Lost his last election, in 2004, with 5% of the vote.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001 September 20th, 2001
Yes, Madam Speaker. The minister said that what is lawful today would remain lawful when the bill receives royal assent.
If there is a change of justice ministers, would that minister still agree that what was lawful when this is passed would still be lawful five or 10 years from now?
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001 September 20th, 2001
Madam Speaker, the federal justice minister has assured the House of Commons by saying “what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent”. However, justice ministers come and go. Does the hon. member think this would always be the case for any justice minister?
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001 September 20th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I would hope, by the hon. member's comments, that it could be under further consideration. However, when the amendments and suggestions were originally brought out in committee they were passed over as unimportant. We have to rattle a few chains and make a few challenges in order to get attention back to this issue.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001 September 20th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I will take time to re-establish the direction in which I was going. I suggested that the omnibus bill had raised a number of questions. Constituents have asked questions and I have asked two questions that were at the heart of what I was asking. First, is the bill for the protection of children and second, is it for the protection of animals?
I will move from that to include some remarks made by some associations around the country to which I have referred. I have a letter from the cattlemen's association. It has expressed some of the same opinions that some of our members have expressed. For instance, one of its main concerns is the following:
It is mistaken ever to imagine that animals could have “interests” or “rights” requiring protection. In a civil society, there can only be “interests” or “rights” where there is reciprocity. Canadians enjoy their legal rights because they go hand-in-hand with corresponding legal duties.
The association went on to say:
That does not mean that humans have no duty to protect animals from cruelty. But such a duty does not and cannot arise from animal “interests” or “rights”. The manner in which we treat animals is a matter of public morals and virtue.
Those are perhaps two foreign words but I agree with them.
Similarly, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association said:
Our association's support for the bill is based on our interpretation of the amendments and on the hope that they will not compromise and criminalize the accepted practices in regard to the treatment or use of animals, including some recognized activities such as agriculture, hunting, fishing, trapping--
It went on to say that the CVMA recommends that a preamble to the bill indicate some recognized practices for the treatment and use of animals that are to be governed by the bill. In other words, it wants clarification on the practices. The dairy farmers of Canada indicated basically the same thing.
The following is my next question. Why has the government proposed such a diverse objective all in one bill? It seems like a senseless attempt to address such diverse issues as the abuse of children and the abuse of animals in the same act, to amend the criminal code and other acts. It may be correct and allowable from a parliamentary perspective but there is a significant gap in these issues. It leaves one curious as to how the government expects to gain support for legislation drafted in that manner.
Members of the House could have spent the entire summer trying to make sense to their constituents as to why this approach was taken. Is it about people? Is it about animals? Is it about guns? Is it about national defence? What is the bill about?
Is it the most effective way to gain majority consent of the House in support of the legislation? One would have to understand that this is not the way to build consensus. It is not the way to pass legislation. It is only a way to divide and, I suggest, there was an intent to divide rather than to bring together.
It is apparent that this is not the most effective way to gain support. The government has not been open to amendments to the legislation and especially regarding the application of the criminal code respecting agriculture.
Is it simply a procedural tactic to force members of the House to support legislation regardless of the flaws inherent? It seems that this legislative approach is merely a tactical procedure to gain passage of ambiguous and questionable sections of the act regarding animal agriculture and gun registries on the back of sections regarding child protection, which the government fully realizes the House would support.
Why has the government weakened the legislation by including certain sections that it fully realizes has soured support. It is apparent to any reasonable person that the legislation is flawed and weakened.
It is a contrived attempt by the government to divide those who want to support the good amendments. We have encouraged the government to consider amendments to this legislation in order to gain full support of the responsible members on both sides of the House. It has refused in order to continue to play its petty political games.
Is the government brazenly tempting opposition members to oppose this legislation for its own political gain or does it simply not understand the consequences of its own legislation that it expects the House to support?
I believe the government deliberately set out to tempt members to oppose this legislation. If this was its intent, then it has succeeded. I cannot in good conscience support the legislation on behalf of my constituents.
Again I ask: What is the real purpose of the bill? I have to say that I do not believe it has anything to do with the attempt to give good democratic consideration of legislation.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001 September 20th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the omnibus bill raises a number of questions. It raises questions in my own riding of Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre because people cannot imagine why we would combine such a wide diversity of topics into one bill and why that would have to be.
What is the purpose of Bill C-15? We have heard mention of hidden agendas and that sort of thing, but what really is the purpose of Bill C-15? It is said that the purpose of Bill C-15 is to amend the criminal code and the criminal law in certain ways.
I looked at the ways we are suggesting to amend it and some amendments intend to protect children from sexual predators, especially on the Internet; some deal with criminal harassment; some deal with aggravated home invasions; some deal with disarming of police officers; some revise the process of going to the Minister of Justice for miscarriages of justice; and some reform the process for preliminary inquiries and that process within the judicial system. Those relate to people.
Then all of a sudden I am reminded that there is also something to increase the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals which of course there is no problem with except for the lack of some of the clarification we have mentioned.
Then we come to the section about guns. We have gone from people to animals and now to guns. This again just further helps the administration to pass awful legislation that has not been successful and is not working properly, is not being enforced and is not being obeyed. We need to admit that.
It then moves to include other acts.
What is the real purpose of Bill C-15? Is it for the protection of our children? Certainly the bill does offer some protection from sexual exploitation, especially over the Internet, and it increases the penalties. We applaud and appreciate that. It is a good part of the bill and we offer our full support. Let me remind the House that except for the stubbornness of the minister and the government, that provision could have been law months ago and they chose not to allow that to happen.
Perhaps the bill was proposed for the protection of animals? The bill offers protection for animals but it is unreasonable to elevate their protection to the same level as people. The legislation makes it possible for one to be convicted of abusing animals in the same way one would be convicted of abusing a person.
I support the legislation to protect against the abuse of animals, but this legislation imposes serious ramifications regarding animal agriculture.
Senior Citizens June 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, Canadian seniors are supposed to be living their golden years, yet for many seniors in our country rising utility rates are posing a serious burden on their limited and fixed incomes.
Back in my riding, many seniors have conveyed to me their concerns about having fixed incomes yet having to deal with constantly rising utility rates. This needs to be addressed. The Canadian Alliance believes that not one senior in the country should be in distress because of a lack of services or support. We on this side of the House care about seniors.
The Prime Minister, being a senior himself, certainly cares about his pension and demonstrated his uncanny ability to ensure that his pension grows at a much faster rate by passing legislation in record time.
It is time that the Prime Minister addressed the issues that matter to other Canadian seniors. Perhaps he could do this with as much zeal and haste as he has used in addressing his own pay raise and pension.
Computer Hackers May 31st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I was deep in thought about what the member across the way said, however, I am thankful to the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt for introducing this private member's motion. I believe every member should support the motion.
I do not believe that the criminal code is sufficient as it is. It is perhaps outdated regarding Internet crime and I believe it is yet another symptom of how we are failing to keep up with the times in having a judicial system that protects Canadians.
Ever since the Internet entered the public domain there has been an enormous resistance to any regulation or interference by the government in the Internet. The Internet is believed by some to be the last bastion of pure freedom. Some people believed it could not be regulated and some people want freedom without limits, without consideration for others and without any accountability. However, freedom does come with responsibility, with limits, with consideration and with accountability.
Internet crime has proven to be harmful to personal property and will even destroy it. My own son's computer contained the files for my personal website during the election campaign. The night that he was to go home and finish that campaign site he found that a hacker had entered his computer and had actually destroyed the computer itself. He actually had to replace the hard drive because of the action of that hacker. We know it can happen. We know that Internet crime can also interrupt business. We believe it is time to shut down crime.
The Internet came on in the early nineties. It was the gateway to a new era. It developed so quickly that it seems to have left a lot of things in its wake. It moved so quickly that technology was perhaps slow in keeping up with the hackers, in keeping them out. Also, though, I believe that we were slow in heading them off.
Moving just as quickly, of course, were those we call hackers, who were attempting to destroy opportunities. The word virus took on a new meaning. Those who would destroy the opportunities and those who would create destructive viruses are the criminals that the member of parliament from Saskatoon—Humboldt and others want to shut down through this type of motion.
Existing crime legislation was never designed to deal with the types of Internet crime we are witnessing. Some of this crime was never even imagined in those days and it continues to develop in things that are happening on the Internet.
I believe amendments to the criminal code are required that will allow it to specifically deal with Internet crime. Amending the criminal code would provide law enforcement agencies and the courts with the tools they need.
Many have benefited personally from crimes on the Internet. It reminds me of the old protection racket in the old west, for instance, or in the Al Capone days. It seems that one of the ways to get a good computer job is to learn how to be a good hacker, to hack into some company's files and then offer oneself for hire. I do not believe that should even be allowed.
I support those who want to keep the government from unduly regulating the Internet and I support measures that will secure the existing network for us and for future users.
However, I believe there are things that we have not even mentioned and that this bill certainly does not address. I believe, for instance, that we also ought to look at sites that would entrap children in pornographic sites. I know this bill does not address that. That is just an example of how things progress on the Internet. We should broaden our look at what might be considered an Internet crime.
I have information here which indicates that by May 10 of this year the number of viruses tracked by MessageLabs SkyScan virus scanning service passed 185,000. That exceeds the mark reached in the whole year of 2000. We are seeing this kind of steady increase. Another consultant with another firm said “Around a year ago we would probably expect to see 1,000 new viruses each month. Nowadays we aren't surprised to see 1,200”.
There have been two major viruses this year, and we all know about the one last year, the love bug virus. These viruses are developing very rapidly.
I believe that the laws need to be tough enough to punish those who would willfully spread computer viruses and those who write them. We must take the cool out of writing viruses and we must not allow people to profit from it.
I understand that people who distribute viruses get the code from a virus exchange website where authors post viral source codes. This in itself should be illegal. To allow the tools for writing viruses to be on the Internet seems to me to be quite comical, but it is happening. If our laws are so sufficient, why is it continuing to happen? Why are those sites there?
It has been stated that no one is ever shown anything useful about a computer virus. It is bad and it only does harm and the law should treat it accordingly. Peter Tippet, a chief technology officer for TruSecure Corporation, wrote a recent article in which he says that making a bomb is illegal while writing about a bomb is not illegal and with a computer virus the words are the bomb.
Virus writers are glory seekers. They believe they are free in the wild, wild west of the computer Internet world to do whatever they want to do. It is time that we introduced some effective crime legislation to deal with hackers. I am pleased to support the bill which calls for some important steps to be taken toward the real control of Internet crime.
Petitions May 18th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege today to present this petition signed by 380 of the fine residents of Saskatchewan who have a rural problem.
They are asking for amendment of the relevant regulations so as to permit the sale of concentrated liquid strychnine to registered farmers until such time as an effective alternative can be found.
Human Rights May 18th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I believe all parliamentarians should applaud yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court of Canada upholding freedom of conscience and freedom of religion for all Canadians.
It would indeed be a tragedy for Canada to prevent its citizens from adopting and maintaining a personal code of conduct that does not infringe upon the rights of any other Canadian. If a government agency, without any evidence of wrongdoing or misbehaviour, can start questioning people's convictions, who will be targeted tomorrow?
The Supreme Court of Canada decision upholds the right of Trinity Western University to maintain a code of conduct based upon religious values. This decision should be welcomed by all who value pluralism, true tolerance and religious freedom.
The proper place to draw the line is generally between belief and conduct. The freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act on them. I certainly applaud the supreme court for yesterday's decision.
Supply May 17th, 2001
Madam Speaker, obviously we will have to spend some money. I recently saw a lady in Wilcox, Saskatchewan, who was about to retire from the RCMP. She sat as the facilitator for a community group. They brought in the young offender and those around him. They allowed community peer pressure to come to bear on the young person. Those are the kinds of things that are needed.