Bill C-15 (Historical)

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

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

Privilege

[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--