House of Commons Hansard #82 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was animal.

Topics

Export Development ActRoutine Proceedings

9:55 a.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

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

Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-32, an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica.

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

Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Kenora—Rainy River Ontario

Liberal

Bob Nault LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-33, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

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

Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985Routine Proceedings

September 20th, 2001 / 10:05 a.m.

Bloc

Stéphan Tremblay Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, QC

moved for leave to introduce C-394, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 (investment criteria).

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to introduce this bill to amend section 7.4 of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, in order to require the administrator of a pension fund to prepare an annual report of the social, ethical and environmental factors that have been considered, during the previous fiscal year, in the selection, retention and liquidation of investments under the administrator's responsibility, as well as in the exercise of any rights, particularly voting rights, thereto associated.

The administrator provides, without charge, a copy of the report to every member who requests it.

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

National Crime Stoppers' Day ActRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-395, an act to establish National Crime Stoppers' Day.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to introduce this bill to establish a national crime stoppers' recognition day, and I am pleased that it was seconded by the hon. member for Saint John.

The crime stoppers is a total volunteer organization that raises all its own funds. It delivers all its own services. It frees up time for our police forces that are reeling from cutbacks. It has an extraordinary rate of success. For every dollar invested it recovers $20. I believe this crime stoppers' day will help acknowledge its contribution and give it the credit it deserves.

I want to thank Jack Kline of Amherst, Nova Scotia, and Ernie Lund of Truro, Nova Scotia, for helping me gather up the background for this private member's bill to establish a national crime stoppers' day.

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

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of citizens across Saskatchewan and Alberta I wish to enter a petition to have February 14 recognized as National Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Day.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present another petition from people concerned about kidney disease in Canada.

The petitioners would like one of the institutes of the new Canadian Institutes of Health Research to be renamed the kidney and urinary tract diseases institute. The point is not that the institute concerned is not doing wonderful work for kidney research but that the petitioners believe it is much more appropriate that the public understand what an institute does and therefore that the word kidney be represented in it.

The petition was initiated by Ken Sharp of Peterborough who used the 25th anniversary of his commencing dialysis treatment to give extra publicity to this cause.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present three more petitions, no less, from citizens of Peterborough who would like to see VIA Rail service between Toronto and Peterborough re-established. The petitioners see great environmental and business advantages to this. They urge the Parliament of Canada to do all it can to influence the Government of Canada to return VIA Rail service to Peterborough.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

The Speaker

Is it agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB

Mr. Speaker, your office would have received notice yesterday at 3.20 p.m. that I would be rising on a question of privilege on Bill C-15, the omnibus bill.

I rise on a question of privilege today with respect to the bill, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts. Our ability as parliamentarians to vote on and debate Bill C-15 is impeded because Bill C-15 reflects several unrelated principles, making it impossible for members of the House to cast their votes responsibly and intelligibly on behalf of their constituents.

A member's rights to vote and to be heard properly are well established rights that undisputedly make up the powers enjoyed by members of parliament. In a constitutional democracy, the right of members to vote is fundamental and goes to the heart of our parliamentary system. The 1993 Supreme Court of Canada decision in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v Nova Scotia confirmed the constitutional nature of parliamentary privilege on this very basis.

Many of the powers and privileges of members and the House are the result of centuries of practice and convention. The courts have clearly recognized that conventions are part of our constitution. Our legislative procedures, including voting, are part of our historical heritage, our parliamentary traditions and indeed of the privileges collectively of the House and individually of its members.

This matter should be resolved through a question of privilege because the work of members as legislators is being threatened. History will show that omnibus bills bring frustration and dysfunction to the House of Commons and indeed are cause for alarm.

One speaker was prompted to ask on January 26, 1971, which you will find at page 284 of Hansard of that day:

--where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? ...We might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada, which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.

I would argue that the numerous and unrelated principles in Bill C-15 bring us to the point where we have gone beyond what is acceptable. Bill C-15 is seeking our approval, with one debate and one vote, of eight general topics: first, child luring and child pornography over the Internet; second, animal cruelty; third, amendments to the Firearms Act, the act known as Bill C-68; fourth, criminal harassment; fifth, home invasions; sixth, disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer; seventh, a substantial reform of criminal procedure in the country; and last, allegations of miscarriage of justice.

This is unacceptable. I believe this bill could, with some justification, be broken down into five general subject areas: first, provisions dealing with child luring and child pornography; second, provisions dealing with cruelty to animals; third, provisions dealing with amendments to the separate act, the Firearms Act; fourth, provisions dealing with amendments to the criminal code and other acts in respect of criminal harassment, home invasions and disarming a peace officer; and fifth, reforming criminal procedure and procedures to address miscarriages of justice.

On page 619 of Marleau and Montpetit it is suggested that historically disputes over omnibus bills are brought about by political interaction. Page 618 describes one of those interactions. It describes how the opposition paralyzed the House for 14 days in 1982.

Fortunately or unfortunately that type of persuasion is no longer available to the opposition. For the record, the opposition attempted to reason with the government and have Bill C-15 divided, but the government was unwilling to listen. Indeed, the minister has reiterated her position and this summer indicated that she would be bringing more bills of this type.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that you have today in your hands the ability to stop this dangerous trend, which is not simply a trend that is oppressive to the opposition parties in the House but indeed is oppressive to the people of Canada who send us here to vote in accordance with their wishes.

With respect to a procedural solution, I have reviewed the rulings on these types of complaints that have been raised in the past and have concluded that a satisfactory procedural remedy is not apparent.

On May 11, 1977, at page 5522 of Hansard , the Speaker shared some of these views. He said:

This still leaves, as it has in the past every time this kind of argument has been put forward, some very deep concern about whether our practices in respect of bills do in fact provide a remedy for the very legitimate complaint of the hon. member that a bill of this kind gives the government, under our practices, the right to demand one decision on a number of quite different, although related, subjects.

I think an hon. member of the House ought to have the right to compel the House to vote on each separate question. Previous rulings have made reference to several devices open to hon. members under our proceedings regarding bills, but it seems to me that each which has been mentioned in the past suffers from at least one weakness.

In the absence of a satisfactory resolution or procedural solution to resolve this matter, in the absence of political will, and given the minister's very clear comments that not only will she refuse to engage in any discussion relating to breaking the bill into separate bills but she in fact intends to pass more of these bills and bring more of these types of bills to the House, I think the powers of the Speaker should be invoked.

I propose that Bill C-15 should not be allowed to proceed any further in its present form on the grounds that it has a tendency to impede the House and its members in the performance of their function and the discharge of their duty.

Parliament is fundamentally about debate. The government's use of this omnibus bill is another attack on our ability to debate. The opposing views of the opposition cannot be properly heard. No matter which way we vote on this bill it will not express our views and the views of our constituents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience. I look forward to your ruling and the comments of others in the House.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I very much attach myself to the comments of the hon. member for Provencher. This new tact that the Minister of Justice, backed by the government House leader and the government, has taken on the issue is holding up very important legislation.

There was unanimous agreement among the opposition and many members of the government's side to pass the more palatable elements of Bill C-15 in the last parliament. We could have had the bill in place last June.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

The Speaker

I know this may be interesting history but the point is whether or not this is an omnibus bill and whether the Speaker has authority to divide it. That is the point I would like the hon. member to address.

We already have the general background from the hon. member for Provencher and I would not want to prolong this unduly.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I take the point very well. The hon. member for Provencher has clearly put before eight inconsequential elements to the bill that are being force-fed by the government to the opposition. It is telling us to take it all or leave it. We would then face the wrath of the public because we would be painted as having been against protecting children and police officers.

The bill is inconsequential. The elements do not fit together and therefore the opposition does not have the opportunity to debate these very important issues placed before the House in the true context in which they exist.

We are being told to take all the bills together, mix them up, change various pieces of legislation and produce one piece of legislation that would then be presented to the public. Yet the ability to focus on the key elements of it is denied by virtue of having the bill brought forward in such a large incongruous fashion.

There is a preferred option here, which even exists among members of the government, to bring forward separate legislation which would allow members of the opposition and indeed all members of the House to focus on the specific aspects that exist.

The hon. member mentioned five separate pieces legislation. We would be happy if it were two or three, but to bring it all into one large overwhelming piece of legislation that touches on many different elements, some of which are not even found in the criminal code--

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member is on a question of privilege on whether the Chair has the authority to deal with this matter. It may be of interest to hear again the evils of the bill, but that is not the point of the debate.

I would like to know what authority the hon. member suggests that the Chair has to divide it. I must say that I am having trouble getting any information on that point in any of the arguments presented so far.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience. At present the precedents are very clear that a motion can divide a bill after second reading. However, since that precedent, the standing orders were amended to permit a bill to be referred to committee prior to second reading. I would invite the Chair to consider whether a motion to divide a bill can now be received before second reading.

If that is the case, we would very much like to see the bill go back to the Department of Justice, that it be properly divided and brought before the House in a fashion with which all members and all Canadians would have a much greater comfort level.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:20 a.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of the Chair to the following points. First, the alleged question of privilege raised does not give any indication of a motion referring this issue to the appropriate committee. Therefore the request is deficient right away in that regard.

Second, the summary of the bill clearly indicates that this enactment amends the criminal code. Yes, it amends more than one clause in the code, but it amends the criminal code and firearms legislation and we do know the association of both.

It does not amend the Income Tax Act, the provisions on widgets and something to do with foreign affairs. It is not an omnibus bill gathering a whole variety of issues not generally associated with one another. Even in that regard, Speakers have been very reluctant to interfere.

I refer the House to pages 616 and 617 of Marleau and Montpetit. Again these arguments would be responding to a point of order, were there one before the House, and not to a question of privilege, which I do not even believe exists in any case. However, be that as it may, it says:

It appears to be entirely proper, in procedural terms, for a bill to amend, repeal or enact more than one Act, provided that the necessary notice is given, it is accompanied by the Royal Recommendation (where necessary), and it follows the form required.

Interestingly enough, the footnote attached to this reference refers to criminal code amendments. It cites the case of Bill C-95 and associated amendments to the Correctional and Conditional Releases Act and so on, which were not the criminal code itself but other issues that were directly or indirectly associated and or similar, again all in the area of justice. It also states:

However, on the question of whether the Chair can be persuaded to divide a bill simply because it is complex or composite in nature--

Essentially that is the argument that we heard from the opposition critic a little earlier. It continues:

--there are many precedents from which it can be concluded that the Canadian practice does not permit this.

In other words, the Chair cannot permit a bill to be divided on the simple excuse that it is too complex. Examples of this are: Speaker Sauvé in 1983 and Speaker Fraser on Bill C-130, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

Some of us made some of these arguments at the time and they were deemed to be invalid. I believe I was one of them, Mr. Speaker, and someone you know well may also have been another one.

However it did not work. They were not deemed to be valid arguments. They are certainly no more valid today than they were then when put far more eloquently by someone I know well.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think you have before you some good arguments by the government House leader, including one from the time he himself was in opposition and could see that this approach was unacceptable.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that you could create a precedent in this regard. The member's arguments are very creditable. However, a look at the bill reveals that it contains some horrendous aberrations.

There is no way, even for the purposes of amending the criminal code, that cruelty to animals and cruelty to children can be considered on the same footing. Nor can sexual harassment and judicial errors. The standing committee on justice, which will consider this question and examine the bill, will have to hear experts on firearms, on children's rights, on cruelty to animals and the police on matters of home invasions. It is very complex.

I think the member is in good faith. I think everyone here is. The ultimate aim of this House is to ensure our laws are as good as they can be. For whom? For our constituents and for the people we represent. The easiest and most desirable way to do it in such a case would be to split the bill, because it contains aberrations. It is through the stubbornness of the Minister of Justice, to be fair, that this is not happening.

The Chair has the obligation, I think, in matters of the work of this House, to ensure matters are as clear as possible for the people we represent and for taxpayers, whom we represent also, and that legislation holds up, especially to enable the members of this House to have the tools they need to vote properly on such a bill. However, because of the way it was drafted by the Minister of Justice, this is not and will not be possible.

PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

The Speaker

The Chair has carefully weighed all the arguments put forward by hon. members this morning. I thank them for their interventions.

In my view this issue is not a question of privilege. At best it is a point of order and I will treat it as such. I do not believe the privilege of the House is involved in the discussions on this matter.

I can only note that Bill C-15, which is before the House, deals with amendments to the criminal code and other acts. The other acts are pretty consequential. There are minor, slight changes but almost every amendment in this voluminous bill deals with the Criminal Code of Canada.

I can only imagine what a nightmare it would be for the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to be studying the whole criminal code if that were the act before the House for passage.

One day it was. One day the criminal code was adopted in the House. It dealt with far more issues than are dealt with in Bill C-15 and it apparently got through somehow.

There were no invitations extended to the Speaker that we know of to divide that bill into chunks. If such arguments were put forward they were ignored because there has not been a single precedent cited to the Chair where the Chair has in fact split a bill. I note that in all the arguments this morning. I have asked for this kind of citation and have found none because I submit there is no precedent for the Chair to split such a bill.

I can only refer, as the government House leader did in his argument, and he got there before I got to it, to the sections of Marleau and Montpetit to which I had reference after receiving the notice of the question of privilege from the hon. member for Provencher yesterday. I cite again from this work:

It appears to be entirely proper, in procedural terms, for a bill to amend, repeal or enact more than one Act, provided that the necessary notice is given, it is accompanied by the Royal Recommendation (where necessary), and it follows the form required. However, on the question of whether the Chair can be persuaded to divide a bill simply because it is complex or composite in nature, there are many precedents from which it can be concluded that Canadian practice does not permit this.

The citation referred to in support of that contains, for example, the rulings of Madam Speaker Sauvé which were referred to in argument in which she refused to divide the bill then before the House, which caused such trouble and the bell ringing incident.

Then of course there was the decision of Mr. Speaker Fraser when he was asked to divide the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. That was in June 1988, and I know the hon. government House leader may have been arguing the point in June. If he was suggesting that someone I knew more personally was involved he is incorrect. I was not elected to the House until November 1988 and I was not part of that argument. In any event, the argument was lost and Mr. Speaker Fraser said this:

Until the House adopts specific rules relating to omnibus Bills, the Chair's role is very limited and the Speaker should remain on the sidelines as debate proceeds and the House resolves the issue.

I have to rule with reluctance that it is not for the Chair to divide a bill in the House. The argument I think would be stronger were this what could be called an omnibus bill, that is one dealing with a myriad of amendments to many different acts, as was the case, for example, with the free trade implementation bill, rather than a bill which seeks to amend one act of the Parliament of Canada.

In my opinion, this is not a point of order, and we can get on with debate.

The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has eight minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks. He made the initial twelve minutes of his speech on May 7 earlier this year. I must say I have forgotten what he said on that occasion and am looking forward to the remaining eight minutes of his speech.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At noon today in room 200 of the West Block there will be an interfaith service to commemorate the thousands of victims killed in New York last week. The American ambassador will be there and I believe our Prime Minister will be there as well. I know that many members want to be there but we find it difficult when the House is in session.

I therefore ask, in consultation with all House leaders in the House today and with their concurrence, for unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That at 11.30 today the House suspend until 1.30 and that the House sit from 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. this day to consider Government Orders.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

The Speaker

Does the hon. member for Saint John have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from May 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, an act ct to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001Government Orders

10:35 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, having heard your ruling I accept it. The bill is not one with which there is a degree of comfort on the part of many members. That is not to say for a moment that we do not support the positive changes contained in the legislation. However the issues are in many instances difficult to deal with at one sitting because of their complex nature.

Eight separate and distinct issues are contained in this omnibus bill. We have asked numerous times, as recently as a few moments ago, to split the bill because it contains unrelated issues. In my opinion some of these issues trivialize the more important ones within the legislation.

I am talking particularly about changes that would ensure greater protection for children on the Internet and changes that would provide greater protection for police officers by making maximum sentences more proportionate to the harm that can be done when an individual tries to disarm a police officer.

When we compare these with some of the more minor procedural changes within the bill it makes it confusing to deal with in the Chamber and difficult for Canadians to understand. When the bill goes to committee we will be forced to bring forward witnesses from all four corners of the country to talk about all the different bills at one time. That is not a productive and positive use of members' time.

The minister obviously has a bit of a political agenda. She wants to ask members of the House of Commons to vote for her amendments though she knows there is great resistance and reluctance on the part of some, particularly to the bill's cruelty to animal provisions. These are very troubling for cattlemen, ranchers, and those involved in hunting and angling.

There is also a great deal of resistance because of the ill-fated, ill-conceived, cumbersome, overexpensive, bureaucratic and quite useless long gun registry foisted upon the country at a cost of nearly a billion dollars.

Jamming all this superfluous legislation down the throats of members by bringing it forward in an omnibus form is quite offensive. The minister has indicated she will bring forward more legislation in the same vein.

Turning to more important matters within the bill such as those dealing with child stalking on the Internet, this is the type of legislation for which we have been crying out for some time. Had the bill been presented properly in the first instance these elements of it would have been passed last June.

However the minister again dug in her heels and decided she would stick to her guns. We know the minister wants to get rid of all long guns and ensure that somehow only criminals and police will have guns.

There is concern from the high tech industry regarding the bill's child stalking provisions. Subsection 163.1(3) would subject Internet service providers to criminal liability for third party content unless they could prove they did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the information was being disseminated on the Internet.

There is therefore concern about the resources that would be required of Internet providers to police the Internet on their own.

We are supportive of the home invasion and criminal harassment aspects of the bill. Clause 23 states that in cases of break and enter, robbery and extortion the courts must consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the dwelling house was occupied. This refers to the principle of home invasion.

We would have preferred that a separate offence be created for home invasion. It would have a greater deterrent effect and would be a more straightforward way to deal with this type of offence. There is no specific reference to home invasion in the criminal code.

The courts refer to it. Police, prosecutors and lawyers know what we speak of when we talk about home invasion. It is perhaps one of the most startling experiences a person can have, particularly elderly people who feel quite threatened in their own homes.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition would prefer to have a separate offence created for home invasion.

We also support the bill's criminal harassment elements. In 1993 the Progressive Conservative government of the day passed Bill C-126 which added the offence of criminal harassment to the criminal code.

Bill C-15 would increase the maximum prison term under paragraph 264(3)( a ) of the criminal code from five years to ten years. This is a suggestion we support. Senator Oliver in the other place has brought forward similar legislation. It is a cause he has supported for many years.

Bill C-15 would not increase penalties for harassing phone calls, indecent remarks or intimidation on the phone. Yet these are forms of harassment which can result in or give rise to more serious crimes. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to delve into that at committee.

The cruelty to animals provision is one of the controversial elements I pointed out in my earlier remarks. In recent years numerous incidents of cruelty and mistreatment of animals have alarmed Canadians and caused great public concern. Cruelty to animals may be the precursor to violent behaviour toward people. Bill C-15 might help prevent certain types of violent crime against people if it is enforced in a logical and reasonable fashion.

Although the amendments target the behaviour Canadians reasonably expect people to exhibit toward animals, there is particular concern about the wording.

The offence section contains wording such as wilful, reckless or without regard for the consequences of the act. One would hope the judicial interpretation of these words would protect the longstanding practices we have seen exercised by furriers, ranchers and those who make their living working with animals.

No one in the PC/DR coalition wants in any way to condone cruelty to animals. However we must be mindful and protective of those who engage in activities that are their livelihood. Changes that would require licence renewals, authorization and more bureaucratic steps would have a financial impact on people who have conducted their businesses reasonably for many years without any sort of cruelty toward animals.

This is a complicated bill. I wish I had more time to delve into other aspects of it. It deals with amendments to the criminal code that touch on miscarriages of justice which have allowed individuals like Stephen Truscott to suffer grave injustices at the hands of prosecutors and our justice department.

There are elements of the bill we hope to be able to sort through at committee. I look forward to that opportunity.