Deepak Obhrai

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to join my other colleague from the NDP in complimenting my colleague from Nepean--Carleton for the excellent job he has done on this file and as a special envoy to Sierra Leone which gave him an overall picture and the opportunity to see the root causes of the conflict and where he eloquently in his speech today mentioned those cracks. What really is at the crux of the issue, which he pointed out and with which I agree wholeheartedly, is the issue of the arms dealer.

When I speak during the debate, I will of course address my issues as well. The Kimberley process, from my point of view, is an excellent process but only one side of the equation. The member mentioned the other side of the equation which was the arms dealer. There has to be a market for these diamonds. As long as there is a market for these diamonds we can create all kinds of rules and regulations to stop it but we need to see the other side as well which, as the member very eloquently put it, is the arms dealer, and it needs to be addressed.

I think the next stage will be the issue of how under the United Nations we will address it. There is an issue of small arms control but in order to stop these wars we must address the issue of the arms dealer.

Is the member satisfied that the system, with its checks and balances for verification, is adequate enough considering where these diamonds come from and what kind of regimes they have? When I start my debate I will bring forward some other questions in reference to cracks happening in that continent which hopefully the Kimberley process will address.

Considering we have people like Mugabe and supposedly legitimate governments flouting the law, is the hon. member confident that the verification system in the Kimberley process will work for the benefit Africa?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise and speak to the throne speech that opened the 37th Parliament of Canada.

My colleague from Selkirk—Interlake, who is the agriculture critic, wanted me to make sure that the desires of the farmers of Canada were made known to Parliament. As such, he asked me to read into the record a letter that came from the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association. This letter was addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada. I will read what the letter highlights. It states:

Saskatchewan agricultural producers will remember the Throne Speech that opened up the 37th Parliament of Canada not for what it contained, but for what it lacked. It was called “The Canada we want”, but is it really? In a year of serious drought devastation, agriculture was mentioned in three short lines with no short-term or long-term answers to the desperate situation of many farm businesses.

The Throne Speech stated that the government would implement the Agriculture Policy Framework (APF). However, the agriculture industry needs rejuvenation not more regulation, which the APF will impose.

The government has also committed to solve trade disputes in agriculture. Although important, grain and oilseed farmers' returns are dedicated by foreign policy. The federal and provincial governments must continue to pursue the level playing field between subsidized countries and our own. It was this commitment that was missing from the Throne Speech.

The Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association firmly believes that the federal government, under your direction, must engage in strategies and policies that will reduce costs to producers, increase the efficiencies of our cumbersome transportation system, solve labour disputes that are disrupting grain exports at the Vancouver Port as we speak and enhance the profitability of our sector. These are the key points that were sadly missed in the Throne Speech.

What is the federal government, under your direction, doing to solve the Vancouver Port lockout situation, solve grain transportation inefficiencies and level the playing field with competitive countries such as the United States and Europe?

The association is looking forward to the response from the Prime Minister.

Having said that, I would now like to turn to the part of the throne speech that deals with my portfolio, which is international cooperation and foreign aid.

Before I begin I would like to advise that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver Island North.

Following the G-8 summit, which was touted as a development summit and at which the issue of foreign aid became the focus point of the Prime Minister, as many would like to say, for him to leave his legacy behind, in the throne speech he mentioned in passing his commitment to foreign aid. What he said was that the foreign aid budget would be double the amount by the year 2010.

It is fine for the Prime Minister to say in the throne speech that for the next 10 years the government will double the foreign aid commitment. The only problem is that he will not be in office. He will be leaving in the year 2004, as he has stated. Why the commitment to foreign aid for the next 10 years when another government may or may not keep it? One has to wonder whether this is a genuine commitment, and it is probably not.

Let me talk for a minute about the previous record the government had before it went to the G-8 and started talking about leaving a legacy for third world countries or for giving foreign aid.

Under the government, in 1999 dollars, Canada dropped its total amount of aid by 25% in the 1990s. The government has been doing a very good job of manipulating, through its spin doctors, and leaving the impression among Canadians that foreign aid has increased and that we are doing well with foreign aid. However, the reality is totally different.

From 1989 to day, Canada, on an average of OECD donor countries, and it is the rich countries of the world that form OECD and give out dollars, gives a full third lower aid than the OECD average of .39% of GDP.

The action in the past has not matched and will not match the future, or the rhetoric that the government is talking about in foreign aid, which is its commitment over the next 10 years to double the amount when the principal architect of the Africa plan, the Prime Minister, will not be in office.

In 1998, most disturbingly, the government reduced the percentage of total official aid going to sub-Saharan Africa from 45.3%, in the 1990s to 35.5%.

Let me repeat that because this $500 million that was given for the Africa fund, that is touted about giving aid to sub-Sahara, Africa, is now on the agenda. There is also the NEPAD issue, which the government likes to tout, but its record in the past has been that it has reduced aid from 45.3% to 35.5%.

The government has a terrible record of giving aid. It ties its aid so that its friends and companies owned by its friends benefit from this foreign aid while it goes around the world touting that it is giving aid.

My friend on the other side should listen to the statistics. The statistics do not lie. Canada has the second worst record of tying official aid, second only after Greece. Canada has tied 75% of its aid to purchasing Canadian goods and services. The World Bank has stated that tied aid is 25% more inefficient. That is the record of the government.

In the throne speech, the government stated that the plan is to increase foreign aid by double the amount and honour the commitment it made in Monterrey of an 8% annual increase. So here it is, talking something, as usual, and doing something else. That is what is in the throne speech.

What I would like to point out is that we in the official opposition want to ensure that the foreign aid dollars that are currently earmarked are properly used for the advantage of the people, not used as this tied aid is indicating, for its friends, and trying to pretend that we are doing goods things. Let us do it. Let us stop the rhetoric.

[Foreign Affairs, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, just last week a Lesotho court convicted a Canadian company of bribing a local official. This company is a recipient of CIDA aid. This trend shows that a total lack of accountability of taxpayers' dollars is now creeping into our international dealings.

Will the government confirm that no Canadian official was implicated in this scandal?

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Motion No. 116 brought forward by the member for Winnipeg--Transcona.

When I first looked at the motion I felt I needed to speak to this issue and express my point of view. During the last year I have experienced three occasions where an individual driving ahead of me was driving dangerously. In each instance this could have resulted in an accident as the individual was breaking the traffic law. On all three occasions the individual was deep in conversation on a cellphone and not paying attention to the issue of driving, which the individual was required to do.

These occasions brought a stark reality to bear--we must do something. While the motion is not votable the member from Winnipeg brought it forward because he thought it was necessary to have it debated. I would hope that the motion would become a private member's bill and, based on our new procedure, be brought back to the House so everyone can debate and vote on it.

I was interested to hear my colleague from the government side give his rationale on the motion. This is the second time I have listened to the parliamentary secretary on issues that have come forward during private members' business, including my issue dealing with break and enter.

I am left with the impression that the parliamentary secretary is not speaking on behalf of his constituents. That is what he is supposed to do as an elected member of parliament. It seems that he is speaking for the bureaucrats of the Department of Justice because his speeches and arguments are all based on a way that bureaucrats would present an argument. They are not based on what he has witnessed or what his constituents are telling him is out there.

We all know bureaucrats live in their offices and are not privy most of the time to what is happening out there. Democracy has been set up that allows our constituents to write and tell us about issues so that we can bring them to parliament and debate them. I find it strange that the government does not want to debate the issue and has brushed it aside very quickly, much like it did with my private member's bill.

The parliamentary secretary is blaming the provinces, saying that it was a provincial responsibility. Do members think Canadians care whether it is a provincial or federal responsibility? They want safe roads. That is the issue. As far as Canadians are concerned they could care less, constitutionally, who has the authority to do this. Let us not pass the buck.

We are elected members of parliament. People write to us and tell us about their concerns. We bring those concerns here and it is our job to take them forward, not make excuses. I hope that in the future when issues do come forward my colleague on the other side will not try to hide and say it is a provincial responsibility and has nothing to do with him. That is not what Canadians expect.

I am sure he will take time to ensure that his bureaucrats do not write his speeches and that he would listen to and represent his constituents.

In some jurisdictions people have stated that a hand-held cellphone should not be in use when driving. We are reaching the stage where the use of cellphones is increasing. Maybe at this given time it has not hit hard. However, we must do something.

I remember embarking on campaigns against drunk driving because the carnage on our roads was increasing. Through a concentrated effort a lot of bills were passed in the House amending the criminal code to address that social issue.

I hope we do not get to the stage where we will only stand up to take action when the carnage on our roads increases. There are warning flags being raised with this issue. The parliamentary secretary said that one of the provinces is talking about it and other countries are talking about it. Why are they talking about it? Is it because they see a potential problem arising?

People expect us to take action. My friend brought forth a motion which I wholeheartedly support. This is not a votable motion but it is a warning to the government. The parliamentary secretary should go back to his bureaucrats and solve this problem. We should go and have discussions with the provinces and see how we can do it so that it does not become a serious issue. That is my appeal to the government here today.

[First Nations Governance Act, June 17th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-61, which deals with the Indian Act. Like most Canadians and like most people in this parliament, I feel that the it is long past the time when the bill needed to be revisited. We are happy to see the government has introduced the bill and has finally made an attempt to address many of the concerns, the issues and the paradox that exists in Canada in regard to first nations.

Let me go back one step. I will not say that I am new to the country now because I have been here for 25 years. However in the last 30 years most of the immigrants who have come to this country from other parts of the world have looked at this issue and have been absolutely puzzled by what has happened. A huge amount of money has been spent on treaties and whatever by the Government of Canada, under this act, to address our first nations people. Yet report after report has indicated that something is seriously wrong because our first nations people are living under third world conditions, conditions that are deplorable.

One would say shame on Canada, a country that has been judged as the best in the world, a country that is rich within the exclusive clique of G-7, the richest in the world, yet people are living under such deplorable conditions. It is very difficult to comprehend. Many new immigrants have been puzzled by this.

I have not seen much debate by the new immigrants who have come here. Hence I feel it necessary for me to stand in the House of Commons today to speak on behalf of these people. We cannot have these conditions. The question is who is to blame? Fingers have been pointed left and right and accusations have been flying around. About three weeks ago I had a town hall meeting. I alluded to the act and an accusation started flying around the room, which I felt was inappropriate and not informative. However it was out there. Somehow someone and the department have failed.

One can say that the failure lies with the way reserves have been run, with the way leaders and with people pointing fingers. One can say we have a huge bureaucracy under the Indian Act which has been meddling in the affairs of the reserves and that the people of the first nations have not been allowed to use their full potential to be productive citizens of our nation.

When I look at the history of the first nations, I take my hat off to them. Their communities have learned to live very well with nature, with the environment and have adopted a lifestyle that is very impressive and conducive to living in conditions with the environment. They deserve that credit. Subsequently of course many of us have heard about residential schools and the reservations. We feel saddened about the fact that as we move forward in the 21st century we have not addressed this issue.

Therefore, it is very good, I would say, and the Canadian Alliance, as my colleagues have indicated, is prepared to support the bill going right now to the committee, because we want to start the debate. The nation has to debate these deplorable conditions. We must debate this issue.

As the bill moves forward through the committee I am sure the committee will hear the views of everyone, which I hope will include the aboriginal leaders as well. My colleague from the NDP has wrongly, I must say, tried to accuse us of fearmongering but that is not the case. It is better to bring out the issues, talk about them and address them than it is to push them under the carpet. This is coming from a party that is telling us we are wrong, but at least I am glad we are going to talk about it.

My concern that I would like to raise, and I heard my colleague from the Liberal Party dwell on it, is that past experience has shown the tendency of the government, the Prime Minister and the ministers to ignore the work of the committees. Will this committee also be a rubber stamp or will this committee's recommendations make an impact on the bill to make it an effective bill? Or are we once again embarking on an exercise that the government will ignore but will love saying that the committee discussed it, as it wants to do on this one?

We in the Alliance Party want to discuss this issue. We want Canadians to engage in this debate. We must engage in this debate. Everything should be on the table in this debate. Let us not sweep anything under the carpet, because in the longer term we are doing an injustice to our first nations people as well as to the Canadians of our future. It is incumbent on us. I could go on to talk about the many things that are wrong with the bill, but I am sure we will get a tremendous amount of opportunity in the coming years to discuss this issue.

Once again I hope that all Canadians can put their differences aside and bring the issues to the table that need to be resolved so that the first nations can become citizens of this country.

[Criminal Code, May 22nd, 2002]

moved that Bill C-386, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking and entering), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, normally when I stand I say that it is with pleasure I speak on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East. However I am speaking on this bill for the second time. In the last parliament I introduced the same bill in response to concerns raised by my constituents and Canadians from across the nation. I will indicate later which Canadians have sent their support for the bill.

As I said, this bill was introduced in the last parliament and, as is now becoming a practice of the House, it seems to be headed for oblivion. With the introduction of private members' bills, we are supposed to debate and talk about the concerns and desires of Canadians. This process has become a mockery.

The last time the bill was in front of a committee, it was not made votable despite the fact that there was a strong desire by Canadians to have the merits and demerits of it discussed. The committee was chaired by a government member and also half the membership was from that same side.

The members of parliament should stand, debate and vote on these bills. Five people sitting behind the scenes, behind closed doors, should not be making that decision, a decision that is based absolutely on partisan likes and has nothing to do with the desires of Canadians.

No wonder time after time people talk about the erosion of democracy and of the power of members of parliament. The government is causing that. Yet amazingly when that government was on this side, it spoke the same language that I speak today. As soon as it came into power, what did it do? Nothing. As a matter of fact members of parliament keep losing their powers. Their ability to discuss issues raised by Canadians has been restricted day by day.

Canadians want this bill. I have had town hall meetings in my riding. I have support from members of the police force. I have a letter from the Saskatoon police chief who endorses the bill. I have a letter from the Toronto police chief who endorses the bill. I have a letter from the Sudbury police chief who supports the bill. I have a letter from an ordinary citizen who supports the bill.

People in law enforcement agencies, the people in the forefront fighting crime and making the streets safe, see the merits of this bill. Yet five people sitting behind closed doors, behind the scenes, do not find any merit in allowing 301 democratically elected members of parliament to discuss the bill and make the decision.

I am standing here today debating the bill but it is actually a waste of my time. What am I going to say? It will not go anywhere. As soon as the hour is over this whole thing will become a piece of garbage. The amount of time and effort that members of parliament have put into this will have gone down the tube.

The Liberals should realize that because they have sat on this side and have had that experience. Yet when it came time for them to be over there, that was it. They are preventing democracy.

I know people want this bill to be debated so I brought it back in this session. Lo and behold, what happened? The same thing. Five people sat behind the scenes and made the decision that it not be votable. That is why a member of the government has raised the issue of reforming private members' business.

The government's own members, its own backbenchers know that private members' bills deserve more respect and debate in this House than the government is willing to give them. They know the system is flawed. Otherwise we would not have had a report presented to us about a week ago by a member of the government which said that private members' bills should be debated in the House.

We should vote in the House. We should be allowed to exercise the democratic will of Canadians who have elected us to the House, not the will of 30 people in government who would manipulate the whole system and not allow a debate to take place.

Since I have been given time to address Bill C-386 I will tell the House what it is all about. It is about a minimum sentence of two years for repeat break and enter offenders who go through the cycle of committing the crime again and again because they find it profitable. We need to break the cycle. We can only do so if we institute a two year minimum sentence so offenders can get rehabilitation, get off the street and not find it profitable to break into people's homes.

About a week ago the new Minister of Justice publicly stated that he personally opposed minimum sentences. He said he did not like the American system of minimum sentences. As soon as I heard him say that I knew the government would do anything to make sure Bill C-386 would not pass, because that is his personal view. It was not debated in the House.

What do we do? We sit here and listen. Canadians are being forced to take the view of one individual, the Minister of Justice, who said publicly that he did not agree. It was not discussed in the House of Commons. It was not discussed by members of parliament who were elected by Canadians. Bill C-386 will go nowhere because it is the personal view of the Minister of Justice that he does not like minimum sentences.

We should talk to Canadians, victims, and people whose homes have been broken into. All of them will recognize the importance of the bill. There is nothing harsh in it. All it is demanding is a simple two year minimum sentence for repeat break and enter offenders to break the cycle of profitability for criminals who break into people's homes.

Some 50% of all break and enters are committed with weapons. This could lead to crimes such as home invasion which are more dangerous than break and enter. The onus is on us to discuss the merits and demerits of the bill and ensure our streets are safe. If our streets were safe, why would police from Toronto, Sudbury, Calgary and across the country be supporting the bill? It is because they need the tools to fight this crime, tools they have not received from the Liberal government.

The soft approach the government has taken is making a mockery of our streets. I therefore felt it was necessary to bring in Bill C-386 to be debated. However we will hear the usual thing from the parliamentary secretary. He will try to justify the current system and say it is adequate. It is not. If it was we would not have the support of the police chief.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad you are enjoying my speech because I am passionate about the issue. However it bothers me to see the way the government is killing the debate.

Constable Guy Baker of District 4 in Calgary said the best sentence he had ever seen for a repeat offender was three years. However the effects on the victim last forever. Females feel personally violated. Their houses no longer have a sense of being home. Men feel they have failed in their role of family protector. Children have a hard time sleeping because of bad dreams. This is the impact of break and enter and home invasion.

While the psychological impacts of break and enter are devastating in their own right, it can also be a violent crime. Every break and enter is a potential home invasion. Some 58% of break and enter incidents involve a weapon. I will quote an Edmonton man who was viciously beaten in a break and enter that turned into a home invasion. He said:

Physically I am okay. Mentally I am not. It's almost like I have to force myself to do things--even to go to work. I don't know what could be enough jail time. There is no justification for what they did.

On a personal note, I had a break and enter in my home in Calgary about a year and a half ago. I was here attending to the business of parliament and my daughter was living in Calgary and going to university. She was away by only half an hour. If she had been in the house all by herself I do not know what the consequences would have been. Would it have turned into a home invasion? It scared my daughter so much. She was only 21 years old.

We tend to take break and enter lightly. It is not a light crime. Its psychological impacts and potential dangers are strong. As parliamentarians we need to do something. Police chiefs and law enforcement agencies are asking us to do something. What have we seen from the government? It says our current laws are adequate. They are not. The parliamentary secretary may stand today and read statistics from StatsCan to say there has been a lowering of crime. However that is nonsense.

As I said, this crime has an impact. Some 80% of break and enters are not first time crimes. They are repeat crimes because it has become profitable. If it has become profitable to go into this business why should the offenders work? If they get caught and go to court it is no big deal. They are out on the street within three months. This is the cycle. Why should they worry about serving three months for such a profitable business? Why would they want to go out and work? This is why Canadians are demanding a minimum sentence. It is why I introduced Bill C-386.

I have made my speech. It was a passionate speech. However my bill will go into the garbage because the government has made it non-votable. A non-votable private member's bill is a waste of time. I stood and spoke. I do not know if my speech had an impact. However I am feeling pretty discouraged as a member of parliament tonight.

[Government Contracts, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the lobbyists registration branch is going to investigate Michel Beliveau, a paid staffer to the Prime Minister who pressured CIDA officials to fork over the cash. The last time an unregistered lobbyist connected to the Prime Minister tried to get money for the Prime Minister's friends, the RCMP was called in.

Canadians deserve better. Why has the RCMP not been called in to investigate this file?

[Tax Credit, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on this motion, especially one that addresses student loan issues which are very important for the country. I would like to commend my colleague for bringing forward a private member's motion that is votable, and I am glad it is votable, which addresses the issue of education in the country.

Education is critically important for our nation. It is no longer a privilege for the rich as it used to be. I come from a country which is poverty driven. The state cannot provide education so education is the responsibility of the individual. We have seen the disparity between the rich who can afford to send their children to good schools and the poor who cannot. Unfortunately there are many deserving candidates but parents cannot afford the education. Therefore the cycle of poverty carries on and on.

The current United Nations conference in New York talked about education. It was pointed out that education was becoming absolutely critical for a nation's prosperity. When we move that to Canada, it has become more obvious that our long term prosperity depends upon a highly educated workforce which will allow us to compete globally in the world market.

With globalization taking place, it is obvious that competition is increasing and other nations are competing with Canada. It is incumbent upon us for future generations that we seize these opportunities. We can only seize these opportunities if we have an excellent educational system that allows parents to send their children to school irrespective of the social structure or whether they can afford it or not.

I came from a nation where the government could not afford an educational program. It was a pleasant surprise for me to see that Canada had a student loan system which allowed children to obtain an education. As a matter of fact, one of my daughters has completed two degrees and the other is on her way to completing a second degree, all of which was possible because of the availability of student loans.

Student loans play a most critical and important part in the post-secondary education system. As such, it is necessary for us to look at the whole structure to ensure that we have viable institutions and a viable educational system accessible to everybody.

Unfortunately, over the last 10 years obtaining an education has become more and more expensive and the debt load on students has risen rapidly, to a level where many feel constrained by it. Attempts have been made to look at this. The Prime Minister came up with the millennium fund, a legacy of faith, addressing this issue to some degree. The Canadian Alliance has put forward a similar proposal to that of Australia and New Zealand, which is a contingency income issue where people pay their debts based upon what their incomes enable them to pay.

I represent Calgary East which has large numbers of people not only going to university but also acquiring a higher education in other aspects. I receive numerous phone calls from people who are unable to pay because of their inability to get a job immediately after they have finished their schooling.

With the ever rising cost of education, what is the ability of student to pay? My friend from the Conservative Party has come up with a proposal where a tax credit would be granted so that the burden on students would be less. As education becomes more costly, they would be able to access institutions and carry on with higher education.

I noticed that about 20 years ago it was all right to get high school level education and then go on to other careers. With globalization, high school in itself has not been sufficient and people need a university degree which costs a lot of money.

What is now happening is students need not just one degree but two degrees to get a good job. As I said, both my daughters have two degrees and this has been costly. Therefore it is commendable that my colleague from the Conservative Party brought this issue to the floor for us to address.

There are a lot of proposals. The important issue is for us to debate this and come forward with a proposal that will address this. There is the contingency plan that the Canadian Alliance has put forward. There is the tax credit plan that my colleague from the Conservative Party has put forward, and I am sure more will come forward. However somewhere along the line we will have to address the issue.

Although my party's critic has put more emphasis on the Canadian Alliance plan and feels that the plan of my colleague now before us would have some difficulty, many of us on this side feel that this proposal also has merit. Since this is a private member's motion, which means a free vote, I am sure many of us will support the motion, including myself.

[An Act To Amend The Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague who is screaming from the other side will have an opportunity to counteract when he gets up and debates this issue in a reasonable manner instead of screaming from the other side.

Some animal rights groups have stated that they will not target individuals. We seem to have a problem. Let me give the House an example. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has launched an anti-dairy campaign targeting school children. This group goes around to schools in Canada and tells children that the consumption of milk will make them fat, gassy and pimply. This group wants the bill to pass so it can propose its own agenda. We should think about this group and what it is telling children. This is not funny. This is real. This group is saying that the consumption of milk will make children fat, gassy and pimply.

Let us talk about our dairy industry. Our dairy industry is a success story. Canada has thousands of dairy farmers. They are concerned about this bill and legitimately so. It is stated here quite clearly, and I am telling members exactly what it says. When did that become fearmongering.

The problem is the bill does not address many issues that are of concern to people such as dairy farmers. As a matter of fact, they wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada highlighting their concerns about the bill.

What has the government done? It has done nothing. It is ramming the bill through, saying that it wants the bill passed.

I will state in short what my colleague has already stated are the concerns of the Canadian Alliance. My other colleagues will rise today to speak on this and we will again talk about this issue. In essence, we must be very clear, aside from what members on the other side might scream, that the Canadian Alliance will not support the bill, and not because of the issue of cruelty to animals. We all agree that cruelty to animals must be stopped. We want a bill that addresses this issue and other issues as well but in a balanced manner.

[An Act To Amend The Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 10th, 2002]

There they go, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what I am stating. What does he mean, am I for it or against it? The bill has flaws. The bill was not thought out. The member on the other side wants to go ahead with it and that is exactly what I am talking about. That is why today we want to highlight what is wrong with the bill.

Bill C-15B would penalize those who deal with animals as part of their life.