Martin Cauchon

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question raised by the hon. member. Let me repeat that in regard to the available defences we are talking about the very same defences recognized, as I have said, by the Criminal Lawyers' Association. We are talking about subsection 8(3) of the criminal code.

With regard to the question of property, to qualify a good or something as property essentially does not belong to our jurisdiction. It is a provincial matter. Creating a specific section within the criminal code with regard to cruelty to animals puts us as a country basically in line with many other administrations in the world.

Bill C-15B, as I said, has been due for a long time. We have to proceed with it to modernize our legislation. As well, we are creating a definition of animal, therefore leaving to the court the obligation to define this on a case by case basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very good point. Bill C-15B deals with the question of cruelty to animals. As well, it deals with the firearms registration system.

Bill C-15B would streamline the administration process of the whole firearms registry. As the hon. member just said, we are looking at the possibility of proceeding with some outsourcing, which we are doing in all departments across government. We will still keep the responsibility of managing the whole program but to be more efficient and effective, to keep providing the population with very good services and to keep improving the system, we will proceed with some outsourcing to be more precise with regard to technology.

Of course, needless to mention, we will ensure we protect privacy which is a very important part of our duty.

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple, and I have already just given it. When reference is made to the means of defence under the common law, essentially one is referring to section 8(3) of the criminal code.

A motion has been introduced to have this included specifically in this bill. Thus all common law defences that were available remain so. I would also like to point out that the criminal lawyers association has expressed its consent indicating that section 8(3) is totally sufficient defence under the circumstances.

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of time allocation, this bill has been long overdue. It started back on December 1, 1999, in a different form with amendments as well. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights held a hearing. The bill has been discussed for five days at third reading stage. In fact, the Chair has said that 40 speakers have been heard with regard to Bill C-15B. In my mind we have to proceed with the bill which started back in 1999 as Bill C-15 and has now been divided into two parts.

With regard to the defence, the hon. member is referring to section 429, which is the defence for all property offences within the criminal code. It is a general defence. We explained at committee hearings and said many times that section 8 of the criminal code provides a common law defence. I do believe that the common law--

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is really a pity to hear such a statement. In Canada one is not guilty until found guilty.

As I said yesterday, I will go back fishing. I also said that Mr. Lafleur did not pay for my fishing trip. I have not been involved at all in the process, and the member knows that. The only thing that he is trying to do is to “assassiner un personnage ou un caractère”, as was said by the Prime Minister.

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my words have been seriously misrepresented. What I said is absolutely clear and explicit.

What I am saying is that politicians are elected every four or five years. We have certain powers. What I am saying is that, even when we do not have those powers, we are criticized.

If we are going to be criticized, let us ensure that the various ministerial powers can be rethought, political power restored, perhaps even redefined, and that, in this context, we can make sure we get the best quality at the best price, and the best service, and that all of this can be accomplished in harmony.

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying essentially, and I think this is important, is that we are being criticized within a process in which many ministers here do not have the opportunity to act as far as our various powers are concerned.

What I am saying is that there is a malaise from the point of view of how political power is exercised. I think we may have reached a crossroads where we must ask what the exercise of power is, what ministers must do within the powers and the mandates assigned to them.

People vote for us every four or five years, and expect us to exercise these powers. The same goes for backbenchers. Should we give them more power within their ridings?

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, as regards my political chief of staff, I wish to point out to the Bloc Quebecois leader that she is a childhood friend.

Second, her communication officer, Carole Lavallée, is a former member of Groupe BDDS. Are we going to make a big issue of this?

Third, as regards the communication contracts awarded by CED—and I am no longer responsible for CED—I want to point out that we do not get involved in the process. But perhaps there is indeed a problem and we should redefine the ministerial power, so that we could play our role.

When people vote for us—

[Government Contracts, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite simple. In the debate that is currently taking place in the House, the members on the government side are being raked over the coals on a daily basis for decisions that were made, not by us, but through delegated authority, particularly when it comes to communications contracts.

Basically, if the other side wants to discuss reforms, then let us talk about even greater reforms. Let us talk about the role of politicians in the entire administration of government. Let us also talk about the role of members in the entire administration of government and in their ridings to ensure that the rules are clearly laid out and that when we go before the public every four or five years, we can fulfill our responsibilities.

[Justice, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising this very important question about bullying. It is a concern not only in Canada but in many countries around the world.

Through our national crime prevention strategy, we as a government are involved in a bit more than 100 projects across Canada in order to deal with the question of bullying. It is not normal behaviour. We have to make sure that we will succeed in fighting back at the behaviour of bullying.

Yesterday morning I launched an ad campaign in regard to bullying. As well, with stakeholders, we have developed information kits.