Peter MacKay

[Business Of The House, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of question period. I would seek unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That, in the event of the presentation of a report by the auditor general to the Speaker during any recess, prorogation or dissolution of parliament, the Speaker would therefore be entitled to make such reports or report public immediately upon receipt from the auditor general.

I seek unanimous consent of the House to move the motion given the responses from the Prime Minister today.

[Points Of Order, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order arising somewhat out of the circumstances surrounding Bill C-44, which we now have in hand. It concerns the practice of supplying the opposition with copies of the bill in a timely fashion.

This morning the bill itself was tabled. It was introduced at 10.04 a.m. or 10.05 a.m. Within five minutes the minister promptly left the House and went on television to discuss the bill. Some members of the opposition who have the critic's responsibility for this department were not provided with copies of the bill until 10.40 a.m., 30 minutes later.

I know this may sound petty, Mr. Speaker, but it is petty on the part of the government not to ensure that the entire opposition, those critics, are given copies of the bill.

The bill itself was available on the media Internet site, which is where our critic, the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, went to get a copy when he was unable to obtain a copy from the government. Other members, and I will not single anybody out, received hand delivered copies from the government House leader.

There has to be parity. There has to be an attempt to see to it that all members receive the same information at the same time so that they can discharge their duties.

I ask the Chair to consider this in conjunction with the earlier complaints yesterday with respect to the government's seeming unwillingness to be forthcoming with this type of information. This place is not to be considered an afterthought. This House of Parliament has to be treated equitably on both sides. This is not to say that the government can give the information prior to the minister being prepared to do so, but we cannot be treated here like mongrel dogs, as an after supper thought. This has to be done fairly and in a straightforward fashion so that all members can respond.

[Privacy Commissioner, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if I could request the unanimous consent of the House to table the curriculum vitae of Mr. Radwanski. This is an important part of the debate and it would reflect some of the comments that have been made during the course of this debate.

[Privacy Commissioner, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think my colleague is absolutely right. I believe it is necessary to apply the same standards so that there is a balance.

The hon. member is right to point out that for these positions there should be a higher standard. If we are going to expect the office to hold the respect of the public, if we are going to expect there to be confidence in the proficiency and in the process, we should have this equal standard that requires the approval and examination and the penetrating view of both houses.

Surely anything to suggest otherwise diminishes the importance of the role itself. The privacy commissioner, language commissioner, ethics commissioner and information commissioner are all extremely important offices that serve or should serve Canadians with the highest degree of professionalism and non-partisanship. To ensure that happens in the first instance, maybe we should be looking at a similar standard apply that will give Canadians the confidence and that will give parliament itself the confidence and dignity and raise the standard which is applied to these appointments and the process.

[Privacy Commissioner, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond in two parts. First, about trying to make some sort of a tie to what happened in Nova Scotia, that individual was not an officer of parliament obviously. With respect to the NDP, I think there is still some residual smarting for the spanking that party received in the provincial election in Nova Scotia. I will not delve into that partisan boxing match.

My colleague from the eastern shore of Nova Scotia would know that it is sometimes difficult to involve the general public entirely in the appointment processes. I would suggest that is what elected individuals are supposed to do. They are entrusted, one would hope, with the public confidence and with the faith that they will fulfil their roles in critiquing the government or when in government that they will fulfil their roles in an impartial way to as large a degree as possible.

I know my friend from Nova Scotia, my fellow Bluenoser, is a person who appreciates that these processes have to take place sometimes in a speedy fashion. If we go to complete populism where there are referendums on everything and complete public input on every appointment, I would suggest that government and the bureaucratic malaise he refers to would kick in. There would be a grinding, screeching halt to all government operations if we tried to approach it in that fashion.

I take his point. Certainly openness and greater participation from all sides of the House and certainly increased public confidence and increased public participation are things we should all strive for in this place.

[Privacy Commissioner, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

I would certainly agree that parliament should have greater say and greater participation in the selection of the officers of this place.

To rule out individuals who have had active participation in the political process is somewhat naive. I am not saying this personally to the member. We do want to encourage people to participate in the political process to whatever degree, through support of the party, through support of an individual, or through participation in politics generally. We do not want to say that would somehow negate a person's ability to fill an office.

However, if there is to be confidence and the perception that the person will perform the role impartially, then parliament should have the final say. I believe that having an open vote is appropriate in some cases, not necessarily in all appointment cases, but for roles in which the underlying objective and need to be fulfilled is the duty to respond to parliament. Yes, at the end of the day, parliament should have the final say in electing those individuals.

[Privacy Commissioner, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I think it is about a very important matter.

I will begin my remarks by commending and thanking Mr. Phillips for his work. He has worked very hard for the country.

I think it is fair to say that he brought great competence and great class to the office he filled and to the work he did on behalf of Canadians in his capacity as privacy commissioner.

I would very much like to attach myself to the remarks of prior speakers on the opposition side of the House, particularly those of the House leader of the New Democratic Party, who has a great deal of experience and a remarkable degree of understanding of the inner workings of parliament.

Much of the theme he touched on in his remarks is that which is most important, which we are discussing here, and that is, it is not the personal aspects of this appointment but the process that was followed that is offensive to those previous speakers on the opposition side.

I also must take issue with the way in which we were given some semblance of an opportunity to have interaction and discussions with Mr. Radwanski. I want to preface everything by saying this is not to in any way question the integrity, competence or ability of this individual. Yet when the name was first brought forward in February of this year by the government House leader, there was some initial resistance, some initial question, that was expressed on the part of other government House leaders. I note that my colleague from the Bloc is indicating likewise.

The issue just seemed to disappear. It just seemed to go away. Then, while parliament was not in session this summer, we were suddenly notified after the fact that this person would be given this appointment. It was a very after the fact, stealth like consultation.

The government House leader is being a little economical with the truth when he says this has been an open and inclusive process. It is a shame, a crying shame, because in my opinion this puts a pall over an individual who very well could serve the country in the same professional, proficient fashion we have seen of Mr. Phillips. That remains to be seen. We will see how this turns out.

It is very important to note, as my colleague from the reform alliance has put on record, the very close personal contacts this individual has with the Liberal government. Something else important to point out is that the resumé we received at the pseudo-committee meeting we had did not include the same connections that were on the initial résumé given back in February. Those references have already been pointed out.

That is not to say a person who was senior policy strategy and communications adviser to the Prime Minister would necessarily be partisan. However, one would assume that working in that capacity he would be called upon on occasion to dispense partisan advice. One would also assume that working in that capacity very closely with the Prime Minister he would achieve some level of personal attachment and friendship. Similarly one would suspect that in working as a senior strategy and policy adviser and principal speech writer for the Right Hon. John Turner a personal relationship and connection would develop.

We know times change. We know things evolve. Yet the same government House leader who, while a prominent member of the rat pack, used to stand on his desk and rail like a banshee at the prior Conservative government, using words such as patronage orgy and nepotism while in opposition, now has very much embraced this supposedly offensive practice. He has wrapped his arms around it.

I have a compiled list of over 500 appointments in the past seven years that indicate a very strong golden thread of connection to the Liberal Party which leads to very lucrative and rewarding patronage type appointments. The shoe is on the other foot and is now kicking the opposition in the teeth.

I know I cannot use the word hypocrisy in this place. I am not allowed to use that word, but it is a shame because it seems to me it smacks of just that. Famous words were uttered in debate when Mr. Turner was left with that anvil of patronage appointments hanging around his neck. It was pointed out by former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney that he had a choice. He had to wear that albatross. Yet it appears the government House leader did not have a choice. He had to take his marching orders from Mr. Goldenberg and the Prime Minister's Office. He had to follow along the same path. He obviously was in the same boat as Mr. Turner.

We know other very important supposedly non-partisan roles have been filled on the advice of Mr. Goldenberg and others in the Prime Minister's Office. As the House leader for the New Democratic Party alluded to, it diminishes and sullies the process when this attachment exists.

We know as well the significance of the office cannot be lost. The significance should never be undermined or in any way attacked or somehow devalued during the course of the debate, because the ethics commissioner's office is very important, if it is exercised in the way it is supposed to be.

Similarly, regarding the privacy commissioner, the information commissioner and all of the roles that are filled by individuals, I say with great sincerity that one hopes the persons in those positions will exercise their duties in a non-partisan fashion. When the perception exists that the only reason the appointment has occurred is a close connection to an individual in government, in this case the Prime Minister, or an individual with strong Liberal connections, in my opinion this leads to questions and further cynicism, almost bordering on apathy at times on the part of the public when this practice continues.

As was mentioned as well, the qualifications of the particular person whose name has been brought forward are very impressive. He is an author of great renown and an individual with connections in the journalistic community. I am yet to be convinced and I am yet to even hear proper explanation as to why it is that a person necessarily with a journalistic background or an academic background is the person who should fill the role of privacy commissioner. I do not quite follow that thinking.

Again, this is not to attack the personalities here, but what special qualifications do journalists have that make them good privacy commissioners? We know the natural role of a journalist is to disseminate and distribute information, as opposed to protecting the public information. It seems to me a completely contrary role is filled by a journalist or author.

In this context, in this parliament we have seen an occasion when private information of Canadian citizens was being distributed and was being handled in a very sloppy fashion, shall we say, by the HRDC, and the privacy commissioner in his capacity played a very important role in making that public. Would this person, with his close Liberal connections, have done the same thing?

Again we must ask that question because it is also the public perception of impartiality that is important here, not just the real impartiality, but the perception of same. We see that phrase used quite often in the courtroom: it is not only that justice be done, but that justice is seen to be done. That is exactly what is at issue in this debate and the questions surrounding this appointment.

The government, I would suggest, has failed to discharge its duty of giving that public assurance and giving that impression. Therefore we have some difficulties with this: difficulty with the process, difficulty with that same old Liberal arrogance that is being displayed more and more with each passing day.

The neutrality of this position has to be paramount, as well as certainly a working knowledge of the Privacy Act. Again, I did have the opportunity to participate in the sham of a committee. As was alluded to, it was a hybrid. It was not really a committee, but it was an opportunity after the fact to examine the qualifications of this individual. To his credit, he certainly owned up very quickly to his connections to the Liberal government and expounded on his abilities in other areas.

One concern I have is a full appreciation and working knowledge of technology. I suspect that in the capacity of privacy commissioner there has to be a real indepth grasp and knowledge of the information technology explosion and an ability to understand how important it is to protect information that is now available in computer banks and computer information that is held by the government. Again we are not completely clear on the connection and the ability of the particular individual in that capacity, but time will tell. Certainly we will have the benefit of hindsight, one would argue, at some time to come.

The government should be the focus of this debate. The Liberal government has created this situation. It could have been avoided with a more open and inclusive process, if there had even been the invitation early on to simply sit down and talk with this person, to have an opportunity to meet him even, on an informal basis, instead of this stealthy, behind the scenes appointment process that occurred in this instance. Perhaps we should have had an opportunity early on to do that, and it would have avoided some of the unpleasantness and some of the bad taste left in the mouth of the opposition with this appointment.

I want to conclude my remarks by reminding the House of something I was reminded of quite recently. The individual is an officer of parliament whose duty, first and foremost, is to the people of Canada and to the Parliament of Canada, to discharge his or her duties honourably, with professionalism, and in an impartial way, devoid of any sort of partisan political considerations.

We are unfortunately left, to some degree, with damaged goods. That is most unfortunate for the privacy commissioner. This could have been avoided if the government had chosen to go about this in a different fashion and if the nominee had been given an opportunity earlier to meet with opposition members to satisfy concerns they might have about the way in which this process took place.

Again I would suggest that our retiring privacy commissioner, Mr. Phillips, certainly performed very ably on behalf of the country. We wish him well in his future endeavours.

We hope this debate, to some small degree, will be a reminder to the government that those on the opposition side of the House have every right to question. There is in fact a public expectation that the opposition will question the way in which these appointments are made. They should not have the ring or the stench of patronage. They should not reflect nepotism.

If competence is to be the true criterion, let us ensure that takes place through a fair, open and inclusive process of examination of those appointments.

[Criminal Code, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I commend the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing the bill forward and for his tireless pursuit of this issue. I know he has put a great deal of effort and passion into bringing the bill before the Canadian people and getting some of the facts on the record, which are extremely important.

Let us be clear. Bill C-68 and the gun registry are not about effective gun control. They are an ineffective, discriminatory, expensive attempt to sell the public on something they do not achieve, and that is public safety.

I was very dismayed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice misstate the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of the gun challenge. At no time did it endorse the particular legislation as having anything to do with public safety. What it said is the government has the right to legislate in that area. That is a subtle but extremely important difference.

Bill C-409 speaks about bringing some degree of accountability to the venture the government has undertaken. What it calls for is an expiry or a sunset clause that would negate the legislation after five years if it was not cost effective. That is all the hon. member is trying to do. He is trying to bring about some element of accountability and cost effective examination or measure to increase public safety vis-à-vis a connection between legislation and a reduction in violence.

The legislation was first brought forward in the heat and passion of and in the fallout from a terrible incident in Montreal. The massacre at l'École Polytechnique is a black mark on Canadian history and will always be there, to the horror of Canadians. However the legislative response that was drafted in the wake of that tragedy is not proportionate. It does not respond to that type of incident. That horrible crime was perpetrated by a mentally ill person who used a gun that was illegal in the first place. The legislation has nothing to do with that. It would have had no bearing on and would not have prevented such a tragedy.

The Conservative Party has always supported sensible gun control measures. The legislation is not about gun control. It is about bureaucratic red tape. It is an intrusive piece of legislation. I apologize for using the word target, but it targets the wrong people. Criminals are not participating and never will participate in this type of registry. It targets duck hunters, target shooters, Olympic shooters, farmers, fishermen, and average Canadians who use a rifle for pest control or leisure.

The legislation is not about public safety. It is about criminalizing individuals who were participating in, enjoying and getting some degree of security out of a legitimate and rightful pursuit in their communities. All of a sudden, if they refuse to participate, they will be criminalized.

One of the intangible results of the government's pursuit of the legislation will be felt in the criminal justice system in the frustration that will be felt by average citizens when called upon to do jury duty. They will sit in the jury box and look with cynicism and antagonism toward the crown and the police who are prosecuting people for a reasonable and lawful pursuit. This is one of those intangible factors that is again lost on the government and is obviously lost on the Minister of Justice.

I will not recount the statistics and the figures with respect to the money and the number of bureaucrats and government employees who have been caught up in the pursuit of the giant propaganda effort that is taking place on the part of the government, but they are staggering.

This now infamous Bill C-68, better known as the Firearms Act, has been implemented by the government and sold to the public on a false premise. The public has been sold a bill of goods literally that this would somehow impact on violent crime and that it would somehow save lives and prevent violence. Where is any evidence that this will somehow protect or save lives? It does not exist. This legislative response is completely off base, off target. It was arrogantly, ineffectively and wastefully put in place to distract from the real issues.

Police across the country are desperately in need of resources. They are desperately in need of support from the government, from the solicitor general and from the Department of Justice, and they are not getting it. They tell us that resources are scarce and that they are using priority choices to decide where the money goes, yet they are pumping millions of dollars into the legislation while there is not enough money for overtime, for equipment or for training.

Police officers are being forced to do without. They are being forced to deal with the ever complicated and ever increasing presence of organized crime and high tech crime. There is no question that, on a rational basis and looking at this in terms of priorities, the money would be better spent elsewhere.

I would like to put on record some of the recent statistics from Australia and Great Britain where they have pursued this type of registry in advance of the Canadian example. Great Britain and Australia have both had disastrous results as a fallout from gun registry. In Australia the gun ban that took place in 1996 resulted in armed robberies increasing by 70% between 1996 and 1998. Unarmed robberies went up by 20% and attempted murders by 300%. Unlawful entry with intent to break and enter involving property rose by 30,000 cases in Australia.

A study from the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the armed criminal, a survey of incarcerated felons, included in its results that 91% of those surveyed agreed that smart criminals would try to find out if a potential victim were armed before they decided to act. Of those surveyed, 82% agreed that the gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens and therefore would enable criminals to know that most likely those they would prey on would be unarmed.

Gun registration has already failed terribly in the United Kingdom, as its overall violent crime rate increased 2.2%, with a 19% overall increase in muggings since 1998.

A recent policy conference of the Progressive Conservative Party in Quebec City reaffirmed its opposition to this specific part of the gun registry. We have to be clear on this. This pertains to the registry of long guns. The opposition has clearly stated its position.

We will always hear the government drone on about the opposition being opposed to gun control. That is not the case. We have had gun control in the country since the 1950s with respect to pistols, certain rifles and shotguns that were already deemed of an unlawful nature. That is not the subject of this debate. We are talking about shotguns and rifles that have been in use and have been in the possession of Canadians for hundreds of years, since the country began.

In 1993 the Liberals proceeded with legislation on the unproven premise that a mandatory firearm registry would lead to a reduction in firearm related crime. One of the false premises was to inflate the statistics. For example, if a weapon was found at the scene of a crime or alleged crime, just present, not used or involved in the particular allegation of criminal activity, it would somehow be included as a firearms related crime. It was completely duplicitous and misleading.

In the first instance, long guns are rarely the weapon of choice, I would suggest, in premeditated criminal activity. The Liberal government has aimed this law at a segment of the population that already acts responsibly and complies with reasonable, previously existing gun control measures. So again, there is a false premise.

Gun registration will not prevent or even reduce most forms of violent crime. It creates a false impression that having a little sticker or laser imprint on a gun will somehow prevent it from being used in a dangerous or unlawful fashion. It is a completely false premise. That little imprint or sticker will no more prevent that gun from firing than putting a bullet in the chamber; it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. The government has failed to provide any proof whatsoever that gun related crime will be reduced as a result of this legislation.

As mentioned earlier, Australia and Great Britain have already proven that this type of legislation actually leads to an increase in violent crime. The promises made by the former minister of justice that it would cost only $85 million have already been disproved. We now know, as the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville quoted extensively, the costs that relate to this. We are now nearing the half billion dollar mark with respect to the implementation of this legislation.

The reality is that this legislation has already cost Canadians over $134 million and not a single gun has been registered to the extent that it is in a system that is up and operating. The system has yet to be in effect. I would suggest that the infrastructure in place at present could be used to enhance CPIC, to enhance the DNA data bank registry, to incorporate a system of registering sex offenders in the country. That is the type of registry that we need, registering the criminals and not the guns. This is where the effort should be and where the legislation should be pointed, not at registering an inanimate object and indicating to the public that somehow this will affect crime and somehow protect Canadians. It is a false premise.

I indicate clearly that we support the initiative that has been taken by my hon. friend and hope that Canadians will somehow grasp what is taking place in the country and reflect that in their vote in the coming election, because this legislation will not change until the government changes.

[Privilege, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this question of privilege. I would very much attach my comments to those of the previous speakers on this side of the House, particularly the last speaker who you know and all members know has a long history in this institution.

He pointed out very clearly that an attempt has to be made by the Chair and all members to stop the practice of floating trial balloons prior to the proper tabling of legislation in the House. There is a long record of this occurring. In the short time I have been in this place we have seen it happen time and time again.

I would suggest as well there is very much an elevated sense of anticipation of a possible election, which adds to the political climate and the timeliness of having this information out there earlier. As the whip for the New Democratic Party has pointed out, he made direct appeals to the government, and rightfully so, to have an opportunity to review the legislation as the critic in this regard, as did members of our party. We were denied.

Again I would suggest it is cold comfort to have the outrage and the feigned indignation of the government House leader standing here and saying “It is a terrible thing. I do not know how it happened. We are very upset about it on this side of the House too, but c'est la vie”.

I ask the Chair to keep in mind that in this instance there is a very important factor. The evidence is not in. This matter should not be decided today by you, Mr. Speaker. There was a time, and the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona will certainly recall, when it was very clear that if a leak such as this occurred there would be direct ministerial accountability, which adds to the democracy in this place, which adds to accountability and responsibility on the part of government. That seems to no longer exist under this administration.

There is but one source from which this information could have been leaked, and that is the government that drafted the legislation. Obviously there has to be some form of accountability on the part of the department, on the part of the government, and on the part of the government House leader.

The evidence is not in. We do not know the source of the leak. Yet we do not even hear the slightest indication from the government that it is willing to even make inquiries. Has there been an inquiry? Have the police been involved in how this information was leaked?

This type of information is of equal importance to a budget leak. I would suggest we cannot diminish the importance of what has just happened in this place. Again I marry myself to the remarks that have been made by other members of the opposition. It is incumbent upon the Chair to enforce some semblance of accountability when this type of information winds up in the hands of the media prior to the people who have been democratically elected having an opportunity to review this type of important legislation.

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to proceed with due diligence in this matter, not to react quickly to the request and the question of privilege that has been raised, and to make inquiries on what type of investigation has been made to discover the source of the leak.

This cannot continue. As has been pointed out, it continually diminishes and completely casts a pall over the importance of this place and the government if information is to be allowed to be leaked out in an unfettered way prior to any kind of examination in the House of Commons. I know you will proceed with this charge very diligently, and I would urge you to do so post-haste.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and take part in this debate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. I must say I have listened intently to all speakers on this bill. It has been a useful exercise to hear the various perspectives.

I think we would find almost to a person that the legislation will receive a great deal of support. However, one overriding issue in the government's decision to bring in this legislation is the fashion in which it has chosen to do so. As the previous speaker, my colleague from the New Democratic Party, indicated, this is really a cross-threaded bill. It is a bill that mixes issues that really do not belong together. Not to diminish at all the importance of this, I cite, as an example, that the only way in my mind that I can tie this bill together would be to suggest that somehow a person wrestled an unlicensed gun away from a police officer and used it to dispose of an animal in a cruel fashion.

These issues do not fit together in any semblance. Therefore, the bill should be divided and put into a more proper perspective, one Canadians would understand and appreciate in a more real way. In my submission it diminishes the importance of these individual issues to try to force them together and to force Canadians and parliamentarians to contemplate them at the same time.

The consolidation of the current criminal code with respect to the cruelty to animals provisions, which are put in place by the bill, are certainly those that are needed. They are needed to modernize the current law as it pertains to this aspect of justice. It is something that has emotional and visceral reactions from those in the private sector.

Obviously, there are concerns, which have been touched upon, that the bill might go too far in its definition of cruelty. I hope to touch on those issues with respect to a balance and the counter-arguments that have been brought forward by those in the hunting, fishing, angling and farming vocations. It may go too far in the responsibility that is attached, for example, to property owners. However, that is not to say that these issues cannot be addressed and ironed out at the committee, which is the proper and just fashion in which to do so. I say that, somewhat tongue in cheek, on the understanding that the committee will be given an opportunity to really debate and to put forward reasonable amendments that the government will be amenable to.

We know that has not been the case most recently. We saw an example of a bill, perhaps the most important bill in this session, being jammed through the committee without any discussion whatsoever or without any opportunity by opposition members to bring forward amendments. It will leave this place on a rocket. It will be pushed through with closure. While the government House leader used to stand on his desk and rail like a banshee against the prior government, he is now using these same tools, which were so offensive to him when he was in opposition, to do the same thing, only worse. The only real examination of the youth criminal justice bill will occur in the other place. It is encouraging to see that members of the reform alliance and the Bloc are so appreciative of the work that will be done in the other place and I look forward to their support.

Turning our attention to Bill C-17, the amendments to the criminal code will remove the reference to “illegitimate child” and ensure that the evidentiary protection afforded to other victims who testify at trials is also provided by some of the changes. Amendments with respect to persons with disabilities who have been victims of sexual exploitation are very important and practical changes. The Conservative Party is entirely supportive of these amendments.

With respect to the Firearms Act, the expansion of the class of recently prohibited handguns that are grandfathered and the changes to clarify the licensing requirements of employees in the firearms business are practical changes that are necessary and that arguably should have been in place in the first instance. Again, I hearken back to my earlier comments on what that has to do with cruelty to animals. What does it have to do with respect to changes to definitions in the criminal code? There is real confusion in the bill.

An omnibus bill is a hybrid that brings in several aspects of legislation that have no tie-in. What it does, in effect, is force divisions among all parties with respect to their ability to support certain issues, because there is no relation.

The cruelty to animals aspect is perhaps what is most prevalent and most controversial about the legislation. The Department of Justice reviewed provisions in 1998, and a consultation paper entitled “Crimes Against Animals” was distributed to allow groups and individuals to suggest modifications that would be required to deal effectively with cruelty to animals. No one in his or her right mind would oppose or in any way try to delay provisions that would protect harmless animals, in most instances, animals that are either in the wild or in captivity. These provisions in essence bring about a greater recognition, through the criminal code by sanctions, that this is something that society will not tolerate. This is an action that is abhorred and is certainly not acceptable.

It is, as was alluded to, something that changes the attitudes with respect to animals being deemed as property. The reasoning is of course that it is now recognized as a common symptom of a deeper mental illness. Individuals who involve themselves in cruelty to animals, as hon. members know, very often go on to involve themselves in other types of crime perpetrated against humans and property. It is seen as an escalation when a young person who is abusive to animals later goes on to commit crimes against other children and adults. There is an escalation of criminal behaviour when people start by abusing animals. There is mounting scientific evidence that verifies this link between animal abuse and, often, domestic violence and violence against other humans.

The public, the police and many interest groups have been calling for more effective federal legislation and federal law to deal with cases of animal abuse. There are numerous examples, too numerous to cite and often too heinous in their description, that verify and justify a change in the legislation.

Currently in cases such as we have seen, under the old provisions an offender could receive only six months in jail or a $2,000 fine. I would suggest that this is an inadequate response given the gravity and sometimes the symptoms and specific facts of a case. The old provisions did not truly express denunciation of and deterrence for those involving themselves with cruelty to animals. There was also a provision to have a ban on the ownership and possession of certain animals. That as well could be increased.

In this country we know there are still a lot of instances of animal fighting taking place. There are instances of animals such as racehorses and greyhounds used for racing being treated poorly in their confines.

Mr. Speaker, as a person who has followed criminal law, you well know that having legislation here sends an important message that raising the ceiling of the reaction of the criminal justice system will in fact change the attitude. It expresses the government's and the public's non-acceptance of cruelty.

The Minister of Justice has explicitly linked animal abuse to rape and to child abuse, citing U.S. studies which pointed out that those who torture animals are more likely to involve themselves in similar cruel activities. I agree with the minister. There is mounting evidence that this type of mindset has to be disavowed. Serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer, who brutally dismembered humans and even practised cannibalism, abused animals as a child, so again there is some suggestion that this type of mindset develops very early. Increased sentences with an increased response from the criminal justice system is something that the Progressive Conservative Party would support.

The sentencing changes, depending on the charge, are anywhere from two years' imprisonment to a maximum of five years when the crown proceeds by indictment, or six to eighteen months or a fine of not more than $2,000 when it is a summary charge. This is certainly more representative of a deterrent type of response.

Further changes also involve payment of additional costs incurred for the care and convalescence of an animal. Payment would be made to any individual or organization that cared for the animal and would include such things as veterinarian's bills and shelter. Again, this is a direct correlation between the harm done and the person who perpetrated the offence. It brings about greater accountability and greater direct responsibility and, I would suggest, is more demonstrative of condemning the action. It gives the person a greater understanding of the harm done. The same principle is behind restorative justice. It is a more personal connection between the offender and the unlawful act. These are positive steps, which our party supports.

However, we need to study the bill closely at committee so that we do not in some instances potentially criminalize farmers, hunters, trappers or fishermen engaged in their normal way of life. Presently the bill is loosely worded in some of the provisions. Some of the amendments that will be required would tighten this up and would make it more operable in a practical sense.

Under the proposed legislation farmers feel that they could be prosecuted for common practices such as branding or dehorning of cattle. Castration of cattle would be another element we will have to discuss at the committee.

Some anglers are convinced that fishermen could be charged with regard to tactics including baiting. This proposed legislation would surely be a real impediment to fishermen who need to bait hooks in order to catch fish.

The Canadian Jewish Congress has expressed worry that Bill C-17 might interfere with Jewish ritual slaughter methods.

Biomedical researchers are worried that their work might also lead to criminal prosecution.

There are instances that we have to turn our minds to. That discussion should properly take place at the committee.

Some of the groups have requested that the language in the legislation be clarified, particularly with interpretations of phrases such as these I am quoting from the bill: “unnecessary pain, suffering or injury” and “brutally or viciously” killing an animal.

They want some protection from other practices. I am quoting some examples from the correspondence that I received, such as: identification, medical treatment, spaying or neutering; provision of food or other animal products; hunting, trapping, fishing and other sporting activities conducted in accordance with the lawful rules relating to them; pest, predator or disease control; protection of persons or property; scientific research unless the risk of injury or serious physical pain is disproportionate to the benefit expected from the research; and finally, training and disciplining of an animal.

There certainly is a great deal to contemplate when we are considering this legislation. Poisoning of an animal or using a mousetrap, potentially, not to put too fine a point on it, is something we have to consider when putting provisions into a criminal code that could cause serious ramifications for an individual. It is the same sort of thing as creating any kind of new offence.

That leads me to the point with respect to changes to the Firearms Act. We know now that as of December 1 law-abiding citizens who have properly licensed themselves, who have properly licensed handguns in the past, who have been through training sessions and who have done everything in accordance with the law, would become criminals simply not by licensing a long gun. We have to be very careful when we go down the path of criminalizing ordinary citizens. That is without getting into all the other ludicrous aspects of this long gun registry, which is costing hundreds of millions of dollars and will not affect dangerous crime at all.

The existing legislation touches as well on some traditional practices of hunting, fishing and farming. Yet they do not fit into the category of mean-spirited violence. It is imperative that animal cruelty legislation be clearly designed to target only those who engage in brutal practices against animals.

The justice minister has been contemplating an amendment that would exempt farmers, hunters and animal researchers from the bill. A change is certainly needed to provide legal security for lawful practices of animal related professions.

One must consider the genuine need for clarity and progressive legislation in this area. It is careless legislation that endangers individuals and that is something that I think most Canadians find very disheartening. It is obvious that little consideration was given to the broad effect of this bill and the impact it may have on certain professions. Discouraging as well is the lack of foresight, in that this bill was brought forward in an omnibus fashion and it deals with many other issues that confuse these important issues.

The elements of the bill that touch upon disarming of a police officer have also been given a fair bit of discussion and contemplation. I would suggest that this is one aspect that is very straightforward. It is one that has the enthusiastic and overriding support of police across the country and of many groups. I know that Grant Obst, the president of the Canadian Police Association, Dave Griffen, the executive director, and supporters of the association, who were here on the Hill this past weekend participating in the police memorial service, are very enthused that the government has chosen to bring this legislation forward. It is something they have lobbied for. It is something that they feel will have an immediate impact.

It goes without saying that it is very important to give specific recognition in the criminal code with regard to a person in an agitated state trying to take a weapon from a police officer. Any time there is a firearm or a weapon involved there is the imminent chance of bodily harm; there is the imminent chance that a person could lose his or her life. If a person chooses to try to disarm a police officer, for whatever reason, there is grave danger afoot.

We know that oftentimes a police officer using a weapon is doing so in the gravest circumstances, in order to try to de-escalate or control a situation. There is grave danger and harm when a person tries to interfere with a police officer, either by taking his weapon or by interfering in the use of a weapon by a police officer.

The Progressive Conservative Party is very supportive of this particular legislation. It is something that we feel is necessary to send a strong message to the public and a strong message to those who would engage in that type of serious, dangerous conduct. Police officers themselves, I think, will receive some comfort in knowing that it is a bill that will give specific recognition to that offence in the criminal code.

If officers are deprived of their weapons or are unable to carry out arrests effectively, it very much interferes with their important work. This new section does define weapon for the purposes of subsection (1) as “any thing that is designed to be used to cause injury or death to, or to temporarily incapacitate, a person”, and would include such things as firearms, obviously, and pepper spray and batons. It is deemed a hybrid offence. It has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and the crown of course can elect to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction.

As I alluded to, the president of the Canadian Police Association, Grant Obst, and his organization initiated this process and have been leading the proposed movement to bring about this specific offence. They “welcome the introduction of this new law and encourage its speedy passage by parliament”. Those are very supportive sentiments. Those sentiments are shared by the Progressive Conservative Party. We will be supporting this aspect of the bill.

Although the government could certainly do more for police, particularly in the areas of funding, speedy passage of legislation as it pertains to criminal gangs and organizations, and the seizing of stolen property, I would suggest that this is an important, practical response to a need that exists, a response to a void that exists in the criminal code.

There are other amendments that I spoke of earlier with respect to the definition of child. Removing the negative and unnecessary connotations that stem from the term illegitimate child is something that I think is certainly politically correct but it is also something that is important to those individuals born out of wedlock who have carried this unfortunate moniker.

With regard to sexual exploitation of persons with a disability, adding this to the criminal code is a specific recognition in language. Again, it is something that I feel is important not only to the legal community but to those who for reasons not brought about by themselves find themselves deemed persons with disabilities who are in the court system and are faced with these types of designations. I feel that victims of sexual exploitation will receive and should receive the same evidentiary protections that are afforded to others. Again, this is a very practical and common sense amendment that takes place in the criminal code, one we are completely supportive of and embrace in this legislation.

The technical amendments for the firearms are straightforward. They deal with licensing requirements. I think the employees and businesses that deal with these regulated items are supportive of this for the most part. It is legislation that should have and could have been included in the original bill, as unpopular as that bill was. This aspect was left out. For employees who handle or could handle firearms or prohibited or restricted weapons or prohibited devices of any kind, it brings about, in the course of duty, requirements for being authorized and licensed with respect to restricted weapons. These proposed amendments set out similar licensing requirements that pertain to others who handle firearms.

Again I would suggest that although it is necessary, it is certainly an indication that the government was somewhat negligent in its initial drafting and that it is backpedalling on other aspects of the bill.

We have seen now that the government is extending the dates with respect to the fees associated with licensing. The legislation is something that will continue to be contentious and could well wind up as an election issue in the coming days or weeks when the Prime Minister and his spouse decide to pull the plug.

Overall we are supportive of most aspects of the legislation singularly. However, we are forced to deal with them jointly in the legislation because of the manner in which it has been brought forward. As I have indicated in my remarks, there are very positive and very practical elements to all of this. It is just unfortunate that the government has chosen to bring about legislation in this way and to do so in such a fashion.

One might also question the priority given to the bill. This is not to diminish the importance of any element of the legislation, but we also have important legislation that would offer tax relief and legislation aimed at bringing about or trying to fulfil a promise the government made seven and a half years ago to redraft and rework the youth criminal justice act. That simply has not come about because the government does not like to compromise.

The government does not like to work with the opposition even when there are reasonable requests and reasonable efforts made to improve government bills, or ideas that originate on the opposition side as we have seen in many instances. The government's response is usually not to embrace those ideas but to reject them in the first instance, and then in a very Janus faced fashion turn around and call them its own. We have seen that happen on many occasions. That is the Janus-like persona of the government.

We have seen it on free trade. We have seen it on the GST, privatization, helicopters, and the Pearson airport. The government said one thing in opposition. Then, lo and behold, when it was rewarded by the electorate for making these statements it crossed the floor, formed the government and reversed itself, swallowed itself whole and condemned the very ideas it purported to support when in opposition.

This is something for contemplation by the electorate, something that no doubt will be discussed and debated during the course of a campaign. Although I do not hear much hue and cry from the opposition to rush headlong to the polls, it is quite obvious that the Prime Minister feels it is to his optimum advantage at this time. Therefore, with his persona, he is very quick to use that advantage.

Canadians will have to assess whether it was necessary. They will have to assess the timing of it. They will also want to assess his record. They will want to assess what accomplishments he can point to in his government's mandate in the short time it has been here, just over three years since the last election.

The bill has provided the impetus for Canadians to hear from members of the opposition what they think of the legislation. Also it is an opportunity to talk generally about the government, its mandate, its priorities, and to assess whether those priorities are in line with those of Canadians who are suffering at this time because of problems with health care and in the education system.

My colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche talks often about student debt, individuals with seasonal employment situations who are struggling to get by and to feed their families, and individuals across the country who find themselves mired in the justice system because the wheels of justice turn so slowly.

Perhaps there will be more time on other occasions to discuss these greater issues, but at this time the Progressive Conservative Party looks forward to dealing with the bill at committee level and dealing with the other issues in a more comprehensive fashion at some time in the near future.