Kevin Sorenson

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand this evening and participate in the debate on Bill C-21, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

Where I come from, predominantly a rural riding in Alberta, this bill is one of the most important changes that my constituents, over the seven years that I have been a member of Parliament, have asked for. They want to see the gun registry changed and the long gun registry dropped.

This bill is the start of a process that would reverse the burden that has been placed on rural Canadians by Liberal governments for far too long, approximately 10 years. Farmers and ranchers, those of us who live in remote and rural communities, have been taxed and red-taped by the Liberal government's failed gun registry for a decade now and they are saying that enough is enough and that it is time to make changes.

We have lived with this type of registry for a long time but we have lived with firearms, and long guns specifically, for generations in rural Canada. We have lived with them safely as responsible and law-abiding owners and users. However, when urban Canada, and our largest cities in particular, began to suffer from gun violence on an increasing basis, the Chrétien government launched a long gun registry. However, it did not address the problems in these urban centres and caused considerable hardship to rural Canada.

The Conservative Party campaigned on a promise to address what some estimate to be now a $2 billion waste of taxpayer dollars and to remove the yolk that the Liberals placed on rural residents when it comes to firearms ownership.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Unlike the current Liberal leadership, Canada's new government is committed to effective gun control in tackling the criminal misuse of firearms. We understand that serious gun crime problems are very evident in our urban areas. They continue to rise and this government will do something about it.

The truth is that the vast majority of these firearm homicides are committed with illegal, unregistered firearms. That is why we believe in targeting the criminals themselves, the criminals who use and traffic in illegal firearms, not the duck hunters, not the farmers and not the ranchers who have nothing to do with the criminal element or criminal activity.

The Liberals continuously neglected our licensing system. We allocated $14 million over two years in budget 2007 to improve front end screening of first time firearm licence applicants.

I have listened to people tonight from the other side say that we were getting rid of every type of regulation. That is not right. We want to ensure that those who apply for a firearms licence will be trained and screened so they will be responsible firearm owners. Those are very important measures that will help prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. It was the aspect of a licensing and screening system that was totally neglected by the previous government.

Instead, over more than a decade the Liberal Party wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on a long gun registry that could have been used for fighting crime and the sources of criminal behaviour.

The other failure of the Liberals' long gun registry is well-documented by the Auditor General. Data was too often inaccurate and costs skyrocketed while Parliament was, in my opinion, intentionally misinformed about the progress that was being made.

As a government, I am proud to say that my party has changed the focus from paperwork and charging fees to farmers and duck hunters to focusing on dealing with crime on the front lines.

We have invested $161 million over two years to add 1,000 more RCMP personnel to focus on law enforcement priorities, such as gun smuggling, a very real problem in this country that needs to be addressed.

Since taking office, we have brought forward 11 new legislative proposals that will help crack down on crime, proposals such as restricting conditional sentences such as house arrest for serious crimes, imposing mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes, and keeping in prison the most violent, most dangerous repeat offenders in the country.

Canadians are watching as the opposition parties in this minority Parliament are being soft on crime and blocking our tough on crime bills from moving forward.

Canadians expect action, not further delays, yet that is what the opposition is doing with its majority of votes at the justice committee. They opposition members are slowing down and watering down and doing everything they can to postpone the proposals to strengthen our criminal justice system. Yet again, getting tough on crime was one of our major planks in the previous election and the Canadian electorate supported our proposals.

The Liberals' attempt to count and track every long gun in Canada has been ineffective and costly. It has misdirected police resources from what is most important: going after criminals who use firearms in crime.

Bill C-21 will take the focus back to where it should be. It will refocus our gun control efforts on what works in combating the criminal use of firearms by repealing the requirement to register non-restricted long guns and requiring firearm retailers to record all sales transactions of non-restricted firearms.

Under our Bill C-21, in order for a Canadian to purchase or possess a firearm and to purchase ammunition, a person will still be required to have a valid firearms licence. In fact, when a person purchases a non-restricted firearm, the validity of his or her licence will have to be verified. This can be done relatively simply and not at a huge cost, but we want to make certain that the right and responsible type of firearm owners are the ones doing the purchasing.

Applicants will continue to go through police background checks and safety training. Canadians also will continue to be required to register prohibited and restricted firearms, such as handguns, as has been the case since 1934.

Our intention is not to change the handgun registry. It is not to take that away. We recognize that it is the gun of choice for the criminal element. It is not our intention to touch that.

Again, we are talking about the long gun registry. Through a quick background check, our police officers will be able to determine who is in legal possession of firearms and who is not.

In 1995, the Liberal government told Parliament that the long gun registry would involve a net cost of just $2 million. That is a fact. Anyone can check. That is what was in the Auditor General's report in 2002 in chapter 10.

In May 2000, the Liberals admitted that the cost had actually ballooned to at least $327 million. Again, that is a fact. Members can check the Auditor General's report of 2002 in chapter 10.

By March 2005, the net cost of the firearms program was over $946 million. Today those costs exceed well over $1 billion, according to the Auditor General's report of 2006 in chapter 4.

This $1 billion figure does not even include the costs incurred by law enforcement agencies in enforcing the legislation or the compliance costs for law-abiding firearms owners and businesses, which are astronomical and likely run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

What is worst of all is that by 2006 the Auditor General said that the Liberals had misinformed Parliament about the many costs of their failed long gun registry.

In the many towns and villages in my riding, the waste of these taxpayer dollars by the Liberals in a phony attempt to fight gun violence is overshadowed only by the tremendous and terrible burden placed on rural Canadians and, I dare say, also on western Canadians. The Liberal gun registry targeted every rural Canadian and certainly out west it would seem to me that we felt it the most.

The Liberals deny and then after electoral defeat they wonder why they are having problems in western Canada. Their long gun registry is a prime example.

I will not mention the fact that the Liberals ignored and dragged their feet on the agriculture file, that they denied rural Canada a real and useful child care policy, that they refused to appoint our elected senators, that they racked up surpluses while forecasting deficits, and many other things.

Bill C-21 would put an end to the waste of taxpayer dollars being spent on a failed Liberal long gun registry. That is why I am proud to stand in this place and support Bill C-21 and say goodbye to the long gun registry.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the chief government whip gave an excellent speech tonight. He talked about the myths and the facts. I want to tell a quick story.

This past weekend I had the opportunity to ask my daughter, who was celebrating her 15th birthday, what she wanted to do. She asked if we could go to the local rodeo. It makes a father awful proud when his child asks to go to a cultural event such as that.

That evening there was a 50/50 draw and a young man from Killam won it. He said to me, “I'll give you all of this money if you'll put it toward the fight against the firearms registry”. That shows the level and degree of passion for getting rid of this long gun registry. I told him that I could not take his money, but assured him that the government was taking some very specific measures to get rid of the long gun registry.

Some of the things we have talked about are investing in front line police officers, the $1 billion registry, mandatory minimum sentences and real measures that would help get the criminals off the street and fight crime.

Could the member, who has served the country and his riding so well over 13 or 14 years, elaborate on a few of the crime fighting measures we are putting in place, and how a long gun registry is simply not sufficient in the fight against crime and is a waste of Canadian taxpayer dollars?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Conservative government is getting the job done for our farmers.

The first piece of legislation we passed into law in 2006 was about improvements to cash advance payments now available to producers. These changes allowed the spring credit advance and the fall advance payments to be merged into a single program.

Our government's improvements include: increasing the limit on cash advances from $250,000 to $400,000; doubling the interest-free amount from $50,000 to $100,000; expanding the coverage to include livestock and an additional variety of crops; and extending from 12 to 18 months the time producers have to repay their cash advance, that is, from April to September of the following year.

Farmers apply for a cash advance through producer organizations. Repayments of cash advances are guaranteed. Where I come from, it really helps farmers when money can be borrowed at lower interest rates and cash can be advanced on the anticipated value of farm production. This is another positive step for agriculture.

[Canada Evidence Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-426.

I doubt that there is any Canadian who would argue with the statement that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not two cornerstones of a free and democratic society. I think all would agree with the statement that they are imperative.

In fact, subsection 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides a specific constitutional right to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”.

In consideration of Bill C-426, I think that it is important to first summarize the main components of the bill and then determine whether they are an improvement on the current law that we have in the country today. In other words, are there limitations in the current law that threaten freedom of the press and if so, do the provisions that Bill C-426 brings forward address these gaps? If no such limitation exists, then Bill C-426 may be unnecessary.

I would like to begin with a summary of the primary components of Bill C-426. The bill has three main components. The first is a statutory protection that prohibits a journalist from being compelled to disclose the source of information supplied to the journalist. Although not totally clear in the bill, this appears to be a protection from testimonial compulsion when the journalist becomes a witness in a case.

This protection, however, is not absolute. It is subject to a more general provision that expressly prohibits a judge from making an order forcing the journalist to disclose an information source unless the judge is satisfied that certain tests are met.

The difficulty with the two sections being in the same provision is that the first section addresses the journalist as a witness and the second section is all encompassing. It does not matter whether the journalist is a witness or not. This means that it is not clear which section applies and in which circumstance it applies.

A second component of Bill C-426 protects a journalist from having to disclose unpublished information only if the material is of “vital importance” and it cannot be produced in evidence by any other means.

The problem with the bill is that vital importance is not defined. What do we mean by vital importance? Also, the section refers to unpublished information that is produced as evidence. What if the information that is brought forward does not become evidence in the case? Is it still protected? This provision in this bill does not make that clear.

The final component of the bill creates restrictions on the ability of a judge to issue a search warrant to seize information in the possession of the journalist. The reference to a judge is curious in view of the fact that search warrants are usually issued by a justice, defined in the Criminal Code to be a justice of the peace or a provincial court judge. It is not clear whether the reference to a judge is intended to remove this discretion from what the Criminal Code lists as being a justice of the peace or a court judge.

The issuance of search warrants by judicial officers, usually justices, has been considered by the courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has expressively stated:

The privacy interests of individuals in a democratic society must be carefully weighed in a search warrant application against the interests of the state in investigating and prosecuting crimes.

The Supreme Court has also stated that even if the statutory requirements for issuing a search warrant have been met, where the premises to be searched are those of the media, the justice must exercise his or her discretion to determine whether a warrant is actually necessary.

Where a warrant is justified, the courts have directed that the justice must consider the conditions that may be attached to the warrant to ensure that any disruption of the gathering and dissemination of the news is limited as much as possible.

The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly said that a number of factors should be taken into consideration when a justice is exercising his or her discretion to issue a search warrant to seize documents in the possession of the press. The weight given to the various factors varies depending on the facts.

The courts have recognized that where the police seek to obtain a search warrant to retrieve materials in the possession of a journalist that carry a high expectation of privacy, for example, handwritten notes or information jotted down in a scribbler, the justice exercising his or her discretion as to whether to issue the warrant should consider factors that may not be relevant in other circumstances.

One such factor is whether reasonable efforts have been made by the police to obtain the information from other sources. The courts have recognized that a fear that the police can easily gain access to a reporter's notes could hamper the ability of the press to gather that information, to hold onto that information.

There are many examples to illustrate the fact that there is no one size fits all approach to determining whether a search warrant should be issued in particular circumstances involving the press, and if so, what conditions should be attached to the warrant. Each case is considered having regard to the particular facts before the judge.

I suggest that this case by case approach is a very effective way to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between freedom of the press and the state interest in investigating and prosecuting crime.

In contrast to this approach, Bill C-426 sets out a set of mandatory statutory requirements that must be met in each and every case before a search warrant can be issued. In my view, there is a risk that this makes the law too rigid. I also think that there are two other serious problems with Bill C-426: first, is the very broad definition of a journalist; and second, is the absence of a definition or qualification on what type of information is protected by the bill.

In the bill, a journalist is defined as:

--a person who contributes regularly and directly to the gathering, writing, production or dissemination of information for the public through any media, or anyone who assists such a person.

The concern that I have with this definition is that it is so broad, it captures persons it was not clearly intended to include. Even my Liberal colleague from across the way questioned who then would be qualified, who would be listed as a journalist, so I think this particular aspect of the bill is a concern to all parties.

For example, the definition applies not only to persons engaged in journalistic activities, but also to teenagers who are daily bloggers on the Internet. They could be listed as journalists in those cases. The technician at the television station who repairs the computers used by journalists also technically falls within the definition of a journalist. I cannot imagine that the intent of Bill C-426 was to extend statutory protection to the activities of these individuals.

A further problem is that the bill does not define or qualify what kind of information in the possession of a journalist attracts the protection of the search warrant provision. The section is cast so broadly that it could include information that has absolutely nothing to do with the journalist's activity, for example, phone bills or other things.

The section also does not distinguish between information that journalists collect during their work and information relevant to a criminal investigation involving the journalist as a target.

In conclusion, I submit that it is not clear at all that there are any limitations in the current law that need to be addressed. I think the current law does a very good job of achieving the delicate balance between freedom of the press and the state interest in the investigation of the crime. The current law takes a principled approach that is sufficiently flexible to address a wide variety of fact situations.

I am also concerned that there are some serious problems with many of the provisions in Bill C-426. A number of these problems are sufficiently serious that, not only would they not achieve the policy objective of the bill, but they would create considerable uncertainty about the state of the law.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity today to bring forward in this place some of the concerns we have with this private members' bill. I want to thank the official opposition for addressing some of those concerns in their questions.

[Team Canada, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Canada's senior men's hockey team on its victory in the gold medal game in the 2007 World Men's Hockey Championship in Moscow.

Team Canada had a perfect record at the tournament, nine wins and zero losses, the first men's hockey team in 70 years to have a perfect record. In the final game it defeated Finland 4-2, leaving Finland with the silver medal and Russia with the bronze. This is the 24th world hockey championship title for Canada.

We congratulate head coach Andy Murray, the tournament's most valuable player, Rick Nash, Jonathan Toews, who is now the only Canadian to have won two international gold medals, both the junior and the senior, in the same calendar year, and the rest of the young men who made this victory possible.

I am most proud of Shane Doan, who grew up in my constituency, the captain of Team Canada. Many of us have known the Doan family for years and watched Shane grow up and play hockey around Killam and Castor, Alberta. He is an exciting hockey player in Phoenix in the NHL and now also on the international rink.

All of Canada is proud of this outstanding victory of our national men's hockey team. Congratulations.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back to a question, in fairness to the person who asked this earlier. There are a number of people, Patrick Monaghan and Peter Hogg, constitutional scholars, who agree with this. There are two names, and there are a number of others who do.

I do not agree with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, respectfully, who says that we are being muzzled, that this Prime Minister is somehow telling us when we can stand up and sit down and say this and say that. That is not the case.

The Prime Minister is one who has always encouraged us to represent our constituents, to go out and listen to what they have to say. We go back on a weekly basis, and many times the Prime Minister has encouraged all of us to listen, not so much the talk, talk, talk we are used to from the Liberal side, but the listen, listen, listen to the constituents, to the people we represent.

The member across the way made mention that at one point in time he was a Reformer. He was a Canadian Alliance member at one point in time as well. I am not certain if he ever lasted long enough to be Conservative of Canada. When it comes to what he sees on this side, he sees a government that is effective, a government that is united, a government that is working for the betterment of Canadians and a government that wants accountability and democratization of the Senate.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first, do I have the specifics as to those constitutional experts? No. However, a number of constitutional experts have said that if we are to move in these kinds of steps, in these small incremental steps, that we are allowed to do that. Indeed, we have already seen the constitutionality of it in the fact that former Prime Minister Mulroney appointed Stan Waters to the Senate.

Does the prime minister have the ability to consult with who would best represent them? Yes. Does that consultation, like the old Liberal ways, have to be with just the Liberal boys in the back room or can it be with all the province as a whole? Our argument is the prime minister can make that consultation with whom he or she wants. Our Prime Minister has said very clearly that the ones he takes his marching orders from are the people, the citizens, the voters. That answers the question.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to stand in the House again and support Bill C-43, the Senate appointment consultations act. It is also a pleasure to split my time today with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Our government is proposing to make a series of reforms to make the Senate more democratic and accountable. This bill details to Canadians how they would be able to play a role in selecting the senators who will represent them and their region. Senate appointment consultations would give Canadians a voice in representation and Canadians are asking for it.

We believe, and the people I represent in Crowfoot, Alberta, believe that this is a practical and achievable step. It provides significant and meaningful democratic reform. The type of reform, to be quite honest, that is supported by most Canadians and the type of reform that looking across is very much needed.

We promised in the last election and in the Speech from the Throne that we would take a step by step approach to reforming the Senate. We can take real action in improving the credibility and legitimacy of the Senate without embroiling this government and Canadians in constitutional negotiations.

Our approach includes the practical and meaningful steps of introducing term limits for senators, which is Bill S-4, and consulting Canadians about their preferences for who would represent them in the Senate, which is Bill C-43, the bill we are debating today.

As an Alberta member of Parliament, I can assure the House that we do know something about senatorial elections and something about the Senate of Canada. In 1989 Alberta first used an election to decide a Senate nomination. The prime minister of the day then appointed the winner of that election, Stan Waters, to the upper house in 1990. I was involved at that time and I can tell the House that Alberta was excited about Senator Waters coming to this place and representing Albertans. He represented all Canadians very well.

People in the province of Alberta, British Columbia, and in fact throughout all of western Canada, were very pleased by the way Senator Waters represented them. He toured all of Canada and told Canadians about the need for senatorial reform.

When the Liberal government returned to power in 1993, there was no more progress in terms of bringing democracy and accountability to the upper chamber. It came to a grinding halt with that Liberal regime.

Since 1993 the federal Liberal Party has named none of those Canadians who put their name forward for Senate elections or those who have been duly elected. This is a shame because provinces for the most part are willing to do the work to get better representation in the Senate. Average Canadians who are engaged in this discussion want to be involved in the process of who will represent them in the Senate.

In 2006 the Conservative Party of Canada came to power. This government has taken the first opportunity to appoint a senator endorsed by Canadian voters. Our Prime Minister announced that Bert Brown, a constituent of mine, would take a seat in the Senate when a seat becomes vacant this summer and become known as senator Brown. Albertans are pleased with that announcement. I had the pleasure of having dinner on Saturday evening with Bert and Alice, Betty Unger, and a number of others.

No Canadian has done as much to advance the cause of senatorial reform as Bert Brown. He has been a tireless advocate for the democratization of the upper house over two decades. He ran in three Alberta Senate elections and is the only Canadian to be elected twice as a senator-in-waiting.

In short, he is a very patient individual when it comes to becoming a Senator, but he is also a perfect role model for elected senators. Mr. Brown, 69, is a farmer from Balzac, Alberta. He is currently a Calgary area zoning and property development consultant. He is also a constituent of mine. That is why again I commend him and I speak about him with great fondness.

Over 300,000 Albertans voted for him in the province's 2004 Senate election. That is 300,000. More Albertans voted for Bert Brown than all Liberal candidates put together in my province in the last general election. Yet, the party opposite asks: which Albertans actually voted for him? Well, 300,000, which is many more than those who voted for all the Liberals combined.

The Senate of Canada was to be an upper chamber for regional representation. It used to be that the senators met in groups in the regions they represented. They would come together based on their region and they would have what we could call a mini-caucus meeting. There was no real special attention paid to a senator being Independent, Liberal or Conservative. Senators were more concerned about the region that they represented. They were concerned about working together to help their region.

Nowadays, the upper chamber is fraught with partisanship. Senators meet in political party caucuses each week. The Senate chamber is to a great deal about party politics. The Senate needs to be reformed.

The House of Commons is supposed to be political. Canadians hope that the Senate would become more independent, more perhaps intellectual, checking the work of the House and helping the House pass good legislation. Senators would actually ask how is this going to affect my region, not necessarily how is this going to play out in my political party.

For a long time, decades, the Senate has posed problems that the average Canadian voters wished that we would address and that we would fix. Canadians have been told that we cannot fix this problem. Canadians have been told by the Liberals and others that we do not want to touch it because we would have to change the Constitution and that we do not want to get into constitutional wrangling again.

Bill C-43 does not require constitutional change. It does not affect the Governor General's power to appoint. It does not affect the Prime Minister's responsibility or power to recommend senators. It does not create a process for the direct election of senators. It does not change the constitutional qualifications of senators.

In short, it does not affect any of the matters that are identified in the Constitution and so this is a process that is achievable. It is a small step. It is a first step and one that we should be grabbing onto.

Constitutional scholars agree that the government's approach is constitutional because we do not legally affect the role of the Governor General in making those appointments or the role of the Prime Minister.

Canadians may not know that our Prime Minister is allowed to consult anyone in making Senate appointments. Bill C-43 provides a mechanism for him to hold a consultation with the citizens of Canada and generally speaking in each province when a vacancy comes he can consult. The governor in council can make an order for a consultation which will be carried out under the direction of the Chief Electoral Officer. The order may specify the provinces and territories in which the consultation is to be held. The Prime Minister has the opportunity then to do this.

I see that you are telling me that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, so I will bring my comments to a close. Sometimes when we are elected to the House, we believe that we can come in and make major changes immediately. I think as time goes on we realize that we must become satisfied with small incremental steps.

I think this step will enhance the legitimacy, the credibility of the Senate. We have one party that wants the abolition of that. I think if the Senate became more involved in regional representation, it would help. I believe we need this process. I will always support Canadians making the decision as to who best represents them.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this mission is not failing. This mission is succeeding. This government is only looking forward to success. Someone has said the best exit strategy is success. That is what I believe we are going to look for in the long term.

Have we looked at other ways that we could have, would have, should have? Yes, we have. Some very strong experts have said that as soon as Russia exited from Afghanistan, that is when NATO, the UN, and countries should have picked up the dropped ball. But we did not. A regime came in that helped facilitate terrorism. A regime came in that ignored the rights of men and women. A regime came in that said there is no such thing as religious freedom, there is no such thing as young ladies going to school, there are no such things. Perhaps that is when we dropped the ball.

Do we have an exit strategy? I always say the best exit strategy is to win.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, do I believe that Canada should stay past 2009? I will say that is what I do think. I think that Canada in the long term will be providing humanitarian aid in Afghanistan. Right now Afghanistan is our number one recipient country around the world. We have always been there for countries like Haiti. We have always been there for sub-Saharan countries in Africa. We have always been there in many of those countries and we have not been asked for total exit strategies from any of those countries.

Certainly in the long term I hope that Afghanistan is secure, that the Afghan army and the police force can secure the country in Afghanistan so that Canadians stay there and continue the fantastic work that they are doing in education and many other areas.

Brian MacDonald, a senior defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations appeared before our committee yesterday. He said that without the military provided security, there is not any chance of any type of development. We want to assure that development.