Bill C-10 (Historical)

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

Criminal Code

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, true to its reputation, the Bloc Québécois carefully read Bill S-203 when it was before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It listened with interest to the various witnesses and is well aware of the limitations of Bill S-203.

We are aware of the importance of properly protecting animals from cruelty, so we proposed a series of amendments to improve Bill S-203. Among our proposals was the idea of introducing a clear definition of what an animal is. We also sought to protect stray as well as domestic animals. We also wanted to clarify the criterion for negligence, thereby making it easier to prove. Finally, we also proposed an amendment to formally ban training cocks to fight. Unfortunately all the Bloc's proposed amendments were rejected and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights agreed on February 14, 2008, to report the bill without amendments.

That is not stopping the Bloc Québécois from supporting Bill S-203 in that it is, in fact, a small but real step in the right direction and does not prevent the possible study and adoption of a more complete bill in line with Bill C-50.

The Bloc Québécois does oppose the amendments proposed at report stage by the NDP. These amendments seek nothing less than to kill the bill. Their first amendment would remove the title and their second amendment would remove the rest. The NDP's logic in all this is especially twisted. Instead of voting in favour of an improvement to the legislation, even though we know a lot remains to be done—it is true—the NDP prefers the status quo that it nonetheless vehemently criticizes. Where is the logic in that?

If the NDP truly had animal protection at heart, it would act differently. It would follow the Bloc Québécois' example and act responsibly. Although the Bloc Québécois is aware of the limitations of Bill S-203, it finds that this bill is a small but real step in the right direction, and does not hinder the possible study and adoption of another bill I will speak about shortly. The Bloc Québécois is making no secret of this. It is in favour of a real reform of the animal cruelty provisions and will seriously study this matter again, unlike our colleagues, apparently.

Introduced by the Senate, Bill S-203 is the result of a long legislative process. Indeed, in recent years, six bills were introduced by the Liberal government of the day, specifically, Bill C-10, Bill C-10B, Bill C-15B, Bill C-17, Bill C-22 and Bill C-50. To those we can add those proposed by the Senate, namely, Bill S-24 and Bill S-213, the two predecessors of Bill S-203.

All those bills sought to modify the offences set out in the part of the Criminal Code that deals with cruelty to animals. Some of the bills went even further, however, and proposed real reforms to this bill. The Bloc was particularly in favour of the principle of Bill C-50, which would have created a new section in the Criminal Code to address cruelty to animals, removing this topic from the sections of the code that deal with property.

However, since that reform raised a number of problems, Bill S-24 was introduced in the meantime, to allow much more modest changes. Bill S-203 is a copy of Bill S-213, which was itself a copy of Bill S-24—I hope people are able to follow me.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill S-203, even though we are aware that it does not go far enough. But it is better than nothing. Such a bill will send a message to anyone who mistreats animals. Protecting animals against certain despicable actions will always remain a concern of the Bloc Québécois. The current maximum sentences under the Criminal Code are too lenient for the seriousness of the acts committed.

The bill does not jeopardize legitimate activities involving animal death, such as agriculture, hunting and fishing. This bill, however, is less comprehensive and therefore does not replace Bill C-373, which is a revival of Bill C-50. However, we are not here to discuss that bill today.

The bill amends the Criminal Code to increase the maximum sentences in cases of cruelty to animals. For prosecution by indictment, the maximum sentence is five years. For summary convictions, sentences can range from six to 18 months, along with a possible $10,000 fine.

In the past, judges could prohibit those found guilty from owning or residing with animals for up to two years. Now that ban can be for life. The judge can now require the offender to reimburse costs arising from his or her actions.

Obviously, the bill does not solve all of the existing problems. As I said earlier, this is a baby step, but these new penalties will provide better protection for animals until such time as animal cruelty provisions can be reformed significantly.

By increasing the penalties, we are sending a message to criminals as well as to the judges who have to take this into account in sentencing. The seriousness of a crime is determined in part by the maximum penalty that can be imposed on an offender.

We are also hoping that by making the ban on owning animals indefinite, we will be able to prevent some animal abuse from taking place.

The bill we are considering this afternoon has three major advantages. First, it corrects an anachronism. When the Criminal Code was first drafted back in the 19th century, society did not regard animals the way it does now. The relationships between people and animals have changed, so it makes sense for the Criminal Code to reflect that. Everyone agrees that the current penalties are not severe enough. Bill S-203 goes a little way toward correcting the old-fashioned, weak penalties. The old penalties were based on how people interacted with animals in the 19th century.

The second good thing about this bill is the fact that, as penalties become more severe, there is a good chance that the courts will become stricter with those who are found guilty of crimes against animals, such as mutilation, slaughter, neglect, abandonment, or failure to feed them.

This bill would change the minimum sentence. From now on, if a case is tried as an indictable offence, the minimum sentence will be five years in jail. The fine will go up to $10,000. As it happens, both of these provisions are in the member for Ajax—Pickering's bill, Bill C-373.

There is another excellent change. Henceforth, a court may ban an animal owner for life—or I should say a former owner—from having an animal in his possession. Bill S-203 will now allow a court to impose a prohibition order for life on this owner, whereas the current legislation provides for a two-year prohibition.

The third and last advantage of this bill is that it provides for restitution mechanisms through which the courts can order an individual to pay the costs if an animal has been taken in by an animal welfare organization, for example. Individuals who committed offences of negligence or intentional cruelty could be forced to pay the organizations that have taken in mistreated animals.

These three benefits alone represent a considerable improvement and warrant our support of this bill.

A number of our constituents have written to us comparing this Senate bill and the bill introduced by the member for Ajax—Pickering to be debated later. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of a step in the right direction rather than sticking with the status quo denounced by all. In other words, it is better than nothing.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today we again bring before the House further discussion and debate on a bill dealing with animal cruelty. It has been a long journey. In fact, between the House of Commons and the Senate, this legislation has been debated over and over through different bills for more than a decade.

We are really dealing this afternoon with Bill S-203, a bill that was presented in the Senate by Senator Bryden and which I introduced in the House some weeks ago. Basically we are dealing with amendments to the Criminal Code in sections 444 to 447.

The debate of this has been long. It has affected many people. In fact, many members of Parliament are receiving emails from different groups who stand on different sides of Bill S-203.

Today, I would like to present my argument in terms of the bill that has come from the Senate, a bill that reflects the need for changes in the Criminal Code which would place greater emphasis upon animal cruelty and to those who might be accused or involved with cruelty to animals.

Many people are affected. In fact, when we looked at other bills in terms of Bill C-10 and so forth, we began to realize how broad our constituency was in dealing with those involved and affected by animals. We found in fact that one of the largest jurisdictions is with people who have family pets, but of course the livelihood of many people involved in farming is also affected by what we might do in the House in terms of legislation.

We found that universities and university researchers, and those involved in research for humans dealing with animals, have great concerns of what legislation might produce. We have minor groups such as those who maintain zoos and those who are involved with circuses. In the previous legislation, we were also involved with fishermen because fish became part of the debate on previous legislation.

Above all, we have hunters and trappers, many people in our first nations communities who historically depended upon wildlife for their livelihood.

When we look at all these different groups, we look at what proposals come forward, what animal rights groups say to us, what pet owners say to us, and above all, those in our farming communities. It is interesting to note that in terms of pets, many Canadians have tremendous affection for the cats, dogs, horses, birds and those pets which they maintain in the vicinity of their homes.

When we look at American statistics, this industry, the industry of providing health resources to pet owners, approaches $40 billion U.S. a year. So it is a growing industry. We have to respect and certainly pay great thanks to those who love their animals, those who care for them, those who maintain them, and those who are so interested in any legislation which the House and Parliament would provide.

I am not sure that the Criminal Code is the right place. Probably in future parliaments, we will see special legislation outside the Criminal Code. In terms of animals and cruelty, and respect for animals, the care for animals, we also have our provinces who have a vested interest in some of this because in terms of our wildlife, most wildlife species are protected under provincial legislation.

However, I would like to answer a few of our critics who have called upon some members of Parliament not to support Bill S-203. I personally have some difficulty with that logic because Bill 203 does not preclude the necessity or the fact that further legislation could be brought to the House which would improve upon this legislation. It would tend to see that the various groups that I mentioned are not seriously and adversely affected. It would indeed demonstrate that all of us as Canadians can enjoy the fact that we as a Parliament and as a nation can see that our animals are properly protected and that we can find joy, warmth and comfort in the relations that we have with them.

Bill S-203 basically deals with any person who kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures cattle, or kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose.

If people were to commit offences under the Criminal Code with that description of it, they could be charged with an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years. That is a very serious penalty for those who would be convicted. Furthermore, if the court should decide it is not an indictable offence, there could be fines of up to $10,000.

This cruelty, in section 445.1, says that anyone who wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird or anyone who assists at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds, or promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money in such circumstances, can be convicted of an indictable offence and receive up to five years in prison.

Section 446 goes on to state that anyone who, by wilful neglect, causes damage or injury to animals or who is involved with a domestic animal or a bird or an animal, whether it be wild in nature or in captivity, who abandons it in distress or wilfully neglects or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care, would be committing an offence.

Furthermore, Bill S-203 also attempts to preclude from ownership of animals people who are guilty of these offences. The court, under section 447.1, may make an order prohibiting the accused from owning, having the custody or control of, residing in the same premise as an animal or bird during any period that the court considers appropriate, but in the case of a second or subsequent offence, a minimum of five years.

What I am advocating today is that the House could approve at report stage and third reading this legislation. I know it is not perfect, but it is a tremendous improvement upon the present legislation which was put in place almost a century ago.

There is another bill, in fact, that is before the House. It is further down than my own. However, there will be an opportunity in the future for another government or another member to bring a private member's bill before this assembly that can be debated.

I hope that as time progresses we as Canadians can develop legislation which is valuable to all, protects our animals, birds and fish and, above all, does not cause harm or unjustness to our farmers, fishermen, and those who rely upon these species for their livelihood.

[Melissa Tkachyk, Programs Officer, , World Society for the Protection of Animals (Canada)]

Thank you, Chair and honourable members, for allowing me this opportunity to speak about an issue that is of utmost importance to the World Society for the Protection of Animals, and to Canadians.

WSPA is the world's largest international alliance of animal welfare organizations. We work in partnership with more than 850 organizations in 170 countries. Our global partners include the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the American Humane Association, the American SPCA, and many others. WSPA holds consultative status with the United Nations and observer status with the Council of Europe. We work to improve animal welfare standards around the world through field work and advocacy.

WSPA Canada is based in Toronto. We are a Canadian charity and have more than 30,000 supporters across the country, and hundreds of thousands worldwide. If one takes into account the supporters of our member societies in Canada, we represent the voices of over 200,000 Canadians.

WSPA joins its member societies, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Ontario SPCA, and other international groups, such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare, in opposing Bill S-203. It is suggested that this bill was introduced to improve the protection of animals, yet not a single animal protection group in the country supports it. We oppose this bill because it is not an effective improvement to the current animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code, which haven't been significantly revised, as you know, since first enacted in 1892. This antiquated bill does not address the deficiencies in the current legislation, which allow so many animal abusers to slip through the cracks unpunished.

As you know, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies was already before this committee. They've calculated that less than 1% of animal abuse complaints made across the country lead to a conviction. Bill S-203 increases sentencing penalties; this is the only change it makes. We do not support this bill because we do not believe these increases are very useful if law enforcement officers are unable to prosecute animal abusers in the vast majority of cases. What difference does increasing penalties make if offenders cannot be successfully prosecuted?

Bill S-203 requires the court to prove that someone wilfully intended to neglect an animal. We have heard from SPCAs across the country that the burden of proof is too high, and that it is one of the main reasons so few complaints about animal abuse lead to convictions under the Criminal Code. Prosecutors have not been able to convict people who have starved their animals, because they cannot prove that the owners intended to cause harm, even though any reasonable person knows that animals, like people, need food daily and suffer when they are hungry, and that an emaciated body clearly indicates that an animal has been starved for a long period of time. The inactions or actions of the offender should be sufficient to convict them in these cases.

We believe the language in Bill C-373 makes this offence much clearer and will, therefore, improve conviction rates in cases of neglect.

Bill S-203 does not make it an offence to breed, train, or sell animals to fight each other to death, so long as the person is not found actually present at the fight. I'm sure you understand that illegal blood sports are not exactly publicized. Dog fighting should be prohibited as explicitly as cock fighting is in this bill. It is our submission that training dogs to fight and being in possession of dog-fighting equipment should both be prohibited. We believe this is necessary to crack down on the people who are participating in and encouraging this brutal blood sport. Great Britain's Animal Welfare Act takes it even further by making it an offence to profit, publicize, and promote any animal fighting.

Like the antiquated legislation currently in force, Bill S-203 provides less protection for unowned animals, even though stray, feral, and wild animals suffer just the same. So it's not an offence to kill, maim, poison, or wound unowned animals without a reason or a lawful excuse. It is legal now, and would continue to be legal, to beat a stray dog with a baseball bat, so long as the dog dies quickly. WSPA strongly believes that all sentient animals should be equally protected from being killed, maimed, poisoned, or wounded, in addition to being protected from suffering and neglect.

If the government is serious about tackling crime to build stronger and safer communities in Canada, it should not ignore the strong relationship between crimes against animals and crimes against people. Research shows that people who abuse animals are more likely to commit future acts of violence against people. Some of the most notorious serial killers abused animals before they murdered people. Their first crimes against animals should have served as an early warning that they were predisposed to harming people next.

The government has the opportunity to pass effective legislation that not only addresses animal abuse effectively, but can also help stop a cycle of violence in our communities. I do believe that if people are taught to respect the sanctity of animal life, it will contribute to the respect for the sanctity of human life as well.

I have summarized our main concerns with this bill, but there are many other problems, which I won't elaborate on, including the fact that it retains the illogical categorization of animals and the strange definition for cattle that is currently in the Criminal Code. As well, Bill S-203 still distinguishes animals as property, and it categorizes offences against them as property offences. Unlike inanimate objects, animals have the capacity to feel pain and suffer. Since their sentience is why we have legislation to protect them, this very basic fact should be reflected in the language of the law and how these types of offences are labelled and how the offender is punished.

Your committee has heard a lot of unfounded hysterical fears that the amendments animal protection groups support, such as those that are in Bill C-373, will somehow affect the right to hunt, trap, and go fishing. Some stakeholders have accused this bill's opponents of having an ulterior motive, such as an underlying animal rights agenda. Comments like these are absolutely absurd.

WSPA and the many other groups that are supporting Bill C-373 are simply advocating for legislation that effectively protects animals from horrific acts of cruelty, abuse, and neglect. Amendments like the one Bill C-373 proposes strikes a great balance between effectively convicting and punishing those who abuse animals, while protecting those who legally use animals.

During his deputation to your committee, Senator John Bryden acknowledged that his bill dealt only with one part of the problem, but that additional amendments should be made later. The committee is therefore being asked to pass deficient legislation on the grounds that some stakeholders would be uncomfortable with the changes sought by other stakeholders. Should we not be asking instead whether there is any validity to their concerns? If these stakeholders are concerned that the right to use animals is not adequately protected, then the solution, I would think, is not to maintain loopholes in the law, but to clarify the rights of these groups.

WSPA would gladly support this bill if it could be amended to resemble Bill C-373, which is essentially the same bill as the previous bills, Bill C-50, Bill C-15B, Bill C-10, which were twice passed by the House of Commons. Those bills were based on nearly 10 years of consultation, received broad-based support--that's support from all different groups that use animals, including support from all political parties--and also received strong public support.

This bill is clearly flawed if people who starve animals to death, bash stray dogs with bats, and train dogs to fight can slip through the cracks unpunished. This bill does not address the current loopholes, archaic language, and inadequacies in the original legislation. It retains them.

Bill S-203 does not deliver what Canadians are demanding from their government. Canadians do not view animals in the same way as people did in the Victorian era. They want modern, effective, and enforceable legislation that protects animals from reckless acts of cruelty. We have waited a long time for strong legislation to protect animals, but I'm afraid the proposal that is before your committee right now is just not worth that wait.

On behalf of WSPA, I'm asking you today to oppose Bill S-203. It's taken more than 100 years to make changes to our animal cruelty law. Let's make sure the new legislation is worth the wait.

Thank you.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to congratulate the member for Miramichi on sponsoring the bill introduced by the hon. senator, who was a member of this House and a colleague of mine when I was elected in 1993.

Everyone knows that the debate on cruelty to animals goes back a long way. Six other bills have been introduced in six years: Bills C-10, C-10B, C-15B, C-17, C-22 and, lastly, C-50, the most recent bill, which was introduced during the last Parliament.

Six bills have been brought before Parliament. The bill we are discussing this morning is the seventh. What is more, the member for Ajax—Pickering has introduced an eighth bill. All this has us thinking about the type of legislation we want.

One thing is certain: the status quo is not an option. It is unbelievable that, with one exception, the Criminal Code provisions on cruelty to animals have not been reviewed since 1892.

The situation can be summarized as follows: the punishment for people found guilty of wounding, neglecting, abusing, maiming or killing animals cannot exceed six months in prison or a $2,000 fine, except in cases where cattle are wilfully killed.

Certainly, the bill we are discussing this morning has merits. But it can be improved. I want to be very clear, for those who are watching. The Bloc Québécois will support the Senate bill, Bill S-213. And we also hope that this House will support Bill C-373, introduced by the member for Ajax—Pickering.

The bill before us this morning has three main points in its favour. First, it corrects the outdated sanctions, which are far too mild. These sanctions pertain to people's relationship with animals in the 19th century, when the Criminal Code was conceived.

This bill will make courts more likely to impose stricter sentences on those who commit offences against animals, that is, those who are convicted of misconduct against animals, such as mutilation, killing, negligence, abandonment or refusing to feed animals.

The minimum sentence, when prosecuted by indictment, will be five years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. The Bloc is pleased with that provision of the bill. That provision can also be found in Bill C-373, introduced by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering.

This bill also corrects the existing anomaly that a court—through a prohibition order, which courts may impose —can prohibit the owner of an animal from having an animal in his or her possession for a maximum of two years. The bill before us today gives the courts the power to impose such a prohibition order for the owner's entire lifetime.

The third benefit of this bill is that it allows for restitution mechanisms through which the courts can order an individual to pay the costs if an animal has been taken in by an animal welfare organization, for example. A court could therefore order restitution and individuals who committed offences of negligence or intentional cruelty could be forced to pay the organizations that have taken in mistreated animals.

These three benefits alone represent a considerable improvement to the state of the law and warrant our support of this bill.

A number of our constituents have written to us comparing Bill S-213 from the Senate and the bill introduced by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering that I hope will be debated later. If memory serves me correctly, the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering is 124th or 126th on the list. The political situation being what it is, Parliament may dissolve. We hope not, even though the Bloc Québécois is confident about the future.

In the event that Parliament dissolves before the bill by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering is debated, we propose that this House fall back on the bill from the Senate. In any event, the short-term gain would be the possibility of increasing maximum penalties for those found guilty of mistreating animals.

I want to be very clear. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We would also want Bill C-373 to be passed, and for our constituents to know that these bills are not incompatible or mutually exclusive. The following three provisions are not incompatible with Bill C-373: increasing the penalties for animal cruelty offences; extending orders of prohibition on owning an animal; and implementing restitution mechanisms for individuals to compensate animal protection organizations. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support both bills.

Before explaining why this House should vote in favour of Bill C-373, I want to say that I know that my caucus colleagues and other parliamentarians in this House have always been concerned, when we have debated previous bills on protecting animals and on cruelty toward animals, about ensuring the ancestral rights of the first nations under section 35 of the Constitution, so as not to compromise legitimate hunting and fishing activities, and about legitimate research activities that may involve doing research on animals.

No one wants this House to adopt measures that would end up penalizing hunters and fishers. Senate Bill S-213 provides guarantees in this regard that may not be as attractive as those found in Bill C-373. Clause 3 of Bill C-373 sponsored by our colleague for Ajax—Pickering clearly states that, if the bill is adopted:

3. Subsection 429(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 443 where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

This means that a hunter or fisher cannot be prosecuted for such activity if it is deemed an aboriginal right or if he or she has a hunting or fishing licence, and this activity is recognized by the legislator. I say this because I am convinced that several parliamentarians in this House have heard representations on the balance that must be maintained between our desire to protect animals against cruelty and the right of hunters, fishers and aboriginal peoples to carry out activities that are recognized in law.

The bill introduced by the member for Ajax—Pickering clearly sets out this guarantee. In conclusion, we hope to amend the Criminal Code insofar as these provisions are concerned. We recognize the three major benefits of this bill and we hope that the House will also adopt Bill C-373. These two bills are a winning combination.

Bankruptcy Legislation

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for the opportunity to rise in this House and to speak about some of the important changes that are taking place to streamline the firearms program and make it more efficient.

As the hon. member is aware, over the past several months the government announced several key initiatives to improve the program and provide better services to Canadians across the country. On February 21 the Minister of Justice, joined by the Solicitor General, tabled an action plan to deliver a firearms control program that provides significant public safety benefits while setting the program on a path to lower costs.

The action plan responds to the Auditor General's recommendations contained in her report of last December.

In fact, the government has already begun to implement these actions which are based on the recommendations of the Auditor General.

On April 14 the Canada Firearms Centre was transferred from the Department of Justice to the Department of the Solicitor General. I think everyone, the key players and partners, agrees that this is a natural fit for the Solicitor General portfolio, as enhancing public safety is one of its main focuses.

The action plan states the government's intention to consolidate the headquarters function for the firearms program in Ottawa. This has already occurred.

In addition, on May 30, a firearms commissioner was appointed. Reporting to the Solicitor General, the commissioner has full authority and accountability for all federally administered elements of the Canadian firearms program.

Moreover, according to the action plan, the position of financial controller has been filled. This individual is responsible for risk analysis and for data and report integrity. And he must ensure that resources are used in accordance with the program's financial plan. The controller must also report the results.

On May 14 Bill C-10A received royal assent. The amendments to the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act are administrative in nature and their goal is to streamline the Canada firearms program. Several of these amendments require regulations or amendments to existing regulations before they can take effect.

Accordingly, on June 13, 15 proposed regulations were tabled in Parliament by the Solicitor General. All but one of those amend existing regulations. The tabling of those proposed regulations is another important step in the continuous improvement of the firearms program.

There is also, first, public consultation through the official gazette on regulations and, second, consultation with Parliament. Canadians are invited to share their ideas and their comments on the Canadian firearms program and on the proposed regulations on the Web site of the Canada Firearms Center.

The simple facts that I have given, and that is not the whole story obviously, show that the government has put into practice or is putting into practice the recommendations of the Auditor General. The government is consulting Canadians and its goal is to ensure that this program is efficient and practical.

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, it is like being in Back to the Future , if anyone has seen that movie. We had this discussion back in June. It is the same sequel and the same cast of characters, but at least the Alliance, for a change, is being somewhat consistent. The fact is, as everyone knows, I have said many times that when it comes to municipal government issues that party's sincerity is somewhat interesting since it historically has never supported municipal governments in the past. I will go through an array of issues with them.

It is very good to talk about a little history. For those who obviously are not aware, first of all, my friend and colleague from Dauphin—Swan River and I worked together over the years through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities when I was president of that organization. I remember the very dry days back then, when the government of the day did not even entertain the issue of national infrastructure.

In fact, for those who may not remember, in 1983 the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and at that time there was a $17 billion national infrastructure deficit, went to the government of the day and said, “We need to get into a tripartite arrangement on traditional infrastructure, roads, sewers, bridges, et cetera”. The government said it would entertain that. Unfortunately, the government was defeated in the 1984 election. Then along came the Progressive Conservatives, with clearly a heavy emphasis on the conservative and not on the progressive because they did not support the national infrastructure program during their entire time in office.

Therefore, it was this government and this Prime Minister that in 1993 pledged to in fact bring in the first national infrastructure program, a tripartite arrangement. True to the Prime Minister's word, in 1994 that came in and I had the pleasure of working with the government at that time as part of the FCM in terms of making sure that this program came into effect.

Since 1993 this government has invested over $12 billion, and when one leverages that, over $20 billion, in terms of national infrastructure. The fact is that the party over there opposed it in 1993 and it opposed it in 1997. It is good at that, but now that party knows it is popular and it knows that after three programs this has become extremely important.

This motion is a little weaker than it was before, but basically it is inviting the government to have discussions with the provinces on the issue of sharing a portion of the gas tax. I can tell members that this government would be more than happy to talk to the provinces and territories anytime. My concern, and I have raised this many times, is the mechanism by which, if we vacate the tax route, in fact we will be assured by the provinces and territories that municipal governments, whether they are urban or rural, will in fact get the money.

In terms of the motion before the House today, I certainly can support it, because it simply is asking that we enter into discussions. I can tell everyone that this government can do that and will do that and will hear what the provinces and territories have to say.

But the reality is that this is only a portion of the issue. The real issue is, how do we ensure that? We believe on this side of the House that if we have a tripartite arrangement all three orders of government in this country participate fully as partners. If one is going to fund a third of the money, one should have a third of the say. I have always commended the government of Alberta for the fact that the government of Alberta has always had at the table municipal, federal and provincial representatives in terms of the approvals.

The fact is that this government needs to take no lessons from the party across the way because, simply put, it is this government that not only brought in the national infrastructure program but renewed that program in 1997, in fact, if the hon. members across the way would look at the record. The problem is that when we sign agreements with the provinces, each agreement is different.

Therefore, to my good friend from British Columbia, at one time a previous government of British Columbia was suddenly ordering all sorts of buses that were showing up in municipalities and not necessarily what they wanted.

From the beginning we have said that the program must be municipally driven. As a former municipal politician, we at the municipal level know what the needs are in terms of the communities, whether it is roads, sewers, bridges, whatever. Therefore, when we look at a five and 10 year capital forecast, we want to ensure that we can put forth projects and hopefully get the support of the province and, obviously, the Government of Canada.

I have always said that if they are proposing it, then I, as a member of Parliament, support it because they obviously know what their needs are in the community. It is not up to me as a member of Parliament or up to the Government of Canada to tell a city X what its needs are. The fact is this was such an important program.

I know we are not allowed to use props so I will not show it, but in the January and February Forum of the FCM of 1997 I read an article that was devoted to infrastructure. At that time we were talking about getting the first national infrastructure program extended, and the Prime Minister was prepared to listen.

On the team Canada mission in 1997, I had the opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister and the premiers, except the premier of British Columbia. The Prime Minister and the premiers were prepared to entertain an extension of that program. In the end we got that extension. Some were a little later than others. Ontario was very slow. In fact it only agreed at the eleventh hour before the federal election was called in April of 1997. However we got it and it was extended. If it were not a good program, we would not have municipal governments supporting it continually.

We have a deficit in Canada when it comes to infrastructure. Had we acted in 1983, we would be in a lot better shape.

Respecting the constitutionality, municipal governments, which are creatures of the province, and I hate that term myself, they get their powers or not from the provinces, and we accept that. We also accept that there was a vital role for the government to play in a number of areas, in partnership with our municipal cousins and obviously with the provinces and territories. That over the years has been very successful.

Members also will know that we introduced the strategic infrastructure fund, another very important program, for larger projects in the urban scheme as well.

In my own area, the greater Toronto area, we were able to benefit by an announcement at the end of April of $435 million, matched by municipalities, by GO, TTC and others and by the province, finally. We were able to commit over $1 billion to improve the transportation infrastructure in the greater Toronto area. Why? Because these were proposals that they made. Not the Government of Canada, not the Ontario government, but the municipal authorities, which is very important.

I point out that when we talk about allocation of dollars, our friends across the way often talk about the fact that we are not giving enough.

I remember the days, and it is sometimes very useful to have some history behind one, when we argued at the FCM for a 10 year program. Remember that under the Conservatives we never had a program. Then when the Liberal government came in, we got a program, then we got another renewal and then we got another program. Under the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister we have committed to a 10 year infrastructure program in this budge.

I said earlier that it is important for municipal governments to plan ahead. He said that we would put a down payment on it. Of course the word that some members in this House do not use, and it is shameful they do not, is the word leveraging. It is the role of other governments and the private sector to contribute to federal funding to ensure we can advance these programs. When we talk about leveraging, it is not simply the federal government.

The provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and across the country have benefited significantly from these programs.

The hon. member in his speech this morning talked about the fact that we had to vacate this money. I am not sure how much he would like us to vacate. I assume he is also suggesting where we will find extra dollars because he will then be complaining about other federal programs that the government needs to be funding. At the same time, the government is prepared to come to the table, as we always have.

A few years ago we had Bill C-10 which was a very important issue regarding payments in lieu of taxes. In 1949 the then Liberal government had an informal agreement in which it agreed that in lieu of taxes it would pay a certain amount of money to municipal governments for services for federal properties.

I believe in 1992 under the Conservatives there was an arbitrary 10% cut. What happened was there could be a CTV building and a CBC building in a riding and one received a 10% discount. It was unfair and unreasonable and the municipality was still providing services to both.

This was something that the government had been pushing for years. Bill C-10 came to the House a few years ago. The government passed legislation which said that the Government of Canada would be treated like any other taxpayer. The government had to pay on time, otherwise it would pay interest. There would be guaranteed payments. The government would know what the assessment would be. If the government did not like the assessment on a federal property, then it would go through the procedures that every other taxpayer had to go through.

That party over there voted against it. If it really were interested in supporting municipal governments, I would have assumed it would have supported something like Bill C-10 as an example.

I would also point out that the issue here is simply accountability. I certainly believe that with municipal governments there is a new partnership. The Prime Minister launched the Prime Minister's task force on urban issues. The government made a number of recommendations. The government talked about a national transportation study, a national housing strategy and other recommendations.

Of course the naysayers over there really do not understand what it is all about. One day they will the fact that when we enter into partnerships, we are talking about true partnerships. We are talking about financial partnerships and policy issues. It is obviously hitting the right accord because even the Alliance gets it, which is good to see. I really welcome that because for years I had to deal with those on the other side who were not as positive.

The fact is we are talking about investments in cities. We also are talking about other investments. The government has done that in health care. It has done it with universities. It has done it in an array of areas such as housing which is very important. It makes these cities more liveable. Canadians cannot have liveable cities if they do not have the right infrastructure.

Provinces have the ability and the tax room that the government has. They have the same fiscal capacity as the Government of Canada. Municipal governments clearly are restrained. In some provinces they have more levers than others in terms of being able to raise taxes.

The most antiquated form of taxation I still believe is property taxes. Unfortunately they are dealing with that.

We want to see an arrangement where we can play a constructive role respecting provincial jurisdiction and at the same time work cooperatively with them. However I do not think it would be wise to simply write a cheque to province X and not have a clear direction of where that money is to go.

My colleagues on the other side talk about strings. I find that a rather odd statement because to me there has to be accountability, whether it is a national health council to track where the money goes. The transfers are for Canadians, not for the federal government. If money is transferred to the provinces, Canadians should know where it goes. I believe that accountability, whatever order of government it is, is extremely important.

The government has taken action in many ways. If it were not for the Liberal government, the Autoroute 30 around Montreal would not have been dealt with. The Red River floodway is very important. We know the Government of Canada stepped in and worked with the province of Manitoba, again cooperatively. These are cooperative efforts. The Government of Canada is not saying that the provinces have to do X. That is probably why this side of the House has so many former municipal colleagues. They know the work that the government has done since 1993.

We are not ashamed of the fact that we have had three national programs and we have worked in areas of housing and others. The national homeless strategy involved working cooperatively with other orders of government and with grassroots communities across the country. The Minister of Labour took the lead in that area. The results were very positive, and $753 million came from that. This is about partnership and about working together.

The hon. member would like us to talk to the provinces and territories about the issue of gas taxes and that is very much a reality. That can be done. However it will not work unless we ensure that moneys that go to the provinces wind up directly with the proper formula for rural and urban municipal governments.

I will not say that we have all the answers because we do not. However we know the other side has no answers at times. We on this side of the House have not just talked about these issues but have delivered on these issues. There is a big difference between talking about them and doing something about them.

The member across the way is too young to remember the 1993 infrastructure program, but if he had been around he would have known about the tremendous work that the government did. Other examples of the government working collaboratively with municipalities are the municipal enabling fund and the green municipal investment fund. It was this government that empowered the FCM with $200 million originally to work on issues dealing with the environment such as improving air quality et cetera. The 10% club was formed to reduce CO

2

emissions by 20% over 10 years. This is true cooperation. It is not talking about it. It is delivering.

The government even delivered to the riding of my friend across the way, and I know he is very appreciative. He should talk to his former mayor because he might actually learn a few things about municipal government. He was a good mayor and a very popular mayor.

We also have to look at the fact that the government has set an agenda. We believe that investing in municipal governments and in infrastructure is extremely important. Therefore we continue to look at all reasonable options. At the same time, the government will not go back into a deficit. We continue to ensure that we balance the books. We will ensure that issues such as paying down the national debt and investing in the social fabric of Canada continue. We can only do that if the dollars come and we account for those dollars.

Unfortunately, we had to deal with a $42.5 billion deficit. I am amazed that we did not get credit for the fact that at the same time as we had the $42.5 billion debt, we still invested in the national infrastructure program. Why? Because it returned tax money and created jobs. It was a very important initiative even when we did not have the money. Look at the highlights. We have a 10 year program, people are investing and it is good for the economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about hypocrisy and scandal. I assume he is looking in the mirror because the Canadian Alliance, the former reform party, has never been a supporter of municipal governments in our country.

I will give members a simple example. A few years ago we had Bill C-10 before the House. It dealt with the issue of payments in lieu of taxes to ensure that we had guaranteed payments to municipal governments for federal properties within their jurisdiction. The party over there voted against it.

That party has not supported national infrastructure programs. That party has a shabby record on dealing with municipal governments. However, I can tell the member that this government is prepared at any time to work with provinces and municipal governments on the issue of national infrastructure. We do not need any lessons from that party, absolutely not.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals)

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

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a few words on the bill before the House. This is a bill has been before the House before. The bill was split into two parts, one dealing with gun control regulations and the other one dealing with animal rights and animal welfare. The bill was split in two parts by the Senate.

The NDP supports Bill C-10B in terms of the animal rights and the animal welfare part of the bill. We have made that clear before in debate.

What has happened in the other place is that the Senate decided to weaken the bill through amendments that it has sent back to the House of Commons.

This place is elected and members are responsible to the people of this country. The Senate is not elected and senators are not accountable. The Senate is not a democratic institution.

I believe the House of Commons should make amendments to bills and that it should be predominant in any kind of a standoff between the two Houses. I think that is very important.

It is very important that we do not get into the situation where we have a precedent built where the unelected chamber is able to send a bill back to the House with several amendments and the House does not return the bill rejecting those amendments.

There is no place in a democratic society for an unelected legislative institution. This is an institution that changes laws. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you are amongst the 90% to 95% of the Canadian population that does not agree that we should have the Senate as it exists today. About 90% to 95% of people polled have shown time and time again that they do not want to keep this unelected institution. I guess the 95% of people who are saying that are divided as to whether or not we should just abolish the Senate all together or whether or not we should have an elected chamber.

If we were to have an elected chamber, we would get into the debate as to what kinds of powers that particular House should have. I have seen this debate go on year after year. In fact, this was one of the big stalemates in the constitutional debate of 1981-82. It was also a big stalemate prior to Charlottetown.

I remember the negotiations of the House of Commons special committee that I had the privilege of sitting on for a number of months. The committee talked about everything in terms of the Constitution back in 1991, after Meech Lake collapsed in 1992-93.

We had the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee and the Beaudoin-Edwards committee. We dealt with the division of powers, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, minority languages, and everything that was in the Constitution, an amending formula, et cetera. The most difficult issue we faced on that particular House of Commons all party committee was the question of the Senate, and what should be done about the other place. Everywhere the committee went people wanted to either abolish the Senate or have one that was elected that reflected the people of the country.

I am hesitant to accept amendments that come from the other place when it does not have a mandate from the Canadian people. In fact, the amendments that the Senate moved to Bill C-10B in terms of animal rights and animal welfare weaken the bill. We have had no changes in terms of animal welfare legislation since 1892. Here we have a bill that has gone through the House of Commons and it is now being weakened by the Senate.

I think the time has come where we do one of two things: we either reform and elect, with different powers, the other place, or else we abolish it. My position is very clear; we should abolish it. In fact, we had at one time five different provinces that had a senate or an upper house. If we were to go to Prince Edward Island and look at the Legislative Assembly in P.E.I., we could visit the chamber that was the upper house. It is the same thing in Quebec. In fact, Quebec was the last province that abolished its upper house. There were five provinces that had an upper house, but they do not have one today.

I believe we could take the original purpose of the Senate, which was the power of a check and balance on the House of Commons, and incorporate it into this place through parliamentary reform.

If we had stronger, more independent parliamentary committees, free election of chairs, the right of a committee to initiate its own legislation and bring it into the House, to timetable legislation, and fewer non-confidence votes, then we could bring the checks and balances, which the Senate is supposed to represent, into the House of Commons. If we were to do that, this place would be a much more democratic place and more representative of the people of the country.

We all know how exciting it is to see a free vote in private members' hour on a controversial issue but if we had stronger committees they would be able to take a stand more often in opposition to the Prime Minister of the country. I think that is the direction in which we should be going.

I have been open in the past to the election of the other place. In fact, I was a supporter of the Charlottetown accord and did a lot of work across the country campaigning for that accord on the “Yes” side. Part of that accord was a vision of an elected Senate with regional equality and greatly reduced powers. However, no matter how we looked at it, it became very difficult to come up with a configuration of the Senate that was accepted by all the Canadian people.

I noticed in a press release that the future prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, still supports in principle the idea of a triple-e Senate as pushed by the Alliance, but it is very difficult to push the triple-e equality across the country when we give the same number of senators to Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Ontario. Prince Edward Island has 120,000 to 130,000 people and Ontario has 10 million or 11 million people but both would have an equal number of senators.

To change the Senate we would need a constitutional amendment which requires the agreement of at least seven out of ten provinces, representing half of the people in the country. The only way we will get agreement from Quebec, which has 7 million to 7.5 million people, with its distinct difference from the other provinces because of its language, culture and civil law, and the only way we will get agreement from Ontario to have an equal number of senators per province, is to have the powers in the Senate so radically reduced that it would become almost meaningless.

If the powers were so radically reduced then we would have a backlash in many other smaller provinces as to why bother at all. It is like the dog chasing its tail. It is a never ending story that I have seen during my 30 years in Parliament. It has been a never ending story since Confederation.

I am really surprised with the Alliance Party members. They always talk about smaller government, less government and too many politicians. If we had an elected Senate in the country we would legitimize the place immediately because they would be elected and have the same mandate as we have in the House of Commons. If we were to do that the expenditure on the Senate would not be the current $60 million a year. It would double or triple because senators would need riding offices, many more committees, facilities and services in order to reflect what their electors would be saying and put them on an equal par with the House of Commons.

We would then have another 100-plus politicians in the country. I do not think we need that. I think we can bring those checks and balances, that sober second thought into the House of Commons by reforming this place, by making sure our committees are meaningful, by having fewer confidence votes, by having fixed election days, fixed throne speech days and fixed budget days. We would take away some of the powers that are now in the Prime Minister's Office and Privy Council Office and distribute them around the House of Commons to all members, as all members of the House should be equal.

However that has not happened. I remember about a year ago reading the autobiography of John Crosbie who used to be the minister of transport. He wrote that one of the goals of Brian Mulroney when he came to office was to abolish the Senate. However when he became prime minister he came under pressure to appoint some of his friends to the Senate, and then more friends and more friends and he continued down the same old merry trail. The same thing has happened ever since Confederation.

We have people sitting in the other place, most of whom are decent and hard-working people, but some of them have abysmal attendance records because they are accountable to absolutely no one.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague who just completed his remarks. I would just like to point out that we would have a better chance for unanimity if we were to support the amendments brought forward by our colleagues from the other place, as the hon. member mentioned.

I rise to oppose the very narrow and unusual motion that we have before us today and to urge the House to accept the amendments from the other place to Bill C-10B.

We have two legislative chambers in our system. This is the second time the House has considered amendments on this bill from our colleagues in the other chamber. That is very unusual. Insistence on amendments by the other house is not at all a common occurrence. When it does it, it has a reason for doing it. We have a duty to treat very seriously this unusual, non-partisan, principled initiative by the other chamber.

Two explicit mandates of the other chamber are highly relevant to this debate. One is the obligation to apply sober second thought, to look carefully and precisely, in a non-partisan way, at proposals which might be denied the careful attention they require in the House.

I note that these amendments are not at all partisan. They are supported by members of the Liberal Party in the other place, as well as by members of my party. Otherwise, they would never have been adopted because the Liberal Party has a majority in that other house, too. These amendments are driven by principle, not by partisanship, and so they should be here.

The other obligation of the other place is to protect minorities, in this case principally the aboriginal minority of Canada whose livelihoods depend disproportionately on hunting and fishing and who are faced with a double blow in the language the government insists upon.

First, the government's language calls into question again the practical existence of traditional rights which have existed from time immemorial, which have been upheld by the courts and have been affirmed by clause 35 of Mr. Trudeau's famous Constitutional Act of 1982. It is ironic that the present temporary Prime Minister desperately claims Mr. Trudeau's accomplishments as part of his own threadbare legacy in the Constitutional Act and at the same he insists on this language which dilutes those very constitutional guarantees.

Second, the government's language says perversely that if those traditional and established aboriginal rights are ever to be exercised, that can occur only after the immense expense of a trial and an appeal.

We are not dealing here with Power Corporation, Canada Steamship Lines or other wealthy corporations with tailor-made tax havens in Barbados. We are speaking of aboriginal people living on the most marginal of incomes. The double standard of the government could not be more clear.

The government is prepared to change the rules to give giant shipping corporations new tax loopholes and now it tries to change the rules to take away from low income aboriginal people, whose major income is through hunting, one of the few protections they enjoy.

The amendment proposed by the other place would stop that double standard, and I would hope members of this House would have the conscience to support that amendment here.

The parliamentary secretary stated on September 25, 2003 that this legislation has had a long journey. Indeed, it has. My party has been unequivocal in its support for improving and enhancing the Criminal Code provisions dealing with animals and cruelty to animals. However this has been a troubled bill precisely because for so long government ministers have failed profoundly to understand the realities of life in rural Canada. That has been a recurrent blemish on the government.

It is devastatingly evident today in the failure to provide effective help to farmers and to ranchers whose futures have been devastated by the BSE outbreak.

While the Prime Minister was in New York not talking to the one American who could speed up the full opening of the borders, President Bush, farmers and ranchers on the prairies were killing their cows because federal aid has been too slow at home and federal action has been ineffective in the United States.

Each time the House has rejected the amendments of our colleagues in the other house, they in the other house have sat down, considered the arguments of this House and refined the amendments. The amendments before us today are refinements and improvements to the bill.

Let us go back to June 2002. Members of Parliament from all parties were clearly concerned about the impact of the bill on traditional farming and ranching practices. There was concern that branding or castration of farm animals might be considered to be causes for charges to be brought against farmers and ranchers.

The Edmonton Journal reported on June 4, 2002 that the current government promised, “to consider future amendments to parts of animal cruelty legislation”. The Minister of Justice averted possible trouble by agreeing “to look favourably on Senate amendments to the bill”. It was later reported that while the government did not intend to bring in amendments in the other place, the justice minister “would consider carefully an amendment if the Senate passed an amendment”.

Subsequently, the definition of animal proposed by the Senate has resolved some of these concerns. That amendment has been accepted by this House. The Senate is now proposing that the government drop its insistence on the defence that is defined as “killing without a lawful excuse” and substituting instead the words “causing unnecessary death”. It is intended to limit a blanket prohibition against killing animals.

We do not want to see farmers and ranchers charged with cruelty to animals for attempting to cull an epidemic of groundhogs on the farm or dealing with predators. Real life is more complicated than the laws we write here and our laws must reflect the reality which ordinary Canadians have to face as they earn their livelihoods.

Rather than having aboriginal people continually seeking redress of the courts to prove their rights, the amendment, which the government proposes to reject, would clarify that no aboriginal person would be convicted of an offence if the pain, suffering, injury or death were caused in the course of traditional hunting, trapping or fishing practices, provided that any pain, suffering or injury caused was no more than is reasonably necessary in carrying out traditional practices.

The Senate amendment, be clear about this, would not create any exception that would allow an aboriginal person to commit cruelty against an animal. In fact the Senate felt it would be in accordance with section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 to give aboriginal peoples an opportunity to exercise their constitutional rights that protected traditional hunting and fishing practices without fear of being arrested and unfairly accused of cruelty to animals. In other words, the rights of the aboriginal people would be recognized at the moment of the arrest rather than after a Supreme Court decision over an appeal of a conviction.

The House of Commons now has the opportunity, as the courts have done for 20 years, to do everything it can to ensure that federal laws protect the rights of aboriginal people. In the other place our aboriginal colleagues argued passionately that here was an opportunity to protect aboriginal hunters who were trying to earn a living to feed their families.

The government has made a point of naming aboriginal Canadians to the other place. Presumably that was not just for window dressing. Presumably it was because they knew those aboriginal members of the other place would bring their special knowledge and that they would be listened to by members of both Houses who were not aboriginal, who did not have that experience.

If that is so, I ask the House to listen to what our colleague Charlie Watt said in a standing committee in the other place on legal and constitutional affairs. He said:

Many of the traditional tools utilized by Aboriginal people—especially the Inuit in the far north—are for conservation purposes so that time, energy, and wildlife are...not sufficiently covered by law in terms of recognition of those traditional activities—perhaps even to the point that the lawmakers do not understood them well.

For that reason, we made a sincere attempt to move an amendment such that an Aboriginal person, if charged, would at least have a reasonable defence to rely on. We do not have many provisions in law that are clearly made for Aboriginal people to protect themselves...

Thus spoke an aboriginal member of the other place, appointed because of his special knowledge by this government. What the government is proposing in this motion is to strike away one of the few specific protections that our colleague Charlie Watt, in the other place, has just referred to.

The government is arguing in its rejection of the amendment that there is no clarity as to what traditional practices are in the criminal law context and that the police would be confused in laying charges. We all know that training has been provided to police in other cases of complicated legislation regarding, for example, organized crime and law enforcement.

Justice Canada could easily offer to train police officers in cultural awareness of traditional aboriginal activities. It would not be a big challenge. It would not have to train officers in Toronto, or Vancouver, or Montreal, or Winnipeg or Calgary where no one claims an aboriginal right to hunt. The choice is simple. Do we train a few officers or do we impose an unfair burden on whole populations of aboriginal hunters?

The fourth amendment was to restore the element of colour of right that is currently applicable to criminal property offences.

The amendment put forward by the other place stipulated, and I quote:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under this Part where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse or with colour of right.

This seemingly complex defence is defined as follows: in R. v. Watson, the Newfoundland Court of Appeal said, in 1999, that the colour of right is the honest belief in a state of facts or law which, if it existed, would deny the existence of a guilty intent to commit a crime, meaning mens rea .

That is currently stipulated in section 429(2) of the Criminal Code.

Up until last June, the justice minister had rejected this amendment, arguing that it would reverse the onus of proof and require the accused to prove his or her innocence beyond the balance of probabilities.

In the Watson case, both parties had agreed that the colour of right would not call for a reverse onus.

However, in its second message to the House of Commons, the other place decided to reintroduce its amendment, since the members of its Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs had agreed that the phrase “to the extent that they are relevant” was a pointless and unjustified attempt to limit the colour of right, which could eventually hurt some defendants or lead to unjustified convictions.

Members of the other place have debated this issue thoroughly. We should very seriously consider accepting those amendments. We should not provoke an unnecessary fight between chambers over these measures simply because their common sense and good judgment disagrees with the drafter's preferred by the government of the day. It is not often that the other chamber insists on its amendments, and we should consider carefully the reasons why it has done so today.

Canadians want improved legislation to deal with cruelty to animals. This type of legislation has broad ramifications and the Senate amendments clearly improve the bill, providing a balance between protecting animals and protecting the livelihood of Canadians. We should accept these amendments and get this legislation working to deal with genuine cases of cruel treatment of animals.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, here we are speaking to Bill C-10B. Of course, the first speech I made on Bill C-15B established that we had proposed a number of amendments, unfortunately rejected at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Fortunately, however—and it is rare for those of us this side to be able to say this—the Senate accepted the Bloc Quebecois amendments. As a result, it has been made possible at last to include the definitions of subsection 429(2) of the Criminal Code in this bill.

At last, all industries involved with animals, whether research, hunting or any other, now have a legitimate excuse to do what they have always done, while being totally secure about their dealings with animals.

This, as hon. members are aware, was necessary. In this connection, we congratulate the government for the progress made, despite the length of this process, to achieve the goal of animal protection. There will now be a new section in the Criminal Code. Animals will be struck off one section in which they were considered things. At last there is a section specifically on animals: 5.1.

It is not enough simply to look at what kind of a case an attorney might make. The definition of cruelty to animals was spelled out in a section. But now, there are legitimate means and especially means of defence under section 8 that are common law defences. It is in fact an explicit defence that is set out in the current legislation for anything regarding means of defence provided in section 429(2).

I commend the committee. Unfortunately, I could not attend all the committee meetings. At first, the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights agreed with us on the amendments and the concept of having explicit defences.

As I said earlier, I do not understand why this was rejected. Unfortunately, I was not at the committee. What made the committee members change their minds on including these explicit defences? Was it the evidence they had already heard or the evidence from animal industry people who appeared before the Senate committee and are probably the same people who expressed their concerns at the House committee?

It was simple. If the Bloc amendments and my amendments had been accepted, Bill C-15B would already be passed. All this is a waste of time. Fortunately, the bill will be passed as desired.

I have a lot more respect for the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, because they openly said they were concerned the bill would not be explicit. It was based on a manner of saying that implicitly, there are defences. But it was clear in the section that explicit defences were being provided.

The legislator does not talk needlessly. If something is included in this section and was not consistent with section 8 of the common law, then the legislator was not talking needlessly. I have a hard time understanding why my colleagues voted against these amendments in the end. They said that section 8 of the common law applied implicitly. That is true, but why were defences included that are specific to section 429?

I tried to get explanations through the questions I was able to put to witnesses, who shared my concern. Fortunately, today, while the result is not ideal—the Senate did not include all the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois—but the cornerstone, the most important aspect, that is the defence under section 429, was taken into account.

I must add that the Bloc Quebecois has supported from the start the creation of a new section 5.1 to protect animals and prohibit cruelty against animals.

I want to come back to committee work. Early on, we heard between 20 and 30 witnesses, who told us various things. They said they too wanted tougher penalties for cruelty in order to protect the animals. But what the husbandry industry wants most of all is the assurance that all they have been doing all those years will continue to be considered as defences. Naturally, these defences may be common law defences under section 8, but also be defences under subsection 429(2).

Witnesses answered our questions. A concern was expressed. If implicitly there were protected, why have wasted all these months before finally understanding? The government finally understood that, with respect to the rights explicitly provided for in the Criminal Code, no amendment was put forward to take them away, but to include them. We must realize that if the provisions concerning animals are moved to a new and separate section 5.1, I think it is clear and obvious that they have to be included.

I would be curious to know whether this was achieved through lobbying or if someone finally realized that implicitly and explicitly is not the same thing.

If today it is explicitly provided for under section 429, the credit goes to the Bloc Quebecois and myself, as the member for Châteauguay. I fought long and hard in committee to put that point across. Clause by clause, I took the time to explain that these amendments were necessary. Why were they rejected? That is incredible.

Today we are obliged to revisit this important bill, now amended, as it might have been earlier. That is why I mentioned the work of the committee. That work is interesting while one is doing it. When it comes to the clause by clause study, all the effort by the witnesses who came to make things clear and explicit is swept aside.

Some of the hon. members only attend for the votes and do not even listen to the witnesses. Why is that? Because they come to vote unanimously along the party line. But in this case, the party line was faulty. We can see that today.

By way of the Senate, this House is now ready to accept my amendments, including the very cornerstone.

How is it possible that these same hon. members, who are sitting today on the same committee, have gone back in time to when the bill was introduced, and now they have changed their minds? All the explanations have been given once or twice. During clause by clause study, these amendments were presented as well.

There was some logic. I recall the Minister of Justice of whom I asked questions on several occasions. He would rise and say, “To the hon. member for Châteauguay, I say it is implicit; the animal industry, the hunters, researchers, all the people concerned will be able to continue in the same way”. That was the minister's response.

But I prefer the response the minister is giving me now, because now it is clear. We will not be obliged to use section 8, the common law provision. It can be done using specific defences and it is sometimes necessary to use this article; that is obvious.

Still, in other specific cases, section 8 would not have made it possible to arrive at the same result. Luckily, section 429 will finally be included in the new section. Why is it important to include it explicitly?

First, it will ensure the support of the Bloc Quebecois, because this is a very important bill. We must protect these animals. We have all seen films of puppy and kitten mills, and the harm that can be done to animals. Unfortunately, we were in an uncomfortable situation. We supported the principle of amending the Criminal Code in order to provide for harsher penalties and to include a new section.

However, due to the government's stubbornness, we were forced to vote against it. Then, we were forced to tell our constituents exactly why we had done so.

During the speeches, people said, “Yes, you support the amendment and animal protection and the imposition of stiffer penalties. But why did you vote against the bill at that time?”

When we met people, we realized that even lobbyists for animal rights groups understood the amendments we wanted to make. The government wanted to do even more than people were asking it to do. The goal was to stop such cruelty. People came to my office and told me, “Sir, we agree with your amendments. People must realize that the entire House could vote in favour of such important legislation”.

I never understood why, but there was an underhanded attempt to hurt the animal industry. I am pleased that lobby groups got involved, not just those wanting to protect animals from such cruelty. The entire animal industry, including producers and breeders, also wants to protect the animals.

They came to give evidence and said, “Of course we want people who are cruel to animals to be punished”. People who are cruel to animals do not need protection. People sometimes know of a cruel neighbour but, because of this neighbour, the entire industry is perceived as being cruel to animals. Sometimes, the animals are raised, taken to slaughter and killed for food.

They were put in a situation where a group of individuals or a slightly zealous crown attorney could have brought charges against the animal industry, because the new legislation was flawed. There were no provisions to protect that industry.

It was simply and implicitly told, “You have the right to these means of defence”. In Canada and Quebec, what would happen to researchers using rats and mice. There is a need, however, for this, and standards were established to ensure that animals do not suffer. This industry has strict standards and it respects them.

These people could end up facing prosecution. Why? Because of a poorly drafted piece of legislation which was missing a crucial element, namely providing specifically for these rights of defence.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to these issues again, even though it should have been done earlier. I want to say a word about the power of those people who come to testify before a committee. This shows how important it is to come and meet the members to make them aware of various specific aspects. Those who came before our committee know a lot more about animals than the 301 members do. There are perhaps some members in the House who work with animals, but they are not the majority. I am not one of them since I am a lawyer. I do not know a lot about animals, but I do want to protect them.

We obviously need a solid piece of legislation. Now, with more specific provisions regarding the rights of defence, attorneys will have more forceful arguments when they go to court because the rights of defence are specified. Prosecutions will then focus on those people who really are cruel to animals. This important bill has more teeth. It provides for stiff fines and possible imprisonment. It also provides for follow-up.

This raises awareness, especially if such a bill has the unanimous support of the House.

I heard my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance say that they were against this bill, just as I did when it was not clear enough. I want to remind my Alliance and Bloc colleagues of the work that was done to vote against this bill when it was poorly drafted. However, I supported this particular aspect because it was important for the animal industry throughout Canada and throughout Quebec. I now hope that government members understand that.

On such a technical issue, that was the way to go. It was up to the members of the committee not only to talk to the justice minister but to make their colleagues understand how crucial this was. Surely there are members who represent rural regions where animal industries can be found or urban areas where research companies, pharmaceuticals companies and other companies using animals for research purposes or simply for providing food are doing business. Hunters should not be forgotten either. These people have rights, and not only vested rights. We should avoid referring only to “vested rights”. In a society like ours, in 2003 and soon 2004, we have to be able to say that cruelty to animals is now prohibited.

Why should this bill now be agreed to by everyone? Why should it be unanimously passed in the House? Because the implicit defences are now explicitly recognized. The time has come to send a clear message to everyone. I know that the animal industry will now support this bill, just like the Bloc Quebecois and hopefully the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party.

The House should overwhelmingly support this bill in order to send a clear message to the public. Cruelty to animals is over. I hope that the penalties will be tough enough and that we will have the money to fully prosecute lawbreakers.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for giving us a wonderful legal speech, including legalese galore. One has to really think hard about some of these things, especially when one says that if killing is done without unnecessary pain, then it is done without unnecessary pain. That is awfully close to circular reasoning, but I guess that is what lawyers do in court and that is one of the things that is necessary to make our legal system work.

I would like to comment on Bill C-10B, cruelty to animals. In general it would be fair to say that the purpose of any such law would be to prevent the abuse of animals, the infliction of unnecessary pain, in fact to assure the humane treatment of animals in all instances. On the other hand, it should also serve to protect people who use animals in normal everyday living and they should hopefully, by our laws, be prevented from being continually dragged into the courts and having to defend themselves against practices which are judged by some others to be cruel, yet they are practices which have been used for many years.

I think for example back when I was a youngster. I know that probably, Madam Speaker, you tire of my stories from my youth, but we did among other things have animals on the farm, obviously. We had cows, pigs, horses, sheep, chickens and on occasion we had geese. Without those animals in those years, we would not have been able to live. They provided us with, in some case, the bare necessities of life, including food and other things.

I remember very fondly, even though at that time there were no laws that governed this, my dad particularly was very careful that we treated our animals with respect. We did not treat them as if they were humans, by no means, but we treated them in such a way that they did not have to endure unnecessary pain.

I know occasionally animals, especially large animals like cows, have to be dealt with rather harshly because they have to be controlled to prevent human lives in the barn from risk. I know for example that when we had bulls on the farm, they always had rings in their noses. When we took the bull out, we had a rope around his neck but we also had a rope through that ring. If he misbehaved, then there would be a tug on the ring on the nose. It was a very good persuader. He always followed us exactly the way he was supposed to because he wanted to avoid that pain.

Now the question is, is it painful to have a ring in the nose of an animal? Is that cruel? Should a person go to jail if he does that or be fined? I say that is much to be preferred to having one of the children in the family, of which I was one, suffer injury or death. We had to do these things to control these animals. Of course, once they are trained, they behave reasonably well and normally we do not have to take these extraordinary efforts.

It would be a tough sell to say that having a ring through one's nose is an act of cruelty because all we have to do is go down to the mall nowadays and we will see many teenagers and even older with rings in their noses and, dare I say it, in a whole bunch of other places, which really boggles the mind in my view, but then I guess I am a little old fashioned.

In any case it is very important that we continue to permit those who deal in animal husbandry to do so without fear of being prosecuted and to have to spend a lot of time in court and a lot of money on lawyers.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the debate on the message from the other place insisting on further amendments to Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).

Let me remind the House that we have been on a long journey with this bill. Animal cruelty amendments were originally introduced in 1999 in Bill C-7, a small omnibus criminal law amendment bill.

Bill C-17 died on the Order Paper when Parliament prorogued in 2000 without having completed second reading.

In March 2001 the government introduced Bill C-15, a new and larger omnibus criminal law bill containing the animal cruelty amendments. Some revisions had been made to the amendments to clarify the scope and the intent of the measures. Subsequently, the House split Bill C-15 in 2001 and the animal cruelty amendments and other amendments became known as Bill C-15B. The House passed Bill C-15B in June 2002. It died again when Parliament prorogued that summer.

In October 2002 the bill was reintroduced as Bill C-10 and referred directly to the other place. In November the other place referred Bill C-10 to the committee on legal and constitutional affairs with an instruction to split the bill into two portions. The animal cruelty amendments became known as Bill C-10B.

Committee hearings in the other place commenced in early December 2002 and concluded on May 15, 2003. Bill C-10B then received third reading and was passed in the other place on May 29, with five amendments.

The House debated the amendments on June 6, 2003. The House accepted the amendment to the definition of animal and a small technical amendment to the French version of the bill.

It also accepted the spirit of the amendment that made express reference to the defences of legal justification, excuse and colour of right, with a modification that removed an unconstitutional reverse onus and cross-referenced the currently applicable subsection 429(2) instead of reproducing the defences because this more clearly would indicate to the courts that existing case law should continue to apply to this new regime.

However, the House rejected the other two amendments that came from the other place. One of these was an amendment that would have replaced the offence of killing an animal without lawful excuse with the offence of causing unnecessary death to an animal. The other amendment was one that would have provided an express defence for aboriginal practices that do not cause more pain than is necessary. Both amendments were rejected on the grounds that, first, they were legally unnecessary; second, they were confusing; and third, had unclear legal effect.

The House urged the other place to pass the bill in the form in which the House approved it. A message was sent to the other place to acquaint them with the position of the House.

The other place considered that message and we are now in receipt of its response. The other place is insisting on the two amendments that the House rejected, with a small revision to the aboriginal defence amendment, and would further modify the legal justification, excuse and colour of right amendment adopted by the House.

The government's motion before us today makes clear that the government does not support the amendments that the other place is insisting upon. The House rejected two of them in June and continues to oppose them. As for the proposed change to the colour of right amendment, the government opposes that as well.

These animal cruelty amendments have been before Parliament in one form or another for nearly four years. A lot of hard work and discussions have taken place over that time between the government, and various individuals and groups concerned with the legislation.

In an effort to clarify the law as much as possible, even if the clarification was not required as a matter of law, the legislation has been amended three times already since it was first introduced in 1999.

In the view of the government, the form of the bill passed by the House in June satisfies the remaining concern of the stakeholders that have followed the progress of the legislation. It constitutes a compromise that strikes the correct balance between clarifying the law as it applies to animal industries without diluting the purpose and effect of the legislation.

With the participation of the other place, this hard work and compromise has brought the bill to a form that animal welfare groups on the one side and animal industry groups on the other side can all support.

In short, it seems that no one is asking for these additional changes that the other place is insisting on. The other place may think they are crucial, but this House does not, nor do any of the organizations that represent the people who work with animals.

Let me address each of the amendments in turn. The first amendment would replace the offence of killing an animal without a lawful excuse with the new offence of causing unnecessary death to an animal.

The government is of the view that the defence of lawful excuse is a well developed and well understood defence. The courts have interpreted on many occasions that it is a flexible, broad defence that is commonly employed in the Criminal Code of Canada. It is fairly and consistently applied by courts.

More importantly, since 1953, this defence has been applicable to the offence of killing animals that are kept for lawful purpose. It has a history in the context of animal cruelty offences.

The government is convinced and satisfied that the defence of lawful excuse offers adequate and unambiguous protection for lawful purposes for killing animals. No witnesses who testified at the committee of this House or of the other place testified that this defence was unclear or unsatisfactory.

For all of these reasons the government remains convinced that maintaining the defence of lawful excuse in relation to offences for killing animals continues to be the best and most appropriate manner of safeguarding the legality of purposes for which animals are commonly killed.

Further, the government does not believe that the proposal of the other place would improve the law. In fact, it is likely that the proposal would actually give rise to confusion and uncertainty. The proposal would use the term “unnecessary” to apply to killings, but the term “unnecessary” as it has been judicially interpreted does not logically apply to the act of killing. “Unnecessary” is currently only applicable to the acts of causing pain, suffering or injury. It has two main elements: first, a lawful purpose for interacting with an animal; and second, a requirement to use reasonable and proportionate means when accomplishing this objective.

It is clear that in terms of the act of killing only the first part of the test for “unnecessary” is relevant and logically applicable. The question is, was there a lawful purpose? To ask the question about reasonable means makes no sense. It is not a qualitative assessment but rather a yes or no question about whether there was a good reason for the killing. This is why the defence of lawful excuse works and the concept of “unnecessary” does not.

It is currently an offence to kill an animal without a lawful excuse. It is also an offence to kill an animal with a lawful excuse but in a manner that causes it unnecessary pain. These are currently two distinct and separate offences.

The proposal would fold the elements of these two different offences into each other. This could lead to a reinterpretation of the well developed test of “unnecessary”. In short, this will add confusion rather than clarity to the law. For these reasons the government does not accept this amendment.

With respect to the second amendment, the amendment which would create a defence for traditional aboriginal practices, the government does recognize that a small change was made that removed an element that was overly broad. The amendment would create a defence for traditional aboriginal practices that cause no more pain than is reasonably necessary. The government agrees that this should indeed be the case and in fact already is the case. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary.

By virtue of the way the offence is defined, it is already the law that aboriginal practices, that cause no more pain than is reasonably necessary, are not currently offences. If we cause no more pain than is reasonably necessary, we are not causing unnecessary pain, which is what the offence requires. If we are not committing an offence, we do not need a defence. Nothing in Bill C-10B will change this.

The government believes that the existing law and the bill, without the new and special defence, already achieve the objective sought by the other place.

There is no need to mention aboriginal practices specifically. The law is already flexible enough to consider all situations and contexts. In addition, by adding a new and special defence for aboriginal practices when one is not necessary, this proposal could unintentionally create mischief.

It is confusing to create a defence for actions that are not a crime. The government does not believe that the law would be improved by creating a defence that is legally unnecessary and has the potential to confuse rather than clarify the interpretation of the offences.

The final proposed amendment in the message from the other place relates to the defences of legal justification, excuse and colour of right set out in subsection 429(2). The proposal would remove the phrase “to the extent that they are relevant” from the amendment that was passed by this House in June. The government believes that these words are helpful and should remain.

The defences in subsection 429(2) of the Criminal Code apply to a variety of different offences, including animal cruelty. The inclusion of the phrase “to the extent that they are relevant” is intended to signal to the courts that the existing manner of applying those defences to animal cruelty offences should not change. It makes clear that the intention is to maintain the status quo, not to alter it.

The words are clear and not capable of being misunderstood. The defences are available in any and all cases where they are relevant. The relevance of a defence to a particular case depends on the specific circumstances and the facts of that case. The phrase guarantees an accused access to these defences when they are relevant. It does not limit or otherwise take away a defence that could be raised.

There can be no possible unfairness to an accused person to be denied a defence that is not relevant. That is just common sense. For these reasons, the government does not agree with the amended amendment proposed by the other place.

The government would once again like to thank the other place for giving Bill C-10B such thorough consideration and attention, but the government believes that the time has come to pass Bill C-10B in the form this House approved in June.

This bill already safeguards humane and reasonable practices involving animals and has the support of groups representing hunters, farmers, fishers, animal researchers, and those representing the welfare of animals. There is a tremendous degree of consensus now and a strong desire on the part of these organizations and hundreds of thousands of Canadians to see the bill become law.

I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of the government's message which rejects any further amendments and requests that the other place pass Bill C-10B as quickly as possible.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that, with respect to Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), this House continues to disagree with the Senate's insistence on amendment numbered 2 and disagrees with the Senate's amendments numbered 3 and 4. This House notes that there is agreement in both Houses on the need for cruelty to animals legislation to continue to recognize reasonable and generally accepted practices involving animals. After careful consideration, this House remains convinced that the Bill should be passed in the form it approved on June 6, 2003.

(1) This House does not agree with the amendment numbered 2 (replace “kills without lawful excuse” with “causes unnecessary death”), on which the Senate is insisting. This House is of the view that the defence of “without lawful excuse” has been interpreted by the case law as a flexible, broad defence that is commonly employed in the Criminal Code of Canada. It has been the subject of interpretation by Courts for many years, and is now well understood and fairly and consistently applied by courts in criminal trials. This defence has a longstanding presence in the Criminal Code, including being available since 1953 for the offence of killing animals that are kept for a lawful purpose. The House is convinced that the defence of “lawful excuse” offers clear and sufficient protection for lawful purposes for killing animals. There are no authorities that suggest that this defence is unclear or does not cover the range of situations to which it is meant to apply. For all of these reasons, this House remains convinced that maintaining the defence of “lawful excuse” in relation to offences for killing animals continues to be the best and most appropriate manner of safeguarding the legality of purposes for which animals are commonly killed.

The House disagrees with the Senate that the proposed amendment would provide better protection for legitimate activities. The House is of the view that the amendment would not bring any added clarity, and would give rise to confusion. The term “unnecessary” has been judicially interpreted to comprise two main components: (a) a lawful purpose for interacting with an animal, and (b) a requirement to use reasonable and proportionate means of accomplishing the objective (i.e. choice of means that do not cause avoidable pain). Only the first part of the legal test for “unnecessary” is relevant to offences of killing, namely whether there is a lawful purpose. It has been the law for many decades that persons who kill an animal without a lawful excuse are guilty of an offence. It has also been the law since 1953 that if they kill the animal with a lawful excuse, but in the course of doing so cause unnecessary pain, they are guilty of a second, separate offence. To collapse the elements of these two different offences into one will invite a re-interpretation of the well-developed test of “unnecessary” and will add confusion, rather than clarity, to the law.

(2) This House does not agree with the modified version of amendment numbered 3 (creating a defence for traditional aboriginal practices), on which the Senate is insisting. This House appreciates the recent clarification of an ambiguous component of the amendment, and agrees with the Senate that traditional aboriginal practices that cause “no more pain than is reasonably necessary” should be lawful. However, this House does not agree that the proposed amendment is necessary. Aboriginal practices that do not cause unnecessary pain are not currently offences and will not become offences under the Bill. This House believes that the Bill, as worded, already achieves the objective sought by the Senate.

This House remains convinced that creating a defence for this purpose is not legally necessary and may create unintended mischief. Any act that has a legitimate purpose and does not cause unnecessary pain does not fall within the definition of the crime, and cannot be the subject of an offence. A defence only applies where the conduct actually falls within the definition of the crime and is excused for other reasons. It is illogical and confusing to create a defence for actions that do not constitute a crime. More specifically, as causing unnecessary pain is not a crime, it is not meaningful to create a defence for Aboriginal persons who cause no more pain than is reasonably necessary. In addition, there is no need to mention aboriginal practices specifically; the law is already flexible enough to consider all fact situations and contexts.

The House remains convinced that the wording and effect of the amendment are ambiguous and unclear. For example, there is no clarity as to what “traditional practices” are in the criminal law context and whether there is sufficient clarity to guide the police in their law enforcement duties. In the absence of a demonstrated need for clarification in the law, this amendment could also create mischief by generating a different test for liability for Aboriginal persons. This House does not believe that the law would be improved by creating a defence that is legally unnecessary and has the potential to confuse, rather than clarify, the interpretation of the offences.

(3) This House does not agree with the amended version of amendment numbered 4 (the defences in subsection 429(2)). The defences of legal justification, excuse and colour of right set out in subsection 429(2) of the Criminal Code are applicable to a multitude of different kinds of offences including offences of animal cruelty. The defences apply differently depending on the elements of the offence under consideration. The phrase “to the extent that they are relevant” is included to indicate to the courts that the Bill is not intended to change the defences that are currently relevant to animal cruelty offences, or the way that they apply. It makes clear that the intention is to maintain the current availability and interpretation of defences, and not to alter it. This phrase sends a clear message to the courts that in any and all cases where the defences are currently relevant, they continue to be. Whether a particular defence is relevant will depend on the specific circumstance of each case. The phrase guarantees an accused access to these defences when they are relevant; it does not in any way limit access to defences that are relevant on the facts of the case. For these reasons, the House does not agree with the amended amendment proposed by the Senate.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across is a little impatient with his future holidays. He will probably have to wait some time.

This afternoon we will continue to debate second reading of Bill C-48, the natural resources taxation bill. I understand that the bill is nearing completion.

When it is complete, we will then debate Bill C-50, the veterans' benefits bill sponsored by my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, followed by the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-10B, the cruelty to animal bill.

If time is left, we would deal with third reading of Bill C-17, the public safety bill, and second reading of Bill C-46, the market fraud bill.

In the unlikely event that we do not complete all of that this afternoon, on Friday we would begin with a reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-41, the amendments and corrections bill. The opposition House leader and I have had a brief conversation about this

We would then proceed with Bill C-37, respecting improvements to Canadian Forces pension benefits.

We will then return to any bills already mentioned today in the unlikely event that some of them are not fully completed.

On Monday, we would begin with Bill C-17, the public safety bill, and then return to the list previously described.

Tuesday, September 30, and Thursday, October 2, shall both be allotted days.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

June 11, 2003

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Ian Binnie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 11th day of June, 2003, at 8:25 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Uteck

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Chapter 9; and Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act,Chapter 10.

Petitions

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the other petition originated in my riding of Nanaimo--Alberni. There are about 2,500 signatures from residents of my riding who are particularly concerned about animal cruelty.

There have been some very nasty and very tragic animal abuse cases and the petitioners are rightly indignant. They call upon the House to enforce harsher penalties to ensure the prevention of cruelty to animals. The amendment from the Senate on Bill C-10 should make it possible to get the legislation passed.

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)

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

Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague will find is that I am in support of the changes that were made. The process, I would agree, was a derivation and has set a dangerous precedent. In fact, we made that argument in both Houses. We argued here and in the Senate that this was not how the matter should have proceeded.

It does reflect a need for respect of the practices of the House of Commons. I am afraid that we are often on a slippery slope when we start to take this type of cavalier approach.

The end product, the legislation itself, has been improved. The way we went about doing that, in accepting the unprecedented move that was made in the other place to divide this bill, is more a reflection on the Department of Justice and the presentation in the improper form in the first instance.

What occurred here, the hon. member will know, is that the bill was receiving incredible internal criticism from the Liberal government, and it had proceeded to such a point where it could not pull it back, or at least it chose not to for reasons of expediency. Therefore the changes that should have been made in this chamber in the first instance did not occur.

What was happening was that there were provisions in Bill C-10 that related particularly to the Firearms Act, and there were deadlines looming. What the government had to do then was take this unprecedented move and divide the bill in the other place so that it could carve out the sections of the Firearms Act to meet looming deadlines, arbitrary as they were, and try to foster this feeling of legitimacy of the Firearms Act itself.

We all know what has happened there of course. Six provinces have now opted out in terms of prosecuting and have thrown it back into the lap of the government. One billion dollars has been wasted and police across the country have been left in confusion with no further ability to benefit from this type of legislation because, as we know, individuals will not participate in this to a large degree.

It creates a scenario where a dangerous precedent was set. This bill was improved but other legislation was left in a very flawed form, mainly the Firearms Act.

I agree with the member that what has happened here sets a dangerous precedent. This bill may be better but the firearms legislation remains a completely dangerous and improper act that should be repealed, and that has been the position of the Progressive Conservative Party for years.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to this issue. I want to explain first why it is that I am speaking to this issue.

For over five and a half years I was a full member of the justice committee and took a very active role in the issues of the justice committee. Having done that, I have always kept my eye out on the agenda of the justice committee so I could see what was going on in the justice committee, attend when I thought it was important, review the transcripts when I thought it was important and talk to my colleagues when I thought it was important.

When this particular bill in its original form came before the committee I was asked by the then chairman of the Liberal Party's rural caucus to attend the hearings, particularly because I am a lawyer and because I think that the then chair felt that I would take a look at this legislation in an objective manner.

I agreed to do that at the request of the then chairman and I did sit in on the committee hearings insofar as they pertained to Bill C-10. At that time it had two parts, namely the part respecting firearms and the part respecting the protection of animals. My remarks of course will be completely restricted to the part respecting the protection of animals.

As a member of the committee I was able to listen to evidence and to ask questions with respect to the evidence that we heard. We heard a lot of compelling evidence from a lot of people on different sides of the issue.

What was common to all people was that everyone wanted to make sure that animals were protected from unnecessary and cruel pain. I doubt very much if anyone in Canada would argue that it is perfectly acceptable to inflict purposeful pain on an animal.

However numerous legal issues had to be dealt with in respect of the provisions of Bill C-10 which dealt with the protection of animals. I want to mention a couple of the things that occurred while I was sitting on that committee and while I was reporting to the then chair of the Liberal Party rural caucus.

After listening to all the evidence we were talking about various amendments that might be able to go through. In late 2001, I wrote to the then parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice setting forth some friendly suggestions that I had to amend the bill to make it better, make it stronger, make it able to more easily protect animals while at the same time not being assailed by people because they thought it was somehow affecting their day to day livelihoods.

I just want to discuss a couple of the amendments that I suggested at that time. I will turn my attention to the very beginning of the bill. The bill in its form as passed by the House of Commons defined animal. It defined animal to mean “a vertebrate other than a human being and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain”.

We heard compelling testimony from organizations such as the Poultry Welfare Coalition, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, among others. A couple of those briefs made some recommendations to leave out that portion which said “any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain”, for a variety of reasons, including that there was no scientific unanimity on what animals have the capacity to feel pain, and that it would not be fair to litigate this ad nauseam in the courts with the attendant legal costs of calling scientific experts.

I recommended to the parliamentary secretary at that time that that particular definition be amended in the following way: “In this part, animal means a vertebrate other than a human being, whether privately owned or otherwise, which is hereby deemed to need protection from cruelty because it feels pain”.

The reason I did that was because those who were advocating changes wanted to link the concept of the protection of animals to the fact that they feel pain. I had no problem with that.

The point of my amendment was to say that vertebrates feel pain and obviously my amendment did not include animals that have the capacity to feel pain or may have the capacity to feel pain but are not vertebrates.

Interestingly enough, the bureaucracy at that time rejected that amendment outright. Lo and behold, the Senate held its hearings. What did it recommend as an amendment to the definition? It recommended that animal be defined as a vertebrate other than a human being. In effect, that is exactly what I recommended to the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice and exactly what was rejected by the minister of justice at the end of 2001.

The Senate decided that the definition of animal should be limited to a vertebrate other than a human being. I applaud it for that for the reasons that I suggested that the amendment should proceed.

I see that the Minister of Justice now has moved a motion which reads:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House agrees with amendments numbered 1 and 5 made by the Senate to Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code....

In fact, the Minister of Justice has now accepted an amendment which is exactly what I proposed at the end of 2001 and which was rejected. It just shows how ridiculously this place works. It is a shame that in many instances the bureaucracy cannot conceive of the fact that anybody but the bureaucracy can come up with an idea or with a suggested amendment that actually might make the bill better.

I am pleased to see that the Senate made the definition of animal to be that of a vertebrate other than a human being. I am glad to see that the Minister of Justice has finally seen the light and has agreed to that amendment years after I suggested it.

I have a second thing I want to talk about. I note that they are agreeing to some suggested amendments in the French version, and I have no comments on that. I do, however, want to comment on an amendment the Senate suggested to add to section 182.5.

The bill as passed had in it a protection, shall we say, of common law defences and the section as it passed reads as follows:

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

The document I am looking at is a document that says “Bill C-10B as passed by the House of Commons, October 9, 2002”.

Section 182.5 referred to subsection 8(3) of the Criminal Code. If we go to subsection 8(3) of the Criminal Code we see that it states the following:

Every rule and principle of the common law that renders any circumstance a justification or excuse for an act or a defence to a charge continues in force and applies in respect of proceedings for an offence under this Act or any other Act--

In other words, it is carrying on common law justifications or excuses. The debate at the time had to do with whether that was specific enough to allow the legal justification for the act, or that there was colour of right to do the act. Certain recommendations were made but they were rejected by the government to, shall we say, specifically state what the situation was.

I recommended to the parliamentary secretary that section 182.3 be amended in line 12, at that time, by adding “negligently or with legal justification, excuse or colour of right”. Why? To specifically remind people that legal justification or excuse or colour of right defences were allowed. The government said no.

Now the Senate has recommended that section 182.5 be amended to read as follows:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under this Part where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse or with colour of right.

Those were virtually my words at the end of November 2001. Obviously, since I agreed with them at that time, I agree with them now. The Senate was right in making this suggested amendment.

What does the government say with respect to this suggested amendment? It is interesting because the government agrees with the principle set out in amendment numbered 4, “namely, the desire to reassure Canadians that no defences are lost, but, because the wording of the amendment would codify a reverse onus by requiring an accused person to prove his or her innocence on a balance of probabilities”. The government thinks the latter is a bad idea and it proposes an amendment to replace section 182.5 with the following:

For greater certainty, the defences set out in subsection 429(2) apply, to the extent that they are relevant, in respect of proceedings for an offence under this Part.

I know I am talking legal jargon, but what does this mean? The Senate wanted to ensure that the defences of legal justification or excuse or with colour of right remain. Yes, the amendment does say “where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right”, and yes, that does put an onus on the defendant. The government, in its response, says that it agrees with the sentiment but not with the exact amendment of the Senate because it puts a reverse onus on the defendant.

If we look at the amendment proposed by the government, which no longer refers to subsection 8(3) of the Criminal Code but rather refers to subsection 429(2) of the Criminal Code, subsection 429(2) of the Criminal Code says:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 446 where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

The government is proposing an amendment to put in the defences in subsection 429(2) because the Senate amendment reverses the onus and requires the defendant to prove this, yet the very section that the government is quoting to prevent this reverse onus calls for a reverse onus and requires that the defendant prove that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

I suggest that indeed the so-called problem that the Minister of Justice observed, which was the reverse onus problem, has not been solved by the government's proposed amendment because it has merely quoted subsection 429(2) of the Criminal Code which calls for a reverse onus on the defendant. While one possibly might agree with the government's rationale for not agreeing with the Senate amendment, the government's proposed resolution does not resolve it. In fact, it maintains the reverse onus on the defendant. I do not know what was going on when these responses were being prepared to the Senate's message, but I think somebody goofed.

I know that after fourteen and a half years I have become very cynical about this place and about how much ordinary members of Parliament are listened to, and in particular how much ordinary members of Parliament are listened to by the bureaucracy, which I dare say in my view is just about never.

I implore justice department officials to look at subsection 429(2), which clearly calls for a reverse onus on the defendant. How can they quote in their suggested amendment to protect against the reverse onus on a defendant a section which requires a reverse onus? It simply does not make logical sense. I am urging the government to look at that and thereby leave the amendment the way the Senate proposed the amendment. There is nothing wrong with the proposal that the Senate has put forward.

The final point I want to make about the Senate amendments concerns the third amendment. The Senate proposed in a particular section that a clause be added which reads as follows:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under paragraph (1)(a) if the pain, suffering, injury or death is caused in the course of traditional hunting, trapping or fishing practices carried out by a person who is one of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada in any area in which Aboriginal peoples have harvesting rights under or by virtue of existing aboriginal or treaty rights within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and any pain, suffering or injury caused is no more than is reasonably necessary in the carrying out of those traditional practices

The clear intent of that amendment is to protect the traditions of our aboriginal peoples. I want to give two potential examples. Suppose aboriginal people go out to hunt caribou and choose for reasons best known to them to use a spear or bow and arrow as opposed to a high powered hunting rifle. Suppose that the arrow hits its mark but does not kill the caribou immediately. That caribou may, obviously in pain, travel across the tundra for some period of time with the hunter following it until it drops and dies. That example has been the way of life of the aboriginal people since time immemorial. They are afraid that the bill might cause someone to be charged for inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on such an animal.

Let us take another example. A trapline is set for a beaver and it gets caught in the trap. It can either chew its foot off, which would be terribly painful, or starve to death or die of thirst in the trap because the hunter only visits the trapline once every week. Would that be chargeable? That is also something that has been done for millennia in different ways and I can see why the aboriginal peoples would be concerned that some overzealous person might lay a charge under these particular amendments.

This is clearly why this amendment is there. I do not care for different laws for different folks. All Canadians should be bound by the same laws, but if there were traditional rights or aboriginal rights that precede Canada, they would have to be honoured. I do not have a problem with that. What does the government say in response to this? The government says that it:

Disagrees with amendment numbered 3 because it is unclear and creates confusion about whether the intent is to create a different test for liability of aboriginal persons and because there is no clarity as to what “traditional practices” are and how law enforcement can be expected to act accordingly;

This is a ridiculous comment because the government says there is no definition of traditional practices, but we have countless examples in the House of the government amending the Criminal Code without defining certain words. I will not even bother getting into it because the history is well known, but it does not seem to trouble the government when it feels like it to put in amendments to the Criminal Code without defining certain words. Of course it would be up to the circumstances of each particular case to determine whether a particular aboriginal group had a pre-existing or section 35 or treaty right to do what it did if it were charged with cruelty to animals.

That must decided on a case by case basis. It clearly is dependent on the facts of the case. To say that we need a definition of certain words or to say that it is unclear in my view is simply disingenuous. I fully support the protection of animals from undue cruelty. I fully support Bill C-10 and the Senate amendments that I have mentioned do strengthen the bill and I support them.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, my intervention will be very brief but I do want to stand in the House to indicate my strong support for Bill C-10B in its original form, in the form in which it was adopted by the House and sent to the Senate, I believe, in October of last year.

We as New Democrats, certainly I, as the member of Parliament for Burnaby--Douglas, strongly supported the provisions of Bill C-10B, which was Bill C-10, that strengthened the protection of animals. I would note that the current provisions of the Criminal Code date back almost 100 years. The original code in fact dates back to over 100 years. The original code was enacted in 1892. The animal sections of the Criminal Code were written basically to protect working animals, such as cattle and horses. These sections have only had very minor changes over the course of the past 100 years.

Therefore the changes that were passed by the House last fall were long overdue. Some would say that the bill, even as it was finally adopted by the House, was already somewhat watered down in terms of the importance of protecting animals in Canada.

I want to say very clearly that what I believe the Senate has done to the bill, both in terms of splitting the bill and now sending it back to the House watered down, is totally unacceptable. We strongly reject the amendments that have been proposed by the Senate in a number of areas.

It seems to me that what the Senate has basically done is it has caved in to industry as opposed to standing up to protect animals in this country.

There have been a lot of misconceptions about what Bill C-10B actually does. For example, I would point out that Bill C-10B does not actually widen the scope of what is a criminal offence in terms of the definition of animal itself. Currently, under the existing provisions of the Criminal Code, there is no definition of an animal. Bill C-10B actually narrows it by incorporating a definition.

Theoretically today, and I emphasize theoretically, a person could attempt to bring a criminal charge against somebody for harming a fish, a worm or, as my friend from Nova Scotia suggested, for boiling a lobster. However the reality is that a crown prosecutor would never allow such a charge to proceed.

As well, it is very important that we finally move animals and the protection of animals out of the property section of the Criminal Code. This is very important. To some extent it does elevate the status of animals. I think that is long overdue. It has been clearly documented that there is a link between violence to animals and violence toward humans. It is highly appropriate to protect animals because they can suffer whether someone owns them or not. Therefore taking the animal protection provisions out of the property sections of the Criminal Code is a provision that we welcome.

However, like the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and many others, we reject strongly the attempt by the Senate to weaken the bill as it was passed by this House.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare has pointed out that every day in Canada an estimated 110 animals are abused or killed, and there are too many examples of terrible cruelty to animals that we must vigorously prosecute and condemn.

As I said, the existing provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to the protection of the rights of animals are hopelessly outdated. We believe that the Senate has abrogated its responsibility to Canadians, to listen to Canadians, the vast majority of Canadians, who want to strengthen the protection of animals in Canada. Instead, what it has done is it has watered down that protection. We say that is totally unacceptable.

I once again want to reiterate our strong support for effective and tough animal protection legislation. We want to see the legislation adopted in the form that it left the House in the first place. We think the Senate itself, as we have said for some time, should not exist as an unelected and unaccountable body. What better example of the abuse of that Senate power than the way in which it has dealt with Bill C-10B.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to finish my time in debate on Bill C-10B, the cruelty to animals legislation.

As hon. members know, the cruelty to animal legislation was sent from this House to the Senate. The Senate, in its wisdom, amended, improved and changed the legislation and sent it back to the House of Commons in a better and more correct form in my opinion.

In my previous comments on Bill C-10B, I explained a number of points to which the Progressive Conservative Party took great exception in the legislation and therefore found many reasons to put in amendments to try to improve the bill.

There is a need to improve the legislation. As I said earlier in debate, the legislation is over 100 years old. It is obviously time for the bill to be modernized to reflect the current views and opinions of people, and to reflect the current public attitude about animals.

Without question, we agree with parts of the bill. I do not have any difficulty outlining those parts.

For instance, we have absolutely no problem with that part of the bill that states that no one should wilfully poison an animal or leave bait out where an animal can get hold of it. It is against the law to in any manner encourage, promote, arrange, assist or receive money for the fighting or baiting of animals, including training an animal to fight another animal. That is the bear pits and the bull pits of medieval society, and we have come a long way since those days. It needs to be an illegal activity to build, maintain, keep or allow to be built, made, maintained or kept, a cock pit or any other arena for the fighting of animals on premises. We can see in the language that there is very clear legislation that prevents cock fighting, dog fighting, baiting of animals or the type of activity with which most members of society would not want to be associated in any way shape or form .

The other thing of course is that anyone who raises animals to be released and immediately shot is also doing so against the law. I think that has been changed slightly to allow people who raise pheasants on pheasant ranges to release the birds in the wild and then they can be hunted. I do not think the legislation is trying to persecute those individuals.

Proposed section 182.6 defines law enforcement animal, meaning a dog, a horse or any other animal used by a police officer or public officer in the execution of duty. Everyone commits an offence who wilfully or recklessly poisons, injures or kills a law enforcement animal while it is aiding or assisting a police officer or public officer engaged in the execution of their duties or a person acting in aid of such an officer.

That type of legislation and that type of amendment to the old act is important, and they are amendments that we would support in the Progressive Conservative Party. The basis of clause 2 to amend section 182.3 states:

(1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) negligently causes unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal;

(b) being the owner, or the person having the custody or control of an animal, wilfully or recklessly...

This is the key sentence “wilfully or recklessly”. It goes on to state:

--abandons it or negligently fails to provide suitable and adequate, food, water, air, shelter and care for it; or

(c) negligently injures an animal while it is being conveyed.

It goes on to define negligent as meaning departing markedly from the standard care that a person would use. I have absolutely no difficulty with that part of the legislation and I and the PC Party support it 100%.

Again I do take exception to clause 2 of Bill C-10B that amends subsections 182.2 (a) and (b) where it states, “causes or, being the owner, permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal”.

The difficulty is in the definition. We are not sure what that definition is. I have a great deal of difficulty in allowing people to subjectively decide from their background what that definition is, and in this case that subjective decision would be made by a judge.

When one looks at “kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed, brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately” as being a punishable offence, at first glance one would say that it should be an offence. However when one understands there is no real definition to “brutally” or “viciously”, it becomes much more difficult. What is a brutal and vicious act in the mind of one person may not be the same in the mind of another.

I know what it means to me, and I do not think I want to discuss that in public debate, but I do not know what it means to the government. Therefore, people who work in slaughterhouses, people whose livelihoods depend on processing animals, farmers, fishermen and hunters, have yet to see “brutally” and “viciously” described and thoroughly explained. I am concerned and worried about that.

There needs to be a clearer definition in the legislation. We all know what unnecessary pain is and we would agree with that. The rest of it is more subjective and very troublesome to this otherwise good piece of legislation.

Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals)

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning cruelty to animals.

As the Speaker is well aware, this is the second or perhaps even the third life of this bill. It was rammed through the House of Commons by the Liberal majority and sent off to the Senate.

I know there a lot of parties that do not approve of the Senate, think it is redundant and have some difficulty with the fact that our senators are not elected persons. However, if it were not for the Senate, this legislation would now be law. It was a flawed bill then, and the Senate improved it. There are still some instances where I certainly believe we could continue to improve upon.

However I would like to say, clearly and categorically, that if it were not for the Senate, we would be prosecuting and arresting people next week or next month for traditional practices that are not in any way, shape or form, cruel to animals. That is how bad the legislation was.

I would like to read part of an article from the May 30 Vancouver Sun . It states that:

The Senate on Thursday made major changes to the government's animal-cruelty legislation, prompted by concerns the legislation might enable unfair prosecutions of ordinary Canadians.

That is exactly why there was opposition to the legislation.

It went further and said:

The Senate will now send the legislation back to the Commons for reconsideration. Government representatives have said the federal government doesn't agree with the Senate's interpretation of the legislation.

We will see exactly what happens here.

I see the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans just came into the House. What the senators were most concerned with were the parts and provisions of Bill C-10B, which the minister himself voted for, that certainly may have been found cruel and would therefore be against the law, such as common fishing practices which we take for granted in the east and west coasts and the high arctic. The fact is that under the legislation I am doubtful if Canadians would have been able to boil a lobster. With the proposed changes they can. That is how poor the legislation was. However that did not matter. When the Liberals have it right, they simply line their boys and girls up, crack the whip two or three times and they mouth the words, as they stand and bow to the omnipresent Prime Minister, and push the legislation through.

It is an embarrassment that in the House of Commons a piece of legislation would leave this place in such poor condition that the Senate, with its limited powers, would have to amend it and send it back to us with a little note attached saying, “Try and get it right this time, guys. See if you can do it a little better. We're not against you. We're trying to work with you but see if you can get it right”.

The bill, as it existed in its previous form, would have found as punishable offences the traditional practices in the aboriginal community, the farming community and for people who practise animal husbandry. Traditional slaughtering practices of the Muslim and Jewish faiths would have been outlawed by the government.

It is unbelievable and inconceivable that this piece of legislation was passed by the House of Commons and sent to the Senate and had to be returned.

Although there are still some things which I think are problematic in the new legislation, it at least defines cruelty. There was some nebulous definition before. We could kind of put our finger on the centre of it but it just kept moving away from us. Now there is a clearer definition. There is one part that I am going to emphasize which I will come back to.

I will read the definition so the public understands exactly what it is we are talking about. Under proposed subsection 182.2(1) we have defined what cruelty is, or we are closer to defining what cruelty is. It states:

Every one commits an offence, who wilfully or recklessly--

We are starting to tighten up the language. Hopefully in the future the traditional farming practices will not be penalized. However the wording is that anyone who wilfully and recklessly, and I would add the word deservedly, should be prosecuted under the law.

The debate has never been about the fact that the legislation is 100 years old and it is time to modernize it. It is time to bring it into accordance with the morals, the mindset and the advances in thinking that have been made in the last 100 years.

The Liberals decided to ram this piece of legislation through the House, and ram it through the House they did, in one week in an unamended form.

The bill states:

Every one commits an offence, who wilfully or recklessly,

(a) causes or, being the owner, permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal;

(b) kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed, brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately--

I still take great umbrage to those two paragraphs. We are leaving the definition of “brutal” and “vicious” in the hands of some judge somewhere. Quite frankly we all may have various definitions for those two terms. I do not know what a judge may decide. I am not willing to second-guess the lives and livelihoods of farmers on this issue.

I was a farmer before my life in politics. I raised sheep. Out of 100 to 150 lambs that would run around the barnyard, it was guaranteed that one of them would find its way into the water tanks and would drown. It was guaranteed that one would get his head stuck in the fence, flip over and choke itself to death.

Does that mean the farmer should be held responsible and receive up to a $10,000 fine and five years in jail because somehow he was not there to prevent that from happening, even though he had put up the very best of fences, even though the animals were kept in the very best of conditions with lots of food and water? An accident can occur that is beyond the control of the individual and some judge may look at this bill and see “causes, or being the owner, permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering and injury to an animal”.

Canadians who are watching today should be the judges. Who is guilty of an offence under those circumstances?

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is in the House. When one sets a gill net for herring or mackerel and catches a fish which is a vertebrae by the gills and it struggles and drowns because it is caught up in the net, that is cruelty under this legislation. With some judge who is not a fisherman, who has never had to make a living by putting on a pair of oil skins and rubber boots and standing on the deck of a tossing boat, who has never had to go out at 4:00 in the morning and come back at 2:00 the next morning, how is he or she going to feel about that? I suspect someday one of them is going to look at it and say “We permitted or caused unnecessary harm or pain to an animal”.

Whether that animal has the capacity to think or feel or make judgments is immaterial because we cannot control what people think. I am not about to state that we should. That is why we need clarity. That is why we need crisp definitions in the bill.

Other parts of the bill we absolutely, totally agree with, such as killing an animal without a lawful cause or reason; “without lawful excuse poisons an animal, places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by an animal; administers an injurious drug or substance to an animal; or, being the owner, permits anyone to do those things”. Obviously no clear thinking Canadian wants that type of thing to happen and should be responsible to prevent it.

Do we need new cruelty to animals legislation? Absolutely. Can we do better than we have done already? Yes, we can. Let us get it right this time and send it back to the Senate so it is not returned.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to the bill before us today, Bill C-10B.

First, I would like to thank and congratulate my hon. colleague from Châteauguay, who has worked hard all during this long battle over Bill C-10B to make the government understand that we had constructive amendments to suggest. Unfortunately, during the committee stage, the government refused to yield to any of our arguments.

The paradox is that the motion before us in the House today contains many of the amendments the Bloc Quebecois asked for and put forward, and with which it hoped the government would agree. Today, I must state at the outset that the Senate's amendments essentially echo those of the Bloc Quebecois. Therefore, we are in favour of the government's motion, but we regret the fact that it does not include Senate amendment No. 3, which proposed recognition of the ancestral hunting rights of the first nations.

First, we agree with the first paragraph of the motion. The Senate's first amendment is the same as the first amendment the Bloc Quebecois had proposed. So essentially, the Senate confirmed that the Bloc Quebecois was right in what it was asking for and in the amendments that it had moved.

The definition of animal in the bill is very broad; it describes an animal as

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

That is the definition found at clause 182.1 of the new part.

This is another example of change. In addition to removing animals from the property part of the bill, it provides for how the Criminal Code will consider animals from now on, as beings that have the capacity to feel pain.

Several witnesses mentioned that there is a lack of resources to enforce sections of the Criminal Code that deal with cruelty to animals. As a result, the Bloc Quebecois fears that the Crown could, through expert witnesses, prove which animals have the capacity to feel pain. The Bloc Quebecois also fears that there could be unfounded legal proceedings, which could cost the animal, sports and research sectors considerable amounts of money in legal fees.

The fifth amendment proposed by the Senate is a grammatical correction.

With regard to paragraph 2 of the motion, we are in favour of it. Clause 182.2(1) lists the acts towards animals that would lead to criminal responsibility if committed by a person who does so wilfully or recklessly. Paragraphs ( a ) through ( d ) do not provide for all means of defence as found in part XI of the Criminal Code. Paragraphs ( c ) and ( d ) do provide the protection of lawful excuse.

I want to read paragraphs a ) through d ) of clause 182.2(1):

(a) causes or, being the owner, permits to becaused unnecessary pain, suffering or injuryto an animal;

(b) kills an animal or, being the owner,permits an animal to be killed, brutally orviciously, regardless of whether the animaldies immediately;

(c) kills an animal without lawful excuse;

(d) without lawful excuse, poisons ananimal, places poison in such a position thatit may easily be consumed by an animal,administers an injurious drug or substanceto an animal or, being the owner, permitsanyone to do any of those things;

Accordingly, the Bloc Quebecois believes that it would have been appropriate to amend the preamble of clause 182.2(1) to include the concept of lawful justification, excuse or colour of right.

Paragraphs ( e ) and ( h ) do not contain the defences provided for under part XI of the Criminal Code. It should be noted that the Bloc Quebecois moved an amendment providing for an exception for hunting with hounds or for the roue du roi under paragraph ( g ), but our amendment was voted down in committee.

Still in relation to paragraph 2, I would reiterate that the Quebec Bar's comment on this was that we should go with the standard of offences punishable on summary conviction and not the increase to 18 months as this bill proposed.

The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the Quebec Bar proposal with respect to the standard of offences punishable by summary conviction. However, it should be pointed out that the Bloc Quebecois favours increased sentences for criminal acts.

As for paragraph 3 of the government motion, I must say we are disappointed that the government has not seen fit to clearly set out the rights of aboriginal persons in this bill, according to the Senate proposal. We are, however, confident that by virtue of the new wording of amendment 4, and by virtue of the Constitution, aboriginal ancestral rights will be preserved and protected.

As for paragraph 4 of the motion, we are also in favour of this. It represents the core of what we were calling for in committee and was added by the Senate. Creation of a new section of the Criminal Code will have the effect of transferring animals to a section applicable to them alone, while not including the defences that were set out in section 429 of the Criminal Code under property.

The defences proposed in Bill C-10B are central to our concerns. The fact that the means of defence are not included in the new part V.1 will certainly result in those who legitimately and legally kill animals or cause them pain being deprived of the protection currently afforded them under subsection 429(2) of the Criminal Code. Such provision would allow them to act with legal justification or excuse or colour of right.

Section 429(2) reads as follows:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 446 where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

Although Bill C-10B contains provision for lawful excuse for certain offences, as well as the common law defences set out in section 8(3) of the Criminal Code, these are inadequate because they apply only to offences under sections 182.1( c ) and ( d ) and are much narrower than those set out in the current provisions.

However, the minister, the deputy minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice amended the bill by stating that section 8(3) of the Criminal Code would apply and that the defences of legal justification or excuse or colour of right would be implicit. The Bloc Quebecois has grave reservations in this regard.

Colour of right is defined as follows. In R. v. Ninos and Walker, in 1964, the court stated that the accused must show that he had an honest belief in a state of facts which, if it existed, would constitute legal justification or excuse.

The colour of right defence is based on the honest and subjective belief of the accused that at the time of the offence there was colour of right. It is based on a belief in a set of circumstances or a situation of civil law which, if it existed, would negate the wilful intent to commit the offence.

Even if the belief does not need to be reasonable, the fact is that it is a factor to be taken into consideration in determining whether such a belief exists. However, it is not enough for the accused to have an amoral belief in the colour of right. The colour of right applies to errors of fact or errors in law and is not limited to areas of the law concerning proprietary interest or ownership right.

That being said, we are in favour of the government's motion.

We are disappointed, as I said, that the government is not considering Senate amendment No. 3, because it proposes recognizing ancestral rights. Nonetheless, I think it was important to make these clarifications today.

I would like to thank my colleague from Châteauguay, who led the battle on this issue. He put forward amendments in committee that were voted down by the government across the way. These Bloc amendments were taken up by the Senate and approved.

We agree with this motion. We hope, as I said, especially with regard to amendment No. 3, that the government will take our requests and recommendations into consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the debate on the amendments made in the other place to Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to animal cruelty.

Bill C-10B received third reading and was passed in the other place on May 29. After careful study and reflection, five amendments were adopted. One amendment is a minor housekeeping amendment and four reflect more substantive changes. The House now has an opportunity to consider and vote on these amendments. I will briefly summarize these amendments.

The housekeeping measure corrected a word in the French text of the proposed section 182.6, which deals with injury to police animals and was a provision put into Bill C-10B by the justice committee of this House. The French text had a small error, in that it used the word aux where the word des should have been used. The government supports the correction of this error.

The second amendment would abbreviate the definition of animal contained in Bill C-10B. The definition of animal was “a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain”. The amendment made in the other place would cut off the definition after “other than a human being” so that it would include vertebrates, but not “any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain”. The current sections of the Criminal Code that deal with animal cruelty do not contain a definition of animal. It is therefore a term capable of extending to all manner of animal life, including many invertebrates.

The original definition in Bill C-10B was drafted with a view to bringing some clarity and certainty into the law by clearly enunciating that vertebrates were included. It was also designed to achieve maximum flexibility in respect of animals that are not invertebrates. The original definition would have allowed the Crown to prosecute a case in respect of a non-vertebrate if it was prepared to meet the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the animal had the capacity to feel pain.

The science of animal physiology is evolving and will continue to evolve. This element of the definition allowed the law to continue to evolve with the science. The policy rationale was clear. Any animal that is of a species that has the capacity to feel pain should be protected from the infliction of pain that is not necessary. The amendment would foreclose the possibility of any charge in relation to an invertebrate. It chooses maximum certainty of the definition, all vertebrates and only vertebrates over flexibility in the law. This is not the choice that the government made. The government can understand the preference for certainty over flexibility and so the government is prepared not to oppose this amendment.

The third amendment reflects a concern that defences in subsection 429(2) of the code were being taken away. This amendment has replaced section 182.5 which expressly refers to subsection 8(3) of the Criminal Code which preserves all the common law defences. The justice committee of the House added section 182.5 during its study of Bill C-10B. The amendment would replace the reference to subsection 8(3) with a reproduction of a smaller set of defences that is currently in subsection 429(2) of the Criminal Code. Section 182.5 now reads:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under this Part where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse or with colour of right.

The intent of this amendment was to reassure Canadians that the specific defences in subsection 429(2) would not be lost in Bill C-10B.

In fact, even if no express reference is made to “legal justification or excuse with colour of right”, those defences are common law defences and captured by subsection 8(3) of the Criminal Code. Therefore, this amendment is not legally necessary. Those defences are available to any accused charged with any offence and they do not need to be rewritten into every section of the code in order for them to be available.

The very existence of a subsection like 429(2) creates the kind of confusion that has led to this concern. This is an old subsection that was enacted before the charter in order to reverse the burden of proof for certain common law defences in the case of certain offences. Reversing the burden of proof means that the accused must prove that the defence applies. Normally the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defences raised by the accused do not apply. Today, in the post-charter era, we know that in all likelihood the reverse onus is unconstitutional because it could result in a conviction despite the existence of a reasonable doubt about the accused person's innocence.

The historical purpose behind subsection 429(2--to reverse the onus of proof--is no longer acceptable in the charter era. However, its continued existence has caused some to have the misleading impression that the words must be present in order for the defence to be available.

The absence of express reference to these defences was not an oversight in Bill C-10B. On the contrary, by not reproducing the defences the bill would ensure that all of the common law defences of subsection 8(3) would be applied without any possibility of a reverse onus. The bill tried to eliminate the confusion caused by subsection 429(2).

However, some people continue to fear that the absence of the words could result in a court finding that the defences are no longer available. The government can understand the desire to reassure Canadians, who may perhaps not be familiar with such intricacies of the criminal law, and who may fear that the removal of reference to these defences could lead to their loss of application. The amendment made by the other place was meant as such a reassurance. It does not change the law nor provide any new protections.

Although the government can understand the goal of reassuring Canadians, the manner in which this has been accomplished is unsatisfactory for two reasons. First, it reintroduces the reverse onus with the words “if he proves that”. This would require an accused to prove his or her innocence on a balance of probabilities, a burden that the accused should not have and would not have in the absence of the amendment.

It is almost certainly an unjustifiable violation of the presumption of innocence. Most provisions in the Criminal Code introduced after the charter do not have this reverse onus because the courts are likely to find that it violates the charter. It is poor law reform to introduce a provision that, on its face, likely violates the charter.

The second reason the government does not support this wording is because it would give rise to a degree of uncertainty about whether the full body of case law decided under subsection 429(2) would continue to apply. It would certainly be desirable to signal to the courts that the old case law should continue to apply. This is important both in terms of the application of case law that interprets the meaning and scope of these defences, and in relation to some case law that already suggests the reverse onus in subsection 429(2) is unconstitutional and of no force or effect.

The government therefore proposes an amendment to the amendment with slightly different wording that would accomplish the very objectives sought by the other place, and at the same time, would avoid the constitutionality problem of reverse onus. In addition, the government's amendment would signal more clearly to the courts that the old case law should continue to apply.

The government's reworded provision would read as follows:

182.5 For greater certainty, the defences set out in subsection 429(2) apply, to the extent that they are relevant, in respect of proceedings for an offence under this Part.

By referring directly to subsection 429(2), this formulation has the advantage of ensuring that all the case law decided under the provision continues to apply, including case law that deals with the constitutionality of reverse onus in that subsection.

I urge the members of the House to reject the amendment before us and approve the government's motion to amend the amendment.

On the topic of this amendment I would like to make two final points. First, I wish to repeat that this amendment is not legally necessary. There was no oversight in the bill as originally drafted. On the contrary, the legislation was carefully crafted to try to minimize the kind of confusion and concerns that have been expressed by removing reference to defence provisions that are redundant and contained a reverse onus. This is a comfort clause designed to reassure Canadians that defences that used to apply will continue to apply.

As a last point on this issue, I would like to also be clear that the defences referred to in subsection 429(2) do not provide a specialized protection for industry uses of animals. There is still a fair amount of confusion about what these defences mean and how they work, especially the defence of colour of right. I wish here to be clear so that all Canadians understand the scope and reach of the law.

Hunters, farmers, animal researchers and veterinarians do not need to invoke any defences to justify their activities. It is only the wilful, reckless or criminally negligent infliction of pain that is avoidable and unnecessary that amounts to a crime. The government believes that the vast majority of all industry participants take great care to cause no more pain than is required to meet their objectives. Where this is the case, there is no cruelty and there is no crime. The humane use of animals is simply not a crime.

The Ménard case, the leading case on animal cruelty, makes perfectly clear that in the industry setting, causing only necessary pain is not a crime. However, where more pain than is reasonable or necessary is knowingly caused, these defences do not provide an additional layer of legal protection. Cruelty is cruelty wherever it takes place.

The defences are therefore not needed to shield industry personnel. However these defences may in exceptional circumstances be relevant, for instance, where people cause harm to an animal because the animal was attacking them or their property. Colour of right is simply the excuse of mistake. It could apply, for instance, where people euthanized an animal that they believed to be their pet but which actually was not their pet. These defences have a very limited scope.

The fourth amendment deletes the offence of “killing without a lawful excuse” and adds the notion of “causing unnecessary death” to the offence of causing unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal.

The government opposes this amendment because it is problematic for several reasons. It may be intended to clarify that certain activities, such as hunting and fishing, are lawful but in fact it brings greater uncertainty into the law.

Bill C-10B makes it an offence to kill an animal without lawful excuse. The phrase “without lawful excuse” is well understood in the case law and the Supreme Court has clarified that it is a broad and flexible term to be understood in the context of the offence. It is broad enough to encompass commonly accepted reasons for killing animals such as hunting and euthanasia. This term is currently in the offence of killing kept animals and the courts have not shown any difficulty in interpreting its content or scope.

The amendment would take away the term “without lawful excuse” and instead qualify “killing” by the word “unnecessary”. This is illogical and would lead to confusion. The term “unnecessary” has been judicially interpreted in the context of “pain”. In essence, it means “no more pain than is reasonably necessary taking into account the objective sought”.

This interpretation of the word “unnecessary” cannot logically be applied to killing where the only relevant question is whether or not there was a good reason for killing.

The amendment would delete “without lawful excuse”, which is a well-known and well understood concept in the context of a killing offence, and would replace it with the term “unnecessary”, the interpretation of which does not make sense when applied to killing.

This would surely lead the courts to question what the intent was and could lead to a reinterpretation of the elements of the offence.

There is yet another reason for rejecting the amendment. For decades it has been Parliament's intent that there be two distinct offences, one of causing unnecessary pain to an animal and one of killing an animal without lawful excuse. The blameworthy nature of each type of act is quite different. Killing one's neighbour's dog humanely but without good reason is something very different from torturing an animal.

However, the amendment would collapse these two offences into one single offence. This could lead to confusion about the elements of the offence and be problematic for police and prosecutors who need clarity in terms of which offence to charge and what elements to prove. For these reasons the government opposes the motion and urges the House to reject it.

The final amendment would add a new subsection 182.2(3) which would create a defence for aboriginal persons who carry out traditional hunting, trapping or fishing practices in any area in which aboriginal peoples have harvesting rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, where pain caused is no more than is reasonably necessary in the carrying out of those traditional practices.

The government opposes the amendment for several reasons. First, the amendment is not necessary. It was made in response to concerns that aboriginal persons would be subject to undue risk of prosecution for their traditional practices.

Aboriginal persons are not at risk of prosecution or conviction for any activities that are humane and cause no more pain than is necessary. In addition, aboriginal persons have all the protection of section 35 of the Constitution Act, and in any case they can raise the claim that the law violates their protected rights.

In addition to being unnecessary, the amendment is extremely problematic in the way it is drafted. There was substantial confusion in the other place about the effect of the words. Although five members of the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee voted for the amendment, two opposed and five abstained.

Concerns were expressed that the amendment would create an inappropriate reverse onus on aboriginal people. Others were concerned that it was over broad because, the way it is written, it would allow an aboriginal person from one geographic region to go to any area where aboriginal peoples have rights and claim the defence. This would allow aboriginal persons to claim the benefit of the defence based on the rights of another group of aboriginal persons.

There is also some confusion and uncertainty about what “traditional practices” are. Would those be the same as practices that are protected aboriginal rights under section 35 of the Constitution, or would they be something else?

Concern was also expressed about how difficult it would be to expect the police to know what are traditional practices before laying a charge. It is difficult to know whether this provision would be practically enforceable.

In the other place the intent was to ensure that aboriginal persons were subject to the law just as other Canadians are. However some were concerned that the wording would create an exemption. We cannot be certain how the courts would interpret the provision. If the same rules and standards are meant to apply to aboriginals as to non-aboriginals, then courts may wonder what the purpose of the clause is.

For all the above reasons, the government urges the members of the House to vote against the amendment. It is confusing and its scope and effect are uncertain, and it is simply unnecessary.

Aboriginal peoples who treat animals in humane ways are not being cruel and therefore not at risk of prosecution or conviction.

The government would once again like to thank the other place for all its hard work and dedicated study of this complex and important legislation.

I strongly urge all hon. members to vote in favour of the amendment which corrects a word in the French text, to vote against the amendments that deal with the offence of killing without lawful excuse and a special defence in respect of aboriginal persons, to vote against the amendment that deals with colour of right and in its stead vote in favour of the government's motion to amend that particular amendment in a manner that is constitutional and better captures the existing case law.

On the amendment that deals with the definition of “animal”, the government neither supports nor opposes it.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House agrees with amendments numbered 1 and 5 made by the Senate to Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals); but

Disagrees with amendment numbered 2 because the amendment is inconsistent with the other elements of the offence and makes the law less clear and because the amendment would collapse two offences with different elements into one single offence, leading to confusion about the elements of the offence and to problems for police and prosecutors;

Disagrees with amendment numbered 3 because it is unclear and creates confusion about whether the intent is to create a different test for liability of aboriginal persons and because there is no clarity as to what “traditional practices” are and how law enforcement can be expected to act accordingly; and

Agrees with the principle set out in amendment numbered 4, namely, the desire to reassure Canadians that no defences are lost, but, because the wording of the amendment would codify a reverse onus by requiring an accused person to prove his or her innocence on a balance of probabilities, would propose the following amendment:

Amendment numbered 4 be amended to read as follows:

Page 4, clause 2: Replace lines 22 to 24 with the following:

“182.5 For greater certainty, the defences set out in subsection 429(2) apply, to the extent that they are relevant, in respect of proceedings for an offence under this Part.”.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very powerful question. Yes, I have checked my agenda as to what work remains to be done. We all know that there is lots of work to do.

That is why, this afternoon, the House will return to its consideration of Bill C-15, the lobbyist legislation, followed by Bill S-13, respecting census records. We will then return to Bill C-17, the public safety bill.

I am sorry that this morning we were unable to complete our consideration of Bill C-7. Tomorrow, we will begin considering the Senate's amendments to Bill C-10B, the cruelty to animals legislation, and Bill C-35, the military judges bill. If we have any time remaining, I still hope we can finish with Bill C-7, of course.

Next week, starting on Monday, the House will consider Bill C-24, the elections finance bill, at the report stage, and any items from this week that have not been completed.

I wish to confirm to the House that Thursday, June 12 shall be an allotted day.

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer the last question first, as to whether we need to have late night sittings, I suppose it depends on the co-operation on the part of the opposition, which is usually quite good, I must say.

Going to the substance for the next few days, we will continue this afternoon with the opposition day motion. The House does not sit tomorrow because of the Conservative leadership convention.

We are now entering June, the month when we try to wrap up the year's work and we will be consulting other House leaders on a daily, sometimes hourly basis, in order to determine the precise order of bills. However for the next few days we will be dealing mostly with report stages, third readings and consideration of Senate amendments to bills we have already passed.

The bills that will be considered next week will be, and I will start with the one on Monday, although we intend to have a minor conversation about another minor issue later, but generally speaking they will be as follows. We will start with Bill C-25, the public service bill. We will then move on to Bill C-31 respecting certain pensions for veterans and the RCMP. When that bill is completed I would hope to start Bill C-7 respecting first nations governance; and because they are all government days next week we are going to take them probably in roughly that sequence, Bill C-17 public safety; then Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill which is presently at third reading.

It would be my intention to then call Bill C-32, the Criminal Code amendments. When the bill is reported to the House, which hopefully will be one day next week, we could then commence Bill C-24, the political financing bill. We also have the amendments from the Senate which I understand might happen on Bill C-15, the lobbyist bill, and Bill C-10B, cruelty to animals.

At some point, we would also like to debate the second reading of Bill S-13, respecting the census, and Bill C-27, the airport bill.

As a matter of courtesy, I wish to indicate to colleagues that it is my intention to call the final supply day on or after June 12. This is not, of course, an official designation of that day at this point but that is why I say on or after, but at least to try and give an indication to colleagues in the event that they will not take other commitments at or about that particular time in order for them to be able to plan their agenda.

Supply

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will start with an issue that the minister did not mention even though it was there in the first session of the 37th Parliament and again in the second session, and I am talking about Bill C-10B on cruelty to animals.

When we started looking at this issue, the goal was to impose stiffer penalties; of course, the Bloc Quebecois agreed that something had to be done to protect animals against cruelty. These provisions were to be removed from where they are in the Criminal Code and included in a new part V.1.

However, there is a problem with the new part. The government has forgotten to explicitly include the defences provided for the animal industry, including researchers and all those who deal with animals, like hunters, ranchers, farmers, those who are there to protect animals from cruelty. These people came to testify that it was indeed necessary to impose stiffer penalties and to enforce legislative provisions with regard to cruelty to animals, but that the animal industry should not be jeopardized by these efforts.

During the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we brought forward an amendment to stand by those who act in a responsible manner and want to protect the animals, just like the Bloc Quebecois, without hurting the animal industry. We asked that all the defences provided for in section 429 be made explicitly available. We were told that these rights are protected, that the farmers, the researchers and all the animal industry were implicitly protected.

Strangely enough, when we asked for these defences to be explicitly included, we were referred to section 8 providing for the rights based on the common law. We were told that this provision allowed defences implicitly. But they did listen to my request. Section 8 is explicit,and yet, the defences allowed under section 8 are implicit.

I want to ask this of the minister. It would not take away anything if you do not want to hurt the animal industry. Why not include the defences laid out in section 429, which were part, of course, of the property provisions, in the new part V.1?

Those who seek to protect animals have even told us, “We are willing to go along with this. We do not want to hurt those in the animal industry who meet the standards and do everything right. Why not include this explicitly?” That is my question to the minister.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

May 8, 2003

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 8th day of May, 2003, at 4:07 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Uteck

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates that royal assent was given to Bill C-2, an act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon; and Bill C-10A, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act.

It being 5:33 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

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

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 5.58 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendments tabled by the Senate to Bill C-10 now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my Bloc colleague a question.

Before I ask my question, I would like to say for the record on behalf of my constituents of Prince George--Peace River, who I am always pleased and privileged to represent in the House of Commons, that never before in the history of Liberal boondoggles is there anything to rival the Firearms Act for the sheer stupidity of this legislation.

I wanted that on the record because, as I said earlier in a brief question and comment that I made, unfortunately the government has again invoked time allocation and many of us will not have the opportunity to represent our constituents with a 20 minute or even a 10 minute speech on the legislation before us today, Bill C-10.

I could not agree more with my Bloc colleague when he talked about the problems with the Senate. I think he referred to the fact that it could split this bill as many times as it wanted. It can be divided up into bite sized pieces and it is still a zero.

My concern and the question I want to raise with the member is one of computer security. This list, even as inaccurate as it is, obviously is not secure. We already know that. That concern for computer security is one that I hear repeatedly from constituents who have not registered their firearms and will not register their firearms. When IBM and pentagon can routinely have their systems hacked into, obviously this is not a secure list either, and I hear that.

Does the member also hear these types of concerns being expressed by his constituents in the province of Quebec?

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton concerning the procedural acceptability of the motion in response to the Senate message concerning Bill C-10, the Criminal Code amendment.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for raising this matter, as well as the hon. government House leader for his comments.

The hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton has contended that the motion responding to the Senate message on Bill C-10 cannot be considered because the House has no power to waive its constitutionally guaranteed rights and privileges.

The hon. government House leader maintains that it is precisely the decision as to whether the House chooses to insist on these rights and privileges that members are being asked to make.

I would like first to reiterate what I said in a ruling on a related question delivered on December 5, 2002. Your Speaker cannot comment on the internal workings of the Senate. My procedural authority is limited to the application of the rules and practices of this chamber as they affect this chamber.

The hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton raised a number of interesting points with respect to the Constitution Act of 1867 in making his case. While I do not doubt that they are worthy of consideration, hon. members know that questions of a legal or constitutional nature are not dealt with by the Speaker. This is clearly set out in House of Commons Procedure and Practice , at page 219 to 220.

The hon. member also made reference to proceedings before the Senate of Australia. Although it is often useful to make reference to precedents in other jurisdictions when the application of our own rules is unclear, this approach is not without pitfalls of its own. While proceedings in other countries may bear a strong superficial resemblance to our own, there are often important differences and rules and practices which make comparisons problematic, if not misleading.

In the case before us today this point, while not without interest, is somewhat academic.

Both my own earlier rulings and the ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser on a related case make quite clear the Canadian practice in such cases. As Mr. Speaker Fraser stated on July 11, 1988, at page 17384, of the debates:

The cure in this case is for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them, if it so wishes, by way of message to Their Honours, that is, to the Senate, informing them accordingly.

I cited this remark in my ruling of December 2, 2002, and with all respect to the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton, I have heard nothing today which persuades me that the House should not follow the course on which it is now embarked. My earlier ruling pointed out that the Speaker had no power to enforce the rights and privileges of the House with respect to what went on in the other place. At the same time, it is also not my role to reject messages and thereby halt progress on legislation which this House has approved.

I would also like to point out that the motion under discussion recognizes the existence of the rights and privileges of this House. The question as it is stated is not that these rights and privileges should be deemed not to exist or to repeal them. Rather the motion states that in the case before us, Senate amendment to Bill C-10, the House will not insist that its privileges be respected. The rights and privileges of the House continue to exist and the House continues to have the right to insist that they be respected if it wishes. No argument has been presented to the Chair that suggests that the House may not decide to insist or not insist as it sees fit.

I feel that I can only maintain the position that I took earlier, a position congruent with the stance adopted by Mr. Speaker Fraser in 1988. While there are serious considerations concerning parliamentary privilege that must be considered in dealing with the motion concerning Bill C-10, the judgment that is needed on these matters is that of the House and not that of the Speaker.

I therefore find that the motion concerning Bill C-10 is properly before the House and that it is for the House to decide if it will insist on its rights and privileges or waive them in this case.

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

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the calming effect you have on the House. I will try to follow your lead, after the outburst from my colleague, the member for Wild Rose.

I rise to speak to this bill, consideration of which began a long time ago. In fact, the government tried, unsuccessfully, to pass what is now known as Bill C-10 during the previous Parliament, and since then has had to contend with a variety of problems of a procedural nature, and let us say it, some related to political leadership.

It is unusual that at this stage in the debate the Senate is asking the House to split the bill. Of course, this bill was passed by the House at third reading and referred to the Senate for its consideration. The Senate's wish to split the bill in two, at this advanced stage in the legislative process, seems to be bizarre, and may not even be permissible.

So, we would like to point out the particularly eloquent relevance—I never thought I would hear myself saying this in the House—of the amendment to the motion before us, submitted by our colleague from the Canadian Alliance. The amendment reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“, in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, this House does not concur with the Senate's division of the Bill into two parts, namely, Bill C-10A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), since it is the view of this House that such alteration to Bill C-10 by the Senate is an infringement of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons; and

That this House asks that the Senate consider Bill C-10 in an undivided form; and

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.”

Members will recall that this controversial legislation was already split by Bills C-15A and C-15B during the first session of the 37th Parliament.

On December 5, the Chair heard a lengthy point of order on the issue of dividing the bill. In our opinion, the Senate is overstepping its powers by again proposing division of the bill.

According to the procedures and practices of the House of Commons, the Senate has no power to make any orders at all to the House; at most, it may make suggestions.

We all know that the upper chamber, the Senate, is non-democratic in nature. We realize that those who sit in the other place are appointed by the Prime Minister. That is a quite incredible form of nepotism in an advanced democracy such as ours. In short, it is unacceptable that unelected people, friends of the party and particularly friends of the Prime Minister, can come and tell us what to do here in the House where the elected representatives of the people sit, the 301 men and women who were elected by the people of Quebec and Canada.

I am very surprised that we can accept such proceedings in a representative democracy, such as Canada claims to be. It should be the duty of every elected member in this House to tell the hon. senators, “You have no right to do what you are doing. You have no right to tell the House of Commons, with its elected members, what to do”.

This wake-up call is too late for the Senate. Could it be a deliberate stalling tactic by the government in order to prevent passage of this bill? Considering the prevailing climate in the Liberal caucus—as we saw during question period, the shots are flying; serious divisions are being aggravated by such things as the leadership race—anything is possible.

Dividing the bill in two does not change anything in the Bloc Quebecois's stated position.

As we address the tricky issue of cruelty to animals, the arguments invoked by the various points of view must inevitably collide.

On one hand, there are the powerful lobbies, some with a position that is a bit extreme and, on the other hand, there are more reasonable groups that make a real contribution to the public debate by presenting very specific arguments.

However, the major coups of groups in the first category have the unfortunate and overly frequent consequence of lumping together all the animal rights activists. The government is being forced to retreat by some of these groups due to a lack of leadership, as seen in many areas.

In terms of amending the Firearms Act, is it necessary to spell out the firearms registry fiasco highlighted by the Auditor General? A program that, originally, was to cost barely a few million dollars and then pay for itself, will have cost one billion by the end of the fiscal year, without producing the anticipated results.

It is important not to forget the firearms registry fiasco; the Liberal government's lack of rigour in managing the firearms program has created two victims: the taxpayers because they will have to dig into their own pockets to keep the program going, and second, as serious, is that this has provided ammunition—no pun intended—to those ideologically opposed to the bill. This means that many people who had supported gun control are asking themselves questions, and some are even saying, “Yes, I support this in principle but perhaps not at that price”.

Due to its incompetence, the federal government has become the objective ally of those most strongly opposed to any form of gun control. I think that Quebeckers and Canadians will remember the huge responsibilities resting on this government's shoulders.

This legislation could always be split into as many bills as it has clauses, but it would still be a bad initiative. In fact, by literally combining two such distinct issues in one bill, the government should have anticipated the impasse that lay ahead.

Today, faced with its inaction and incompetence, the government is once again interfering with the right of members to speak freely on the matter, by having the government majority pass a time allocation motion for the consideration of this bill. Once again, the rights of members of Parliament are being violated.

The Liberal government should have put the finishing touches to its bill before introducing it. The difficulty it is having getting it passed reflects to some extent the ad hoc attitude and lack of leadership in the back rooms of government.

Finally, what the Senate has done this time, with the arrogance for which this non-elected institution is well known, is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Such an affront to decisions of the House and an attempt to strip members of Parliament of their powers, even if only temporarily, are unacceptable and argue more than ever—this is one more example to add to the list—for abolishing that undemocratic, unelected and frankly outdated chamber.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to devote a couple of minutes to comments and a question regarding the use of time allocation yet again on this very important issue of so-called gun control or firearms registration.

The reality is that I and many of my colleagues would have liked to represent our constituents on this very important issue. This issue simply will not go away, especially in the rural ridings across the nation. We are not going to be allowed the time to speak yet again.

When the legislation that this is attached to, Bill C-68, and I would add the infamous Bill C-68, was debated in the House, the Liberal government brought in time allocation. That was eight years ago. The bill we are debating today, Bill C-10A, contains some 22 pages and 63 clauses of amendments. If the Liberals had allowed a little more time to debate this issue eight years ago, perhaps they would not have to continually come back with more and more amendments that the member says are going to fix the problems.

People in the real world outside the Ottawa bubble and outside the Liberal Party of Canada know that nothing is going to fix this. Yet here we are again with time allocation and members are being denied the right to represent their constituents and are being denied the right to speak in the House of Commons. The Liberal member had the audacity this afternoon to call this a win-win situation, a win-win situation that has cost Canadian taxpayers $1 billion and counting, the net cost of which was originally going to be $2 million to implement. She called $1 billion a win-win situation. It is absolutely unbelievable.

She bragged that there are 2,000 inquiries a day. The policeman that she spoke with told her that there are 2,000 inquiries a day, but she did not tell us how accurate the information is that goes back to the police. If it is inaccurate, it is worse than no information. We know from the Auditor General that we cannot trust the information in this computer program.

I would like to ask the member what guarantees we and the people of Canada can have that if Bill C-10A does not fix all of the problems in this failed and farcical firearms registry, the government or perhaps the new prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, will cancel the thing. Are the Liberals prepared to make the commitment that if Bill C-10A does not live up to the great and wonderful improvements that she talked about in her canned speech that was probably given to her by the justice department, she and her party will cancel this abomination?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in our debate today with respect to Bill C-10A, I think it is important for members of the House to remind themselves of the history of gun control in Canada.

I was interested in hearing somewhat, I felt, a little bit of English, a little bit of politicking going on with an earlier opposition member's comments on the history of how we arrived at where we are today.

We are here today as a result of cautious and considered action by previous parliaments which, over the decades, have put in place legislation that was designed to meet specific needs and specific challenges in the Canadian context.

The law of the land has changed over time. It has changed as our communities, our society and the world around us have changed and evolved.

We are painfully aware of the criminal misuse of firearms and the tragic consequences of firearms violence in our communities.

Some of the issues related to firearms are relatively new, or certainly their magnitude is new. I brought to the House's attention the example of the problems posed by guns used by urban street gangs, including youth gangs in many urban centres.

Some statistics help to tell the story of why it has been necessary to establish more safety standards for firearm use. In the past, there was a historic average of over 1,000 firearm related deaths per annum. Greater numbers of Canadians are hospitalized each year because of firearm related injuries. Among industrialized countries, Canada has had the fifth highest firearm death rate for children under the age of 15. This is truly tragic.

I am certain that everyone present here today, indeed all Canadians and members on all sides of the House, want to see concrete measures taken to reduce the criminal use of firearms and to reduce firearms related violence.

The gun control program is an essential part of this initiative. It is vital to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, for their own safety, for the safety of others and for that of our communities.

Let us look at domestic homicide for example. We know that shooting is the leading cause of death in female spousal homicide. An overwhelming majority of domestic homicide shootings of men and women are with so-called ordinary rifles and shotguns.

In 1998 statistics showed that 63% of Canadian spousal firearm homicides involved rifles and shotguns. Sawed off rifles and shotguns killed a further 21% of Canadian spousal firearm homicide victims in that year.

Those are some of the reasons why a practical response to domestic violence must include a serious approach to both rifles and shotguns.

Internationally there is an increasing concern with respect to illicit movement of firearms to feed criminal markets. Countries have come to recognize that international co-operation is key to combating illegal firearms and stemming firearms related crime. It is a vital part of not only our safety agenda but that of the international community.

If we look a little at the backdrop of the current legislation, we see that the registration of handguns was first required by law back in 1934. Four decades later, the Criminal Code was amended to require persons wishing to own firearms to hold a firearms acquisition certificate.

During the period of 1992 to 1994, the firearms acquisition certificate process was enhanced. A requirement for a person to submit references was introduced, along with a 28 day waiting period before a certificate could be issued. Mandatory safety training was also introduced at that time, along with clearly defined safe firearms storage regulations. These measures continue to be in place today.

Bill C-68 was passed in 1995 and it established the Firearms Act and amended part III of the Criminal Code. It came into force in 1998, setting the stage for the regime that we have today.

Just to remind ourselves, the legislation included, among other things: enhanced eligibility criteria for being allowed to possess a firearm; a requirement for licensing of firearms owners; a requirement for the registration of all firearms; provisions allowing for the regulation of the import and export of firearms; and tougher Criminal Code penalties for serious firearm offences.

Under the current legislation, licensing of all firearms owners became mandatory January 1, 2001. The registration of all firearms became mandatory as of January 1 this year.

Put in context, the current regime is the result of careful progression and of measured consideration. Canadians now have a gun control program that is there to ensure that the public safety is protected and, at the same time, to ensure that legitimate gun owners and gun users are not unduly burdened. We have the balance right.

The issue now is, and this has been reflected in the recent public debate, how to make the program work as economically and as efficiently as it can. This, too, is in the public interest.

The gun control action plan announced by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General in February responds in concrete, practical ways to the observations and concerns that have been expressed by Canadians. We know we need to make the program work in the most effective manner, making the best use of public resources. There is a clear plan of action in place now and it is being implemented as we speak.

That is why Bill C-10A is so very important. It is a vital element of the plan to improve the gun control program. Bill C-10A would allow for important changes to the gun control program, building on the existing legislation. We are on the right track.

The bill includes amendments to the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code that would support and facilitate public compliance with the firearms program. The amendments would also consolidate administrative responsibility for the program, as well as help Canada meet new international obligations. I would underline and stress again that this is an issue that many nations are grappling with.

While the amendments the bill would make respond to concerns expressed about the firearms program's efficiency and cost, I would emphasize that these changes and these economies would be found through the administrative process. The amendments do not change the basic public safety goals and the elements of the Firearms Act, nor that of the gun control program.

Let me also mention some key amendments. Bill C-10A streamlines the process of transferring firearms from one owner to another. This would not only result in the elimination of a step in the approval of transfers saving time for all concerned, but it would also reduce costs.

The bill introduces pre-processing of non-residents who wish to enter Canada with firearms, for example, those who want to come to Canada on a hunting trip. This would also assist in reducing the lines at the border and support businesses that are involved in servicing sport hunters and shooters.

The process for licence renewals will be streamlined. That would include the renewal of the licences in an evenly staggered way, rather than receiving a huge surge of applications every five years. This is a key practical measure and will result in cost savings and better client service.

In addition, under Bill C-10A business licence terms will be extended from one year to three years for most businesses. This again means less cost and a simpler system.

Those and other changes proposed in Bill C-10A are a direct response to the extensive consultations that we have undertaken over the past several years with program partners and stakeholders. It is important to recognize that included the policing community and gun owners themselves.

The changes provide solutions to issues raised by the firearms community. While doing so, the bill will allow for more effective administration without a negative impact on the safety provisions which are fundamental to the entire program.

It is a win-win situation. Firearm owners and businesses will be getting many of the changes that they have told us they are seeking. The Canadian public at large wins by getting a more cost effective program while maintaining the public safety aspects on which they place such a high value.

I note that the government will not be losing touch with Canadians on the firearms front. There is a commitment in the gun control action plan, as announced by the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice on February 21, to hold consultations with stakeholders and the public on the program design and the service delivery. I am happy to say that this commitment also includes consultations with parliamentarians.

I personally look forward to participating in those consultations as part of my service to my constituents. I am certain that others here in the House also look forward to that same opportunity to contribute in a positive manner.

We also have the opportunity today to make another contribution. We can ensure that Bill C-10A moves forward so that vital improvements in the gun control program that are important to all Canadians can be made as soon as possible.

A group of police officers was on Parliament Hill a few weeks ago. A couple of members of the Waterloo Regional Police were part of that delegation. I spoke at length with them as to what their views were of the gun control act and whether they supported it.

They mentioned to me some interesting statistics, such as that over 2,000 inquiries are made to the gun registry on a daily basis by police forces and that while it is often heard as an anti-gun control lobby tactic that criminals do not register firearms, the firearms registry allows police to track stolen weapons. That is very important to them. They support this legislation.

According to an Environics poll that was done recently, over 74% of Canadians support the spirit and the enactment of this legislation. It is time for the debate to conclude so that we can move forward with this very important piece of legislation that Canadians have said they value and need.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, again we are having some interesting debate here on the firearms legislation. It just keeps coming back to haunt the government and rightly so, because the government is now saying that Bill C-10 in this form is the panacea. It does not matter how it brings it back in here, either in through the Senate, or through the back door or the front door: the government says this is going to make everything better.

As for the $1 billion the Auditor General found, whether we say it is a full billion or only $680 million, she did not have time to go to the well again and get all the numbers because she had to report to Parliament on a given day. She got up to $680 million and said they knew it would be a lot worse than that, that they knew it would be $1 billion within a year.

Another little factor has come to light, too, and perhaps Mr. Speaker will correct me if I am wrong, but the dollars that went to Quebec to implement its own registry are not reported in the same way. Quebec does its own thing in a lot of instances and this is one of them. The cash transfers that are done in the political envelope to that province are not reported in the same way on this bill. The numbers could actually be higher yet. That may bear some looking at.

Bill C-10 is supposed to be the panacea. It is supposed to make everything better. The government claims it will streamline things and pick up on the errors and omissions. The government is saying this will all be cleaned up under this one bill. That is a big job.

We have heard a lot of arguments from Liberals on the other side today trying to justify what has been done, how it has been done, and how they can go home and sell it to their folks. They are claiming that it is all about public safety and then they cancel the training. If this is about public safety, those types of things have to be done.

Canadians are a common sense people. We just do the right things. We do not have to be told again and again. We do not need legislation telling us to store our firearms safely. We do that as a matter of course because it is common sense to handle firearms safely. These guys seem to think they need more rules and regulations.

Here is what amazes me. We have seen what happened with the SARS outbreak in the last little while, but Bill C-68 created this monster today. As a result of the over-production of that bill, the overreaction to a situation that happened in Montreal where they politicized the heck out of it, the government came out with Bill C-68. But then we had a SARS outbreak and the government would not do a thing; it procrastinated to the point where it got totally out of hand. So we have two ends of the spectrum here. The government overreacted with Bill C-68 and under-reacted with the SARS crisis. We have to try to justify one to the other and I do not think the Liberals can do that; they are found lacking at both ends.

The Liberals have talked about streamlining this registry and saving $3 million a month. They say they are going to save that but they still will not tell us what the cost is. They are saving $3 million of what? Is it $100 million a year or $200 million a year? It is going to be a five year cycle now, so for anybody who is in the system, when their five years are up they will not know what it is going to cost them to re-register the guns they have already registered for $10 or whatever today; maybe the fee was waived. They do not know what it is going to cost, so maybe we will start to recoup all of that money, but it will be solely on the backs of firearms owners. Those owners who have more than one firearm could be hit hard. We do not know, but we do not trust these guys.

The member for Mississauga South talked earlier about this huge 90% error and omission rate. He was talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in those errors and omissions. No one from outside the CFC has had a look at the errors and omissions other than those cards, the PALs, the POLs and the little registration cards themselves that my guys are getting back. The errors and omissions I have seen are committed not by the gun owner or the gun but by the CFC.

One fellow I know received 12 cards back because he registered 12 long guns, twenty-twos, shotguns and rifles. Every one of those cards was identical. Every card indicated “unknown” under barrel length. The serial number was unknown. The make of gun was unknown. The action was unknown. He did not send in the card like that. It would not have been entered like that. The officials would have gone back to him right away. I have seen PALs with somebody's picture and somebody else's name on them. Nobody sent them in that way.

So as for the errors and omissions, the member for Mississauga South said it was those terrible gun owners who subverted the government. He said it was a protest. What a load of hogwash. It did not happen that way at all. Yes, there were people who waited until the bitter end. People do that every year with Revenue Canada; I have been one of them. We do not want to send in that money because we do not think we are getting any bang for our buck. The member said these serious errors and omissions are all because of gun owners. That is hogwash. That will not fly at all.

As for the whole idea that this will streamline things and save money, that there will be more done on the Internet, as members well know, the e-mails we all receive and the work that is done on the Internet now is prone to error. People do have to type it in. The best way to say it is garbage in, garbage out. The gun control registry system is still going to be prone and susceptible to errors. It is bound to happen when we are talking about makes of firearms and serial numbers of firearms. A lot of them have no serial number. This has to be entered; the system has to come to grips with this. This is where the problem started and the bill will in no way ease any of those facts or figures. It will continue being a huge, dark money loss.

There is another side of the argument. My colleague from Yorkton—Melville has done a tremendous job on this file. He has been light years ahead of everybody on this one and it turns out that he was right in a lot of his submissions. He also talks about how enforcing the firearms bill could be a huge black hole. Let us look at convictions and tracking people down and so on; it would not be hard to spend another billion dollars enforcing it, simply against people who had no intention of going against the law but who, because of the way this thing is written, implemented and enforced, become criminals.

There are a lot of us who find ourselves in that situation. There were things we thought we had registered, but now it turns out the government has lost them. So now we are criminals and we have to try to fight our way out of that bureaucratic malaise there.

I have had some discussions with some CFC officials on one piece that I own. When I explained everything that was wrong with the way the registration did not carry through, the guy said I had two choices. He said I could weld it shut and keep it or I could turn it in. Those were my two choices.

I said that neither one of them was acceptable to me. I talked to the RCMP. The officer said they could not even take it in because it is considered prohibited at this point. He said, “Sir, maybe the best thing I could do is say that we never had these discussions”. He was ready to sweep it under the rug. That is public safety: just ignore it and it will go away.

The bill started out as a combination of a cruelty to animals bill and some changes to the Firearms Act and what it came back as is cruelty to firearms owners. That is really where we are at this point.

Mr. Speaker, in your riding you know there are hunters up there. I have been through your riding and it is a beautiful piece of Canada, beautiful country, and there are a lot of hunters and fishermen and so on. You probably enjoy that yourself, Mr. Speaker, so I know you are going to have some problems with this in trying to justify where this has gone.

If the government were really and truly concerned about public safety and felt that this was the right way to go, why have we had six amnesty periods since 1998? Why is it taking that long to implement the bill? We have seen bills come to the House and slam-bam they are gone.

The majority government brings in a bill that it wants. It has what is called a majority. It has control of the schedule and the planning. It decides what is up on a given day and how long it will stay up. It can push through the bill, but with this we have seen them test the waters and pull back, test the waters and pull back, which has a lot more to do with backbench solidarity over there. We have seen some comments from a lot of these folks over there who say, “Oh, this is terrible. We should not vote in the $59 million that they wanted at the end of the year. We should not”. But they all stood up today and invoked closure. A Liberal is a Liberal. They just cannot help themselves. They have to be there when their government comes knocking and calling.

There is another huge thing. The government talks about streamlining and being more cost effective, yet the Liberals are adding millions more people and firearms to this list with Bill C-10, such as all the pellet guns and anything with certain muzzle velocities and so on. A lot of them have never been tested for a decision on what they are; a lot of them have been modified and so on.

We have a lot of kids who are 8, 10 or 12 years old, especially out west, who use pellet guns to control varmints around the farmyard. These kids are not criminals. They cannot vote. They are not old enough to vote out this piece of junk, but they are criminals because their pellet guns are over the muzzle velocity that some Liberal member decided on. How ridiculous. There are millions of kids out there with pellet guns. They are not hurting anyone. They are plinking sparrows and crows and so on. For all we know, maybe they are helping us control the West Nile virus every time they shoot a crow.

There is also another big problem. Some of the members on the other side have said that public support is at 74%, that the public just loves the bill, but that is until people find out what it costs. If those polls are really accurate, can anyone explain to me and the people of my riding why eight provinces and three territories are dead set against this? Five provinces and three territories will not administer it. They will take no part in it. If the polling numbers are accurate, why are the provinces not on side? They are the same people, the same constituents. It does not make any sense to me at all.

Then there are the police chiefs. Some of them have been politicized. We have certainly seen that in the way they handle it, but a lot of them are now saying to their police forces, “Please do not arrest the guy because we are not going to do the paperwork. We cannot make it stick. We have an unenforceable law. Even though the Supreme Court loved it, we cannot implement this on the ground”.

Whether we streamline this through Bill C-10 or ignore it for another five years and try to bring it back, nothing will change here until we change the government on the other side.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-10A. It has brought back all of the arguments and all of the discussions with regard to the gun control debates, but the fact remains that 74% of Canadians supported the gun control legislation including the registry when it was passed.

Let us look at the facts. I know that Alliance members are not happy with those numbers and I understand their position, but we can agree to disagree.

This past April the Canadian firearms program was transferred from the Department of Justice to the Solicitor General of Canada. Changes in the law represented by Bill C-10A would pave the way to putting this program in a position where we would provide better services and reduce costs for Canadians.

However, it does cost money and I must admit that I am fascinated by the discussion that somehow the government threw away a billion dollars when it estimated that it was only going to cost $2 million. This is so bizarre that we must ask the question and try to explain why. I will try to identify some of the ways in which people can use numbers or use assumptions to make a case.

The whole aspect of Bill C-10A is to improve the services to firearm owners. It would establish a five year cycle of firearms licence renewals which would be staggered so that it would ease the spiking of renewals. I think members would agree that is a good thing to do.

Completed registration applications would be processed within 30 days of receipt. Gun owners who want to register their firearms should be able to register those within a reasonable period. That has not been the case, but there is a reason and I will address that a little later in my speech.

The Internet and other automated channels would be increasingly used for applications and the issuance of documents. That has not been readily available to those who want to register their firearms. There is a reason for that and I will also address that.

The firearms transfer process would be streamlined and members have raised this issue. The last questioner spoke about transferring firearms from an owner to a collector's museum or something like that. Those things would be established.

What we established during the debates on gun control registry and gun control provisions was that after all is said and done hunters would continue to be able to hunt. Collectors would continue to be able to collect and sports shooters would be able to continue their hobby. Nothing has changed that.

Canadians know that as a consequence of the gun control legislation and the registry that more and more Canadians are informed of how to safely own, store and transport a firearm. Canadians feel it is important to have rules in place. Canadians take a great deal of comfort from the fact that there are rules and that the government has taken reasonable steps to inform Canadians about all of those provisions so that non-gun owners would also understand that for those who have properly licensed and registered their firearms there should be no concern because they have gone through all of the steps necessary to ensure the safe use and ownership of firearms. That is the objective and I think all members would agree.

Bill C-10A would provide improvements for businesses. It would extend the terms of the firearms business licences and clarify the licensing requirements for employees of these businesses. Members would agree that is an important aspect within the bill.

I could talk more about some of the provisions of the bill, but members are familiar with them. Members actually prefer to talk about who said what and how much it would cost, et cetera.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's remarks contain a lot of rhetoric. I have given many facts and the source of the facts.

Would he not agree with the Toronto chief of police? Would he not agree with the Auditor General who said that she has never seen over-spending from $2 million to $1 billion? Is that not a fact?

How can the member deny that the government told this Parliament and Canadians that the whole system of implementing the gun registry would cost $2 million? What is the cost now? It is now 500 times more than the original projection by the government. It is up to $1 billion and still counting. Does the member not agree with those facts?

I gave a huge list of figures during my speech concerning the errors. I will not repeat them because there may be some other questions. The system is full of errors. It does not help police find guns. When police go into someone's residence, the police do not know if there are any guns that residence. The guns may not match the registration certificates. All these things were well articulated in my speech.

Backbench Liberals do not agree with their own government. They know that the government has seriously flawed this legislation. The government failed to accept legitimate amendments. There were 265 amendments to Bill C-68. The government tried to make Canadians believe that it would do it right so it introduced Bill C-15 in the last session. When the House recessed, the bill was in the Senate and was renumbered to Bill C-10. The Liberal dominated Senate split the bill without having the authority to do that.

The facts given during my speech were supported with sources. I am sure members of the House trust the police chiefs, the Auditor General and the research done by the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville who has spoken many times in the House on this issue.

I think I made a good case. I have given the facts to Canadians and I supported my facts with sources. Let anyone challenge those facts and then we will see.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-10A. The bill seeks to amend the Firearms Act. Notably, the bill would stagger firearms licence renewals to avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles. It would simplify the requirements for licence renewals and it would create a commissioner to oversee the program.

We, the members of the official opposition, disagree with the passage of the bill.

The member for Yorkton—Melville has worked very hard and for a very long time on this issue. He has done an excellent job of researching the issue, educating Canadians and holding the government accountable.

This bill has been kicking around for over two years. First it was Bill C-15 which, at the insistence of the official opposition, was split into two parts. Bill C-15B included the firearms amendments, along with the amendments to the cruelty to animals section. It was in the Senate when the House prorogued. In this session it was re-numbered as Bill C-10 and sent to the Senate for debate. After six days of debate, in December the Senate decided to split Bill C-10 into two: Bill C-10A, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which includes the firearms section and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with cruelty to animals.

Despite the fact that the Senate does not have the authority to do so, the Senate split this bill in two. Members of the House of Commons should not be required to waive their rights and privileges in order to allow the Senate to exceed its authority.

Why did the Senate divide Bill C-10? Because it could not comply with the government's demand that it ram through the entire bill before Christmas. But why exactly did the Liberal-dominated Senate take this drastic step? Because the government had an end of year deadline contained in the gun registry section. Failure to pass the gun registry portion of Bill C-10 by December 31 would result in yet higher costs for the registry, perhaps another $4 million a year. We missed the December deadline.

Bill C-10A has been appearing on and disappearing from the legislative agenda for some months now. I can only speculate that the government is leery about placing it before Parliament for debate, perhaps scared over the reception it will receive from the members of the Liberal caucus.

The 22 pages with 63 clauses of firearms amendments in Bill C-10A are a clear admission by the government that Bill C-68 was a failure. The then justice minister told us at a news conference, “The debate is over” on this issue, but if the debate really was over in 1998, why did the minister bring in 22 pages of amendments to the legislation?

After seven years, the waste of a billion dollars and still counting, and massive non-compliance, the government has finally admitted it made a mistake in 1995. There are many more things that need to be fixed in Bill C-68 other than these few tinkering amendments. The insurmountable problems with the gun registry will not be solved by these band-aid amendments.

The only cost effective solution is to scrap the gun registry altogether and replace it with something that will work.

Gun Control

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of the gun control legislation and in fact the discussion we had this morning is to make Canadian streets safer. That is what we intend to do. That is why we are bringing in Bill C-10A, to create greater efficiencies in the system so that we can do the proper training and at the end of the day have safer streets for all our people.

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

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have tried to indicate, Canadians are voting with their feet. They are supporting this program in actual fact. It is not for the government side to tell Canadians what is in their best interest. Canadians have told the government what they want to see happen with respect to gun control. They want to see how the culture will be made more positive, more protective and more accountable.

However, the member is quite right. Canadians want to see gun control in its totality done in a sensible, accountable and cost efficient manner. The issue that is before the House, the subject matter of Bill C-10A, is the administration of the program, not the philosophy. That decision has already been made, not just by the government but has been adjudicated on by the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore let us get on with it.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to talk about the important changes that are taking place to streamline the firearms program and make it more efficient. Bill C-10A is really all about improving the program and increasing program efficiency.

There has been an attempt to resurrect the whole firearms control act and challenge it. That really is not what is before us today. What is before us today is the streamlining and efficiency of the program, and Canadians are concerned about that. I emphasize that is what is before us because the province of Alberta, when it challenged the right of the government to bring in the legislation, challenged the government on the basis of whether it contributed to public safety. The Supreme Court ruled that registration and licensing were two sides to the same coin when we talk about public safety.

Let us talk about what the bill addresses and that is the matter of streamlining and making the program more efficient.

With that in mind, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to remind Canadians about some of the positive steps the Government of Canada is already taking to improve this important legislation and this program.

The firearms program enhances public safety by controlling access to firearms and ammunition, by deterring their misuse, and controlling specific kinds of firearms. In other words, it addresses the whole culture that Canadians have with respect to firearms and a respect for them.

The program approaches gun safety as a practical manner by registering firearms and licensing their owners. Mandatory safety training helps reduce accidents and reinforces the principles of safe storage. Again, that contributes to that attitude of that culture with respect to firearms.

Since December 1, 1998, the government has issued firearm licences to over 1.9 million individuals. In addition, we have over six million firearms registered and now in the database.

Throughout the implementation process there have been many challenges. Many people waited until after the Supreme Court decision in June 2000 before applying for licences. I have already indicated that decision made it quite clear, that registration and licensing were two sides of the same coin in terms of public safety.

Changes in technology we recognize have contributed to rising costs as have delays in the adoption of Bill C-10A. We cannot ignore this. The government calls upon both sides of the House to expeditiously get on with this improvement of the mechanics of the implementation because it is the costs associated with it that are driving Canadians in the direction of a mistrust in their public institutions.

Nevertheless, the Canadian public has a tangible asset that includes a system of checks and balances, a spousal concern outlet and a database which is already proving its worth and making it very important to frontline officers.

A key date for the firearms program was December 31, 2002. That was the deadline for registration of firearms. On December 27 of last year special measures were announced for firearm owners. These special measures included a grace period for licensed owners who had mailed in their applications but not yet received their certificates in the mail. The grace period was also extended to people who were trying to register their firearms at the last minute but were unable to because of higher than normal call volumes and Internet traffic. These individuals were protected from prosecution provided they submitted a statement of intent to register their firearms before January 1, 2003, and many availed themselves of that in good faith.

While not an extension to the registration deadline, these special measures allowed people more time, in light of increasing demands on the call centre as well as the online application.

Over 70,000 individuals responded and sent in a statement of intent and each individual was been contacted and either provided with a registration form or provided with a link to the online application which was reinstated earlier this year. Canadians are supporting the program. They are doing it by the tens of thousands.

Now we are approaching the end of the grace period for registration and again, for people to avoid finding themselves in the same situation as before the deadline, we are urging people to complete their applications as soon as possible.

Canadians are committed to the principles of the Firearms Act. That is obvious. Public opinion poll after poll demonstrates this deep commitment. Despite the overheated rhetoric from those against gun control, opposition to the Canadian firearms program is neither as broad nor as unanimous as some would have Canadians believe.

The firearms program keeps guns out of the hands of those who may be a danger to themselves or others, enhances safe storage, transport and use, and prevents illegal guns from entering our country, or at least are steps in that direction.

Hon. members may remember that not too long ago a national poll found that the supporters of every political party represented in the House of Commons supported the firearms program.

During the past several months, the government has announced several key initiatives to improve the program and provide better client service across the country.

On February 21 the Minister of Justice, joined by the Solicitor General, tabled an action plan for changes to the firearms program. At that time the Minister of Justice stated:

The plan will streamline management, improve service to legitimate users of firearms, seek stakeholder, parliamentarian, and public input, and strengthen accountability and transparency to Parliament and Canadians.

The action plan contains many key areas that will help strengthen the program and make it more transparent. I am pleased to report that the government has made significant progress in the implementation of that action plan.

On April 14 the Canadian Firearms Centre was transferred from the Department of Justice to the Department of the Solicitor General. This is a natural fit to the Solicitor General portfolio, which is focused on enhancing public safety and ensuring national security.

The national weapons enforcement team also has been transferred. It is now a part of National Police Services which is administered by the RCMP. As members may recall, the national weapons enforcement team has been a key player, a key part, in several high profile cases over the past several months.

The action plan also states the government's intention to consolidate the headquarters function to the firearms program in Ottawa. This has already occurred following the appointment of a new CEO who is now accountable to the Solicitor General for the firearms program.

The government has also been committed to improving the total service to the public. I would like to take the opportunity to remind everyone on both sides of the House that firearms owners can access information and assistance through both a 1-800 service and the CFC website.

The CFC call centre is operational 16 hours a day. On average, the call centre receives 4,000 calls per day on a variety of issues. A recently introduced service allows firearms owner to order a registration form using the keypad of their telephones.

Online registration, which was reintroduced earlier this year, is available 24 hours a day free of charge. Online registration is not only beneficial to clients, it is cost efficient and the processing times are greatly reduced. Canadians by the thousands are availing themselves of the further information that they require. Is this not an indicator that they are interested in the role that they can play in contributing to public safety in Canada?

One of the commitments the program has made is to process every accurate and complete registration application in 30 days. This is only one of many new service standards that we will hear about over the next few weeks.

The government is also establishing a program advisory committee of experienced individuals drawn primarily from the private and non-government sectors to provide ongoing advice on program improvement, quality of service and cost effectiveness.

If the issues with respect to public safety are based in the community, then community based responses with advisory committees of this type are the way the government should be proceedings and is proceeding.

The government also proposed legislative changes to the Firearms Act that are designed to improve the efficiency of the program. Bill C-10A is an essential part of that action plan in establishing a more client friendly and efficient system.

One of these measures is the authority to stagger firearms licence renewals which is intended to help avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles. Evening out the workload in such a manner will guarantee and result in more efficient processing, better client service and significant cost savings.

Streamlining the transfer process for non-restricted firearms allows provincial chief firearms officers in the provinces to focus their efforts and resources on other public safety functions. It improves client services without compromising public safety.

As well, the legislation allows for the increased use of Internet and other automated channels for not only the application process but the issuance of documents as well, which is a further service in terms of outreach to those who have firearms, to allow them to expedite their issuance.

Additional changes contained in Bill C-10A would allow foreign visitors to obtain a pre-approved declaration that will help outfitters to better prepare their clients prior to their entry into Canada.

The amendments have also grandfathered additional handguns that were prohibited in 1995. This change is a direct result of consultations with stakeholders and other program partners.

The Canadian firearms program will present an annual report to Parliament that will provide a full account of the program and complement existing government reports to Parliament.

While additional regulations would be required in some cases, these amendments are yet another example of how the firearms program is evolving and meeting the expectations of the Canadian public.

Canadians want strong and sensible gun laws. They have spoken by the tens of thousands on the issue. They also want a commitment from us that we will administer this program in the most efficient manner possible, and that is the subject matter of the bill. It is inspired by the support of Canadians. I am confident we can overcome any challenge and ensure that Canada has an effective and sensible gun control program, which is what Canadians want.

Passage of Bill C-10A is necessary to ensure that will happen. It is in the interest of providing the best possible service to Canadians and, most important, it will contribute to the culture of community safety that Canadians want as a legacy for themselves and for future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to hear a couple of the Progressive Conservative members speak on the issue. Conservatives have never been known for their good sense on financial issues. It is somewhat hypocritical of them to talk about cost overruns, considering how the last P.C. government in Canada handled the finances of the country.

What is really irritating about Bill C-68, which was introduced by the Liberals, is that it was only introduced because the Progressive Conservatives had first committed to a firearms legislation, and on which the Liberals had to up the ante. Therefore, they brought in this onerous Bill C-68, which would never have passed if it were not for Progressive Conservative senators supporting the bill and passing it.

Then we were faced with Bill C-15, which has now mutated into Bill C-10A. Once again we are faced with having to deal with the bill. I guess the only thing more irritating than listening to the Conservatives opposing the bill, after they had supported the bill through the Senate, was to hear one of the government members a few minutes ago talk about how $600 million was a justifiable expense in this program.

To the member at the other end, what epiphany did members of his party experience that caused them to change their position on this legislation? Was it when the Conservatives realized that their constituents actually opposed the bill or was it when the cost of the bill became too high even for Progressive Conservatives?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss the Canadian firearms program in the context of Bill C-10A and specifically to address the public's support and the benefits of this legislation.

Canadians have often indicated that they want—indeed, demand—to live in a fair, peaceful and safe society. Public safety is the prime objective of the Canadian firearms program.

The firearms program is designed to improve public safety by controlling access to firearms and ammunition, encouraging safe use of firearms, controlling specific types of firearms, and giving police officers a valuable tool for their investigations. This program is intended to keep firearms away from those who should not have them, that is, individuals who present a danger to themselves or to society.

I would like to point out that the purpose of the program is not to interfere with the legitimate use of firearms in Canada but rather to promote firearms safety and thus prevent death and injury by firearms and dissuade criminals from using firearms in the commission of crimes.

As the program has been implemented, the Government of Canada has been careful to respect the legitimate interests of hunters, target shooters and others who use firearms for legitimate purposes.

According to a recent Environics poll, a great majority of Canadians support the public safety objectives of the firearms program, including the licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms.

Licensing makes it possible to ensure that firearms owners meet rigorous public safety criteria. The registry makes it possible to link each firearm with its owner, which leads to greater accountability. Safe storage and training in proper handling of firearms are two other important aspects of the program.

In their letters indicating support for the program, citizens from one end of the country to the other are unanimous: public safety comes first.

The program has the support not only of the Canadian public, but also many experts in health and safety, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Canada Safety Council, and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, to name just a few.

I will give a few examples of organizations that have expressed their support for the firearms program.

For example, Debbie McGray, president of the New Brunswick Nurses Union, wrote the following in a letter on December 13, 2002:

Nurses see the devastating effects of the misuse of firearms every day—however, thanks to the screening process and the requirement for owners to register their firearms, the program has resulted in a considerable decrease in the number of deaths from firearms.

Dr. François Desbiens, Director of Public Health for the Régie régionale de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec, wrote the following on February 21, 2003:

The Canadian firearms program comprises a broad range of concrete measures aimed at decreasing injuries by firearms—with a view to saving lives, avoiding accidental shootings because responsible owners will store their weapons better, protecting spouses in the event of family violence and making it harder for potential suicides to have access to weapons.

Finally, Kathy Belton, Co-Director of the Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research, made the following observation on December 11, 2002:

Firearms kill more young people in this age group, that is the 15- to 24 year-olds, than cancer, drowning and falls combined. The Canadian firearms program is just beginning, but the figures show that it has already brought about a reduction in the number of deaths and crimes involving firearms.

Clearly the program works and enjoys solid support. The firearms program has delivered good results. Up to this point, several thousands of firearms permits have been denied or revoked by those responsible for public safety.

The Canadian Firearms Centre has received a great many calls to its notification lines, which were set up to allow Canadians to express their public safety concerns with respect to certain persons who possess firearms.

Law enforcement agencies across the country have consulted the online registry data several millions of times since December 1, 1998. All of these efforts help us prevent people who should not have firearms from possessing any. In the end, it saves lives.

It is fairly easy to imagine dangerous situations that the program has already prevented. The purpose of the Canadian Firearms Centre is to make our families and our communities safer.

Through measures contained in Bill C-10A, the government plans on improving client service, reducing costs and increasing transparency, as Canadians have requested.

The bill contains a certain number of initiatives which, if adopted, would assist the government in responding to the concerns expressed by the Auditor General and the public.

One of these measures is to stagger licence renewals in order to avoid a bottleneck every five years. With a steadier volume of work, more effective methods can be used that will make it possible to improve client service and realize significant savings.

Simplifying the formalities for transfers of non-restricted firearms and transfers between businesses will make it possible for the provincial chief firearms officers to concentrate their efforts and their resources on other public safety functions. It will improve service to clients without compromising public safety.

Moreover, by grouping all administrative power in the hands of a commissioner, a more direct linkage is made with the minister responsible, now the Solicitor General. In this way, too, financial and political accountability will be improved.

The annual report mentioned in the bill will now be prepared by the firearms commissioner, who will provide complementary information on the Canadian firearms program and on the reports already presented to Parliament by the government.

The bill fulfills the expectations of the general public and other observers by building upon the strong support the public has already demonstrated for the firearms program.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will say this on the member's question. When the program he is talking about was started, I believe Charlie Gracey was the president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association at the time, or at least he was one of the consultants on that national cattle identification program. It is an exceptionally good program, no question about it. Twenty-five million livestock are registered, transfers are happening, sales are happening, and some are going to slaughter.

They are doing that and I congratulate them for doing it, but this is like comparing apples and oranges in terms of this particular program. There is a 95% compliance rate with the NCIP, but in the beginning there was considerable opposition to the program, the same as there is with this program.

I believe that if government can get the message out of what this program is all about, it is that the intent is not to criminalize legitimate gun owners. It is not; it is to make safer streets and safer communities. We want to do that. Without Bill C-10A, which we are having the discussion on, the firearms centre, taxpayers are incurring costs to maintain and operate the old system as well as costs for the new system. We need this piece of legislation so that we are working with the new system, a more efficient system, and so we can provide the kinds of services that Canadians want in an efficient way.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is not what today's motion is about. There will be a chance to get into that kind of detail when we go to estimates.

What I can do is talk about past history. I have already outlined that, where, yes, there have been extensive costs. The Auditor General made a report, a very well documented report, and we appreciate having received that report from her. It was not good news, I will admit that. There was bad news in it, but what this government and what I as the minister now responsible for the firearms centre are willing to do is look at this. We have said that we would adopt those recommendations. We will accept them and in fact some of them are in Bill C-10A, this bill that we are talking about. We want to learn from what the Auditor General said and create efficiencies in the system and manage the system more effectively.

That is what I cannot understand: Where is the official opposition on this? On one hand it is talking about the program costing too much money, and I admit it is, but we want the program to cost less money and to be more efficient, and yet those members will not give us the opportunity to make this program more efficient and have safer streets in the process.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of hot air but not much substance in that comment. Let us get to the facts in terms of the $2 million cost. Admittedly so, it was the net cost of the program as originally estimated. The member talks about the $1 billion figure. We are not at $1 billion; by 2005 we may reach that point.

I do want to make this point. The members are saying that I was opposed to this system and that since I became a minister I now support it. I think it would be useful if members opposite went back to look at the voting record in Hansard . They will see how I voted on this issue. Certainly I have debated, as have many members of our caucus; I see some of them sitting here. I have debated within our own caucus and within the House some of the concerns we had on the gun registry. We did have concerns. We tried to improve it.

That is what we are trying to do today: improve the bill to meet the concerns of the people within our party and some of the concerns of the people opposite and certainly of the general public.

On the last point on democracy, the member says to listen to the will of the public. That is what we are trying to do. The public said yes, they want this system, but they want it run efficiently.

If we could ever get to voting on Bill C-10A, we could create some of those efficiencies in the system that the public wants. That is what we are trying to do by getting this bill through the House of Commons, but the opposition members continue to try to disrupt us. Twenty days of debate between the two houses is unbelievable.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member is roaring across the aisle that what we cannot do by the front door we are doing by the back door. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We have said on this side of the House that there have been extensive costs to this program. Through Bill C-10A, we have found ways to make the gun registry more efficient. We need the legislative obligations which are laid out in Bill C-10A in order to put those efficiencies in place.

I understand the opposition by some to the program. The intent of the gun control issue, as the member fully knows, is not to make criminals out of legitimate gun owners. They have a right to those guns. However, there are certain obligations they must follow through on that are part of the gun control program.

The specifics of the hon. member's question pertained to costs. One of the reasons why, as outlined in the presentation before the estimates, and one of the difficulties in terms of administering the program and getting registrations on the phone-in system is that we had to cut back on resources and on people on the other end of those phones because of the reduction of the amount of money the member talked about. It added to our problem of inefficiencies in the system because that money was withdrawn.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice went before the estimates committee and outlined some of those costs. Maybe the member should have listened more closely at that point in time. However, the best way to look at what the costs to the system would be is to look at the history. I outlined to his leader a moment ago what the costs were in 2000-01. As we can see from those figures, the costs that the member opposite talks about most of the time are greatly exaggerated.

The fact of the matter is, regarding his question on Bill C-10A, this proposal would make it possible for us to create better efficiencies in the system and that is what members opposite should be wanting us to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious the minister is not answering our questions.

I have a question for him. RCMP testing has confirmed that many air guns, pellet guns, and even some BB guns exceed both the muzzle energy and muzzle velocity requirements in Bill C-10A and would have to be registered as soon as Bill C-10A is proclaimed. This would drive up the costs, contrary to what the minister has just said. There may be as many as one million air gun owners, and two or three million pellet guns and BB guns in Canada.

Would the minister tell us how much it will cost to register all of these guns?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition is implying that this system does not make streets safer. Let me provide a couple of examples.

A public safety warrant was executed after an individual threatened several employees of local businesses and a school principal. As the individual lived directly across from the school, there was concern that he would follow through with his threats. The search warrant allowed police to find a number of shotguns and rifles unsafely stored in a closet in the individual's home. All the firearms were seized and the individual was subsequently prohibited from owning firearms and the guns that were found in his home were disposed of. That is making safer streets and the members in the official opposition do not want to admit that.

Let me explain what this bill would really do. If the opposition were to let us pass Bill C-10A we could save money. I will name a few of the possible effects that it would have. It would simplify the requirements for licence renewals, which members opposite should want; it would stagger firearm licence renewals to avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles; it would increase the use of the Internet for applications and the issuance of documents, which is making great efficiencies; it would establish a pre-application process for temporary importation of non-resident visitors; and it would streamline the transfer process of firearms from one owner to another. That is helping to create efficiencies within the system.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline the costs for the hon. member because he has been talking about what his colleague from Yorkton—Melville has been doing in terms of outlining the costs. The motion today is about getting Bill C-10A through the House, which will in fact reduce the costs.

Let me the outline the worst year of costs for the Canadian firearms centre. The opposition alleges that all the costs are with the registry. I will outline those figures in detail for the year 2000-01: public administration was $10,670,000; communication and public affairs was $34,820,000; firearms registration, the area the opposition is always talking about, was $40,362,000; program delivery was $114,216,000; and the national weapons enforcement support team, which does all the good work in terms of finding illegal weapons and which is part of the purpose for the program in the first place, was $296,000. That totals $200,364,000. Those are the real facts and that was the worst year of costs.

We want to ensure that we pass Bill C-10A to create some efficiencies in the system and save money for Canadians.

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments to the bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the allotted day of the consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Points of Order

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, today as the House leader for the government responded to the request of the House leader for the opposition regarding the business for the coming week, he mentioned a number of bills that would be dealt with today, tomorrow, and on through to Wednesday. In talking about all of them he gave the indication that there would be carry-over time and that we would go back to aforementioned business. However, when he talked about Tuesday he just said we would be doing the Senate amendment on Bill C-10A specifically, without any provision for carry-over. Would the House leader for the governing party tell us if he plans to introduce time allocation on that bill?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note the lobby just put before us by the hon. member for Bill C-10A to be debated next week.

This afternoon, we will continue the debate on the opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will commence with Bill C-34, the long-awaited bill to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

I have informed the House leaders of the other parties of my intention to propose, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1), that this bill be referred to committee before second reading. If this debate is completed by the end of the day, we will return to third reading of Bill C-9, which deals with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; then we will go to Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill, but I would be surprised if we got that far tomorrow.

On Monday and Wednesday, we will return to the two bills that I just mentioned and we will add to that Bill C-35, regarding military judges, which I think was introduced this morning. Then we will complete, I hope, Bill C-33, dealing with the transfer of offenders.

On Tuesday, and again I am responding to the request made by my colleagues opposite, we will continue consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-10, respecting the Criminal Code.

Next Thursday will be an allotted day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the government House leader to advise us of what the business is for the rest of this week and next week. Could he also advise the House if he will be bringing forward Bill C-10A? It has been on the agenda week after week on Tuesdays and always withdrawn. Will it be on the agenda next Tuesday, and will he use his time allocation motion so that it is completed on that day?

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. This morning the other side of the House wandered all over the procedural map. First, the hon. member challenged the Speaker's rulings with regard to Bill C-10A. In fact, he challenged pretty much everybody, spoke ill of other hon. members of this House, and, to top it off, made gratuitous accusations about me because, in the past, I volunteered to help improve committee procedures in the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons on which we all sit. Finally, he made all kinds of accusations about the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

As we are all aware, the hon. member for Nickel Belt chairs the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. Recently he has faced long debates, sometimes up to 10 hours or more on such topics as the committee's agenda. It has been difficult for a number of hon. members.

This issue was brought before the House. You and your colleagues who sit in the Chair felt that the committee should, of course, first report on its work and then action would follow, if necessary.

Once again, this ruling is challenged. However, this does not mean that a parliamentarian who sits on a committee would be authorized to do just about anything since no report has been submitted to the House. Of course not.

The accusations made against the hon. member are very serious. This is why I think that, before the Chair makes a ruling on this issue, the hon. member for Nickel Belt who, right now, is not available to provide an immediate reply, should at least be given the opportunity to defend his actions. He probably did not get a notice informing him that this issue would be raised. In fact, I myself as House leader was not notified. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Nickel Belt was probably not given that courtesy either.

I am sure that he will want to reply. Should the Chair decide to investigate this matter with the committee, then I would ask the Chair to also look at the other side of the coin, that is the accusations made by some members against the chair of the committee, who told the House about being the object of physical threats and so on.

Should the Chair of this House decide to investigate the issue, he should not look at just one component. It would be important to look at both sides. Indeed, based on what the hon. member for Nickel Belt told the House a few days ago, there is another version to this whole affair. Therefore, it would be important to hear it if, of course, the Chair decides to take a closer look at this matter.

I will conclude by saying once again that, in light of the seriousness of the accusations made, the hon. member should at least have the right to give his version before the Chair rules on this issue.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the 36th Parliament, parliamentary privilege has been increasingly and repeatedly attacked. Privileges are defined as follows by Joseph Maingot in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , on page 11, and it is very clear:

Parliamentary privilege is a fundamental right necessary—

Later, on the same page, he goes on to state:

It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate power to protect itself and its members and officials in the exercise of their functions.

I would like to give a few examples of how these privileges are being completely disregarded.

We need only think of the pre-eminence of Parliament in terms of the rights of parliamentarians to be the first informed. Committee reports are leaked before they can be tabled in the House. Statements are being given outside the House, which means that the media are quite frequently more up to date on the work of committees than parliamentarians are.

This is not the first time that this matter has been raised. I already condemned this disturbing situation when I raised a question of privilege on December 12, 1998, about information leaked from a report on prebudget consultations prepared by the Standing Committee on Finance. I stated at the time that leaked committee reports are becoming common occurrences.

I will name a few instances that occurred during the 36th Parliament: the report on nuclear non-proliferation by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs; the report on amateur and professional sports in Canada by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage; and the report by the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access.

This kind of leak is still happening on a regular basis. Recently, the chair of the Standing Committee on Industry himself expressed the committee's viewpoint as set out in a draft report. The same thing happened with the Standing Committee on Health. In fact, on December 11, 2002, the supplementary report of the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs was leaked. Since the beginning of the 36th Parliament, almost 15 leaks have undermined the privileges of the House and for only a few of these were the culprits admonished.

And what about the government motion on the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10 that deals with animal cruelty? Let me remind the House of that motion.

That, in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, this House concurs with the Senate's division of the bill into two parts, namely, Bill C-10A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), but

that the House, while disapproving any infringement of its rights and privileges by the other House, waives its rights and privileges in this case, with the understanding that this waiver cannot be construed as a precedent; and

that a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.

It has become so commonplace to infringe upon the privileges of parliamentarians that we have no qualms about referring to it in a motion. It does not matter if we say in a motion that it cannot be construed as a precedent. When we abuse someone, whether it is verbally or in any other way, we cannot argue afterwards that it never happened. These things hurt and are not forgotten.

The same applies to the privileges of parliamentarians. When can we expect another motion like that one, where we are told that it is not a precedent? Putting up with this kind of abuse, although we might not acknowledge it, does undermine our position.

Parliamentary privilege is not some sort of flexible concept. It is fundamental and essential to the work we do. To play with parliamentary privilege in such an odious way is to discredit the institutions in which we work.

Nevertheless, let us return to the case at hand and your ruling on Monday. The procedural irregularities that took place on April 1 and 2 in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources are yet another instance. We have a committee chair who permitted the moving of the previous question, despite this passage on page 786 of House and Commons Procedure and Practice :

The moving of the previous question is prohibited in a Committee of the Whole as it is in any committee.

You said, in your ruling on Monday:

—committees are also expected to adopt any such limits in a regular and procedurally acceptable manner.

Moreover, you quoted Speaker Fraser's ruling given on March 26, 1990:

—I would urge all chairmen and members of committees to try and strive mightily to ensure that the general rules of this place are followed as far as is sensible and helpful in those committees.

He also stated:

—chairmen ought to be mindful of their responsibilities and make their decisions and rulings within the bounds of the fine balance provided by our rules.

How can we expect the Chair of this committee to maintain order and decorum, pursuant to Standing Order 117, when he is the one creating disorder? He even invited a member of the government party to appeal his ruling with respect to the previous question, as if to say, “Go ahead and contest my ruling. You have the majority. We will hold a vote and you, with your majority, can reverse my ruling. Then you can move the previous question. And to hell with the Standing Orders”.

A committee chair who openly invites a committee member to contest a ruling based directly on the Standing Orders, and on a point of order into the bargain, is issuing a direct invitation to circumvent the rules that govern us, not once but twice, to serve his own purposes. That is, to put it plainly, dictatorial.

What is the implication of contravening the Standing Orders for members who are insulted in this manner? Let me quote once again page 786 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice :

—the moving of the previous question would prevent Members from proposing amendments and considering the legislation to the fullest extent possible.

To deliberately prevent a member from having the tools required to do his job is a breach of his privileges. I know full well, as you said in your ruling on the point of order that I raised last Monday, that committees are the masters of their own proceedings. This committee is led by a tyrannical chairman who decisions show no signs of fairness. In this case, the committee, particularly its chairman, through his actions, has shown that he must be brought into line because he very clearly contravenes the Standing Orders, preventing members, as the previous quotation shows, from appropriately and effectively doing their job.

Once again on the matter of order and decorum, the committee chairman assumes an arrogant and contemptuous air when some opposition members speak, when we try to ask for clarification on certain decisions. He also assumes an indifferent air during committee proceedings, slouching in his chair and even joking with his Liberal colleagues, detracting from discipline while opposition members are speaking. His attitude is quite different when his Liberal colleagues are speaking.

I would like to share with you another breach of my parliamentary privileges. At a committee meeting, I asked the clerk to clarify a decision the committee was preparing to take. The chair of the committee came between the committee clerk and myself in order prevent her from answering me directly, and by that very fact stopped her from providing me with an answer. The committee chair himself provided me with a cursory answer, with no explanation, as he stated this was not necessary.

Quoting from page 834 of Marleau and Montpetit;

The clerk of a committee is the procedural advisor to the chair and all members of the committee and also acts as its administrative officer. The role of the committee clerk is analogous to that which the Clerk of the House has with respect to the Speaker and members of the House. As a non-participant and independent officer, the clerk serves equally all members of the committee as well as representatives of all parties; clerks discharge their duties and responsibilities with respect to the committee in consultation with the chair. The clerk also acts as the committee's liaison with other branches and services of the House of Commons.

It is clear that, once again, my rights and privileges have not been respected and I have not been able to properly perform my duties as a member of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon you today because I have been unsuccessful with all the recourses you invited me to call upon in your ruling this past Monday. I came to you with a point of order and complied with your request to return to the committee with a motion calling upon it to report on the procedural irregularities of April 1 and 2. This was disdainfully refused with cynicism and arrogance by the committee chair and the Liberal members.

Consequently, the entire matter remains unresolved. Yet it is very urgent to take action because the committee is still in operation. I am appealing to you as the guardian of my rights and privileges, because the chair of my committee has not been able to protect them, and on more than one occasion moreover. You, Mr. Speaker, are, to quote House of Commons Procedure and Practice page 26:

—the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

In addition, on the previous page, we see that your duties:

—require balancing the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that the public business is efficiently transacted and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority.

We expect no less. This latter quote captures the essence of parliamentary privilege as well as of your role and duty to preserve the delicate balance between the power between the government party and the opposition.

You said you wanted to rule on my point of order in a timely fashion since:

—it may have some bearing on the work that the committee intends to take up this week.

Referring us to committee resulted in our being subjected to an illegitimate gag order, which breaches our privileges as parliamentarians. Of course, the chair of the committee did not allow a motion to censure the disorder in that committee.

How can a chair who ignores the procedure and practice of the House be expected to allow me to move a motion to report to the House what happened in committee?

Discussing the matter at the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons is inappropriate. The suggestion by the government House leader was dishonest. This matter must de decided now.

What is at stake today is respect for the privileges of parliamentarians and the rights of opposition members to do their job properly without the sword of arbitrariness being held over their heads.

If the procedural irregularities that took place during the consideration of Bill C-7 at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources are allowed to go unchallenged, this will create a dangerous precedent. How can we trust after such a affront that it will not happen again? How will the work of the committee be managed from now on?

These questions are all the more pressing because since you handed down your ruling in response to my point of order, the work of the committee has been done in a permanent climate of tension that has been exacerbated by the smug and contemptuous attitude of the committee chair, an attitude that even affects the public that attends the meetings.

On Tuesday, the day after your ruling, the attitude of the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources provoked a strong verbal reaction from two first nations representatives who were present. The chair abruptly ordered their removal, and had it not been for my intervention, these perfectly peaceful women would have been subjected to the humiliation of being forcefully expelled by four security guards. When I was heading out the door with the two women, the committee chair hurled abuse at me and ordered me to mind my own business, using language that was disrespectful, irreverent and unworthy of a member of Parliament.

Since your ruling on my point of order, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources has also demonstrated bias and used a double standard in his decisions. For example, on Tuesday he would not allow first nations members to take photographs in committee, and then on Wednesday, he was quite happy to let constituents from his riding take all the pictures they wanted, even extending an invitation to two students to sit at the table during the committee's hearings.

Given the importance of the issues being examined, it is imperative that the committee chair be rigorous, have decorum, be professional and especially impartial. I wonder how the House would have reacted if this type of behaviour or these types of injustices had occurred here in the House.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you, since the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources has violated the Standing Orders by his cavalier management of debate and his complete lack of decorum, to recognize that there has been a prima facie breach of my privilege, of my right to do my job properly. I am therefore prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I wish now to indicate to the House that I am ready to rule on a point of order raised on Monday, April 7, by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast concerning the motion on the Order Paper to concur in the Senate's message to divide Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

I would like to thank the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast for raising the issue. I also wish to thank the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Vancouver East for their interventions on the matter.

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast raised a number of interesting points, stating that the message from the Senate regarding Bill C-10 could not be considered a stage of a bill nor could the Senate's division of Bill C-10 be considered an amendment. He went on to argue that the motion to concur in the Senate's message should therefore not be listed on the Order Paper under Government Bills as a motion in response to an amendment made to a bill but rather should be listed as a motion under the heading Government Motions.

In consequence, the hon. member argued that the notice given by the government to time allocate the motion was invalid since Standing Order 78 can only be used to curtail debate on motions related to the stages of bills and not on a government motion.

At the time this point of order was raised, I indicated that this matter had previously been before the House in December 2002, when questions were raised about the admissibility of the motion and the possible breach of the privileges of the House in relation to the actions taken by the other place in dividing the bill.

In my ruling delivered on December 5, 2002 I stated that there was no basis for a prima facie question of privilege, and I made the following point at that time:

—while the Speaker agrees with the view of Mr. Speaker Fraser that privileged matters are involved where the Senate divides a House bill without first having the House’s concurrence, this is not the case in this instance. Our concurrence has in fact been requested—

See House of Commons Debates , December 5, 2002, p. 2336.

Given the conclusions delivered in my ruling in December, the motion to concur in the Senate message to divide the bill is a proper motion and it is properly before the House, and accordingly I consider the issue of the admissibility of the motion closed.

In my December ruling, I also pointed out to hon. members that they would have the opportunity to debate the motion when it was brought before the House and to propose amendments as they saw fit. That process is well underway. Debate on the motion to concur in the Senate's request to divide Bill C-10 commenced on December 6, 2002, and members of the official opposition have since proposed an amendment and a subamendment to the motion.

On February 14, the government gave notice of time allocation on consideration of the motion to concur in the Message from the Senate, and this is the issue to which I would now like to turn. In his arguments, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast questioned whether the Senate message seeking concurrence to divide Bill C-10 could properly be considered an amendment and treated as a stage of a bill under the provisions of Standing Order 78. The December ruling on this matter found the motion to be in order and therefore properly before the House.

After full consideration of the arguments presented in this unusual circumstance, I have now concluded that the motion to concur in the Senate message to divide Bill C-10 is indeed intrinsic to the legislative process for this particular bill.

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast sought to draw a parallel with the case of a motion from the House instructing one of its committees to divide a bill. Whereas it might be argued that such a motion is complementary to the legislative process already in train and not integral to it, in the case before us, the motion to waive House privileges and permit the other House to divide Bill C-10 is, in my view, clearly part of the critical path of the legislative process with regard to this bill.

For this bill to proceed down its unique and admittedly unprecedented legislative path to royal assent and proclamation, a decision must be taken by the House either to concur in or defeat the motion to concur in the Senate proposal to divide the bill. I therefore feel that this motion is part of the legislative process on this bill, not an additional motion introduced to do something to a bill otherwise before the House.

Given this set of circumstances, I find that it is in order for the government to give notice and move time allocation pursuant to Standing Order 78 on the consideration of this motion. I draw the attention of members to page 563 of Marleau and Montpetit, where the following point is made regarding the use of time allocation:

...although the rule permits the government to negotiate with opposition parties towards the adoption of a timetable for the consideration by the House of a bill at one or more stages (including the stage for the consideration of Senate amendments), it also allows the government to impose strict limits on the time for debate.

In conclusion, I would concur with the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast that this is indeed an unprecedented case. Absent a definitive rule or practice of the House with respect to the Senate's proposed division of House bills, the Chair believes it prudent to act with an abundance of caution. The Senate has properly sought the concurrence of the House in its proposed course of action and now awaits the decision of the House before proceeding further. This motion clearly seeks the concurrence of the House to divide Bill C-10, thus responding to the Senate request. This dialogue is intrinsic to the legislative process for Bill C-10 and the Speaker is thus bound to accept that the procedure being followed is acceptable in this case.

I would again take the opportunity to remind hon. members that they have the opportunity to debate the motion and to propose amendments to it within the rules of the House.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the Senate amendments to Bill C-10. These senate amendments would divide the bill in two, and create Bill C-10A.

Therefore, as the hon. members will agree, that is all that is before the House. The other bill is not before us at this time.

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader said Bill C-10. My understanding is that Bill C-10 is comprised of A and B. Does he intend to call both Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B or one or the other?

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

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon and tomorrow with consideration of Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies legislation, followed by Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and the Senate amendments to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

When we return on April 28, in addition to the bills I have just listed, if any remain, we will consider the legislation on RCMP pensions introduced earlier today—I believe it is C-31—and the Criminal Code bill that will be introduced tomorrow by one of my hon. cabinet colleagues. After that, we will move on to third reading of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, if that stage has been reached.

I am looking forward to a number of committees reporting legislation in the near future and it would be our intention to proceed with report stages of those bills as quickly as possible, once the reports have been received.

The chief opposition whip has asked the House what is happening with the government motion concerning Iraq. Of course, we have debated Iraq this week and last week, and we even took a vote this week. As I indicated, during the next five days of the session at least—but that will depend on the progress we make—I do not intend to bring that motion back before the House. After that, we shall see.

Firearms Registry

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

Mr. Speaker, that is no answer.

Why are all those spaces blank with the costs unreported? We do not know what it will cost. If Mr. Hession's report was so valuable why is there not some reflection of that in the bill that is now before Parliament, Bill C-10A?

These amendments to the gun registry, which were tabled yesterday and debated yesterday, have been kicking around this House for more than two years.

Why does the minister not just admit that there are no amendments that can fix the firearms registry? Why not just scrap it?

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

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The advantage that a member for Crowfoot has when we have a Liberal cabinet minister heckling with Bloc members is that I do not know if they are heckling me or if they are talking about something else, so as long as they keep speaking like that, I will just keep going.

What I was saying is the legislation keeps coming back into the House because it is flawed. That is the only reason that it comes back. The legislation gets shipped off to the Senate and it gets shipped back to the House because it is flawed. We are standing here today again debating a piece of legislation that has been drawn up in a knee-jerk response and does not, in any type of satisfactory way, bear forward any legislation that will supplement or help public safety in the country. We are here today debating Bill C-10A.

On a number of occasions I have been prepared to debate this legislation, which resulted because the Senate split Bill C-15B. It has created two separate pieces of legislation: Bill C-10A which is an act to amend the Criminal Code in respect to firearms; and Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to cruelty to animals. Both legislations, the cruelty to animal legislation and the gun registry, are attacks on my constituency and on agriculture. I have heard from my constituents time and time again that there are resources that could be spent adequately and that could be directed adequately toward resourcing agriculture and making a difference. However this holds back the ability of farmers and ranchers to go about their business.

Every time my colleagues and I were prepared to speak on Bill C-10A, the controversial bill was yanked from the House agenda in a desperate attempt by the government to avoid further embarrassment over the firearms registry's horrific cost overruns.

I was not here in 1995. I have looked back in Hansard and I have looked at some of the speeches that were given in those times. I have heard where the minister would stand and say that the registry would cost $80 million. Other times someone would come forward and say that it would cost $119 million but it would generate $117 million, for a net cost of only $2 million. Then as time went on, when we could get answers out of the government, we would hear how it was costing $200 million or $300 million.

The huge cost overruns in this bill alone should force the government to yank it off the legislative agenda and scrap it, or at least call a time out.

Just last week the government House leader again withdrew the bill, as complications arose regarding the transfer of the registry from the Minister of Justice to the Solicitor General. The latest rationale for pulling Bill C-10A included references to the Minister of Justice and other wording that the government thought it would have to change before the Solicitor General legally could take responsibility for the Canadian Firearms Centre and other aspects of the program.

Apparently the government devised a new plan on the weekend, because surprise of all surprises, without much warning, again today the bill has been pushed back on to the legislative calender and now we are debating it again. However one outstanding question remains. How will the responsibility and the accountability for the firearms registry be transferred to the Solicitor General? How will pages and pages of enabling legislation be changed to transfer legally the responsibility of the firearms registry from the Minister of Justice over to the Solicitor General?

If transferring it to the Solicitor General is such a good idea, why was it not contemplated when Bill C-68 was drafted and first debated? Why the about-face? Why was it that one minister of justice after another stood and talked about public safety, how the gun registry would reduce crime in Canada and how it was a good thing? However no where in the plan was there the transfer from the Department of Justice to the Solicitor General. Why not?

The government is flying by the seat of its pants. This is a knee-jerk response. The minister has gone from wanting control of the gun registry to not wanting control of it. Some have suggested it is because the current Minister of Justice has hopes for some day running for the leadership of the Liberal Party and realizes that this legislation is a career breaker. The cost overruns, the inefficiencies, the fact that Bill C-10A will never accomplish what those members believe it will accomplish could be a career breaker. That is why it was never contemplated.

The government and the Minister of Justice are trying to save face. Back in the west we call this passing the buck. The minister believes this issue is a hot potato and he wants to shuffle it off his desk and onto the desk of the Solicitor General. He thinks this will divert attention away from the horrific cost of the registry. The government thinks the whole problem may disappear. Talk about a joke. This is not a joke. This is a sad story that is costing responsible firearm owners their freedom of ownership, and is an invasion of their right to privacy.

Until questions are clearly answered, the legislation should be yanked again. It should be pulled off the agenda again. The government should come to the House with some comprehensive plan that will answer the questions that not only the opposition party brings to the House but also the questions that the Canadian public is starting to ask. Why the cost overruns? Why is the registry being moved from the Department of Justice to the Solicitor General's department? Why is the government flying by the seat of its pants?

There are a number of other concerns that I want to address regarding Bill C-10A.

According to media reports, the Solicitor General has admitted that the savings, which his government was planning, to keep the costs of the firearms program at $113 million over the next year will not occur until Bill C-10A becomes law. In other words, if the bill is delayed again, the government will be unable to take advantage of the savings or the $113 million of administration over the next number of years. The government is trying to paint the opposition into a corner. If we attempt to delay this poor piece of legislation, the government will throw it back at us and say that the resulting cost overrun was because the opposition had the audacity to stand up in this place and debate it. Delay after delay will cost Canadians a lot of money. This registry is costing Canadians because it is a poor piece of legislation.

Similarly, the government has blamed those provinces that have opted out of administering the law for the cost overruns when the cost of the firearm registry rests squarely on the government's shoulders. It failed to accurately calculate the exact cost of the registry before Bill C-68 was ever passed and proclaimed. It failed to understand the magnitude of what it would cost.

Last week I stood in the House debating budget 2003. At that time I outlined quite clearly the financial difficulties many municipalities in my riding were encountering in paying for police services. It appears that not only are the municipalities faced with escalating costs for community policing but they are burdened by the cost of enforcing the firearms registration and regulations, costs for which they were promised they would not be solely responsible.

Last week I learned that the Camrose Police Commission, which is in my riding of Crowfoot, threw its support behind the demands of the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police for more federal assistance with the cost of enforcing the law.

On February 12 the Alberta chiefs of police wrote to the Minister of Justice outlining their concerns about the lack of funding for policing. I will quote from the Camrose Booster dated March 25. It states, “We note that in all the discussions, briefings and planning for the implementation, much time was spent on the issues relating to the administrative aspects of this legislation”.

He was talking about the gun law. The letter goes on to say, “Forms and computer data banks seem to have dominated everyone's attention. Not much, if anything, has so far been said about the actual practicalities of enforcement of the act. More to the point, we note with concerns that the federal government has not yet expressed any view with respect to the source of funding for police activities arising out of the enforcement of this act”.

The letter was written by the President of the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police, Marshall Chalmers, who also happens to be the chief of police with the Camrose Police Service.

Chief Chalmers has also stated, “We have to convey to you with the greatest possible force and clarity that the municipal governments quite simply cannot assume this additional burden”.

What is the Chief of Police saying? He is saying that it is the law, yes, and that they will have to uphold the law, but that they cannot afford to do it. It would be a huge burden on every municipality and every city to enforce the law that the government is sending down the pike.

Chief Chalmers stated unequivocally that without federal support, police services in the Province of Alberta will have no choice but to set an order of policing priorities that do not include the enforcement of the Firearms Act.

Interviewed by local newspapers on March 20, the Camrose chief of police said, “the initial promise in relation to the act was that the federal government would pay for the entire cost of enforcement and there would be no downloading of costs onto the municipalities. But now it is very apparent that the federal government is expecting municipalities to absorb some of the costs”.

Although, and in fairness to the Alberta chiefs of police I must recognize this fact, the chiefs do accept the act as a valid piece of legislation, they feel the issue of enforcement must be addressed, and I agree.

Not only must the question of who pays the cost of enforcement, which clearly cannot fall on financially burdened municipalities, be answered, but so must all the other outstanding questions regarding the cost of the registry.

Today a Bloc member stood in the House and said that the more tools we had to fight crime the better. They support this registry because they believe it is a tool and the more tools they have to fight crime the better.

I would put forward the argument that the gun registry is preventing us from coming forward with the needed tools to fight crime. The cost of the registry is making other resources and other tools prohibitive because they have signed on, they have been harnessed up to a piece of legislation that is burdening the whole law enforcement and the whole security side of the government down.

The other day the member from Burnaby, a New Democrat, said, with respect to the gun registry, that if it saved the life of only one Canadian it would be worth it all.

How can we make an argument against something like that, other than to say that if we were to spend $1 billion to save the life of that one individual, how many other lives would be lost by not being able to put forward adequate policing?

In another speech, the minister from Ontario, Mr. Runciman, said that in national terms $85 million would put another 1,000 custom agents on the border and $500 million would put an extra 5,900 police officers on the street. The federal alternative is to use the money to register every shotgun and bolt action .22. No great brilliance is required to figure out which would have the greater impact on crime.

Give us the $1 billion and we will put some into health care and we will put more police officers back on the street. In 1993-95 the government jerked 2,000 RCMP officers off the payroll. Let us put some of those officers back on the beat, back on the street, and see how many lives we can save. Let us see how effective we are at fighting organized crime. Let us see how effective we could be at fighting the war against child pornography.

We have a gun registry with $1 billion that will drag down every other viable program, project or resource and make it unaffordable. This is about priorities. That is why we stood in the House and asked for a cost benefit analysis. When we talk about the registry and the good things that may happen, that is okay but at what cost? We have the commissioner of the RCMP say that ongoing investigations are being put on the back burner in reference to terrorism coming to the fore. We are talking about ongoing investigations that have an impact on families. How do we tell someone who has been robbed or assaulted that there are other priorities that need to be investigated. This is all about resources.

The chiefs of police accept that the act is a valid piece of legislation, but they feel that so many other issues must be addressed. I agree with them wholeheartedly. Let us talk about funding and other resources. Let us talk about fighting pornography.

We have stood in the House so many times debating this legislation and we will not tire of it because it is poor legislation. It is legislation that is ineffective. We will not stop standing in the House speaking out against the firearms registry because we believe it is an invasion of our rights. It will not meet the goals that it sets out to meet. It is not a public security issue; it is a dollar issue. This is a raising revenue issue; this is a tax issue. This is an issue that a government that believes in big government will want to continue to move forward. Well, we will keep fighting it.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-10A. I am not sure if, in the over two years I have been the member of Parliament for Crowfoot, I have debated any other bills to the extent that the gun registry has come back into the House.

We have talked about agriculture, terrorism and security but the gun registry keeps coming back into the House because the government has failed. It comes back into the House--

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with an issue that we should not even bother with given the way things were done. We all realize that the Senate is going beyond its rights in trying to order the House around.

The Senate is attacking the rights and privileges of this House. As we all know, the Bloc Quebecois believes that the Senate should no longer exist. If the Senate wanted to have some influence over our society, it should have worked a bit harder on the Young Offenders Act, instead of wasting the time of the House today.

Why do I say that? Because now the government has to move a motion to split a bill. In the first session of the 37th Parliament, the bill called Bill C-15 at the time was split into two bills, C-15A and C-15B. Why was it not split in three, if we wanted to deal separately with the issues of sexual abuse against children, cruelty to animals and the Firearms Act? That could have been done. In fact, when the Bloc Quebecois first asked for the bill to be split, it wanted the bill to be split into three.

More and more, the government is introducing so-called omnibus bills. With only one bill, it tries to make significant amendments to several pieces of legislation dealing with various issues that have nothing in common. Provisions in those bills have nothing in common and deal with very different acts.

One instance was during the first session of the 37th Parliament, with bills C-15A and C-15B. Bill C-15A dealt with the sexual exploitation of children, and Bill C-15B dealt with cruelty against animals and amendments to the Firearms Act. Go figure. There was an opportunity, of which the government did not avail itself.

Bill C-15B received all three readings in the House and was referred to the Senate for consideration. It is absolutely ludicrous that we are now required to start all over because the bill should apparently have been divided into Bill C-10A, concerning cruelty to animals, and Bill C-10B, concerning firearms.

I am surprised, and even very disappointed, to notice that the government's motion would allow Bill C-10 to be divided into Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B. As I said earlier, had this been done at the right time, we would not be wasting our time today. The problem is that we have no choice but to consider it because of the demand to divide the bill into Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B.

Today, we are debating an amendment to this motion. This amendment, brought forward by the Canadian Alliance, states:

“, in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, this House does not concur with the Senate's division of the Bill into two parts, namely, Bill C-10A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), since it is the view of this House that such alteration to Bill C-10 by the Senate is an infringement of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons; and

That this House asks that the Senate consider Bill C-10 in an undivided form; and

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.”

We have already debated Bill C-15B, including these two amendments. We have gone through the three readings and, even if the bill is divided, the Bloc's position remains unchanged.

We spoke in committee, we heard witnesses, we held debates in this House, but unfortunately the basic issue was never addressed. Of course, animal protection is important.

It is also important that a bill be drafted, when it comes down to it, according to the standards, and that the bill respect all sides, not just one. Unfortunately, the amendments presented by the Bloc Quebecois relating to animal cruelty, pertinent though they were, would have suited those who wanted to see animals as well as all animal-related industries protected.

As hon. members are aware, it is usually the case, almost with a majority or unanimity, every amendment in this House that is submitted by the Bloc Quebecois during debate is rejected by the government.

We called for changes. Let us make it perfectly clear, we were in agreement with the principle, and still are in agreement with the bill as far as animal cruelty is concerned. What is important to know is that we are in agreement with the new part of the bill that is aimed at protecting animals, because animals are not property. Yet that element was included in a section relating to ownership rights. Imagine that.

Yes, it is high time for a change. Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois was not listened to, nor to some extent were all the stakeholders in animal-related industries and those in favour of animal protection who were consulted.

Our amendment was this: to respect the defences contained in section 429 of the Criminal Code, in which there are specific defences, not just those based on the common law in section 8 of the Criminal Code.

We made explicit demands, and I raised these in the House and in committee. I would have liked to have seen the Senate, rather than suggesting that the bill be split and issuing orders to the House, pay some attention to protecting the animal husbandry industry as follows: retaining the rights set out in section 429 and explicitly including them in the new part V.1, with which we agree.

This would take nothing away from the newly created part, with which the Bloc Quebecois agrees, concerning protecting animals from unbelievable cruelty. We see what goes on in kennels all over Canada and Quebec. We see the horrors of puppy mills, the unbelievable sights there.

Legislation can be based on an important principle, but be poorly drafted. What is insulting, is when they try to correct legislation to allow two groups—and these are not two conflicting groups—to protect animals from cruelty. The animal industry itself wants to prevent cruelty to animals. If it does happen, no need to worry; despite these amendments, people who perpetrate cruelty against animals will be found guilty, and we agree that penalties should be stiffer for these people who make the lives of these animals so difficult.

However, the way in which the bill is drafted will allow some groups to perpetrate abuse, because there will be a lack of resources. This is another problem that existed and has not been solved.

When a certain amount of money is provided to the Department of Justice to enforce rights, let us not fool ourselves. When forced to make a choice, attorneys general are not going to ask themselves if they should pursue a case against someone who abused a child or committed a murder, or if they should pursue a case against someone who abused an animal or demonstrated cruelty to an animal.

Unfortunately, if the legislation had been applied properly, we probably would not have to redo it. However, due to a lack of money, we are forced to specify things in the legislation and we have to do this.

We now have to guarantee what has always existed. When I speak of the animal industry, I refer to researchers or to hunters or farmers who kill animals for an industry, such as pork or beef producers, so that we can eat. Not everyone is a vegetarian; some people eat animals, but all is done according to the regulations and standards that this industry must obey. I can tell you that the great majority of those in the animal industry respect these standards. Truly cruel enterprises do exist and might also have been charged, despite the fact that there is a defence under section 429 of the Criminal Code—of course, that was the means of defence—namely colour of right or legal justification or excuse.

We have asked the government why it did not take the means of defence provided in the Criminal Code and include them in part V.1. Section 429 speaks of colour of right and legal justification or excuse, and that applies perfectly to clause 11.

If these allegations or these details are not reproduced in part V.1, we must understand that these defences are no longer explicit. The government says that clause 8, the defence under common law, will apply. In clause 8, what the common law provides are existing defences. If we say that the defences I have mentioned are implicit, why have these defences been explicitly included in section 429?

Legislators do not talk if they have nothing to say. These defences were included in section 429 because they are not implicitly covered in the common law. Now, there is jurisprudence to this effect and we ask, explicitly, that it be included in part V.1, in order to permit the animal industry—those who do things correctly, those who respect the standards, let us be clear—to retain the same means of defence they had in the past and should have in the future.

Unfortunately the Bloc Quebecois was really torn about opposing Bill C-15B concerning cruelty to animals. This is a principle we have been defending since our party started and even before. I would say that, probably, each member of the Bloc Quebecois supports this principle. Now, a title, an extreme is being used to cruelly change all the work that can be done properly by hunters who respect nature and animals or by a research facility that increasingly follows standards.

If this is not the case, the necessary funds should be invested to hire inspectors to check. Money should be invested to do this. If this also applies under Quebec's animal protection legislation, money should be transferred—of course, it is a question of fiscal imbalance—so that we get what is needed and so that the Minister of Justice can enforce the legislation.

What is happening is that this is being replaced by a bad legal principle, and there is an attempt to show that the Bloc Quebecois can be opposed to the cruelty against animals legislation, which is included in the Criminal Code. Frankly, this is called being seriously off track. It is essential to respect those in the industry who are correctly handling animals.

The Criminal Code, as amended, with the bill, naturally, but also with the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, would have teeth and result in legislation with harsher sanctions for those committing acts of cruelty toward animals, while protecting those working in the animal-related industry.

The possibility that this defence will no longer be available remains. Can we afford to take that risk? If the government does not understand this and tells us that its intention is not to harm the animal husbandry industry, why does it not explicitly set out these means of defence which, it claims, are implicitly protected?

The means of defence in section 429 have not been transferred to the new part. It will no longer be the same means of defence that will apply. It is as simple as that.

I have met at my office with the presidents of several associations. When I explained my position, and that of the Bloc Quebecois, to them, they had no problem understanding it. They agreed that there was a problem and that they were going very far, saying, “We will go along with it, of course. They are going farther than we asked. We will take advantage of it. A judge cannot act ultra vires , but if legislation leading to 21 judgments is enacted, we will use it”. I can understand them; I would do the same.

Our job, however, as representatives of the people in our ridings, be it in Quebec or anywhere in Canada, is to scrutinize legislation before it is implemented, and that is what we are doing. In my opinion, it is unfortunate that, instead of amending legislation to improve it, there is a tendency to associate amendments to parties, and if an amendment is put forward by a certain party, it is rejected.

I would go so far as to say that, at the clause by clause stage, when witnesses were heard, government members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—I would like them to read what they said—supported this approach. Unfortunately, members know how it is. That day, many Liberals were in attendance, and they voted down our amendments designed to prevent cruelty against animals and protect the entire animal husbandry industry. I find that incredible.

Today, what the Senate is asking us to do is to divide a bill into two, instead of considering the importance of this bill.

I must speak to the section of Bill C-10 that addresses firearms. Once again, the government made use of Quebec and even the SQ to establish a firearms registry. Individually, we believe in it, but we are forced to say whether it is good or not because of the administration of this government. It is not that the registry is no good, it is their administration.

The Minister of Justice tells us that any registration program will cost $1 billion. Really now, we are anxious to see the figures. We are told we have them. Once again, with this bill, as with the section dealing with animal cruelty, we are torn.

Why are we obliged to vote against this bill? Because with this bill—and I must explain this quickly—the chief firearms officers are losing all of their powers. Everything pertaining to licence issuing in Quebec is being changed.

Probably, the federal government with its desire to appropriate all powers to itself, will then want to privatize the entire system. Then they will be saying, “Look at what we have done. We have brought all this over to the central government. It will cost less and we will then contract it out”.

This is a way of concealing the fact that it has used the people of Quebec and their skills in setting up this registry. The one in Quebec is working very well. Today they want to appropriate all of the powers and return them to the commissioner, instead of leaving them with the chief firearms officer and the SQ. I trust the funding agreements with Quebec will be forthcoming as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague previously mentioned the point that a person might receive two years in jail for simply not reporting a change of address. Further in his speech my hon. colleague talked about other guns, such as air guns and pellet guns. He suggested there are one million pellet gun owners in Canada. I am one of them and perhaps many here in the House own a pellet gun.

The problem with the pellet guns is they are not all marked as far as the velocity goes. How many of those one million people would actually know that they are to register something as seemingly innocuous as a pellet gun? In reality what perhaps would be a larger more serious threat would be a flare gun and there is no call for registering flare guns at all. As well there is no call to register many other items. However pellet guns are to be under Bill C-10 and perhaps would bring one million Canadians, for the first time in their lives, under the peril of breaking a law that they would be doing quite innocently.

The question I would like to ask my hon. colleague is about pellet guns and of course I mentioned flare guns. Perhaps he could expand on more problems with this and tell us all about some of the other problems he envisions with this bill so we could all be informed.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague for Yorkton—Melville on his concerns with Bill C-10A. On one of them, the point he stressed was that Bill C-10A is now two years out of date.

Having said that, I know that since that time we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of eight provinces and three territories that say they want nothing to do with it. We have five provinces and three territories that took it to the Supreme Court. We have the Inuit with an exemption from the firearms legislation. We have the FSIN from Saskatchewan saying they are taking a court challenge to the Supreme Court.

I am wondering how, then, any of this will come to bear. Has any of this been addressed in Bill C-10A, this huge public outcry that this is not effective legislation? Would the member care to comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I want to address the bill. We have raised various objections to the government even introducing this in the way that it has, but I want to go on to address some of the key and fundamental flaws and problems with this entire issue before us. First I want to give some reasons for why in Bill C-10A, which is an amendment to the original Bill C-68, introduced and passed with invoking closure back in 1995, there are serious flaws, with the government tinkering with this at this point. It is not nearly good enough and will not do anything to suddenly make this gun control.

No matter what the government says, Bill C-68, which was passed in 1995, is not gun control. Let us remember that through this entire debate. It is not improving public safety in any measurable way. It is not reducing crime. It is not doing any of the things that the government claimed it would do for the cost to taxpayers, for the original $2 million. It has gone 500 times over cost, maybe even more according to the Auditor General, and it is not accomplishing what the government wants.

The reason I want to deal with this is that, first of all, this bill, Bill C-10A, should be sent back to the Senate, the other place, as we often refer to it, for more sober second thought.

Let us look at the history of this particular bill before us now, these amendments. The House of Commons really has the authority to split bills. The Senate does not have that authority. The question the government has to ask is this: If we do not follow our Constitution, which guides us, why do we even have a Constitution? That, to me, is something that we cannot override. I know that the government is asking us to vote on whether we can remove our privileges. We cannot vote to remove the privileges of members of the House of Commons. That is against all parliamentary practice. That should never be allowed and the government is getting away with it, claiming, as I just heard members say, that it is allowed, it is fine. Many people rise as individuals on questions of privilege because the government cannot vote to take away those privileges.

The second point I would like to make with regard to why the bill should be sent back to the Senate is that the amendments to the Firearms Act contained in Bill C-10A are more than two years old and do not even come close to addressing all the problems, all the amendments, all the things that have been identified in the last two years as huge problems with the firearms registry. They do not do any of that.

That is why the bill should be sent back. That is why the whole thing should be scrapped: because the problems with the Firearms Act are not addressed by Bill C-10A, the bill that is now before us which the government would like to push through. The government does not want to go through all the stages of the bill, because if it did, more and more problems would be highlighted. It does not want to send it back to the committee stage so witnesses can come forward and point out the huge problems with the Firearms Act.

That is why the government wants us to ram it through right now. That is why it wants us to go against our privileges and go through the various stages of the bill. It does not want the bill to go back to committee to have the experts who know how the bill is unfolding come to that committee and say, “These amendments in Bill C-10A do not address the problems”. That is why this thing should be withdrawn, taken off the table and done away with.

Let us look at what the Auditor General said on the cost of implementing the Canadian firearms program. Her report highlights some of the huge problems. Let us look at the error rate she identified. The Auditor General quoted various experts who have studied this and who say that the error rate is up to 90% on the registration certificates that are sent in; 90% of them contain errors.

That is not addressed in this bill. This is the biggest garbage collection system in the nation, and the most expensive, and the bill does not address that. Why are we even dealing with the bill if it does not address the huge problems with that? All we have to do is look at the RCMP's Canadian firearms program report for the information that verifies what I just said.

The government scrapped the whole verification process that was supposed to ensure that the information collected was accurate. It did it for the first million registration certificate applications but after that it was scrapped. We now have five million firearms in the registry with inaccurate information. The police cannot rely on it. It is garbage in garbage out. That is another problem that has not been addressed by Bill C-10A but there are many others.

The privacy commissioner put out a report entitled “Review of the Personal Information Handling Practices of the Canadian Firearms Program”. He chastized the government for the huge problems it has caused and for the violation of the privacy rights of all Canadians. The government did not address any of that in Bill C-10A. Why are we dealing with that today if the bill is totally inadequate in addressing some of the concerns brought forward?

I know my time is limited but I want to deal with as many issues as I can because they are all important.

Bill C-10A does not include some of the most important amendments needed to track high risk persons. While the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars tracking down law-abiding firearms owners, such as duck hunters, sport shooters, people who use firearms in a recreational and healthy way, it does not track true criminals.

There are 131,000 people in this country who have been prohibited from owning firearms. The government has not even bothered to ask the police to see if those individuals have firearms. It does not enforce laws already on the books and now it has a totally ineffective gun registry.

I listened to the justice minister as he answered my questions in question period. He said that the firearms registry was a huge success when in fact the licensing provisions in it have denied 9,000 people permission to buy a firearm. He did not mention the 131,000 people have been denied that privilege and nobody has even checked on them. They do not even have to report a change of address. However law-abiding gun owners have to report their change of address within one month or they could face up to two years in jail. None of these huge problems are addressed in the bill.

As the Canadian Alliance has said all along, the bill goes after the wrong people in society. Why do we not go after the criminal in society rather than law-abiding people?

Another problem with the bill is that the amendments to the Firearms Act do not address the amendments recommended and accepted by the justice minister in the Hession report. The justice minister made a huge issue of the fact that he would do an internal audit of the firearms registry. After the Auditor General released her report on December 3, 2002, he made a big deal about reviewing it and bringing forward proposals to make it work.

Bill C-10A has been back and forth from the House of Commons to the Senate and none of the things that Mr. Hession identified are in the bill. Why are we even debating this today? The bill is old. The problems that have come forth in the firearms registry have not been addressed in it and yet the minister has claimed that somehow it will improve things.

The amendments in Bill C-10A to the Firearms Act do not meet the requirements to implement the justice minister's action plan. The government announced recently that it wants to transfer the Canadian firearms program from the justice department to the Solicitor General's department. Is there anything in the bill in regard to that? No. The government is violating its own rules. There is no provision in government for this to happen.

The section of Bill C-68 dealing with firearms defines the federal minister as the Minister of Justice. The Firearms Act is riddled with references to the federal minister and his authority under the act, the regulations, orders in council, safety course forms and even the appointment of the new commissioner of the firearms registry in Bill C-10A. All of this is in the bill but the government has announced that it will be transferred to the Solicitor General. Will it bring in another bill immediately following this one? Why not withdraw this and do things properly.

The House of Commons voted five times on Bill C-68: at second reading, at report state, third reading and on two time allocation motions. The Standing Committee on Justice spent weeks studying and reporting to Bill C-68, many of which were rejected by the justice department, but a change to the definition of federal minister was never suggested or considered.

The clear intent of the government was that the firearms program be administered by the justice department. If the government wants to transfer administration of the Firearms Act to another minister, it must be brought back before the House for a full debate of why the program will be better administered by the same people working under yet under another minister. All the government is doing is changing the name plates on the doors but it still requires an amendment in the House to do that.

The sixth issue that I bring forward is that the amendments to the Firearms Act in Bill C-10A do not address the 250 amendments proposed to Bill C-68 in 1995 by the then Reform Party in the report stage debate. All of them were rejected by the government. In hindsight, the government should have accepted those. It still has not. It has not fixed what is broken.

Today in my office we received 517 pages of briefing notes prepared for the Minister of Justice. Here are some of the quotes about Bill C-10 contained in them. I would like to read them.

In the notes dated October 18, 2002, and provided to the minister in preparation for his meeting with the Quebec minister of justice, under the section entitled Bill C-10A, it states:

The legislation will consolidate the operation of the Program at the federal level under a Commissioner of Firearms, incorporate the firearms registry under the Minister of Justice and enable Canada to meet international obligations under the United Nations Protocol and the OAS Firearms Convention.

My question for the justice minister or the Solicitor General is: Why is the minister now saying that he is going to transfer the gun registry to the Solicitor General? Why is this transfer not made in Bill C-10A?

Another point in regard to what we found in these briefing notes reads:

In the “approved” copy of the Justice Minister's 'opening remarks' concerning the amendments in Bill C-10 to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs dated October 24, 2002 it states: “We are consolidating the statutory authority for all administration under a Canadian Firearms Commissioner who will report directly to the Minister of Justice”.

The question that needs to be answered is: Why has the minister changed his mind since he told the Senate this? Why is the government proposing now to consolidate the statutory authority under the Solicitor General? The government is changing its mind constantly and none of that is reflected in the bill.

The e-mail goes on to state:

In the “revised 02-10-23” version of the “questions and answers C-10 amendments on firearms”, question #6 states: “Why have a Firearms Commissioner and how will this change the RCMP's involvement in the program?”

The next question is:

Consolidating administrative authority for all operations under a Canadian Firearms Commissioner would ensure more direct accountability to the Justice Minister, who will remain responsible to Parliament for the program. This would in turn enhance financial accountability.

The question we have to ask is: Do we know how financially accountable the justice minister has been? The Auditor General has told us and I think that is quite clear. The justice minister still has not told us how much the gun registry has cost to date or how much it will cost to fully implement. His Plans and Priorities report tabled in the House was filled with 105 blanks; an unbelievable report that he has put forward. In many areas costs are totally unaccounted for.

Why has the Justice Minister changed his mind since the end of October? How will the amendments in Bill C-10A make the Solicitor General any more accountable to Parliament than the justice minister?

I would now like to go on to the second part of my intervention today. I have 14 questions that the justice minister must answer before Parliament and must give before Parliament before we proceed with the legislation. I will go through these in the next few minutes.

The first question the justice minister should ask before we proceed with Bill C-10A is this. The poorly worded Firearms Act amendments proposed in Bill C-10A were first introduced in the House two years ago. Many things have changed in the last two years, including recommendations from Mr. Hession calling for even more amendments to streamline the gun registry operation. Why not just put all the amendments from the minister's upcoming action plan into one new bill and let the House debate them all at once? Why do it in this manner?

The next question I would like to ask is this. The lawyers in the Library of Parliament and witnesses appearing before the justice committee exposed some serious ambiguity if the new definition of muzzle velocity and muzzle energy in Bill C-10A is implemented. The justice minister refused to consider a simple amendment to remove the confusion. Why will the minister not ask the Senate to pass this simple amendment when it reports its amendments to the cruelty to animals sections? Why did it not put that in before it reported this back to the House?

The next question is this. Since Bill C-68 came into force in December 1998, the government has passed six amnesties for the tens of thousands of banned short-barrelled handguns covered by the amendments in Bill C-10A, proving once again that these banned firearms are not dangerous at all when in the hands of their licensed owners. Considering Mr. Hession's recommendations for more amendments to streamline handgun ownership and transportation, why does the government not just introduce a new bill so Parliament can debate all the amendments to Bill C-68 all at once?

My fourth question that the justice minister should answer before we pass this is this. RCMP testing has confirmed that many air guns, pellet guns and even some BB guns exceed both the muzzle energy and muzzle velocity requirements in Bill C-10A and will have to be registered just as soon as Bill C-10A is proclaimed. How many millions of air guns, pellet guns and BB guns will now have to be registered and how much will it cost to register them? The justice minister should answer that question. He has avoided this at every opportunity he has had to answer it, and yet it is a key question.

How many criminals will this create when this is passed? People who have purchased air guns, pellet guns and BB guns, which will now, with the new definition contained here, have to be registered, will not even have obtained a firearms licence, and cannot, if they are in possession of one of these firearms, with the way Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, is worded, and will become criminals.

The fifth question I would like to ask is this. There may be as many as one million air gun and pellet gun owners. Has the government notified those people? What will the government do with them? Has it notified them that their guns will have to be registered and they have to get a licence? How will that all work? There may be as many as one million air gun and pellet gun owners in Canada. Not only do most of them not know that their pellet guns are about to become firearms that need to be registered, but they do not know how to do it or what the whole process is. How does the justice minister plan to deal with this huge problem?

The next question is this. The way the Firearms Act is currently worded, it does not permit anyone to register a firearm that is currently unregistered unless they hold a valid firearms licence and sent a letter of intent to the justice minister before December 31. Owners of these air guns and pellet guns did not know before now that some of their guns needed to be registered. What amendments are needed in order to allow these newly minted gun owners to licence themselves and register their air guns? How is that going to happen?

None of that is addressed in Bill C-10A. It is an extremely flawed bill and that is why the Canadian Alliance opposes it.

Based upon the new definition of a firearm as contained in Bill C-10A, how many millions more will it cost taxpayers to licence all these air guns and pellet guns? How much will it cost? The justice minister should answer that.

The RCMP testing has confirmed that many of the air guns, pellet guns and even some BB guns exceed the muzzle energy and muzzle velocity required in the new Bill C-10A. What has the government done to deal with the issue and to inform gun owners?

What has the government done to deal with the issue, to inform gun owners?

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal more I need to relate on this. I hope at some point I will be able to do that. I would like to propose an amendment at this time. I move:

That the amendment be amended by inserting after the words “by the Senate” in the last line of the first paragraph of the amendment the words “goes beyond the authority of the Senate and”.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the member started off his speech by chastising those members who were supporting the amendment that would throw out Bill C-10, which has been split by the Senate.

In his comments, he chastised members who said we should try to have it thrown out based on the fact that it was inappropriate for the Senate to split the bill. At the same time, he just admitted in his debate that if we just opposed the bill based on its content because it is a bad bill, we in the opposition would never win, that it would be supported by the government and passed anyway. I find his argument on that a little hard to understand.

I think it is important, in fact, that the Speaker's ruling on this bill was based on a precedent set in the 1940s. I would like to ask the member whether he does not think that what Canadians would accept now in terms of democratic process is quite different from what Canadians would have accepted back in the 1940s in terms of democratic process. I believe that in a modern democracy people expect a lot more democratic process and do not believe the Senate should be interfering in this way. Even though the precedent is there, I think the times have changed, so maybe the precedent is not in tune with modern times. I would like to ask the member that.

The member also said that we should oppose this based on content and yet I did not hear him comment much on the content. As a final question, I would ask the member how he squares his current position on this with the fact that a former Conservative government passed Bill C-17, which was a bill that started this whole process in the wrong way in terms of the registry and so on, and--

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the Senate amendments to Bill C-10.

I have a couple of issues before I begin the main premise of debate. I am always amazed when I hear members in the House of Commons referring to the Senate. It is obvious to all of us that it is an unelected body. However, it does have certain powers. Those powers are laid out in the Constitution and bound by points of order and procedure in this House and in the Senate.

I would beg to differ with the points of order that were raised already whether or not the Senate has the right to divide this legislation and send it back. That has been answered by the Speaker and I will delve deeper into that in my speech.

The point that I find remarkable is that the same people in this place who like to talk about Senate reform, and we all agree that we need some Senate reform, do not want to discuss giving the Senate more power. I do not think we can have one without the other. If we are going to seriously discuss reforming the Senate, perhaps someday making it an elected body, then we have to give it more power. It has to be able to introduce legislation much like it can right now but on a more timely basis. It has to be able to question in a thorough and complete way legislation that comes from this House.

The Speaker has already recognized the Senate's right to divide this piece of legislation. We may or may not agree to that and continue to raise points. I do not think that is the point. The hon. members are missing the point quite frankly. The point is that this split is based upon the fact that it is a flawed piece of legislation. Therefore, the entire piece of legislation should be thrown out and examined in its entirety.

The government is asking us to concur with amendments made by the Senate in regard to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act. As I have already mentioned, the entire piece of legislation is flawed. However, and key to some of the arguments that have been made already, without consent of the House the Senate split Bill C-10 into Bill C-10A which deals specifically with the firearms portion of the legislation, and Bill C-10B which examines cruelty to animals.

There has been a lot of debate in this place on whether or not there have been any precedents for that and obviously members have not thoroughly read and examined former precedents. During the debate on Bill C-103 in 1988 Speaker Fraser ruled at page 17,384:

The Speaker of the House of Commons by tradition does not rule on constitutional matters. It is not for me to decide whether the Senate has the constitutional power to do what it has done with Bill C-103. There is not any doubt that the Senate can amend a Bill, or it can reject it in whole or in part. There is some considerable doubt, at least in my mind, that the Senate can rewrite or redraft Bills originating in the Commons, potentially so as to change their principle as adopted by the House without again first seeking the agreement of the House. That I view as a matter of privilege and not a matter related to the Constitution.

In the case of Bill C-103, it is my opinion, and with great respect of course, that the Senate should have respected the propriety of asking the House of Commons to concur in its action of dividing Bill C-103 and in reporting only part of the Bill back as a fait accompli has infringed the privileges of this place.

With this, some members have taken the present case as an infringement upon the privileges of this House and as such are suggesting the split should be denied outright.

In his ruling, Mr. Speaker Fraser also stated:

However, and it is important to understand this, I am without the power to enforce them directly. I cannot rule the Message from the Senate out of order for that would leave Bill C-103 in limbo. In other words, it would be nowhere. The cure in this case is for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them, if it so wishes, by way of message to Their Honours, that is, to the Senate informing them accordingly.

On December 5 the present Speaker of the House pointed out that he agreed with Mr. Speaker Fraser:

--that privilege matters are involved where the Senate divides a House bill without first having the House's concurrence, this is not the case in this instance. Our concurrence has in fact been requested.

That is the entire point around Mr. Speaker Fraser's decision.

Today we are looking at the amendment of the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, which reads:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“, in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, this House does not concur with the Senate's division of the Bill into two parts, namely, Bill C-10A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), since it is the view of this House that such alteration to Bill C-10 by the Senate is an infringement of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons; and

That this House asks that the Senate consider Bill C-10 in an undivided form; and

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith”.

From Speaker's ruling of December 5, it is clear that the action by the Senate is not out of order based on the 1988 ruling which in turn was set upon the June 11, 1941 case where the Senate consolidated two pieces of legislation into one.

The key in both the previous cases, being the request of the Senate to seek the consent of the House in regard to the consolidation of the split. The Senate as in this case asked for concurrence.

It is clear that this legislation in its own right is as flawed as the firearms registry itself. It would seem to me that we do not need to seek out precedent to reject the bill.

We can have all the discussions that we want to have. The facts cannot be changed of precedents that have been taken before this day. They are already there. The Senate has asked for the concurrence of the House and is within its rights to do that. That is not my point.

I would make it clear that the point here, and I think Parliament has missed the point entirely, whether it is in concurrence or not, is it is a poor piece of legislation. It is severely flawed. It has been changed by the Senate because it could not even swallow it. the Liberal majority in the Senate could not swallow it. The Senate sent it back to the House. We should send it back to the Senate again with a clear message that this type of legislation is poor legislation. It is not clearly thought out. It is unworkable and it should not be concurred in in the House, not on the basis of the point of order but on the basis of it being a poorly written, poorly thought out piece of legislation.

I will paraphrase that. It is unacceptable. We should send the message back to the hon. senators stating that we cannot accept this split based on the fact again that it is a piece of flawed legislation. It should be examined in its entirety in the same way it was rammed through this place and the same way the members of the government stood and supported it.

Let us take a look at it again and see if the government wants to support it again. I suspect some of the Liberals may have come to reason.

It is one thing to waste the amount of money that has been wasted on this bill, but probably the greater issue here is not only the billion dollars that has been spent, which could have been better utilized in other areas, but we should be clear that this has nothing to do with gun control. Had the minister responsible paid a little closer attention to the Auditor General's report, he would have noticed that the Auditor General clearly stated that the rationale behind the audit was to flesh out the cost of implementation, not whether gun control was the issue.

Unfortunately for Canadians, the audit remains inconclusive because financial information from the minister's department was not forthcoming, and is still not forthcoming. We could not get it at committee or at public accounts. We have tried several different ways to get this information but obviously the minister does not have to share that information with Canadians because the government is too arrogant to understand that Canadians count, that voters are important and that they have a right to know what is going on behind closed doors. This audit, which remains inconclusive because financial information from the minister's department was not forthcoming, found the problem more serious than simple cost overruns.

The Auditor General stated:

The issue here is not gun control. And it's not even astronomical cost overruns, although those are serious. What's really inexcusable is that Parliament was in the dark.

The government has learned nothing. That it has taken the $72 million it lost out of the existing operation appropriations to manage the shortfall in the program resources is again unacceptable. The majority of Canadians are in favour of gun safety. What they are not in favour of is more Liberal rhetoric about how the program saves lives. It does not. The 13% increase in homicides with firearms over the last four years show us that no lives have been saved. To suggest that this ineffective registry would make our streets or communities safer is a misnomer.

When questioned about where the money has been spent in the past, the government has told us not to worry about it, that it has everything under control. Liberal transparency is simply not enough. The former minister of justice shirked his duties when he convinced his cabinet that this program would save lives and plowed ahead with implementation anyway. When it became evident that this program was fatally flawed, the next minister covered it up and they back channelled money through the supplementary estimates. We have had this debate and I suspect we will have this debate again, but it is back in the House with the government members ready to close their eyes and stand and vote in support of the unsupportable.

Now we have another minister telling us to trust him. However I can say that one party in the House, the Progressive Conservative Party, has no intention of trusting this minister, or perhaps a new minister or any of the government ministers on this bill. Where did they gain the trust of Canadians on a cost overrun of $1 billion, on a propaganda war of misinformation? What part of that equation gained the trust of Canadians? What part of the registry has worked? No part that they have touched has worked.

Regarding safe handling and safe storage, yes, most of us are in agreement that it has worked quite well but the long gun registry has not worked. It cannot work and it will not work because the government will never convince all Canadians to sign up for it. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are in contravention of the law today and they will stay there. They are not registering their long guns.

Will it put this to the solicitor general's department at some stage, go out and arrest all these people and fill the prisons and the jail system with them? Maybe it will make a special internment camp somewhere. It is absolutely ridiculous, shameful actually.

We can get into the war of words on whether it is a point of precedence, point of order or procedure, how Mr. Fraser ruled or did not rule or how Speaker Milliken ruled but surely that is not the point.

Surely the point here today is that this is flawed legislation. We have a responsibility in this place, all members in the opposition and members of the government, to throw it out of the House because it has not worked. It has been part of a propaganda war of misinformation that the government excels at. The issue here is to throw the entire bill out on the merits of the bill, not on the question, in my opinion at least, of whether the point of order may or may not have been correct.

Is the amendment incorrect is the issue. It is not whether the Senate has the right. It has done it. The Speaker has ruled on it. We have it in front of us. Let us get rid of the bill on the basis of the poor quality of the bill, on basis that the government has misled the public and on the basis that the government should be ashamed that it has not done better to protect Canadians.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been very interesting, in fact riveting, to hear the debate over the last 45 minutes. I have been trying to learn what these procedures are all about. In terms of Canadians who might be listening to this debate, scratching their heads and wondering why we are going at it and why members of the opposition are so adamantly opposed to the amendments in the bill before us, it needs to be explained.

Although we have made our points of order and we will await the Speaker's ruling, in terms of getting on with the debate on Bill C-10, it is pertinent and still relevant to talk about the concerns we have about arriving at this point and how it is that we are dealing with this bill. Basically it comes down to this. It is very difficult to accept that the Senate, which is unelected and unaccountable, somehow has the right to take a bill from the House, split it up however it wants, and send it back saying, “This is how we want it dealt with”. That is the essence of the problem here and why we had all of the points of order.

I do want to say very clearly that from the point of view of the NDP, in terms of the actual substance of the two parts of the bill, originally we basically concurred with the contents of the bills. In fact it was because the government could not get its act together, because it had so much opposition within its own ranks, that it started resorting to various mechanisms and procedures to deal with it.

What we want to focus on today is the fact that we are vehemently opposed to the motion that is before us from the government which states:

That, in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, this House concur with the Senate's division of the bill into two parts, namely, Bill C-10A...and Bill C-10B--

The government amendment goes on to say that while disapproving of any infringements of its rights and privileges by the other house, i.e. the Senate, in this case it waives its claim to insist upon such rights and privileges, but the waiver of said rights and privileges is not to be drawn into a precedent.

We take a lot of exception to that. First of all, and I guess this would continue the most recent point of order, I seriously question what right the government has to say that it disapproves on the one hand but will waive the rights and privileges of the House. I do not give any such permission for the government to waive my rights. I think there are quite a few other members here who also would not give any permission or sanction for that to happen. To set that forward and to say on the one hand that somehow this is to be disapproved of but then to allow it to happen and to say that it will not be drawn into a precedent, really defies any kind of notion of common sense in terms of what logic and what consequences are now going to follow.

I want to say very clearly that we in the NDP on principle will oppose this coming forward from the government. In fact we will be supporting the amendment made by the member for Selkirk--Interlake and seconded by the member for Souris--Moose Mountain. The amendment makes it clear that we do not support the division of the bill and that in fact it is the view of the House that the alteration of Bill C-10 by the Senate is an infringement upon the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, and that therefore it should be sent back and the Senate consider bringing it back in an undivided form. That is the correct thing to do.

We are most concerned about the precedent that would be set here because the creation of two new bills does amount to an infringement on the rights of the House.

We have to look at this in context because regardless of the motivation for doing this, there is also a strong feeling from opposition members, and certainly from the NDP, that we do not support the idea of omnibus bills, putting everything under one cover and trying to get it through. Whatever the motivation of the Senate might have been in terms of a technical issue in splitting what was originally an omnibus bill, there is no way we will go along with the idea that it has the right to split a bill that would infringe upon the House.

It was mentioned earlier that there is a precedent. A situation did take place in 1988 with Bill C-103, which was a bill to establish Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. It was an act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada and establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and so on. It was passed by the House and sent to the Senate. The Senate split the bill and sent one part back to the House.

In 1988 Speaker Fraser ruled that the privileges of the House had been breached. Not having the power to enforce his decision, the Speaker asked the House to claim its privilege by sending a message back to the Senate. The House did indeed debate a motion to that effect which was moved by the then minister of state for the Treasury Board, Mr. Doug Lewis. The motion said that in the opinion of the House, the Senate had contravened Standing Order 87 and infringed its privileges. The motion asked that the Senate return Bill C-103 in an undivided form.

The motion from the House of Commons was agreed to. On August 18 a message was received from the Senate informing the House that Bill C-103 had been passed without amendment. The bill went on to receive royal assent later that day.

In actual fact we do have a precedent where something was sent back to the Senate with a strong message from this House which made it clear that the practice of dividing a bill was completely unacceptable. In that particular case the Senate did the right thing and sent the bill back in the correct form.

This is absolutely what we should be doing today. While we could spend a lot of time debating the actual substance of the bill, what really takes precedence here is the fact that the Senate is trying to foist its will in a manner that is completely undemocratic on a House whose members were elected in a democratic fashion.

We find it particularly worrying that the government is allowing more and more to be undermined in terms of giving a greater legislative role to an unelected body and thereby eroding the democracy in the House of Commons. This is something we should be very concerned about.

We know for sure that the Senate is a place where there is all kinds of patronage appointees. Many influential senators sit on boards of publicly traded corporations. We had a situation recently that even when the senators were doing an examination of bank mergers they tried to limit the ability of a democratically elected House of Commons committee from doing the same.

There is something that really rubs the wrong way here. We are now put in the position of having to deal with something that is not of our creation in the House of Commons. It is being put on us by the other place in a fashion that, in my opinion and I think a lot of other people would agree, would set a precedent. It becomes something that kind of creeps along, and is something that should be very worrying.

As I pointed out in the point of order about an hour ago, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona way back in December of last year immediately saw what it was that was going on here. He rose on a point of order in effect as an early warning to the Speaker that this was about to take place, but because the actual division of the bill had not formally happened in the Senate, the Speaker chose not to deal with it.

I urge members to think about the issue. We are coming down to the bottom line of having to vote on the motion before us. If we are true to the traditions of the House, if we uphold the notion that there are separate responsibilities vis-à-vis the Senate and the House of Commons, if we uphold the traditions that the power to deal with legislation rests in this place and that we should in no way be allowing unelected people down the hallway in the Senate to dictate what will take place in the House, even if we do it through some kind of motion that says we waive our rights and responsibilities and this is not going to create any sort of precedent, who is kidding themselves on that?

If that happens, it will have been done and it will be used at some point in the future. We will see the continual chipping away of the role and rights of members in this place. We will see a kind of enhanced role and legislative aggressiveness begin to take place in the Senate.

In closing, we will do everything we can to make sure this does not happen. We will not be supporting the government motion. We will be supporting the opposition amendment.

I hope there are members on the other side who can see the writing on the wall about what it is that is taking place here. I hope they will be willing to stand up and to protect the traditions of democratic practice in the House. I hope that they will be willing to stand up and challenge what it is that is taking place before our eyes and to say that this is not on and that we should not be couching it in terms of not needing to worry about it because there is no precedent. Things have a way of coming back and repeating themselves.

If this does go through, I would not be surprised at all if at some point in the future somebody used it as a reference, that it happened before and can happen again. We must guard against that. I urge members to vote against the government motion and to support the amendment from the opposition because that is clearly the right thing to do in this case.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to complete the picture because this matter does have quite a history to it. I wanted to bring to the Speaker's attention and to the House that in actual fact the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, who was then the House leader for the NDP, did rise on a point of order back in December 2002. What he said at that time, in speaking to this issue of the principle of a divided bill coming from the Senate, was that it was the House that should decide what pieces of legislation should be divided up and in what way they should be dealt with.

He then went on to say that it should be up to the House of Commons to do this because the way in which the Senate dealt with Bill C-10 had infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown and on the privileges of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, in hearing that point of order, you ruled it out of order stating that:

The difficulty we face in the House is that there has not been a message received from the Senate that has indicated that the bill has in fact been split. It is entirely possible that the Senate could plaster the bill back together again before it sends it back to this House.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Senate did not plaster it back together again. In fact, it divided it and that is what is now before us. You went on to further suggest:

In the circumstances, I would suggest to the hon. member that we leave this matter for the time being until such time as we receive a message from the Senate.

Here we are, whether we characterize it as a message or an amendment the fact is it is now back before the House and it is a point of contention in terms of whether the process is legitimate.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to review this and give the House a ruling on this matter because this did take place. The Senate did bring it back in terms of a message or an amendment, but clearly it is before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things I want to address regarding this rather complicated address that the opposition House leader has brought to the attention of the Chair.

His first argument was that this issue brought before the House by the Senate was not a stage of the bill. Obviously, no. It has been ruled by the Speaker on a number of occasions that the message from the Senate regarding anything inside a bill that amends it is a stage of the bill. Proof of that is if it had not been a stage of the bill in the past, the Chair would have not enabled either myself or my predecessors from moving a motion under Standing Order 78.

If it had been considered strictly a motion, I would have had to use Standing Order 57. In other words, I would not have been able to use time allocation. I would have been obliged to use closure. The Chair has already ruled on that. There is jurisprudence from the Chair on ruling that Standing Order 78 can be used. It has been used that way for a long time on amendments from the Senate. That is my first point.

My second point is that the hon. member was drawing some sort of parallel between the House providing a reasoned amendment to one of its own bills and the Senate providing an amendment to a bill when it sends it back to the House. That has never been considered to be an equivalent. No one has ever made that argument in the past because it is totally incoherent. As we all know, the stated purpose of a reasoned amendment is to either refer a bill back to committee so that it not be now read a second time and so on, or that it be sent over here to be divided, or whatever.

The hon. member is not correct in saying that until this item is disposed of we cannot continue the consideration of the bill. If the opposition provides an amendment, as it did the other day and perhaps it is still before us on Bill C-13 that we debated earlier today, the provisions under our Standing Orders, whereby the time is added up in order to arrive at 10 minute speeches, still count whether we are debating the main motion or one of its amendments. It is all bunched together and counts as part of the same debate of what has to be disposed of in terms of voting before we can actually vote on other matter, but that is a separate issue altogether. In my opinion, what the hon. member is alleging does not reflect reality.

The hon. member also raised the appropriateness of the Senate's message. The Senate's message has the effect of telling the House that the senators have amended the bill by dividing it. They could have amended it by removing a clause. They could have amended it by adding something. They have amended it by dividing it. The test of this is that if the minister's motion to concur in the amendment is passed, then Bill C-10A would be ready for royal assent. In other words, this is a stage of the bill considering the Senate amendment, and I go back to the initial proposition that I raised.

There are two final points that I want to bring to the attention of the Chair. If someone is now alleging that this motion is inappropriately before the House, I draw the attention of the Speaker to page XI of today's Notice Paper in which it says that two hon. members of the House have proposed to amend the motion that is in the view of the same party not properly before the House. This begs the following question to be raised.

This begs the following question, how could a group of MPs in the House pretend that the issue is not before the House properly and then move to amend that which should not be there according to the testimony we have just heard?

I do not believe this issue is properly in order before the House. The hon. member's point of order is not in order in itself. In order for the Chair to entertain that point of order, it should have been made before the Speaker put the motion. The motion has been put. Not only that, it has received an amendment from the same political party, but perhaps that is an aside. No one member sought that particular point prior to the motion being put. The Chair allowed it to be put which makes it in order in that regard.

The House has even entertained an amendment to that particular motion and to make the point even stronger, it was made by members of the same political persuasion as the hon. member who has raised this now.

In conclusion, the motion is properly before the House. The House will deal with it and vote, in its own time, on the amendment, if hon. members still wish to have a recorded vote on that amendment, and on the main motion. Then, of course, the matter will be disposed of. Any intervention similar to either the one that has been raised now by the hon. member or anything similar would have had to have been made at the appropriate time and it was not.

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

Mr. Speaker, my point of order pertains to the motion to concur in the Senate's message respecting the vision of Bill C-10. I will also comment on the notice given by the government to curtail debate on the motion using Standing Order 78.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, both the Senate and the Commons have clearly established a difference between dividing bills and amending bills. It would be inconsistent not to apply the same logic and establish a difference between the Senate messages that amend bills and Senate messages that divide bills.

I will argue that the motion to concur in the message from the Senate regarding Bill C-10 cannot be considered a stage of a bill nor can the Senate's division of Bill C-10 be considered an amendment to Bill C-10.

Accordingly, the motion to concur in the Senate's message should not be listed on the Order Paper as a motion in response to an amendment made to a bill. It should properly placed on the Order Paper as a government motion. If you were to agree with my point of order, there are two consequences.

First, the notice given by the government to time allocate the motion in response to the Senate message is invalid since Standing Order 78 cannot be used to curtail debate on a government motion unrelated to the legislative process.

Second, the wording of the motion is incorrect. It is worded as a motion to concur in a message from the Senate regarding an amendment to a bill.

As was argued on December 5, 2002, the issue of the Senate dividing a Commons' bill was unprecedented.

We all assumed and accepted that this message seeking concurrence to divide Bill C-10 should be treated as an amendment made by the Senate. There are no other precedents regarding messages from the Senate dealing with legislation. If we had thought it through, we could have concluded that the division of a bill should not be treated as an amendment. Dividing a bill has never been considered an amendment and never should be.

The two most common messages that we receive from the Senate to which we are expected to respond are messages regarding amendments to legislation and messages regarding participation on joint committees.

A message regarding amendments made to legislation is treated as a stage of a bill. A motion pursuant to Standing Order 78 would, in that case, be in order to curtail debate.

A message regarding a committee, or any other business, would also be responded to by a motion. However the motion would be considered a run of the mill government motion and would be listed on the Order Paper accordingly.

Just because the Senate message is concerning legislation does not make it a stage or an amendment to a bill. Consider as examples the numerous House orders that are moved in regard to legislation. They are not treated as stages or as amendments to bills. Let us take a more specific and pertinent example such as the division of a bill.

At page 641 of Marleau and Montpetit, it states:

--the House may give the committee an instruction by way of motion which authorizes it to do what it otherwise could not do, such as, for example...dividing a bill into more than one bill....

A motion to instruct a committee to divide a bill stands alone from the legislation. It is a separate substantive proposition. It relates to the bill but is not a stage of the bill. The government could not use time allocation to curtail debate on such a motion.

On the Order Paper we have a motion instructing the health committee to divide Bill C-13. It was moved on November 22, 2002 by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. It reads:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Health that they have power to divide Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproduction, into two bills in order to deal with all matters related to the criminalization of practices such as cloning in another bill.

As you are aware, Bill C-13 has advanced beyond committee stage and the consideration of this motion is of no consequence to the legislative process of Bill C-13. If it were considered an amendment it would have to be disposed of first before advancing Bill C-13 any further.

If dividing a bill is not considered a stage or an amendment, then how can we consider as an amendment the motion concurring in the message from the Senate advising the House that the Senate has divided Bill C-10 into Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B.

The Senate itself did not consider the procedure to divide Bill C-10 as an amendment. The motion concerning the division of Bill C-13 is not considered an amendment in the House either. If that is the case, why are we treating the message from the Senate regarding the division of a bill as we would treat a message from the Senate regarding an amendment to a bill?

The motion to concur with the Senate should be listed under “Government Business” in the Order Paper with the other government business alongside the adjourned motion of the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve regarding the division of Bill C-13.

There was only one other precedent regarding the issue of the Senate dividing a Common's bill. On June 7, 1988, the Senate considered the matter of dividing Bill C-103, an act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. The issue on June 7 had to do with the fact that Bill C-103 was no longer on the Senate Order Paper but was superseded by two separate bills and that the chair had a problem accepting that the two separate bills were still government bills.

Mr. Speaker also said:

Senator Graham's instruction does not deal with amending a government bill, but with dividing a government bill into two bills.

The Speaker of course was correct. No one was arguing that it was an amendment. Everyone agreed that it was a separate motion adopted by the Senate. The issue was whether the Senate could adopt such a motion, not whether it was an amendment.

On July 11, 1988, the Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that the procedural event concerning Bill C-103 was totally without precedent. In his ruling on Bill C-103, the Speaker stated that he did not have the power to enforce the privileges of the House directly. He said that he could not rule the message from the Senate out of order for that would leave Bill C-103 in limbo. He said:

The cure in this case is for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them....

I am not asking the Speaker to enforce the privileges of the House but to define what we are dealing with and have it worded properly and listed in the right place on the Order Paper. That would not leave Bill C-10 in limbo.

In the 1988 case the Speaker did not rule the statement made by the Senate Speaker was incorrect. I am referring to the statement that the division of a bill is not an amendment. It simply was not directly pertinent to the particular arguments put forward in the case of Bill C-103 and it was not a factor in the Speaker's ruling on Bill C-10.

The opinion of the Senate Speaker that dividing a bill is not an amendment has not been dismissed. It is accepted by both Houses that dividing a bill is not an amendment but, for some reason in the case of Bill C-10, the act of dividing a bill morphed into an amendment somewhere along the road from the Senate to the Commons.

As I said earlier, we did not know what else to do with such a message because, as Mr. Speaker stated in 1988, the procedural event concerning the division of a Commons bill by the Senate was totally without a precedent.

If we look at the message itself, it does not claim to be an amendment. The message was sent on December 4, 2002 and it is recorded in Journals as follows: “A message regarding C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, was first received from the Senate as follows”:

Ordered, That the Clerk do carry this Bill back to the House of Commons and acquaint that House that the Senate has divided the Bill into two Bills, Bill C-10A, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), both of which are attached to this Message as Appendices “A”and “B” respectively; and

That the Clerk further acquaint that House that: (a) the Senate desires the concurrence of the House of Commons in the division of Bill C-10; (b) the Senate has passed Bill C-10A without amendment; and (c) the Senate is further considering Bill C-10B.

The message does not claim to be anything more than a message. The Journals Branch does not attempt to classify the message as anything other than a message either. It began its life on the Order Paper as an amendment after the government gave notice of its motion in response. Therefore it is the government's response to the message where things went wrong procedurally.

I suspect that the government regarded the message from the Senate as an amendment made to legislation because it had no other experience of messages from the Senate regarding legislation.

Even though the message represented an extraordinary procedural event, the government's response to that extraordinary event was to use a traditional response. The motion obviously came from a template that has been used countless times.

Beauchesne's 6th edition has a number of them in appendix 1. All one has to do is fill in the blanks. There are templates in appendix 1 regarding the proper wording for report stage motions; six month hoist motions and concurrence in Senate amendments. Template No. 74 reads as follows:

That the amendments made to Bill C-...., an act...., be now read a second time and concurred in; but that this House, while disapproving of any infraction of its privileges or rights by the other House, in this case waives its claims to insist upon such rights and privileges, but the waiver of said rights and privileges is not to be drawn into a precedent.

The government's motion regarding Bill C-10 and the template are almost identical. I am not knocking the government's use of templates. We all use them. In fact, the opposition amendment to the government's motion could be considered a template amendment to a template motion. While the use of the templates help keep us consistent, they cannot be used in response to an extraordinary and unprecedented procedural event. We are required to think a little harder under those circumstances.

While the template theory may explain why we considered another message from the Senate regarding the division of a bill inadvertently as a Senate amendment, sound procedural practice does not come from a good explanation of how a mistake was made. Sound practice comes from correcting those mistakes.

Just how material are those mistakes to my argument, or how material will they be when touted as precedence, will be included in the much anticipated opposing argument that I am sure the government House leader will present in a few moments.

The House never adopted a motion that concurred in the Senate's division of a House of Commons bill. The motion before us has not been adopted yet and the only other motion, the motion regarding Bill C-103 from 1988, disagreed with the Senate. The House has never accepted the division of a bill by the Senate to be an amendment. The House thus far has rejected the Senate's power to divide a House of Commons bill outright.

That is why it is so important for us to get this right before the government adopts the motion. I would urge the Speaker not to put much stock in mistakes of the past. I would urge the Speaker to consider instead the pure logic of the argument I am presenting today. There is no question the logic is in the Speaker's Chair. It always is and always has been.

Since both houses have clearly established a difference between dividing bills and amending bills, it would be consistent to apply that difference to our response to Senate messages that amend bills and Senate messages that divide bills. If the Speaker were to agree with my argument, there would be another issue regarding the wording of the motion. It reads:

That, in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code--

The reference to amendments is what I am concerned with. If the Speaker were to agree with my argument, would that not disqualify the motion since the motion would not make sense if it were determined that the division of a bill is not an amendment to a bill? The proper course of action would be to place motions in response to Senate messages regarding the division of House of Commons bills on the Order Paper as a government motions, and not as amendments. Motions in response to Senate messages regarding the division of House of Commons bills should either agree or disagree with what the Senate has done and should not masquerade as an amendment. Dividing a bill is not an amendment.

In preparing my argument I considered the following question: Would the adoption of a motion that addressed an action of the Senate that was not considered an amendment to a House of Commons bill satisfy the legislative process? In others words, must the communication between the House and the Senate regarding legislation be exclusively about amendments in order to satisfy the constitutional requirement that both houses pass the same bill?

I raised a point of order last spring regarding Bill C-10A. I argued that Bill C-10A should not be allowed to remain on the Order Paper because the bill lacked a procedural necessity to qualify it to exist, let alone proceed to the next stage. Bill C-10A was the offspring of Bill C-10 and was divided as a result of a separate substantive motion that instructed a committee. I attempted to convince the Speaker that since Bill C-10A had not been read a first time, nor had it been read a second time, it was not legitimately before the House.

On June 3, 2002, the Speaker ruled on the matter. He said:

However in the circumstances, given the House's explicit instructions to the committee to divide the bill and report it in two parts, like dividing things like the Red Sea, we do have to follow the instructions that the House gave. In my view the procedure adopted by the committee was the exact instruction the House gave, which was to divide the bill into two parts and report it accordingly.

It was an excellent ruling. It did not matter to the Speaker that the bill in question did not actually receive second reading. The Speaker was satisfied with the procedural standing and legislative course of Bill C-10A because it was established through the adoption of a motion by the House. He maintained this opinion even though the motion that established the existence of Bill C-10A was not considered a stage of the normal legislative process.

In the case of the motion to concur in the Senate's division of a House of Commons bill, the fact that the motion to concur is not considered a stage of the bill or an amendment is immaterial. The Speaker, in this case, would have to respect the decision of the House as he did with the division of the bill. The records would show that both houses were in agreement and that the constitutional requirement would have been met.

Mr. Speaker, my arguments have raised two questions which I hope, in your wisdom, will give us an answer because we must ensure we do things right for the future of parliaments in this great land. Can the motion be time allocated using Standing Order 78? Can the motion remain on the Order Paper as placed and as worded?

Until the Speaker rules on this point of order I would request that the Speaker refuse to allow the time allocation motion to be moved and defer any vote on the motion regarding the Senate message until this matter is resolved.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, the continuing fear of Liberal candidate Brian Innes is duly noted, but this afternoon the House will continue with the opposition day motion on the war in Iraq. There are discussions going on with regard to this subject which may continue today and otherwise.

As previously ordered, the House will not be sitting tomorrow.

On Monday, pursuant to what I just stated, we will return to consideration of Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies legislation, followed by report stage of Bill C-9, the environmental assessment legislation.

I am also looking forward, with the usual cooperation of all hon. members for an appropriate time and hopefully very soon, to resuming the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-10, the Criminal Code amendments.

Thursday of next week, in other words a week from today, shall be an allotted day.

In the event that there are additions or other changes to this business, I shall communicate with other House leaders through the usual channels.

Firearms Registry

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, a headline in the Ottawa Citizen says it all: “Liberals withdraw firearms registry bill: Decisions over legal complications could raise cost of program even further”.

One week after beating the Liberal caucus into submission and approving another $59 million for the gun registry, the government is now forced to withdraw Bill C-10A. The government is attempting to avoid further legal and political complications.

Stay tuned, Mr. Speaker. The billion dollar boondoggle is not over yet. One billion dollars, a failed registry and still counting.

Firearms Program

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for this very important question.

We all know that we have tabled a good plan of action. Of course one very important part of that plan of action with regard to gun control policy is Bill C-10A. Bill C-10A will have a very positive effect and impact on the program. Just to name a few positive effects, we will simplify the requirements for licence renewal, for example, stagger firearms licence renewals as well, increase the use of the Internet and establish a pre-application process for temporary importation by non-resident visitors.

Therefore I look forward to the support--

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In recent weeks the government has introduced an action plan that will improve the efficiency and accountability of the gun control program. It is apparent that Bill C-10A, which is currently awaiting House approval, is a linchpin of this action plan.

Could the government tell the House what specific benefits will be delivered by Bill C-10A?

Species at Risk Act

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that the Liberals waited three terms to bring in a law for species at risk, but now some Liberal MPs want to weaken Bill C-10, a bill to update a law first written in 1892.

Yes, they want to make laws protecting animals from cruelty weaker than the 111 year old law Canada currently has. Under proposed changes, someone in Leamington, Ontario, who had not fed 300 pigs for months could not be charged with cruelty animals.

It is time the bill that the House passed became law, and time the Liberals said enough is enough.

It is also time the other place stopped splitting bills coming from the House. Unelected and unaccountable bodies have no right at all to split bills from the House, making the Senate even more outdated than Canada's animal cruelty laws.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, in the modernization committee we will get some new rules about the Thursday question and make sure it is first on Thursday after question period. We thought it was already, but we will make sure it gets in the rules anyway.

I wonder if the government House leader could tell us the business for the rest of this week and for next week. We noticed at the House leader's meeting that Bill C-10A is on the agenda again. I wonder if he could tell us whether, on the day it is put on the agenda, he will use the time allocation motion that is sitting on the Order Paper right now.

Supply

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for St. Albert.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I congratulate the government for demonstrating, in actions, a contempt and display of arrogance through the $1 billion Liberal gun registry that we in the official opposition could never put into words. There is the out of control spending, the blatant disregard for Parliament, so blatant that even members of the government party are pulling at their leashes because of the abuse the party puts on them, the abuse of the Commons using the Senate for a money bill, and the times that closure has been used. The list goes on and on.

Now I know why the government has been slowly disbanding our military. It fears the soldiers will join the protestors when the revolution finally comes, which brings us to the purpose of the Liberals' gun control policy, which is to disarm law-abiding citizens.

I shake my head in disbelief at the parliamentary proceedings before us today. The government is driven to trample on the rights of ordinary Canadians. There are no cost savings in BIll C-10A.

The government has admitted that the gun registry is not about cost. If it were, it would not be planning to throw another $1 billion, $2 billion, or $3 billion-plus down the same hole that it threw the first $1 billion. This is not a gun control issue; it is a government out of control issue.

Bill C-10A is being proposed as a partial fix to the severely flawed Bill C-68. The problems with the gun registry are beyond fixing. The gun registry must be scrapped. Try as the Liberals might, this issue is not going to go away.

In February I hosted a gun rally at a town hall meeting. It was to give information to the public on the gun registry. With minimal advertising and scarcely a week's notice, word spread quickly in a rural riding that relies on personal contact to spread the message. I stood in awe as the huge Renfrew armouries filled with people from Arnprior, Calabogie, Hardwood Lake, Quadville, Wilno, Griffith, Barry's Bay, Foymount, Eganville, Douglas, Renfrew, Pembroke, Beachburg, Palmer's Rapids, Cormac, Combermere, Dacre, Killaloe, Westmeath, Golden Lake, Madawaska and every place in between.

Hunters represented their camps, which means they went back to the 12, 15 or 20 members of their group to report on the meeting. Just that one meeting represented thousands and thousands of Canadians. With the hon. members for Yorkton--Melville and Blackstrap in attendance, we witnessed grassroots democracy as the crowd swelled. Angry citizens were upset with the tired and out of control Liberal government that insists on treating law-abiding citizens as criminals.

Speaker after speaker got up to vent their frustrations with a government that attacks rural Canadians and our way of life. Rural people are smart. We see right through shallow people and we will not forget. The Sam Slick, fast talking Liberal city slickers may be able to fool the docile urban herds about the government's gun registry, but rural Canada is not buying their story.

Guess what? Urban Canadians are waking up. It will be interesting to see how they respond to the national identity cards with which the government plans to register all citizens. It will be interesting to see the shoe on the other foot. Only then will they realize what rural Canadians have had to put up with regarding the gun registry.

I do not feel sorry for the justice minister. If he had dealt with the mess left to him by the first two ministers in a forthright manner, Canadians might be forgiving. It used to be that the justice portfolio was considered to be the glamour portfolio. Now the justice portfolio is the kiss of death. Just ask the health minister and in particular the industry minister what it has done to their political careers.

Speaking of dashed political careers, ask the former MP for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke what his docile, slavering defence of Bill C-68 got him. Defeat. Defeat will come to the rest of the Liberal caucus on this issue too. Rural people are smart and we do not forget.

The industry minister has given rise to a new political phrase that should be added to the dictionary in its next revision. It is called gun registry math. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, the definition of gun registry math is where a government program is stated to cost one amount when in fact it costs 500 times more. When the term gun registry math is used, it will apply any time the government makes a promise on the cost of a particular program. When looking up the meaning of gun registry math, people are advised to look under the section government screw-ups.

Our town hall meeting asked me to take a message to the Liberal government in Ottawa. It asked me to deliver it loud and clear: scrap the gun registry.

Government members in rural ridings in Ontario, such as Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Parry Sound—Muskoka, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Nipissing, Leeds—Grenville and Prince Edward—Hastings should take note that their constituents called me about the rally. Those who were not able to attend begged me to arrange a town hall meeting in their ridings because their own members refused to speak out against the gun registry. They assured me that anywhere I went across rural Ontario, and this is particularly true in northern Ontario, huge crowds similar to the one we had in Renfrew would come out to protest the Liberal gun registry.

Constituents will be watching the gun registry amendment vote very carefully. A no show for the vote will not cut it either.

The Minister of Justice and his colleagues want to push the fantasy that opposition to the gun registry is being driven by the official opposition. Nothing could be further from the truth. Opposition to the Liberal gun registry is being driven by the people.

If I am not speaking against Bill C-68, I receive hundreds of calls urging me to speak up on it again. On no other issue do I receive more encouragement to fight the government than on the issue of the $1 billion wasted on the gun registry. We are listening to Canadians.

Recently the Solicitor General visited my riding to attend a party function. He was warmly greeted on a frosty valley night by a spontaneous demonstration. The protesters outnumbered the party supporters 10 to 1. They let him know how they felt about him, his party and his leader: scrap the registry.

The Solicitor General even had the nerve to tell some of the demonstrators that he agreed with them on the registry, that it was a colossal waste of money, but he refused to say what he would actually do about it.

Honour and integrity mean saying the same thing in public that one whispers in private. If the government truly feels it has the support for the registry, it should prove it by allowing a free vote. Let the power of logic rather than the threat of the whip determine the outcome. Above all, do not bully the members on how to vote.

Members of the government party are many things but they are not tools of the opposition. Why is it so hard for the government to believe that its own members' opposition to the registry is genuine and heartfelt? Members of Parliament were elected to take a stand on the issues of the day and I look forward to the vote.

While the government House leader will bluster and push the gun registry amendments, I hope he realizes that the people of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell hate the government's gun registry as much as rural Canadians in the rest of Ontario and Canada do.

I am truly surprised that the Prime Minister has taken such an ideological stance on this issue. In the past he has been quite adept at stealing Canadian Alliance policies when it suited his purpose, as adept as he has been at stealing the woolly headed ideas of the NDP. A pragmatic politician would have dropped the registry long ago.

I have to thank everyone who has called, written, come to the rallies and otherwise let their opposition be known to the Liberal gun registry. We will continue our opposition. We will have as many rallies as it takes to scrap the gun registry.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance position is 100% clear. We support the control of the criminal use of firearms. We support legislation that keeps a fully automatic firearm out of the hands of anybody in the country. Prohibit it. We support the fact that one cannot carry a concealed firearm such as a concealed handgun around.

What we do not support is the Liberal program which has in it a massive waste of money with no effect on crime. That is what Bill C-68 did, the Firearms Act. Bill C-10A that we will be voting on perpetuates that mammoth and ineffective misuse of taxpayer dollars.

The government is trying to misconstrue the Canadian Alliance position as being against any type of firearm legislation when in fact we are very strong on strong legislation that will actually reduce crime. The member can answer that generality.

He said that to him the saving of one life is worth the passing of the legislation and the perpetuation of the bill and we should just keep dumping money into it. In Manitoba last year there were three heart patients whose heart surgery was rescheduled and while they were waiting to get on the schedule again, they died. I can prove that 100% because it is in Manitoba's medical statistics. The federal government cannot prove the saving of one life because of this legislation.

For 30 years I was in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and we had plenty enough legislation. We could take firearms away from someone we believed was going to commit a crime, or someone in a spousal abuse situation. The courts could prohibit people from having firearms. The smuggling of guns over the border was always illegal.

The point is that the legislation that has been brought forward is so bad and that is why we are opposing it. Let us have sensible legislation. I would ask the member to respond to that.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Battlefords--Lloydminster.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House today and participate in the motion put forward by the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition. The motion asks the House to support a stop in the funding of the firearms registry until the government provides a cost benefit analysis and accurate accounting of spending to date.

Before I proceed I would like to point out, as have my colleagues before me, that I adamantly disagree with the government's strong-arm tactics regarding the gun registry and other legislation that it has brought in. The Prime Minister is warning any dissident backbenchers that a vote against increasing financial support for the beleaguered registry amounts to a vote of non-confidence in the government which could force a snap election or expulsion from the Liberal caucus.

The Prime Minister is warning them to stick with him through thick and thin on the gun registry without regard to the amount of dollars being thrown at it or there could be a snap election, he would not sign their papers, or there could be expulsion from the Liberal caucus.

I would like to caution those same members of Parliament that a vote against the wishes of their constituents could ultimately result in the very same thing. It could result in not only their removal from caucus but in their removal from the House. Regardless, during the next federal election I guarantee that their stand or lack thereof will become very evident to their constituents.

Last month the House was prepared to debate a motion put forward by the Senate seeking concurrence on the division of Bill C-10. The Senate attempted to split what was once Bill C-15B, creating two separate pieces of legislation: Bill C-10A, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to firearms; and Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to cruelty to animals. The Senate has passed Bill C-10A without amendment but it is still in the process of considering Bill C-10B.

Unfortunately, the Senate motion was yanked from the House agenda as the Liberal House leader was uncertain as to how his backbench would vote, although he already had ensured, by way of time allocation, that the debate on this controversial issue was limited.

The government is attempting to do whatever it can to avoid further embarrassment over the firearms registry's horrific cost overruns. It is refusing to call a time out, at least until the exact costs of the firearms registry are revealed. The government is refusing, despite eight provinces, despite three territories, despite provinces, premiers and the public demanding that the gun registry be suspended or scrapped completely.

Five provinces and three territories have opted out of the administration of the gun registry completely, while Ontario is refusing to implement the gun registration requirements in Bill C-68. Several other provinces are refusing to enforce or prosecute the Firearms Act offences.

In light of this lack of confidence and co-operation, I cannot understand why the government would be so resolved to proceed and not to suspend it or to at least call a time out. We need a clear, accurate cost benefit analysis done immediately so that Canadians, the general public, not the government, can decide if the firearms registry is an effective way of saving lives, or if that money could better be spent saving lives through increased cancer research or eliminating long waiting lines for heart surgery and improved preventive medicine, or even for resourcing police law enforcement agencies throughout the country in a different method.

I stand by the Canadian Alliance's longstanding position to repeal Bill C-68 and replace it with tougher sentences for those who use firearms in the commission of a criminal offence. With 22 pages and 63 clauses amending Bill C-68, Bill C-15 was a clear admission by the government that the firearms registry or that Bill C-68 was a complete failure.

Bill C-68, which was really the hallmark of this Liberal government, consisted of 137 pages of new laws with respect to firearms and weapons. The first enabling regulation introduced in November 1996 added an additional 85 pages, while those introduced on October 30, 1997 added approximately 65 pages to our changing firearms law.

It is important to note, especially for those such as myself who were not here in 1995, that there was a provision within Bill C-68 that stipulated that when these amendments were made, the amended regulations did not have to be reviewed by Parliament. As well understood under clause 119(2), “the justice minister may enact firearms regulations without parliamentary review if the regulations in his opinion are 'immaterial' or 'insubstantial'“ and, under clause 119(3) “if the regulation is 'urgent'”.

To date the government has enacted legislation using that clause 16 times. Furthermore, it failed to report these changes to the House of Commons as required by the Firearms Act until the oversight was exposed by the insight of the Canadian Alliance and one of our members of Parliament. Effectively, those regulatory powers negate our parliamentary system of checks and balances that are supposed to ensure that the government of the day does not exercise autocratic muscle stretching powers that it has so obviously wanted to do.

What may be immaterial, what may be insubstantial and what may be urgent in the opinion of the minister may be very material or very substantial and perhaps not even urgent to Parliament, particularly to members of Parliament who represent large rural constituencies where firearms are viewed more as a tool of the trade than a weapon.

We must be apprised of any and all changes to the firearms legislation in a clear and concise fashion, as must all Canadians, in order to avoid unintentionally breaking the law.

In closing, I would like to point out that since its inception in 1995, Bill C-68 has remained the most controversial and despised piece of legislation that has been put forward by the Liberal government, legislation that my party has fought every step of the way.

Repeatedly the Canadian Alliance has questioned, and we will continue to question, the necessity of registering the long guns of law-abiding citizens. We also question the estimated cost of the firearms registry that the former justice minister originally projected to be approximately $85 million. The minister remained adamant, even in the face of expert calculation, such as that put forward by Simon Fraser University Professor Gary Mauser, that the registry would not cost more than what he had predicted.

In a brief presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in May 1995, Professor Mauser came forward and he noted that “according to my estimates, registering 'field and stream' firearms will cost Canadian taxpayers at least $750 million and possibly more than a billion dollars over the next five years”.

The former justice minister and his Liberal colleagues scoffed at the evidence Professor Mauser brought forward. The following is a quote by the minister, “we have provided our estimates of the cost of implementing universal registration over the next five years. We say it will cost $85 million...We encourage the members opposite to examine our estimates. We are confident we will demonstrate the figures are realistic and accurate”.

I think the former justice minister, the member for Etobicoke Centre, owes Professor Mauser, and many other experts who recognized the absolutely horrific cost of this registry, an apology because Professor Mauser was right and he was wrong.

Although the Canadian Alliance, especially my hon. colleague from Yorkton--Melville, has attempted to do so for seven years, the Auditor General finally blew the lid off the ridiculous cost estimates of the former justice minister and his two predecessors. She blew them out of the water. It was the Auditor General who determined that the government had been hiding the real cost of the registry from Parliament.

I again implore the House to reject the additional $59 million in funding for the firearms registry. We must stop the bleeding now. I call upon the Minister of Justice and the Liberal Party to immediately put the registry on ice until a complete cost benefit analysis can be done.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.

We are obliged today to address a very important principle: the firearms registry and the necessity for it to be put in place. What is involved is a register, the recording of gun possession and the issuing of gun permits. We are obliged to defend the program today, but not the financial fiasco surrounding it since 1995. Where the problem lies with this program is not its underlying principle, but how it has been handled.

The Minister of Justice has just said that all the permanent government programs somewhere down the road will cost a billion dollars. When they wanted to establish the firearms registration and licencing program in 1995, they told us that it would cost $2 million in all, not a billion. The problem is as follows: when we are told that all programs cost $1 billion, how can they try to sell us on the idea that a firearms program would cost so little?

This is a big problem. Just because they are telling us it will cost x amount of dollars, now that the program is up and running, does not mean that the amounts will be any more accurate. Establishing a program requires an assessment of the real cost.

The Bloc Quebecois feels this is a program we must have, but not at the cost of the financial fiasco the Minister of Justice has created. The problem we must address today is whether the program is necessary. That is not where the problem lies; it lies in the way money is being spent in order to have a functioning system. Seven years later, if the Department of Justice had really done its job, we would not have be asking ourselves whether the firearms program is or is not any good.

Unfortunately, the motion calls for reduction of funds for the firearms program in order to eventually eliminate it. This program must exist. Moving it from Justice to the Solicitor General does not mean it is going to be made to disappear and that the Justice Department's incompetence will not come to light. We must be given the real costs and the breakdown of where this money went.

Today we are aware that opposition to the motion does not have to mean we are against the program, or vice versa. Today we must say that the program needs to be retained, but the government must be required to explain the reasons for the financial fiasco.

It is essential to protect the people of Quebec and Canada in order to avoid a repetition of senseless killings like those that occurred at École polytechnique de Montréal on December 6, 1989. According to the surveys conducted in 2003, 74% of people support this program, developed in response to pressure from those affected by the tragic events at the Polytechnique and from the public generally. But we cannot go about this blindly; this program must not become another fiasco because it is being handed off to another department without a closer examination of what happened. We need to have a detailed report of where all the money went.

For instance, between April 2000 and February 2002, the Department of Justice spent $16 million on advertising and $3 million on inviting hunters to have unforgettable experiences. Almost all of this money went through Groupaction. That explains everything; to us anyway.

We absolutely have to get to the bottom of where this money went. It is not enough to say, like the Minister of Justice says, “The entire program will one day cost $1 billion.” That is not true. The entire program should not cost $1 billion, especially when in 1995, we were told that it would cost $2 million. Imagine, $1 billion. That would take years. Maybe his grandchildren will see the day when that amount is reached. Come on. It is much more serious than that.

To be told today that the cost of setting up the program, registration, and issuing permits is on the mark, is not true. Since the program was developed based on estimates that were made, how can there be such a large discrepancy? This discrepancy is unacceptable. We are told that in seven years, costs have gone from $2 million to as high as $788 million today. Remember that a third of the people have not registered their firearms. This is serious.

Now we are supposed to believe that modifications to Bill C-10A will reduce the costs considerably. However, there are some things that I would like to share with the House right now about this. In fact, there is a big problem with Bill C-10A. And I am not just talking about an administrative problem. Obviously, if the bill were to bring down the costs, we would support that. However, there are other, more important things that need pointing out.

When the government wanted to establish this firearms registry program, Quebec supported it. The government also had the backing and the expertise of the SQ. However, there is now concern that Bill C-10A will also create a federal agency to manage firearms that could, and probably will, be privatized. If that were to happen, it would strip away all of Quebec's responsibilities, by diminishing the powers of the chief firearms officer, who comes under Quebec's jurisdiction, and also by drastically cutting the funding for the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec, which are currently a responsibility of the Sûreté du Québec.

So, this bill used Quebec's know-how and support to try to strip away all of the powers that are properly Quebec's. These are powers that work well, and are working better and better in Quebec.

Some provinces chose not to take part. That is why the government is once again trying to centralize the powers and to reduce the powers of the chief firearms officers, who are located in the provinces and in Quebec, powers designed to improve the management of the program.

It is important to remember that the Sûreté du Québec looks for a criminal record when issuing permits. I can assure the House that centralizing everything with federal agencies is not for the purpose of improving management. The purpose, once again, will be to appropriate powers and to centralize them.

It is important to remember that even though we are against the Canadian Alliance's motion because of its objective, this does not mean that the Bloc Quebecois does not support the firearms registry. On the contrary. The Canadian Alliance wants to scrap the firearms registry program altogether.

However, no one wants to give the government a blank cheque any more so that it can produce one fiasco after another. For seven years now, huge sums have been invested, and the firearm registry is not even complete. One-third of all guns have yet to be registered. But we must not lose sight of the problem: registration is voluntary. Therefore, if two-thirds of all firearms have been voluntarily registered at a cost of $788 million to date, with one-third still left, how much will it cost to “force or convince” the remaining one-third of all gun owners to register?

There is an attempt to make us believe that the money will always be available. I refuse to believe this.

We will be voting in favour of the supplementary estimates, in which the government is asking for between $59 million and $60 million to continue this program. But we will certainly not be voting in favour of allocating supplementary funds each time, without knowing how this money is being spent.

As I said earlier, just because the program is moving from the Department of Justice to the Department of the Solicitor General does not mean that we do not want to know where this money went. This is a huge amount.

With regard to the first part of the Alliance motion, on this point, we must know where this money has gone and details must be--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, there were many points in that question. However I want to correct the member on one essential point, which is the problem the Canadian Alliance has with its misplaced logic on this issue.

I know the Canadian Alliance made a lot of political hey in the last number of elections and it wants to continue to do that but we are interested in making sure there is better public safety.

The member was offside when he said that the gun control program was targeted at law-abiding citizens. It is not. The gun control program is targeted at those who use illegal guns and those who might use firearms in the wrong way. The Minister of Justice talked a bit earlier about 9,000 registrations being refused. That was done to protect public safety. There were some concerns about those people who were applying and who might cause trouble in society.

The fact is that the system has worked in targeting the program, not at law-abiding citizens but at those with illegal and misplaced weapons.

Since NWEST was established, which is part of this program, it has assisted police on the front line with over 250 warrants. NWEST has assisted frontline police officers in 3,000 incidents. It is true that it has traced over 1,900 unregistered guns in co-operation with United States authorities but sometimes, because there is a registered gun in the system, it finds there is also unregistered guns, which are certainly illegal in this country.

What we have here is a difficult position for the Canadian Alliance. It is in such an entrenched political position that it does not want to see the good points in Bill C-10A which will make this system more cost effective and do what it was intended to do in a better fiscally managed way.

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

Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General asked us a really good question of why we would oppose Bill C-10A.

Bill C-10A perpetuates bad legislation that was passed back in 1995. That is what is wrong with Bill C-10A. It is continuing along with the path of Liberal gun control. It is not along the path of Canadian Alliance sensible firearms legislation.

Before Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, was passed, and I am saying this having been a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for 30 years, we could seize firearms from somebody who was going to commit a crime. We could seize firearms when a criminal was intending to use them or had used them. All the law-abiding citizen had to do was get an FAC, a firearms acquisition certificate and get checked out by the police. The Canadian Alliance supports that.

We support firearms legislation that is cost effective and effective at reducing crime. That is the difference. That is the question. The Liberals on one side have a mammoth system which is hugely expensive and which does not reduce crime with all that added expense. The Canadian Alliance wants to spend money on firearms legislation but it will be an effective one where we go after criminals and not after the law-abiding citizen.

Does the minister not see the difference, that the firearms registry targeted at law-abiding citizens is not doing the job to reduce crime? He has not been asked yet whether he would be willing to produce a cost benefit analysis substantiating the spending of that money. Will the Solicitor General provide to the House that cost benefit analysis?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised at the member's question because the whole thrust of his opposition day motion basically refers to inefficiencies in the system.

What I am explaining for him, and maybe he does not want to hear it, is how we can create those efficiencies in the system. Bill C-10A is a very important aspect in creating those efficiencies in the system. Let me repeat that to make this program more efficient and cost effective while continuing to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and enhancing the safety of our communities, we need Bill C-10A.

Let me explain what the bill does and how it does it. Bill C-10A includes amendments to the Firearms Act to provide better service and reduce costs. Bill C-10A simplifies the requirements for licence renewals. Bill C-10A increases the use of the Internet and other automated channels for applications and issuance of documents. Bill C-10A staggers firearm licence renewals to avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles. In other words, it allows efficiencies in the system.

Bill C-10A establishes a preapplication process for temporary importation of non-resident visitors. Bill C-10A streamlines the transfer process. Bill C-10A grandfathers additional handguns that were prohibited in 1995. Bill C-10A extends the terms of firearms business licences. Bill C-10A clarifies the licensing requirements for the employees of firearms businesses.

Every single one of these amendments will make the Canadian firearms program more accessible and responsible to the needs of those people who use the system. A program that is accessible and responsive to the needs of its users is a program that has a far better chance of meeting its goals. In this case the goal is public safety.

As Bill C-10A is passed, we will also implement the following changes for an improved, less costly gun control program.

The member for Yorkton--Melville has been on his feet on this issue so many times. I ask him, if he really believes what he himself is saying in terms of efficiencies in the system and waste of money, how could he and his party, the Canadian Alliance, possibly oppose Bill C-10A and all those proposals and efficiencies that Bill C-10A will give the Government of Canada, indeed the people of Canada, in terms of administering this program?

We will streamline headquarters and processing operations. We want to achieve greater consistency and better coordination. We will establish national work performance measures and cost standards for all aspects of the gun control program. We will work in consultation with the provinces, territories and other partners to achieve this. There is no question about it, some provinces have been opposed. We understand that is not an easy consultation and discussion to have but we are going to do our best to achieve it.

Federal and provincial gun control managers will be more accountable in meeting these standards. This will ensure, in my view, consistency of program delivery, quality and control of costs by all partners involved in the gun control program.

We will as well restrict computer system changes to those that are critical to achieving the core mission of the gun control program and to reducing costs. These improvements to the management and structure of the gun control program will be made by early 2004 or even sooner. They build on the cost saving measures that are a part of Bill C-10A. The aim is to establish a clear management framework for the program that focuses on its essential core business, the licensing and registration of firearms.

We are also continuing with the improvements that my colleague, the hon. Minister of Justice, has already been putting in place. The Internet registration system is working reasonably well. The government introduced online registration on February 7 and the Canadian Firearms Centre is receiving hundreds of firearms registrations and applications daily through its website.

Applications received online result in substantial cost savings to the program and faster service to the public due to simpler processing requirements. We are continuing to reduce registration processing delays. We are not all the way there yet, but we are improving that with the goal of processing properly completed registration applications within 30 days of receipt. We will be implementing a targeted outreach program.

Finally, we will honour our commitments to parliamentarians, to stakeholders and the public to seek their input in consultations this spring in improving the design and the delivery of the program. These consultations will give gun control program stakeholders, partners and members of the public an opportunity to provide direct input into this essential public safety program. We will also appoint a program advisory committee made up of members external to government with management and system expertise.

I encourage members opposite, if they really believe what they are saying, to support Bill C-10A and the estimates that go along with making Bill C-10A possible for us to have those efficiencies in the system.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it is too bad that discussion had to close. The Minister of Justice was starting to outline some of the real facts on the issue, but I welcome the opportunity to speak to the issue.

What do we want from a gun control program and what do Canadians expect? I believe they expect a program that keeps guns out of the hands of those who should not have them and prevents illegal guns from entering our country. Also, we want and I believe Canadians want a program that respects the legitimate interests of hunters, sports shooters and others in society who use guns in a lawful way. Quite simply, we and Canadians want a program that helps to make our communities safer, but they do not want a program at any cost. That is what Canadians expect and that is what Canadians deserve.

Part of the answers lie in the common sense proposals of Bill C-10A. Before getting to why Bill C-10A is such an important piece of legislation, and I would ask the opponents on the other side to support us in that legislation, I want to make a couple of other points.

The Canadian firearms program is an important fit for my portfolio, that of the Solicitor General. We are confident that we have the strength in the portfolio to run this complex national law enforcement program. We are already consolidating law enforcement functions by moving the national weapons enforcement support team, or NWEST, from the Canadian Firearms Centre to the national police services which is administered by the RCMP on behalf of all police forces in Canada. This move places this crucial service in an environment more aligned with its enforcement support mission.

To align the rest of the Canadian firearms program operations as efficiently and cost effectively as possible and to make the Canadian firearms program fully meet its goal of public safety, we need Bill C-10A. Bill C-10A is critical to achieving a firearms program that better responds to the needs and expectations of Canadians while maintaining public safety. The sooner it is adopted, the sooner Canadians can reap the benefits of a program that is more efficient and cost effective while continuing to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and enhancing the safety of our communities.

Let me repeat that. Bill C-10A will make it possible for us as the Government of Canada to run a program that is more efficient and more cost effective--

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if he could give us the business for the rest of today, tomorrow, and next week. Also, could the government House leader, if he were to schedule a day for the Senate amendments to Bill C-10A, advise the House of his intention regarding time allocation since he already has given notice of time allocation on Bill C-10A? Could he also advise the House, so we could all know what we are doing this afternoon, whether his whip, using the rules, will defer today's vote to a future date?

Supply

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General of Canada gives Canadians and members of Parliament objective information to help them examine the government's activities and hold it to account. The Liberal government believes the role of the Auditor General is vital. In fact, in 1994 we amended the Auditor General Act to increase the number of reports from a single annual report to four reports annually.

What does all that mean? I believe it means exactly this. In my other life I am an active farmer, a chicken farmer. Every year I sit down with my accountant to look at how my business is progressing, improvements that I should be making to my business and what taxes I am going to pay. It is efficient running of my business. Why? I am not an accountant. I trained as a millwright. Therefore I get someone to look at that for me and to make my business more efficient.

That is exactly what the Auditor General does for the Government of Canada. She looks at how the government runs and operates. She looks at whether the government is effectively spending the money the way it should and whether its programs are efficient or if there is a better way to make government work better.

In addition to strengthening the role of the Auditor General, this government has had a track record of responding in a timely, effective manner to her findings. When the media often focuses on the negative aspects of the Auditor General's report, there are also good news stories. In fact the Auditor General herself said in 2001 that examples of good management sometimes got lost in the glare of publicity that surrounded the bad examples.

The government does about $130 billion in business a year. That is a lot of money. Government is big business. It is in our best interest not only as a government but as the managers for Canada to ensure that we do it the best way possible.

The Auditor General recently praised Industry Canada for making significant improvements to the small business financing program.

Very simply, we look at what the Auditor General has to say about how we operate the government and the country. If she has made specific recommendations for improvements on how we operate, we have responded.

Here are some of the highlights in response to the 2002 report of the Auditor General. These are some things the government has done in response to her recommendations on how to make government operate better.

In her September 2002 report the Auditor General commented that the federal government provided only limited information on its intended total contribution to the provinces and the territories for the future funding of health care. In budget 2003 the federal government responded to this concern by announcing its intention to separate the Canada health and social transfer into the Canada health transfer and Canada social transfer. This will result in a clear accounting of the amount of funding the federal government provides the provinces to help them administer their public health insurance programs.

Quite frankly this has been an irritant for me as a member of Parliament from Ontario because we transfer cash to the provinces for health care but we also give the provinces tax points and we get absolutely no recognition for that at all. I do not feel that is fair. This is something that the provinces asked for back in, I believe, 1995. They said that it would be a more efficient accounting and would a better way of doing things. Now they are now using it against the federal government by not giving us any credit for those tax points. I have said many times in caucus that if they will not give us recognition for them, then we should take them back and give them a cash transfer. That way we will at least get recognition.

The other thing I want to see within the health care situation is better accountability. We know there were some examples last year where high tech money that was supposed to be spent on MRIs and CAT scans was spent on lawnmowers instead. I am a life member of the Association of Kinsmen. If hospitals need lawnmowers, I would tell them to go to the local service club and we will help raise money for that, but do not spend high tech money on low tech problems.

The second is the sponsorship program. In March 2002 the Auditor General was asked by the former minister of public works to review three contracts awarded between 1996 and 1999 to Groupaction. That report was immediately referred to the RCMP, and the cases are under investigation.

On May 26, 2002 the Minister of Public Works imposed a moratorium on the sponsorship program. We were responding. An interim sponsorship program was announced on June 3, 2002 which eliminated the use of external communications agencies.

Finally, on December 17, 2002, the minister announced a new sponsorship program for the 2003-04 fiscal year. That is guided by four key principles: value for money, with which I agree as we want to get the best value for the money spent; stewardship, with which I also agree; flexibility; and finally, transparency. Those I believe are four key pillars with which the opposition and every member in the House would have to agree.

Last but not least, as we have heard here today, is the Canadian firearms program. The government has taken immediate measures to address all the recommendations in the Auditor General's report on the firearms program. Specifically we have introduced Bill C-10A that would cut costs, improve program administration, streamline the process and increase ease of use.

Further on this, on February 21 the Minister of Justice introduced the government's action plan for changes to the management of Canada's gun control program. The plan is the government's blueprint for improving the program's services, transparency and accountability. Clearly we have responded to many of the concerns expressed by the Auditor General and the evidence is before us.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

If I can drive a car, I have to get licensed and I have to get trained. If I want to buy an airplane, I have to get licensed and I have to get trained. If I buy a boat, I have to get licensed, trained and registered. Certainly what the Canadian people are telling me and telling everyone is that if I go out to Canadian Tire later this morning and buy a gun, I first have to get trained in the use of that gun. Second, the authorities in Canada want to know that I am a capable person to own the gun: first, mentally capable; then physically capable, of a certain age; and, most important, trained in the use of firearms.

They want to know that I have a gun. If there is a domestic dispute in a household and the police come in at two or three in the morning, they want to find out, not the day following and not the week following but that minute, whether or not there are any licensed firearms in that particular house. That is what Canadians want.

For example, an Environics poll released last week shows that 74% of Canadians support the elements of our government's gun control program. Among gun owners themselves, support is split: 45% support the policies and 55% are opposed. Interestingly, 77% support is found among respondents from homes where somebody else owns firearms.

I am aware of the problems that the administration of this program has undergone since it was enacted. I am aware that certain fundamentals, the costing that was carried forward in the system, were no longer realistic. I am aware that certain ministers should have come back to the House with updates on the costing. This matter is coming before the public accounts committee at 3:30 this afternoon. I am a member of that committee. That committee will certainly deal with this issue. It will deal with it in depth, and recommendations will be made and tabled in the House.

Going back to polls, hon. members here today also may remember that not too long ago a national poll found that supporters of every political party represented in the House supported the Firearms Act.

Briefly I want to turn to the government's initiatives to reduce costs, which is important, to increase transparency and to improve client service, which are contained within Bill C-10A. I must stress that the principles included in Bill C-10A are as important today as they will be when the program moves to the Department of the Solicitor General. Last Friday's announcement does not in any way make Bill C-10A unnecessary.

There are a number of initiatives that, if passed, will help the government respond to concerns expressed by our Auditor General and also by Canadians in general. One of these measures is a proposal to stagger firearms licence renewals, which is intended to help avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles. To even out the workload in such a manner would result in more efficient processing, better client service and, I also submit, very significant cost savings.

Streamlining the transfer process for non-restricted firearms allows provincial firearms officers to focus their efforts and, I should add, their resources on other public safety functions. It facilitates client service without compromising public safety. Moreover, consolidating administrative authority for all operations under a Canadian firearms commissioner would ensure more direct accountability to the minister, who in turn is responsible to the House. This would enhance both financial and political accountability. As well, the Canadian firearms program would present an annual report that would give a more full picture of the program and complement existing government reports to Parliament.

I believe strongly that Canadians want common sense gun control legislation delivered in a cost effective manner and with full accountability and transparency to Parliament. They also want a commitment from us that we will administer this program from this point on in the most effective manner possible.

Before I close I want to remind the House that this is not just a Canadian issue. Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association of America, recently told The Wall Street Journal that the National Rifle Association is watching Canada very carefully. It wants us to be an example. The NRA wants Canada to fail and the NRA wants to tell the world that we have failed.

Canada is an example. We are showing the world that the path of the NRA and their brothers in Canada's gun lobby is not the way.

Canadians overwhelmingly support the principles of our program and have for years. We have challenges to overcome, but with the support of all Canadians I am confident that we can overcome these challenges and ensure that Canada has an effective, common sense gun control policy.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak on this very important issue.

Chapter 10 of the 2002 Auditor General's report dealt with the Canadian firearms program. We have heard a lot in recent weeks about the administrative problems that the Canadian firearms program has had in the past. It is not my intent to, nor will I, downplay these problems, but I do think it is time to hear something about the changes the government has proposed to improve the Canadian firearms program.

I want to thank the hon. member for South Shore for the opportunity to remind Canadians about the gun action control plan that the Minister of Justice announced last week. This plan will deliver a gun control program that provides significant public safety benefits while setting the program on the path to lower costs. The plan will streamline management, improve services to legitimate users of firearms, seek parliamentary, public and stakeholder input, and strengthen accountability and transparency to Parliament and, through Parliament, to all Canadians.

A key element of the action plan is the passage of Bill C-10A and the adoption of consequential regulations by the end of this year. During the debate on what was then Bill C-15B, the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville told the House, “...the amendments given here may in some small way improve the original errors in Bill C-68”. I share that view and I associate myself with those remarks.

Unlike certain members of the opposition, however, I believe Parliament exists to, and has a duty to, make an engaged and constructive difference. Despite the overheated rhetoric of the gun lobby, Canadians, I am convinced, are committed to the principles of Canada's Firearms Act. Opposition to the Canadian firearms program is neither as broad nor as unanimous as opponents would make us believe. Canadians want meaningful, effective gun control delivered to them in an efficient, cost effective manner. Poll after poll demonstrates this deep commitment.

If we have listened to a lot of the rhetoric that has gone on in the House, in the newspapers and on radios and TV in the last month, we would think that Canadians do not want anything about gun control. I disassociate myself with those remarks. People in Canada do not want a situation where any person can go out and buy a gun, store that gun and use it in whatever way they want.

I am a poster boy for gun control. I have never owned a gun. I have never fired a gun. I have never stored a gun. I would not know how to shoot a gun. I should not be allowed to go out to Canadian Tire later this morning, buy a gun and store it under my living room couch. That is not what the Canadian people want.

Firearms Registry

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the minister started off by talking about positive steps and additional improvements when he should have been talking about further regression and additional costs.

I want every member to remember this day. I want every member to pay close attention to what the government is about to do. I want Canadians to remember that their member of Parliament had the choice.

The blatant disregard for public opinion on this file goes against everything the government has stood for in the past 10 years. For a government that prides itself in following public opinion polls, it has really missed the mark on this one. How many times can we stand in the House and explain to the minister that this registry--and I say registry, it is not gun control, it is a gun registry that we are speaking about--is not about gun safety.

What will it take to get the Liberals to understand that forcing legitimate gun owners to register their long guns, guns used for hunting and shooting, has nothing to do with gun safety? Even Toronto police chief Julian Santino recognized that fact when he said, “The registry is ineffective and a misdirection of public money”.

Once again we call on the minister or anyone on that side of the House to stand up and tell Canadians how the program saves lives. They cannot because it does not.

Why does the government not do a value for dollar audit? The results would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the registry does not work. The government cannot even get the administration of it right.

I will concede the fact that 1.9 million firearm owners have obtained licences and have registered their guns, if the minister will concede that 1.9 million Canadians have registered their cars but that will not stop accidents either. They do it because they are law-abiding citizens and there is a law which says they have to. I fail to see how registration by law-abiding citizens prevents crime.

The Auditor General said that the government intentionally misled Parliament by funnelling money for the failed project through the backdoor in the supplementary estimates. The government continues to whitewash this project in the hopes that its backbenchers will come around and vote in favour of more government waste.

Not one person I have spoken to is against gun safety. Not one person I have spoken to is against preventing criminals from obtaining firearms. Not one person I have spoken to is opposed to gun control. We originally voted for gun control; in fact, we were the first to introduce the idea. Not one person I have spoken to believes that the registry works.

Just over an hour ago the government House leader stood in the foyer along with us and told Canadians that the implementation of Bill C-10A will save taxpayers money. The first thing the government is looking for is an extra $15 to buy off the shelf software to correct the old software which is so complicated nobody thinks it can work anyway.

We talk about saving money. This program was supposed to cost $2 million. It is over $1 billion and we have been told that five or six years down the road it will only cost $67 million a year to maintain. We are talking about the administration. We are not talking about the enforcement or other costs. We are again deceiving the Canadian public.

The only smart thing the justice minister did today is what Liberals always do when they run into trouble. He sloughed it off on somebody else. The young innocent Solicitor General now has the problem on his hands.

We have a bill coming to the House. We will see how many Liberals will have the intestinal fortitude to stand and defeat it as they have been asked to do and how many will stay at home as most of them do when we get into a crunch on a situation like this one.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Minister of Justice has left us somewhat puzzled about the government's leadership in what has come to be known as the gun control boondoggle.

The minister made three statements in as many months on the same issue. Each one contained nothing but platitudes, without ever condemning the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars have disappeared into this black hole. This speaks volumes about the Liberal government's incompetence and lack of transparency.

Worse still, the Minister of Justice is now basing his actions on the recommendations contained in the report commissioned by a former deputy minister. It is as though he were trying to duck the issue, to distract our attention from the fact that he is the one who is responsible for this waste of almost $1 billion.

The Liberal government, and the Minister of Justice in particular, are abdicating their responsibilities. Their strategy is based on passing Bill C-10A, which has been amended in the Senate, and has yet to be adopted by the House, which in itself negates the powers and privileges of our House. The whole situation is a hypothetical one.

Furthermore, the minister, who had to quickly backtrack on pouring a further $72 million into this infamous program to prevent his majority government from being brought down, today announced that he was planning on asking for additional funds yet again.

He justifies this by citing major changes to the management of Canada's firearms registration program, by moving it under the responsibility of the Solicitor General. This is an undeniable admission of his department's incompetence, and the incompetence of his predecessor in particular, who is now the Minister of Industry.

The real problem, the one that affects the crux of this government initiative, lies in the Liberals' lack of vision and especially in their chronic and typical lack of transparency. A program that was supposed to have been carefully thought out was totally out of control for years before anyone learned about the scope of the disaster.

This veritable boondoggle has given gun control opponents plenty of ammunition. They are now basing their reasoning to abolish the program on the need to stop the waste of tax dollars.

Those opposed to gun control are trying to influence public opinion with arguments that do not take into consideration the positive results of the program, in terms of preventing and solving serious crimes.

For the Bloc Quebecois, the need for such a program remains critical. We believe that it would be quite inappropriate and irresponsible to eliminate it. The Bloc Quebecois will ensure that all aspects of the program currently managed by Quebec will continue to be so managed.

However, this argument for the Canadian Firearms Centre should not be interpreted as support for the Liberal government, but rather as an appeal for the accountability of managers and, above all, the protection of society as a whole.

The Bloc Quebecois has always been very open and accountable in the debate on protecting society and the maturity with which major social issues are addressed.

The minister is talking about accountability, a term the Liberals have bandied about for several weeks now. This process should start at the highest levels of government, beginning with the Ministers of Industry and Health, both of whom also held the Justice portfolio.

In closing, remember that it is not only the administrative ability of the ministers, who have both been Minister of Justice at one time, that must be called into question. Beyond that, we must identify those responsible for this sad situation, starting with the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, who kept the purse strings closed when he was Minister of Finance and who did not have the courage to sound the alarm.

The Minister of Justice's intentions, stated without the slightest regret, justify our mistrust. More than ever, the Bloc Quebecois will keep a watchful eye on this arrogant and incompetent government.

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

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister's announcement today of an action plan to fix the gun registry is very much like sending the deckhands of the Titanic out with rolls of duct tape to fix the gaping gash in the side of the ship, except the duct tape is made of gold.

The minister's action plan means that in a very few years, Parliament would be debating a $2 billion boondoggle. This is because he failed to address the real problems in the legislation and in the registry itself.

The minister proudly proclaims that even with everything he announced today, the gun registry will still cost $67 million a year. The minister's admission means that his great action plan will save $5 million a year from the $72 million a year that Mr. Hession's report estimated the gun registry would cost without streamlining. But does anyone believe the justice minister's estimates?

Let us take any one year and look at how much he forecasted to spend in the main estimates, and then look at how much he actually spent. The Auditor General uncovered the fact that the justice minister made inappropriate use of the supplementary estimates. The Auditor General said:

Between 1995-96 and 2001-02, the Department obtained only about 30% of $750 million in funds for the Program through the main appropriations method; in comparison, it obtained 90% of funding for all of its other programs through the main appropriations.

This means that the justice department's estimates were consequently wrong and understated by 70%. This would be a good rule of thumb for Parliament and the pubic to use when they are trying to figure out how much the gun registry would really cost to fully implement and how much it would cost to maintain each and every year after that.

How can the justice minister claim that he is being transparent when he has been keeping Parliament in the dark for the last 11 weeks? He was more open with the media this week when he admitted his cash management program consisted of not paying his bills. His action plan and cost estimates are fatally flawed because he refuses to acknowledge that he has to correct eight years of operational mistakes by his bureaucrats.

I have made a list of the most critical mistakes that he has failed to correct.

More than five million firearms are registered in the system but still must be verified by the RCMP. Up to four million records in the RCMP's firearms interest police (FIP) database must be corrected. Some 78% of the registration certificates have entries that have been left blank or marked unknown and they must be corrected. Hundreds of thousands of gun owners still do not have a firearms licence and they cannot register their firearms without a licence. None of these issues have been addressed.

More than 300,000 owners of registered handguns do not have a firearms licence authorizing them to own one, and they cannot re-register their guns without a licence. Up to 10 million guns still have to be registered or re-registered in the system, and six million guns are registered without the names and addresses of the owners on them. The provinces have registered 18.6 million cars and they have the names and addresses of the owners on them. Police will not even be able to tell where the registered guns are stored.

These are just a few of the problems that the minister does not address. The justice minister thinks that moving the gun registry bureaucrats to the Solicitor General's department, as he announced this morning, would improve things. He should give his head a shake and fire a few bureaucrats instead of promoting them.

Does anyone know what they are doing over there? For example, on Monday of this week, if the government had its way, it would have used closure to ram Bill C-10A through the House.

The bill would have created a commissioner of firearms reporting to the justice minister and move the RCMP registry of firearms under the direct control of the minister.

Four days later he is now proposing to move all of these positions to another department, four days after we were going to pass the legislation. This means that in a very short order Parliament will be debating another gun registry bill. This was not one of Mr. Hession's 16 recommendations, by the way.

Still we are left not knowing how much it really will cost to fully implement and how much it will cost to maintain the program year after year. The minister will not even tell Parliament or the public what it cost to run the program for the last 11 weeks. Does he even know? I do not know. And for what benefit?

The minister tells us that it will improve public safety while in the meantime police chiefs tell the Canadian people the truth. In December, Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino was asked about the escalation of firearms crime in the city. He said, “A law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped solve any of them”.

In January, the president of the 66 member Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police said the gun registry laws are, “unenforceable until the mess is sorted out”.

It is clear that the unenforceable mess, to which Chief Thomas Kaye was referring, will not be fixed by the amendments in Bill C-10A.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to report to you and the House on the positive steps that I am taking concerning the Canadian firearms program.

On December 3, the Auditor General of Canada tabled her report on the Canadian Firearms Program. I have accepted her recommendations and I am therefore announcing today additional improvements to the program.

Let me be clear, the Auditor General did not question the policy behind this program. Indeed, the government has never wavered from its commitment to public safety through gun control. The program is producing results such as encouraging the safe use of firearms, supplying vital information to police, and helping keep guns out of the wrong hands.

Today, more than 1.9 million firearm owners have obtained licences and have registered more than 6 million guns. The measures that I am announcing today focus on improving the administration of the program.

The plan is based on the work done by independent consultants. Based on their advice, one of our aims is to reduce the annual gross cost of the program to approximately $67 million by 2008-09. The forecasted savings are based on a number of important milestones, one of which is the passage of Bill C-10A and the adoption of the necessary regulations.

As forecasted by our independent consultants, expenditures will increase slightly in 2003-04 and 2004-05. In these transition years, the gun control program will require changes to its infrastructure and business processes. This investment will result in faster and more significant savings in all subsequent years.

I am also announcing that we will be moving the national weapons enforcement support team to the national police services administered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This will help align enforcement operations.

Further to another recommendation contained in the Hession report I will be working with the Solicitor General to develop a plan for the transfer of the Canadian firearms centre to his portfolio with a target date of April 1, 2003. We will ensure that the fundamentals are in place to ensure an orderly transition so that Canadians can soon experience further service improvements to this essential public safety program.

Our work these past weeks has resulted in the development of specific actions to achieve our objectives. The government's plan includes the four following actions, to be implemented in the next 12 months.

First, reducing costs and improving management, by streamlining headquarter functions, consolidating processing sites, establishing national work performance measurements, and limiting computer system changes to projects that do improve the efficiency of the program.

Second, improving service to the public, by extending free Internet registration and making it more easily accessible and reliable; ensuring clients can easily access 1-800 telephone information services; processing properly completed registration applications within 30 days of receipt; and implementing a targeted outreach program to help firearm owners fulfill licensing and registration requirements.

Third, holding consultations in spring 2003 to seek input from stakeholders, including parliamentarians and the public, on how to improve the design and delivery of the gun control program, and creating a program advisory committee.

Fourth, strengthening accountability and transparency, by reporting to Parliament full program costs across government, and tabling an annual report to Parliament that provides full financial and performance information on the gun control program.

In December I committed to keep the House informed on the developments in the gun control program. Today, I am fulfilling my commitment.

Canada Elections Act

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

My friend from Wild Rose is heckling me. He came to the Lindsay fair this year and pretty near cleaned out all the hotdog stands. He had a great time and I welcome him to come back any time. He certainly helped the economy of our area by his presence. I think one of the butchers said that he was up by a cow a week. We thank him for helping our economy.

The member behind him is formerly from Oshawa. We get these true westerners. When I look around I see people from Oshawa. There are a couple of true westerners, but actually one is an American and one is from Oshawa and has land in my riding. I have to be good to him. He pays taxes in my riding. Somehow when one leaves Ontario one goes out west and becomes a Reformer, which is all right. We need western based dissident parties. I think they do a great job here. They sometimes make me look good, which is pretty hard to do sometimes.

Yes, I am a gun owner. I have seen the odd groundhog. I think I had a good meeting this morning in our committee, where we met some concerned firearms people. I registered my guns in November online. It took 10 minutes and cost nothing, so what is the matter with the system? I am one of the people who wants to see Bill C-10A debated here. It has to be debated here. There has to be transparency and there has to be accountability. We have to know where that money is being spent, that it is being spent to save lives in Canada and that it helps the police and helps legitimate gun owners abide by the law. I think that is a good part of it.

However, I do tend to cheer for the Canadiens. It has nothing to do with the fact that Mr. Speaker's son plays for them, nothing to do with that at all.

Divorce Act

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill in general terms.

Bill C-22 is further evidence of why representative democracy is dead in terms of the Department of Justice. Section 18 of the British North America Act which gives this House the powers of representation of the public is dead. A motion was made recently by the Minister of Justice asking members of this place to waive their privileges, that is, section 18 of the British North America Act, our counterbalance to the enormous powers of the Crown as represented by the cabinet. Now we have a new evolution in that under Bill C-22.

Bill C-22 is a disgrace. It represents only the wishes and the views of perhaps seven lawyers in the Department of Justice. Bill C-22 is representative of nothing in this place. It is representative of nothing among the Canadian public, yet the justice minister brought it to this chamber.

In the 10 minutes allotted to me, I will quickly trace some of the history of this legislation.

In 1968 Canada's first Divorce Act was introduced. It introduced in some sense a no fault provision. In 1984 the act was amended and the then minister of justice in the Trudeau cabinet, Mr. MacGuigan, brought in some amendments to it. He introduced the concept of the best interest of the child, but, and this was a very traditional Liberal value, the best interest of the child included the joint financial obligations of the mother and the father to their children, and also the principle of maximum contact of the children with both parents.

The Divorce Act of 1984, or Bill C-10 as it was called ironically at that time, died on the Order Paper when Parliament dissolved in 1984. In 1985 the then minister of justice, Mr. Crosbie, brought in an act respecting divorce and corollary relief. He revamped and changed Bill C-10 but retained the best interest of the child concept and the concept of joint financial obligations toward joint and equal parenting.

I will flash forward to 1996 to Bill C-41 which introduced a revolutionary concept about child support. It put in place a regime where one parent, the non-custodial parent, would pay support and the custodial parent had no obligations. God bless those people in the other place because they resisted it. The bill passed on the very clear understanding that a joint committee of Parliament would be formed.

In 1997 that joint committee was formed by resolution of this House and the other place. That joint committee met throughout 1998 and made approximately 44 recommendations about fairness, about equality, about balance and most important, about putting two parents back into the life of a child when those parents divorced. I will read two pivotal recommendations of that committee.

Recommendation No. 5 of the joint committee report of December 9, 1998 states:

This Committee recommends that the terms “custody and access” no longer be used in the Divorce Act and instead that the meaning of both terms be incorporated and received in the new term “shared parenting”, which shall be taken to include all the meanings, rights, obligations, and common-law and statutory interpretations embodied previously in the terms “custody and access”.

Recommendation No. 6 states:

This Committee recommends that the Divorce Act be amended to repeal the definition of “custody” and to add a definition of “shared parenting” that reflects the meaning ascribed to that term by this Committee.

That is all rather interesting. At the same time, a massive public shift of opinion occurred.

A Compas poll showed that 89% of Canadians believed the stress of divorce was more severe than a generation ago, and that 70% of men and women said the courts do not pay enough attention to the needs of children.

In that same poll 62% of men and women said that they feel the courts pay too little attention to the needs of fathers and 80% of Canadians believed that the children of divorce must maintain ongoing relationships with their non-custodial parents. Also 65% of Canadians said that they feel it is a priority that the government should protect the rights of children to relationships with their non-custodial parents and that no custodial parent should be allowed to bar that access.

An Angus Reid poll on May 25, 1998 in the Globe and Mail said that 71% of residents of Ontario believe a woman's child support should be withheld if access is denied. Also it said that Ontarians are equally split as to whether or not jail terms are appropriate for access denial.

The end result was that in May 1999 the justice minister responded to the special joint committee. I quote from “Government of Canada Strategy for Reform” the Government of Canada’s response to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access:

The Government of Canada is committed to responding to the issues identified by the CommitteeReport. The Special Joint Committee Report’s key themes, concerns and recommendationsprovide a foundation for developing a strategy for reforming the policy and legislative frameworkthat deals with the impact of divorce on Canadian children.

On October 12, 1999 the throne speech said “it will work to reform family law and strengthen supports provided to families”.

With respect to the throne speech of January 30, 2001, at page 8 of the Senate Debates it states:

The government will work with its partners on modernizing the laws for child support, custody and access, to ensure that these work in the best interests of children in cases of family breakdown.

On September 30, 2002 the throne speech said at page 4:

[The government] will also reform family law, putting greater emphasis on the best interests of the child...and ensure that appropriate child and family services are available.

What do we get out of all of that? What does this all mean? It means that in December last year, the justice minister tabled Bill C-22 which reflects nothing. It is not reflective of anything that three committees of Parliament have said ought to be done. It does not reflect anything that Canadians told the committee. It reflects nothing that polls across the country have shown.

A justice minister, who had been the justice minister for three months, arrived and said “I know more. I know better. I will tell you what is in the best interests of children and it is this thing I call Bill C-22”.

The end result is that we are now living in a place where the executive branch has given to the House a bill which reflects only the wishes of the so-called experts in the Department of Justice. We have been given a bill which flies in the face of everything this place stands for in terms of representative democracy. The bill is the status quo or less. The bill does not address children.

The bill brings in a new concept which is turning the Divorce Act into the form of a mini criminal code. It introduces something called domestic violence into the Divorce Act.

Since when did a civil act become a criminal act? Since when did we start passing laws in this place that would criminalize allegations? Since when did we say to half the population, “You have no place in the life of your children because you have divorced and we will allow, not Parliament which has an obligation to protect children, but judges to decide”.

This will continue to foment dissent and great bitterness. Most tragically, we will continue to see a generation of children of divorce who only know one parent, who only know one family and who will be raised under the guise of revolution if we allow the bill to pass. That is why members of this chamber must do what is best for the children of this country, not what is best for a justice minister or his bureaucrats. We must stand and say at second reading, no, we will not accept this.

Canada Elections Act

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is another interesting debate today. It is a bit of a change of pace. Everybody came rushing back to this place this morning all intent on a closure motion that was to have been brought down on Bill C-10, the bill coming back from the Senate on firearms and cruelty to animals.

The government threw us a curve and pulled that one off because it was having trouble lining up the backbenchers on that side, not just the opposition but its own backbenchers, who were saying that they would not support that. It is a bit of an unprecedented thing when we see a closure motion rescinded. It was a bittersweet victory that brought us to Bill C-24 today, the election financing bill.

I watched with some interest as the government House leader threw the curveball, the knuckleball, the Nerfball, the spitball, or whatever it was today, that got us over to this bill. Then he stood up and did a tirade, reminiscent of the old rat pack, of how it was everybody's fault but his. The last time I checked he is the leader of the government that has a majority. He controls the agenda totally and completely. It is at his beck and call, and the cabinet that he serves.

How in any way could it possibly be the opposition shanghaiing this place or withholding this or doing that? How could that possibly be? Yet he stood there sanctimonious as anyone could believe, as hypocritical as anyone could believe--and I see you chuckling, Mr. Speaker. You saw the same act I did.

It would have been a great act to have at a circus. He would have had people coming in and paying money to see that. Without a tear in his eye he was able to do that; without a smile on his face. I guess that is a great attribute that he has after all these years in this place. But it is certainly nothing to do with the opposition.

This particular bill, whether it gets shanghaied or not, has more to do with what backbench members do or not do over on that side and the leadership contests, and problems that they have at this time.

Having said that, I look at the bill and think, here we go again. Regarding the last number of bills that I have spoken to in this place, the direction might be right but the focus is off, this might be right but this is missing, and there are all these loopholes. I see that again in Bill C-24. I see the public disengaged. There is a huge disconnect now between what government says and does in this place, and what the taxpayers who are paying the bills and for whom we are doing this are actually asking for.

We are asking taxpayers to totally fund the political system in this country. They do to a great extent now, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40% to 50% with tax rebates and different things that go on. However, we are looking to take that to an unprecedented level with this bill. If taxpayers had a disconnected appetite for politics before, they certainly will have a larger disconnect once they start to analyze what the bill is all about.

This is all about public money, taxpayers' money, paying for the political habits of parties. We are seeing things in the bill that are not covered under allowable expenses at this point. I wish to mention one thing that is inappropriate.

Candidates who ran in an election, and I will use my riding as an example from the 2000 election, who received 15% of the popular vote received their deposit back. It was basically called that. A candidate received half of the allowable expenses as a rebate from the taxpayers. We have all been through that, Mr. Speaker, and you have too. However I see the threshold being lowered to 10%. I think it should go the other way; it should go to 20%. We are talking about public money here. Someone who cannot get 20% of the popular vote in a riding is missing out.

I know the House leader made a comment that none of the Liberals missed by more than 10% so it would not affect them at all. However, in reality, the Liberal candidate got 17% in my riding because 3% belonged to the aboriginal vote. There were aboriginal folks with whom I had become very friendly with who phoned me and said that there was a problem. The polling booths had my picture up with a big X through it along with signs saying “Don't vote Canadian Alliance” and all these wonderful things, which are not allowed but it was done. That is what gave the Liberal candidate the 3% to get above the 15%. It is a dirty way to get it. He will need that money a lot more than I will next time around if he decides to run again because he is fighting an uphill battle with gun control and all sorts of different things that have helped us out in that part of the country.

However, the bill does not in any way address the fundamental problem with political contributions.

There is an unappetizing flavour in the electorate that we are corrupt. We saw that through the HRD scandals, and the advertising and sponsorship fiasco that is still under investigation. There is hardly a file that public works has touched in the last two or three years that is not before the RCMP or that the Auditor General will not have a look at. Everything is suspect. The bill does not address any of that.

We saw polls at the height of the fiasco last spring that two-thirds of Canadians thought that government was corrupt. They labelled us all together and that was unfortunate. We are all here doing a job at, of course, different levels of our capability, but we are still doing a job on behalf of our constituents. We answer to them, not to the public purse, but to our constituents. I do not see the bill addressing that type of fine tuning.

It is all about corruption and kickbacks that we saw throughout the whole sponsorship fiasco. The bill in no way would stop that. It may stop the numbers at times, but it would not limit it and it would not halt it in any way.

We have a majority government that is having a real problem with a corruption label, and an unethical conduct label for some of the frontbench folks. They have the discretionary money and hundreds of millions of dollars that they can put into their pet projects and say that is what government will do because that is what people want, and so on, because it has done some polling. Even the polling would be covered under the bill. We saw the polling cut out of sponsorships and rightly so, and here it is put back into the bill.

We have a backdoor deal going on to put that polling cost into the bill because it is a significant factor. There is no doubt about it. Good polling costs good money. It is being slipped back in at public expense because the government can no longer do it under the sponsorship file because people are looking over its shoulder. There is a bit of sleight of hand which is part of that circus act that the government House leader was doing before.

I cannot see anything but more apathy and low voter turnouts continuing because people are feeling disconnected and asking, how relevant is this place?

There are many days when I have that same concern. I sat in on a committee meeting this morning and I wondered what the heck we were doing. It is just busy work. We get a few people in behind closed doors and let them listen to this, that or whatever. We are not here to be entertained. We are here to do a decent job and I do not need that busy work. I have constituents that I need to call and work on their files because they are having a tough time with Revenue Canada, the GST, or things like that. I do not need that busy work.

There is a member screaming over there to let legislation go through the House. I say to that member to bring forward something worth voting on and we will do it. The Liberals have a majority. They ram legislation through using closure. This is not legislation; this is ripping off the public. It is all about money. It is all about cashflow for political parties. That is what it is all about: $1.50 per vote. I would do very well because I get lots of votes.

It is all about paying off party debt, bringing it forward, and letting the public pay for it. I do not think Canadians want to do that. They are very critical of bills like that.

There are things that are roadblocks to good legislation coming through the House, but not very often are they caused by the opposition parties. A lot of it is the result of the government not being able to get its own house in order. It has very little to do with us. There are so few tools that we have at our discretion to slow things down from the runway that happens here all the time.

The Senate is not sitting right now. The member says it is because we are halting legislation. We did not pull Bill C-13. The government House leader did. We did not pull Bill C-10 today. The government House leader did. Bill C-20, the child protection bill, has been shanghaied for a little while.

We have seen a long term calendar that might go a week into the future and it is subject to change. Let us see some good legislation that we can put through. Let us see a schedule that the government sticks to. Let us see some dates that are locked down so we know what we are working toward, and we can get in here and speak to that legislation.

We spend so much time, two steps ahead and three steps back, and then we get legislation like this that is so full of holes that Canadians do not understand it. They are concerned about big business and unions taking over the political parties. Good and rightly so, but this bill does not address that in any way at all. It would limit the numbers, but it would change them around and would put them in from a different way.

It is more smoke and mirrors. It is legislation that I certainly cannot support and I know my folks at home would expect me to stand up and say this is not good.

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

The hon. member says it is voluntary. No one forces him or anyone else to accept taxpayers' dollars in the electoral process, but I note that in the last election I reviewed carefully the public accounts in terms of the candidate reimbursement, and of all the Alliance MPs sitting across the way in the House of Commons, how many sent their money back because they did not want it? Some people here insist that I reveal the amount, so let us do so. Zero. Not one of them gave the money back. Remember, these are people of principle. They cannot accept taxpayer funded election campaigns, except of course when they get the money themselves.

As we can see, those are the principles we have in front of us. No, this has nothing to do with principle at all on the part of members across the way. It has to do with something else. They in fact think that they have found one clause in the bill on which to launch an objection. Not only that, we know what they did. They put a reasoned amendment to the bill. This is an amendment, the same that exists for Bill C-10A by the way, which we will debate another day, which basically says that this bill will never be read a second time in the case of this particular initiative.

Bill C-10

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the process of gun control, it is very important that we start to reduce the costs. Bill C-10A is an excellent way of starting that process.

When dealing with Bill C-10A, it also deals with efficiencies and the efficiencies are simplifying the licensing process in terms of renewals, staggering renewals, more use of the Internet, establishing pre-clearance processes for those who want to come over to this country to use our outfitters and hunting establishments, and streamlining transfers from one to another. It is an excellent--

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question if for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

The House may be called upon to concur or reject Senate amendments to Bill C-10, the cruelty to animals and firearms bill.

Could the parliamentary secretary please explain to the House what the advantages would be to Canadians for accepting the Senate amendments to Bill C-10 rather than having them rejected?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

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

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition day. On Friday we will consider Bill C-25, the public service reform bill.

Next Monday we will consider the bill that would reduce the cost of gun control, namely Bill C-10A, the amendments to the criminal code, because we want to reduce gun control costs. On Tuesday we will return to Bill C-24 respecting election finances until 4 p.m. when the Minister of Finance will present his no doubt excellent budget to the House.

The remainder of the week, that is Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of next week, I intend to call the budget debates.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if he could give the House an outline of the business for the rest of the day, tomorrow and next week.

Also, so we will all know, because all members would certainly want to be here to vote, could he advise us if on Monday there will be time allocation or closure used on Bill C-10A.

Privilege

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

Thank you for reminding me, Mr. Speaker. There is an allegation of a conspiracy to deceive. That is as well factually inaccurate. I am responding to what was raised previously. There is no such conspiracy on the part of the hon. Minister of Justice, nor do I believe anyone else in the government, to deceive anyone. The amount of the appropriation was reduced. That is a fact. This is the amount of an appropriation in a supplementary estimate, not the final amount of the overall year, not even the initial amount. This is the amount of an increase in a supplementary estimate and nothing else.

Then it was alleged by, I believe, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough that Bill C-10A was going to increase the amount levied to pay for the firearms registry program. The bill in question, as just about everybody in the House knows, and I recognize why some hon. members being otherwise occupied would not know, reduces the cost of gun control by some $3 million to $3.5 million a month. How on earth does that constitute increasing the cost of gun control? It has nothing to do with it. That was nothing better than an editorial comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also support the points that have been made already and that the member for Sarnia—Lambton has brought forward in an unusual way. It is unusual for a government backbencher to, in such a forceful way, outline the failings and the inadequacies of his own government and his own minister on this file in particular.

We are talking about a motion that I raised in the House back on December 5, 2002, in which $72 million were taken away from this program by the unanimous consent of the House. All members of the House agreed that the firearms program should be reduced by that amount.

That does lead to questions as to: How is this program operating fully now? How is it that the government is continuing to fund this program? What are the sources of the funding that has continued?

The reports that have been brought before the House of Commons, the Hession report, also challenged the ability of the government to continue to fund this program without borrowing from other departments or borrowing from other areas.

The Auditor General also spoke of Parliament being kept in the dark, which is a substantial and damning statement to hear from the Auditor General.

We know that Bill C-10A was rammed through the Senate and will be coming back to us asking for more money for this particular program. The government is now scrambling to get this program fully funded through a piecemeal piece of legislation that has been picked apart in the other place and that will be sent back here. Now it is trying to shunt this issue to one side while millions more are going into the program.

Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically refer you to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , Marleau and Montpetit, where it states at page 741, and I would ask for the Chair's particular attention to this point:

Once adopted, the legislation will authorize the government to withdraw from the Consolidated Revenue Fund amounts up to,--

And I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, “up to”:

--but not exceeding, the amounts set out in the Estimates for the purposes specified in the Votes.

We know, as a result of that December 5 motion, the government specifically reduced, unanimously, in the House, $72 million from the budget to operate the firearms program.

How is it, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton and other members of the House ask, that this registry is still operating at full capacity? How can that be? The spirit of that vote is being violated by the Minister of Justice continuing to operate this program. The spirit and intention of the House in reducing the funds by $72 million was obviously a signal that we were not supporting the continuation of the firearms program.

I would suggest that the hon. member has made a very salient and relevant point when he asks: Where is the money coming from? How is it that Parliament is permitting this to continue? How is it that the minister is continuing to fund this program?

The new budget is supposed to be coming forth. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be an attempt to reduce by some other amount, whether it be a dollar or more, and back door this funding for the program as we have seen in the past.

I would suggest that now is the time to cut this off, to put an end to this ridiculous, retroactive use of taxpayer money to fund a firearms program that is not working, that is not protecting Canadians.

The Minister of Justice is being misleading when he talks about Canadians being for gun control. This is not gun control. This--

Firearms Registry

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about costs; therefore, he is talking about Bill C-10A.

Bill C-10A indeed talks about cost reductions with regard to the gun control program. It is a shame to see that the official opposition is trying to block that bill, which would save taxpayers money. That bill would be able to streamline the process. I look forward to the support of all members of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that very important question. As everyone knows, at the beginning of the week, reports were tabled with regard to the situation in the gun control program. If we look at Mr. Hession's report, for example, there are 16 recommendations that will have to be taken into consideration to prepare our plan of action.

One thing that is very important as a first step is the implementation of the amendment of Bill C-10A. Bill C-10A would streamline the process and at the same time would reduce the cost of the program. I need the support of the House because we believe in public safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. member has his facts incorrect. First of all, Bill C-10A is not before the House. It is an amendment produced by the Senate to C-10A, the result of which is to lower the cost of gun control. He is now trying to depict that it increases the cost. He has the facts backwards. The facts speak for themselves again.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Justice confirmed that the government intends to continue to fund the gun registry.

Will the Minister of Justice tell the House whether the government intends to use closure on Bill C-10A which the government needs to pass before any changes can be brought to the gun registry? Will he advise whether the government will allow a free vote on this gun registry bill?

Gun Control

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

Mr. Speaker, none of us has had a chance to read the two consultants' reports that have just been released. They seem to indicate an attempt to whitewash a billion dollar boondoggle and absolve the minister and his senior bureaucrats for their incompetence. All the minister confirms today is that they really did waste a billion dollars.

On January 8 the minister's news release stated the review by KPMG was:

...to verify the adequacy and appropriate application of the CFC's financial systems and controls. This will also assist in confirming the validity of the Program's financial statements

Today the minister reports that KPMG found exactly what he told them to find. With respect to Mr. Hession's report, the minister says Parliament now has to wait another few weeks while the minister prepares an action plan.

Why does Parliament have to wait a few more weeks? Have the minister's bureaucrats been doing absolutely nothing for the last several months? The minister tabled estimates in March 2002 saying, “Everything in the gun registry is fine. Give us another $113.5 million”. Why did he not know the program was in trouble then?

The minister tabled supplementary estimates in October saying “Everything in the gun registry is fine. Just give us another $72 million”. Why did he not know the program was in trouble then?

The minister had the Auditor General's report for weeks before it was released on December 3. Why did he wait for the media to make a big story out of it before he acted? Why did the minister wait for eight provinces and three territories to demand the review of the program before he acted?

The minister demands that Parliament pass Bill C-10A and that these two year old amendments are needed to fix the problem, when even his own user group on firearms admits they fall far short of fixing the myriad of problems in the gun registry. If Parliament is going to amend the Firearms Act, let us do it all at once.

Finally, the two reports that the minister tabled today still keep Parliament in the dark. They do not say how long it would take to fully implement the registry or how much it would cost. Worst of all, Parliament and the public would have to wait years before the Auditor General confirms that the program is totally ineffective at controlling the criminal use of firearms.

This is no longer a gun control issue. This is a government out of control issue.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the KPMG study assured the department that the information compiled about past spending was accurate and corresponds to the figures submitted to this House in the public accounts. In addition, the KPMG report provides us with a basis for continuing to report the full costs of the program, as requested by the Auditor General of Canada.

The second report, prepared by Mr. Hession, presented 16 recommendations for improving the management and operations of the gun control program. To make good on the promise I made to this House and the Canadian public to act quickly, I will review the recommendations in detail and announce a plan of action as soon as possible.

I would like to point out to this House that according to the report, the measures under Bill C-10A are essential to the success of our efforts to streamline the gun control program.

The government remains firm in its resolve to improve the efficiency of the firearms program and to further reduce its costs. These two reports will play a critical role in helping us achieve these two objectives without, in any way, sacrificing our goal of increased public safety for all Canadians.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start with the parliamentary agenda.

We will continue this afternoon with Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill, followed by, if there is time, Bill C-20, the child protection bill, as well as Bill C-22, the family law bill.

Tomorrow, we will call third reading of Bill C-3 regarding the Canada pension plan. The next item will be Bill C-6, the bill regarding specific claims for aboriginal people.

On Monday, we would return, if necessary, to Bills C-6, C-20 and C-13. We will continue this business on Tuesday morning, but in any case at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, it is my intention to call Bill C-22, the family law bill.

I will be consulting with a view to returning at some point to debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-10A, the Criminal Code amendments.

On Wednesday, we will continue the debate on Bills C-13 and C-19 if necessary, at whatever stages they are at then.

I wish to announce that Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Colleagues across the way particularly have asked about what they claim to be a principle that military intervention has a vote. I have a number of them here.

For Korea in 1950, there was no resolution in the House and no vote. For Sinai in 1956, there was no vote. For the Congo in 1960, a recorded vote was asked for but no division was held. For Cyprus in 1964, there was a debate before deployment, the motion was agreed to on division with no recorded vote. For the Middle East in 1973, the motion was agreed to with no division and no recorded vote. For the UNIFIL mission in 1978, there was no motion and no vote. For Iran-Iraq in 1988, the motion was agreed to with no division. For Namibia in 1989, there was no vote. For the Persian Gulf in 1990, it was debated after deployment, with a recorded vote and a division.

There were many cases where there were no votes, no debate, no uniformity.

We have established the coherent system which we enjoy today. We have utilized it as late as last night.

I am also prepared to offer to other parties, should they want it at some point, perhaps as early as next week, yet another evening to debate the situation in Iraq. I know many colleagues on my side of the House would like that. We are quite prepared to offer that.

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

Mr. Speaker, my response will not be in prose and verse. I just have not been hit yet with the attack of Jingle Bells , which undoubtedly seems to be striking here and there in the House.

We will continue this afternoon with the prebudget debate.

Tomorrow we shall consider report stage of Bill C-3, the Canada pension plan amendments. If there is any time left, we would then proceed with Bill C-15 respecting lobbyists. I intend to speak to other House leaders about that.

I shall communicate directly with members concerning the order of business, when we return from the adjournment on January 27. This will include any of the aforementioned business not completed, which includes: Bill C-3 and Bill C-15, obviously; Bill C-2, the Yukon bill; Bill C-6, specific claims; Bill C-10, the Criminal Code amendment; Bill C-19, the first nations bill; Bill C-20, protection of children; Bill C-22, the divorce legislation; and Bill C-23 respecting certain offenders.

As members can see, there are lots of items on the legislative agenda.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my best wishes for the holiday season and, of course, a happy new year 2003 to all hon. members, our staff and pages, not to mention the busboys.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today in regard to the other place splitting the bill dealing with cruelty to animals and with the Firearms Act, which we passed here in the House of Commons.

The question of the operation of this place has already been dealt with by the Chair, so I will not go into that in too great a depth other than to say it seems that the other place is having a greater influence on the House of Commons than it should. Of course the problem with this is that the members of the other place do not have to go back to their constituents in the provinces, have a vote and in fact get a reaffirmation that the positions they are taking are right.

On the issue of this firearms legislation, what needs to be made clear right off the bat is that before Bill C-68 was put forward in 1995, Canada had very good firearms legislation. It had good control over firearms and the people who used firearms. There was good protection for society in general, both in the cities and in the country.

Members might ask how I can make this statement. They might ask if the gun legislation that came through in 1995 is not the best legislation, probably, and if it did not fill a big vacuum.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, you know me, as you are all-knowing about members of Parliament. I was in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for 30 years. I am darn proud of my service there.

I dealt with a lot of the social ills in this country, including abuse and assaults between individual people, some on a social basis in unfortunate family situations and some in a criminal context. Before this billion dollar boondoggle of Bill C-68, how did police manage to handle the use of firearms if crimes were being committed? How did they check out somebody who wanted to have a firearm, or somebody who not only wanted but needed to have a firearm, as in the case of farmers and ranchers in particular, or trappers and people working in the resource industry in remote areas of the country where there are wild animals that actually will attack and kill humans? We did not need the new law. We needed to retain those we had.

Here is what we had before. We had a firearms acquisition certificate. Anybody who wanted to acquire firearms had to have a FAC, as it was called. People got that by going down to the local police station where local officers would do the computer checks through the Canadian Police Information Centre. They would do checks on people's background and character. They would know whether or not people were recorded as having any mental illness and/or criminal record. That was already in place. We did not have registration of every rifle and shotgun, but we did have the registering of handguns. That had been done since the 1930s. There was control of the handguns for the simple reason that handguns are easy to conceal inside a jacket or under a coat. That is legitimate firearms control and that is what we had.

Let us say that a firearm owner had his or her gun stolen. The RCMP would get the firearm owner to give us the serial number of his or her firearm and we would enter that into a computer. If that firearm had ever been used in a crime or if it was recovered, we would be able to immediately find it. However, that did not cost $1 billion. It probably cost a few million dollars to keep that system going. Those FACs are renewed every five years.

What about the situation where someone believes that maybe a person will use a firearm for an unlawful purpose or to hurt himself or herself or someone else? I know from practical experience that police can go to a court of law to obtain an order to seize those firearms and/or to remove the person who might commit the crime against his or her family or whomever.

We had good laws that worked, that were economical and that prevented those crimes which could be prevented. The problem with this legislation is that the Canadian public is given the impression that by registering every rifle and shotgun crime will be cut down. That is not the truth. Criminals cut down rifles and shotguns which make them illegal firearms, according to the Criminal Code. They become concealable weapons with which criminals commit the crimes.

Handguns are already registered. If the registration system is so good and prevents crime, why does the City of Toronto have gangs and criminals shooting each other and innocent bystanders on a regular weekly basis? The registration system cannot and will not prevent criminal activities or criminals from acquiring firearms.

What should we do? Do we take this $1 billion and fight crime or do we take the $1 billion, like the government has, and spend it on a registration system and harass law-abiding citizens? I and the Canadian Alliance say quite clearly that if we had given that $1 billion to the RCMP back in 1995, it would have improved its computers and it would have had an excellent system with regard to handguns. It would have used a lot of that $1 billion to go after real criminals. The money should have gone there.

The report of the Auditor General was recently presented to the House recently. It needs to be stated again in the House that is a scathing report. The Auditor General has used words to the effect that never in the history of Canada has there been such a large cost overrun on a program, a cost overrun that even the Auditor General could not establish from the books.

The Auditor General originally took the position of the government at the time that this would be a $2 million system. As she worked through it, she realized that the cost was around $1 billion and expected that it was likely much higher. However the records of the government were so bad that she could not determine how much money had been wasted on the system. There had been no accountability.

That brings us to the simple conclusion that throwing more money at this will not help. The system is still the way it is. It is still broken. It is still run down. It still cannot be made to work. I think the arguments of the backbench members of the government seem to have finally reached the frontbench and that is, further money should not be spent on the system.

The other day the Minister of Justice asked that $72 million be taken out of the supplementary estimates for the gun registry. The members have not said it, but I think they realize that throwing good money after bad will not do the job.

What would be wrong with not passing the motion and not sending it back to the other place? Let us keep this firearm legislation here. Let us make legislation that is effective in controlling crime, that makes wise use of resources and that is based on common sense and not some phoney Liberal value. That is what we need.

I have described the sensible legislation which the Canadian Alliance would put in place. We would still make fully automatic firearms prohibited. People would not be allowed to carry around handguns willy-nilly. However people could take their handguns to the local shooting range. If people did not want to use them at the shooting range for a whole year, for instance, that would be fine. They are their personal property.

However, with this legislation, the government is saying to people that if they have not used their firearms for year, because they have not signed in and out of the shooting club, then they no longer need them and they will be taken away. That is explicitly what it is saying it will do.

That is what is wrong with this legislation. It is a deception that the government and the Department of Justice have used right from the start to achieve its real goal, which cannot be crime prevention because obviously it does not prevent crime. Its real goal is to harass Canadians who have firearms either because they need them or for plain recreational purposes. The government wants to remove as many firearms as is possible.

The ideal goal as put forward by the lobby group, which is a very small number of people who want the federal government to put this legislation in, is that no Canadians have a firearms. The government understands that free society is not made up that way. A free society is made up of honest, decent citizens making a better country. Just because people own guns does not mean that they are not decent, normal citizen.

The government planned that the registry system would protect Canadians. Who is paying for that? The gun owners. Every blasted penny is being paid by people who own firearms. That further goes to show that the goal of the system is to harass gun owners and take away their firearms through the use of onerous laws made up of a whole bunch of little rules. The costs for that are borne by firearm owners.

The governments plan went a little bit awry when it tried to unload the costs onto the provinces. At that time the provinces said that the system would not work. They said that it was the most foolish plan they had ever seen and that would not participate or help the federal government.

Then we saw the initial court cases in Edmonton, Alberta. I recall very clearly the statistics the Department of Justice used. Because it did not have a good argument as to why the gun registry would help fight crime, it misstated and misused the figures, supplied by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in court. Subsequently, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said publicly that the statistics were not correct and that they had been misrepresented in court. As a result, that deception continued.

Then the Auditor General found another deception. The Parliament of Canada was not being properly informed of the costs of the registry. That is highly suspect. The ministers are even saying to this day things that I think are questionable. That is the best way that I can put it.

The Minister of Justice said that the province of Ontario, at the time Premier Harris, and the province of Alberta, Premier Klein, were against effective gun control. I hate to quote from newspapers but that is what the minister said. That is patently untrue. It is as untrue as the statistics in the court case. The premiers of the provinces want effective gun control and wise use of resources, as I described at the start of my speech. I laid out how effective the system was before Bill C-68 and that is the system that I still purport we should use today.

That is why I would vote against the motion to send the bill back to the Senate for approval. The creation of a bureaucracy with a new commissioner of firearms reporting to the Minister of Justice instead of the RCMP will be a mammoth cost also and it will do absolutely nothing other than to drive the costs up. The minister will not answer our questions as to how much it will cost to finish registering of firearms and how much the system will cost every year thereafter.

I know that Canadians, both gun owners and non-gun owners, have not given up the battle to have this legislation repealed.

The former justice minister who brought this legislation forward quite clearly stated that the war had been lost by the Canadian Alliance in 1995 and as result it should be ended. The Canadian Alliance is not the only one fighting this. All provinces, firearm owners and people who are angry about the waste of their tax dollars are fighting it. This battle is not over by a long shot; it will continue.

I have a motion that I wish to put before the House, but before I do that I wish to speak to the other part of the motion which concerns the cruelty to animals legislation.

With regard to the cruelty to animals legislation, I only hope that, if the government sends it back to the Senate, that the Senate will retain the harsh penalties for cruelty to animals. I and my party are in favour that anybody who is cruel to animals should be hit with hard penalties. Animals are relatively defenceless when they are dealing with humans and as a result need that protection.

The stated goal here again is different than what the animal rights movement really wants. It does not want animals to be used either for food consumption or in any way other than their natural environment. I guess it would not even let us ride horses if it had its way because that is not totally natural to the animal.

I was talking about opposition to legislation. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association, every farmer lobby group association and the university medical research people are against the legislation. Millions of Canadians are against the legislation because parts of the bill do not protect farmers in the legitimate use of animals.

Once again, why would we not keep the bill in the House and fix it here, rather than send it back to the other place? I guess that is to be dealt with by the House as a whole and I suspect it will go back. Hopefully the Senate will do what we did not have the backbone to do in the House and that is make the cruelty to animal the best possible legislation. I wish the other place well in that regard.

I have made my points that both legislations are drastically flawed and that the opportunity to do the right thing in the House is available to us once again.

If the government sends bills back to the other place to be dealt with, it is abdicating its responsibility to do what is in the interest of all Canadians by the government and that is a sorry state of affairs. I wish to make an amendment in regard to this motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, this House does not concur with the Senate's division of the Bill into two parts, namely, Bill C-10A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), since it is the view of this House that such alteration to Bill C-10 by the Senate is an infringement of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons;” and

That this House asks the Senate to consider C-10 in an undivided form; and

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to address the issue before us. Clearly we have to look at the purpose of the process we are going through and the goals we are trying to achieve.

Bill C-10A contains administrative amendments to the Canadian firearms program. The goal is to streamline the program and reduce the costs while improving client service and continuing to meet our public safety objectives.

This program approaches gun safety in a practical and common sense manner. It already is helping to keep firearms away from people who should not have them. It is encouraging safe and responsible gun use by legitimate owners.

There is no doubt that the Canadian firearms program is an outstanding example of a preventative approach to public safety. Just last week, the Canadian Police Association appeared before the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in the other place to reiterate its support for this program. In the Canadian Police Association's view, licensing and registration are important measures to reduce misuse and the illegal trade in firearms.

Over the past decade, poll after poll has shown that an overwhelming majority of Canadians support gun control and support the important public safety framework of the Firearms Act. Thanks to the implementation of a number of initiatives to simplify the administration and make the program more user friendly for firearms owners, Canadians are complying with the law. The licensing phase of the program has achieved over 90% compliance, and over 70% of the firearms owners have registered their firearms.

The program is already achieving higher levels of public safety for all Canadians. Since December 1, 1998, over 7,000 licences have been refused or revoked by the public safety authorities. The number of revocations is over 50 times higher than the total in the last five years under the previous program.

The amendments to the firearms act included in Bill C-10A will help to ensure that key public safety goals of the Firearms Act are met. At the same time, they will ensure that the administration of the program is more efficient, effective and client friendly. These administrative changes will simplify processes and requirements for firearms owners by producing a more streamlined system. For example, they will simplify the firearms licence renewals and registration process. They will also make the border process more efficient by introducing pre-processing for visitors bringing guns into Canada.

Much has been made about the costs of the program, but we have to put things in perspective. This is a sound investment in the long term safety of Canadians. We now have the opportunity to adopt amendments that will go a long way to achieving a more efficient and cost effective program.

One of these measures is the proposal to stagger firearms licence renewals, which is intended to help avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles. Evening out the workload in such a manner would result in more efficient processing and significant cost savings.

Streamlining the transfer process of non-restricted firearms would also allow CFOs to focus their efforts and resources on their many other public safety functions. Moreover, consolidating the administrative authority for all operations under the Canadian firearms commissioner would ensure more direct accountability to the justice minister, who would remain responsible to Parliament for the program. This in turn would enhance financial accountability.

We should keep in mind that this is not the time for delay. It will cost more to operate the system the longer we delay. This bill is needed to move forward with the cost savings measures that will lead to a more efficient program for Canadians.

This is a public safety program that is supported by a vast majority of Canadians and the policing community. It is a program that is already achieving concrete results in terms of public safety.

The bill presents an opportunity to build on the achievements in a way that is even more responsive to the firearms community and will reduce costs.

I urge the House to accept the bill that has been put before us and to go forward with this legislation forthwith.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved:

That, in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, this House concur with the Senate's division of the bill into two parts, namely, Bill C-10A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), but

that the House, while disapproving any infringement of its rights and privileges by the other House, waives its rights and privileges in this case, with the understanding that this waiver cannot be construed as a precedent; and

that a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I am afraid so. I know hon. members would not think of such a thing but it seems to have happened.

In that ruling of July 11, 1988, at pages 17382 to 17385 of the Debates , the Speaker noted that there were several cases in which the Speaker of the House of Commons had ruled certain bills originating in the Senate out of order because they infringed the financial privileges of this House.

Mr. Speaker Fraser noted a precedent where two Commons bills were consolidated into a single legislative measure by the Senate. That took place, and the parliamentary secretary made reference to this as well, on June 11, 1941, with a message from the Senate asking for the concurrence of this House. The Commons agreed with the Senate proposal. I would refer hon. members to the Journals of June 11, 1941, at page 491. On that occasion, the Commons waived its traditional privilege and a single bill was eventually given royal assent.

In the 1941 case, the Senate specifically sought the concurrence of the House for its action and it was the disposition of this House to accept it. In the 1988 case, the Senate did not seek the Commons' concurrence in the division of the bill and simply informed this House that it had done so and returned half of the bill. The House did not accept that action by the Senate and the Senate subsequently reversed itself and the bill was adopted by the Senate in its original form.

In making his ruling in 1988, Speaker Fraser stated at page 17384:

The Speaker of the House of Commons by tradition does not rule on constitutional matters. It is not for me to decide whether the Senate has the constitutional power to do what it has done with Bill C-103. There is not any doubt that the Senate can amend a Bill, or it can reject it in whole or in part. There is some considerable doubt, at least in my mind, that the Senate can rewrite or redraft Bills originating in the Commons, potentially so as to change their principle as adopted by the House without again first seeking the agreement of the House. That I view as a matter of privilege and not a matter related to the Constitution.

In the case of Bill C-103, it is my opinion, and with great respect of course, that the Senate should have respected the propriety of asking the House of Commons to concur in its action of dividing Bill C-103 and in reporting only part of the Bill back as a fait accompli has infringed the privileges of this place.

In the current case, unlike the case in 1988, the Senate explicitly seeks the concurrence of this House in its action. This was contained in the message we received from the Senate yesterday.

The hon. member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar cited Mr. Speaker Fraser to the effect that the privileges of the House had been infringed. However the hon. member did not fully cite a passage she read to the House where the Speaker went on to state the following:

However, and it is important to understand this, I am without the power to enforce them directly. I cannot rule the Message from the Senate out of order for that would leave Bill C-103 in limbo. In other words, it would be nowhere. The cure in this case is for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them, if it so wishes, by way of message to Their Honours, that is, to the Senate, informing them accordingly.

I agree fully with Mr. Speaker Fraser in this matter. Just as the cure proposed at that time was for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them if it so wished, that is the course that is available to the House in respect of the message that we have received today.

With respect to the royal recommendation, the Chair cannot see that there has been any change in the circumstances, manner and purpose of the appropriation of public revenue in the legislation that was the subject of the royal recommendation, and so I see no need to intervene to insist on the financial prerogatives of the House in this case.

In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary pointed out that the financial provisions in Bill C-10 applied to that part of the bill that had been returned to the House as Bill C-10A, that is the firearms section, which had been passed by the other place without amendment. I have examined that part of Bill C-10, which has been appended to the Senate message as Bill C-10B, the cruelty to animals section, and I am of the opinion that it would not require a royal recommendation were it introduced into this House in that form.

In conclusion, I want to make three points. First, the Chair does not see any grounds to intervene with respect to the financial aspects of this issue. Second, while the Speaker agrees with the view of Mr. Speaker Fraser that privileged matters are involved where the Senate divides a House bill without first having the House's concurrence, this is not the case in this instance. Our concurrence has in fact been requested.

Therefore I cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege, but I stress that it is open to the House to address this issue as it sees fit and as it no doubt will do by adopting some kind of motion in respect of this matter.

Finally, in their consideration of their motion to concur in the Senate message, I would remind all hon. members that they will have the opportunity to debate fully the motion and propose whatever amendments they see fit within the rules that they wish to do to that motion.

[The Speaker]

I am ready to rule on the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and again today by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, and then the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough this morning, concerning the message received from the Senate relating to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, and the actions taken by the other place in connection with this bill.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House, and the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton for their interventions.

On Wednesday, December 4 the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona raised a point of order to draw to the attention of the House the action taken by the hon. Senate in dividing Bill C-10 into two bills, Bill C-10A, which the other House passed, and Bill bk C-10B, which it still retains. The hon. member pointed out that this was the House that should decide which pieces of House legislation were divided up and how they should be dealt with. At that time no message had been received from the other place and therefore the matter was, in the view of the Chair, hypothetical. The Chair was not prepared to deal with a purely academic matter, noting that it was inappropriate until a message had in fact been received. I did point out however, that though the Chair might have something to say in this matter, that was probably a matter for the House to decide.

A message from the Senate on Bill C-10 was received at the end of Wednesday's sitting, and the matter has now properly been brought to the attention of the House. There is also a motion on the Order Paper for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill. As hon. members are aware this motion, when called, is debatable and amendable and the government House leader has just indicated that he intends to call this matter before the House tomorrow.

I must point out at the outset that I cannot make comments on the workings of the honourable Senate. This would be quite inappropriate.

The fact that Bill C-10 was reinstated from the previous session, as provided for by special order of this House, does not have any bearing on its subsequent proceedings, either in this House or the other place.

As noted in the intervention of the hon. member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, this is not the first time the Senate has divided a bill originating in this House. In 1988 the other place divided Bill C-103, an Act to Increase Opportunity for Economic Development in Atlantic Canada to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts and returned only part of the bill to the House.

At that time the propriety of the Senate's action was raised and Mr. Speaker Fraser ruled on the matter. His ruling was extensive and exhaustive and has been much quoted this morning, although I must say the quotations seemed selective and incomplete.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the business of supply. I understand that the votes are scheduled for a 5:15 p.m. bell, followed by the votes of course.

Tomorrow the House will consider the message from the Senate with regard to Bill C-10, the Criminal Code amendment.

In spite of the fact that we have debated it extensively, the government is prepared to offer yet another day, next Monday, with regard to debating the Kyoto protocol.

On Tuesday and Wednesday we will return if necessary to Bill C-10, and if and when completed, followed by Bill C-4, the nuclear safety bill with the possibility of also doing Bill C-3, Canada pension plan amendments, and Bill C-15, the lobbyists registration bill.

While I am on my feet I might as well give the plan for the rest of next week. Next Thursday and Friday, I will be calling the annual prebudget consultation debate.

Privilege

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly comment on this. I want to characterize it as a point of order. I think the message received from the Senate is disturbing and we must address it in this chamber. I say so for the following reasons.

First, pursuant to the special order made by the House on October 4 of this year, it was said that a minister of the Crown proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill could state the bill was in the same form as a bill introduced by a minister of the Crown in the previous session. If you, Mr. Speaker, are satisfied that the bill indeed is in the same form as at prorogation then, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the bill shall be deemed in the current session to have been considered and approved at all stages, completed, at the time of prorogation of the previous session.

On October 7 during debate, the government House leader, at page 335 of Hansard stated:

This is an enabling motion to permit the government not to create any new bill but to reintroduce that which has already been discussed at the stage completed prior to where we concluded the debate...in June--

How can a special order purport to revive or reinstate a bill which was not before the House in June. It was in fact before the other place. Surely the House by that order did not contemplate reviving a bill which was not indeed before it at prorogation. Therefore, if the government House leader's statement regarding reintroduction, which I just quoted, is to have meaning, it must be that it foresees that only bills before the House can be revived. Therefore the subsequent ministerial motion to reinstate it was out of order because the bill at prorogation was in the other chamber.

Second, the House by this order sent a bill called Bill C-10 to the other place and you, Mr. Speaker, certified to us that it was in the same form, and I stress form, as it was at prorogation. A printed copy of Bill C-10, as we have heard, bears your certification. In fact, it is one of the few times where the Speaker directly becomes involved with a bill.

As well, on Wednesday, October 9 of this year, the justice minister moved for leave on the basis that Bill C-10 was in the same form as what was then known as Bill C-15B from the first session. Therefore he requested that it be reinstated at the same stage it had reached at the time of prorogation. Your ruling on that date, Mr. Speaker, stated the bill was deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House because it was in the same form.

As we know, on October 10 it received first reading in the other place and it followed various stages. Now we have this peculiar position where we have received a message from the Senate saying that it is sending part of it back. We are in this new age of a two for one special, it appears, from the Senate.

I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Citations Nos. 626 to 638 of the 6th edition of Beauchesne's where it lays out what is necessary in a bill and what is discretionary in a bill. What we have now is a bill, which you certified as to form and a minister certified as to form, being returned in a way that this place cannot recognize whatsoever.

I would like to echo what the last speaker opposite had to say and that is, that the minister appeared in the House and certified to you, Mr. Speaker, and you certified to us that this was indeed in the same form. Upon an examination of the minutes of the committee in the other place when it was split, the minister appeared before a committee in the other place and did not object to the splitting of the bill.

I have to ask you then, Mr. Speaker, how can a minister apparently assume two positions, one in this place and be passive in the other place? That is first.

Second, I will conclude by quoting Erskine May, 22nd edition on page 5:

The principal common characteristics of the rules of practice was to provide ample opportunity for debate and for initiative in choosing subjects for debate, and ample safeguards against business being taken without due notice so that decisions could not be reached without opportunities for full consideration being given.

We are now in this very strange and unusual paradigm where you, Mr. Speaker, have certified a bill as being Bill C-10. What has been returned is not an amended bill. We have a two for one special back from the other place. If you would refer to Beauchesne's, one of the necessary components of the bill is the title. We cannot recognize what has been returned because it indeed has a different title. We cannot recognize this bill, we ought not to recognize this bill and it should be deemed that the receipt of this message and the bill attached to it ought to be ruled out of order as it is unrecognizable by this place.

I would then say that we are now descending into chaos here because we are ending up in an area where we have a bill on which we are going to be asked to concur. There have been no notices. There has been no debate and there is no opportunity for full consideration.

W cannot accept it in the form and content in which it has been returned, particularly when you, Mr. Speaker, and the justice minister have certified it as to the form of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to try to enlighten such an illustrious student of parliamentary practice, but modeling myself after you, I did spend a significant amount of time, not the entire evening, looking at this issue.

I would submit respectfully to the Chair that there are elements of a request for money in both A and B. However the issue before the House is the splitting and the bringing to the House on two separate occasions, because we can certainly presume that some time henceforth we will be receiving Bill C-10B, that this in and of itself indicates that there is a clear attempt here to distinguish two separate and distinct pieces of legislation, both requiring a royal recommendation, both requiring additional funds.

There is clearly an attachment of funds when one examines the purpose of the firearms legislation. Similarly any implementation of changes to the Criminal Code could rightly be construed as requiring additional funding for the implementation, the education and the administration by the provinces as it pertains to the enforcement of Criminal Code provisions.

I read with great care the message that was received here. It is seeking concurrence, but I believe the other place is seeking concurrence for something it knows it cannot do. We know, and I state uncategorically, that the Minister of Justice took up residence in the other place and watched with great interest to see if this ruse could occur and then scurried off to the Senate committee to see if this could be perpetuated on an unsuspecting Senate.

Let us not be complicit in this exercise. I put to the Chair that the Chair has a responsibility to protect the privileges of all members, to protect the privileges through us of all Canadians who are being completed bamboozled by the government in its effort to further jam down their throats this unprecedented boondoggle of a gun registry that will not work.

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

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will come to the point. The point is that what is going on here is that we need independent legal advice with respect to what has occurred. The independent legal advice for the House of Commons will, I suggest, contemplate that there is a contempt that has occurred here in a committee, to a committee. Let the committees have a serious look at what has happened in the House of Commons to initiate all money bills and secure independent constitutional legal advice on the propriety of the actions of the Senate.

I want to quote the opposition leader in the other place, the hon. Senator Lynch-Staunton, who spoke on this issue before the other place.

My preoccupation is with the tearing up of a bill that has come to us from the House of Commons for study and, hopefully, support and agreement, and bringing to this chamber what is now identified as a new bill covering only part of the original Bill C-10.

The government House leader is telling us that the House should have great faith in him and the Department of Justice, but I ask the Chair to recognize that there is a clear conflict of interest. The Department of Justice wants this legislation. The Minister of Justice wants this legislation. The government and the Prime Minister clearly want the legislation.

It is time for the government to put its interests behind the interests of the House of Commons, or is this another way that the government House leader is looking at modernizing Parliament? Will we have the Senate carve up omnibus bills after elected members of the House of Commons have taken heat from the electorate for their comprised votes on the omnibus bills?

In brief, the Senate has authored what it says is a House of Commons bill with a new title and which spends money. That is the result. That is a clear breach of privilege as was stated by Speaker Fraser in his ruling on July 11, 1988. The Chair has already received significant commentary on that particular ruling. I would suggest that ruling, in essence, is a precedent that did not happen. The Senate in essence retreated on that particular occasion and can be clearly distinguished from the issue before the House.

That is but one factor. There is also another ruling referred to by the parliamentary secretary that occurred on April 26, 1990. He also referred to a 1997 position, wherein he is essentially saying, “Well, we have done this before so it must be okay”.

All of those situations can be clearly distinguished. I am contending that by tendering a document as a C bill, Bill C-10A, and by voting on that bill in the Senate as if it were a House of Commons bill, the Senate is in contempt of the House. By the use of the royal recommendation that was signed by Her Excellency only for Bill C-10, there is a significant prima facie case and there is significant evidence of a contempt of the House.

I contend that this matter should be referred to a committee for examination and for the commissioning of an independent constitutional opinion. I believe there is also a serious question to be resolved over the misuse, and potential fraudulent use, of the Governor General's royal recommendation and that Her Excellency may want to ask some hard questions of her own ministers.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there are remedies available to you and that you may rule this particular bill and the practice that has been attempted to be out of order. As I indicated to you, I am prepared to move a motion should you find in my favour on this point.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must express my dismay for the order in which we dealt with this. As the Chair would know, a question of privilege trumps a point of order. I gave notice to the Chair of this question of privilege yesterday.

In any event, I hope to present to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, a cogent and coherent argument which I believe will be compelling and will cause the Speaker to act in such a way that Bill C-10 will not proceed further through the House in this form. The natural result of this would be to save Canadians further expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars and arguably give law-abiding citizens potential criminal records if the bill were to pass. Quite briefly, this question of privilege, I suggest, should prevent the further passage of Bill C-10.

The arguments presented by the parliamentary secretary suggest that there is a precedent for what is about to occur. He went on to say that the precedent is not really a precedent because we declare it is not. In essence, we are being presented with a nonsensical argument. This is tantamount to pouring whisky into a jar of milk and then attempting to strain it out. If the precedent is there, it is there. He is asking the House to accept that we can waive our privileges somehow.

What that would do in terms of legislation in presenting new powers to the Senate that do not exist is say that we will just acquiesce and give it those powers. We would say to those who seek to rob us, “Please come in our house. We will go away while you help yourself to the cutlery”.

In the Journals yesterday there was a recorded message from the Senate concerning Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and the Firearms Act). The message, Mr. Speaker, that you have before you, and I will not read it in its entirety, essentially asks for concurrence, something I suggest that the Liberal dominated Senate knows it cannot do. There is no explanation and no reasons given; it is simply asking that this House concur in what it is attempting to do.

This indicates the Senate has taken upon itself to tamper with a House of Commons bill, a bill which carries the royal recommendation and which also is what is generally described as an omnibus bill. Mr. Speaker, you would have a copy of that. On that bill I note on the last page it says, “Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons”, which makes the Speaker complicit in what the Senate is trying to do.

I first want to say that this message may well represent a sea change to the way in which omnibus bills are considered by Parliament. The precedent cited can only destroy and diminish previous precedents. I suggest quite strongly that any precedent that has been cited already can clearly be distinguished. We gave third reading to something similar to Bill C-10A, but it is completely different, of course.

I ask the Speaker in his consideration of this question of privilege to focus on the form of the bill. My argument is premised on the fact that the action taken by the Liberal dominated Senate is unprecedented, extraparliamentary and a power grab that will result in a bill that is not in its proper form and therefore a bill not properly before Parliament.

If the government is prepared to have unelected senators dismantle omnibus bills, I think it will have a significant rebellion on its hands with respect to the way the House is being asked to approve omnibus legislation. I for one, and I suspect a large number of those sitting on the government side, will not be content to tell our electors that we had to vote for an omnibus bill because of some of the provisions in the bill and then watch the senators cherry-pick the provisions of the same bill.

Let us be clear. What is about to happen is a huge shift in power toward the Senate. None of the senators will have to explain their actions to the voters. There is no precedent for this to occur. It goes beyond the constitution of the Senate. It also offends the notion of the relationship between the two chambers, which would offset the current balance. The other place, I am suggesting strongly, is exceeding its powers. We cannot therefore waive our privilege in this regard.

Let me state something immediately before proceeding with this question of privilege.

Bill C-10 was sent to the Senate. Printed on it was the text of the recommendation of Her Excellency the Governor General. It was a bill originating in the House of Commons, as it must do because it is a money bill.

Bill C-10 incidentally was a portion of Bill C-15 in the last Parliament and similarly resulted in a splitting of the bill after much pressure from the opposition. It died on the Order Paper after prorogation. It died in the Senate.

The bill is now numbered C-10 because it is a House of Commons bill. The Senate message says that it has divided the bill. However, Mr. Speaker, what I strongly urge you to accept is that is not the case. What the Senate has done, I believe, is more than divide the bill. It has rewritten the bill.

I ask the Speaker again, respectfully, to review the precedence with respect to the form of a bill. The Speaker will find that the form of a bill is set out in Beauchesne's sixth edition at section 626. It cites, among other things, the title, the preamble, the enacting clause, the clauses, the schedules, explanatory notes and so on.

Mr. Speaker, you will note that Bill C-10A as it now appears has a different title. It has in fact different numbers attached to the clauses of the bill.

The document sent to us by the Senate contains appendix A and appendix B; two bills with new titles. These are new bills created and written by the Senate. They may contain similar language to part of Bill C-10, but make no mistake, what we have before us are two new bills. I should clarify that we have part of two new bills; one remains of course in the other place.

The Senate message indicates that notwithstanding the fact that it has returned Bill C-10 to the House, it is continuing to examine what it is now calling Bill C-10B. What is at work is one portion, dealing with firearms, is running out of time because of the incompetence and poor planning of the government. The other portion is remaining before the Senate because there is still contention, even among Liberal backbenchers and members of both Houses. That is an attempt to make this entire situation more palatable.

I readily admit that the Senate has the right to send to the House bills that originate there, that is, in the Senate. Bills may be written by senators, either in the form of private members' bills or simply S bills. The House receives those bills regularly. Senate bills carry the prefix S to designate their house of origin. It is clear from the Constitution that Senate bills, S bills, cannot, and I underline cannot, be money bills.

I contend that by drafting something that the Senate calls Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B and by telling the House that it is continuing to examine Bill C-10B, the Senate is attempting to create something that only this House can create, namely a C bill. By doing that, it has committed a constructive contempt of the House. We in the House do not create a bill in the House and advertise it as a Senate bill. As the old saying goes, “What is good for the goose is sauce for the gander”.

Without quoting extensively from the standing orders, I refer to Standing Order 80, which states:

All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct--

Note that it states “the sole gift”. Mr. Speaker, I refer you as well to the Constitution Act, 1867 wherein it speaks of appropriation and tax bills. Section 53 states:

Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for imposing any tax or impost--

I underline for emphasis:

--shall originate in the House of Commons.

What the Senate has done is to take part of the text of the House of Commons bill, a C bill, chop it up, alter the text of the bill, paste on it what it purports to be a royal recommendation that was signed by the Governor General only in relation to Bill C-10, and send that fraudulent bill in through the back door of the House of Commons, pretending that it is a Commons bill. The Senate sent it with a little note that says, “Hey, let's make a deal. By the way, we are now writing money bills in order to expedite the wishes of the Minister of Justice who will be prepared to say that everything is okay and in accordance with the Constitution”.

We learned yesterday just how far Parliament can depend on the Minister of Justice. It is very shabby, tricky behaviour I suggest. We cannot condone this activity that flagrantly flouts the rules of this place simply because the Minister of Justice now has his toe in the wringer. The Minister of Justice should be the embodiment of justice with respect for the rule of law and an ardent protector of the strict compliance with the rules of this chamber.

I want the House to be able to have independent legal advice concerning the propriety and constitutionality of the proposed actions of the Senate. As it stands, the Department of Justice, and the Minister of Justice as the chief law officer of the Crown, stand condemned by the Auditor General of Canada. Parliament has no reason to trust the advice coming from the Minister of Justice. He and his department are caught in an undeclared conflict of interest.

Points of Order

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the point of order raised by the member for Winnipeg—Transcona.

The other place has reported to this House that it has divided Bill C-10 into two bills and has designated the part dealing with firearms as Bill C-10A and has sent it to this House without amendment.

Standing Order 80 states that money bills are not alterable by the Senate. That said, the House may choose to waive its privileges to accept Senate amendments to money bills.

Beauchesne's 6th edition, on page 187, states:

When the House receives a Message from the Senate stating that it has amended a tax bill, the House may concur in the amendments but disapprove of any infraction of its privileges or rights by the other House. In this case, the House waives its claim to insist upon such rights and privileges, but the waiver of the said rights and privileges is not to be constituted as a precedent.

Beauchesne's goes on to state:

It involves a question of the privileges of the House which have been enshrined in Standing Order 80.

The most recent example of the House accepting Senate amendments to a financial bill was in 1997 when the Senate amended Bill C-70 respecting changes to the GST. In concurring in the Senate amendments, the House indicated that it was waiving its privileges with respect to financial bills.

There are two precedents which are particularly relevant in the matter of Bill C-10. First, in 1941 the Senate amended a war revenue bill and incorporated a separate bill into the revenue bill, in effect creating an omnibus money bill. The Senate specifically requested the concurrence of the House for these amendments. The House chose to waive its privileges and accepted the Senate's amendments. Second, in 1988 the Senate divided Bill C-103 establishing ACOA and the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. Initially the Senate had included in its message to the House a request for the concurrence of the House for the division, but this request was deleted from the final Senate message to the House.

In 1988, the then Speaker of the House, drawing on the 1941 precedent I mentioned earlier, concluded that because the Senate did not seek the concurrence of the House on the division of Bill C-103, the Senate's actions were inconsistent with established precedents and infringed upon the privileges of the House.

The Speaker at the time stated:

In the case of Bill C-103, it is my opinion, and with great respect of course, that the Senate should have respected the propriety of asking the House of Commons to concur in its action of dividing Bill C-103 and in reporting only part of the bill back as a fait accompli has infringed the privileges of this place.

I would like to address considerations related to the division by the Senate of a money bill. All financial legislation must first receive a royal recommendation as set out in section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and Standing Order 79 of the House.

The House, in dividing money bills, including the precursor of Bill C-10, does not require a new recommendation. Since the recommendation is a message to the House, it is within the House's privileges to divide a money bill without altering the fundamental authorization for spending under the different parts of the bill.

In the same way, the division of a bill in the Senate would not affect the constitutional or legal validity and application of the initial royal recommendation given for the larger bill.

Members will also know that financial legislation must “originate” in the House of Commons. This principle is set out in section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and Standing Order 80 of the House.

Some observers have wondered whether the division into separate bills would result in two separate bills which originated in the Senate, not the House. Given that the Senate's division of the bill does not result in an origination of two new bills, each bill could still be considered to have originated in the House with the original royal recommendation. As a result, both parts of a divided Bill C-10 would meet the constitutional requirement of origination in the House of Commons.

Under Standing Order 80, this House asserts that financial legislation may not be amended by the Senate, which is an extension of sections 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867. This extension is not a necessary result of the Constitution, but rather an assertion by the House of its privileges with respect to financial legislation.

The House traditionally asserts the principle that Senate amendment of financial legislation is a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons.The House enacted the standing order in 1867 and it has remained unchanged since. It provides that the Senate may not alter financial legislation, although as I have indicated, the House may choose to waive its privileges in this area.

It is significant that there have been many cases where the Senate has not requested the concurrence of the House for amendments to financial bills, and the House has concurred in the Senate's amendments.

There have also been many cases where the House concurred in Senate amendments to financial bills without specifically stating in the concurrence motion that it was waiving its privileges with respect to financial bills.

This suggests Senate amendments to financial bills may be viewed on at least two levels. First, the 1988 ruling of the Speaker suggests that the Senate's division of a money bill, or the 1941 omnibusing of a money bill, may be of a level of significance that this should be accompanied by a Senate request for House concurrence and a House waiver of its privileges with respect to financial bills.

On the other hand, other Senate amendments to money bills covers may be seen by this House as less significant, and not necessarily requiring a Senate request for the concurrence of the House and a specific statement by the House waiving its privileges with respect to financial bills.

The Senate's division of Bill C-10 is different from the 1988 division of Bill C-103 in two very important ways. First, both parts of Bill C-103 were money bills requiring royal recommendations. However, I understand that the only provision of Bill C-10 that requires a royal recommendation is the provision that establishes the commissioner of firearms. This proposal originated in the House of Commons with a royal recommendation. The Senate has passed this provision, and indeed all of Bill C-10A, without amendment. The second difference between the 1988 precedent and Bill C-10 is that the Senate has sought the concurrence of the House for the division of Bill C-10 and the amendments respect Bill C-10A.

This addresses a concern expressed in the then Speaker's ruling with respect to the Senate's division of a money bill. In keeping with that ruling, as Beauchesne's indicates, the House may therefore choose to waive its privileges, consistent with the precedents, and concur in Bill C-10A.

In conclusion, while there is no specific precedent for the House accepting the division of a money bill by the Senate, the Speaker's 1988 ruling, the 1941 precedent of the Senate omnibusing a money bill, and the established practices of the House indicate that it would be acceptable for the House to waive its privileges and agree to the Senate's division of Bill C-10.

The government has given notice of a motion to agree to the Senate's division of Bill C-10, while at the same time indicating to the Senate that we do not waive our privileges in this respect, nor should this action be considered a precedent.

Subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it would be the government's intention to proceed with this item as soon as possible.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House of what the member for Winnipeg—Transcona said yesterday in the House. Here is what he said, as recorded on page 2267 of Hansard :

I would want to argue, Mr. Speaker, that the House should be very concerned about what has happened in the other place with respect to Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 was accompanied by a royal recommendation which stated:

Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act”.

On November 20, 2002 the Senate adopteded, on division, the following motion, “That it be an instruction to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that it divide Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act into two bills in order that it may deal separately with the provisions relating to firearms and provisions relating to cruelty to animals”.

The effect of this motion, Mr. Speaker, has been the creation of two new bills in the Senate, Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B.

The member went on to say:

Last night the hon. Speaker of the Senate upheld the reporting back of the...Bill C-10A, ...and the continued examination of Bill C-10B, which now risks being lost in some procedural maze in the Senate.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is this House that should decide what pieces of legislation are divided up and in what way they are dealt with. I say this without prejudice to the fact that I can quite understand the desire of the Senate to deal with these matters separately. I share... a concern that a lot of members of Parliament have and obviously a lot of senators have with respect to the nature of omnibus legislation.

Nevertheless, it should be up to the House of Commons to do this, because the way in which the Senate has dealt with Bill C-10 has infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown and on the privileges of the House of Commons.

By inventing the new Bill C-10B, I would argue that the Senate has violated our privilege by creating a new bill that requires the expenditure of public funds, which it has no authority to do, procedurally or constitutionally.

Indeed, the new so-called Bill C-10A should really be called Bill S-something or other, because it is not a creation of the House but rather some bill that the Senate invented based on legislation referred to it by the House. Bill C-10A does involve the expenditure of public funds. For example, it creates a position of commissioner appointed by the governor in council.

At a very minimum, given the proclivity of the Minister of Justice's department for omnibus bills, if we allow this to go forward we are only bound to get into this problem again. For example, on yesterday's Order Paper the government gave notice that it intended to introduce a bill: December 3, 2002--The Minister of Justice--Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act”. We could very well find ourselves here again in six months.

Mr. Speaker, if you are tempted to accept the argument that the Senate has not violated a 'money bill' or toyed with the royal recommendation, which is the right of this House alone, I would like to cite Erskine May, 21st edition, at page 753, which talks about the limitation imposed by the U.K. Parliament Act of 1911 on the role of the House of Lords that debars them from amending or rejecting 'money bills'. Section 6 of the Parliament Act provides that:

...'nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons.' This in practice gives the Commons a choice of proceeding upon Lords amendments under their privileges or according to the procedure laid down by the Act, and consequently they are free to consider, and, if they choose, accept amendments made by the Lords to a certified bill.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you with the words of hon. Speaker Fraser of July 11, 1988, wherein he cautioned that if it can happen with a government bill:

...the same situation could arise under our reformed rules for a Private Members' Bill. It is in the better interests of this place to request Their Honours in the Senate to first consult with this House before they report to us such unilateral action.

We will leave it in your hands, Mr. Speaker, for a decision. We believe it to be a very important decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is in regard to the Senate message received yesterday. It reads:

That the Clerk do carry this bill back to the House of Commons and acquaint that House that the Senate has divided the bill into two bills, Bill C-10A, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), both of which are attached to this Message as Appendices “A” and “B” respectively; and That the Clerk further acquaint the House that: (a) the Senate desires the concurrence of the House of Commons in the division of Bill C-10; (b) the Senate has passed Bill C-10A without amendment; and (c) the Senate is further considering Bill C-10B.

These are the two issues. First, I will agree that it is not in order for the Senate to divide a bill passed by the House of Commons. Second, the House cannot waive its privileges in this matter. Therefore, the only response would be to decline the concurrence because by agreeing to this message the House would be going beyond the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution.

Bill C-10 received three readings in the House and second reading in the Senate. On November 20, a motion was adopted in the Senate regarding Bill C-10. It read:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that it divide Bill C-10, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, into two Bills, in order that it may deal separately with the provisions relating to firearms and provisions relating to cruelty to animals.

Yesterday a message was received by the House informing members that the Senate had divided Bill C-10 into two bills, Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B, and the Senate is asking for concurrence.

There is only one precedent regarding this issue.

On June 7, 1988, the Senate considered the matter of dividing Bill C-103, an act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. Bill C-103 had gone through the normal legislative process, received third reading and was sent to the Senate.

The Senate instructed the finance committee to divide Bill C-103. This was challenged and the Speaker in the Senate made the following ruling:

The main procedural problem, the Chair feels, lies with the nature of Bill C-103 itself. It is a government bill and a money bill, having been recommended by Her Excellency the Governor General. Senator Graham's motion is quite clear that the National Finance Committee will be instructed to divide Bill C-103 into two bills. Erskine May states, on page 564, that, when an instruction has been given to the committee that a bill may be divided into two or more bills, "the separate bills have been separately reported." If it is divided, Bill C-103 will no longer be on the Senate Order Paper but will be superseded by two separate bills.

The Chair has a problem in accepting that these two separate bills are still government bills. Senator Graham's instruction does not deal with amending a government bill, but with dividing a government bill into two bills. These two bills would therefore have found their way before Parliament, not in the House of Commons but in the Senate. Since they would both be bills appropriating public money, it would appear to the Chair that such action would be in contravention of Section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867. For this very important reason, I must conclude that the motion of the Honourable Senator Graham is not in order.

This ruling was overruled by the Senate and Bill C-103 was divided and part I of the bill was sent to the House of Commons.

On July 11, 1988, the Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that the procedural event concerning Bill C-103 was totally without precedent. He said:

In the case of Bill C-103, it is my opinion, and with great respect of course, that the Senate should have respected the propriety of asking the House of Commons to concur in its action of dividing Bill C-103 and in reporting only part of the Bill back as a fait accompli has infringed the privileges of this place.

Furthermore, Bill C-103 has attached to it, pursuant to our Standing Orders and Section 54 of the Constitution, a financial recommendation of Her Excellency the Governor General. So this Bill is in a very real sense a Financial Bill.

The Speaker then ruled that the privileges of the House had been breached. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10, also has attached to it a royal recommendation and therefore falls within the same definition as Bill C-103.

In his ruling on Bill C-103, the Speaker stated that he did not have the power to enforce the privileges of the House directly. He said that he could not rule the Message from the Senate out of order for that would leave Bill C-103 in limbo. He said:

The cure in this case is for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them....

Mr. Speaker, this is where Speaker Fraser's ruling is somewhat flawed. I agree with the first part that the House must claim its privileges. However I disagree with the suggestion that the House can forgo its privileges in this case. It did not in the case of Bill C-103. In the case of Bill C-103 a motion was introduced and adopted that read:

The Senate has altered the ends, purposes, considerations, limitations and qualifications of the grants of aid and supply set out in this bill, contrary to Standing Order 87, as recommended by Her Excellency the Governor General to this House and has therefore infringed the privileges of the House, and asked that the Senate return Bill C-103 in an undivided form.

A motion upholding the privileges of the House would of course be in order. A motion breaching our rules that are entrenched in that Constitution should not.

With Bill C-103 both the Senate Speaker and the Commons Speaker established that it was out of order for the Senate to divide a Commons bill, particularly a financial bill since it is an infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons.

With respect to Bill C-10, on Tuesday the Senate Speaker ignored any objection to the procedure because he ruled that he would respect the decision of the Senate. The difference between the Bill C-103 situation and the Bill C-10 situation in the Senate is that the objection to the procedure in the case of Bill C-10 was raised after a motion had been adopted and the objection to the procedure in the case of Bill C-103 was raised before the Senate adopted the motion.

The scenario in the House for Bill C-10 is that the objection is being raised before any motion in response to the message is introduced or adopted. Therefore the two rulings for Bill C-103 are still relevant and the Senate ruling for Bill C-10 is not.

The question and the subject of the remainder of my point will focus on who decides or who defends the privileges of the House in this particular manner.

In the case of Bill C-103 the Speaker ruled that the House ought to decide. As I said earlier, I believe that this ruling by Speaker Fraser is flawed and inconsistent with our practices in these matters.

In the case of Bill C-103, there was no harm done because the government's motion defended the privileges of the House. There was no harm done with respect to Bill C-103 but there is potential harm if we do not correct the errors of Speaker Fraser's ruling and allow the House to decide because the government may very well want to agree with the Senate and I believe that the House cannot waive its privileges by simply a majority vote. Since the simple majority of this House cannot override the Constitution, the onus is on the Speaker to rule that the Senate breached our privileges and state that this House cannot concur with the Senate.

Any motion by the government attempting to agree with the message should be ruled out of order. I have two points to make in this regard.

First, Speakers and others have claimed that the Speaker cannot rule on constitutional matters. This causes some confusion because Speakers have ruled on constitutional matters.

In Speaker Fraser's ruling of July 11, 1998, he stated:

Certain questions remain to be answered: by splitting the Bill does the Royal Recommendation still apply? Have the financial privileges of the Commons been breached? As Speaker of the House of Commons, I will not attempt to answer such constitutional questions....

His next statement concludes:

--clearly this House has always considered Standing Order 87...as setting out a special relationship between the Commons, that is, this House of Commons, and the Sovereign. I have ruled that the privileges of the House have been infringed.

When constitutional matters that relate to our standing orders are not in question, the Speaker has the right and the duty to rule. These constitutional requirements that are reflected in our rules are as follows: section 48 of the constitution sets out the quorum requirement of the House and is repeated in our Standing Orders as Standing Order 29; and section 53 and section 54 concerning the procedure for the introduction of money bills is reflected in Standing Order 80. It is these sections of the constitution and this Standing Order that is one of the issues of this point of order.

Section 53 reads:

Bills for appropriating any part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost shall originate in the House of Commons.

Section 54 provides that:

It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.

Standing Order 80, section 1, reads:

All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.

Whenever there is a departure from order relating to these particular procedural requirements set out in the constitution, the Speaker has the duty and the authority to bring down a ruling.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, Speakers have routinely ruled private members' bills to be out of order because they required royal recommendations. On page 897 of Marleau and Montpetit, it states:

There is a constitutional requirement that bills proposing the expenditure of public funds must be accompanied by a royal recommendation, which can be obtained only by the government and introduced by a Minister. Since a Minister cannot propose items of Private Members' Business, a private Members' bill should therefore not contain provisions for the spending of funds.

In the footnotes of that page are examples of times when the Speaker ruled on the constitutional requirement of royal recommendations. It cites Journals of November 9, 1978; February 20, 1979; June 6, 1980; and Debates on November 1, 1991. How can the case be made that the Speaker does not rule on constitutional matters?

Just recently on October 24, the Speaker ruled on a point of order raised earlier in the day by the government House leader concerning the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. The Speaker ruled:

The case before the House is clear. The bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre seeks to remove an existing tax exemption. If adopted, this measure would have the effect of increasing the tax payable by a certain group of taxpayers. Legislation of this sort, however worthy, may only be introduced when preceded by a motion of ways and means provided by a minister of the Crown, as I said earlier.

As the bill in question was not preceded by a ways and means motion, the proceedings this morning were not in acceptable form. I therefore rule them null and void and the order for second reading of the bill be discharged and the bill withdrawn from the Order Paper.

In the last session the Speaker laid out in great detail the financial privileges of this House when he rules on Bill S-13. I will not repeat this excellent overview provided by the Speaker, but instead I will simply point out to those who are interested that they can educate themselves on the topic by referring to the Speaker's ruling from Hansard of December 2, 1998.

On December 2, 1998, the Speaker, laid out the financial privileges of the House. He indicated that those privileges had been breached with the introduction of Bill S-13 and he immediately ordered the bill to be withdrawn.

He said:

The House of Commons has the exclusive right and obligation to legislate financial measures...I am obligated as your Speaker to ensure that these fundamental financial privileges are not compromised.

The Speaker did not ask the House to decide whether it wanted to wave the privileges or to uphold them. The Speaker said that he was obliged to ensure that financial privileges of the House are not compromised.

There are many other examples. I will name a few. In 1969 Mr. Baldwin objected to Senate Bill S-3 which provided for the dissolution of the Dominion Coal Board. Mr. Baldwin argued that the money, although already appropriated by Parliament, was diverted for other purposes. Stanley Knowles supported the argument by pointing out that the appropriation of the money lapsed with the changes made by the bill and therefore to spend these moneys in some other way would be an inappropriation of the bill.

The Speaker's ruling on the matter was:

The provisions of Bill S-3 relating to the appropriation of public moneys infringe on the privileges of the House.

The Speaker ordered that the bill be laid aside and the notice for the first reading be removed from the Order Paper. In a ruling from the Speaker from 1973 regarding Bill S-5, Farm Improvement Loans Act, it was argued that while the bill did not in itself propose a direct expenditure, it did propose substantial additional liabilities on public money. The Speaker ruled that the bill be removed from the Order Paper.

This is what I am asking the Speaker to do with respect to this issue; make a ruling and enforce it. The Senate is asking this House to adopt Bill C-10A. If Bill C-10A is allowed to proceed then its twin sister Bill C-10B will indirectly be legitimized and the Senate will be a proud father of another bouncing baby money bill.

The motion would enable two money bills created by the Senate to exist. It is the Speaker's obligation to rule that this contravenes our practice. There is no way the House by majority vote or by unanimous consent can wave procedures that are provided for in the constitution. This brings me to my second point.

If the House were to agree with the Senate, the House would be adopted procedures which go beyond the power conferred upon it by the constitution. There are similar precedents regarding committees that you should consider, Mr. Speaker.

On June 20, 1994, and November 7, 1996, the Speaker ruled:

While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.

If we are to be consistent, I would point out that while the House is a master of its own proceedings, it could not establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred on it by the constitution. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1985 that the requirement of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and of section 23 of the Manitoba Act of 1870, respecting the use of both the English and French languages in the records and journals of the House of Parliament of Canada, are mandatory and must be obeyed.

Accordingly the House can not longer depart from its own code of procedure when considering a procedure entrenched in the constitution.

On page 295, 2nd edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , in reference to the 1985 case, he lists those constitutional requirements regarding parliamentary procedure that must be obeyed and includes in that list section 53 and section 54 which deal with the financial privileges of a House of Commons.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is your duty to rule on this matter that any motion that attempts to breach the privileges of the House should be disallowed. You cannot allow the House to even consider waving these privileges. What is the point of having a constitution if the House by a simple majority vote can override it?

It has been established that it is not in order for the Senate to divide a bill that originated from the House of Commons. I have also argued that the House cannot wave these privileges because by doing so the House would be going beyond the powers conferred upon it by the constitution.

Accordingly, it is up to the Speaker to rule on that this matter infringes on the privileges of the House and no further action, except for a message upholding our privileges, can be taken.

Lord Durham, in the 1839 report on the affairs of British North America, was scandalized that there was no rule requiring a royal recommendation either in Upper or Lower Canada. He wrote:

The prerogative of the Crown which is constantly exercised in Great Britain for the real protection of the people, ought never to have been waived in the Colonies; and if the rule of the Imperial Parliament, that no money vote were introduced into these Colonies, it might be wisely employed in protecting the public interests, now frequently sacrificed in that scramble for local appropriations, which chiefly serves to give an undue influence to particular individuals or parties.

In accordance with Durham's wishes, the royal recommendation requirement was made part of the Union Act, 1840.

I want to conclude by commenting on amendments made by the Senate to the money bills. I appreciate that the government may raise this and try to use it as a lame precedent so I would like to get my view of this on the record.

The usual way for the House of Commons to give its consent to Senate amendments on money bills is through the waiving of privileges under protest. For example, in 1939 the Senate amended the income tax bill to eliminate some retroactive features of the legislation. Supported by all sides of the House, the government first contemplated refusal, but in view of the advanced stage of the session it finally moved,

that this House concur in the set amendments, and while so doing it does not think it advisable at this period of the session to insist on its privileges in respect thereto, but that the waiver of said privileges in this case be not however drawn into a precedent...

I mention this because what we are considering here is not an amendment but a creation of two separate bills, Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B. The acceptance of the amendment precedence cannot be used for two reasons. There is much argument that the Senate has the power to amend money bills and any claim by the House is just that, a claim and not anything substantiated by hard and fast rules or convention. The matter of bills originating from the Senate that require a royal recommendation is a rule that is not open for interpretation or debate. The rules of this House and the constitution state that fact very clearly and it has been upheld by speakers for over 100 years.

We cannot consider any precedence regarding Senate amendments to bills. What we are dealing with here are two new bills from the Senate. In cases of bills coming from the Senate, it is the Speaker who rules. It is not a matter of the government waiving or rejecting an amendment.

Criminal Code

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things to say with regard to the hon. member's bill. I also want to clarify a couple of things that were said by one of her colleagues, the member for Saanich--Gulf Islands.

It is important for all Canadians to realize that it is not the government that chooses what is votable. It is actually a committee of this Parliament that chooses what is and is not votable.

While he exalted the conservation activities in other countries, which are very deserving of great credit, I think he forgot about some of the important conservation activities taking place here in Canada through organizations like Ducks Unlimited where there is some public and private partnership.

However I was encouraged by some of the things that he mentioned on the endangered species and cruelty to animal legislation that is working its way through the House and through the Senate. I encourage him, given his support, to encourage the senators to pass that bill because there are important issues to be addressed there.

With regard to Bill C-280, I think most members of the House would agree that the goal of discouraging the selling of wildlife and wildlife parts, particularly wildlife that is threatened or endangered, is a laudable one, but the question is, how do we best do that.

The member opposite has raised some very important issues. This should be something discussed through one of the joint ministers' meetings at the federal and provincial level because some of the issues are provincial and some of the issues are federal. Let us figure out what the best tools are. She has raised an issue of great importance to Canadians and to the future of our wildlife.

The member for Northumberland has already identified a number of difficulties with making this a Criminal Code provision, and that perhaps regulatory legislation is more appropriate. There are a number of federal statutes that try to address some of the conduct that is being sought in Bill C-280, such as the Canada Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds Convention, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, which the member herself recognized, and the species at risk act, Bill C-5, which is currently before the Senate. Some of the things that are being covered will be addressed through that.

The member for Northumberland talked about the difference between criminal law and regulatory provisions. The Supreme Court of Canada has expressly recognized that:

--the common law has long acknowledged a distinction between truly criminal conduct and conduct, otherwise lawful, which is prohibited in the public interest.

There could be some challenges here.

According to Justice Cory:

Regulatory legislation involves a shift of emphasis from the protection of individual interests and deterrence and punishment of acts involving moral fault, to the protection of public and societal interests. While criminal offences are usually designed to condemn and punish past, inherently wrongful conduct, regulatory measures are generally directed to the prevention of future harm through the enforcement of minimum standards of conduct and care.

I think this is where the member is trying to punish acts and also to prevent future acts, and we need to get the right measures in place.

The member for Northumberland has already identified that there is a problem because of the exceptions that would be covered in this act and that the criminal law does not really have exemptions. It is extremely rare for the Criminal Code to specify exemptions for criminal liability in respect of particular offences.

The other challenge, which I am not sure he had a chance to discuss, was the issue of relative proportionality in terms of sentencing. Clearly, there is a need to make sure that sentences are proportionate with the seriousness of other offences that may carry the same or lesser penalties. It is not an exact science but I would argue that it has evolved over time as Canadians have placed greater emphasis or expressed their desire to stop certain offences or their abhorrence of certain offences. We have increased penalties in certain areas. We have sent a strong message to those who would choose to conduct them. However it would be disproportionate that a second offence under Bill C-280, in relation to a threatened or endangered species, would carry a maximum penalty of eight years when the maximum penalty right now for assault on indictment is five years.

Currently the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals is six months and that is why Bill C-10B, which is currently before the Senate, would raise that maximum to five years. Cruelty to animals would have a five year maximum sentence and that is for someone who is torturing an animal, which I think all of us in the House and in Canadian society would agree is absolutely abhorrent. We need to see how that would relate to what is being proposed in the member's bill, which is a maximum of eight years.

I mentioned that there are a variety of statutes that regulate the kind of behaviour that is dealt with in Bill C-280. I think the member has raised a very important issue. It is something we need to discuss at the federal-provincial level to see if the provinces should be doing more in terms of their regulatory authority. We should work through and develop the issue a little more before necessarily making a change to the Criminal Code.

I definitely support the protection of animals. The member's colleague mentioned organized crime rings. We need to make sure that those laws are in place to stop that kind of activity and to punish it very severely should it occur. I think there are a number of ways we could beef up things through the current bills and acts that are in place. We do not want to inadvertently create even more confusion out there so that people do not do their utmost to protect our species and wildlife in Canada.

At this point I will not be supporting the bill but I commend the member opposite on her excellent work.

Points of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to argue an earlier point of order on a second point of order, but if I did I would say that the matter is hardly academic. There has been an event in the Senate.

However, given that the event in the Senate, an empirical procedural event I might add, has happened, and given your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, just minutes ago, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to send a message to the Senate asking it to reverse the decision taken yesterday to split Bill C-10 into two different bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I almost rose on a point of order as to why points of order could not have been heard earlier, but we will leave that for another day.

My point of order has to do with the fate of a particular piece of legislation in the other place that was passed by the House. I am referring to Bill C-15B which in this session became Bill C-10 and was passed by order of the House on October 9, 2002 and received by the other place subsequent to that.

Ironically Bill C-15B which became Bill C-10 has now been broken up into two bills in the Senate. Bill C-15B itself was the product of fragmenting of an earlier piece of omnibus legislation. We might want to have a debate sometime in the House about the advisability of omnibus legislation given the fact that the House itself, and now the other place although illegitimately in my view, have chosen to fragment further omnibus legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you may want to argue that we should not be having a point of order on this until we receive word from the other place with respect to the bill. It seems to me that if that is the case, then we could have another point of order about whether or not we should take preventive action and whether the House should send a message to the other place before the other place sends a message to us, suggesting that the other place should not behave in the way that it has.

I would want to argue, Mr. Speaker, that the House should be very concerned about what has happened in the other place with respect to Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 was accompanied by a royal recommendation which stated:

Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

On November 20, 2002 the Senate passed, on division, the following motion:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that it divide Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act into two bills in order that it may deal separately with the provisions relating to firearms and provisions relating to cruelty to animals.

The effect of this motion, Mr. Speaker, has seen the creation of two new bills in the Senate, Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B.

Last night the hon. Speaker of the Senate upheld the reporting back of the so-called Bill C-10A, which I realize we have not received, and the continued examination of Bill C-10B, which now risks being lost in some procedural maze in the Senate.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is this House that should decide what pieces of legislation are divided up and in what way they are dealt with. I say this without prejudice to the fact that I can quite understand the desire of the Senate to deal with these matters separately. I share, as I have already indicated, a concern that a lot of members of Parliament have and obviously a lot of senators have with respect to the nature of omnibus legislation.

Nevertheless, it should be up to the House of Commons to do this because the way in which the Senate has dealt with Bill C-10 has infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown and on the privileges of the House of Commons.

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

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-15B from the first session of this Parliament and it is in accordance with the special order of the House of October 7, 2002. Therefore, I request that it be reinstated at the same stage that it had reached at the time of prorogation.

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