Bill C-51 (Historical)

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, which authorizes Government of Canada institutions to disclose information to Government of Canada institutions that have jurisdiction or responsibilities in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada. It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 enacts the Secure Air Travel Act in order to provide a new legislative framework for identifying and responding to persons who may engage in an act that poses a threat to transportation security or who may travel by air for the purpose of committing a terrorism offence. That Act authorizes the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to establish a list of such persons and to direct air carriers to take a specific action to prevent the commission of such acts. In addition, that Act establishes powers and prohibitions governing the collection, use and disclosure of information in support of its administration and enforcement. That Act includes an administrative recourse process for listed persons who have been denied transportation in accordance with a direction from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and provides appeal procedures for persons affected by any decision or action taken under that Act. That Act also specifies punishment for contraventions of listed provisions and authorizes the Minister of Transport to conduct inspections and issue compliance orders. Finally, this Part makes consequential amendments to the Aeronautics Act and the Canada Evidence Act.
Part 3 amends the Criminal Code to, with respect to recognizances to keep the peace relating to a terrorist activity or a terrorism offence, extend their duration, provide for new thresholds, authorize a judge to impose sureties and require a judge to consider whether it is desirable to include in a recognizance conditions regarding passports and specified geographic areas. With respect to all recognizances to keep the peace, the amendments also allow hearings to be conducted by video conference and orders to be transferred to a judge in a territorial division other than the one in which the order was made and increase the maximum sentences for breach of those recognizances.
It further amends the Criminal Code to provide for an offence of knowingly advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general. It also provides a judge with the power to order the seizure of terrorist propaganda or, if the propaganda is in electronic form, to order the deletion of the propaganda from a computer system.
Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to provide for the increased protection of witnesses, in particular of persons who play a role in respect of proceedings involving security information or criminal intelligence information, and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 4 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to permit the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to take, within and outside Canada, measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada, including measures that are authorized by the Federal Court. It authorizes the Federal Court to make an assistance order to give effect to a warrant issued under that Act. It also creates new reporting requirements for the Service and requires the Security Intelligence Review Committee to review the Service’s performance in taking measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada.
Part 5 amends Divisions 8 and 9 of Part 1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) define obligations related to the provision of information in proceedings under that Division 9;
(b) authorize the judge, on the request of the Minister, to exempt the Minister from providing the special advocate with certain relevant information that has not been filed with the Federal Court, if the judge is satisfied that the information does not enable the person named in a certificate to be reasonably informed of the case made by the Minister, and authorize the judge to ask the special advocate to make submissions with respect to the exemption; and
(c) allow the Minister to appeal, or to apply for judicial review of, any decision requiring the disclosure of information or other evidence if, in the Minister’s opinion, the disclosure would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person.

Digital Privacy Act

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague really put his finger on the problem, which is rather widespread and applies to other bills besides the one before us today.

For instance, following public pressure, the government unfortunately had to withdraw Bill C-30 from the order paper. However, there was also Bill C-51 and Bill C-13 on cybercrime. Now we are talking about Bill S-4, which completely destroys Canada's privacy protection regime. It waters down the criteria for obtaining warrants and, in some cases, even allows authorities to access the personal information of Canadians without a warrant.

I wonder whether the member could tell us just how troubled he is that this government says here in the House and elsewhere that it wants to protect Canadians, and yet it introduces a number of bills, like Bill C-51, Bill C-13 and Bill S-4, that put Canadians' privacy at risk.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill S-4, which would amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, called PIPEDA. The bill has the rather misleading title of the digital privacy act.

I will be speaking against this bill for a number of reasons that have been articulated very well in past debates by the member for Terrebonne—Blainville, our digital issues critic. She has brought in a bill of her own. The government took parts of it and did not go as far as it needed to, to actually protect the digital privacy of Canadians.

I would like to, first, talk about why this is such an important bill. Second, I will talk about the history of getting it here. Last, I will talk about some of the critical problems with this bill and propose an amendment at the end of my remarks.

E-commerce is the backbone of the modern Canadian economy and it is only going to be more important going forward. Think of our children and their use of digital material.

My colleague, the member for Toronto—Danforth, made some comments about e-commerce and why this bill, which underscores legal protections for privacy and e-commerce, is so important. He said that the world's largest taxi company has no cars. It is the largest taxi company because it has personal information. It is called Uber.

The world's largest accommodations company, Airbnb, owns no property, but it is the richest and largest company because it owns personal information. The world's largest retailer has absolutely no inventory. He was referring to Alibaba in China.

As we move to what my colleague called the Internet of Things, by 2020, we will have 26 billion devices connected to the Internet. I hope that people appreciate that we are moving into an economy where we need to know the rules of the game and we need to know that our personal privacy in the private sector is protected. Business wants that certainty and consumers demand that what is left of their privacy be treated fairly by those private sector organizations that hold their information.

Canada is really in a unique position on the planet. We are halfway between the European Union, which has a very aggressive data protection regime, and the United States, which has sectoral legislation but not a comprehensive private sector law like PIPEDA, the bill that is before us in its amended form.

I say that we are halfway between those two regimes because, under PIPEDA, Canada has managed to create what is called a substantially similar regime to the European Union. That means that e-commerce companies in England, Ireland, France, and the 28 other countries that make up the EU can confidently share their personal information with Canadians because they know that they will have substantially similar protection. Canada achieved that. The United States does not have anything like that, so companies like Google and Facebook will often use Canada as a launching pad.

If we can make privacy protection sufficient in Canada, it will likely be sufficient for Europeans, who have had the most stringent requirements of privacy on the planet. It is important that we get this right.

It is amazing and very timely that we are having this debate at this time because on Monday of this week a clear signal was given by the Council of Ministers in the European Union that it is going to go for a regulation soon, not the directive that has been enforced for some time. After two years, all 28 countries will have to come up with an even more stringent regime.

That is why this bill is so problematic. It would not help small business, as I will describe, and it certainly would not give consumers the protection that the courts say that they are entitled to. I refer to the case of Spencer in 2014, where warrantless searches were said to be not on for Canadians, yet they seem to be just fine in this bill, which is odd. We need it get it right from a commercial point of view, as well.

I am indebted to Professor Michael Geist, who testified before the industry committee and the Senate, and who is so prolific and thoughtful in his analysis of private sector privacy legislation and other privacy regimes. He talks about how it is has taken us eight to nine years to get to this state.

I wanted to talk about this because the government's ineptitude in helping the e-commerce industry that I talked about and protecting the privacy of Canadians is on full display in the history of this bill.

The Conservatives tell us that it is urgent, that we must get on with it. Well, that is because they have dropped the ball, as I will describe in many ways. It has taken eight or nine years to get to this situation.

The Conservatives left an earlier version of a privacy bill sitting for two years in the House of Commons with no movement whatsoever and then it died at prorogation. How did that happen? In November 2006, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics undertook its hearings on this reform. That was one year later than the five-year review process required by the act.

Just to back up, PIPEDA, the bill before us that is being amended, requires parliamentarians to review it after five years. They could not even get that deadline together.

In 2007, there was a report recommending certain things be done. Nothing seemed to happen. First reading was in 2010 for Bill C-29, the first PIPEDA reform. Second reading of the bill was in October. In September 2011 there was the first reading of Bill C-12, the second attempt to reform PIPEDA. That never got past second reading. It died when the government prorogued. Then another bill, this Bill S-4 was introduced in April 2014. This was the third try. Three strikes are lucky, I guess.

Here we are before Parliament with a bill that when it was in committee, the government said solemnly that it was urgent that we get on with it because it did not want to take a chance on any further delays and amendments. It is laughable the way the government treats the backbone of e-commerce, this privacy legislation. It has taken eight or nine years to get to where we are tonight. In the dying days of Parliament we are debating the legislation. It shows how important this must be to the government of the day.

In my riding, where we have a thriving e-commerce industry, with start-ups trying to develop apps and so forth, the bill is important and the government treats it with a history of neglect, which is the best way I can put the ineptitude I have described.

It is critical for small businesses, as I will describe, because they just do not have the wherewithal of large business to comply with some of the provisions of the legislation. I will come to that in a moment.

What does the bill do? Some of the things it does right is that it has finally agreed with endless Privacy Commissioner recommendations that there ought to be mandatory breach disclosure. If there has been a breach of data by a company, where it is sent to the wrong place and suddenly my personal information is found in the back of a taxi cab on a data stick, someone has to be told about it. That is pretty simple and obviously long overdue. That is a good thing to have in the bill.

Second, there are increased enforcement powers for the Privacy Commissioner, including the notion of compliance agreements that companies would enter into. This is a long-standing consumer protection approach that has now found its way into the bill.

According to experts, such as Mr. Lawford, testifying on behalf of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, it would likely result in fewer reported breaches because it leaves the determination of whether a breach causes a real risk of significant harm entirely in the hands of the private sector companies.

Do the words “conflict of interest” seem to come up? They do and that obvious conflict of interest is fatal to the purpose of the bill. Why is a company going to want to blow the whistle on itself? It seems a bit odd and others have suggested, as has my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, in her Bill C-475, that it ought to be for the Privacy Commissioner, an independent officer of Parliament, to pass on that, not the industries themselves. That was the subject of much criticism in the industry committee, which studied Bill S-4.

That gives me a chance to talk about the attempt by the opposition to actually get meaningful debate in the industry committee. Since I got here, probably the most disappointing thing I have found is the government's utter indifference to any amendments unless they come from its side of the aisle.

There is an effort to have a real dialogue and to improve this and come up with a kind of unanimous support for something which is technical in nature, but the government said no to every single amendment, which, of course, in my experience is the way it does it every single time. I have been on two committees and I have not seen one amendment passed that anybody but the government proposes.

Trying to co-operate with the government to do something which is at the backbone of the new economy and it will not even talk to us. Apparently, that is how the government wants to do business. Fortunately, like so many Canadians, I hope that these are the dying days of a government with such arrogance and indifference to what Canadians want.

The efforts to try to fix this bill fell on deaf ears. My colleague, the digital critic from Terrebonne—Blainville, proposed that the Privacy Commissioner be the one who determined whether a data breach was significant enough to report, which makes sense, as opposed to the fox in the henhouse, where a company has to decided whether it is big or little.

That is not for banks to decide, whether they weigh their reputational risk that they might have versus consumers' rights. I know who could do that, an officer of Parliament. That would be the right person to do that. That is what my colleague suggested. The Conservatives propose putting the burden on companies.

Here is the problem with that, and not only the obvious conflict of interest but there are large companies, think banks, telecoms, companies of that size, that have departments that are responsible for privacy protection. More and more companies have what is called chief privacy officers to regulate this very technical area of the law.

They do a good job sometimes, but they often have this penchant that they obviously feel when they are trying to protect privacy, which is their job description, and not make a career-limiting move when information that is disclosed could cause harm, and the company would be angry with them and shoot the messenger. I have talked to CPOs in companies that tell me that the conflict is alive and well and I can understand that.

Small companies do not have these chief privacy officers, for example, to determine whether there is a significant breach or a significant risk of harm. They have no idea what to do. They want to co-operate, but they do not have the personnel or expertise to do it.

My colleague reasonably suggested that we give them a little help by letting them have access to the Privacy Commissioner's expertise and resources. Is that not a common sense provision? Is that not one that would help those small start-ups in the e-commerce industry that would really like the opportunity to do the right thing but do not have the budget to do it?

The economy in my community, the largest sector now, is not tourism or hospitality, it is high tech. The people who are producing the largest contribution to the Victoria economy are people who are just in this situation, wanting to understand the rules of the game in the new e-commerce, looking to the government to give them clarity, make it easy for them to do the right thing, so they can compete internationally, as they are doing so effectively, and to be onside with the European Union's incredibly stringent rules.

Guess what? They do not have a CPO, paid $150,000 a year or whatever, like the large banks would. The government has done nothing to assist them and they are angry about it. They do not understand why this so-called business-friendly government simply does not get it.

Some 18 amendments were proposed by the NDP and 18 amendments declined by the government of the day. We tried to work it out, but the government just wanted to jam it through. To add insult to injury, for the 97th time it used time allocation on a bill of a technical nature like this. I think the government is over 100 times now.

In the history of Parliament, has there ever been a government that has done this more often? I certainly do not know. I want to study it. I have a student looking at this because the arrogance and the anti-democratic behaviour of the government has to be exposed. The 97th time was for a bill on digital privacy. It is shocking and shameful that we are in this world today with this government.

The Supreme Court has told us that warrantless searches are wrong. They are unconstitutional. My colleague from Toronto—Danforth said we should send it to the court for a constitutional reference. We cannot have yet another loss in the Supreme Court. How many would that be? I have lost count. It is six or seven. How about having a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada?

The leader of the opposition asked for that today with respect to Bill C-51. The government, of course, would never do that. It just wants to go lose again in the Supreme Court.

The Spencer case in 2014 established that warrantless searches are a bad thing. How can the government then put these searches into Bill S-4, the bill before us, and pretend it is going to be constitutional? It is great work for lawyers. I have many friends who welcome the government's position because it is a make-work project for constitutional lawyers, but is it helping the Canadian taxpayers? Is it helping the e-commerce businesses, those little businesses from coast to coast that are struggling in this international economy? Do they have the clarity they need to go forward? Why do we have to waste our time with yet another Supreme Court loss by the government? It makes no sense.

Could the government have co-operated a little with people of good faith who wanted to make it better and solve this problem, as New Democrats tried to do in committee? One would think the government would welcome that, but it simply said no.

My next point is kind of a technical thing, but I want to raise it. We talked about breach notification, and I want to give an idea of how complicated this is for the little mom-and-pop or individual family businesses that are now arising in the economy. Clause 10, which would add section 10.1 to PIPEDA, talks about the kind of notification that is required when there is a breach. I want to give an idea of how complicated this can be and how lack of clarity means something.

Proposed subsection 10.1(5) says, “The notification shall be conspicuous and shall be given directly to the individual in the prescribed form and manner, except in prescribed circumstances, in which case it shall be given indirectly in the prescribed form and manner.”

Three times the word “prescribed” is mentioned, which means it will be prescribed by regulation to follow later. There would be regulations that would define the kinds of things that would have to be done to give notification of a breach. However, as an example, let us take a small business that is trying to do the right thing. When there is a breach, it wants to notify people immediately. What is it going to do? Until there are regulations, it is utterly meaningless.

I know the government will bring in regulations eventually. That is a good thing, and I am sure companies are looking forward to seeing them, but as they plan ahead in this incredibly dynamic sector, they do not have a clue, and neither do we. None of us can say what those prescribed requirements are, because “prescribed” means to follow later in regulations, regulations nowhere to be found. People will have to try to figure that out. People sitting in a little start-up in Victoria or St. John's or Toronto or Montreal will have to try understand how to work their way through this difficult bill.

It is a history of neglect. It is a history of failure to listen to the opposition, which wanted to work together to create this regime. It has a history of eight or nine years in coming to the dying days of Parliament, but we should not worry, because it is urgent now, according to the Minister of Industry.

New Democrats do not believe it.

Therefore, I move:

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

“this House decline to give third reading to Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, because it:

a) threatens the privacy protections of Canadians by allowing for the voluntary disclosure of their personal information among organizations without the knowledge or consent of the individuals affected;

b) fails to eliminate loopholes in privacy law that allow the backdoor sharing of personal information between Internet service providers and government agencies;

c) fails to put in place a supervision mechanism to ensure that voluntary disclosures are made only in extreme circumstances;

d) does not give the Privacy Commissioner of Canada adequate order-making powers to enforce compliance with privacy law; and

e) proposes a mandatory data-breach reporting mechanism that will likely result in under-reporting of breaches.”

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure for me to ask my colleague opposite a question on behalf of my constituents from Alfred-Pellan in Laval.

In the bills that the Conservatives introduce, the devil is often in the details. When examining the proposals set out in Bill S-4, I had some concerns that I would like to raise.

One of those concerns in particular reminds me of the nightmare of Bill C-51 and its lack of a proper oversight mechanism. Bill S-4 presents the same type of problem. It would allow greater access to personal information without a warrant and without provisions for an oversight mechanism.

In fact, I am wondering why the Conservative government is working so hard to allow snooping without a warrant and why it is creating bigger holes with bills such as Bill S-4.

Public Safety

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present petitions on behalf of my constituents on three different topics.

The first one is against Bill C-51, the dangerous, vague, and likely ineffective proposed law by the Conservatives. The petitioners want to stop this attack on our civil liberties.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 gives our law enforcement and security agencies all of the powers they typically have across major western governments to deal with very real security threats, things like sharing information between departments and having the ability to use peace bonds in case of imminent threat. I could go through those.

Of course, the NDP is always against these things, always against this kind of thing, votes against every single piece of security legislation ever put forward because of its extreme and ideological positions. What would we expect from leader who thinks Osama bin Laden is still alive and there is no such thing as a terrorist attack in Canada?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is using Bill C-51 to attack our rights and freedoms while offering no proof that this law will actually protect Canadians.

If the Prime Minister is so confident of the legality of Bill C-51, why does he not simply refer it to the Supreme Court prior to royal assent?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for allowing me to clarify some important matters regarding Bill C-51 and the changes it would bring to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. It is a piece of legislation I would encourage that member and all members to be supporting.

As the members of the House are aware, Bill C-51 would give CSIS a clear new mandate to disrupt threats to the security of Canada at home and abroad. This mandate would include a number of safeguards to ensure that CSIS operations respect the rule of law and the charter.

For example, the bill sets out that all measures taken against threats to the security of Canada be reasonable and proportional in the circumstances, and before CSIS could take any measure that would normally be contrary to Canadian law or that would affect charter rights, CSIS would have to obtain a court warrant.

The warrant process for threat disruption in Bill C-51 is built closely on the existing CSIS warrant system. This system has successfully protected the rights of Canadians since the creation of CSIS in 1984.

The hon. member stated that issuing warrants is not the same as judicial oversight. We respectfully disagree. The hon. member may not be aware of just how much information is put before judges when CSIS applies for a warrant. Judges receive extensive documentation describing the threat to the security of Canada and exactly how CSIS proposes to address that threat. They can then ask questions and place any conditions on CSIS they deem to be in the public interest.

For these reasons, the warrant process is an effective, time-tested form of judicial oversight. It gives impartial legal experts, not politicians, the final decision on sensitive CSIS operations.

I would note that the safeguards set out in Bill C-51 go beyond those placed on many allied intelligence services. Not every country has a stringent system of court warrants for intelligence work.

I would also remind members that all CSIS operations remain subject to review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC. Indeed, the recent budget doubled SIRC's resources, giving it the means to keep on top of the new and existing mandates of CSIS.

Bill C-51 would also create specific new reporting requirements for SIRC that would ensure Parliament is kept apprised of the disruptive activities that may be undertaken by CSIS.

The combination of independent review and judicial oversight in Bill C-51 would make certain that CSIS uses its new mandate in a lawful and responsible manner.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in adjournment proceedings to pursue a question I initially asked on April 30.

Tragically, and I do believe it is a tragedy for our country, the subject of my question, the so-called anti-terrorism act, Bill C-51, has now passed the House under time allocation. It was pushed through without adequate study. It has also been passed in the Senate of our country. I do believe the Senate has a role for sober second thought and it should have put forward amendments, and those amendments should have come back to the House for further consideration.

However, as it happens, my opportunity to pursue the question that I had asked on April 30 comes today on June 16, so I will pursue it in the interest of public education and perhaps even the education of members opposite.

There are many critical issues before us in Bill C-51 such as the infringement on our civil liberties, while simultaneously making us less safe, less able to anticipate, interrupt and prevent terrorist attacks. A bill that makes us less safe while destroying our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is quite an accomplishment, if one takes a dark view of things. However, the question I asked back on April 30 related in a very straightforward fashion to terminology used by the Minister of Public Safety.

There has been an attempt throughout the sales job on Bill C-51 to tell us that it includes the concept of oversight. Moreover, the Minister of Public Safety claimed that it includes judicial oversight. In fact, it includes no such thing.

In the time remaining, I hope to set out what I have learned about judicial oversight, review and warrant provisions from many expert witnesses who testified before the House and the Senate, and drawing on my own background as a practising lawyer.

The reality is that Canada has no parliamentary oversight of security operations. There is no actual oversight of any security operations and less review than any other country within our Five Eyes partners.

The question I asked on April 30 was answered, or at least responded to, by the government House leader who said, “We chose to have judges review these matters rather than politicians”. He claims that there is judicial oversight because there is a requirement for a CSIS agent, under part 4 of the bill, to get a warrant from a Federal Court judge before breaking our domestic laws or violating our charter rights. It is an extraordinary provision.

Legal experts, such as Professor Craig Forcese and Professor Kent Roach, described that provision in part 4 as a “constitutional breach warrant”. It is unheard of in any democracy around the world to be able to go to a Federal Court judge in a private, secret hearing, with no public advocates such as the special advocates that we have in the case of security certificates. No public interest representation is in the room, just the CSIS agents, a Federal Court judge and a demand for a warrant.

What are these various terms?

“Review” is what the Security Intelligence Review Committee does. It is made up of a series of people, part-time, who meet infrequently to review what has already happened. In the case of the Canadian Border Services, it does not have review oversight or oversight. The RCMP has a public complaints commission that allows complaints to be heard, but no actual oversight. CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, has no oversight or review.

An expert on security from the U.K., Mr. Fogarty, an MI5 agent, spoke to the Senate and said that when asked by his U.K. colleagues what they would copy in the U.K. from the Canadian security system, he replied that he would urge that they not copy a single thing because Canada's security system was a disaster waiting to happen.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question

There is an aspect of the bill that I forgot to mention in my speech, but I will not mention it now.

There is something very troubling about the Liberals, and there is no denying it. When we studied the anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-51, the Liberals said that they did not agree with the bill, but that they would vote for it, and once they took power—which is highly unlikely—they would change things.

What is very troubling is that they are doing the same thing with Bill S-7, despite the opinion of the majority of witnesses, who pointed out many problems with different parts of the bill. Those problems make it almost impossible to adopt the bill in its current form, or without significant amendments. In the end, we would find ourselves with a bill that is both counterproductive and unsatisfactory. Thus, the Liberal approach is really pointless. It is a dead end.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is typical of the Liberals. They will say one thing and do another. On Bill C-51, they said they were for it although they were against it, but they were actually going to vote against it. It is the same thing with this bill. They were against it although they were for some of the things in it, but they are going to vote with the government. That party cannot take a stand.

Now that they are trailing in the polls, Liberals are trying to adopt some of the very policies that the NDP has offered over the last four or five years. Canadians realize that this is too little, too late for the little party over in the corner.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

On the issue of partisanship, we need only recall the sad spectacle we witnessed last week during question period. The Conservatives and the Liberals accused each other of having the worst record when it came to immigration and being the most so-called racist party, and here I am using their words, not my own.

In view of that sad spectacle, we must not forget that we are talking about the lives of people and victims. This is not the time to be engaging in vote buying and trying to divide people. That is why we are speaking out against the title of the bill.

In addition, as my colleague said and as I said in my speech, the fact that a bill like this was announced at a campaign-style event in the greater Toronto area reveals a purely vote-seeking and partisan intent. It shows a lack of any desire to solve the problem and a lack of consideration for the victims of horrible acts.

The same thing is happening in relation to a number of issues. We need only think of Bill C-51. When it comes to security and fundamental freedoms, the government can only hurl insults, divide people and make announcements at campaign-style events. That is not the way to govern or the kind of leadership the public is looking for. Most importantly, it is not the way to deal with horrors like these.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill S-7. Indeed, there are a number of problems with this bill. We can start with the easiest and most obvious point: the title. We rarely want to spend time talking about the title of a bill, but it must be said that a number of witnesses, stakeholders and elected members talked about this at committee. Criticism was voiced about the fact that the title refers to barbaric cultural practices. The reason for raising this point is that since it was elected, this government has used short titles, which simplify what are sometimes overly long titles, as political tools to pander to a particular base, and sometimes even to sow division. An example is the omnibus crime bill entitled safe streets and communities act. By using titles like these, the government is able to pursue its demagoguery, the aim being to portray the opposition as opposed to putting a halt to these practices, or opposed to safe and protected communities. I think this is a problem in the bill, but it is also a way of dividing people and playing them off against one another. This bill talks about barbaric cultural practices; it associates cultural practices with barbaric acts. That is problematic.

With this in mind, it is important to point out, as several of my colleagues have done, including the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, our critic in this area who made an excellent speech earlier today, that no one in the House, including the NDP, is in favour of violence against women. On the contrary, we denounce these horrifying acts. We ourselves are making proposals to put an end to these acts. For example, we have proposed that there be an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women. My colleague from Churchill moved a motion to adopt a strategy to end violence against women, one of many other measures we have proposed. All of this demonstrates that everyone in the House agrees that these horrible acts should be stopped. The problem is the approach taken, the tool used to achieve that objective. The title of the bill is a very bad start, because it is divisive. The consultation process was also problematic.

These are obviously very complex issues. Why? I have listened to several members talk about stories they have heard from people in other countries. The various things we hear about polygamy and forced marriages sometimes sound strange to people in Quebec and Canada. They are things we are less familiar with. As a result, it is difficult for us, as legislators, to enact good legislation on this subject when we have no experience with it. It is therefore important that we listen to the testimony in committee. With that in mind, and given the complexity and the unfamiliarity to some members in the House, we really need to stress the importance of consultation.

From the outset, even before the bill was introduced, there were flaws in the consultation carried out both before and during the drafting of the bill. Of course we are talking about consultations held behind closed doors, only by invitation of the minister. As a result, some people who would have wanted to participate and voice an opinion may not have been invited. That would have meant that all the different voices and views on this issue could have been heard. When a consultation is by invitation of the minister, it may fall into the trap of partisanship, of wanting to pander to a particular clientele and engaging in vote buying, and even of playing politics.

I believe that is not the only problem with the process. Not only did the committee not adopt any amendments, but the minister rejected the idea of the committee making any amendments, right from the start, before we even had a chance to debate this bill. That is a serious problem, because we all agree that we must find ways to end violence against women, especially since we want all cultural communities and people we have accepted into Canada to feel safe and welcome here and know that we will protect their rights.

From that perspective, it is a serious problem to see such closed-mindedness on the part of the minister and the Conservative government, because we simply want to try to find constructive solutions.

We should agree to work on all the issues on which we can all agree. There are always certain issues, however, that stand out in the crowd. Those would be, for example, matters of security such as Bill C-51, and the issue of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

One would think that we could reach unanimous agreement on these issues, just once. We want to see certain concerns rise above partisanship, and I think those include the issue of violence against women. The fact that the minister had such a closed mind even before we had a chance to debate this issue is very disturbing. It should also worry the Canadians we are trying to protect.

The government is always saying it wants to protect victims. However, it does not want to listen to them. That is a problem and we wonder how good the protective measures can be when it will not listen to the people it is trying to protect.

While we are talking about closed minds, let us also mention time allocation motions, sometimes known as closure. Right now we are trying to debate a bill but are subject to time allocation.

Last week the government set a regrettable record, when it imposed time allocation for the one-hundredth time, reaching 100 motions of closure. This record shows that the government, unfortunately, seeks neither consensus nor productive and constructive ways to serve the community, Canadians, or our constituents who sent us here to Ottawa. The government is only interested in playing politics and this bill is yet another example.

Another point is that this bill originated in the Senate. Even though the minister is the bill's sponsor here in the House, he did not have the courage to introduce it here himself. He made an announcement a very long way from Ottawa, rather than coming into the House and announcing his intention to introduce such a bill. It was done at an event that resembled an election campaign, in the greater Toronto area.

That is another indication that this bill was introduced with partisan and political motives, rather than with a constructive desire to protect the victims of these horrible acts of violence, primarily women and children, of course.

Therefore, we say that the process has a number of shortcomings, which is sufficient reason to oppose the bill, even though we support its intent, as both the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard and I have said.

Let us consider the bill's substance. The government is trying to frighten us by talking about the violence that is committed, including murders and so-called “honour crimes”. We should note, however, that the courts have already determined that cultural practices do not constitute an adequate or sufficient defence under the Criminal Code.

In other words, if someone appears in court charged with murder, he will not have an adequate defence if his only defence is that he committed a crime of honour because of cultural practices. Such a person must face the existing laws, which already protect people from such crimes.

We also want to end polygamy and forced marriage. The government is right to urge action on these matters. The problem is that it is making the wrong moves.

The government stubbornly insists that it simply wants to deport all these people. However, forced marriages take place in secrecy. We are taking a risk that they will become an even deeper secret. If people are afraid to expose such marriages, it is because we are not providing them with the tools to do so, especially since in exposing such situations they might cause their whole family to be deported.

As my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard put it so well, polygamy is not just a case of a man imposing his will on several women. The women are victims, and deporting the women is not a solution to polygamy. Clearly, we are going to punish them further and put them in an even more vulnerable situation.

Although we are opposed to violence against women and want to do everything possible to end this scourge, this bill is not the answer. It does not provide the right tools to do so. We therefore must oppose it.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really something to hear what the Conservatives are saying.

It will come as no surprise when Canadians reject this government's platform and policies, since the economy has been very weak for nearly 10 years now, and the government has done nothing to fight climate change and poverty here in Canada.

This is another omnibus bill that is over 150 pages long and has over 270 clauses. Not only is the Conservatives' lack of leadership affecting their popularity in the polls, but it also represents a wasted opportunity to stimulate our economy and help families. Families need a government that understands the economy and the current reality.

There are two ironies that exist within this one bill, and in a sense, they are going to be the Conservatives' legacy when Canadians finally throw them from office. The first part is their shutting down debate. Just last week, we saw the Conservatives more than triple the previous record of any government in any Parliament in Canadian history for shutting down the democratic process in here by shutting down debate on something like the budget bill, as they have done with so many other bills, like Bill C-51 and all the other controversial bills they have brought in.

That is the first part of the government's legacy, and that is what it will be remembered for.

The second part will be its horrible economic management. More than 1.3 million Canadians are out of work today. The government has added more than $150 billion in debt to the national debt. That is more than $4,000 for every man, woman, and child. We can ask what we got for it. According to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who, like most bankers, is hardly one to use such strong language, called this Canadian economy and the circumstances we are in right now “atrocious”.

We would have thought that on the eve of an election, with an economy that continues to shed jobs, the government would have brought forward some sort of, dare I say, action plan. I am not talking about the action plan the Conservatives refer to in the $750 million in self-promoting ads they constantly shower Canadians with. I am talking about an actual action plan. I know that it is hard to imagine that the spin could actually match some reality, but that is what we were hoping for. Canadians, from all the polling the government has done, have grown increasingly cynical about its advertising scheme, because it has met so little with the reality.

Canadians are waiting for action, hoping for action, and demanding action. Let us see what they actually got from the government in the most recent omnibus bill. Again, the government has moved thousands of pages of omnibus legislation through the House. In all of that omnibus legislation, there was virtually not a single amendment or change.

What typically happens, and it is true with this bill, is that an omnibus bill goes in to fix the mistakes of the last omnibus bill, which was fixing the mistakes of the omnibus bill before that. If we look up “incompetence” in the dictionary, we will now see a picture of the Prime Minister, and under a subheading, all of his legislation.

Let us look at the Canadian economy right now. It is shedding jobs in retail, manufacturing, and the energy sector. As I said, more than 1.3 million Canadians today are out of work.

There was the fiasco of the temporary foreign worker program. The Conservative government created a loophole so big someone could drive a truck through it. It put more than 300,000 Canadians out of work and brought in temporary foreign workers, with absolutely no provisions to protect Canadian jobs or even the temporary foreign workers in the job conditions under which they were going to work.

The Canadian economy has lost more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since the government took over. That is more than half a million manufacturing jobs since 2000. What is the reaction? What is the response? These are the jobs we built up over generations. We built the Canadian middle class on this. We built the strength of the Canadian economy on this. Meanwhile, these guys are fiddling while Rome burns. We have lost more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs, and the Conservatives pretend that there is no problem and that there is nothing to address.

We have also seen, according to the CIBC, that job quality in Canada is at its lowest level in a generation. It has never been this bad. The work has become more precarious, jobs are becoming more part-time, and there are fewer and fewer benefits, like pensions and true protections through the employment insurance program. That has been under the Conservative and previous Liberal governments' watch, with no addressing of it. Canadians know this experience. Their jobs have become more precarious and less certain.

This is a strange contradiction for the Conservatives. They continually stand in this place, as my friend just did, and talk about families and family-supporting jobs, yet in their policies, they go about destroying the very jobs that support Canadians and Canadian families. That is the great contradiction of Conservative policy. On the one hand, we get the talking points that say how important it is to build Canada and Canadian communities and Canadian families and all that Leave It to Beaver talk. They would like to go back in time it seems sometimes. On the other hand, the very jobs that support our homes, our communities, and our families are the very jobs the Conservatives have watched disappear, without any hint of concern whatsoever.

Child care one would think would support Canadian families. Does it not seem like something logical to take a step toward? It is so important that this Conservative Prime Minister promised Canadians in the last election that he would create 125,000 child care spaces in Canada, somewhat recognizing that there is an actual need out there. How many have they created? They have created zero spaces. When we have asked them about it, they seem to have no shame and in fact now call child care spaces institutionalizing children. Is that not a fascinating turn of phrase? Somehow the public contributing to a system like a national child care program would be institutionalizing our kids. Do they refer to our medical system that way or our public school system? When I send my children to public school, are they being institutionalized? This is rhetoric that is unfitting for any government, yet here we have it.

On pensions, this is going from bad to the bizarre. We saw the Conservatives unilaterally raise the retirement age for Canadians from 65 to 67, with no consultation. In fact, the Prime Minister stood in a roomful of billionaires in Europe to make the announcement. He decided that it was the best place to tell Canadians that the entire pension regime was changing.

It will cost seniors as much as $24,000 per senior in lost pensions across the board. Low income or high income, it does not matter. For Conservatives, going after pensions was their primary goal. We said this was a concern, because we thought the provinces would then follow suit and raise the age, thereby costing seniors even more. We found out just this past week that the Government of Quebec has made such an announcement to raise its retirement age in Quebec as well.

The consequences of the Prime Minister unilaterally making this policy decision have hurt seniors. The Conservatives know this, but they do not seem to care much for poor folks or the general population at large if they do not happen to vote for them. However, this is a moment when the Conservatives are now suddenly concerned, because seniors do in fact vote in our country, and lo and behold, there is an election coming soon.

What do the Conservatives do? Realizing they are losing support among Canadian seniors, they roll out a scheme, they float a balloon, saying, “Maybe we will have a voluntary system to contribute to the CPP”. This is something the Conservatives themselves looked at not that many years ago and that Jim Flaherty pronounced upon. He said that they had consulted with the experts and the provinces and that such a scheme would not work. Now the Conservatives are saying they know better than the pension experts and better than their dearly departed friend Jim Flaherty. Now they are going to go to a voluntary system, undermining the basic foundation of what the Canada pension plan is.

When we ask Canadians if they would like the ability to contribute more to the CPP, along with their employers, because that is how it works, upwards of 82% of Canadians are in favour of it. Conservatives are not in favour of that. They call contributing to one's pension a tax. When Canadians take some of their salary, and that contribution is matched by an employer, they call that a tax on Canadians. My goodness. People paying into their own pensions so they can live with some dignity when they retire the Conservatives have somehow morphed into a tax.

When the only attack they have is to call everything a tax, then I guess everything starts to look like a tax, whether it is or not. I wonder if the Conservatives are walking around their ridings asking Canadians if they are contributing to their RRSPs and telling them that they should not do that, because they are self-imposing a tax, and that they should fight to get rid of their CPP contributions at work with their employers, because that must be a job-killing tax as well.

That is such stupidity. That is ludicrous. It comes from a government that is desperate, obviously. The Conservatives are getting to the point now where they are starting to cling and grasp. They will bring up any debate they can to stir up a little more in donations and perhaps a couple of more votes. However, the plan is not working, obviously.

We also see a government that is in the midst of global concerns and a lack of job growth in Canada. In fact, in the last 16 months, job growth was at its lowest level in Canada, outside of a recession, in four decades.

One would think that if the Conservative plan were working, it would be working, but it is not. One would think that the Conservative strategy of giving billions away in corporate tax cuts to the largest, most profitable corporations, without any strings attached, would be creating those jobs, but it is not. The lowest job growth, outside of a recession, in 40 years is the Conservative legacy. The Conservatives are busy pulling muscles patting themselves on the back. They think this has been a job well done, that it is mission accomplished.

Let us look at the new programs the Conservatives are now going to launch. They actually ran a debt on them. Many Canadians do not know that the Conservatives ran a debt of $2 billion is year. The cost of their income-splitting scheme is, lo and behold, about $2 billion. They are going to borrow money to retroactively apply an income-splitting scheme that benefits only 15% of Canadian families. There is nothing for single parent families. That might not sit in the Conservative world view. I was raised by a single mom. Many Canadians are being raised by single parents. The Conservatives' income-splitting plan does nothing for them or for couples who happen to earn similar amounts of money or for individuals who sit in the middle- or lower-income bracket.

Two billion dollars has been rushed out the door by the Conservatives, who say that this will provide great help for Canadian families, yet the bottom 20% of income earners, families who might actually qualify, will get nothing, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

They reject the NDP proposal for up to $15-a-day affordable, quality child care across the country. We know, from TD Bank and other economists who have studied this, that for every $1 we put in, $1.50 to $1.75 goes back into the economy. This has worked in Quebec, which is largely where our child care model is based.

We understand that there is value in helping women, if they choose, to get back into the workforce. Every industrialized country in the world looking to improve its productivity needs to help women in particular get back into the workforce. We need to do that here in Canada. We have the lowest female participation rate in the Canadian economy since 2002.

The Conservatives might think they want to do a little social engineering and turn the clock back to 1950 and that all will be well. However, this is the reality for Canadian women working today: they want access to affordable child care. They want to make the choice. When the average cost in the GTA is $1,600 per child, there are Canadian families going to work today who are spending more on child care than they are on their mortgages. That is a reality, and that reality often keeps incredibly qualified, talented people out of the workforce, because they simply cannot afford child care.

It is no wonder the private sector economists have said that this is an investment, but not in the way the Conservatives use the term when they talk about income splitting being an investment. It is not an investment. It is a scheme. Child care is an investment that would pay back into the economy.

The Conservatives also have no evidence that the TFSA shows an increase in investments and retirement security for Canadians. There has been no increase in contributions toward retirement vehicles. It has mostly been an exercise in people taking their retirement money and moving it from one vehicle to another. That is fine, but the Conservatives should not pretend that this is suddenly going to make retirement security better in Canada, because it will not.

The Conservatives now want to double this program. Who has $10,000 burning a hole in his or her pocket at the end of every year? Is it the middle-class families and individuals the Conservatives are talking about? Maybe they are in their world, but they are not the people I deal with. They are not looking through their books at the end of the year and finding an extra $10,000 sitting around and wondering what they are going to do with it, until they see an ad, which they paid for, on TV to help them figure out what to do with all that extra money. Canadians are having a hard time making ends meet.

The current personal debt rate in Canada is at an all-time historic high. Canadians owe more personal debt right now than they ever have before, and there is a reason for that. Job quality and job security have gone down, yet the cost of living has continued to rise.

Every once in a while, the Conservatives have stumbled across, almost by accident, a program that could work and help Canadians and help create jobs. Does anyone remember the home retrofit program? This was an interesting program. The Conservatives announced it once, killed it, announced it again, and killed it again. What did this program do? It helped Canadians deal with the rising cost of heating and cooling their homes. It also created jobs in the small business sector, in the localized sector. It also helped us deal with climate change. Earlier my friend talked about the drought conditions and the concerns about the weather and the increase in the intensity of storms.

It did these three things, the Holy Trinity. There it is. The program helped Canadians reduce costs. It helped small businesses get some work and provide jobs. It helped us deal with our climate change commitments. Conservative and Liberal governments made these promises but had no plan to follow through on them. They killed the program not once but twice.

We are going to bring it back and actually run the program and let Canadians enjoy the benefits of dealing with climate change, because the Conservatives constantly try to pit the economy versus the environment. However, we know that not to be true. The most productive, most efficient, most prosperous countries on earth right now are doing both. They do not trade one off for the other, because anyone foolish enough and ignorant enough to think that he or she can simply drive an economy through the environment, through the ecological footprint that we bear, that there is some other virtual reality that he or she can create that is not constrained by our environment is a dinosaur and should do what dinosaurs do and have always done, which is to just go away and move along so that we can actually evolve the Canadian economy into something much more fair and much more prosperous.

We on the NDP side believe in clean technology. We saw last year globally for the first time that contributions into the clean tech sector exceeded all of the investments into the oil and gas and carbon economies. We have seen the globe moving this way, not just the so-called advanced countries, but also China, India and Brazil. Where is Canada? We have a Prime Minister who can barely utter the words “climate change”, who stands up and the only promise he is willing to commit to is something that would happen at the end of this century. When we ask him how we would get there, he says that is not for him to worry about because he will not be around.

That is similar to the Conservatives' commitments on the tax-free savings accounts. When the finance minister was asked how he was going to pay for these things, because it gets expensive really quick, he said that it was not really a problem for him to worry about, that it was a problem for the Prime Minister's hypothetical granddaughter to worry about. That was a moment of insight, almost a bit of a Freudian slip, when he said he was not concerned with it, that the Conservatives are not concerned with the huge cost of a program they hope would just maybe get them enough votes in the next election because the real costs would be paid down the line by our grandkids. “So be it and so what,” say the Conservatives, which is so similar to their approach on climate change.

Since the Conservative government's coming to office, how many years have we been promised regulations in the oil and gas sector, which by the way, is the most expensive way to deal with climate change according to the oil and gas sector. It would much rather have a price on carbon that actually meets the reality. That is why the major oil companies in this country are calling for such a thing. Do members think that the Conservatives are running into the offices of Suncor and Syncrude and yelling at them about their carbon tax policy and how they want to kill the economy? Of course they are not. We understand that businesses need certainty. They also understand that pollution costs and that the polluter pay principle should be based in law and based in science. What do the Conservatives do with science? They muzzle it.

We have also seen $14 billion in cuts to government programs, austerity programs in the midst of this fragile economy. What the IMF, the World Bank and the EU all are suggesting right now is that we need to move our economies forward, not try to cut them to some prosperity. However, we have seen time and again where the Conservatives, and before them the Liberals, try this ideology, which is not new; it is as old as Reaganomics. The ideology is that if they simply cut $650 billion in corporate taxes, which the Conservatives did, as did the Liberals before them, companies would just magically reinvest in hiring more people, in manufacturing, and all of the rest of that. Mark Carney said for years that there was $650 billion of dead money sitting in corporate bank accounts in Canada right now not being invested. Therefore, the philosophy of the Conservatives has failed.

With the Conservatives' recent infrastructure announcements and the announcements for transit, we have seen time and again that all of it is to come years down the road. What the Conservatives most care about is themselves and trying to get themselves somehow re-elected despite all to the contrary. It seems to me that the Canadian people and the Canadian economy have called for real action, not ads, not another scam, not a bit more spin. They want something that will actually help the Canadian economy.

Two suggestions which we made, and the Conservatives voted against, would have helped the manufacturing sector and the small business community. The Conservatives voted against them one month and then put them in the budget. Let us give them a bit of credit at this moment of hypocrisy where they vote against something and then drive it into the budget the next week and suddenly think it is a good idea because it is painted blue.

Canadians need and deserve a lot more than what they are getting, but the good news is this. There are only a few months to go until this tired and worn-out government will be tossed from office. To that effort, I move:

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

“this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, because it:

a) introduces income splitting and super-sized Tax-Free Savings Account measures that will primarily benefit the wealthy few while wasting billions of dollars;

b) does not introduce a $15 per hour minimum wage or create a universal, affordable childcare program, both of which would support the working and middle class families who actually need help;

c) leaves Canadian interns without protections against excessive work hours, sexual harassment, and an unending cycle of unpaid work;

d) sets a dangerous precedent for Canadians' right to know by making retroactive changes to absolve the government of its role in potential violations of access-to-information laws; and

e) attacks the right of free and fair collective bargaining for hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, sincerity in politics is sometimes considerably abused.

In the case of Bill C-51, the Liberals were concerned that by not supporting the bill, they might somehow be tainted in the view of some important constituencies out there, so they decided to support it. I think that is what is going on in this case as well. If the Liberals say they do not like what is in the bill, if they say they think the bill is inadequate and they do not see that it is going to provide the proper results, then, by golly, they should stand up and vote against it.

We are not here to make bad legislation. We are not here to put laws on the books simply to have laws on the books. We are here to do things for society that work. That is very important. That is why the New Democratic Party is trusted by Canadian families. It is because they know we want to do things that actually work for them.

Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law)

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past four years, I have had an opportunity to debate a wide range of topics.

Although the matter before us today might seem like a strange blip on the list of government priorities, I do not wish to denigrate it, because it is indeed important. However, it does seem like a strange fixation, to go to the wall defending dogs. Nevertheless, Bill C-35 was even mentioned in the throne speech, which, in my view, is going a little too far.

I would remind everyone that last night, Canadians were treated to the 100th gag order to expedite the debate, because we are supposedly in such a hurry and so many bills need to be rammed through as soon as possible. At the end of the day, we are using our time in the House for time allocation motions and to debate Bill C-35. There is not enough time for the budget or for Bill C-51, but let us talk about animals.

Today we are discussing one aspect of animal rights, more specifically, one very precise category: animals that have been trained to work with law enforcement or military personnel, or those that assist people with a disability.

Under Bill C-35, anyone who physically harms such an animal with the clear intent to act in bad faith will be sentenced to a minimum of six months in prison. If a law enforcement animal is injured or killed in service, the sentence for that offence would be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender.

I am very pleased to say that I intend to vote in favour of this bill, despite the reservations I have about its scope. Bill C-35 is a very kind initiative that no one can oppose, except maybe to say that this issue does not necessarily need to be debated by the entire federal legislative apparatus.

Out of respect for voters, I would therefore suggest that my colleagues quickly express their kindness and their love for animals, which is somewhat boring, so that Bill C-35 can be sent to the Senate as quickly as possible and we do not have to talk about it any more.

In case there is any doubt, I really love animals. I have never felt inclined to crush baby chicks or skin cats. I completely understand that police horses and guide dogs benefit society and that these animals represent a significant financial and emotional investment.

It should also be said that many of these animals often carry out heroic acts under some extraordinary circumstances. After all, there is a tradition of recognizing the courageous war-time efforts of these animals. A commemorative bas-relief adorns the Memorial Chamber located in the Peace Tower in the Centre Block. Dogs often show admirable courage and save lives.

In committee, all the witnesses supported this initiative, but they must have been a little surprised to be testifying in such a formal setting about a topic outside of the usual parliamentary discussions. Animal cruelty is quite frankly deplorable and shameful, and we must combat it.

Bill C-35 amends the Criminal Code and will not so much combat as punish, or avenge, these crimes, which is in keeping with the Conservatives' obsession with the illusory absolute justice that they seek everywhere but do not find. It is not easy to reinvent oneself.

Conservatives believe that judges are always too accommodating and too often forget their discretionary powers. They want to decide for the judges; justice is an election issue. Punishment must always be meted out in an absolute and grandiose manner.

Although I support this bill, I always have a hard time with minimum sentencing. I agree with creating an offence to ensure that offenders who abuse or murder a service animal are punished. However, I think that our judges are capable of determining the most appropriate sentence for those who commit these crimes.

If the judge feels that the criminal should be sent to prison, he can do so. However, once again, setting minimum sentences takes away the courts' discretion.

Bill C-35 also opens the door to a grim topic no one really wants to touch, which is legislating animal rights. Since the dawn of humanity, we have had a hard time accepting that the death of an animal—of any kind—can have an impact on our lives and our future as human beings.

Bill C-35 promotes a specific category of animal to a superior status protected by law. To be legally valid, this new category can only make sense if these animals are considered property with monetary value.

After all, they had to be trained by humans who were paid for their work and their expertise. Otherwise, we will fall into an endless debate on whether animals have souls, which would be extremely difficult, if not completely absurd.

We are legislators and esoteric considerations have no place in our debates.

Bill C-35 presents an interesting solution to the lack of a special category for abusing or murdering animals. Supporting this bill is a good thing, and that is why I will encourage all of my colleagues to support it so that it can move to the next stage.