Werner Schmidt

[Young Offenders Act, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a picture I cannot look at, this photograph of an 89 year old Kelowna woman who was beaten savagely. Around each bewildered blue eye the bruises are red and painful. Her face is swollen and discoloured. She has suffered terribly. Her assailant was a 17 year old. It is disturbing.

It is disturbing to learn that this offender will not be tried in adult court as befits his crime but in youth court where the sentence will be much less severe.

Because of that there is no healing. The bruises are gone but not the fear, a fear that has spread and has robbed the people of my community of a sense of safety. Surely the justice minister can see that the Young Offenders Act is not an effective deterrent against youth violence but a weapon being used against our society.

[Committees Of The House, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I found the hon. member's statement very interesting. I read the motion in some detail as the member was speaking and I would like him to clarify something for me.

The motion states that in the opinion of the House the criminal code or other appropriate federal statutes should be amended. That is a pretty broad request. It does not specify whether it is the criminal code that is to be amended or whether it is to be some other corporate legislation or some other justice legislation.

I was particularly impressed by his reference that we must make sure that justice is done. I could not agree more. Justice is what we want in Canada, and in particular the liability of directors. There is a provision today in legislation about the liability of directors who do not do their job and things of this sort.

Is it really amendments to the criminal code that should be studied or other legislation? Could the hon. member give some clarification as to exactly what he intends?

[Privacy Commissioner, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition certainly supports the appointment of Mr. Radwanski as the privacy commissioner.

For years now the official opposition has asked that when appointing people like this to key positions, the individual should be interviewed by certain standing parliamentary committees, and that was done in part in this case.

Before I proceed any further, I would like to pay tribute to the previous privacy commissioner, Mr. Bruce Phillips. It was my privilege to meet with him on several occasions and I have a lot of respect for the gentleman. He did the office a great honour and carried out his responsibilities with respect and also with great confidentiality. I am sure that Mr. Radwanski will do the same.

I want to refer back to the particular interview process that took place at the parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations. This particular committee met and the members of the committee were invited “to an informal meeting for the purpose of consulting with the interim privacy commissioner.”

The hon. member opposite just indicated that the committee met to consider the the appointment of Mr. Radwanski. To the best of my recollection there was no motion made at this particular committee, neither was it ever indicated that there was a consideration here. It was for the purpose of consulting with, which is quite different from the implication left by the words that the hon. member used a moment ago.

Unfortunately, the committee interviewed someone who had already been appointed. In one sense it was really a ratification and, indeed, the motion here before the House is in fact a ratification. It is my understanding that Mr. Radwanski has occupied the position since September 1, 2000.

I want to ask this question. What was the status of this committee meeting at that time? It was my understanding that the committee was to have been conducted in a manner similar to that of a regular meeting of the standing committee. While an interview took place, while there was translation services and while there was a broadcast on the usual radio channels, there was no official record kept of what transpired at the committee meeting.

I submit that there is little practical use of a meeting like this, when it is purely a motion. I want to reinforce the concept that we agree that these kinds of interviews should take place with people who will be occupying key positions. It is essential that we do this. There should be transparency, there should be respect and there should be dignity for the office and also for the people who are being chosen to occupy these positions. In order to have meaningful input it should not be simply a consultation and it should not be simply a matter of meeting with this person.

We met Mr. Radwanski. He was a good individual. He met with the group and expressed himself well and demonstrated that he was able to do the job.

I would suggest that in future the record of these meetings be recorded. It will help both the memory of the members who were there and will also help to make the process transparent and accountable and it will give the respect deserved to these kinds of appointments.

I would like to say something as well about the individual who is being considered today, Mr. George Radwanski. I do not think there is any doubt that he is a very capable individual and that he has extensive academic and experiential credentials to do the job. However, one wonders whether his connections and association, past and present, with the Liberal Party, both federally and provincially, may have influenced the selection of him as the privacy commissioner.

To be specific, I want to refer to some of these connections. First, he was the special adviser to the treasurer of Ontario, appointed by then Premier Peterson to undertake a study of the service sector. He published the study known as “Ontario Study of the Service Sector, 1986”.

Then, in 1987 he was the special adviser for the minister of education in Ontario, again appointed by then Premier Peterson. He undertook a major study which resulted in a publication entitled “Ontario Study of the Relevance of Education, and the Issue of Dropouts, 1987”.

He served as a senior strategy and policy adviser and principal speech writer for the Right Hon. John Turner in the 1988 election campaign. Then very recently, Mr. Radwanski served as a senior policy, strategy and communications adviser to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada in the House today.

During the discussion and consultation in no way did Mr. Radwanski ever try to cover this up or in any way suggest that he did not have these associations. In fact, he had had these associations and was quite open about that. I commend him for that.

He indicated that he wanted to make some recommendations with regard to the Privacy Act so that the act could be brought more up to date and more commensurate with the conditions in the world of government and business today.

He wrote “The Future of Canada Post Corporation”, which was a review of the Canada Post mandate to which the hon. member opposite just referred. The publication was given to the hon. minister then responsible for Canada Post Corporation in 1996. Unfortunately, those recommendations did not go anywhere. I hope the recommendations he will make on the Privacy Act will go a little further than that.

The Canada Post mandate reflected in my opinion both depth of understanding of sound management principles and what a strong organizational structure should look like. His comments, even in this early tenure in the position of privacy commissioner, showed the same kind of understanding and sensitivity that he revealed in that earlier review. I certainly wish him well.

In my mind there is no doubt about the competency of this individual. However, I have the sneaking suspicion that his appointment was not totally void of patronage considerations by those making the recommendation to appoint him the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

[Petitions, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the second and third petitions are signed by a total of 103 residents.

They ask that parliament withdraw Bill C-23 and affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure marriage is recognized as a unique institution.

[Petitions, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I present three petitions on behalf of my colleague, the member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

The first petition is signed by 47 constituents in that riding. These Canadians ask parliament to take all measures necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague suggest that not one member from the Liberal side of the House has spoken to the bill today. That arouses in me probably the greatest cynicism I have ever had here.

It seems to me we have some intelligent human beings sitting on the Liberal side of House who put the bill together. One begins to wonder that they have absolutely nothing to say about the bill. Are they so ashamed of the bill that they would not dare say anything in opposition to what we have suggested here as serious questions or flaws in the bill? Do they just want to bury their heads, so to speak, and just let the bill go? Or, could it be that the real intention of the bill is to once again appear to be doing something but in fact not be doing anything?

Yet there is an insidious, deep seriousness with the bill that could have an impact on a whole host of things. It could destroy certain individuals who are trying to make an honest living through hunting or through the raising of animals for food. Just what is going on here?

It becomes significant that we answer some of these questions. As the hon. member has said and as my hon. colleague over on the other side of the fence has said very clearly, we must get clear definitions of what is meant in the bill and of what cruelty to animals actually is. Let us be clear about this. We are not hearing anything from the government.

I know some of the members who are sitting in the House right at the moment, and I know some of their capabilities. They are not rising. What is it? Is it because it is the way we have it here and they are ashamed of their legislation? Or, is it because they do not want to create the impression or tell us the truth about what they actually want the bill to do? Could the hon. member comment on that?

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, once again I find myself agreeing with my colleague. I would add one other dimension to it. I am referring to the process that is being used by the government to almost make the committee non-significant. The legislation has drawn to the attention of the House the real significance of the committee.

We will be proposing some very substantive amendments to the legislation to uplift the importance of committees in the House and parliament. As a consequence, if the government will take that advice, the committees will feel good. Members in those committees will not have to whine like they did in the National Post this morning, and we will be able to live in a better world.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising that very valid issue. I did not raise it in my major remarks because I did not have time to do it. It gives me the opportunity to address the point of bringing together the urban-rural split to which the member alluded in his earlier remarks.

A number of pet owners say that they fixed their cat or dog. We know exactly what that means. This is precisely the same thing the member alluded to in his remarks. There is a distinct possibility of nuisance lawsuits, criticisms or whatever to be fostered. The act should be clear enough so that those nuisance assaults on the freedom of an individual, or whatever we might call them, are addressed and clearly taken outside the cruelty to animals provisions within the act.

That is exactly what our amendments will try to do. It would bring those kinds of issues to the attention of the government so that it could create legislation with which we can all live and actually make society better.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, in the introduction to my speech, I would like to read the title of this bill so that everybody who is listening recognizes exactly what we are up to here. Second, I will look at exactly what the implications are.

The act is entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals, disarming a peace officer and other amendments) and the Firearms Act (technical amendments)”. Here we have a bill with very far-reaching implications.

If we look at the summary of the bill, we will recognize that the bill has indeed moved into areas that are very far-reaching and have implications not only for the present generation but also for generations to come. For instance, it amends the criminal code by:

(a) consolidating animal cruelty offences into one section and introducing new offences for brutally or viciously killing an animal or abandoning one;

(b) creating an offence of disarming, or attempting to disarm, a peace officer; and

(c) making a number of technical amendments.

The intent being envisioned by the summary and also by the title of the bill clearly invokes and evokes a certain empathy. There is not one of us in the House who would not find ourselves very much in sympathy with and in support of what the bill is purporting to do.

In the introduction, I would suggest that the bill is rather far-reaching. In fact, many people would label a bill of this type an omnibus bill. An omnibus bill suffers from two kinds of characteristics. First, there is too much in it for people to really understand it all. Second, it is too general in some of its indications, so not enough attention has been given to clearly define or to give clear direction to what is intended. My hon. colleague talked about a preamble; in a bill like this one, a preamble is doubly important. Third, in certain other areas the bill is a little too specific in that it does not allow flexibility, which might otherwise be the case.

In principle, the bill is sound. Who in his right mind would not want to live in a society that is peaceful and orderly? Who in his right mind would not take offence that anybody should even dare to disarm a peace officer? Clearly we would not want that to take place. This bill brings that particular thing into focus by saying that it is a criminal offence and should not be tolerated in society. I think we would all agree with that. I certainly do. That principle is sound.

The other part of this legislation goes to the punishment of those who would cruelly use or abuse animals, both pets and other animals. I do not think any one of us would say that we are for being cruel to animals. Of course we are not. We do not want to be. It is ridiculous to even suggest that there are other creatures on the face of the earth and one of our purposes is to be cruel to them. We do not want to do that. This bill makes that a criminal offence. That is good. We can support those kinds of things.

Then we come to the business of saying that disarming a peace officer becomes an indictable offence and if that is the case then under certain conditions there will be an imprisonment of up to five years. When it is a summary conviction, which in technical jargon is slightly different, the maximum punishment is 18 months.

The big issue here is that it is a punishable offence and people who do these kinds of things ought to be treated with that kind of awareness.

There is another principle involved here. If we as a society want to live a peaceful, ordered life we must have people who from time to time protect us against those who want to disturb the peace, who do not want to have a decent lifestyle and want to interfere with ours. We need to equip these people. We need to protect these people. We need to give them the background and the information so that they can indeed provide for the peace, order and good government that we all want so much. I think we would all support this provision in the bill.

When it comes to the other part, the amendments to the firearms legislation, we ask ourselves, what is all this? When we analyze what the amendments are we discover that they are all very technical and could almost be interpreted as being cosmetic in nature. There is not much to offend there. However, the question then becomes, how will that actually change anything?

I guess it is necessary in certain cases because there is a grandfathering of certain things here. There is the training of employees who sell handguns. I think that is all very good. One could argue that it is just plain common sense. I guess the Liberal government thinks that common sense is so rare that it has to write it into legislation. If that is the case, then it is a good thing it is in here.

The other part of this, though, leads to something that I cannot resist. I must refer to the Liberals' Firearms Act, which they introduced here some time ago. It came in the form of Bill C-68. That particular piece of legislation is so badly flawed that if they really want to make a difference what they should do, at the minimum, is to take our 200 amendments that we proposed at report stage and implement them. That would help make the legislation a little more meaningful.

Mr. Speaker, you know, the Minister of Justice knows, the Prime Minister knows, the RCMP knows and all the police officers know that particular piece of legislation is not working. It has not reduced violent crime. It has not come even close to being a reasonable implementation scheme. Already $328 million has been spent. We were told it was going to cost less than $100 million. It is well over three times that number now. We have to take a very caustic look at that particular piece of legislation.

I would suggest that we really have not given the firearms legislation appropriate attention in the provisions of this bill. In fact, we could go even one step further. Police associations in Canada are considering withdrawing their support for the legislation. So with regard to this piece of legislation and putting this little cosmetic change in there, while it does not cause us any problem, it does not deal with the more serious case of the firearms legislation.

I want to turn my attention to the provisions in the bill with respect to cruelty to animals. I want to focus on two particular aspects of this part of the legislation.

First I want it clearly understood by all persons in the House listening to me now that we really want to support the idea that people who are wilfully cruel to animals should be punished severely.

However, what the bill proposes is that it should delete from existing legislation the words “wilful neglect” and “marked departure from the exercise of reasonable care”. When a person wilfully neglects an animal, that is being cruel to that animal. If that individual does not take reasonable care of an animal and departs from reasonable care, and does so in a very marked and obvious way, such a person should, in my opinion, be very severely chastised. No, they should be punished. This bill does that, but by removing words like “wilful” and “marked departure” it creates ambiguity and lack of clarity and allows for interpretations that really give inadequate direction to the people.

The other one has to do with “wilful” and wilfully being cruel to animals, directly. I know some young people who do terribly cruel things. I once saw this happen and it was awful. They wanted to kill this kitten. They put a string around its neck and threw it from the top of a barn and let it hang there. That is wilful cruelty and that should be punished.

There are penalties in this act, and I think the penalties show the severity with which we will consider these particular acts.

If we are really going to get serious about this, we have to recognize that certain amendments are necessary. As this bill now goes to committee, there are certain amendments that I would certainly encourage the Liberals to consider at that time. We will be moving an amendment, for example, to have animal cruelty provisions maintained in sections 444 to 446 or to make the necessary changes to proposed section 182.1 to comply with the concerns of farmers, hunters, agriculture groups, the fur trade and others who harvest animals. This falls outside the things that we talked about just now. We need to bring those things in so that it is clear and specific and all people understand.

Second, in another example of an amendment, we will be moving an amendment at committee stage to ensure legitimate individuals involved in animal operations are not unduly subject to criminal intent.

These amendments, and there will be others, quite a few of them, are necessary to make this bill do what it is intended to do.

I commend the Liberal government for the intention of its bill, but I would also remind it that we all agree on what should be happening here, and with the best of intentions, even a good bill can be improved by bringing certain amendments to it, which the official opposition will present. I would encourage the Liberals to please consider those amendments so that we can all live together in greater peace and harmony and have legislation that is even better than that which they have presented to the House.

[Business Of The House, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent to withdraw Motion No. 251, standing in the name of the member for Kelowna, as well as Motion No. 414, standing in the name of the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton.