Chuck Cadman

[Terrorism, November 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, recently a business card belonging to 4-U Enterprises of Surrey, British Columbia, was found in an abandoned al-Qaeda hideout in Kabul. Amir Mohamed Hamad, reportedly killed in a bin Laden camp, and Essam Hafez Marzouk, now in an Egyptian prison, formed that company in 1998.

Could the solicitor general tell us if 4-U Enterprises or either of its founders were known to his ministry before that business card was found?

[Peter Maarsman, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on October 31, Peter Maarsman retired after seven years as executive director of the Surrey Crime Prevention Society.

During his watch the society grew from one employee and a handful of members with a budget of just over $40,000 into a thriving organization with eight staff and an annual budget of over $300,000.

The citizens crime watch patrol, the safe rider bicycle program and the mobile patrol were developed by the society under Peter as was the community mall patrol which combats auto theft from mall parking lots. The fatal vision-drunk buster program teaches children not to get into a car with a driver who has been drinking.

What began as an anti-graffiti project, the spirit of youth mural program, saw Surrey student artists design and produce over 45 murals throughout the community over six years. Last summer a group of these young artists travelled to Ottawa to paint a mural on a business in Nepean.

Peter Maarsman can be proud of his contribution to Surrey. We thank him for his commitment to our community and we wish him all the best in his well deserved retirement.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this legislation, although it is difficult to comprehend the logic of the government.

Bill C-35 is an insult to the victims of crimes perpetrated by foreign diplomats or their staff in Canada. In all fairness, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has done good work on the terrorism file. I simply do not understand what he can be thinking by insisting that the legislation become law. Many of the proposed changes in Bill C-35 are best suited for the shredder.

While I understand that the Vienna convention requires that certain immunities are necessary in order to maintain diplomatic relations with other countries, the proposals in Bill C-35 go far beyond what is necessary. It opens up an even larger possibility for crimes committed in Canada by foreign nationals protected by diplomatic immunity to go unpunished. This is not acceptable to Canadians and I am sure the minister knows it.

The most recent example of diplomatic immunity gone awry was when a Russian diplomat who allegedly was driving drunk killed Catherine MacLean. At the time the minister rightly said that he felt immunity should not apply to the Russian as the offence had nothing to do with his duties as a diplomat. The minister promised to study ways to prevent such abuses of immunity in the future. Instead he is ensuring that the possible abuse of diplomatic immunity will be extended to anyone coming into Canada for an international conference, including support staff. These people currently are not covered by immunity and therefore are subject to Canadian laws.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade reported recently that there have been 76 crimes listed as having involved foreign diplomats. The charges include such serious offences as sexual assault, assault, impaired driving, impaired driving causing death, alien smuggling, and drug trafficking to list just a few. These are not petty crimes. These are crimes for which Canadians and especially their victims expect to see justice carried out. Only three of the 76 cases had their diplomatic immunity waived. This means that 73 of these crimes saw no justice whatsoever.

Bill C-35 puts even more foreign representatives above Canadian law, thereby increasing the potential for abuse of immunity in the future. This cannot possibly be what the minister intends, so why not allow for changes to the legislation in order to ensure that justice can be carried out? Perhaps the minister should put himself in the shoes of the victims for a few minutes just to experience justice denied.

I find it shocking that Bill C-35 will give the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade a blank cheque to allow foreign representatives into Canada without proper security screening. Department officials and the minister will have free rein to allow anyone they want into the country with absolutely no accountability to parliament or to the Canadian public. With the simple stroke of a pen, an official will be able to allow foreign nationals possessing criminal backgrounds, human rights abuses or terrorist ties into Canada.

In the current post-September 11 climate the government is moving to restrict the rights of Canadians with Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation. It is mind-boggling that at that same time the same government is moving to allow potentially dangerous foreign nationals into Canada without any checks and balances. As it currently stands, when foreign diplomats seek entry into Canada for the purpose of a diplomatic function or an international conference, they are subject to our immigration laws. Individuals found to be inadmissible currently are required to ask the minister of immigration for a special permit. At the end of each year, parliament has the opportunity to scrutinize the number of permits issued, thereby establishing a degree of accountability, albeit a very small degree of accountability.

With Bill C-35 in place, Canadians will never know who is being allowed into the country. Even worse, if a visitor commits a crime, he or she virtually is guaranteed not to face Canadian justice. It is long past time for Canada simply to stop sitting at international trade tables with countries and leaders that perpetrate serious human rights abuses and condone acts of terrorism.Yet the Minister of Foreign Affairs is giving himself and his department carte blanche to invite whomever they please to come to Canada with little, if any, security considerations.

Furthermore the legislation will ensure that foreign despots will be spared from embarrassment by protesters. It is simply wrong for the government to extend diplomatic immunity beyond what international convention requires. It is wrong for the minister to be able to forgo our immigration laws to invite the likes of President Suharto and shield him from criticism. Is it so awful that someone like Suharto occasionally is reminded of his deeds?

I am discouraged to see that the government seemingly has learned nothing from the APEC experience in 1996. The legislation actually contradicts the Hughes report which recommended that “generous opportunity...for peaceful protesters to see and to be seen...by guests of the event”.

This legislation creates not only the authority but also the obligation for the government and the RCMP to repeat the 1996 APEC performance. Canada needs to lead by example by allowing Canadians not only to dissent peacefully but also to be seen by those they are demonstrating against.

Bill C-35 expressly states that our country should protect the dignity of foreign representatives. I suggest that if a foreign dictator comes to Canada, it is only his guilty conscience that would be troubled by peaceful protesters reminding him of his actions, not his dignity.

The advancement of Canadian values is supposedly the third pillar of Canada's foreign affairs policy according to the department. I fail to see how giving the minister a free hand to invite criminals into the country, how giving the police a blank cheque to restrict the movements of Canadians while at the same time failing to prevent government interference with police matters, advances Canadian values.

Diplomatic considerations such as the granting of immunity should never be allowed to override security considerations. Permission for individuals to enter Canada should remain entirely separate from the process of granting diplomatic immunity to foreign diplomats.

In conclusion, the government should not extend immunity from the criminal code beyond the requirements of international law and convention. The bill is deceitful. The Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act is not the appropriate place to legislate new statutory powers and responsibilities for the RCMP or to give the foreign minister new powers to override the Immigration Act.

The government is trying to slip these major changes through parliament by hiding them in an innocuous-looking act surrounded by mundane housekeeping provisions. No press release accompanied the tabling of the bill. No legislative summary or explanation was provided. The government is rushing the bill through the House to avoid scrutiny.

The Canadian Alliance has scrutinized Bill C-35 and as the official opposition we have highlighted the failures of this legislation. I hope the minister will heed our recommendations and do what is right by reconsidering some of the draconian powers being enacted by the bill.

[Education, October 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last spring Constable Mike Ingles and Vice Principal Jamie Doyle asked me to a meeting to discuss their idea for a conference involving three high schools. Last week I had the privilege of taking part in that conference, the theme of which was respect, that spent an entire day in each school.

I gave the keynote address and three workshops on youth violence each day. Students rotated through presentations of their choice. Time prevents me from naming all the presenters but they included: Dianne Sowden, whose daughter became involved in the sex trade and drugs at the age of 13; Jade Bell, a former addict who as a result of an overdose is confined to a wheelchair and speaks through a computer; and Rock Solid, a group of police officers who draw on their experiences to encourage young people to speak out when they are victimized among other things.

I salute the organizers and school staff for the concept and making it work. I commend the students of Len Shepherd Secondary, West Whalley Secondary and Guildford Park Secondary who through the respect they showed to the presenters, their teachers and each other made the whole exercise a tremendous success.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, October 25th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-405, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (parole hearings).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce my private member's bill entitled, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, specifically with respect to parole hearings.

The bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to permit a victim of an offence to read at a parole hearing a statement describing the harm done to or the loss suffered by the victim arising from the commission of an offence.

The bill is a logical extension to the changes made to the criminal code in Bill C-79, the victim's rights act, adopted by the House in the 36th parliament.

Bill C-79 contained a provision granting victims the right to provide an oral or written statement at the time of sentencing.

It is my understanding that departmental policy does exist allowing victims of crime to present oral statements at parole hearings, however there is nothing expressly provided in statute governing the practice and policy can be changed at any time, as we know.

My private member's bill would guarantee victims the right to make an oral statement if they so choose. I look forward to debating the bill further in the House and I sincerely hope it gains the opportunity to be made votable.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member appeared to acknowledge the fact that the majority of refugee claimants coming into Canada are from the United States. Does he think it is appropriate for Canada to give refugee consideration to people coming from the United States when they are already in a country known to be a safe haven?

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on my party's supply motion. In light of September 11, each one of the four points outlined in the motion is of the highest importance to all Canadians and our allies.

In my submission to the House today, I intend to address each point in the motion. It is obvious to Canadians and our neighbours that the time has come to do more than just consider a continental perimeter initiative. We need to take decisive action to ensure the security of our country and to protect our vital trading relationships.

Today's motion calls on the government to take four steps that the Canadian Alliance believes will go a long way toward ensuring that our country can make a significant contribution to the fight against terrorism on the home front as well as maintaining the healthy trading relationship we currently enjoy with the United States.

The first area that today's motion explores is not only to provide both immigration and customs officers with the training that is required but to also give them full officer status to allow them to detain and arrest suspected criminals at all points of entry.

It is obvious to most Canadians and to our American neighbours that the current safeguards on our front lines are substandard. I want to be very clear. This is not the fault of the hard working men and women who staff our borders. It is the government which refuses to give them the tools and training necessary to do the job properly.

I have been informed that at Pearson International Airport during peak arrival times in the primary customs inspection area, up to 25% of the staff are university students with little more than two weeks worth of training. The students are left with minimal supervision to make decisions as to who can enter the country and who must go on to secondary inspection.

It is incredible to me that in the wake of the events of September 11 and the claims of the government to have beefed up security, the students are still out there as our first line of defence. Even more shocking, I have learned that at some of our land border crossings there are students doing secondary customs inspection. This has to stop. If Canada expects the U.S. to take any of our border security measures seriously, we require qualified and highly trained people on our front lines and they must be given the powers they need to do the job. This is the type of initiative that would go a long way to better securing our borders.

This brings me to the issue of giving our front line officers the powers and tools to detain and arrest suspected criminals and terrorists. I will go back to the Pearson airport example. I have learned that if customs officers wants to detain or arrest a suspected criminal or terrorist, they may have to wait anywhere from 15 minutes to half an hour for police to respond to the call. A lot can happen in half an hour without the proper equipment or powers to do the job.

Not only are we putting Canadians at risk with the current practices, we are seriously jeopardizing the safety of our front line workers.

The next logical step is to examine our more remote border crossings. How long is the response time of police at those locations? It is an unenviable position in which the government places its front line border staff. More to the point, Canadian security is put to risk.

It is clear by the actions of the government that our front line customs officers are to be little more than duty and tax collectors. It would seem that the government, as evidenced by its inaction, is more interested in collecting the health minister's $10 duty on a carton of cigarettes than it is in identifying or arresting terrorists or serious criminals.

This brings me to the second point of today's motion. If the government is to take seriously the threat of terrorists and criminals breaching our borders and using Canada as a staging ground for their nefarious activities, we need to move the customs officers out of the tax collection agency and into law enforcement agencies.

It goes without saying that as long as the front line of defence at our borders is under the supervision of Revenue Canada then the emphasis will always be on tax collection and not security. Certainly I think the government would find that its customs officers would overwhelmingly support this type of move.

The next problem the government has failed to address properly is the practice of releasing spontaneous refugee claimants who appear without proper documentation before their identities are confirmed and before they have cleared proper health and security checks. All too often refugee claimants are released on the same day they arrive in Canada on a promise to appear before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

A few hours of questioning is clearly not enough to determine possible security threats and it certainly does not allow for proper health examinations. The truth of the matter is that it can takes weeks or months with the current resource shortfalls to properly determine the true identities of refugee claimants who arrive on our doorstep without documentation. Again it is a resource and training problem

Nobody is suggesting that we hold refugee claimants in detention for extended periods of time. What we are saying is that if the government were to commit the proper resources and determination methods, we could accept legitimate refugee claimants faster and protect Canadians and our U.S. neighbours from the unwanted dangerous elements.

We are saying that if the government were to commit the proper resources and determination methods, we could accept legitimate refugee claimants faster and protect Canadians and our U.S. neighbours from the unwanted dangerous elements.

Detention in this context is not inhumane. Detention upon entering a country, without any proof of identity or in some cases fabricated identities, should be expected. Most genuine refugee claimants would see this simply as one minor setback on the way to establishing a new life in Canada. If the claimant desires to be released from detention, the process does not have to be complicated, as many people making refugee claims in Canada come from a safe third country. At any time during their detention, the refugee claimant would be free to go back to that safe third country and make their claim from there.

With a real acceptance rate of nearly 60% of all refugee claims, Canada has become the asylum shoppers destination of choice. Canada's refugee system would be completely different if the government were to act on current laws and prescribe certain countries as safe third countries. This would drastically reduce the number of spontaneous refugee claimants in Canada and would go a long way toward increasing this country's security.

The majority of asylum seekers enter Canada through the United States. If Canada were to enter into an agreement with the United States alone, we could reduce the burden on our refugee determination system by more than one half.

Similarly, if we were to enter agreements with the European Union countries, we would also see a drastic reduction in the number of spontaneous refugee claims in Canada, thereby sending a message to the world that asylum shoppers need not put Canada on their list. That in turn would free up the resources to really help the most needy refugees and to do more work overseas by easing the pressure in the refugee camps. We could then offer truly destitute people the chance at a new life.

Many EU countries have already implemented the safe third country concept. It is long past time that Canada get on board and act on laws that are already on the books. It is not necessary for Canada to give up its sovereignty to accomplish the goal of a continental security perimeter. We simply need to look at what we can do to strengthen our current practices to ensure the safety and security of Canada and our U.S. neighbours. It is not a lot of ask.

I encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of today's motion because I believe that the steps which it encourages the government to take would make great headway in easing the legitimate fears and concerns of Canadians and Americans alike.

[Terrorism, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week at a press conference after a fundraiser the Prime Minister suggested terrorism is not such a big problem in Canada. What does the Prime Minister consider to be big? Would he care to explain what he meant by that comment to the families of the 329 victims of the bombing of Air India flight 182 in 1985? That flight came out of Vancouver.

In 1988 Tara Singh Hayer, a prominent newspaper publisher, was shot, paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair as a result. He had been vocal in his criticism of terrorism. In 1998 he was shot and killed in his driveway. Many suspect Sikh extremists in his unsolved murder.

The question now being asked is whether journalists like Tara Singh Hayer will be protected under new anti-terrorist legislation as they are under the criminal gang laws. Perhaps the Prime Minister would explain to Mr. Hayer's son David, now a member of the B.C. legislature, why he thinks terrorism is not such a big deal in Canada.

[Young Offenders Act, September 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, any time I have an opportunity to discuss the Canadian youth justice system, I do not hesitate to bring my experience to the debate. I would like to commend the member for Crowfoot for his continuing diligence in pointing out to the government Canadians' overwhelming concern about the Canadian youth criminal justice system.

It is unfortunate that this private member's bill is not votable because it would once again point out the government's absolute lack of interest in listening to the concerns of the majority of Canadians with respect to the important issue of youth crime. My colleague's bill encompasses years of study and listening on the part of his predecessor from Crowfoot, Mr. Jack Ramsay; listening not only to the Canadian public but to the judiciary that must interpret the laws of the land and to those agencies most affected by the laws, such as provincial detention centres, police forces, and various educational systems to name just a few.

The bill, unlike the youth criminal justice act which the Liberal government passed earlier this year, would make the protection of society its primary focus. The Liberals on the other hand continue to put the interests of the offender ahead of the protection of society. In various ways the youth criminal justice act places the safety and security of Canadians behind the interest in rehabilitating and reintegrating the offender back into society. For example in the declaration of principle of the YCJA it lists the following order of importance: one, address the circumstances underlying the young person's offending behaviour; two, rehabilitate and reintegrate; and three, ensure the young person is subject to meaningful consequences.

The government tries to assure Canadians that the order does not matter. The order is important because it is what guides judges in their determination of how much weight to assign to specific factors. Bill C-289 would make the protection of society the primary and guiding principle of Canada's youth criminal justice laws. That is not to say that rehabilitation and reintegration into the community are not important. Obviously they are, however the security and safety of the community must be considered above all else.

There are numerous examples of how this principle could provide better protection to Canadians. One example that immediately comes to mind is the murder of a six year old British Columbia girl, Dawn Shaw. On October 24, 1992, Dawn was playing with her 16 year old next door neighbour Jason Gamache in Courtenay on Vancouver Island. Unknown to Dawn's parents or anyone else in the housing complex located right next to an elementary school was the fact that Jason was on probation for sexually molesting a young child one year previously. He dragged Dawn off into the bushes, sexually assaulted her and stomped her to death when she tried to cry out for help. He then joined in the search for her and after her battered body was found, he babysat her two siblings while her parents went to the RCMP detachment.

Even the police were unaware of his presence in the community. It is my understanding that it was only after they ran his name during the course of the investigation that he popped up on their information system. Had our youth criminal justice laws given priority to the protection of society, Dawn Shaw would be a flowering young woman today.

Any legislation that is guided by societal protection would allow the community to know when a violent offender has been released into its midst. How can parents protect their children if the law does not permit them to know the dangers that are present? Unfortunately the new youth criminal justice act follows closely in the footsteps of the Young Offenders Act by imposing numerous restrictions on the naming of violent offenders.

There are a limited number of instances in which the young person may be named to protect the community, but once again the list is restrictive and does not include all violent or dangerous offenders. The courts retain the discretion to override the identification of the offender. In the opinion of many, the courts have been excessively protective of the rights and interests of young offenders while public and community safety have become secondary. Bill C-289 would allow for the unrestricted public identification of violent young offenders. It cannot be said often enough that the public has the right to know information that will allow it to protect itself.

There are so many flaws in the current Young Offenders Act and the pending youth criminal justice act that in having only limited time to talk about the changes the member for Crowfoot is suggesting in his private member's bill, I can only touch the tip of the iceberg. Bill C-289 would lower the age of application to 10 years. Contrary to the Liberal government's spin machine, this is not only a proposition of the Canadian Alliance and its predecessor the Reform Party. The same recommendation was made in a report from the justice committee in the 35th parliament, the very report which forms the basis of the youth criminal justice act. This was a Liberal dominated committee but true to form, the government ignored it.

The intent is not to throw 10 and 11 year olds into jail. It is to make sure that those taking the first steps down the road to criminal behaviour receive the treatment and assistance they require. Far too often we see these young people falling through the cracks of the current system. Unfortunately, that will continue to be the case.

The use of alternative measures is also advocated in Bill C-289. I have mentioned many times before in this place that I fully support this approach as witnessed by my own involvement for the past seven years in the community based diversion program at home in British Columbia. It should be pointed out that although the Liberals would have Canadians believe that what they refer to as extrajudicial measures is their brainchild, Bill C-289 has been around substantially longer than the youth criminal justice act in all of its incarnations.

There is one major difference however. Alternative measures as proposed in Bill C-289 would be restricted to those charged with non-violent offences. In addition, the views of the victims would require consideration if alternative measures were being proposed.

The youth criminal justice act will make extrajudicial measures available to repeat and violent offenders. In my opinion that defeats the whole purpose. Violent behaviour demands a more formal, serious response from society. Alternative measures should be presented as a one time only opportunity for a young person who truly desires to reform.

As I indicated earlier, it is unfortunate that private member's Bill C-289 is not votable. If the current Young Offenders Act were amended according to the proposals contained in the bill, there would be no need for an entirely new piece of legislation as was passed in the form of the youth criminal justice act.

The youth criminal justice act, due to its mind-numbing complexity and failure to comply with the wishes of Canadians will in all likelihood become as much despised as the Young Offenders Act it is intended to replace.

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, September 20th, 2001]

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”.