 years of age. Many Canadians, including concerned parents, are not aware of this present serious deficiency in the law. For example, a 30 year old man could pose as a 16 year old boy over the Internet, converse with a 14 year old girl and lure her to a private residence or hotel room. Provided that he obtains a so-called legal consent from the girl, he may legally have sexual contact with her.

Canada has one of the lowest age of consent laws in the developed world. Albania, Bolivia, Colombia, Iran, Kosovo, Romania and Serbia are among the nations that have set the age at 14. I do not think that is company we should be proud of being in with respect to this particular issue.

In contrast, the age of consent in Australia varies depending on the region, because of course the criminal law there is state based rather than based on the federal government. It varies between 16 and 17, as it does in the United Kingdom. New Zealand's age is also set at 16. The age of consent for most American states also ranges from ages 16 to 18. Only four states, Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri and South Carolina, have set the age at 14.

Simply looking at our counterparts in other developed nations should give us an indication that we may need to rethink our current age of sexual consent. For the member opposite to stand up and say we need to do more studies on this is simply avoiding the problem, trying to excuse years of inaction that the member for Calgary Northeast has identified and, to his credit, continues to raise in the House.

There are a number of groups and lobbyists and others who would like to see the legislation changed, including a very prominent group in my hometown province, Child Find Manitoba. This group has first hand experience dealing with sexual crimes against children and we need to take its concerns seriously. I recently had occasion to meet with members of that group and they are clearly concerned about the current age of sexual consent.

Sexual predators need to be controlled by specific constraints that are set out in the law. Setting the age of sexual consent at 16 would give parents and law enforcement officers the legal protection and authority they need to give these children proper protection from predators. We need to protect these children from criminals who use the current law as a defence as they coerce children into giving their consent.

One need not go very far in looking at examples. Mr. Sharpe, whose case was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada, had the audacity to say on national TV or radio that because children's bodies might be sexually maturing at age 12 he saw this as a God-given justification for allowing predators like him to take advantage of children like that.

I am not going to raise the numerous and lengthy arguments about why that kind of reasoning is perverse. I think every member here recognizes the perversity of that reasoning and the perversity of that individual. However, it does illustrate that there are actually people in our free and democratic society who think in that manner.

The amendment will send a very strong and clear signal from the Government of Canada and from this parliament to the people who look to parliament to establish these guidelines and these rules.

Speaking as a former crown prosecutor and as a member of the Manitoba attorney general's department for many years, during which time I also did child welfare work, the excuse put forward by the Liberal member that this is a complex matter is simply not correct. If there was any concern on the part of government about this issue, this law could easily accommodate concerns raised. Any consequential amendments that would have to be put in place are minor. It is simply an excuse that should not be given any credence here.

The simple reason, the simple answer, is that the government does not care enough to make these changes to protect these children and to give our parents and our law enforcement authorities the necessary jurisdiction.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, Bill C-15, which includes a section in relation to home invasions, will be debated in the House on Monday.

I look forward to the hon. member's support to speed Bill C-15 through passage in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have another release from the Surrey RCMP. Another elderly man was beaten severely in his own home.

Over two years ago I asked the justice committee to address the issue of home invasions and I was called silly by a Liberal member of the committee. The minister now will undoubtedly talk about Bill C-15, an omnibus bill, in which home invasions is mired. It is not even on the legislative radar screen.

How much longer will Canadians have to wait for some effective legislation on home invasions?

International Boundary Waters Treaty Act

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to speak to Bill C-6, an act to amend the 80 year old International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

When the Minister of the Environment spoke on the bill this afternoon he came out very strongly and proudly, with his thumbs pounding, stating that his government has acted decisively to address the concerns of Canadians in reference to the export of water. He proudly said that the bill would stop the export of water and fulfill the commitment made to Canadians about the export of water. He went on to say that his government was putting a tremendous amount of priority on the bill.

I was a little surprised. I would like explain to those who are listening to my speech today what the bill amounts to and what the Liberal government has not done for our water. It is still hanging out in limbo because of the inability of the government to address the issue seriously.

The government said that it put a priority on the bill. I spoke to the bill in the 36th parliament. It was the last bill that was presented to parliament. I made a speech and thereafter the bill was off the table because the government had another agenda. It did not care about that agenda. It wanted to get re-elected.

Today, because the government has no vision for the next three or four years and needs to do some housekeeping, it brings back this bill because there is nothing else on its agenda. Now it is saying that it is committed to stopping the export of water and that it is committed to this bill. What a contradictory statement and action that has taken place.

Bill C-15, as the water bill was called in the 36th parliament, came up for debate during one of the final days leading up to the election, as I mentioned. The bill was debated only for one day and then disappeared. I think that shows the importance the government places on protecting Canada's waters.

As we know, water is an issue that touches the lives of all Canadians as it is part of our Canadian heritage. Canadians are very concerned by the thought of losing control of our freshwater resources. It is a legitimate concern because a thirsty world will sooner or later turn its attention to our lost freshwater resources.

In fact, water export was never supposed to be an issue in Canada. A number of federal politicians in the early 1990s claimed that Canada had a sovereign right to manage its own water and that water would never be challenged under any international agreement. Unfortunately, this has proven to be false and the water issue is back on the table.

The Liberal government is on the record as saying that NAFTA should be amended to prohibit bulk water exports. Had the Liberals kept their promise, Canadians would not have to worry about the issue of bulk water export and we would certainly not be discussing this matter today.

Regardless of its promise, this government signed the NAFTA deal without a side agreement on water. Raw logs and unprocessed fish were exempted from NAFTA but the best arrangement Canada could get on water was the following side deal signed on December 2, 1993, by Canada, the U.S.A. and Mexico. It states:

The NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any party of the agreement.

Ultimately, this side deal is of little legal value because unless water in any form has entered into commerce and become a good or product it is not covered by the provisions of any trade agreement, including NAFTA.

Nothing in NAFTA obliges any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use or to begin exporting water in any form. Water in its natural state in lakes, reservoirs, water basins and the like is not a good or a product. It is not traded and therefore is not and never has been subject to the terms of any trade agreement.

This side agreement worked as long as Canada never allowed water to enter into commerce and become a good or a product. Let me repeat that: this side agreement worked as long as Canada never allowed water to enter into commerce and become a good or a product.

However, with the exception of international boundary waters, the vast majority of water in its natural state is owned and managed by the province. It is a provincial responsibility to manage the resource carefully, just as a province manages its forests and its oil and gas. If one of the provinces enters the business of tendering contracts to export bulk water, it must, according to chapter 11 of NAFTA, treat Canadian, American and Mexican companies in a similar fashion.

National treatment provisions give the right to all corporations of our NAFTA partners to help themselves to our water the moment any Canadian company is given an export permit. If any Canadian company is given an export permit by a province, because it is a provincial resource, then it falls under NAFTA where we have to treat the Americans and the Mexicans in the same manner. Now that we are going into FTAA agreements which will be coming up in the next five years, I hope that the government will have water exempted. Otherwise we will be facing the same difficulties.

In fact water is not exempt from NAFTA, as I said. Once water starts being shipped, either the government is powerless to stop it or, if it does, the government would have to compensate for the lost income under the investor state provisions.

The government did not have the foresight to think that some provinces might one day look into the possibility of licensing the export of water, but recent examples show us the opposite.

First, the province of Newfoundland granted an export permit to McCurdy Enterprises Ltd. to export water from Gisborne Lake. Second, in Ontario the Nova Group received a licence to extract water from Lake Superior. Finally, in British Columbia, Sun Belt, a Californian company that wanted to export water from B.C., is now demanding up to $10.5 billion in damages from the federal and B.C. governments alleging that its rights under NAFTA have been violated. Sun Belt is demanding restoration of a water export licence that the B.C. government cancelled in 1991 as well as compensation for lost business opportunities.

Although the provinces eventually pulled out of these proposals, they renewed the fears about water export and the impact of our trade agreements.

The government, having failed to protect Canadian sovereignty over water during the NAFTA negotiations, is now proposing a backup solution. Bill C-6 proposes to prohibit bulk water removal out of the boundary waters between Canada and the U.S.A., which covers only 15% of Canada's water resources. The provinces manage the remaining 85%.

That is what I meant when I said I do not understand the Minister of the Environment when he talks about stopping bulk water export. His bill would cover only 15% of Canada's water resources. That is fine. I hope he will tell Canadians that it would cover only 15%. The government should not say that the bill would address the issue about water resources.

Clearly, 85% of the water resource is held by the provinces. They control it. It is their natural resource. It is not controlled by the federal government. If any province so desires to sell water from its basins, from its lakes, then suddenly we have a federal government that is powerless. It can run to the provinces but the provinces can tell the federal government no. They can say they want to sell it.

Canadians have a right. It is theirs. Canadians demand that right. However, the government failed to remove water from NAFTA as it had promised in the election platform, because it failed to renegotiate NAFTA and get water out of NAFTA and have it exempted. It was the right only of Canadians to say yes if they wanted to export water. Now we have this jurisdictional problem with the federal government practically unable to have any teeth to stop bulk water export for 85% of our water supply.

The government is trying to have a Canada wide accord to prohibit bulk water removal. It has recognized this problem so it is trying to get a Canada wide accord to prohibit the removal of bulk water. The problem is, as I have just mentioned, that five provinces have refused to endorse the accord, leaving the country's water vulnerable to exportation.

The federal strategy was designed in the belief that all provinces would agree on a national ban. It is quite obvious, after the two day debate in Kananaskis in Alberta in November 1999, that the government has failed to achieve this goal. The parties could not come to an agreement.

It is very important to note that the bill deliberately avoids the term export. With good reason, the Liberals fear that the term export will imply that water is a commercial good. What the absence of the term export really means is that water was in fact part of the negotiations during the NAFTA talks and nothing was done. That is one thing the government should admit.

As it stands now we can say yes or no, but we have lost the right for only Canadians to say yes. What I mean by that is what I just emphasized, that is, under NAFTA if water is exported because it is not exempted that gives the opportunity to allow opening up the doors to American and Mexican companies to come and export our water. This is the real fear.

Canadians have lost the right to say yes to this precious resource. Whether they want to export or do not want to export, this should be a right that should remain with Canadians. They can decide whether they wish to export water. They can decide whether they want or do not want to export water as a natural resource, or whether under certain conditions they want to or do not want to.

There are many options we can use. Some small communities may want to do it as part of an economic reason and we can do so if it does not damage the environment. However, this right should be the right of Canadians. We have lost that right because the government failed in its election promise to remove water from NAFTA.

In 1993 while the government was busy signing away our sovereignty over water, the Canadian Alliance made a specific statement on the protection of our freshwater. The Canadian Alliance stated that exclusive and unrestricted control of water in all its forms should be maintained by and for Canadians.

Canada possess about 9% of the world's renewable resources and 20% of the world's total freshwater resources. This includes water captured in glaciers and polar ice caps. Protection of our sovereignty over this valuable resource is critical to Canadians and to our national identity.

The Canadian Alliance believes that Canadians should retain control over our water resources and supports exempting water from our international agreements, including NAFTA. An outright ban on water exports could run contrary to our NAFTA commitment because water was not exempt from that agreement. Therefore, a side agreement would have to be negotiated which would exempt water from NAFTA before a ban on water exports could even be considered.

Until an exemption is achieved, we encourage the provinces to place a moratorium on commercial water licensing so that water in bulk form never becomes a good governed by NAFTA rules. Once an exemption from NAFTA is in place, the decision to export water in bulk should rest with the provinces who own the resources. That means once the decision is given to the provinces, which are elected governments, it is up to Canadians to decide what to do with water. They can decide.

I would like to emphasize again that we are heading into an FTAA agreement. The Quebec summit chose that path and the Alliance supports it. We think that if it is handled correctly, free trade will bring prosperity. However, there are always dangers when we sign blindly, as we have found out now with this water issue. No long term thought was given to this. When it was signed, no thought was given to what would happen if the provinces said no. No thought was given to the fact that the government was signing an international agreement on one of the most important resources we have, a resource controlled by the provinces. Its strategy, which was to have a total ban by convincing the provinces to do so, has failed.

As I mentioned, the 1999 Kananaskis meeting clearly showed that the provinces were not on board with the federal government on this issue. They wanted the right to do whatever they wanted to with a natural resource that they feel is their responsibility.

In the absence of exempting water from NAFTA, the Canadian Alliance will support the bill. We will support it because it represents the only viable approach the federal government can take and the only constitutionally valid NAFTA compatible ban on bulk water export that can be achieved.

The Canadian Alliance has indicated quite clearly that it favours a ban on water export. All export of water should be done by Canadians only. Since the ban is not there, the Canadian Alliance feels that the bill would in some degree ensure that water is not taken away from the international boundaries basins, and it is a NAFTA compatible ban on bulk water exports.

However, I would like to see the government propose real answers to this issue and show some leadership in exempting water from our trade agreements.

I was hoping today that the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when they presented the bill and talked about the commitment of the government not to export water, would listen to Canadians. In reality they failed to say that the bill was only dealing with 15% of the issues.

I hope the government takes the initiative and try to get water exempted from other trade agreements. It would have been preferable to exempt water from NAFTA but, failing that, Bill C-6 will have to do as second best.

Canadians should realize that we no longer have sovereignty over our water. We have that threat over our heads because of our international trade agreement called NAFTA and the failure of the government to take water out of it.

Future generations would also lose sovereignty over water if something is not done to change this. That is why the government should do something. Bill C-6 or not, the bottom line is that Canada's water resources are vulnerable to exportation.

While I am a strong supporter of free trade, I believe it should not come at the expense of our sovereignty over water. Perhaps one day Canada will decide to export water if it is proven environmentally sound. If that ever happens, and I strongly stress if, the tap should belong to Canadians only.

The Canadian Alliance will be supporting Bill C-6. However I re-emphasize that the federal government should work with the provinces now to ensure that water does not become an export commodity. It should try to get water exempted from our international trade agreement.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important issue. As we all know, the Internet and technology can be used for good but also used for ill, in particular in the exploitation of our children. That is why I was very pleased this week to introduce Bill C-15 on behalf of the government, in which we create a new offence of Internet luring.

In addition, we will modernize the criminal code so that no one is under any illusion or misunderstanding, in that the criminal code will prohibit transmission and will prohibit making available the exportation or the intentionally—

Privilege

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend you for listening to the representations that were made in the House. I also commend you on your fairness and your integrity. I believe that when members of the House voted for you to take the chair, these are the kinds of fair and well thought out decisions that members were expecting from you.

This decision certainly does not disappoint me. You in fact are upholding the integrity, not only of the rights of individual members but of the House with respect of your ruling. I think in the past the government has got away with some of these issues.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, you want me to move the motion, but I want to say that the steps you took were important to stop this slide. Therefore I move:

That the matter of the question of privilege raised on March 14, 2001, by the Member for Provencher regarding the Department of Justice briefing the media on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts, prior to it being tabled in the House of Commons and at the exclusion of members of parliament, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Again I commend you, Mr. Speaker, on your fairness and your integrity with respect to your ruling. I will make a few comments before concluding this matter in the House.

Over the past number of years there has been a gradual slide in terms of the respect to which parliament is entitled. This ruling by you today does much to ensure that the integrity of the House and the process here is continued.

I challenge the Liberal majority in the House and on the committee to put aside its partisan issues, come to the aid of parliament and preserve its dignity, its authority and that of its members.

What you are doing today, Mr. Speaker, gives us an opportunity to take meaningful steps to deal with this very contentious and difficult issue.

I would like to put a few other situations on the record which I think may form part of the discussions that we will have in committee concerning the prima facie contempt that you have found that has occurred in respect of parliament.

I refer, to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board matter dated October 23 of last year. A government news release announced that provincial and federal governments had constituted a nominating committee to nominate candidates for the new Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The nominating committee was to have been set up under a clause that had not yet been adopted by the House.

Similarly, on January 21, 1998, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board met in Regina to discuss the rules for the election of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board as proposed in Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4, tabled at report stage by opposition members, had not been debated, and while the House was still in the process of debating how many directors should be elected, the minister was in fact holding meetings as though the bill were already law.

We recognize that the Liberal government has a majority in the House and in committees but, for the integrity of the process, it is essential that members of the opposition, who were also elected by the people of Canada to represent their views, be given that opportunity.

While we have witnessed a gradual slide in the respect that the government has shown to the institution of parliament, your ruling today, Mr. Speaker, will, if the Liberal members opposite co-operate, bring about rules that will perhaps govern this kind of situation in the future.

This is not simply a matter that I, as an opposition critic, have been embarrassed or that my colleagues, who received phone calls asking for their comments, have been embarrassed, it is for the integrity of the House and for the voters who sent us here.

With those few brief words, Mr. Speaker, I again thank you. We appreciate the fairness that you have demonstrated. We look forward to working on a co-operative basis with all opposition members and Liberal members of the House whom I believe your ruling will also benefit.

If we follow the matter to its appropriate and proper conclusion, it will once again put parliament in the hands of the individual elected members. It will remind the members of the executive that even though they are appointed by the Prime Minister they must serve each and every member of the House in the same manner that we as individual members serve the people of Canada.

[The Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Provencher on March 14, 2001, regarding a briefing the Department of Justice held on a bill on notice that had not yet been introduced in the House.

The bill has now received first reading as Bill C-15, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts.

I wish to thank the hon. government House leader, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, and the hon. opposition House leader for their interventions.

Let me first summarize the events that led up to this question of privilege being raised. From the interventions of members it appears that the Department of Justice sent out a media advisory notifying recipients that there would be a technical briefing given by justice officials at 11.45 a.m. on Wednesday, March 14, with regard to the omnibus bill, now Bill C-15, that was to be introduced in the House by the hon. Minister of Justice that afternoon.

According to the hon. member for Provencher, members of parliament and their staff were denied access to the briefing. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville added that while his assistant was denied access to the briefing, the assistant of a government member was granted entry. In any event, there is no disputing that the invitation to this so-called technical briefing went out as a media advisory and was designed for members of the media.

The hon. member for Provencher indicated that following the briefing media representatives began phoning his office and asking for his reaction to the bill, a situation he found embarrassing, not only for himself and other members of the opposition, but also for the House of Commons as a whole since they had not seen the bill and were not privy to its contents.

The hon. government House leader confirmed that opposition critics were given a courtesy copy of Bill C-15 about an hour and a quarter before the bill's introduction.

The minister explained that during the briefing, the media had not received actual copies of the bill or any other documentation. He went on to indicate that the briefing itself was under embargo until the bill was introduced, a fact confirmed by the copy of the original media advisory that the Chair has obtained.

The member for Provencher, as well as the other opposition members who participated in the discussion, argued that by not providing information to members of parliament and by refusing to allow members to participate in a briefing where the media were present, the government, and in particular the Department of Justice, showed contempt for the House of Commons and its members.

As I see it, there are two issues here: the matter of the embargoed briefing to the media and the issue of members' access to information required to fulfil their duties.

As members know, the use of media embargoes, as well as the use of lock-ups, have long played a role in the way parliamentary business is conducted. For example, it has been our practice to permit briefings in lock-ups prior to the tabling of reports by the auditor general. Similarly, and perhaps more on point, is the lock-up held on the day of a budget presentation. Two features of these lock-ups are that members are invited to be present and members of the media are detained until the event in question has occurred; that is the auditor general's report tabled or the budget speech begun. These are the features one might argue that have made these lock-ups so successful and so useful to the conduct of parliamentary business.

It must, however, be remembered that when the different arrangements have been made for early briefings, previous Speakers have consistently held that it is not a breach of privilege to exclude members from lock-ups. I refer the House, for example, to the ruling of Speaker Jerome, in Debates , November 27, 1978, p. 1518-9, and the ruling of Speaker Sauvé, in Debates , February 25, 1981, p. 7670.

The House recognizes that when complex or technical documents are to be presented in this Chamber, media briefings are highly useful. They ensure that the public receives information that is both timely and accurate concerning business before the House.

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

Thus, the issue of denying to members information that they need to do their work has been the key consideration for the Chair in reviewing this particular question of privilege. To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

Even if no documents were given out at the briefing, as the hon. government House leader has assured the House, it is undisputed that confidential information about the bill was provided. While it may have been the intention to embargo that information as an essential safeguard of the rights of this House, the evidence would indicate that no effective embargo occurred.

In this case it is clear that information concerning legislation, although denied to members, was given to members of the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House.

I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House and I invite the hon. member for Provencher to move a motion.

Canada Shipping Act, 2001

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

The member on the Liberal side who was a Conservative is saying that his former party—or maybe he is saying his party—is going down like the Titanic . I am not sure that all members would agree with him on that. Perhaps some would.

The point about reporting to parliament is an important one. We saw in this place today an example of what happens when a minister of the crown does not report to parliament and does not present a piece of legislation first in this place before holding a briefing and giving information about an important piece of legislation, in this case Bill C-15, the justice bill. The minister's department gave information to the media first, excluding members of parliament from attending the briefing, saying that it was an embargoed briefing.

I know that Mr. Speaker will be ruling on the matter, but I think it is worth mentioning again in this place that the government needs to follow the proper procedures and process to restore people's faith in this place and that we are in fact the leaders in terms of what we are doing with legislation and moving forward together.

What happened here today is an example of why it is important to follow process. Unfortunately the Minister of Justice did not do that. We are disappointed with that.

My time is growing short. I will wrap up my comments knowing that I will have more time at another sitting of the House to discuss this important bill.

I thank my Liberal colleagues for their agreement with what I have said today and for their comments and congratulations. We hope to see them working together with us on many other issues.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)