Lost his last election, in 2008, with 29% of the vote.
Justice December 13th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the minister did address the House yesterday, and in that address he clearly stated that there is still money left in the firearms program account. He will be using that money until such time as it is depleted and then he will cash manage until the program is funded through this House.
We believe sincerely in the principles of this program. We are not going to stop going forward with this program.
Kyoto Protocol December 9th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the member has a good point and I believe that as we go forward with this study of the various statutes that need to be reviewed and as we start to see areas where we may go forward, once we have established an area where we can concentrate our efforts, then, I believe, we will go forward to the House for consideration.
What we are seeing here is a cooperative effort, from both the federal government and the provincial governments, and from the individual groups that represent various associations, accountants in particular.
I think what we are going to see develop is a coming together of ideas and the opportunity presented to us to ultimately avail ourselves of a number of potential solutions, not one solution but rather a number of solutions that will continue to support investor confidence in Canada.
Kyoto Protocol December 9th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's debate and want to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.
As many of my hon. colleagues know, the government has made bolstering investor confidence in Canadian corporate governance regimes a priority. Public confidence in capital markets and our public companies is critical to a well functioning economy.
Canada has a strong tradition of fostering sound corporate governance. With the Toronto Stock Exchange's leadership, Canada was among the first countries to systematically study ways to improve corporate governance and implement comprehensive governance guidelines. In July, the Minister of Finance continued, and outlined five areas for action to bolster investor confidence: first, improving financial reporting; second, enhancing further the credibility of the audit processes; third, strengthening corporate governance; fourth, ensuring management accountability; and last on the list was toughening the enforcement process.
The government is pleased with the cooperation demonstrated to date by the federal and provincial regulators and the private sector to implement an appropriate Canadian response to the issues highlighted by the recent U.S. corporate scandals.
Considerable progress has been made. Let me provide some examples. As my colleague pointed out, first, the new Canadian public accountability board for public company auditors has been established to help ensure the credibility of the audit process. It will provide oversight of public company auditors and has the power to impose sanctions. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants has drafted new rules for auditor independence, due to be finalized by the end of this year. The Toronto Stock Exchange has announced new measures to enhance corporate governance practices at companies listed on the TSE. Ontario and Quebec have tabled legislation that will expand the powers of their securities commissions and increase penalties for securities violations. The Department of Finance is maintaining an up to date record of recent actions on its website.
Just recently, the International Monetary Fund noted that Canada has been “commendably proactive in strengthening corporate governance and preserving investor confidence”. However, more needs to be done. Industry Canada and the Department of Finance are examining federal corporate law and financial institution statutes to assess whether changes are necessary to improve corporate governance practices in Canada.
The government is also reviewing the criminal law framework and the effectiveness of enforcement related to corporate fraud. In addition, the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce is examining the issues surrounding the collapse of Enron and other large corporations.
I hope my remarks have helped to address the hon. member's concerns.
Violence Against Women December 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the issues that the hon. member raises. The reality is that we take many measures on this side of the House to look at prevention. We work very hard at trying to find new ways of prevention. The gun control legislation is simply one method that we have used. We will keep looking for other ways and means of preventing those situations that occur and that the hon. member is concerned about.
An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms)and Firearms Act December 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to address the issue before us. Clearly we have to look at the purpose of the process we are going through and the goals we are trying to achieve.
Bill C-10A contains administrative amendments to the Canadian firearms program. The goal is to streamline the program and reduce the costs while improving client service and continuing to meet our public safety objectives.
This program approaches gun safety in a practical and common sense manner. It already is helping to keep firearms away from people who should not have them. It is encouraging safe and responsible gun use by legitimate owners.
There is no doubt that the Canadian firearms program is an outstanding example of a preventative approach to public safety. Just last week, the Canadian Police Association appeared before the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in the other place to reiterate its support for this program. In the Canadian Police Association's view, licensing and registration are important measures to reduce misuse and the illegal trade in firearms.
Over the past decade, poll after poll has shown that an overwhelming majority of Canadians support gun control and support the important public safety framework of the Firearms Act. Thanks to the implementation of a number of initiatives to simplify the administration and make the program more user friendly for firearms owners, Canadians are complying with the law. The licensing phase of the program has achieved over 90% compliance, and over 70% of the firearms owners have registered their firearms.
The program is already achieving higher levels of public safety for all Canadians. Since December 1, 1998, over 7,000 licences have been refused or revoked by the public safety authorities. The number of revocations is over 50 times higher than the total in the last five years under the previous program.
The amendments to the firearms act included in Bill C-10A will help to ensure that key public safety goals of the Firearms Act are met. At the same time, they will ensure that the administration of the program is more efficient, effective and client friendly. These administrative changes will simplify processes and requirements for firearms owners by producing a more streamlined system. For example, they will simplify the firearms licence renewals and registration process. They will also make the border process more efficient by introducing pre-processing for visitors bringing guns into Canada.
Much has been made about the costs of the program, but we have to put things in perspective. This is a sound investment in the long term safety of Canadians. We now have the opportunity to adopt amendments that will go a long way to achieving a more efficient and cost effective program.
One of these measures is the proposal to stagger firearms licence renewals, which is intended to help avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles. Evening out the workload in such a manner would result in more efficient processing and significant cost savings.
Streamlining the transfer process of non-restricted firearms would also allow CFOs to focus their efforts and resources on their many other public safety functions. Moreover, consolidating the administrative authority for all operations under the Canadian firearms commissioner would ensure more direct accountability to the justice minister, who would remain responsible to Parliament for the program. This in turn would enhance financial accountability.
We should keep in mind that this is not the time for delay. It will cost more to operate the system the longer we delay. This bill is needed to move forward with the cost savings measures that will lead to a more efficient program for Canadians.
This is a public safety program that is supported by a vast majority of Canadians and the policing community. It is a program that is already achieving concrete results in terms of public safety.
The bill presents an opportunity to build on the achievements in a way that is even more responsive to the firearms community and will reduce costs.
I urge the House to accept the bill that has been put before us and to go forward with this legislation forthwith.
Criminal Code December 4th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak to the provisions of Bill C-280, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the selling of wildlife.
If passed, the bill would create a new part XI.1 in the Criminal Code and would create three new offences relating to the selling of wildlife. These offences would apply despite the provisions of other federal acts of Parliament. However, the bill expressly states that the section setting out offences would not alter the application of any existing aboriginal or treaty rights.
The offences proposed in Bill C-280 would address three activities: the selling of wildlife or wildlife parts, the killing or capturing of wildlife for the purpose of selling wildlife or wildlife parts and, finally, possessing wildlife for the purpose of selling wildlife or wildlife parts.
The government does not support the bill for a number of reasons. The overarching reason is that the Criminal Code is not the appropriate statute to deal with the subject matter addressed by the bill. The measures in the bill are best addressed as regulatory law and not as criminal law.
Provincial governments generally have constitutional authority to regulate the conservation and sale of wildlife and wildlife parts. Provincial governments do in fact regulate such activities. There are important division of powers questions in relation to the measures in the bill which the member did allude to.
In view of the constitutional competence of the provincial governments to regulate the use of wildlife on provincial lands, I would urge those jurisdictions which are experiencing problems with the sale of wildlife or wildlife parts to work with their respective governments to address the problem in a regulatory context.
To the extent that the federal government does have the power to legislate to protect wildlife, it does so by the use of its regulatory power, not the Criminal Code. In fact, there are several federal statutes that cover the kind of conduct this bill seeks to address, including the Canada Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, and the species at risk bill, Bill C-5, currently before the Senate.
The federal government has a series of regulatory regimes in place designed to protect and conserve wildlife, and to punish related misconduct. These measures are not in the Criminal Code. The reason for this is because the government understands and appreciates that these matters are most appropriately dealt with in a dedicated regulatory regime.
The measures in the bill are best dealt with as regulatory law. They do not belong in the Criminal Code. I do not wish by these comments to suggest that the objectives of the bill lack merit. I think most members of the House would agree that the goal of discouraging the selling of wildlife and wildlife parts, particularly wildlife which is threatened or an endangered species, is a laudable one. However, the question is whether or not this particular bill is the best way to achieve this goal. In the government's view, it is not.
Let me outline some features of the bill that are traditionally associated with the creation of offences in the regulatory context, rather than within Criminal Code offences.
One important feature of the bill is that it does not apply equally to all Canadians. It would expressly exempt from application any person who is authorized pursuant to a federal or provincial permit or licence to commit the acts which otherwise would qualify as an offence as long as the wildlife involved is not a threatened or endangered species. Exemptions of this nature are extremely rare in the context of the Criminal Code. Indeed, the criminal law is a law of general application that normally applies to all Canadians in the same way.
Bill C-280 would permit the Minister of the Environment to exempt from application of the act “any person or class of persons” in respect of a threatened or endangered species where in the opinion of the minister the exemption is “necessary or in the public interest”. Giving a power to the Minister of the Environment to exempt people from the law again signals a regulatory law and not a criminal law.
There is another problem with this provision. The criterion for an exemption is so subjective and general that it would not provide any real limits on the behaviour to be exempted. This provision would face serious constitutional attack on that basis.
Another feature of the bill, which is not normally found in the Criminal Code, is that the Minister of the Environment would given the power to designate by regulation an animal as “wildlife” for the purposes of the provisions.
Another provision would permit the Minister of the Environment to designate a species of wildlife as either an endangered species or as a threatened species provided that the minister had consulted with the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada.
Again, these provisions are more consistent with legislation aimed at the protection and regulation of wildlife than they are with provisions found in the Criminal Code. As noted by constitutional law expert Professor Peter Hogg:
A criminal law ordinarily consists of a prohibition which is to be self-applied by the persons to whom it is addressed. There is not normally any intervention by an administrative agency or official prior to the application ofthe law.
I think the interests of justice are served by a consistent and coordinated approach to subject areas within the legislative competence of the federal government. I have already referred to the numerous federal statutes that pertain to wildlife and wildlife protection. Some of the provisions of Bill C-280 overlap with those in the current wildlife legislation and also with the provisions of Bill C-5, the species at risk bill, currently before the Senate.
Bill C-280 would ignore this already existing body of laws or contemplated laws. Bill C-280 would create offences that in large part overlap the offences provided in these other federal statutes. Instead of seeking to amend these other statutes which deal directly with the matters at hand and are administered by the Minister of the Environment, who figures so prominently in Bill C-280, the bill before us seeks to create a whole new and independent regime that would have to be reconciled with the regulation that already exists.
This would add confusion to the regime that already exists. The offences proposed in Bill C-280 are inconsistent with similar offences in other federal statutes in that they are indictable offences only. This is inconsistent with provisions found in the Canada Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, and Bill C-5. Offences in these other statutes are dual procedure offences. There is no logical reason for this inconsistency.
The government cannot support the bill because, quite simply, it seeks to amend the wrong piece of legislation. The Criminal Code is not the right vehicle for prohibiting the sale of wildlife.
Even if one were to accept that such measures fit appropriately in the Criminal Code, which they clearly do not, the provisions of the bill are inconsistent in a variety of ways with the Criminal Code and normal criminal law procedures and penalties.
There is no precedent in the Criminal Code for this kind of penalty regime. The sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code follow a pattern for maximum consistency and rationality. Offences in the code generally have maximum penalties of 2, 5, 10, 14 years and life imprisonment. There is no precedent for the way in which this particular bill has been structured with respect to its sentencing.
In conclusion, the provisions of Bill C-280 cannot be supported for several reasons. They are not matters for the Criminal Code, they are inconsistent with other provisions of the Criminal Code, and they overlap and potentially conflict with other federal legislation that already governs this area.
Firearms Registry December 2nd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, clearly a large majority of the Canadian public has followed and registered its guns in accordance with the law.
For those who are finding themselves in difficult circumstances, the minister last week announced that there will be a grace period. Provided that they file their applications before December 31 of this year, there will be a grace period of six months so that they will not need their certificates within that period of time.
Canadians will comply.
Firearms Registry November 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, we are doing our very best to administer this program. As the minister said yesterday in the House, there are challenges in starting up a new program and we are working, and have worked in the past, with our aboriginal communities to try to make their life better, and in particular the waiver of fees when, for example, their hunting is for sustenance.
We believe we are doing a good job and we are going to proceed with that which is founded in good public policy.
Young Offenders November 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, this matter has been reviewed in the House at length in looking at the youth justice act. The fact is that although there are examples of this nature, we do leave them to the courts to make that decision. The court is the appropriate place for the decision to be made as to whether they should be raised to adult court.
Age of Consent November 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, we are very interested in looking at the entire area of sexual exploitation of children and vulnerable people. We are not simply going to zero in on that particular aspect. We are going to look at the broader aspect. We do have some ideas and we do have some legislation. We are going to bring those forward to the House. We are going to solve that problem.