Bill C-17 (Historical)

Public Safety Act, 2002

An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety

Public Safety Act 2002

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those occasions where we need to address both the issue, Bill C-17, but also the issue of the democratic deficit.

It is interesting that the parallel universe the former finance minister is operating in is holding a special caucus meeting over on that side tonight to try to determine what we can do to make this place more democratic. Invoking time allocation and closure is hardly the way to increase democracy. For the record, this is the 83rd time the government has moved to stop debate in this place.

The former finance minister repeatedly says that we have to do something to change the way we address issues in the House of Commons, that we have to be more democratic and that the government should not bring down the hammer of closure whenever it wants to. The government has used it 83 times. Not once did the member for LaSalle—Émard ever vote against a single one of those motions. He has used the hammer that the government has as a majority to shut down the rights of the minority time and again.

We support Bill C-17 itself. We are not putting up more speakers. We are willing to go ahead with it. We think it should go ahead and we should move on with it. However, we cannot support the way the government tries to get its way. It seems to have one way, “It's my way or the highway”. We either agree or the government uses the hammer.

This is the 83rd time it has brought in time allocation or closure and it has been supported ably by the member for LaSalle—Émard every single time that it comes up for a vote. He is now going to supposedly address the democratic deficit in his own parallel universe tonight at the caucus meeting.

Would the minister agree that addressing the democratic deficit is not enhanced by a record setting pace of shutting down debate in the House of Commons on legitimate, controversial issues like the bill before us today?

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-17, an act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the allotted day of the third reading consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of the order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the third reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[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 third reading stage of Bill C-17, An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.

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, I guess this is the supplementary question to the lead-off of her leader earlier this day. He wanted to know the business of the House as well.

I am pleased to inform the House that we will continue today debating the Alliance motion endorsing Dalton McGuinty's election platform, which we have been doing for the day. Later tonight Mr. McGuinty will be the premier.

Tomorrow we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill. When this bill is completed, we will then turn to Bill C-32, the Criminal Code amendments.

On Monday, should it be necessary, we would return to Bill C-13 followed by third reading of Bill C-36, the Archives and National Library bill.

We would then proceed to the report stage of Bill C-19, the first nations fiscal legislation. If necessary, I would then return to Bill C-32, the Criminal Code amendments, followed subsequently by Bill S-13, the census records bill.

I will be seeking also cooperation of colleagues across the way to further our discussion on Bill C-41, the technical corrections bill that we discussed informally earlier this day.

On Tuesday, we will debate the third reading of Bill C-17, the public safety bill.

Starting on Wednesday, I hope we will be in a position to deal with bills that have come out of committee, as well as dealing with any of the business just listed that has not been completed.

I would also like to indicate to the House that we have had conversations about the future of Bill C-38, concerning the use of marijuana. We also intend to put this bill before the House in the very near future.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-17, the public safety act, has a long history. As the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam mentioned in his speech, this is probably the third kick at the can. This is unfortunate because some important elements of Bill C-17 are essential to the safety and security of Canadians.

I should clarify that notwithstanding the frustrations of the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, he also confirmed that the Alliance Party supports the bill and I hope most members will.

Last night I happened to be watching the miniseries on Pierre Elliott Trudeau. One of the last events which occurred in the first part was the invocation of the War Measures Act, where basically the civil liberties of Canadians were totally set aside and hundreds and hundreds of people were summarily rounded up and taken into custody. It is a dark period in our history and I guess some would, in hindsight, try to reflect on whether the actions taken by the then federal government were appropriate under the circumstances.

Canada is not accustomed to terrorist type activities, but the members will also know that the federal government cannot bring in the army or do certain things without a request from a province. That is part of the jurisdictional relationship that exists.

I am somewhat sensitive to the arguments that have been raised by members of the Bloc Quebecois with regard to privacy and, maybe more broadly, to the civil liberties, civil rights of Canadians. A prior speaker had indicated that one of the concerns, to summarize, was that basically this is yet another instrument that the government is being given to control the people. It is quite concerning because I suspect that there are some who share that view, particularly from the standpoint that they hear anecdotally about stories where things are happening that in fact do appear to be an infringement of privacy rights of Canadians.

One of the first ones that occurred following September 11, 2001 was the requirement by the United States that a passenger manifest be provided for all aircraft originating in Canada and landing in the U.S. I know that at that time there were some very serious concerns about that, but the U.S., as a sovereign nation, has certain rights to require certain things to protect its own sovereignty and its own security. As a consequence, if we wanted flights to fly between Canada and the U.S., we were going to have to comply and that has happened.

What kind of information? Well this sort of is a starting point of when one gets from a standpoint of who is travelling, how often, what destinations, et cetera, and patterns begin to develop. Following that to its logical conclusion, it is pretty clear that we are talking about profiling people. If we start talking about profiling in terms of their physical activity, it does not take very long before we start talking about profiling people based upon their personal characteristics, whether it be their race, colour, ethnicity, et cetera.

This is where this argument becomes more sensitive. Most jurisdictions have had this difficulty dealing with the whole concept of profiling. It is one of the reasons that I raised in prior questioning today the appropriate balance between the necessity for privacy and the protection of the civil liberties of Canadians, and balancing that with the realities of security and safety of Canadians and of our country.

As I said, if we have no safety then we have no security, and if we have no security, we have no sovereignty. This goes to the fundamental principles in which Canada is going to have to protect itself.

I believe we are approaching question period. I would like to conclude my comments when the bill is next called simply because I believe there are some important points that have to be put in perspective, but I would like to lay out some of the reasons that I will be supporting Bill C-17.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have spoken to Bill C-17. It can be said that a certain number of bills have been introduced in reaction to the September 11 attacks, and especially in reaction to the activities of some very high-level American lobbyists who have come to Ottawa a number of times. A pair of U.S. secretaries, Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft, came to Ottawa in the months following the attacks. They said our border was too easy to cross, that our laws were not tough enough or restrictive enough, and asked us to reinforce controls through legislation.

We are finally falling into the trap we did not want to fall into. In fact, I remember that when the House of Commons resumed a week or two after the September 11 attacks, we were still traumatized by what had happened in New York. People said that life would never be the same again.

Nevertheless, one fundamental lesson was there for Canadians and Quebeckers: we had to pay attention to protecting our rights and freedoms. We did not want terrorists to succeed in restricting the rights and freedoms of Canadians and Quebeckers. People said we needed legislation, that some things had to be reviewed, but they also said we certainly should not fall into the trap the terrorists had set for us, that of restricting our rights and freedoms.

The terrorists' goals included not only killing 3,000 people, but striking a violent blow at the great western democracies. They attacked a symbol of that democracy, the towers of the World Trade Center.

Reaction was swift. I do not mean the legitimate act of self-defence that led the Americans to go after Al Qaeda. I mean the resulting restrictions in the fundamental rights of Canadians and Quebeckers.

We had initially decided to split this bill in two. We have always expressed our objections to the part before us today. We objected at second reading; we objected in committee and tried to improve the bill by proposing amendments to prevent restriction of the rights and freedoms of Quebeckers and Canadians.

For that matter, we were not the only ones. The then Privacy Commissioner talked about it publicly many times, saying that this bill had to be amended because it was an invasion of Canadians' and Quebecers' privacy. This is a small victory for us, because I remember that this act was even worse. As you all know, I am the national defence critic for my party. Military security zones were created in many parts of Canada and government was being given the mandate to create some.

It was extremely dangerous for us. As you know, my riding is a has a very strong military presence, housing both a military base and a former military college. Some of the original bill's provisions allowed the extension of cabinet's powers. For example, if a danger was perceived at the Saint-Jean military base, the zone could be extended to the whole city of Saint-Jean. That possibility did exist. Some of the bill's provisions allowed the minister and cabinet to extend those zones.

At the time, I had also given the example of the naval reserve at the Quebec City port. That reserve could have been extended to a large part of the city of Quebec City, including the Quebec National Assembly probably.

The federal government's jurisdiction could be extended and the government would be in control. Access could even be restricted in a large zone around the Quebec City reserve or in a large zone in the riding of Saint-Jean, to give maximum protection to the military infrastructure.

This went so far that people inside the zone could be arrested without a warrant and jailed just because they were inside a military zone.

Furthermore—this is important—the government was required to advise the public of this only one or two weeks after having issued the order in Ottawa. People might have been in the zone without knowing it, not knowing they were breaking the law, and could have been arrested on the spot.

The Bloc Quebecois fought against this tooth and nail. It is very reassuring to see that this had disappeared when Bill C-17 came back before the House.

I think two or three areas, like Nanoose Bay, the port of Halifax and another area, have been declared “controlled-access military zones”. Back then, the military used the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen as an example. It said that ports were danger zones and wanted to declare certain ports as military exclusion zones. Ultimately, we are happy we limited this. This is a huge victory for democracy and freedom and for the Bloc Quebecois in having managed to get this dropped.

We find disturbing a number of the bill's other aspects. This is not the first time that interim orders have been mentioned; my hon. colleagues did so earlier. I think that they are going a bit too far with the interim orders. A minister can decide that an interim order is necessary, and it might be some time before it is brought to the attention of Parliament.

We have always been told that if an emergency occurs while Parliament is in recess, then they would be necessary. That is what witnesses before the standing committee said. However, in my experience, Parliament has been recalled before, for instance during the railway strike. I am not positive, but I think that the members were also recalled from recess during the strike at the port of Vancouver.

The interim orders are problematic. Once again, the ministers and the governor in council, or cabinet, are being given too many powers.

There are other ways to proceed, even before this legislation is implemented. I know that the government has the habit of sometimes asking for an opinion from the Supreme Court, which is charged with examining a provision or an act in relation to specific questions to see if it can pass the Charter of Rights and Freedoms test.

With regard to the provision on interim orders that is in the bill before us, we may ask ourselves whether it respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I find that it is too easy for the government to hold a cabinet meeting and to decide to make an interim order for some purpose. This would be known several days later. We have tried to reduce from 15 to five days the period before this would be referred to Parliament. The current provisions of the legislation allow the government to circumvent the charter of rights and freedoms, which is quite serious. We cannot say it is not a cause for concern.

As a matter of fact, I continually hear my Liberal colleagues say that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is extremely important. It was invoked not long ago in the issue of same sex marriages. They want to respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in several acts. It is strange that they seem to be ignoring it in Bill C-17.

If a minister believes there is an emergency, the Department of Justice will not be asked to examine any impact on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government will proceed immediately and the impact on the charter will be examined later on. We believe that this is extremely serious.

We have a Parliament that is comprised of 301 elected members from all the ridings of Canada, including 75 from Quebec. In electing us, the people gave us the legitimacy to sit in Parliament. We have the legislative authority to change things, to vote for or against legislative measures.

Of course, I have blamed this government several times for not letting us vote. What this government has discovered lately, among other things, are take note debates. I remember for example the sending of troops to Irak, when Parliament was in recess. A few weeks later, we came back to Parliament and learned that the troops were gone and we were told that we would have a debate on the relevancy of sending our troops to that country.

But the moorings had been cast off, and the ships were almost halfway there. What can we do in such circumstances? We object. I think that, as parliamentarians, we must make ourselves heard on issues as important sending troops abroad. We are talking about young soldiers, children of Canadians, young men and women, sent to a dangerous theatre of operations.

The same is true of Bill C-17. As parliamentarians, we want Parliament to retain the greatest control possible on this kind of legislation. If this bill contains any provisions that turn Parliament into a simple rubber stamp, weeks after a decision has been made, we think it is illegitimate to put parliamentarians in such a position.

It even borders on the illegal, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are not the only ones in opposition to say so. Rumour has it that some of our Liberal colleagues also oppose this bill because it suspends the operation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for certain periods. I think this is dangerous.

The other aspect is the collection of information. Any time there is talk about giving more power to CSIS or the RCMP, it is understandable that our reaction, in the Bloc Quebecois, would be to want to take a closer look at the situation.

Earlier, we heard colleagues tell us they were arrested, probably without a warrant, and jailed for whatever reason. They were detained for several days without being allowed to call a lawyer. This is in direct violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There might not have been a charter at the time, but there is one now.

We also know what happened. Without calling into question the work of the RCMP and CSIS, I can say that a lot happened during the October crisis. There were even televised reports to the effect that the FLQ did not do many of the things it was blamed for. The McDonald commission later determined that the RCMP had done them.

Everybody remembers the barn burnings. It was terrible. The FLQ, we were told, was burning barns, planting bombs, etc. The McDonald Commission told us that it was not the FLQ that had done this, but the RCMP. Perhaps the RCMP had acted on political orders to aggravate the situation in Quebec so Quebeckers would think that things were really serious. So maybe the RCMP was asked to do that.

Of course no one will ever tell us. No one will tell us that the Solicitor General of the day told the RCMP to do such things. No one has been able to prove it. However, after the McDonald Commission, we know that some people somewhere made decisions for things to happen that way.

When a bill contains provisions that grant more powers to the RCMP and CSIS to gather information on individuals, there is cause for concern and there is good reason to want to limit the scope of these provisions.

I was a member of the legislative committee that studied Bill C-17, a committee that was ably presided over by yourself, Mr. Speaker. I asked a lot of questions. Let us say, for example, that I am sitting next to a person on an airplane and that I have a conversation with that person during the flight. If the RCMP knows something about that person, will it be wondering what ties I may have with that person? Will it be wondering who is the guy that was talking to that person during the whole flight? There must be something there. That is where the ball can get rolling.

Of course, being a member of the Bloc Quebecois, I do not think that the RCMP would dare say that I am a terrorist just because I was sitting next to one. I do not think that it would go that far. It has a certain decency. Moreover, it knows that we have means to defend ourselves.

But the poor businessman who is friendly and speaks with a fellow passenger he knows nothing about might find himself under scrutiny as soon as his plane lands. Police officers might be investigating him, trying to find out who he is, why he talked at length with his fellow passenger, if he has a criminal record, if he had previous business dealings with his fellow passenger, if he knew him before the plane trip. The poor fellow might not even be aware that he is under investigation.

Moreover, the information gathered can be kept for seven days. We want that to be reduced to 24 hours. The Bloc Quebecois has worked hard on this issue and on the orders in council. We have brought forward many amendments to uphold the rights and freedoms of Quebecers and Canadians. All of our amendments have been quashed by the Liberal majority.

Therefore, we cannot support such a bill at third reading. There would be too many consequences. Quebec, with its collective memory, does not want the government to be provided with more tools to control the population. We are not the only ones to take that position. Many witnesses have argued the same thing before the committee.

I fail to understand why my Liberal colleagues, after hearing such eloquent and relevant evidence, would not agree with the witnesses, but would rather say “No, we will stick to the bill as it is.”

This is when we realize that party solidarity sometimes goes a bit far, particularly when the government side is involved. They sit down together, listen to all kinds of things being said by witnesses, and then just turn aside and say “That is not it. Those are not the people we want to hear from.” The whole thing has become a bit of a farce.

Yet standing committees of the House of Commons, like parliamentary commissions in Quebec. are created in order to listen to the public. Moreover, the various books on parliamentary procedure agree that it is important to listen to witnesses and to the public.

Has this become a farce, a comedy? Has it become mere fiction? One might well ask. As MPs, we sit on numerous committees and we see how it always goes: if the government wants to pass a bill, even if 500 witnesses spoke out against it, the government sticks to its guns and just ignores all the groups and individuals who made the effort to appear before the committee.

There will, of course, always be some witnesses—the government will make sure there are one or two—who share the government's views. These are the ones who will receive the spotlight, not all those witnesses who do not agree with it.

We are, therefore, in a position to have some very serious questions about Bill C-17. There have been a number of witnesses. This is a bill on which there have been a number of discussions in this House. We cannot, however, say that the government passed a gag order, though it did not listen any more than if it had.

Speaking of gag orders, that is another thing. If the government does not want to listen to us, if it thinks we are going too far, it imposes a gag order. So far with Bill C-17 the government has not been too put out, since it has not gagged us. It has not, however, listened to us any the more. That is the situation.

This government needs to set its arrogance and its majority aside and listen to the people in opposition. A democracy without an opposition can easily get off the track. This is not a dictatorship. If a government with a majority never listens to the opposition, there is something wrong. It is like a dictatorship. It is a dictatorship by the majority, even if they outnumber the minority by only 10.

We are ignored and the government does what it wants with witnesses during parliamentary committee meetings, as was the case with Bill C-17. Indeed, it listened, it heard witnesses and then it decided to ignore what was said and include exactly what it wanted in the bill. In the parliamentary committees my Liberal colleagues went along with this. I hope, for the sake of democracy, rights and freedoms, that when it comes time to vote at third reading, some of them will stand up. I hope so. We will be watching them, although we are not kidding ourselves.

We believe this bill has gone too far. That is why we have to vote at third reading the same way we did at second reading, in other words, against Bill C-17.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my charming colleague from Champlain is referring to the War Measures Act, which, unfortunately, we lived through in Quebec in October 1970. I would add that I too spent a weekend in the cafeteria and gymnasium of Collège de Saint-Laurent. Today it is a CEGEP, but at the time it was a college.

We were taken away by the army, for reasons I never understood, without any warrant or anything. A group of us were leaving a restaurant in Ville-Saint-Laurent. All of sudden we were in an army truck and spending the weekend at the college. On the Monday, they appeared and told us to go home. There was no way to shower, shave or do anything the whole weekend.

I would not want anyone to go through that same experience today. It was unfortunate, because some tragic events occurred in Quebec.

What annoys us about Bill C-17 is that there are no controls on the actions of the RCMP, CSIS, the army or any other police force. This is about the information they can gather. What are they going to do with this information and how are they going to obtain it? Will it be through the airlines? What will they do with it?

In one of his articles, the Privacy Commissioner says that the bill makes Canadians out to be a bunch of dummies, or morons or something. He says it very well. I am trying to find the exact word. He said “it insults the intelligence of Canadians.”

I am sure that most Canadians and Quebeckers have the same concerns I do. Nothing in this bill ensures that there will not be a repeat of October 1970, absolutely nothing.

We must learn from the past and not repeat the same mistakes all over again.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to digress a little to tell you how happy I was to learn through the media that your son's health was improving every day. I am very happy to hear that and I am sure that you feel greatly relieved.

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-17. This bill was introduced in the house a long time ago, in fact just after the September 11 attacks.

I remember that, at that time, the first thing the government did was to ram through Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Even then, we had questions. The main question was: where does security end and where do privacy and the Charter or Rights and Freedoms begin? This was a great concern, one that we still have today.

Allow me to briefly review what has happened with this bill to date. The first bill introduced was Bill C-42, and everybody was against it. The government had an opportunity to back off a little, to amend it, to rewrite it, to change it and to try to hide things. This is how Bill C-55 came into being. That bill has indeed been changed a little, but not enough to satisfy the opposition, especially not the Bloc Quebecois.

This afternoon, we are finally beginning to consider Bill C-17. Fortunately, because of the Bloc Quebecois, the government has abandoned several points, but not enough yet, unfortunately.

My first concern with this bill is related to the famous military security zones. We have managed to get the government to establish three controlled access zones—as they are now termed—the ports of Halifax, Esquimalt and Nanoose Bay. Unfortunately, we feel this is insufficient, because the bill allows cabinet to establish other zones on security or other grounds. This leaves the door open to the creation of other zones, if the cabinet really wants to do so.

As for the grounds on which the ministers will make that decision, we have absolutely no idea what they are. We were told about it at a briefing by a DND lawyer. That is what he thought. He also referred to “restrictions on civil suits for damages”, as was the case before. But the applicable changes are not in the bill.

The Bloc Quebecois position on the striking of the military security zones is that this is a considerable victory. As for the creation of zones by order in council, this strikes us as far more reasonable than the previous mechanism.

We will, however, monitor these new zones. We do not wish to see any such zone created in the provinces, and particularly not in Quebec—since I represent a Quebec riding—unless the consent of the provincial governments, particularly the Government of Quebec, has been sought and obtained.

My other concern about this new Bill C-17 on air control and security relates to the interim orders. Once again, these strike us as too lengthy, even if the time limit has dropped from the initial 45 days to 14. We still believe they should be far shorter.

Our real problem, though, is with the lack of any preliminary check by the Clerk of the Privy Council regarding compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its enabling legislation. This is a major problem. It means that ministers, or anyone else, can issue interim orders without checking whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being respected.

The other major problem—and I share the concern expressed by the hon. member for Champlain—is the role the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Director of CSIS will play in collecting information on the passengers on such and such a flight from airline companies or any travel agency, that is individuals who book seats or sell tickets, in the name of security.

While I am all for security, I wonder what use will be made of the information collected. The Bloc's position is that it should be destroyed within 48 hours of it having been obtained. Instead, it will be kept for seven days, and the RCMP will be permitted to make arrests with warrants and to disclose the information to others. This is a dog's breakfast. And what I am saying does not come from the Bloc Quebecois; it comes from the Privacy Commissioner.

As my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier indicated, the commissioner is a senior government official. He is not just anyone. This person is available to the government party as well as to the opposition parties. His role is to ensure that privacy is protected. He is non-partisan; he is neither a sovereignist nor a provincialist nor a federalist. His role is to look after the right to privacy of individuals. He is someone who should be listened to.

On many occasions, he wrote letters and tried to open a dialogue. Unfortunately, as he pointed out, this did not seem to have any effect on the government, since it did not act on anything he said.

On behalf of all the residents of my riding and all the residents of Quebec and the other provinces, I call on the government and on the promoters of Bill C-17 to take into consideration the concerns expressed by former Privacy Commissioner Radwanski. The Privacy Commissioner works for the taxpayers and is there to protect their privacy.

Finally, as you can see, this bill does not have unanimous support, far from it. It is too vague. It is not tough enough and not clear enough about the powers to be granted, in particular to the RCMP and CSIS.

The bill does not control the RCMP and what it will do with the information it gathers. We are told the information will help maintain the safety of Canadians and keep undesirable individuals out of our country. The RCMP and CSIS could then couple their information with the data bank set up and maintained by the Customs and Revenue Agency. This is one more scandal, one more anomaly mentioned by the Privacy Commissioner in many of the documents he wrote on this issue.

To conclude, I would urge the members opposite to talk to the transport minister and try to convince him not to scrap Bill C-17, but to improve it. It is not yet ready to be voted on. It needs to be improved. Special attention should be given to the right of privacy of all Canadians, and especially of Quebecers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the debate on Bill C-17, which is before the House.

It is always appropriate and essential to put any debate in the House into context. We know that this bill is one of the legislative measures proposed by the government in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, on New York and Washington.

We are also aware that in the hours, days, weeks and months following this tragic event, in which more than 4,000 innocent people lost their lives, one of the elements that became clear once the dust had settled—no pun intended—was the need for any proposed antiterrorist legislation to maintain a balance between public safety—that is, protecting the public— and individual freedoms.

In fact, when the airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it was an attack not only on the United States and the West, but on a democratic way of life, an open way of life, where the exchange of ideas is possible in institutions such as the one where we sit today.

If Quebec and Canada, or the West in general, enjoy democracy and the rule of law, it is because the very foundation of our societies is individual freedoms. Any time that a government or, speaking generally, a state, wants to circumscribe or limit these individual freedoms, we must pay attention. In fact, wanting too much to limit individual freedoms, wanting too much to trample on individual freedoms justifies—after the fact—those who would attack this way of life. That is why we must pay attention.

Moreover, it is essential to be very clear. Thus, I will say from the start that the Bloc Quebecois is against this bill. From the first time this bill was presented—and it has had various numbers during the process—we have spoken out against some of its provisions, but they are still found in the bill currently known as Bill C-17.

It is not for lack of effort, nor lack of will, nor lack of reasoned arguments that we say that this bill is not what we want, because, from the start, we have said so. We have had a few victories, that is, the population at large, thanks to the Bloc, has had a few victories. Unfortunately, the government did not want to listen to all the arguments the Bloc has presented in the most constructive way possible.

We tried to alleviate various problems related to this legislation by tabling numerous amendments in committee. Unfortunately, our amendments were defeated by the Liberal majority. I want to share with the House the general tenor of our amendments, because it must be understood that the Bloc made an effort to be constructive and critical, while making an effort to ensure that this legislation does not destroy the balance between public security and individual freedom, which I mentioned in the beginning.

With regard to interim orders, Bill C-17 authorizes various ministers to issue such orders without first ensuring that they comply with the charter or the enabling legislation.

We tried to re-establish this preliminary check so that, before an interim order has effect, it is subject to the charter test, but the government voted this down.

With regard to the powers of the RCMP and CSIS, this legislation includes provisions that confer sweeping powers on the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service with regard to passenger information compiled by the airlines.

In good faith, we tried to amend the bill to limit the powers to retain or use information collected as a result. We wanted to prohibit this information from being used to execute a warrant of arrest.

We also wanted to ensure that the information collected would be destroyed within 24 hours after the plane, carrying the passengers on whom information had been collected, had landed, except if such information was reasonably necessary for transportation security purposes or an investigation related to national security. In this legislation, the time period within which such information must be destroyed remains seven days.

Finally, we also tried to institute an mechanism to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner would receive a copy of the reasons justifying why some information had been retained; this was also voted down.

We also tried to make several changes, namely to the sections concerning the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the biological and toxin weapons convention implementation act, and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act by suggesting amendments or by voting against certain clauses. Unfortunately, despite our efforts and good faith, despite all the energy we invested, the government did not listen, and that is too bad.

However, all our time and energy, arguments found and made, were, at times—but not often enough—welcomed by the government, especially with respect to military security zones. Eliminating military security zones from Bill C-17 represents a major victory for the general public and all those who phoned us, or sent email and letters expressing how worried they were about these provisions. We are proud to say that this victory was gained by the work of the Bloc Quebecois.

As for the declaration of special zones, this measure strikes us as far more reasonable than before. However, I can assure you we will be keeping a close eye on developments, and will remain extremely vigilant in order to speak out against any potential abuse.

The Bloc Quebecois will also do everything in its power to ensure that no military security zone is created in Quebec without the express consent of Quebec's national government.

The bill still contains provisions that allow various ministers to make interim orders. Minor changes were made but there is still no prior test for compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the enabling legislation by the Clerk of the Privy Council.

The absence of a prior charter test, and anything that has to do with interim orders, is at the heart of our opposition to this bill and is one of the main reasons the Bloc opposes Bill C-17 with all the vigour we are known for.

Let me now turn to the issue of privacy. As members know, we have the fundamental right in our society to do everything possible to prevent “Big Brother” from becoming a reality. In western democratic societies, a citizen has the right to ensure that his or her privacy is not being invaded by the government. Bill C-17 raises some concerns about our right to privacy which is--I say it again because it is important--a fundamental right in our justice system.

This government bill allows two individuals, namely the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Director of CSIS, to obtain information on passengers directly from airline companies and operators of seat reservation systems.

This information may be requested if there is an imminent threat to transportation safety or security. As regards the scope of the bill for CSIS, such information may also be requested for investigations relating to threats to Canada's security. Bill C-55, the predecessor of the bill now before the House, provided that information could be required to identify individuals for whom a warrant had been issued.

Generally speaking, the information gathered by the RCMP and CSIS is destroyed within seven days of being obtained or received, as I mentioned earlier, unless this information is reasonably necessary to maintain transportation safety, or to investigate a threat to Canada's security.

As I said before, the privacy commissioner is an officer of Parliament and as such does not report to the government, but rather to the whole House. He serves the people, not the government.

On May 6 of last year, the privacy commissioner issued a letter in which he voiced his concerns about Bill C-55 with regard to the gathering of information by the RCMP and CSIS. I will say again that the privacy commissioner is a neutral and objective observer who has the responsibility to warn us about any threat to privacy, including following the introduction of a bill.

When such an objective and independent officer as the privacy commissioner—and the same goes for the Auditor General—tells us something, it is the duty of parliamentarians, and especially of the government, to listen to what this officer has to say and to take that into account.

The privacy commissioner expressed reservations about two sets of provisions, namely those that permit the RCMP to use the personal information of all air travellers for the purpose of seeking out individuals who are subject to a warrant for any offence punishable by imprisonment for five years or more, and those that permit the RCMP and CSIS to retain the personal information of passengers for such purposes as searching for suspicious travel patterns. One can see these are indeed very broad powers.

Concerning the first point I mentioned, there was a problem with several provisions, including the definition of “warrant”, the provision allowing the RCMP to collect information in order to find people for whom a warrant has been issued, and the provision allowing the RCMP to disclose information on people under a warrant of arrest.

The Privacy Commissioner suggested that these provisions be eliminated. Our understanding is that the government tried to tighten up these problematic provisions, but was unsuccessful. It could not do it, and this comes as no surprise.

Even if the RCMP is no longer allowed to collect information in order to find a person under a warrant, it can still disclose to a peace officer the information that has been collected under Bill C-17, if it has reason to believe thatthe information would assist in the executionof a warrant.

As a matter of fact, the RCMP itself decides when transportation security is threatened, and it can then ask an air carrier for information on passengers. There is nothing to control the use of this provision. Members would agree that this is tantamount to giving the RCMP a free hand. And once the RCMP has this information, nothing prevents it from keeping the information if it gives the reasons for doing so.

In Bill C-17, the government has tightened up the definition of “warrant”. In the previous version, it could be a warrant issued in Canada in respectof the arrest of a person for the commissionof an offence that may be punishableunder any Act of Parliament by imprisonmentfor a term of five years or more. The definition now provides that the offence in question will be specified by regulations.

About the second point I mentioned earlier, the Privacy Commissioner had important reservations concerning the retention of the information.

First, the seven day period during which the RCMP and CSIS may keep the information is excessive; a 48 hour period would be sufficient. The fact that the RCMP and CSIS may keep this information indefinitely for security purposes is of concern. I hope that members will agree with me that all this should be controlled. Neither of the two amendments suggested by the Privacy Commissioner, this officer who is independent from the government, was retained.

Consequently, on November 1, 2002, the Privacy Commissioner issued a news release concerning Bill C-17, in which he mentioned that the amendments made to the bill were minor. Thus, he felt:

The provision in question, section 4.82 of both bills, would give the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information held by airlines about all Canadian air travellers on domestic as well as international flights.

He went on to say:

—my concern is that the RCMP would also be expressly empowered to use this information to seek out persons wanted on warrants for Criminal Code offences that have nothing to do with terrorism, transportation security or national security—

In Canada, it is well established that we are not required to identify ourselves to police unless we are being arrested or we are carrying out a licensed activity such as driving. The right to anonymity with regard to the state is a crucial privacy right. Since we are required to identify ourselves to airlines as a condition of air travel and since section 4.82 would give the RCMP unrestricted access to the passenger information obtained by airlines, this would set the extraordinarily privacy-invasive precedent of effectively requiring compulsory self-identification to the police.

We are not the ones who are saying this, it is the Privacy Commissioner, a representative of Parliament who is independent from the government. Let us listen to him.

Finally, the commissioner stated that the amendments proposed are an insult to Canadians' intelligence.

The changes that have been made in this provision in the new bill do nothing to address the fundamental issues of principle that are at stake.

The Government now proposes to have regulations limiting the Criminal Code offence warrants for which the RCMP will be searching. But this does nothing to address the fundamental point of principle that the police have no business using this extraordinary access to personal information to search for people wanted on warrants for any offences unrelated to terrorism.

As well, in the new bill the Government has removed the “dentification of persons for whom a warrant has been issued” as a “purpose” for accessing passenger information under the legislation. But this is meaningless--indeed disingenuous--since the RCMP would remain empowered to match this information against a database of persons wanted on warrants and to use such matches to bring about arrests. It insults the intelligence of Canadians to suggest, as the Government does in its press release accompanying the bill, that the RCMP may “incidentally” come upon individuals wanted on Criminal Code warrants--if the police are to match names of passengers against a database of individuals wanted on Criminal Code warrants, there can be nothing “incidental” about finding them.

The Privacy Commissioner ended his comments by launching an appeal to us in Parliament:

It is now up to Parliament to explain to these people that privacy is a fundamental human right of Canadians that must be respected, rather than treated with the apparent indifference that the Government is showing.

The Bloc Quebecois is acting on the appeal by the Privacy Commissioner, that independent officer of Parliament, independent of the government. He appealed to us as parliamentarians, saying, “You parliamentarians have a fundamental duty to protect the fundamental right of Quebeckers and Canadians to privacy. This government, with Bill C-17, is trying to limit that freedom, and you have a duty to oppose it”, and that is what we are doing.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in today's debate regarding Bill C-17. I want to point out that it basically is a reincarnation in many respects of Bill C-42 and Bill C-55, which brings me to my starting comments.

We all know what has happened since September 11. It changed not only the way we do things in terms of our day to day duties, but it also changed the long term, pragmatic policy decisions that impact not only on our country but on the world. At the time that the tragedy happened, it became clear to our community that we had a number of different deficiencies in terms of the services that were available to the local government. Provincial and federal government services had been cut back year after year. I am join those individuals who are raising the fact that Bill C-17 does not address some of the underfunding that has happened to our core services which has allowed some of the clear problems that we have today and which has opened them up in terms of vulnerabilities.

In our municipality in Windsor, what ended up happening is the local government had to take the lead once again. We have one of the busiest border crossings in the world. Actually 33% of the gross domestic product of Canada crosses at that border crossing to trade with 39 American states with which Canada is the number one trading partner. It was the local people who actually had to take the initiative and were called upon by the federal government to provide assistance.

As one classic example, our waterway along the Detroit River and our Great Lakes at both ends did not have the adequate resources. The municipal police force was called upon to use its boat as part of the actual policing of the area for other problems. That quite frankly is a sad statement because we have a municipal boat that basically is dedicated for policing water safety and has no capability to deal with transit ships that go through the actual system. This is one of the busiest waterways in the world between the pleasure craft and freighters that go through there. We were left with having to come up with some contribution to police the freighters with which there was concern at the time.

Bill C-17 is one of those things that is the thin edge of the wedge. We are looking at the issue of civil liberties and what information is being disclosed and monitored and at the same time shared openly with government bureaucracy in order to to track movements. That becomes problematic.

In my opinion, a good example of the government not acting responsibly is the tiering of our citizens by the United States. These are Canadians who have been here as a citizen for a year, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. They are now required to be fingerprinted and photographed and they have to check in and out of the United States just because of the country they come from. There are more than a dozen countries.

A good example is Lebanese Canadians. They are subjected to this and our government has not done enough to speak out about this. It has not said that our citizens are not a security risk. That is a big issue because it involves our trade. It involves the way that we communicate. It also sends a message about standing up for our own citizens, something that this government has not done. We still have not dealt with it. That has significant implications because if we are talking about Bill C-17 having the actual impact that it is going to and if our country does not stand up for its own citizens, it will not make any difference. That is important to note.

The lack of infrastructure funding is really evident. I can provide a classic example. Between our municipality and Detroit there is a train tunnel. People are using that train tunnel right now at their own risk. Some people are coming from the United States and some are leaving Canada. They are trying to cross the border undetected. They are doing that at a high degree of risk. Often there is not enough room in the train corridor in the tunnel itself and people actually die while attempting to cross the border. What is unacceptable is that the local municipality ends up having to police this area. It is a private asset that has some security measures but not nearly enough. People are actually using this as a route.

Once again, it does not matter what type of policies are put in place. If we do not have the basic services available in order to respond, they are not going to be there. That is a big problem for us.

We believe that Bill C-17 could actually dilute more parts of the government that have not had the adequate resources. It also goes once again to the philosophy on how the government responds. I use the example of the NSEERS program, the entry-exist registration system, and the tiering of Canadian citizenship, but it is also the way the government handles sovereignty issues. Over the summer there were two situations that gave me great concern due to the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Foreign Affairs not responding adequately enough.

In one situation American police officers from Detroit, Michigan were chasing someone through the Detroit-Windsor tunnel. They came through the tunnel and past our customs people. They stopped the vehicle, arrested the person and took the person back to the United States. They came over, drew their guns in our plaza, on our soil, took somebody back to their country and did not even notify our local people. We have Canadian citizens there. We have visitors. We have a whole number of different confidence issues. What did the government do about it? Not a single thing.

Imagine if our Canada customs people went into the United States, apprehended someone, brought them back and we did not tell the American authorities, especially right in the middle of their customs and immigration centres. It is deplorable. They were Detroit police officers.

Another Detroit police officer came over to our country last summer. He was hiding a weapon. He was supposed to check in the weapon. He was caught and brought over. As he was trying to hide his weapon, it discharged and he shot himself in the leg. He was seriously hurt. Once again the government did not object. It did not file a protest. There was nothing done. The government allowed this to happen.

What good are some of these security measures if we do not have the proper discourse with different people, including our friends across the way? If we do not have that, we set ourselves up for loss and failure.

Bill C-17 once again calls for a number of different things that have serious civil liberty issues: how much data is kept on a person, how that data is to be used and more important, where it will go. We have raised concerns about that, as has the Privacy Commissioner. He stated:

It is in fact one of the various concerns you have heard and will hear as a committee, probably the easiest to fix, because it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on either transportation security or national security against terrorism, which of course are the objects of this bill.

It also quantifies together a whole group of Canadian citizens who are honourable, who have not had problems with the law, who have paid their taxes and are law-abiding citizens. The real concern about the bill is where that information will go and where it will be used.

I want to end my summary by once again noting that we need to improve our current infrastructure of resources, especially our security measures for our Canada customs people who are at the border, at Windsor and other places, where they rely on local officials. They do not have the RCMP active on site, for which I have been advocating. We need to provide those resources up front.

We will not be able to make ourselves more secure with more bureaucratic structures. We need to make sure those good men and women who are on the front lines have the proper resources and the support of a government that will actually back them up to ensure our safety. We need to do that first and foremost. If that does not happen, then the bill will fail.

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

[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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased over the following weeks to continue to elaborate on the program from now until December 12 for the benefit of the hon. member and for anyone else. More specifically, about the following week, I wish to express the following by way of the business statement.

This afternoon, we will continue with the debate on the opposition motion.

Tomorrow, the House will return to the motion to refer Bill C-49, the electoral boundaries bill, to committee before second reading. This will be followed by Bill C-45, the corporate liability bill, or Westray bill if you like, and Bill C-34, the ethics commissioner bill.

On Monday, we will begin with bills not completed this week, Friday in particular. We will then proceed to Bill C-46, respecting market fraud, Bill C-50 respecting veterans, Bill C-17, the public safety bill, and finally Bill C-36, the Library and Archives of Canada bill.

Tuesday will be an allotted day.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will begin consideration of Bill C-48, respecting resource taxation, and will then return to any of the business just listed that has not been completed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I usually answer about the legislative program in the House and that is what I will do now.

This afternoon we will continue with the business of supply, with votes scheduled for 8 p.m., pursuant to the arrangement made earlier.

The business that the government will put forward before the House tomorrow, pursuant to another agreement which I will be submitting to the House a little later this afternoon, will be Bill C-42, the Antarctic agreement, Bill C-44, respecting compensation for certain military personnel, and then Bill C-35, the military judges bill. If there is any time left, we will then consider Bill C-34.

The program for next week would be Bill C-7, first nations governance, Bill C-17, public safety, and Bill C-13 respecting reproductive technologies, as well as other legislation which has returned from committee, for instance, legislation such as the sex offender registry and bills like that.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate.

The bill has followed a rather long and circuitous route to this point. Clearly there is a need, given the duration since legislation of this sort has been before the House of Commons. It is somewhere in the range of 100 years since we have updated this particular section of the Criminal Code that deals specifically with the issue of cruelty to animals. This is something concerns all Canadians and something that invokes a very emotional response from most.

It is my view and the view of the Progressive Conservative Party that this is the type of legislation because of its broad ramifications that we have to be extremely careful with.

The Senate has played an important role in what I would describe as refining and improving this bill. The bill deals in great detail with the need to protect animals, balanced of course with the livelihood of Canadians whose virtual well-being and existence are derived from their interaction with animals. I am speaking of course of the traditional farmers, hunters and trappers just to name a few.

The need to hold those accountable and punish individuals who would intentionally injure or kill animals is without a doubt a priority. Further to that point there is clear evidence now coming from various sources and psychological studies that link individuals, youth, who show aggression and have abusive tendencies toward animals with a tendency to do the same to fellow humans. That underscores again the importance of the Government of Canada reacting to this and bringing forward legislation which sends the proper message of accountability, denunciation and deterrence for individuals who would be prone to abuse animals.

The cases of cruelty toward animals that have come forward and the cases that I myself have been involved in prosecuting are totally disturbing and would shock the sensibilities of most Canadians.

I am supportive of many aspects of this legislation. I believe that the consultation on this bill was extensive. We heard from all sectors of those affected and groups that have taken on the specific task of protecting animals. Their input was comprehensive and very helpful in drafting the bill.

The decision to remove the current Criminal Code provisions which deal with animal cruelty from the property section of the Criminal Code is one which has invoked a very strong, and I would suggest, negative response. The proprietary aspects of animal use have always been extremely important to animal cruelty laws, but also important to those individuals who derive their livelihood from working with animals.

Moving animal cruelty out of part 11 of the Criminal Code removes the protection that animal users had by virtue of section 429(2). This important section currently permits acts to be done with legal justification or excuse or with colour of right, therefore providing a built-in exemption for activities in particular that involve hunting, trapping and farming where there would be an unwitting or unjust finding that an individual has contravened the law in the pursuit of their livelihood. That built-in protection was removed when we took these animal cruelty sections out of the property sections and put them in a stand-alone scenario.

I do, however, share the concerns of many Canadians that the definition of animal cruelty involving any animal that has the capacity to feel pain was in need of amendment and of further clarification. Through such a definition I believe we have found the proper balance.

Concerns were expressed early on in our deliberations at the justice committee that there might be some stretch that would involve prosecutions for things such as baiting a hook or boiling a lobster. These types of activities are obviously a stretch to suggest that they would have resulted in prosecution. Nevertheless, when we are dealing with something as important as this, it is important to give clarity to those affected.

Therefore our party has been unequivocal in its support for improving and enhancing the Criminal Code provisions dealing with animals and cruelty to animals.

There were a number of changes made by the Senate which highlighted the usefulness of the Senate to examine something like this. In a calmer light certain provisions were enhanced and were changed. The aboriginal exemption was one which was highly contentious, one which is I believe welcome and has again struck the balance needed.

The former minister, when dealing with this issue of carelessness over the drafting of Bill C-17, the original bill, used words such as “wilful”, “cruelty” and “unnecessary pain” in the drafting of this bill, Bill C-15B. However I hearken back to the decision to take it out of property and put it into a stand alone section. That in my view was a mistake. It would have been much simpler to make these amendments and leave it in the property section. The argument against that was that it would inhibit the ability to prosecute those cases. I think that was a false argument and a false premise.

Enhancing this law is the purpose. I believe that has occurred. The protections that were built in by leaving it in the property section would in no way inhibit the accountability aspects. The elevated fines and the elevated potential jail time would still be there and would still be available to the crown to pursue through prosecution.

The aspects of the legislation which touch upon the need to prevent any sort of needless pain or suffering of course are also embraced and quickly supported by our party. There are many examples, as I referred to earlier, where cases that proceeded through the courts resulted in inadequate fines and inadequate results that did not send the proper message to society.

The laws to protect animals must be very clear and unequivocal in sending the message to individuals who are prone to this type of activity.

I took the step of introducing to the House of Commons a bill specifically aimed at identifying prosecution in the area of puppy mills. This is something that came to public attention in recent years where animals, not just dogs, were being raised for mass sale commercially and where animals were treated to the most abysmal conditions. This is still a problem and perhaps is in need of a specific reference in the Criminal Code to address anyone so inclined.

The traditional practices were under examination throughout this process of drafting the bill. Hunting, fishing, farming and many other legitimate activities do not fit the description of mean spirited, violence or intentional cruelty toward animals.

Therefore it is imperative that we throughout these discussions underline that animal cruelty legislation must be clearly targeted against individuals who engage in brutal activities against animals, not the legitimate type of activities that we are all aware occur.

When one considers the need for this type of progressive legislation, there were a number of discussions that already took place here with respect to the need to have a fulsome discussion that engaged Canadians and allowed them to come and reflect upon these potential changes. I believe this process has been one of the most comprehensive and one of the most useful in which I have personally partaken.

I support the provisions of the bill which provide the crown with the ability to prosecute an offence for individuals who wilfully or recklessly or without regard for the consequences do so. That type of language leaves no doubt as to the malice aforethought, as it is often referred to, of an act, that there was an intention to cause the harm.

The sections go on to list the type of activity that would fit that description. This is clearly an area where judges, prosecutors and defence, those involved in the prosecution of the case, will have an opportunity to put forward what I would suggest are common sense arguments based on the evidence.

Where it sometimes does become blurred is where individuals who are the owners of property and premises where animals are kept and the line can then become grey.

My colleague from South Shore referred to an animal that might accidentally have its head caught in a fence and therefore choke itself. There is a high threshold expected if every farmer is required to ensure in every instance that the fences will not cause this unintended result. I suggest that the common sense doctrine will have to be applied in any situation where that would occur.

I agree as well that everyone commits an offence when they fail to provide reasonable care to animals. Thus we are talking about the aspect of neglect, acts of omission, where premises are left in a dangerous condition or animals are left in such condition that their well-being is in question. This again is something that would be viewed objectively based on evidence that would be adduced.

I support the sections of the bill which allow courts to prohibit individuals convicted of cruelty from owning an animal in the future. That is a very important consequence. Where a person, who has been convicted under these sections, has demonstrated this recklessness and has met that threshold before a court of law, that should be the consequence. They should not be permitted to be in possession of animals, having caused that type of harm and distress to an animal.

Presently the sections I believe did not adequately reflect the seriousness of this type of offence. I hope this will raise the benchmark that judges have applied to individuals convicted under the current sections of the Criminal Code.

I have the greatest respect for those individuals in particular who have come forward and who have participated in this process to ensure that not only their personal interests, but the interests of all Canadians who work with animals are protected.

The legislation, coupled with the Senate amendments, is a great improvement upon the original bill. I do not intend to get into a long recitation on what happened with the legislation, but clearly we have seen the bill divided and subdivided on a number of occasions. The legislation was before Parliament in a previous session. It did not pass. It went back to committee. It has been back and forth between the House of Commons and committee, and the Senate as it now appears.

We have seen, although the process itself can sometimes be elongated, that it can work. Some of the necessary changes that did not occur in our House were dealt with very effectively in the other place. I commend our senators for having taken such an interest and picked up the cudgel on this to improve the legislation as we now see it.

Having said that, this bill is long overdue. It is one that has been extremely contentious. I am satisfied, having spoken to those who will be most directly affected and those who have taken such a passionate interest in the protection of animals, that we now have a bill with which I think people can live.

There is always room for improvement. I suggest any bill that is churned out of this place will be subject to examination by the courts. The process itself, as I referred to, is not always pretty. It is a bit like, and I hesitate to use this example, sausage-making. People do not want to see how it is made but it is the result that counts.