Peter MacKay

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that the wording in that particular section is more palatable now and it is one that has given some level of comfort to those who engage in activities involving animals.

I have received numerous correspondence from individuals who still have grave concerns about how this will impact on their livelihood and on very legitimate activities. The moving of these sections from the property section into a separate section in the criminal code is something that causes great concern. For example, section 445 deals with without lawful excuse with respect to the killing, maiming, wounding, poisoning and injuring of dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for lawful purpose.

All of the changes, which basically create a new section around the issue of animals, put some potential jeopardy and certainly puts fear into the hearts of those who have engaged in the livelihood of raising animals and trapping and hunting animals. I know there are many in the country who do not agree with these practices and yet these are practices that one could argue that this country was founded upon in terms of furriers.

We are still not at a complete comfort level on these particular elements. Our preference would have been to have that section carved out and dealt with by the justice committee in a comprehensive fashion to hear from those affected stakeholders. If that had happened, we could have passed these other very positive elements that the hon. member has outlined post-haste. We could have had those in place and operating in this country now. We on this side of the House were prepared to do that last June but because of politics and an intransigent stance taken by the Minister of Justice, we are still here wrangling over these very important changes that should take place in the criminal code.

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, having heard your ruling I accept it. The bill is not one with which there is a degree of comfort on the part of many members. That is not to say for a moment that we do not support the positive changes contained in the legislation. However the issues are in many instances difficult to deal with at one sitting because of their complex nature.

Eight separate and distinct issues are contained in this omnibus bill. We have asked numerous times, as recently as a few moments ago, to split the bill because it contains unrelated issues. In my opinion some of these issues trivialize the more important ones within the legislation.

I am talking particularly about changes that would ensure greater protection for children on the Internet and changes that would provide greater protection for police officers by making maximum sentences more proportionate to the harm that can be done when an individual tries to disarm a police officer.

When we compare these with some of the more minor procedural changes within the bill it makes it confusing to deal with in the Chamber and difficult for Canadians to understand. When the bill goes to committee we will be forced to bring forward witnesses from all four corners of the country to talk about all the different bills at one time. That is not a productive and positive use of members' time.

The minister obviously has a bit of a political agenda. She wants to ask members of the House of Commons to vote for her amendments though she knows there is great resistance and reluctance on the part of some, particularly to the bill's cruelty to animal provisions. These are very troubling for cattlemen, ranchers, and those involved in hunting and angling.

There is also a great deal of resistance because of the ill-fated, ill-conceived, cumbersome, overexpensive, bureaucratic and quite useless long gun registry foisted upon the country at a cost of nearly a billion dollars.

Jamming all this superfluous legislation down the throats of members by bringing it forward in an omnibus form is quite offensive. The minister has indicated she will bring forward more legislation in the same vein.

Turning to more important matters within the bill such as those dealing with child stalking on the Internet, this is the type of legislation for which we have been crying out for some time. Had the bill been presented properly in the first instance these elements of it would have been passed last June.

However the minister again dug in her heels and decided she would stick to her guns. We know the minister wants to get rid of all long guns and ensure that somehow only criminals and police will have guns.

There is concern from the high tech industry regarding the bill's child stalking provisions. Subsection 163.1(3) would subject Internet service providers to criminal liability for third party content unless they could prove they did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the information was being disseminated on the Internet.

There is therefore concern about the resources that would be required of Internet providers to police the Internet on their own.

We are supportive of the home invasion and criminal harassment aspects of the bill. Clause 23 states that in cases of break and enter, robbery and extortion the courts must consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the dwelling house was occupied. This refers to the principle of home invasion.

We would have preferred that a separate offence be created for home invasion. It would have a greater deterrent effect and would be a more straightforward way to deal with this type of offence. There is no specific reference to home invasion in the criminal code.

The courts refer to it. Police, prosecutors and lawyers know what we speak of when we talk about home invasion. It is perhaps one of the most startling experiences a person can have, particularly elderly people who feel quite threatened in their own homes.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition would prefer to have a separate offence created for home invasion.

We also support the bill's criminal harassment elements. In 1993 the Progressive Conservative government of the day passed Bill C-126 which added the offence of criminal harassment to the criminal code.

Bill C-15 would increase the maximum prison term under paragraph 264(3)( a ) of the criminal code from five years to ten years. This is a suggestion we support. Senator Oliver in the other place has brought forward similar legislation. It is a cause he has supported for many years.

Bill C-15 would not increase penalties for harassing phone calls, indecent remarks or intimidation on the phone. Yet these are forms of harassment which can result in or give rise to more serious crimes. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to delve into that at committee.

The cruelty to animals provision is one of the controversial elements I pointed out in my earlier remarks. In recent years numerous incidents of cruelty and mistreatment of animals have alarmed Canadians and caused great public concern. Cruelty to animals may be the precursor to violent behaviour toward people. Bill C-15 might help prevent certain types of violent crime against people if it is enforced in a logical and reasonable fashion.

Although the amendments target the behaviour Canadians reasonably expect people to exhibit toward animals, there is particular concern about the wording.

The offence section contains wording such as wilful, reckless or without regard for the consequences of the act. One would hope the judicial interpretation of these words would protect the longstanding practices we have seen exercised by furriers, ranchers and those who make their living working with animals.

No one in the PC/DR coalition wants in any way to condone cruelty to animals. However we must be mindful and protective of those who engage in activities that are their livelihood. Changes that would require licence renewals, authorization and more bureaucratic steps would have a financial impact on people who have conducted their businesses reasonably for many years without any sort of cruelty toward animals.

This is a complicated bill. I wish I had more time to delve into other aspects of it. It deals with amendments to the criminal code that touch on miscarriages of justice which have allowed individuals like Stephen Truscott to suffer grave injustices at the hands of prosecutors and our justice department.

There are elements of the bill we hope to be able to sort through at committee. I look forward to that opportunity.

[Privilege, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience. At present the precedents are very clear that a motion can divide a bill after second reading. However, since that precedent, the standing orders were amended to permit a bill to be referred to committee prior to second reading. I would invite the Chair to consider whether a motion to divide a bill can now be received before second reading.

If that is the case, we would very much like to see the bill go back to the Department of Justice, that it be properly divided and brought before the House in a fashion with which all members and all Canadians would have a much greater comfort level.

[Privilege, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I take the point very well. The hon. member for Provencher has clearly put before eight inconsequential elements to the bill that are being force-fed by the government to the opposition. It is telling us to take it all or leave it. We would then face the wrath of the public because we would be painted as having been against protecting children and police officers.

The bill is inconsequential. The elements do not fit together and therefore the opposition does not have the opportunity to debate these very important issues placed before the House in the true context in which they exist.

We are being told to take all the bills together, mix them up, change various pieces of legislation and produce one piece of legislation that would then be presented to the public. Yet the ability to focus on the key elements of it is denied by virtue of having the bill brought forward in such a large incongruous fashion.

There is a preferred option here, which even exists among members of the government, to bring forward separate legislation which would allow members of the opposition and indeed all members of the House to focus on the specific aspects that exist.

The hon. member mentioned five separate pieces legislation. We would be happy if it were two or three, but to bring it all into one large overwhelming piece of legislation that touches on many different elements, some of which are not even found in the criminal code--

[Privilege, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I very much attach myself to the comments of the hon. member for Provencher. This new tact that the Minister of Justice, backed by the government House leader and the government, has taken on the issue is holding up very important legislation.

There was unanimous agreement among the opposition and many members of the government's side to pass the more palatable elements of Bill C-15 in the last parliament. We could have had the bill in place last June.

[Criminal Code, September 19th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-392, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sex offences and violent offences).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my coalition colleague from Prince George--Peace River for seconding the bill.

This private member's bill would bring about an amendment to the criminal code that would preclude persons who have committed and been convicted of committing sexual offences or offences involving violence from receiving the benefit, I would suggest, of an application of conditional sentences under the criminal code. This would preclude judges from applying sentences that they mete out for offences that fall in that category.

I believe that this would be an important amendment, more reflective of the deterrence that is required under the criminal code. Again, I hope all members would support this private member's bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Points of Order, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, maybe those less interested in reconfiguration can reconfigure outside.

Mr. Speaker, on September 12, I wrote to you advising that 20 members had united to establish the PC/DR coalition to function within the machinery of the House of Commons. I sent a full list of members of the House who are members of the PC/DR coalition. Earlier today we held our fourth caucus.

I also advised you in that letter that the officers of the coalition are the right hon. member for Calgary Centre as leader, the member for Fraser Valley as deputy leader, the member for Edmonton North as caucus chair, the member for Prince George--Peace River as whip, and myself as House leader.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank you for your assistance in getting us seated in the House for the very important business that confronted us on Monday. My colleagues have been able to discharge their essential parliamentary functions thanks to the efforts of the Chair.

I now need to raise several issues that so far have not been capable of resolution with the whips of other parties. I do so with considerable regret because as you recognize Mr. Speaker, it is always better for the harmonious workings of the House that these matters be settled through parliamentary machinery.

The first is the matter of the location of our seats in the House. Second is the allocation and precedence of questions in question period. Third is the allocation and precedence of speaking times during debate. Fourth is the allocation of supply days.

Mr. Speaker, the PC/DR coalition asks that you grant changes. These changes would recognize us as the fourth largest political entity in the House. The PC/DR coalition is comprised of 20 members of the House. All 20 members recognize the right hon. member for Calgary Centre as our leader and we sit in opposition to the government. As such, our leader assigns critic roles, names House leaders and provides leadership to the caucus as a whole. My colleague, the whip and member for Prince George--Peace River similarly acts for the 20 members in facilitating the working of our caucus.

As House leader, I speak for 20 members of the House. In my capacity as such I perform many functions on their behalf, including the presentation of this argument today. We are a single unit of 20 and we have collectively taken the decision to present ourselves in this fashion, but at present we are being treated as a group of 12.

In contrast, the Canadian Alliance has parliamentary resources, speaking time, access to supply days and financial resources based on a membership of 66. In fact its membership has now been diminished to 58 seats. Nearly a million Canadians represented by members who now sit in the PC/DR coalition are having their access to parliamentary representation compromised by the practices that no longer conform to the proportionate parliamentary realities. Certain decisions taken at the beginning of this parliament are no longer applicable. We suggest that they should now be revised.

I would add this imbalance is not fair to all other parties in the House. The Alliance enjoys a disproportionate allocation in relationship to all other entities in the House of Commons, not just the coalition. The changes I am requesting have no serious impact on any other party in the House. The resources and allocation of the numbers of questions and opportunities for participation in debate for Liberal members will not change, nor will they change for the Bloc or the NDP.

The Bloc and the NDP will not have their allotted days, questions or debate time reduced. Let me say that again for emphasis. The Liberals, Bloc and NDP will not have their allotted days, questions or debate time reduced.

We are however now the fourth largest political entity in the House and claim all of the privileges and rights associated with that position. The Alliance currently has resources to which they are not entitled and these resources should therefore be reassigned on a per capita, proportionate basis.

There will be no additional political entities created which would require additional negotiations or resources or consultations with the government. What we are doing is simply working within the system to facilitate the work of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, while I recognize this is not an issue before you, I want to point out that we will be asking for fair and equitable financial treatment through reallocation of existing resources. That, however, is a matter for the Board of Internal Economy.

Mr. Speaker, we contend that the guiding principle in your decision should be equitable treatment for the rights of individual members to act individually and collectively here in the House of Commons.

As individual members we are free and have a duty to come to the House to consider the business before the House and vote on questions put to the House by the Speaker for decision. In so doing we may seek to participate in the proceedings and debate, and may try to influence decisions.

All of us act as individuals and indeed all of us act as part of collective organizations within the House of Commons which exist to help facilitate the organization of the business before the House. Accordingly, when individuals choose to act collectively, the threshold for access to certain parliamentary rights is set out by the Parliament of Canada Act at a minimum of 12 members. We have met and surpassed that threshold. We are 20 members.

Mr. Speaker, we view ourselves as a whole and simply request that you do likewise. We have chosen the name PC/DR coalition because we feel this describes the collective will of the group. It accurately depicts our origins and defines our common purpose. For the purposes of the House of Commons, we participate and vote just as do other political entities, such as a party, an alliance, a bloc, a confederation, or a union. I choose these descriptive words that other political entities have used in parliaments past and present to illustrate that parliamentary entities come in many forms and configurations.

Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, there is no precise definition of a party in the Parliament of Canada Act.

Let us examine for a moment what political parties and bodies do in the House of Commons. Political bodies are an important part of the machinery of this House. They are vehicles to communicate the collective will of the members, but foremost they provide assistance for the Chair and the House in the organization of the business of the House. Individual members have delegated certain authority to other members to act on their behalf, which we have done. The nature of that relationship is defined between those members. The existence of that relationship is signalled to the Chair by various means, some implicit and some specific.

I am not aware of any other instance when members who, having formed a group of 20, have had their collective rights challenged or denied.

Members who have crossed the floor or changed allegiances have never been asked to prove their political affiliation, abandon their past, or produce political membership cards to the Speaker to justify their existence. What we call ourselves outside the House should be of no concern to the Speaker. It may be a delicious tidbit for journalists or others, but within the walls of this Chamber and the precinct of parliament, external political labels should be left outside. Membership cards that may or may not be found in my wallet do not fall within the Speaker's jurisdiction.

All of us arrived here as equals in response to a writ of election. As equals we have rights; as equals we are free to associate as we individually choose. Indeed the right to associate freely is guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am not suggesting that the Speaker will rule on a constitutional legal question. Rather I want to make the point that members of the House of Commons, as free Canadians, have the right to belong to whatever lawful organizations they choose, both inside and outside the House.

Mr. Speaker, I completely understand you do not rule on questions of law. However, I do suggest that in considering past practices, the Speaker is entitled to take notice of the important charter rights that were given to Canadians in 1981. In fact earlier this week the Prime Minister referred to the importance of the charter, which protects all Canadians. This certainly extends to all members of the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada.

On June 1, 1994 my friend, the member for Winnipeg--Transcona, stated in this Chamber, and I quote from Hansard :

Parties present themselves to the House as parties and are not created or disposed of by the House itself. Our membership in our respective parties is a matter between ourselves, our fellow caucus colleagues, our extraparliamentary organizations and ultimately our electors. We can leave our parties or be asked to leave our parties. We can create new parties, merge two parties into one, as did the Progressives and the Conservatives, or change the name of our parties as we in the New Democratic Party did.

I will not comment on the fact that they are still calling themselves new after 30 years. My colleague then went on to say:

The tradition of this place has been for the Speaker to accept the party affiliation that the parties and the members report to him or her.

That is what we have done. I agree with my colleague and fellow House leader that it is not for anyone other than the participants to decide how to label the parliamentary group. It has been stated in the past that it is a privilege to be seated anywhere in the House. It follows that having been elected to the House members have the privilege to be affiliated and seated anywhere they choose.

There is no requirement in the Parliament of Canada Act that any member must belong to any political party, as evidenced by the number of independent members we have seen in the Chamber in the past. This concept is also defined on page 186, chapter 4 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , edited by Marleau and Montpetit, which states:

Although most Members are elected with a party affiliation (a very small percentage of Members are elected as independents), Members are not obliged to retain that party label during the whole of their mandate.

What we have decided to do and call ourselves is strictly a matter of choice so long as we are not seeking to duplicate an existing name. The various titles that are used in the House, whether a group styles itself a caucus, an alliance, a bloc, a confederation, a union or coalition, is a matter of internal decision.

That title is used to convey whatever stylistic information the members of the group wish to convey. Even the Liberal caucus has contained members of another party, the Liberal Labour Party. We choose to call ourselves the PC/DR caucus coalition. We do not define other parties. Nor should they define us. We have taken the conscious decision to perform and present in a cohesive manner, and our name reflects that decision.

Some members may argue that this is a matter which should be referred to a committee, as occurred in 1963 in the case of the Social Credit-Ralliement créditiste split. I suggest that it would be dangerous to go down that road. That would mean that government supporters would determine the fate of an opposition party. Government sanctioned parliamentary opposition is unworthy of our contemplation.

Given the nature of government domination of committees, we do not want to enter into a world where government licensing of the opposition side of the House is the rule of the day. Our actions will eventually be judged by our party supporters and by the electorate on another day.

Fortunately precedents since 1963 indicate that no group of 12 or more members has ever been denied party status. This is the basis upon which we make our argument today.

Coalitions have been formed in the past under the parliamentary system. It is understood that this is done for the good of the country and to further the cause espoused by the members who believe in that cause. When it has happened in the past it was understood that it was done for the furtherance of the public good and in the best interest of the Parliament of Canada.

My colleagues in the coalition are here to do the important business of the House. I genuinely regret that the Speaker has had to become involved. The House and the speakership would have been better served if this question were not placed before you. However the 20 members of the coalition have been left with no option. We seek equitable treatment for the members of the coalition, for the good of parliament and Canada.

[Points of Order, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

During the summer adjournment, certain reconfigurations occurred on this side of the House. On September 12, I wrote you advising that 20 members had united to establish--

[Terrorism, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, people in Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and across Canada continue to show sympathy and support for Americans and international victims of the despicable act of terrorism one week ago today.

As Canada deals with its grief and investigates our own vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks, it is obvious we need a strong legislative response to provide CSIS, the RCMP, immigration and our military with the resources needed to preserve safety and sanctity for Canadians.

These are extraordinary times and Canadians need to be guided by the leadership in government. Before long Canadian troops may be involved in what would be an arduous sustained conflict against terrorist cells or states. Canadians expect their government to instill public confidence by clearly stating its intentions and plan of action.

I call on the Liberal government to face head on the challenges of increased public safety measures. We need to legislate to protect Canadian citizens and to prevent and prosecute terrorism wherever we find it.

The PCDR coalition calls for immediate increases in resources and counter terrorist efforts. We must also review immigration policy to ensure refuge for legitimate applicants but close the doors to those who endanger freedom and security at home and abroad.

[Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, some of the things that could happen in fairly short order, given the situation with the surplus, is a return of personnel and budgets to agencies such as CSIS and national defence. We have to come up with a plan with respect to reservists and recruits in our armed forces.

I would suggest that airport security is an area where we can sharply focus our attention immediately. We know that because of the privatization of many airports, for example, there may be a need to put in place stricter guidelines for the hiring of security officers. There was a report yesterday of which all members of the House will be aware and which was alarming. There were dummy exercises in which people were asked to bring mock explosives through airport security. I am sure this caused incredible angst in the country, given the potential for disaster.

Those are short term solutions we should be looking at right away. We should be looking at the whole range of options and solutions, both short and long term. The information that is publicly available about terrorist organizations operating in our midst and a CSIS report indicates that the government has been advised.

In a newspaper account Chantale Lapalme, who is a spokesperson for CSIS, indicated that it was targeting 350 people, possible terrorists, within Canada today, plus 50 organizations. She stated quite rightly:

CSIS's role is to advise government. We advise government, so it would be up to government to take action

Those are certainly words I agree with. I would like to see the government now take the action that is necessary. We in this coalition and other opposition members are prepared to work with the government at the committee level and in the House, to address this pending crisis. If we do not, we do so at our collective peril and at our countrymen's peril.