Peter MacKay

[Points Of Order, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the minister as well as the previous speaker, the mover of this point of order. I must say that of the two arguments I certainly think the hon. member for St. Albert has put forward a very credible and very serious matter which he has brought to the Chair.

I would like to speak in support of this matter. The member for St. Albert has a very strong reputation as the fiscal thistle. He has made a number of very timely and well placed barbs and he comes by this name by virtue of his at times very prickly approach to some of the frivolous government spending he encounters.

This matter the minister calls subjective somehow, saying that because it has already received scrutiny and has gone through the House in a previous budget we should just accept it part and parcel because the government at some point passed it with its majority will in the House.

That is not how it works nor, I suggest, are his comments about the position taken by the auditor general particularly germane to this argument. The auditor general obviously saw a flaw in the process which is very similar to that pointed out by the member for St. Albert. He put forward in his report of 2000 a very detailed and, I would suggest, very relevant commentary on the Downsview Park Incorporated scenario.

In fact a number of issues arise, but this point of order focuses on whether this spending should be legitimized through this process, that is to say, the process that has been set up, and I think it is the contention of the hon. member from St. Albert, is outside the bounds of parliamentary spending. The way in which this money has been manoeuvred within the government department is wrong. The government has not taken these particular assets through the normal channels, and in this instance we are talking about the value attached to a certain piece of property that will be used to incorporate and operate in perpetuity a park.

There is precedent, as was pointed out previously, and I would refer the Chair to Beauchesne's 6th edition of Parliamentary Rules & Forms . As the very learned trio of Fraser, Dawson and Holtby point out at page 258, notation 937:

The test which items must meet to be included in the Estimates is whether or not the government is putting forward a spending estimate under authority it already possesses, or whether it is really seeking new legislative authority to do something. It makes no difference whether an item attempts to spend a large sum or simply one dollar. The government may not, by the use of an Appropriation Act obtain authority it does not have under existing legislation.

This came from Debates of June 12, 1981.

Beauchesne's goes on at 938 to cite:

The previous amendment of legislation by Appropriation Acts cannot justify a repeated use of items in the Estimates to amend legislation.

Finally, the notation at 942 states:

Asking for money in the Estimates before legislation is passed to establish programmes “puts the cart before the horse.”

That is exactly what has happened here. The government does not have the authority to act in this manner. In fact, I am referring to the auditor general's report where he cites at page 17 under citation 17.67:

In the case of Downsview Park, the government has, in substance, transferred assets to another entity and, by developing those assets, intends to fund new program activities. Parliament was not asked to appropriate funds for development of the park and for park activities.

That clearly falls within the description and the bounds of what was cited in Beauchesne's.

I also want to bring to the Chair's attention under the House of Commons Procedure and Practice rules, edited by Robert Marleau, a very distinguished clerk of the House, and Camille Montpetit, at page 733. I will quote the last paragraph on that page. It states:

The inclusion of one dollar items in the Estimates also gave rise to the issue of using Estimates to “legislate” (i.e., Estimates going beyond simply appropriating funds and attempting to obtain new legislative authority which would otherwise require separate enabling legislation through the regular legislative process, outside the Supply procedure).

That is what is happening here. There is an attempt through this process to circumvent or do an end run around the normal spending practices of this place. That is the rub and that is what is contained in the conclusion of the auditor general's report where he states at 17.73:

In our view, the Government of Canada wishes to set up an urban park and invest more than $100 million of public funds therein, it should have clear and explicit approval from Parliament to do so.

To ignore the arguments by the member for St. Albert would allow the government to do just that. If one wants to talk about specious and evasive language, one only has to read the government's response to the auditor general's commentary in this regard. It is very evasive and dismissive in what the auditor general had put forward.

I would humbly submit that this is an abuse of process that has been brought to the Chair's attention at the appropriate time. I would suggest that it is typical of the government's attitude toward parliament to subvert the normal practices and procedures when it comes to spending and to other issues. We see time and time again the avoidance of the ever shrinking examination of the estimates.

Even though the government may want to go home early, I would suggest this is an important issue for the Chair to examine. We cannot avoid our responsibility in that regard. There has to be respect for the opinions of the auditor general here. There is precedent that has been pointed out by previous Speakers Jerome and Sauvé.

Therefore, I encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to accept the prima facie case that has been presented to you by the learned and hon. member for St. Albert.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his intervention. It does allow me to continue just momentarily with my remarks.

There were concerns with respect to the discrepancies over what would constitute a suspicious transaction, which again led to concerns that were expressed by Ms. Beare. There was also indication that certain levels of the banking sector had problems within their computer system or their system of reporting that would also leave them vulnerable by not being able to live up to the expectation of reporting. They would have an inability to monitor the type of monetary transactions that may be taking place on an ongoing basis, that was they could do so perhaps over a sustained period of time. However, as we all know, these transactions often occur in a very short time span.

Ms. Beare expressed a concern that lack of follow-up from police in some instances posed a considerable obstacle.

As is often the case with catching criminals, it is the slip-ups and lack of sophistication on their part that very often leads to the arrest. However the legislation I would suggest moves in the right direction in terms of arming those in the financial sector to combat the very sophisticated and often very complicated and nefarious means by which those who are trying to launder their money will engage. Otherwise those who play the game very well continue to thrive despite our best efforts. We have to obviously strive regardless.

On that note, I will turn over the floor to my colleague from Kings—Hants. I know that as a member of the finance committee he has made significant contributions to this and other bills. I know that all members will be riveted to their seats when the hon. member for Kings—Hants assumes the floor.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on her remarks. She obviously grasps the importance and the relevance of this issue at this time in Canada.

In response to concerns raised by the Senate banking committee and the important efforts and work it did in that regard, we see Bill S-16, an act to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act, coming forward to legislate in the areas of solicitor-client privilege, the disclosure of information and records retention.

I should indicate at the outset that I had intended to split my time with the hon. member for Kings—Hants. Subject to his arrival I may just carry on.

Money laundering, as we all know and are very aware, is the process by which criminals attempt to conceal profits earned from crime so that the money looks as if it came from very legitimate sources. It is literally an attempt to clean dirty cash. It is also an attempt to hide or cover up the illegal means and sources from which the money originated. Typically it involves vices such as extortion, prostitution, illegal gambling, drugs and other contraband. The particular legislation is aimed at attempting to track the origins of the money and to get at the source itself.

The legislation speaks of abilities to trace the origins of money because the origins themselves are those which are most often concealed and erased. If the money is successfully covered up, it can then be used to buy goods and services the way any other type of cash or exchange takes place.

It is estimated that somewhere between $5 billion and $17 billion in money from nefarious sources is laundered in Canada each year. I do not mean to put too fine a point on it but that sort of vague estimate indicates the size of the black market out there. It is very disturbing. Exact figures are very difficult to come by in that regard.

Obviously the black market is thriving in Canada. It is straight profit that is hidden from Revenue Canada and from government generally. The money is very often shifted between countries, financial institutions and investment brokerages without a paper trace that would allow law enforcement to get to the source or to get to the origins. The more complex and convoluted the trail, the more difficult to trace, eventually prosecute and bring to justice those involved in money laundering.

It is fair to say it is a world problem against which even the world's most powerful nations struggle. For example, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, just last week held a conference on money laundering in St. Petersburg. He outlined efforts to crack down on the global illegal industry and the expansion of this industry in Russia. Russia is currently a member of the FATF's blacklist of nations because of its money laundering legislation, or lack thereof, which does not meet international standards.

We do not want this to happen in our country. That is why it is encouraging to all that the legislation is before us now. We must ensure our global partners and neighbours, not to mention our citizenry, that we are doing everything in our power to address and confront this problem.

Corruption is a growing problem in Canada and most countries recognize this point. They recognize the fact that it is very diverse and takes many forms just like legitimate industries. Any effort aimed at curtailing this type of underground economy and outsourcing of money from illegal means is where we should be focusing our attention. The magnitude and the reach of this problem are staggering.

Canada has come under heavy criticism in recent years as being an easy place for criminal organizations to launder their money. Our biggest ally, the United States, has sent signals which clearly indicate that we are leaving our neighbours to the south open and more vulnerable to criminal activity respecting money laundering because of a failing security system in our country. The lack of resources contributes to that. The lack of government support whether it be through funding or innovation indicates to members of our law enforcement community that in many instances their government is not behind them.

The response has been legislation such as Bill S-16, albeit late. Bill C-22 originally imposed new reporting and record keeping requirements and created financial transactions in the reports analysis centre of Canada to receive and analyse information. Bill C-22 was the predecessor for the legislation before us. It died on the order paper when the pre-emptive and very opportunistic election was called.

The banks would be required by law to adhere to a new reporting regime that would be put in place over the next year. It would help reorganize and report dubious transactions. It would present banks with the obligation to act upon information of which they might be in possession and report where there is a suspicion of organized crime activity. It is clearly there to try to unveil and unmask efforts by organized crime to use financial institutions such as our major banks and other financial institutions for illegal purposes. A failure to report would result in certain sanctions. Those sanctions include fines of up to $2 million and five years incarceration. Therefore, this reporting scheme does have some teeth.

Concerns have been expressed however about the privacy and the disclosure of certain information. Those were voiced by the privacy commissioner, the Canadian Bar Association and other groups.

The Senate banking committee looked at the bill in June of 2000 and felt that there were numerous flaws and areas where it could have been improved. The government at that time was unwilling to entertain amendments to the legislation because it was late in June and the House of Commons was going to recess. We know that at this time of year ironically we are facing a similar attitude on the part of government.

However, the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions gave a written undertaking to the committee that certain changes would be made in a new bill to be introduced in the fall. Those changes formed the substance of Bill S-30, introduced in October of 2000. This bill was identical to the bill we see before us and it went beyond those changes agreed to in the letter from the secretary of state.

The Senate banking committee reported the bill with the observation that the government should have given consideration to other amendments that would further ensure that solicitor-client privilege was protected by adding the phrase law office in any clause where the term dwelling house appeared.

Second, the first annual review should be held after three years not after five years as was indicated in the original legislation. We find far too often that we are becoming very slack in our review process that was initially intended to ensure that the bill was living up to the breadth, width and intention.

Third and finally, it would require regulations under the act to be tabled before a committee of each House of parliament. Sadly, this bill does not include those further changes that were recommended by the committee.

The Law Society of Upper Canada has asked for the deference of the worst sections of this legislation. In many legal circles around the country court action against the federal government is not only being discussed but is being planned. This has happened time and time again. It is a given that with legislation such as this, and Bill C-24 is another bill, the lawyers are already writing the briefs, and the games will begin as soon as this law comes into being.

This bill will focus on the following legal aspects of this particular legislation. Solicitor-client privilege is one, which I mentioned previously. Where as Bill C-22 only dealt with instances where there was solicitor-client privilege involving legal counsel, Bill S-16 now clarifies that the officials of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre may not examine or copy documents that might be subject to a claim of solicitor-client privilege where the document is in the hands of someone else until a reasonable opportunity has been made for that person to contact legal counsel. This responds to concerns raised by the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada.

It is very much akin to the situation we see with the information commissioner in Canada who would like to examine the Prime Minister's agenda books. He would hold that information in privacy and counsel and determine its relevance to the individuals who have requested disclosure. It follows a longstanding tradition that allows judges to determine relevance and admissibility of certain information. So we support that particular initiative.

Privacy under Bill S-16 will also allow individuals or the privacy commissioner to take the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre to court if they are denied access by the centre.

This legislation has come under some criticism in the banking committee because the bill creates onerous and very involved new responsibilities. In fact, Margaret Beare, one of Canada's leading experts on organized crime, recently stated that the new legislation requiring banks to report suspicious transactions was contradictory to some of the banks' principles, mainly that they would be making a profit and reacting to customers' wishes.

[The Environment, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday I had the honour to join with cadets from the 219th Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps from New Glasgow who were participating in a national environmental initiative entitled “Cadets Caring for Canada”. In conjunction with cadets from 750 communities across Canada, 1,100 corps of squadrons took part in this extraordinary event.

At home the local project involved 30 fine, keen young cadets who under the able direction of Ross Bland and Don Hussher undertook to clean up the Lansdowne outdoor recreational park by expanding and enhancing upon this beautiful site. LORDA is operated by a great Canadian, David Liese. It provides senior citizens, mentally and physically challenged individuals and others, who rarely have the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, to participate in various events such as fishing, camping and recreational activities.

Events held annually at LORDA include the children of Chernobyl fund day, the Pictou county mental health day, the commercial travellers picnic for the disabled and the war veterans picnic.

[Criminal Code, June 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will speak very briefly to this since I did not touch upon it in my earlier remarks on my own amendment.

I would again reiterate that it is not the position of the Progressive Conservative Party, and I think I am safe in saying it is not the position of any party in the House, to impede or in any way hold back the police in their very important duty to protect citizens and the country from this growing threat of organized crime.

This amendment was proposed by the Bloc. I again wish to congratulate the members of the Bloc who contributed a great deal to this particular piece of legislation, who brought forward amendments, who proposed supply day motions that I would suggest very much pushed the government toward the point we see today where legislation has been brought forward.

As I indicated, members, particularly the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, know first hand the means by which organized crime can invade a person's life and very much affect day to day existence through threats to family. Often it is very much implied. It is very subtle. It is very nefarious in its means. This is something that can be most disturbing. It is a cancer, a plague on our justice system, when it occurs.

It stands to reason that we would extend this practice of protection beyond our own means, beyond the members of parliament and the Senate, and extend it to provincial and municipal politicians and to journalists as well, because we have seen the extremely important role that journalists play in public awareness, in the reporting of the activities of organized crime and, I would suggest as well, in the disclosure and the pulling back of the cloak of secrecy that is very often part of the threat that organized crime can pose.

In many instances revealing who these individuals are strips them bare of their ability to intimidate. If the bright light of day shines upon them, they are no longer able to work from the shadows and cause fear in the hearts of those who are seeking justice. Whether it be through disclosing information, whether it be a journalist, jury members or participants in the justice system in any way, intimidation can very clearly take the underpinnings and shake the cornerstone of the justice system.

To that end is the government adoption of this amendment that originated from the Bloc. I must congratulate the member for Berthier—Montcalm as well. I know that he has worked extremely hard and has made significant contributions to the bill as well. The government in its wisdom has seen its way clear to including journalists in this envelope, in this protection from intimidation.

Expanding this so that journalists are included means that they too can go about their tasks and their reporting without the fear of reprisal. If it does happen, the justice system is now mandated to intervene. We do not have to look any further than a very recent example involving Michel Auger in Montreal. What is quite timely is that we are informed that members of the Sûreté du Québec and the Montreal city police, I believe, have apprehended individuals connected with his shooting.

He was a very courageous man indeed, Madam Speaker, as you would know. Not only has he recovered, he continues to write on the subject of organized crime. He continues to provide the public in the province of Quebec with information about this story of organized crime and with other stories he has taken on in his passion as a journalist.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party are supporting this amendment as well. We encourage other members to do likewise. We look forward to seeing the legislation come into being upon passing through the other place.

[Criminal Code, June 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I congratulate and thank the other members who spoke on this topic, especially the member for St-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He gave a very important perspective on the subject, of which he obviously has first-hand knowledge.

I hope all members will vote for this amendment.

[Criminal Code, June 8th, 2001]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-24, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 4 the following:

““competent judicial authority” means a Judge of any Court in Canada.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-24, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 4 with the following:

“25.2 to 25.4, only after acquiring authorization from a competent judicial authority.”

Madam Speaker, I will begin my remarks by saying that the PC Party views this as a very positive bill. As members know, it is legislation that comes about as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Regina v Campbell and Shirose. Bill C-24 is meant to remedy an anomaly that resulted from that decision. It left law enforcement officers throughout Canada in the unenviable position of confusion about their ability to, on occasion, act outside the bounds of the criminal code in an effort to infiltrate or to apprehend those engaged in unlawful activity.

Specifically, the legislation is aimed at organized crime, hence the title of the bill itself. It focuses on the neverending efforts of our brave men and women in law enforcement who are faced with the tremendous task of trying to curtail organized crime in Canada. This problem has been exaggerated and exacerbated over the past number of years to the point where many people in communities throughout Canada, but particularly in the province of Quebec, are feeling threatened in their communities and very ill at ease in their homes and in their towns.

The legislation is meant to address the fallout from the Campbell and Shirose decision. It is meant to provide police a level of immunity from prosecution for acting in their capacity as law enforcement officers, but allowing them to, on occasion, transgress the law. There are certain limitations that have been placed upon that, such as serious crimes involving sexual assault, bodily harm and murder. These are obviously the types of offences that would be completely out of bounds when it comes to police officers acting in the line of duty.

There are certainly exceptional cases. The case can be made where police officers must demonstrate to potential gang activity and those engaged in unlawful gang activity that they are part of that gang. They must demonstrate that they are prepared, given certain circumstances, to break the law in order to ingratiate themselves or get into the club so they might infiltrate and gain information by attaining the trust of those who are involved in this nefarious activity in the hope of bringing them to justice. The police, by doing this, hope to collect evidence that will eventually lead to prosecution.

The bill in its current form grants police officers this special designation that allows them to transgress the law. That discretion or authority is now vested in the police, albeit through superior officers, and in some instances attorneys general. In some instances there is reference to the solicitor general being the top minister in the department.

That is fine and dandy. However, in terms of direct accountability, knowledge and discretion over who should be immune from prosecution and who should receive this special designation, it is my submission and earnest suggestion that the competent authority be a judicial authority. Simply put, it should be a judge. Judges understand the law and could make learned and competent decisions as to who should be granted these very special powers.

I have worked in the justice system and have a great deal of respect and admiration for our police. However we all know that there have been instances, sadly, where police officers have gone outside their duties and have in some instances undermined public confidence.

I strenuously suggest that for the new system and the new law to take effect, win public confidence and operate in a smooth and satisfactory way, judges should be granted the discretion to make decisions as to who is granted immunity. That would be a much more practical and professional way to go about it and would be very much in keeping with current practice as it pertains to wiretaps and to warrants for search and seizure.

Once the designation is made there would be a greater level of accountability and review. As contemplated in the legislation, the designation would be for an indeterminate period. However, that is not to say that no supervision or checks and balances would be in place or that reports would not be made to those in authority.

I again strongly suggest that it would make greater sense and be more consistent with our current legal practices to have the judiciary make the designations. Judges in Canada practise criminal law daily and are aware of recent developments in the law and of the practices that take place in courtrooms across the land. They should have the power vested in them. That is the direction in which we should be going with the legislation. That is the sole purpose behind the amendment.

There have been quite animated discussions along this line at committee level. I would go so far as to say it was one of the most productive committee hearings I have had the pleasure to take part in during my short tenure here in Ottawa. There was a full and open exchange of ideas. Members of parliament were fully engaged in the debate as to where this very special, extraordinary power should rest.

The special designation granting this form of immunity would not apply only to organized crime. That may come as a surprise to many, given the title of the bill and the intent of the legislation as it was presented and sold to the general public.

The designated special power would apply to police officers deemed immune from prosecution in their efforts to infiltrate organized crime. It would apply to their general practice of law enforcement; that is to say, they would be given powers that used to exist under common law. There was, after the fact obviously, a judicial examination of those acts and those actions on the part of police.

Once the designation is made, subject to the amendment being accepted by a judge for a police officer or superior officer, or a provincial attorney general in the case of municipal or provincial police forces, it would not be for the sole purpose of dealing with organized crime. That must fully be understood by the Canadian public. Police officers would return, subject to the legislation passing, to having discretion in the field to act in emergency situations.

That is what the legislation is intended to do. It is intended to correct the fallout and the upshot from the supreme court decision which threw into disarray the understanding of police officers as to what they could do in a given circumstance.

It goes without saying that police often find themselves in dangerous situations where they must make split second decisions as to their actions. They must apply force but within reason. They must on occasion enter premises. The practice has always been to use reason and a certain discretion as to how much force they should apply and how much of a transgression of the law they should embark upon.

However, given the size, scope and breadth of Canada and the many rural communities that exist, it is virtually impossible for police officers on every occasion and in every instance to receive prior judicial authorization when contemplating whether to enter a premise or take a vehicle or other property that may not belong to them.

All of this is aimed at allowing police officers to carry out their very important role of protecting the public. The amendment is aimed at putting a balance in place so that checks will exist to allow judges the opportunity to intervene and make a proper designation and thereby allow police to act appropriately.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I am pleased to take part in this debate. It is one of the dark days for parliament, as we prepare for the summer recess. Members of parliament are in a very uncomfortable position of being presented with an option of enhancing their own rate of pay rather than dealing with issues that we all know in our heart of hearts are much higher on Canadians' list of priorities.

I would like to speak a moment about the bill itself and the issues that present themselves. This has come about after a great deal of consternation over many years about the compensation package. Without getting into the actual merits of the pension and the rate of pay, when one looks at what the bill tries to accomplish, we understand that much of what will be accomplished is the removal of this uncomfortable situation for future parliaments, the removal of the unjust ability that members of parliament have currently in the legislation to increase and ameliorate their own rates of pay.

The bill would take future pay raises out of our hands at least directly and tie them into the Judges Act. That is really cold comfort to many Canadians right now who are struggling with difficult economic situations or who are currently engaged in strikes and labour disputes within their own fields. That is really something that does not seem to appease those individuals. Yet I would suggest that it will be for the betterment of parliament that this spectacle of standing up and voting ourselves a raise will be removed.

There are other elements that the bill attempts to address. It attempts to bring rates of pay more in line with professions of equal status or equal value in the country. The increase that is being brought in arguably could be merited and could be justified if it was perhaps going to be brought in over a period of time. That is the 5% or 4% of 6%, whatever the determined amount, would be phased in over a period of time.

Perhaps more appropriately and more palatable would be to increase it in the future, which is what the Progressive Conservative Party tried to do in an amendment that was moved yesterday. It said in effect that this raise would only occur and would only take effect after the commencement of the 38th parliament, after the next election. That would, at the very least, give Canadians the opportunity to know upfront what members of parliament intended to do in terms of voting themselves a raise before they cast their vote. That is what would be accomplished if that were to occur.

Like many members of parliament, I stand here today not proud. There is no joy among many members as we prepare for the vote this evening. We have added to this discomfort this new opt in provision which was not included in the Lumley report.

I suggest that what the Prime Minister intends to do is to further embarrass parliamentarians and essentially send the message that if we dare oppose or dare say anything publicly against the pay schedule, we will be punished because the media will be watching, our constituents will be watching, and if we dare opt in later, we will be labelled hypocrites. We will wear that crown of thorns.

This trap, this hole in ice which has been left for members to fall through if they have the audacity to stand up and oppose what the Prime Minister has put before us has grave implications because as has been mentioned, this is permanent. Of course things can change quite radically around here. It seems the law of the land can be stripped away with legislation. We know that, yet this legislation is laid before us with this gaping hole, this bear trap, ready to clamp down on us if we say anything in opposition.

It is the timing, and perhaps the rate of pay, more than anything else that offends Canadians. I have heard this from my constituents and from steelworkers in Trenton who are about to be laid off. I have heard it from workers in the health profession who are labouring under extremely difficult situations. I have heard it from factory workers and fishermen whose industry has collapsed right out from under them.

It will take a most telling human toll on members of parliament when the House recesses and we go back to our constituencies, look them in the eye at summer events and justify our own existence. The real debate we will embark on this summer is justifying our own existence and somehow proving that we are worth it to Canadians. We will have to prove to our constituents that they were right in electing us and that this pay is merited and justified, not only the salary we used to receive but the new salary.

Inevitably there is a sense of uncomfortable shame welling up in all of us as we prepare for the vote tonight. At the very least there has been an opportunity for some discourse and that discourse may lead to some backlash, but at least it is open and transparent in the sense we are being forced to justify our decisions.

I will very likely be taking this pay raise. I do not think I should be prevented from standing here and criticizing the timing, the mechanism or the way in which the bill was brought in or be in a position of playing the role of a martyr. That famous word of an unparliamentary nature, hypocrisy, which we cannot utter in this Chamber, is what will rain down on us.

In order to fan the flames of that sentiment, the Prime Minister stuck in a cute little clause that is meant to intimidate. It is meant as hush money for members of the opposition and perhaps members of the backbench more particularly.

The backlash inevitably will come and deservedly so. If we as a parliament collectively cannot get our priorities right, if we cannot somehow in a more appropriate way align the priorities of the country, whether they be legislative priorities or priorities of debate, we deserve the backlash. We deserve the heat and it will come.

There is ample opportunity to bring in legislation in the form of Bill C-15 which would protect children from stalkers on the Internet and would improve the sentencing schedules for police who are victims of attempts by someone to disarm them. Many other very important pieces of legislation on the order paper will languish away. Some may disappear. Some may be dropped from the order paper depending on how things unfold when we return in the fall.

If we are to justify both in the Chamber in front of the cameras and in the foyer why this is happening, we should also be prepared to examine why it is that we are not prepared to stay a little longer if we have to, to sit a little later if we have to, to bring in legislation like Bill C-15. That would perhaps in some small way, in some tiny, minute way, indicate that we are thinking about more important issues than the one that has brought shame on the House in the last days of parliament before the summer recess.

Members of my party will be voting freely on the bill. No party discipline will rain down on anyone who votes their conscience or the wishes of their constituents. We will be voting freely. Clearly there is an indication that there will be a split among many parties on how to handle it, as there should be. This is something that will, if nothing else, cause some reflection on the worth of our work and the emphasis that we place on certain elements of that work whether it be legislative or constituency work.

After all members of parliament have voted and go home I encourage them to reflect upon the overall picture of what we are trying to accomplish. Maybe we will be able to band together in some small way and make different decisions in the future as to what are the priorities of the House and what the priorities should be.

[Justice, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that was a pretty shameful answer. While there is plenty of appetite by the government to split something as complex and controversial as a helicopter procurement project, the government seems completely unable to somehow split a bill that lumps cruelty to animals together with protecting children.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. On the omnibus bill, would the minister put aside her partisan rhetoric, her newfound bombast, and find some way to pass legislation to protect children before we go home this summer?

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Fundy—Royal and other members of the Progressive Conservative Party who have spoken to this bill. Some might view this legislation as being of little consequence and a case of semantics because in essence what appears to be the major change is one of name only, whereby it creates the Farm Credit Canada logo, the FCC.

However it takes on much more than that. My colleagues have noted and highlighted some of the changes that would come about as a result of the legislation. The bill speaks in particular detail of expanding the financial services available to farm operations and businesses throughout Canada. The bill would allow authority to provide loans to businesses related to farming activities in Canada, in cases where the business is majority owned by farmers and in cases where it is not. It would touch upon farming in a critical way.

It goes without saying, but bears repeating, that farming in Canada is very much in jeopardy. We have seen crises, particularly in western Canada and the province of Manitoba, because of the elements and because of flooding. We have also seen drought in other parts of the country. The expansive size of Canada and the distances involved in bringing produce to market is one of the biggest challenges farmers face apart from the weather.

When it comes to the government's involvement in the farm industry, we have on many occasions seen farmers throughout Canada left with a feeling of abandonment when it comes to their ability to be competitive not only in Canada or North America but globally. A great deal more could be done.

Members of the Progressive Conservative Party and other members in the House have spoken at length and quite passionately about the need for government assistance in times of need, when market change or legislation has hindered the ability of farmers to get their produce to market.

That is perhaps one of the highlights of the bill and hopefully one that can be brought through quickly. It would help farmers get on with the business of produce and participate fully in the economy.

The Conservative Party is very supportive of the legislation as we have been in the past with efforts to assist farmers. My colleague spoke of the situation in Prince Edward Island with respect to potatoes. There have been other situations throughout the country where farmers have been left destitute and literally high and dry when it came to the government coming to their assistance when they were most in need.

My friend also spoke of the dairy industry. In my constituency of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough there are numerous examples. Scotsburn Dairy Cooperative has a storied and very proud history of participation in the dairy industry in Canada. It is continuing to expand and make great contributions on behalf of its industry, and it is very much a part of the vibrant and growing economy of Atlantic Canada.

We support the legislation. We are pleased that there is an opportunity to see the bill pass through the Parliament of Canada and hopefully come into being in the other place.