John Finlay

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. There are three parties involved in specific claims: the first nations, Canada, and the provincial governments. This commission is being changed in order that decisions can be made more quickly and more satisfactorily so that first nations can get on with the matter of controlling their own land.

[Criminal Code, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-280, an act to amend the Criminal Code (selling wildlife). There are some admirable motivations behind this proposal and the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley has put them very well.

As a government, we fully support ensuring that wildlife is preserved and protected in the best possible way, and certainly that extends to species at risk. In fact, there are many years of conservation actions behind this in Canada and there are a number of statutes already on the books that accomplish this goal.

The proposed legislation would create three indictable offences under the Criminal Code for selling wildlife or wildlife parts, or for killing, capturing or possessing wildlife or wildlife parts for the purpose of selling them. Under this proposal there would be exemptions from prosecution for people who sell wildlife in accordance with a licence, permit or an exemption order. It also states that the sale of threatened or endangered species would mean high penalties and that all offences would be subject to the money laundering provisions of the Criminal Code.

As noted at the outset of my remarks, these are admirable objectives. However, we need to make sure that there is a good fit with other legislation already in place or pending. In this case, this is not so.

I would like to point out that in the Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1994 and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, known as WAPPRIITA, there are dual procedure offences. These are also found in the Canada Wildlife Act. Dual procedure offences mean that they can begin with a summary conviction or an indictment. The maximum prison terms set out for proceedings by indictment in most statutes do not exceed five years.

Let us also consider the government sponsored Bill C-5, the species at risk act. This bill is currently under review by the Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources. One of the offences created in Bill C-5 is the prohibition on the killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking of a wildlife species that is listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened. Bill C-5 also includes a prohibition on the possessing, collecting, buying, selling or trading of a wildlife species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened.

There is some overlap between this offence and the ones outlined in existing legislation, as well as the offences set out in Bill C-280.

Bill C-280 provides only indictable offences. The maximum prison terms vary from two to eight years, depending on whether it is a first or subsequent offence and whether the wildlife involved is an endangered species.

The question here is not that we need to do this. The question here is whether it is already being done or has been done, and in a better way.

Is Bill C-280 the best way to accomplish the goal? Are the provisions about prohibiting behaviour that is traditionally associated with Parliament's exercise of its criminal law power? Or perhaps we should say that Bill C-280 is describing a public welfare offence, traditionally associated with regulatory matters in a civil context. That is why we believe this approach is inconsistent with the classification of offences elsewhere in the Criminal Code.

The sale of wildlife, as I have demonstrated, is well covered in existing legislation. The bill is a duplication that is not necessary. I can also submit that in many cases we would be using the heavy hand of the Criminal Code for some sales that are quite minor, such as the sale of a few muskrat pelts. We do not need such a heavy approach.

Let me explain further. The offence of sexual assault is classified as a dual procedure offence, which means that the Crown may elect to proceed by summary conviction or by indictment. From a policy point of view, it would appear inconsistent to classify the selling of wildlife as an indictable offence when other offences considered more serious by society are classified as dual procedure offences.

There also would be a cost implication to the provinces and territories if straight indictable offences were created for the offences in Bill C-280. All persons charged with any of the offences under the act would have a choice of trial, including the possibility of a jury trial.

We need to remember that under the Canadian system provincial governments are those with the constitutional powers to regulate the use and protection of wildlife on provincial lands. We must also take note that these offences are well covered in Canadian statutes and will be reinforced with the passage of the proposed species at risk act.

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, steps have been taken to reduce the number of reports needed.

We are committed to improving the current reporting structure with first nations, while ensuring a balance is maintained between the accountability to Canadians on the use of public funds and coherent and consistent federal government reporting.

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is already taking steps to address the reporting issues raised by the Office of the Auditor General. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada agrees that reporting should be transparent, efficient and results based.

Existing program areas are being examined to determine where single window reporting could better serve the federal government and first nations in general.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

I might retire. I am thinking of it.

The second question is regarding why people do not vote. There have been a lot of statements in the House about why the voting percentage has gone down. We have to look at that a little more carefully. Why? Has anyone studied it? Have we any polls on it?

My idea on it is that many people do not vote because they do not feel motivated to vote. They are uninterested. I guess that some people do not vote because they are lazy. Some do not vote because they think all politicians are crooked. Of course, when I look around the House this morning, that cannot be true because there are a number of politicians here and I do not think any of them think they are crooked. I know I do not. I know that members who have spoken do not. I suppose another reason people do not vote is that they are quite satisfied; they are not dissatisfied.

The member asked how do people make their voices heard around here. Many members will remember the two things that occurred in the last nine years which raised the most reaction from Canadians. One was negative option billing of TV programming. All members' offices were deluged on that issue. The other was the issue of giving money to hockey teams.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have been here all morning and I must congratulate my colleague who moved the motion because it has certainly led us into some interesting forays through present and past history. I have lost my way every now and then of course, because we have not been sticking to the point. We have more interest in what we have hidden here that we must get expressed.

I have two questions for the hon. member who spoke so eloquently. He seems to have forgotten when he talks about patronage appointments that the undisputed master of patronage appointments was the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, his party's former leader. After a very telling cut at Mr. Turner in the debate when he said, “You did have an option, sir”, he then proceeded in his nine years in office to make more patronage appointments than any other prime minister before or since.

The member talked about fear of re-election keeping the backbenchers of the Liberal Party in line. I would like him to explain that for me. I have no fear of re-election. I have no fear of the PMO. I have no fear of anybody and I am a backbencher.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the concern of the member opposite, however, I must reiterate that when the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced in the House on June 21 that the Government of Canada would be offering up to $20,000 to each eligible first nations veteran as a gesture of goodwill, members of all political parties were supportive. I presume they were supportive because they knew that was just about the amount that was given to the merchant seamen and to the Hong Kong prisoners.

The offer to first nations veterans was in response to the national round table report and to the grievances of first nations veterans. It was an offer of goodwill and was not an ascertainment of liability or its absence, which I suggest the other figures suggested by my hon. colleague would be.

Eligible veterans' surviving spouses or estates have the option of accepting this package or not. The offer is consistent with similar offers made to other groups, as I have said.

Let me reiterate that the federal government's offer to first nations veterans is a fair offer and one that I hope first nations veterans will accept.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to elaborate on the Government of Canada's offer to first nations veterans.

In February 2000 the federal government agreed to establish a national round table on first nations veterans issues, as my friend has said. This process saw the cooperation of several government departments along with various representatives from first nations groups who were committed to addressing these concerns.

In response to the grievances of first nations veterans and the national round table report, the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced on June 21, 2002 that the Government of Canada was offering up to $20,000 to each eligible first nations veteran or surviving spouse as an offer of goodwill. Members of all political parties were supportive when the minister made this announcement in the House.

In fact, this amount is consistent with the benefits offered to other veterans groups by the Government of Canada, such as the merchant navy veterans and the Hong Kong prisoners of war, two other groups who were not compensated adequately following the hostilities. I should also say that the amount to be received by each veteran under our current approach to veterans benefits is tax free. I wish to reiterate that this offer is one of goodwill and is not an ascertainment of liability or its absence.

I am also pleased to learn that eligible veterans' surviving spouses or estates have since accepted the offer.

Indeed, there is acknowledgment that the government continues to be prudent and focus spending on the highest priorities of Canadians.

In the recent Speech from the Throne the government pledged to close the gap between non-aboriginal and aboriginal Canadians. It also pledged to support children and families in poverty, to make more competitive cities and healthy communities, to build on investment and skills, learning and research and to meet the challenge of climate change in the environment.

There are always competing priorities for taxpayers' dollars. The revenues of the government are revenues of the citizens of this country and are to be used for all programs.

It is also my expectation that the applications will all soon be processed so that the cheques may be delivered very soon. The deadline for receiving those applications is February 15, 2003. A 1-800 number is already in place to receive inquiries from first nations members and to register them for an application. These veterans, along with all of those who served our country, have our admiration and respect.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is grateful to first nations veterans and all veterans for their wartime sacrifice and is committed to fairness and equity in providing for all Canadians who served their country.

I thank the minister and the Department of Veterans Affairs for advancing this particular file to a fair and just resolution. As the House knows, the Minister of Veterans Affairs first and foremost is an advocate for our veterans. He is honoured to be serving the needs of those who so valiantly served our country in times of war.

[Millennium Scholarships, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada created the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation in 1998 to assist Canadians in pursuing their post-secondary education goals.

Each year through its bursary program the foundation awards over 90,000 bursaries to Canadian students based on financial needs. Furthermore, through its Excellence Award Program the foundation recognizes academic achievement, community service and interest in innovation with grants to hundreds of Canada's top students each year.

As a former principal and as member of parliament for Oxford I am pleased that two students from my riding have been chosen to receive millennium excellence awards this year. I congratulate Justin Deluca of College Avenue Secondary School and Catherine Hignett of Huron Park Secondary School, both in Woodstock.

On behalf of the Government of Canada I wish Justin and Catherine continued success as they move on to post-secondary studies for the next important step in their lives.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the cruelty provisions in Bill C-15B respond directly to the concerns of Canadians.

Over the past three years Canadians have been consistent and clear in their demands for action by the federal government to update the cruelty provisions and create stiffer penalties for acts of cruelty against animals. Bill C-15B would meet these expectations without changing the liability for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect. Nothing in the bill would in any way put at risk lawful and humane activities involving animals for purposes such as agriculture, hunting, trapping and research.

To be absolutely clear, the former minister of justice introduced an amendment that was adopted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The amendment states that all justifications, excuses and defences available in common law would apply to proceedings under the animal cruelty provisions. The amendment is the latest in a series of modifications to the animal cruelty provisions to address the concerns of critics.

The animal cruelty provisions in Bill C-15B were contained in a previous bill, Bill C-17, which was introduced in parliament on December 1, 1999 and died on the order paper when the federal election was called in October, 2000. The amendments had two primary objectives. First, they would have consolidated and simplified the existing law on animal cruelty by organizing offences in a more rational way and removing outdated distinctions and expressions. Second, they would have enhanced the penalty provisions by increasing current maximum sentences such as terms of imprisonment, fines, and orders prohibiting the possession of animals, and by creating a new power to order offenders to repay costs incurred by humane societies in caring for animals they leave unattended.

Bill C-17 was enthusiastically supported by thousands of Canadians. However a number of associations representing agriculture, hunting, fishing and animal research made submissions to the Minister of Justice expressing specific legal concerns about the bill, largely to the effect that the amendments could increase the risk of prosecution for people engaged in such activities. The minister benefited from the input of these groups. Although Bill C-17 would not have increased the risk of prosecution for people engaged in lawful activities, the amendments contained in Bill C-17 and replicated in Bill C-15B contain several important improvements that would make the intent and effect of the law more clear.

Such changes include: spelling out the necessary criminal state of mind with words like wilfully or recklessly instead of leaving it to the courts to interpret the proper standard; offering a definition that clearly establishes a standard of criminal negligence and removes all doubt that simple or civil negligence is not enough; adding the word unnecessary to the offence of negligently causing pain to clarify that there may be situations where the pain caused is necessary; clarifying and limiting the scope of the offence that deals with trap shooting to shooting at animals the moment they are liberated and not some time after, which would leave no room for people to argue that the section prohibited pheasant hunts in enclosed spaces; and taking animal cruelty provisions out of the part of the criminal code that deals with sexual offences and public morals and placing them in a separate part, thus clearing up the concern that it is inappropriate to group animal cruelty offences with certain other types of offences. With that we fully agree.

These improvements more clearly establish that the law deals with criminal intent and criminal neglect rather than the causing of incidental or unavoidable pain to animals in the course of lawful activities.

I suggest to the hon. members of the House that the concerns of industry have been heard. The government has done everything that could reasonably be done to accommodate those concerns.

Bill C-15B does not need any additional tinkering. It is time to act. I urge all hon. members to do the right thing and pass the bill.