Jim Abbott

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my speech today on Group No. 4 will be based upon the same premise on which I have spoken to the other report stage amendments.

I really appreciate the tremendous amount of hard work that was done by members of the committee in taking a look at the bill which had some pretty significant deficiencies when it left the House after second reading. The work they did was not all in unanimity. As a matter of fact, as I understand it, there was a tremendous amount of debate during the course of the work of the committee.

However there was a very strong feeling, certainly on the part of the Canadian Alliance members, which continues to this day, that we do require a bill that will truly protect the environment.

The difficulty with this species at risk act, Bill C-5, is that the government is moving away from the ability to achieve that environmental protection that the Canadian Alliance wants and many members on the Liberal backbenches want.

The work done by members of the committee was in the area of receiving input from very diverse groups. They worked through it, if the House will pardon the expression, in almost a Solomon-like way of managing to come to balances of interests and opinions among people. When the bill came back to the House it was in a very distinctly improved stage from the way in which it left.

I find it reprehensible that the front bench of the government, the cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister, would have treated the work of a parliamentary committee, the standing committee on environment, with such a tremendous amount of disrespect.

I will take a look at some of the specific motions that the government has brought in, the first being Motion No. 16. I will read the clause as it is presently written. Clause 7(1) and (2) state:

1. (1) The Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council consists of the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and ministers of the government of a province or a territory who are responsible for the conservation and management of a wildlife species in that province or territory.

(2) The role of the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council is to

(a) provide general direction on the activities of COSEWIC, the preparation of recovery strategies and the preparation and implementation of action plans;

(b) co-ordinate the activities of the various governments represented on the Council relating to the protection of species at risk;

This is what the motion deletes:

...and (c) seek and consider advice and recommendations from the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk.

The amendment, which deletes that last phrase, deletes the reference to aboriginal council because the government wants to introduce mention of a national aboriginal committee in clause 8. There is no reason for the government to make the changes it proposes in Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20. The government wording would have largely the same result as the committee's proposal, except a name change from council to committee.

It does not justify reversing the work of the committee. These changes were, after all, initiated by Liberal members on the committee. It shows the government's contempt for the work of the parliamentary committees and its own MPs.

We will be opposing this motion because it fails to respect the committee.

Motion No. 17 by the Liberals is to delete the following:

7.1 (1) The National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk consists of the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and six representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada selected by the Minister based upon recommendations from aboriginal organizations that the Minister considers appropriate.

(2) The role of the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk is to provide advice and recommendations to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.

Again this amendment deletes a reference to the national aboriginal council because the government wants to introduce mention of a national aboriginal committee in clause 8 making this clause redundant.

Again there is no reason for the government to make the changes that it proposes in Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20. The government wording will have largely the same result as the committee's proposal except the change in name from council to committee. This does not justify reversing the work of the committee. These changes were, after all, initiated by members of the Liberal Party on the committee. It shows the government's contempt for the work of the parliamentary committees and even its own MPs.

Again our party will be opposing the motion because it fails to respect the committee.

This does get a little repetitious but my point is that the government keeps bringing in motions that fail to respect the committee and its work.

Government Motion No. 20 would insert clause 8.1 under national aboriginal committee on species at risk. The motion reads:

The Minister may establish a committee, to be known as the National Aboriginal Committee on Species at Risk, consisting of six representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada appointed by the Minister based on recommendations from aboriginal organizations that the Minister considers appropriate. The role of the committee is to advise the Minister on the administration of this Act.

The motion undoes the work of the standing committee and the motion by the Liberal member for Churchill River by replacing the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk with a national aboriginal committee on species at risk.

Again there is no reason for the government to make the changes it proposes in Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20. The government wording will have largely the same result as the committee's proposal except to change the name from council to committee. It does not justify reversing the work of the committee. The changes were, after all, initiated by Liberal members of the committee. It shows the government's contempt for the work of the parliamentary committees and for its own MPs.

Again we will be opposing the motion because it fails to respect the committee.

Government Motion No. 24 concerns clause 10.1, stewardship action plan in public registry. The motion reads:

son. A copy of the stewardship action plan must be included in the public registry.

Consistent with other transparency provisions in the bill, the motion proposes that a copy of the plan be included in the public registry.

Let me say that the government is not all bad because this is a positive amendment. It increases the flow of information to the public. We will be supporting it because of its increased transparency.

Government Motion No. 25, under clause 10.2, would create a stewardship action plan. I ask members to bear with me as this is a little complex. At present clause 10.2 reads:

The National Stewardship Action Plan shall include, but is not limited to,

The government motion to amend clause 10.2 reads:

The stewardship action plan must include, but is not limited to, commitments to

The motion goes through a whole series of additions and deletions in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). Because of the complexity of this I will not read into the record the inclusions and deletions but again the motion extensively modifies the amendments by the standing committee that introduced the stewardship action plan to Bill C-5. The amendment reinforces an earlier government amendment that makes the development of an action plan discretionary, not mandatory, although when the minister chooses to develop an action plan this motion will still dictate some elements to be included.

Again we will be opposing the motion because it strongly waters down the committee's changes and, in particular, omits mention of tax treatment and subsidies to eliminate disincentives.

That was just a small section of what we are allowed in a 10 minute period. Although there was one positive amendment that would strengthen the act, overall the entire impact of the government and the Prime Minister of the country was to substantially undo the excellent work of the committee. For that reason we will be opposing the amendments that I have read.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, April 15th, 2002]

Yes, “security, remove this man”, my Alliance colleague says.

The fact of the matter is that I have always said when the government finally gets around to doing something that is positive and that is good, I will say it is positive and it is good. I am in support of Bill C-54. I will be recommending to my colleagues that we pass this at second reading to go to committee for further consideration.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as the secretary of state noted, the bill will replace the 1961 Fitness and Amateur Sport Act with the physical activity and sport act. The purpose of the bill is to encourage, promote and develop sport and physical activity. The bill will also serve to strengthen the role the Government of Canada plays with regard to the promotion of physical activity and sport. The bill reinforces the importance of fitness and sport for the well-being of Canadians.

What impressed me is that I am told that 1,000 people from amateur and pro sports were involved in the creation of the bill. These included athletes, coaches and the provincial governments. From the information I received, it would seem that a very thorough job went into the drafting of the bill. Efforts to attain these goals will be made through the co-operation of federal and provincial governments, and private and public sector sport organizations.

In any bill of this type, we always look at what could possibly be unintended consequences. I have some difficulty in coming up with any unintended consequences on the horizon from this bill.

One of the objectives of this legislation is to increase the opportunity for involvement in sport from the amateur to the elite athlete. Hosting of major sporting events and promotion of the importance of physical activity are some of the avenues by which to attain more awareness of the importance of physical activity. Commitment to the importance of sport and physical activity for all Canadians, as the secretary of state has mentioned, has wide-ranging benefits such as a reduction in health care costs, as well as social, economic and cultural benefits.

We see many situations in community organizations and recreational complexes where young people in particular, who otherwise would be engaged in activities which would be at best questionable, are engaged in good, strong physical activity when given the opportunity. I think particularly of the young men in our society who have energy to burn. I was one of them and I needed a constructive place to put it. This is the thrust of the bill and I see it as being very beneficial.

The other thing that impressed me with the bill is that the private sector will be encouraged to contribute to sports financially. We have looked at the advertising for the Olympics. Many corporate sponsors have become involved in the Olympics. Some of the shoulder sports, those sports that are not the focus of attention, certainly do not have the same kind of support as do figure skating or ice hockey. Nonetheless, the fact that the bill goes out of its way to encourage private sector contributions to sports financially is very positive. Groups that are not commonly represented in the sports field will be encouraged.

Drug free sports, ethics in sports and dispute resolutions are the prime objectives in the legislation.

The legislation will establish a non-profit sport dispute resolution centre in Canada. Coming from the Canadian Alliance side, I immediately asked how much it would cost and what the dollars and cents would be. In the department briefing I was told that the budget would be in the range of $1 million a year. From that there will be 10 full time equivalents.

In addition to acting as a collector and distributor of information, what appeals to me in a very big way is the dispute settlement aspect. If we are looking at an additional or new cost of $1 million, how can we justify that? There have been a total of about 40 disputes annually which have been very costly for the government. For example, the anticipated legal costs for Synchro Canada and Synchro Quebec are $50,000 for that one dispute alone. It does not take a lot of $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 legal bills to equal $1 million.

The beauty of the dispute resolution centre as far as I am concerned is that we cannot call up the Olympics or the Commonwealth games and say to hold it a minute, we have a dispute here about the athletes we were thinking of sending and we cannot decide who is to go, so how about cancelling the Olympics for a couple of months until we can get this settled? It is not only a case of dollars and cents. There is a very practical issue. When there is a dispute between athletes as to who should be going, when there is a dispute between organizations as to who should be representing them, when there is a dispute perhaps between athletic organizations and coaching organizations, which right now end up at a rate of 40 annually, there is no relatively simple way to be able to clear them.

What I am taking a look at is that speedy dispute resolution and the fact that the bill specifically sets out this dispute organization, so I am looking forward to the dispute centre being able to resolve these issues and then the number of issues that would end up before the courts would really be quite minuscule.

Clause 16 of the bill states:

The directors, other than the executive director, are not entitled to be paid any remuneration, but are entitled to be paid such reasonable travel and other expenses incurred by them in connection with their duties or functions under this Act as may be fixed by the by-laws of the Centre.

Again, I am taking a look at the fact that on the surface, and I am trusting the government on this one, it appears as though we have a cost effective way of using the dollars that are currently being spent to settle disputes. It seems like a way of using those same dollars, perhaps fewer dollars, to set up this sports centre, and furthermore, the directors, other than the executive director, will not be entitled to be paid. We are talking about volunteers.

As well, paragraph 17(1)(i) states as an objective:

the establishment of mediation and arbitration procedures for resolving sport disputes, including a mechanism for determining the manner in which the parties may select an arbitrator or mediator and the language, according to the needs of the parties, in which the parties may be heard and the decision rendered;--

It seems to me that the bill is quite thorough and looks at all the details.

Clause 18, about the chairperson, states:

The Minister, after consulting with the directors, other than the executive director, shall designate one of them as chairperson to hold office during good behaviour for any term of not more than three years. The chairperson may be designated for not more than two consecutive terms and may be removed by the Minister for cause.

Subclause 21(2) states:

The executive director holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years, which term may be renewed for one or more further terms, but may be removed by the Minister for cause.

As I am going through the bill, it seems to me that unless there is something that does not jump off the page I actually have to give the Liberals a compliment. That is a terrible thing for a member of the opposition to do. I am getting frowns from all my colleagues.

[Privilege, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as you may be aware, I am the vice chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I wish to speak to this question of privilege and in support of it, particularly the second part.

Before I do, in fairness to both the committee and the committee chair, it must be noted that the committee chair approached the table of the House and received advice. It was upon this advice that the committee entered into the arrangement that my friend questions. I believe what has happened subsequent to receiving that advice is that events, particularly on the part of one of the advisers, David Taras, have overtaken and indeed we have unintended consequences.

My friend quoted from Donald Savoie who said “Questions of accountability and how public servants relate to their ministers and to parliament are fundamental issues of governance. When you pull one lever, a whole series of issues, some unforeseen, can surface.” Indeed that has happened.

I would like to quote very briefly from a letter I sent to David Taras today. It says:

As an important part of our consideration of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage entering into a contract with you, we raised the issue of the many requests you receive for public commentary on political issues.

There was discussion about an understandable restriction of publicizing your opinion on matters relating to the issues under committee consideration. Additionally, we expressed concern about working with an advisor who made statements that were either intentionally or inadvertently hostile to the goals and objectives of the Canadian Alliance.

We cited the following examples. Would the Liberal committee members feel comfortable with your participation if, hypothetically, you publicly agreed with Warren Kinsella that the Liberal membership sign-up rules are racist? Or if you hypothetically agreed, in print or broadcast that the NDP was a spent force because they had no new ideas since 1960?

Well, here's an example that's not hypothetical.

This is from April 10. The headline by The Canadian Press was “Six Alliance Dissidents Seek Return to Fold”. This is a direct quote from that article. It says:

David Taras of the University of Calgary said the party [Alliance] still must tackle the image of having too few visible minorities, too few women and too few young people.

“The amount of building they still have to do is extraordinary,” he said, adding it is still unclear whether Harper would “be dead on arrival in Ontario” in the next election.”

My letter to David Taras goes on to say:

Your first statement is a simple restatement of [the chair of the national caucus of the Liberals] slamming the Canadian Alliance Party with political spin. We knew we were going to be attacked by our opponents with untruthful statements when Mr. Harper won the leadership. We also knew there would be a pick-up of the Liberal spin by “experts” and “talking heads”.

I say to him that he is one. Later in my letter, I say:

If you were to do some research you might not continue to parrot the Liberal spin. The 'image' of which you speak is grossly inaccurate. That image is perpetuated and strengthened by independent [so-called] 'experts' who don't do their homework...

The point of this correspondence is we would find your participation in our committee work more beneficial if you were to keep your musings about the electoral future of the Canadian Alliance Party out of the public domain.

We wouldn't expect our committee clerks or researchers, who are in the employ of Parliament, to be quoted in the media. [The heritage minister] and elected partisans can keep their spin in the media without the help of consultants who moonlight as political experts.

My point which is in support of the second point of my colleague, my Liberal friend, is that indeed we rather foresaw these consequences but now we have the unintended consequences. If someone from the table here in the Chamber, or the clerk of the committee, or library of parliament officials or any of our experts who served the committee made comments like David Taras made, Mr. Speaker, I would hope you would fire them.

In this instance, because we have entered into this relationship with these so-called experts through the back door, indeed my privileges along with those of my friend and I dare say any other politician in this Chamber, have been breached.

[Leadership Campaigns, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the problem here is the Prime Minister and the heritage minister are kind of caught between a rock and a martini but it is the Canadian taxpayer who is suffering.

The answer is very simple. Will the ministers, whose departments let the contracts, reveal the names and the contracts of the people who are supporting them? It is that simple. There is nothing profound here.

[Leadership Campaigns, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is about the lack of ethics of the government and the use of taxpayers' money.

The would-be successors to the Prime Minister make it appear as though the taxpayers' money is supporting their leadership bids. First it was the finance minister, now it is the minister of heritage with her own conflict.

Joe Thornley, whose company Thornley Fallis is under contract with the minister's department, held a $500 a plate fundraising dinner for her just last week.

What is happening here is wrong. Why did she do it?

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am not chicken but I want to make it perfectly clear that I and the people of the riding of Kootenay--Columbia are totally opposed to bestiality.

Because of the way in which the legislation has been put together; the fact that we could very well have researchers under siege, as we presently have in many parts of the world; the fact that ranchers, farmers and pet owners could be under siege, along with the researchers, the bill is just an ill-thought out piece of legislation.

The bill must be defeated and yet I rather suspect that the whip will be on with the Liberals. Once again they will pull forward with this legislation and once again we will create a situation of more work for the charter industry.

I congratulate the Liberals. They have done their job. They have kept the lawyers employed.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite an amazing question and not a simple one. My speculation, because I am not a lawyer, would be that his thesis certainly would have some validity. As he says, a vertebrate, other than a human being and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain, does not take a giant leap from that point to where he has arrived.

As I indicated in my presentation, I am concerned primarily with the fact that we are going into uncharted and unknown territory with the bill. The examples I used, with which I am personally familiar from my critic role, are such that I think I have expanded to the point of this being a pattern of the government where it creates a skeleton, does not know where the skeleton will go, does not put any muscle, sinew, fat or skin on the skeleton, and then lets the courts work it out. Therein lies the problem.

Although we sometimes accuse the courts in Canada of being activists, in fact they are not activists. They are simply doing the bidding of the Liberals where the Liberals are deficient, incapable of bringing forward proper, meaningful, well defined legislation, the courts are simply being given a carte blanche. As a matter of fact they have been given a job as a result of Prime Minister Trudeau and the charter and the whole charter industry that we presently have.

Certainly that was a very profound question from my colleague. I have no idea where it will go but it is certainly food for thought.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, again it is my privilege to stand and speak to this bill, although, as with many of the bills that come to us from the Liberals, I can assure everyone that the content of the bill does not contain anything with which I am particularly happy.

The first item that I would like to draw to the attention of members is that in my constituency we have a tremendous number of very responsible firearms owners. They are taking a look at the content of this bill and other provisions that have been brought forward by the Liberals over a period of time with respect to the original bill, Bill C-68, which absolutely makes them want to pull their hair out.

They are looking at the fact, for example, that the government has spent and is in the process of spending more than $700 million on a useless gun registry when in fact the government very proudly talks about the fact that it will be spending $200 million to protect us from terrorism. I think that spending $200 million against terrorists, Osama bin Laden and his ilk, versus $700 million against law-abiding Canadian gun owners is just obscene. I think the tinkering around the edges contained in Bill C-15B is an example of the government making policy and laws on the fly.

The difficulty we have with this is that it is all bits and pieces. This is an omnibus bill. Omnibus, for those who are interested, simply means that it is a catch-all, a bill where the government threw everything into the hat. Originally this was Bill C-15. In this omnibus bill, the government thought it would do more tinkering around the edges with respect to the issue of gun registry. The tinkering around the edges is absolutely inadequate. The only thing we should be doing with respect to the gun registry is immediately withdrawing it and replacing it with measures that would actually make our streets safer.

It must be said that it is understandable that we should know who should be allowed to legally posses and carry firearms. That is logical and totally understandable. I do not see having a licence for that as posing any particular problem. As a matter of fact, it could well be a benefit. It certainly would give the prosecutors and the police in Canada the ability to take action under law that might be required to diffuse particular situations. The whole issue of this useless registry is that it is sending millions and millions of dollars completely down the drain. I say with respect to Bill C-15B and the whole issue of the tinkering with the firearms registry that it is an absolute waste of time and an absolute waste of money.

I also mentioned that the bill is designated as Bill C-15B as opposed to Bill C-15A, which supposedly we will be discussing at some future point in this parliament, because what the government did at the outset was create a grab bag of things that do not relate to each other in any way, shape or form. For example, what indeed does cruelty to animals have to do with the gun registry? I do not see any connection there at all.

Bill C-15A supposedly also has to do with protecting children, and we will be having a debate about that later, as well as the whole issue of safety for police officers. What does that have to do with cruelty to animals? Only when the Canadian Alliance dug in its heels and said no, it would not be going that route, and this goes back to last June, did it finally force the government into a situation where a legitimate vote could take place on the issue of Bill C-15B, primarily on the issue of cruelty to animals.

The fact that it decided to continue to have the catch-all of the change with respect to gun registry still contained in Bill C-15B was something that was really quite unfortunate, but nonetheless those are the choices that the government made.

What does the bill do? First, with respect to cruelty to animals, there is not a person in the House, much less anyone in the Canadian Alliance, who would not want to see the protection of animals. Of course we do. Any humane human being does. The stated purpose of the bill is to consolidate animal cruelty offences and increase the maximum penalties. It also provides the definition of animal and moves cruelty to animals provisions from part XI of the criminal code, property offences.

A couple of days ago when we were speaking at report stage on this, I drew out the point, and I draw it out again, that if we are moving the cruelty to animals provisions from part XI of the criminal code, property offences, to another part of the criminal code, that is not just incidental. I pointed out, hopefully fairly forcefully, that an animal is an animal, a human is a human and a human may own an animal. That is pretty simple and straightforward, but not in the minds of animal activists, particularly extreme animal activists. That is what the Canadian Alliance Party and I are concerned about. We are concerned about the fact that if the definition of animal is removed from property offences and put into a different section, this will really open up the door to the potential of vexatious prosecution.

We have been told not to worry about it, that no crown prosecutors would do anything like that, but I had some action take place in my constituency under Bill C-68, which of course is also covered under Bill C-15. That is why I am speaking to it. We had police who unfortunately exercised authority in an area in which they had no right to exercise authority. Not only was the gun owner in this instance personally out of pocket for the cost of the lawyer, that owner was also personally out of pocket for the cost of a door being broken down. There was no authority. Finally when the matter went to court, at great expense I should say, we ended up with a situation where the judge said the police should not have done that. In other words, whenever there is new legislation there is always a trial of the new legislation, either by the police or, secondly, by the prosecution.

Where are we going by removing animal provisions from part XI of the criminal code? What has changed since Bill C-17, which also dealt with these issues? The government has made certain changes from the previously proposed legislation dealing with cruelty to animals, Bill C-17. The main change was the requirement for a person to act “wilfully or recklessly” in killing or harming animals.

However, many organizations, businesses and individuals still have significant concerns with respect to the bill. Who are they? Agricultural groups, farmers, industry workers and medical researchers have consistently said they welcome amendments to the criminal code that would clarify and strengthen provisions relating to animal cruelty and that they do not condone intentional animal abuse or neglect in any way. Many of these groups in fact support the intent of the bill, as the Canadian Alliance and I do, as its objective is to modernize the law and increase penalties for offences relating to animal cruelty and neglect. However, and this is the however, despite the minor improvements to the legislation, these groups advise that the bill requires significant amendments before their concerns are alleviated.

The Liberals have a terrible tendency that I have noted particularly of late. Perhaps it comes from smugness or complacency or the fact that they feel they know everything and what is best for everybody. I do not know what it is. However we end up with recommendations for legislation, whether it is in Bill C-15B or Bill C-15A, or the species at risk act, SARA, that are heartfelt recommendations that reflect the values and concerns of the people to whom we answer. Liberals just stonewall them or at the very best they take them, tinker with them, pound them down, make them almost useless and then insert them. Then they say “See we made the amendment that you want”.

One of the central concerns with this bill is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. The phrase “legal justification or excuse and with colour of right” in section 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. Note the word “property”. However in the new bill the fact that the animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own would effectively remove those provisions outside of the ambit of that protection.

Our party asked that the government members make the defences in section 429(2) explicit in the new legislation and they refused. This is the kind of pattern that I was talking about where we make any kind of reasonable arguments and we are just simply refused out of hand.

Moving the animal cruelty section out of the ambit of property offences to a new section in its own right is also seen by many as emphasizing animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. I know this is the third or fourth or perhaps the fifth time that I have said it, but those who choose not to listen try to say that I and the people in my party are not concerned about animal welfare. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we want to ensure is animal welfare. What we want to avoid is animal rights.

This significant alteration in the underlying principles of the legislation is something that needs to be carefully considered. The Canadian Alliance asked the government members to retain the cruelty to animals provision in the property offences section of the criminal code but it refused. This is not a small issue. This is a giant issue.

I say again, I and every member of my party are concerned about animal welfare. We support the bill in its intent to protect animal welfare. We reject the bill in terms of animal rights because we know where that is going. We know under animal rights that there are many activists. We have seen them, we have heard of them, we have seen their publicity and we have seen some of their very vicious and dangerous activity in which they have become engaged. We must stay away from it. Yet the government will not do anything about it.

Many groups are concerned that elevating the status of animals from property could in fact have significant and detrimental implications for many legitimate animal dependent businesses. Another major and very serious concern is that the definition of animal is too broad, it is too subjective and it is too ambiguous.

That is so typical of the kind of legislation that the Liberals consistently bring forward. What did I say it was? It was too broad. It was too ambiguous. That is so typical of just about every piece of legislation.

In committee just yesterday we were discussing Bill S-7, which by the way came to us through the back door from the other place. The bill is so incomplete and is such a skeletal kind of issue. I asked the Liberals in the committee how in the world could we possibly pass something like that. I asked how we could even be discussing something like it when we did not know what the rules, the regulations, the implications would be. There is no meat, there is no muscle, there is no sinew on the bones of the words that are on that piece of paper.

Of course the Liberals said they would get around to it, to just give them some time. They said they would go to the CRTC, have some hearings and after the House rubber stamped it they would then know what the legislation would be; years after.

I cite another example in my particular critic role, that of blank recording medium. When that was brought forward in 1997, we were told it would be 25¢ charge per cassette. Five years later in the year 2002, the 25¢ per cassette charge somehow has gone to $200 to $400 per machine on equipment that now has the capacity to record more. Twenty-five cents to $400 strikes me as a bit of a jump.

I say with respect to Bill C-15B, the difficulty we have with it is we simply do not know where it is going because of the imprecision of the definition of animal. The definition marks a significant departure, by providing protection for an extremely wide range of living organisms that have never before been afforded this kind of legal protection. Where is that going? What are the unintended consequences of that? That is a statement of fact, we have no idea where it is going.

In terms of practical difficulties on how this definition is worded, it could potentially cause enormous problems by extending the criminal law to invertebrates, cold-blooded species such as fish, as well as an extremely wide variety of other types of both domestic and wild animals.

There is nothing in the mind of somebody who is an aggressive activist that would amaze me. Aggressive activists will take a look at this legislation and will push it as far as they can conceivably push it. Is it possible that somebody could be harassed by an activist, potentially by somebody in uniform who has an overzealous approach to things, a conservation officer or whomever? Is it not possible that somebody working with fish could end up with a problem because it is not precise?

The Canadian Alliance asked the government members to delete or modify this definition but they refused. In her speech at second reading, the justice minister assured us that what was lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill received royal assent. She promised the House that these changes would not in any way negatively affect the many legitimate activities that involve animals, such as hunting, farming, medical or scientific research.

The minister's statement was self-evident but misleading. Of course the new provisions will not prevent legitimate activities from being carried out. The law only proscribes illegal activities. The problem is and therefore the concern is that these new provisions arguably narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities.

I say again on behalf of the people of Kootenay--Columbia, I have a wonderful group of people in my constituency. We are about 82,000 people strong. We are the backbone of Canada. These are people who love animals. These are people who understand the relationship between animals and nature. These are the hunters. These are the people who go fishing. These are the people who look after the environment in which these animals live. These are the farmers. These are the ranchers. These are the pet owners who treat their animals with respect, as every member of my party does and I do. On their behalf, I stand here and say that this bill must be voted in the negative.

[Criminal Code, April 10th, 2002]

Oh they are. Well, there you go.

I come back to the issue of the sex offender registry. It was through the initiative of the Canadian Alliance that the House unanimously approved a sex offender registry. The government took more than a year. When we asked why it was not doing anything about it, we were told the government was not going to do anything about it and then the Liberals played the political game and did it 14 days later.

The children of Canada are the future of Canada and they deserve our respect, our support and our attention to this matter. What the Liberals are doing is not good enough.