Jim Abbott

[Defence Production Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is part of what I have been speaking about. At the moment I would say that we have a tremendous number of chimneys of information, a vertical flow of information from the information or intelligence gathering, up through to the top, where the top is concerned about the management of the vertical flow of information.

The difficulty is that the government is undertaking, on behalf of the people of Canada through this law, a process that requires more than a vertical chimney of information. We do not have any effective way of creating it at this point, but we must create a horizontal pipeline of information. In other words, there could very well be information that the minister of public works should have in his possession that is resident in a department adjacent to the public works ministry.

That information, which could very well turn the tide as to whether he would certify an individual for access, could be sitting in the department literally right next door to the minister and the public works ministry could be unaware of that information. That is what we are talking about.

We are in favour of this act because it achieves the mutual objectives between our two countries, but my colleague, the critic for public works, and I are trying to drive home to the minister that because we can have intelligence in an adjacent ministry of which the public works ministry is unaware, he could indeed end up certifying people who perhaps should not be certified.

Within this government or the successor government, whether it is the Liberals, the Alliance or whoever forms the next government, the ability within government to access and manage intelligence sharing on a horizontal basis between departments must be created so that when the public works ministry, as in this case, makes a determination that a person is worthy of a certificate it will be making that determination on more than a simple rubber stamping. It will be making it based on the very best information and intelligence available.

[Defence Production Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to be very brief with my comments, but I would like to make a connection here between an issue that I have consistently been bringing to the House, that is, the issue of Canada's national security.

This particular bill comes about as a very direct result of the lack of attention that the government and its predecessor have paid to the issue of national security in Canada. It is a concern to the people of the United States, to the people responsible for the defence industry of the United States.

We have to remember this. Whether we like it or not, the fact of the matter is that in Canada we have the ability to have expenditures of many types on many things where we basically do not have to put out the money for the defence we are getting from the country to the south of us.

These people of course have their own vested interest. We act as a buffer. We recognize to a certain extent that we are the meat in the sandwich between them and other people who would be adversaries to them. They do have their own vested interest, but the fact of the matter is that we as Canadians have the ability to have a defence budget significantly smaller than we would need if we did not have the level of co-operation we have with the people in the United States.

Secondly, they have a very legitimate concern and interest in the transfer of technology, information and intelligence. Even within the confines of the lower 48 states, the United States has seen many of its facilities ending up being compromised by people who have come into its own territory. As it tried to bring that into focus and regain control of that, the United States naturally took a look at the sources of these malevolent forces coming toward it. Many of those sources were coming through a very porous 49th parallel.

We must pay far more attention to the entire issue of national security. Interestingly, this issue of intelligence gathering and management has everything in the world to do with the difficulties that this nation and indeed many nations around the world are having with respect to organized crime and the fact that in many instances terrorism is bought and paid for by the proceeds of organized crime. Organized criminals and terrorists have the ability to go across boundaries literally at the speed of light, at the flick of a computer switch.

This particular agreement, which came about, I believe, in good faith between our nation and the nation of the United States, is a good example of how when we come across a problem we can work together and work our way around the problem.

The necessity of this legislation is due to our charter of rights and freedoms. The necessity of this legislation is due to the way in which our country is configured and the way in which we welcome immigrants to our country to be part of this great nation of Canada. As we give those immigrants opportunities within our society and as they in turn help to construct our society, to build our society and to add to our intellectual wealth and the quality and fabric of our society, these people are building our society. At the same time, because of the concerns that the defence industry was having in the United States, it felt that this was a step away from its ability to be able to control people who would have access to its very highly valued, highly confidential secret information.

Our caucus had the opportunity, through the good auspices of our defence critic, to have two or three meetings with the defence industry while this was coming to resolution. I thank the member, but I also thank the defence industry for taking the time and interest to inform us and our caucus as to what was going on.

As the industry came to us, it was made very evident that there must be a connection. There must be a management of information among the solicitor general, who would be responsible for CSIS and the RCMP, immigration, foreign affairs, industry and foreign trade. All of these and more of our departments must do a far better job of sharing and managing information and intelligence as it is being gathered.

I am very pleased that between the two nations we have arrived at this bill, at this accommodation. As I say, it shows goodwill between the two nations, which bodes well for the future. However, I say to the government, we must pay attention to the fact that we had to do this bill in the first place. The reason we had to do this bill is that the government unfortunately is not paying anywhere near the attention that it should be to the issue of information gathering and management in Canada for the sake of our national security.

[Foreign Affairs, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, these terrorists raise funds through welfare scams, drugs, credit cards, passport frauds and human smuggling. These are all international security issues which put all Canadians at risk.

We are asking legitimate questions in the House. We are answered by blusters from the frontbench and caterwauling from the backbench. It does not change the issue. This issue is not about culture or ethnicity; it is about public safety. Why does the minister not understand that?

[Foreign Affairs, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is fairly obvious from the documents that have been brought into the House that the solicitor general has a complete lack of confidence in the reports to him from CSIS or from any of the other organizations, when the government permits ministers to go to events such as have been described in the House.

He does not understand that when terrorists slip into Canada, it is the people from their former countries who are the most put upon. Why is the minister not taking their well-being seriously?

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kelowna raised an very interesting point. Someone was telling me a couple of days ago when we were discussing this issue that people could not believe that calves would be castrated without an anaesthetic.

On the other hand people who are in the business very clearly and specifically understand how totally ludicrous it would be to administer a form of anaesthetic in the situation they are in, what would happen, and the havoc it would wreak in terms of the management of livestock. Clearly we are dealing with an egregious urban-rural split in understanding.

I am sure my colleague would agree with me that it puts all the more emphasis on the committee process to ensure that people who are at the committee have an opportunity to present both sides of the story. In addition, the government should undertake a very strong communication policy so that people understand what it is all about.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of my colleague. Of course we are coming at it from very much the same perspective.

One of the things that seemed to be of greatest concern to the people in my constituency was the issue of the potential for there to be nuisance prosecutions.

For example, I have never been to a branding, where you bring in all of the calves from the range around May or so. There is really quite a wild event that goes on there. There is not only branding of the cattle, but the male species of the animal also undergoes another process that they probably are not all that crazy about.

There are all of these things that go on. In taking a look at some of the irresponsible actions that have been perpetrated against the people who are involved in responsible resource extraction and management, such as people in forestry and logging and that kind of thing in the province of British Columbia and indeed all across Canada, and some of the nuisance prosecutions that have actually occurred, whereby people who have been protesting have used every possible means to put over their particular point of view and perspective, I wonder if there is not the very real possibility that because of the apparent lack of definition within this bill we could end up with these kinds of nuisance prosecutions.

We could end up with that in regard to people who are deriving their income from providing an exceptionally valuable service to the people of Canada by providing us with the livestock that becomes the bacon, the roasts of beef, the hamburgers, whatever the case may be. As we take a look at that process and at there being some nuisance people, might that not in fact be a concern that we really should be focusing on, particularly when this goes to committee?

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I would like to deal with the member's question in two parts. First, with respect to the rural-urban split, hard to believe though it may be, there are three, four, five, and six year old children in Canada who have never walked in a garden, have never seen carrots grow and have no idea where they come from, have never seen tomatoes grow and have no idea where they come from. All they know is when they sit down at a table with the food in front of them, there is a hot dog and there are buns or whatever the case may be.

The reality is there is a lack of understanding. I do not believe at all that it is an intentional lack of understanding, but there is nonetheless a lack of understanding by people who have not been involved in any way, shape, or form with the agricultural industry, whether it is fruit and vegetables or animals. There is a complete lack of understanding, a disconnectedness, in society. People simply do not understand where the food on their plate comes from.

On the vast majority of farms, farmers clearly understand the animals. The animals are not only their livelihood. They are the protectors. They are the people who are working with humane practices. It is those people who are most concerned about the bill because it has such a pet implication as opposed to a domestic animal implication or connection.

To answer the second part of my colleague's question, that is indeed what we are involved with in parliament and within the parliamentary process. When we get into committee we will have an opportunity to hear that. I would hope that the committee looking at this will take every opportunity to have input so that we make sure that the people who know and respect the agricultural animals they are tending will have an opportunity to have input into this bill.

I am sure that it would not be the intention of the government or any other government to see criminal sanctions against people who are in the business of rearing and slaughtering livestock so that we can indeed have food on our tables.

As I say, I am looking forward to hearing about the committee process. Certainly I am hoping the government is going to have a very broad brush so that we do not end up with a pet mentality applied to farmers.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, immediately prior to coming to the House I was on the telephone with some people in my constituency and I was rather surprised by their lack of information.

The bill has come forward at the will of the justice minister. It is a bill that has been before the Commons for a period of time. I have attempted to get some information out to people in my constituency about it. However it is probably indicative of the kind of process the government gets involved in quite frequently. It takes a look at its idea of what is required in terms of legislation and then proceeds to do it. It does not take the time or make any effort to make people who will be affected by the legislation aware of the legislation.

I want to deal with the cruelty to animals provisions of the bill primarily, but I would also like to comment on the fact that, as has already been said in the House, this is an omnibus bill.

I believe it was Prime Minister Trudeau who, at least in my time, was the first Prime Minister noted by journalists as treating the House of Commons in a perverse way, rather disrespectfully. To his mind, the House of Commons was a rubber stamp that was required in order for him to be able to come forward with the kind of legislation he wanted for the House.

Unfortunately, following Prime Minister Trudeau and then through Prime Minister Turner, the new member for Kings—Hants, the former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and now the current Prime Minister, we have a continuation of the process. The bureaucracy, perhaps pushed by its perception of public opinion, and the cabinet, perhaps pushed by its perception of public opinion, although mostly rounded out and buffeted by the concept of political correctness, end up coming forward with pieces of legislation that in their judgment are essential.

This is, as I have stated, an omnibus bill. An omnibus bill basically combines all sorts of unrelated provisions. The only relationship the provisions in the bill have to one another is that they happen to come under the control of the justice department, hence the justice minister. That is the only connection between any of the matters in the bill.

Let us presume we have some serious concerns about the provisions of the cruelty to animals portion of the bill, I in particular, representing a dominantly rural constituency. We have agricultural producers who are involved in raising cattle and all sorts of other livestock. We have poultry farms and dairy operations. In addition, as it happens, I have probably the best big game hunting, certainly in North America if not in the world, in my constituency, it being right in the core of the Canadian Rockies.

There is a lot of concern on the part of people in my constituency, whether they are directly involved in the business of agriculture, where they are directly dealing with domestic animals, or whether they are hunting and fishing guides and people involved with animals in that way. With that as a background, let us presume that there are some concerns. I will be relating some of them in just a second.

It is difficult enough for a member representing a rural community such as I do, Kootenay—Columbia, to try to send a message to the Canadian people. I have given up long since trying to send a message to cabinet, because it does not listen anyway. I will try to send a message to the Canadian people, either through the broadcast of this debate or to those people taking the time to read Hansard , about the difficulties there are from an urban-rural perspective. That is difficult enough.

Then we have the complete disregard of the parliamentary process, which was started by Prime Minister Trudeau and continued through the successive prime ministers. We have the situation where governments then bring forward pieces of legislation such as the business about the removal of a peace officer's firearm and so on and so forth.

Who in the world could not support that? We look at that provision of the bill and say to ourselves “Are there not an awful lot of other provisions with respect to firearms and peace officers that we could be addressing in a more substantive way than the tinkering that is going on in this bill?” The provisions in the bill with respect to the firearms of peace officers are certainly supportable. It is just regrettable that the bill does not go far enough.

As long as there is the disregard of the government for the opposition and for the parliamentary process, as long as there is a continuation of this attitude on the part of the present Liberal government that treats the House of Commons as a rubber stamp, basically a situation is created of it being exceptionally difficult for an official opposition that is attempting to be responsible in bringing representations and concerns of their constituents, and indeed all Canadians, to the Chamber. It is exceptionally difficult for us to be able to make any separation or distinction between these two parts of this omnibus bill.

This is not picking fly droppings out of the pepper. This is not trying to get down to the minutiae. This indeed is a fundamental problem with the government, in continuing the policy of treating the House as a rubber stamp for legislation that they in their wisdom have crowned and anointed and that has come from the bureaucracy.

That having been said, let us look at the provisions with respect to the criminal sanctions for actions against animals under the cruelty to animals part.

I have a summary from some people in my constituency who have looked at the bill. They have, for example, a concern about the definition of animal. The department argues that providing a definition where one does not currently exist will provide a narrower definition and at the same time provide added clarity. The new definition would include non-human vertebrates and all animals having the capacity to experience pain. The concern of some of the people in my constituency is that this marks a significant change by adding animals not traditionally considered under the law.

The clarification could cause enormous problems by extending criminal law to animals, including but not limited to free ranging wildlife, invertebrates, and cold blooded animals such as fish. Coupled with the move out of the property section, including a definition will serve as a first step in elevating the status of animals and giving all animals a standing in law. This indeed is new ground. This indeed is new territory for us to be going into.

We have taken a look at this piece of legislation, and as with virtually all the pieces of legislation the Liberals have brought forward in this parliament, there is one egregious flaw. The egregious flaw in virtually every piece of legislation the government brings forward is that there is not a sufficient preamble. If there were a sufficient preamble we could then work on the issue of parliament defining for the courts what is actually intended before this gets into a court of law.

I have many other concerns with the bill. I look forward to the bill going to committee where I hope many of the concerns of people such as my constituents can be brought forward. I hope the bill, which presently is just too broad-brush, will be able to be refined and defined. I also hope the government will take the time, energy and effort to see that people who will be affected by it are given more information.

[Points Of Order, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I might request that you might want to take a look at Hansard for that particular day. I do not have a copy handy with me this second, but in the parliamentary secretary's response he said point one, point two, point three and it says this, it says this, it says this. We will not know whether or not he was quoting from the document until the document is tabled.

[Points Of Order, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence. As you know, following question period I raised the issue of a report that had been referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. I indicated that my understanding of the practice and procedures of the House was that because he did not refer specifically to the report, I could only request that it be tabled.

I have had an opportunity in the intervening period—and this is the first opportunity I have had, which is why I beg the indulgence of the House under this point of order—to review the blues.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General said “I am pleased to report to the House today that review is now complete”, referring to the SIRC review, “and has been submitted to the solicitor general”. This is important. He says “There are three points in that submission that I would like to refer to all members of the House”. He is referring to points contained in the report. He continues, saying “The first is that there was no political interference as alleged in the media. The second is the draft report in fact indicated it was deeply flawed. The third is that there is no evidence of any substantial nature that was part of that draft report”.

In his response to my supplementary question, at the conclusion of his response I refer you to the sentence where he stated “The facts today are evident and they are presented here in the House”.

I refer to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , page 518, chapter 13. I would like to read a portion of a paragraph pertaining to tabling of documents and speeches.

As Speaker Glen noted in a 1941 ruling, “an honourable member is not entitled to read from communications unless prepared to place them on the Table of the House. The principle upon which this is based is that where information is given to the House, the House itself is entitled to the same information as the honourable member who may quote the document.”

Mr. Speaker, my argument is simply this. I recognize that I have not had an opportunity to call the parliamentary secretary's office but I did want to be on the record as early as I possibly could, at the earliest possible moment, and move from making a request of the government but rather to state that the government really must follow parliamentary practice where clearly the solicitor general's parliamentary secretary kept referring to these documents.

At the risk of being too repetitious, I am going to read this again. He said “There are three points in that submission that I would like to refer to all members of the House”. Then he elucidates on those three points.

I note that there is a House official for the government in the House today. I therefore request that he undertake to see that this SIRC review which was submitted to the solicitor general, which I have subsequently found out was submitted about a week ago, is tabled forthwith.