Gurmant Grewal

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is a concern which is very near and dear to our hearts. We believe that humanity is one aspect.

I have been getting letters from my constituents as well. One was from a person who had been driving on a freeway behind a truck loaded with poultry. Some of the birds fell out of the truck, some had been put in small cages and it was hot. That was inhumane. We believe that is why we have this legislation.

We strongly believe in and support the intent of the government, but we are not comfortable with the way it has put things together in the bill.

I believe there is not one single Canadian who likes to see cruelty to animals. We all want the same thing. We want the objective to be achieved, but in a professional way so that we do not compromise the interests of our agricultural community, the animal husbandry community, the poultry farmers and other people who deal with animals on a regular basis.

The government should come up with a middle of the road approach whereby cruelty to animals is prevented while at the same time taking care of the interests of farmers, the agricultural community, hunters and others.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question is one that pertains to many other bills as well. Sometimes in the House we get one page or two pages of a bill. In this case, for example, we have only two pages of the bill, or if I may say so, maybe about eight pages of the bill. Certain things, which become very important, are not defined at all in the bill. No line has been drawn as to what means what, as to what the terms and conditions are. The government leaves it for interpretation either by the judiciary or in the realm of regulation.

I am chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee and I can tell the House that the regulations put forward by the government are a big mess. Some of the regulations that should not exist today have been in the pipeline for 25 years. Those regulations violate the terms and conditions of many issues. They should not exist.

However, those regulations continue because from time to time we and the committees have been stonewalled by the ministers, the departments and the government.

I believe that Canadians expect much more clarity and precision from the government so that when a bill comes before the House it shows that there is something really concrete in it. It cannot mix apples and oranges as it has done in this one and it has not defined many terms, conditions and definitions in the bill.

I believe that that is the way this is going. It is very unclear and very unprofessional. It shows that the government really does not care about fixing things. Sometimes it just wants to get political brownie points and that is not fair.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It gives me the opportunity to express how I feel about cruelty.

I am a person with a very soft heart. At home when I have some insects such as spiders or flies in the house, I take five or ten minutes to catch them, put them in a container, carry them outside and let them enjoy nature's freedom.

I am quite tough on the issue of those people who are injuring animals or inflicting pain on animals. It is fun for some people but that is not the way we in the civilized world should behave.

Again, in this bill the definition of cruelty is not mentioned anywhere. For example, with respect to those people who fish, probably in the view of other people they are causing pain and suffering to the fish they catch, as a fish is a living animal, but those people enjoy it. Other people are complete vegetarians who do not eat meat at all. Another extreme is those who butcher animals.

I believe cruelty is a relative term. For some people something is cruel and for others it is not, but if there were a Liberal member speaking on this bill I would stand up and ask what the definition of cruelty is in this bill. Also, there are so many other terms that should be included in this bill. The sad part is that the government members are not giving any interest to this. At this time there is only one member listening to this debate. I wonder why the members are not showing an interest.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak at second reading of Bill C-17, the government's proposed changes to the criminal code and Firearms Act.

This is a non-partisan issue. I have only heard Canadian Alliance members one after the other address the issue. Not a single member from the government stood to address this important issue. Perhaps they are not concerned about it and that is the way it is.

In any event the bill has three parts. The bill will first of all make it a criminal offence for anyone to disarm or attempt to disarm a peace officer without that officer's consent. Our nation's police associations have been calling for this. We in the official opposition commend the government whenever it listens to Canadians, which of course is a very rare event. In this case we in the Canadian Alliance are proud to support Canada's front line police officers. We will support this part of the bill and will work with the government to have it passed into law.

The second part of Bill C-17 amends the Firearms Act by expanding the class of prohibited handguns that are grandfathered and modifies the employee licensing requirements. The refinements to the Firearms Act are pure and simple tinkering. They are only cosmetic changes.

The Canadian Alliance calls for a complete overhaul of the Firearms Act. We support the two amendments to the Firearms Act. However, if the government really wants to fix the Firearms Act, it will have to implement the over 200 amendments proposed by this side of the House at report stage and implement all of the amendments proposed by the standing committee on justice.

The third part of Bill C-17 is the Liberal government's proposed amendments to the criminal code, which will consolidate cruelty to animal offences. The Canadian Alliance is anxious to support measures that will protect animals in Canada. We Canadians love our animals, be they wildlife, pets, or birds, all of the little creatures that get cold and hungry in our winters.

In Surrey we have squirrels, alley cats, groundhogs, coyotes and birds in our neighbourhoods, co-existing with us. They make us and our children laugh. They tear at our hearts on a rainy day. We all feel sad, very badly indeed, whenever we hear about an innocent animal harmed by a human being. If it is an unintentional harm to an animal, we share the sadness felt by the person who caused the hurt to the creature, for that person feels very bad as well.

When a person is cruel to an animal, that person invites the wrath of the House and of all the powers we have in this place to come to the aid, the defence and the protection of our brethren in the animal kingdom.

On behalf of the people of Surrey Central, I am proud to participate in this debate to pass the part of this legislation that will fight cruelty to animals.

The weak Liberal government is proposing to place brutality to an animal, viciously killing an animal and abandoning an animal in one section of our criminal code. This bill proposes to no longer treat cruelty to animals as a property crime. The new provision will move cruelty to animals to part V of the criminal code, under sexual offences, which would be renamed “Sexual Offences, Public Morals, Disorderly Conduct and Cruelty to Animals”. Animal cruelty provisions are currently contained in part XI of the criminal code. These sections protect a person from being convicted of an offence if that person acts with the legal justification of excuse or colour of right.

Agricultural groups, anglers, hunters' groups and the Fur Council of Canada oppose moving the offence. These groups fear that by moving the cruelty section to sexual offences, they may be wrongly prosecuted. They argue that those who lawfully and legitimately harvest animals for businesses will not be protected if the cruelty section is changed.

The Canadian Alliance will be moving an amendment at committee stage to have animal cruelty provisions maintained in part V or to make the necessary changes to the criminal code to comply with the concerns of farmers, hunters, anglers, agricultural groups, the fur trade and others who harvest animals.

The Minister of Justice contends that individuals who conduct an agricultural business or one involved with animals are not affected by this legislation. The Liberals say that if one is not violating the criminal code as it currently reads in conducting their agriculture business, Bill C-17 does not change the way they conduct their business, whereas agricultural groups, the anglers, the hunters' federation and the Fur Council of Canada do not agree. They do not buy that.

Canadians are mistrustful of the Liberal government that has delivered so many broken promises such as the GST. A government is not judged by the promises it makes. Rather, a government is judged by the promises it keeps.

These Canadians, these fur traders, farmers and hunters, feel the bill goes much further than reflecting society's disgust with those who would abuse pets. They feel that this legislation is the precursor to further attempts to alter the way they currently operate their respective businesses. These three groups of Canadians have raised legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on their operations now and in the future.

I did my first degree, a B.Sc. in agriculture, with honours in animal sciences. From that point of view, I can understand their concerns. There is no reason why the Liberals cannot accommodate the interests of the stakeholders and the industry affected by the legislation. Why not?

The government should say what it means in its legislation. Canadians cannot accept that words in a media scrum or in regulations will take care of things. I have gone through a copy of the bill. It is only a few pages long but the regulations after the bill come as a big pile of papers. It is the regulations that control the intent of the bill. Sometimes the intent of the bill is different.

Canadians want clarity. Because these groups are concerned, the government should spell out for them in its legislation exactly what the government means.

Let me talk about penalties described in the bill. The bill raises the penalty for intentional cruelty to an animal from the current six months to five years. Also, the bill will lift the cap off the fine, which is currently $2,000. There is potential for a lifetime ban from owning an animal. Those found guilty of cruelty to animals would be forced to pay for veterinarian services to treat the animal. The bill acknowledges that animals have feelings and are deserving of legal protection from negligence or abuse. We hope that the new maximum five year penalty will be imposed. As in other instances, the minister has failed to put teeth in our law and propose minimum penalties. Hopefully the Canadian Alliance can have the Liberals fix this matter at the committee stage of the bill's progress through the House.

There is more work for the government to do. Like so many of their attempts to legislate, this is only half a job. They are botching the job. We want to support this legislation and at the same time we want it to be right. It is a good thing that we are here to hold the flashlight for this weak Liberal government that lacks vision.

The terms mentioned in the bill are not defined. The government, in one bill, is mixing various issues that do not have much correlation. The bill is like mixing apples and oranges. The bill is half cooked. It is like a bitter medicine mixed with a little sugar.

We will propose amendments during the committee stage that will attempt to clarify and bring consensus to the bill.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Elk Island is a veteran member of the House. He has given a very interesting speech with very interesting answers to the questions, but a question still remains in my mind. I would like him to clarify.

How do we define cruelty? It is a relative term. For some people some things are not cruel whereas for others they are. There are cattle farmers whose livelihood depends upon killing animals for meat and other purposes. There are other activities such as sports, the circus or rodeo, which are simply for the sake of fun but which cause pain, suffering and injury to animals.

How would the member define cruelty? Would he agree that it is a relative term and that it is not defined in the bill at all?

[Motions For Papers, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion No. P-24 pertaining to the production of papers relating to the Air India bombing was introduced in June 1998 and reintroduced as P-11 in the new session.

It has taken a tremendously long time. The parliamentary secretary first denied that there were documents. In the interim the House was informed that the file had been referred to the justice department. Now I am told that the document could not be provided because of the ongoing RCMP investigation.

It shows there is a lack of political will on behalf of the government to provide justice for 329 people. I request that this matter be referred to the House, transferred for debate and a free vote.

[Canada Post, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House debated organized crime but today we have to talk about postage stamps for terrorists. Canada Post is considering the issuance of a vanity stamp for Velupillai Prabhakaran, leader of the Tamil tigers, the ruthless terrorist organization.

The government has already allowed a vanity stamp for Kumar Ponnambalam, a well known supporter of the Tamil tigers. That stamp was issued in violation of Canada Post's vanity stamp program rules requiring the consent and permission of the person to be pictured. Kumar was deceased and he could not give permission, but still the Liberals gave him a stamp.

Liberals have not only given tax free status and made Canada a haven for terrorists. Now they issue them stamps. Rather than stamping out terrorism, they have put terrorists on our stamps.

Did the finance minister promise to approve it when he was attending the Tamil tiger fundraiser along with the CIDA minister? How many more terrorist stamps—

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Bill C-33, the endangered species act.

First and foremost we have to think about what Canadians want when it comes to protecting species at risk. All Canadians want to help the environment. All Canadians want to protect biodiversity. We in the Canadian Alliance care about protecting species that are at risk and protecting or recovering critical habitat. The Canadian Alliance plan creates the potential for this to happen.

Canadians recognize that we need a proactive approach to protect species at risk that is based on respect, respect for the species that inhabit our lands and waters, and respect for those who own those lands. Our plan to protect species at risk is a common sense policy that considers the needs of all stakeholders. Our plan is balanced, accommodating, practical and workable.

The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species, and to the sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for use by current and future generations.

The Canadian Alliance maintains that for any endangered species legislation to be effective it must respect the fundamental rights of private property owners.

The four key areas or issues regarding the bill which I think are important are: compensation for landowners; recovery planning for specific species; the role of the Council on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada; and compliance, enforcement and dispute resolution. I will go into detail.

The first area is compensation. Compensation for expropriated lands that is not at fair market value is not fair. The species at risk act we are debating today hardly touches on the pivotal issue of compensation. There is no clear formula for compensation outlined in the bill. Compensation will be dealt with through regulations following the passage of the bill, and we know how the regulations work. The minister has this backward. Co-operation among stakeholders is unlikely unless the landowners are assured that any land expropriated for the purpose of species or habitat protection or recovery will be expropriated at fair market value.

The second area is recovery planning for specific species. Recovery strategies should list the activities required. A recovery plan should include estimated costs associated with the recovery of a given species or habitat. Integrated listing or recovery planning must be part of the act. Without such planning we will find ourselves listing species we have no capacity to protect. There should be no listing of a species as being endangered unless it can be scientifically proven that that species is in fact endangered. Furthermore, there should be no expropriation of land unless it can be scientifically proven that the species can be recovered.

The third point is the role of the Council on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. In the endangered species listing process, the Canadian Alliance supports an independent, scientific listing body such as the Council on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada while recognizing the role and authority of parliament in recovery planning.

The last point of compliance, enforcement and dispute resolution, is a very important point. The Liberals should not introduce legislation that threatens to use criminal sanctions in addition to its power of expropriation.

Any attempt by government to expropriate private property should be subject to the following process. This process should include a review process that offers some form of arbitration and/or dispute resolution to landowners. Where warranted, and only after a fair review or dispute resolution process has been completed, the expropriation of private land at fair market value should be reasonable. The process should also include that any use of criminal law power by government against private landowners is unreasonable. A functional dispute resolution mechanism would render the use of criminal law power largely unnecessary.

The majority of producers and landowners believe that the government could achieve more through co-operation with farmers and ranchers than through threats of punishment.

So far I have been discussing the problems that the official opposition has with this bill.

The people of Surrey Central, whom I represent, are from largely metropolitan or suburban areas. While we are not running the risk of having our land confiscated without compensation, without reimbursement of fair market value, we do not want any Canadian subject to such an unjust treatment. Many of us in Surrey Central own our homes. We make mortgage payments like everyone else. We would not want the Liberals to swoop down and section off any of the area of land that surrounds our homes without paying us for that portion of land the Liberals say that they have to take from us for obvious reasons.

My constituents do not want me to sit on my hands in the House while the Liberals threaten to take huge chunks of land, thousands of acres in some cases, from Canadian citizens and pay them virtually nothing.

In fact, far from working in a democratic way to help Canada's ranchers contribute to our nation's efforts to save our endangered species, the Liberals are promising punishment for those ranchers. My heart goes out to the farmers and ranchers who are already overtaxed by the government and who are already suffering. They have huge input costs that are the fault of the government and its lack of vision. They have to compete at a disadvantage on the world markets thanks to the government's poor record on international trade. The Liberals are now planning to take, from what I have been told, sometimes thousands of acres of land from individual Canadians without a process of compensation and under the threat of criminal charges.

I received a note from one of my constituents, David Pope, and I would like to read from it. He said that the offensive penalties for actions against plants, animals or organisms that are deemed species at risk and the land which makes up their habitat are unlike any found in Canadian criminal law. They range from $50,000 and/or one year in jail to $1 million and/or five years in jail for each offence and are doubled if repeated. These are not offences of murder, arson, theft or rape but are for harming or harassing a plant, animal or organism or destroying a portion of its habitat, which is on one's land, and that is outrageous.

Mr. Pope went on to say that the above offences are strict liability offences and that an accuser need only say “you committed the offence and you must prove that you did not”. That is a reverse onus, as the lawyers say, and rarely used in criminal law.

In the usual serious criminal offence a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty and beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the case under Bill C-33. Mr. Pope further writes that the farmer is prohibited from charging them with trespassing. They can take anything they like and not pay for it. Homes can be searched under a search warrant which bears no resemblance to the usual murder, arson, rape or other serious criminal offence. A search warrant will be much easier to obtain. This is an outrage.

When the eco-police start asking ranchers or farmers questions about the alleged offence the rancher or farmer must give them reasonable assistance. They must answer the questions or be charged with obstruction of justice. They will be forced to give evidence against themselves. Once again, under Canadian law an accused does not have to incriminate himself but he does under Bill C-33. Yet another civil liberty breached.

Another provision of Bill C-33 provides statute standing for anyone 18 years or older and a resident of Canada to start an investigation against a rancher or a farmer for any of the offences I have just listed. Any special interest group or anyone with a grudge against a farmer or a rancher can start an investigation which may well cost the farmer thousands of dollars in litigation fees and fines if not time behind bars. This is neighbour turning against neighbour. Do we really want this kind of society in Canada for these kinds of offences?

Bill C-33 provides that the accused rancher or farmer can never know who started the investigation against him. He will never be able to face his accuser in open court. Canadians and free people everywhere are afforded the right to face their accusers in open court but not under Bill C-33.

Fair market compensation is not mentioned in Bill C-33. There is a clause covering compensation but it appears from the wording that any compensation received for a regulatory restriction on agriculture land use to protect the habitat of species at risk will be difficult to obtain and below fair market value. These are the issues of concern.

The people I represent believe that there should be a fair and democratic manner in which to handle the protection of endangered species. We do not believe that conflict and heavy-handed government penalties should be the basis for working out this matter. The government is making a mess of the process.

I have some recommendations to make with respect to Bill C-33. This bill should be based on voluntary co-operation and partnerships between the stakeholders and our government. That is possible. It can be done.

All Canadians, including ranchers and farmers in our remotest lands, want to protect our environment, our vegetation and our animals. They want to protect flora and fauna. The people of Surrey Central want our government to work hand in hand with the stakeholders and have them co-operate and benefit from measures to protect our endangered species. It can be done. A Canadian Alliance government will do it. This Liberal government is trying to do it through the back door, through regulations. That is wrong. I know it is wrong because I am on the scrutiny of regulations committee. There are a number of regulations in the pipeline which should not be there. They have been in the pipeline for years, some of them for 25 years, because when the committee writes to ministers of the crown they will not respond or will not respond in a manner that will resolve the issues. The regulations go in circles and keep on existing when they should not be there in the first place.

The government uses bill after bill. There is very limited scope in the bill but a huge number of regulations that control the implementation of that act. This is not the way to go. This is the back door process and that is wrong.

The Liberals should be up front and prepare the legislation. They should give details on how the protection of these species will be achieved but they are not doing that. The people of Surrey Central will not support what the Liberals are doing with this bill. We are ashamed of what the Liberals are doing. Therefore, we cannot support Bill C-33.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt the hon. member who was speaking very well, but he, I and many other members are members of the subcommittee. As subcommittee members we are under gag orders. While the member is speaking on this issue he is discussing in the House what we are not supposed to discuss. If that is the case, why are certain members of the House under gag orders but not the government members?

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, after a wonderful summer it is an honour to be back to represent my wonderful constituents. I believe, Madam Speaker, that you and all other members of the House also had an excellent summer. I look forward to a good session of parliament.

On the first day of the session and as the first speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to support Bill C-334, an act to amend section 419 of the criminal code which will permit the wearing of war decorations by relatives of a deceased veteran on the right side of the survivor's chest. As we know, our military veterans always wear their medals and stripes on the left side of their chests.

The people of Surrey Central would have me begin my comments today by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast. Not only is he the sponsor of this bill and today's debate, he has also been appointed to the position of chief whip of Her Majesty's Loyal Official Opposition, the Canadian Alliance. We are all very proud of our seasoned parliamentary colleague and are confident that he will do a fine job of whipping us up to the next election.

This initiative by the hon. member is not meant to diminish or dishonour the service, sacrifice and valour of our veterans and those who have been awarded decorations. On the contrary, it is meant to celebrate and recognize the sacrifice in this achievement. It is also meant to recognize and acknowledge bravery, gallantry, patriotism and commitment to our nation.

Those decorations must not be forgotten, put away in dusty boxes or drawers or end up in flea markets just because of a 1920 law that established as a criminal offence to wear war decorations unless the wearer earned them. In those days parliament recognized the need for such legislation. The problem was that these war decorations were being sold and it was not uncommon for someone to purchase them, wear them and thereby falsely give the impression of having earned the decorations they had actually purchased. Legitimate recipients of these medals were concerned about protecting the integrity of these military decorations.

By making it a criminal offence for someone other than the original recipient of the award to wear the decoration, Canadian veterans were sustaining the valour, honour and privileges that accompany these military distinctions.

That was then, but this is now. Today fewer and fewer Canadians are able to wear Canada's war decorations. Our veterans are aging and, sadly, are passing on. The declining membership of the Royal Canadian Legion should give us the common sense to help reconsider the archaic law. It is even more startling since 44% of the members are over the age of 65 and, out of those, over a quarter are over the age of 75.

We need to enhance Remembrance Day services by allowing family members to bring out medals on this day and thereby perpetuate the act of remembrance.

My grandfather fought in the world war and was awarded bravery medals. My brothers, sisters and cousins have perhaps forgotten the stories of bravery of our grandfather. The medals he won ought to be the symbol of refreshing the memory of his bravery today, are locked in boxes somewhere or perhaps even lost. It is because no one after him could ever wear them.

On November 11 at 11.00 a.m. Remembrance Day is celebrated in three legions in my constituency. As an MP, I would like to attend the ceremonies at all three places but I cannot. Last year I sent my younger son Livjot to one of the events to represent me.

I think that Remembrance Day should not only be limited to the older people but rather we should encourage our youth to get involved so that they can get motivation from our veterans to become good citizens.

Livjot also gave a very emotional speech on my behalf, which was highly appreciated. My son said:

The 20th century was a violent century. World peace was won but the human cost defies our imagination. The fear, the sorrow and the horror of war was unimaginable. The price tag of peace was war and 110,000 Canadians dead. Those who came back, no matter how wounded in body and spirit, were determined to build on what they left behind. Together they fought a war and forged a nation, a nation we proudly call Canada.

We must learn from the harsh truths of wars past so that we never repeat humanity's mistakes. Let us remember to pass on their legacy to our children and our children's children, as my dad did today. Love and remembrance last forever. There is a link death cannot sever.

That link is by those medals and war decorations that this bill, if passed, will allow the relatives to wear on Remembrance Day.

The time has come to follow the lead of Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, our Commonwealth partners, which have already amended their laws to reflect the need to unveil these decorations and re-commemorate the valour of those who were awarded these distinctions.

We live in a relatively peaceful era. Today's generation is very lucky in that regard. Canadian youth need to learn the value of these medals, how they were earned, why they are so important and the great costs at which they were won. By allowing the wearing of Canada's war decorations by close relatives and descendants of our war veterans, and the wearing of these decorations in a manner different than that of the original recipient, we would be protecting the honour, valour and privileges that these medals command. This is important because these decorations and the stories behind them represent our heritage.

In the previous hour of debate the only problem cited by the government and the Tory Party was the definition of a relative. Who would be entitled to wear the decoration won by a deceased Canadian war veteran? I agree that this is an important definition.

My colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast was generous and showed foresight in leaving the definition of relative open to debate and input from the members and the witnesses appearing before the committee. He did not insist on limiting nor overly extending the category of people who would be entitled to privileges should the House pass the bill.

If the government would allow a free vote in the House, it would be possible to modernize an antiquated law. If the House supports the bill then it will be sent to the committee and the matter of the definition of relative can be decided democratically.

I would suggest that the committee consider requiring a red, green or blue piece of material to be worn on the right side of the chest as a background for the decoration thus denoting that the person wearing the decoration is the first, second or third descendent generation of the person originally awarded them.

I could also suggest that the committee consider establishing a system whereby the person intending to wear the medal must satisfy a requirement that would show they understand the significance of wearing the medal.

Bill C-334 is striving to make arrangements to address these concerns. It is worthy of serious consideration by the House. It is worthy of proceeding to the committee stage so that the outstanding issues can be dealt with.

I urge all members to support the initiative we have with the bill. Let us do the work necessary to examine this matter totally. Let us prepare for the dwindling number of Canadian war veterans who will be among us in the future. Let us prepare to provide the necessary arrangements to allow the direct descendants and survivors of our military heroes to proudly wear the decorations they have inherited. Let us reflect the need of the times in our laws and let common sense actually work.