Rob Moore

[Criminal Code, June 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-19. The bill seeks to re-enact in the Criminal Code the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions provisions. Many hon. members will be aware of this subject matter as it has been before Parliament on our agenda from time to time in recent years, most recently as Bill S-3 in the previous Parliament, which was passed by the Senate and debated at second reading in the House.

I am pleased the government has reintroduced this bill. It further demonstrates the unwaivering commitment of the government, and I should add, our Minister of Justice, to give law enforcement agencies the tools needed to safeguard our national security, while respecting human rights. It also offers Parliament the opportunity to re-enact those important provisions. I sincerely hope Parliament will seize this opportunity.

In the time available to me today, I would like to discuss the nature of the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions. In addition, I would like to revisit very briefly previous parliamentary debates on these matters to emphasize that the provisions contained in the bill, while substantially similar to those that were debated in the sunset debates, are also somewhat different.

The bill responds to many parliamentary recommendations that have been made previously. The bill proposes to re-enact the investigative hearing provisions, which will allow the courts, on an application by a peace officer, to compel someone with information about a past or future terrorism offence to appear before a judge to answer questions and when requested bring anything in the person's possession or control to the judge. The investigative hearing would be an information gathering tool in respect of terrorism offences. Its purpose would not be to charge or convict an individual with an criminal offence. The focus would be on questioning witnesses, not on cross-examining accused persons.

The bill would also seek to re-enact the recognizance with conditions as a measure that would be intended to assist peace officers to prevent imminent terrorist attacks. If a peace officer would have reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity would be carried out and would have reasonable grounds to suspect that the imposition of a recognizance on a particular person would be necessary to prevent such an activity from being carried out, then the peace officer could apply to a judge to have the person compelled to appear before a judge.

The judge would then consider whether it would be desirable to release the person or to impose reasonable conditions on the person. The government would bear the onus of showing why conditions should be imposed. The recognizance with conditions would be designed to aid the disruption of the preparatory phase of a terrorist activity. The recognizance with conditions has previously been referred to as preventative arrest, however, this is not a particularly apt characterization of the provision since it would only be used under exceptional circumstances that a person could be arrested without a warrant. However, even in this instance, the attorney general's consent would have to be obtained before the officer could lay the information before the judge.

The maximum period of detention when seeking a recognizance with conditions would generally be no more than 72 hours. If the judge were to determine that there would be no need for recognizance, the person would be released. However, if the court were to determine that a recognizance would be necessary but the person refused to enter into a recognizance, the person could be detained for up to 12 months.

I wish to touch briefly on the legislative history of these provisions and to remark upon them.

Members will no doubt be aware that the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions were initially part of the Anti-terrorism Act. These provisions were to expire, absent an extension agreement by both Houses of Parliament, at the end of the 15th sitting day of Parliament following December 31, 2006, which was March 1, 2007. The Anti-terrorism Act anticipated that the mandatory reviews of the act would be completed well in advance of the parliamentary debate on the extension of these sunsetting provisions. As it turned out, this was not the case.

In October 2006, the House of Commons subcommittee tabled an interim report recommending that the investigative hearing power be limited to the investigation of imminent and not past terrorism offences. It also proposed some technical amendments to the provisions, but otherwise approved of these powers and recommended extending them for five years subject to further review.

The government, however, had yet to hear from the special Senate committee, which was conducting its own review of the legislation. Indeed, the Senate committee report was not issued until February 22, 2007, just days before the vote on the extension of the powers. The special Senate committee recommended a three year renewal period for both powers.

On February 27, 2007, when the time came to vote on the motion to extend the provisions, the final report of the House of Commons subcommittee on the Anti-terrorism Act was still unavailable. Consequently, it was not practically possible for the government to respond to recommended changes before the vote.

Since that time, there was an opportunity for reflection and the government was able to respond by introducing Bill S-3 on October 23, 2007. Bill S-3 sought to re-enact the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions with additional safeguards and some technical changes that were responsive to many of the recommendations made by the two parliamentary committees that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act.

Further, the Senate made three amendments to former Bill S-3, including making mandatory a parliamentary review of these provisions.

Bill C-19 reintroduces former Bill S-3, as amended by the Senate. In addition, one further proposed amendment has been included in the new bill. This new change would clarify that the judicial power to order things into police custody at an investigative hearing would be discretionary rather than mandatory. This change would align the provision with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in application under section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, where the Supreme Court concluded that the investigative hearing provision conferred upon the judge considerable flexibility and discretion.

Thus, the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions proposals contained in this bill are not the same as those provisions that were debated during the sunset debate. While they are substantially similar, important changes have nevertheless been made to respond to parliamentary recommendations.

When the resolution to extend the life of these provisions was last debated, three arguments were made in support of sunsetting these provisions: one, that they had not yet been amended in accordance with the recommendations of the parliamentary committees; two, that the provisions were not necessary, given that they had rarely been used; and three, concerns were expressed regarding the protection of human rights. I would like to address these arguments.

In the time since the original provisions sunsetted, the amendments suggested by the parliamentary committees have been carefully considered. The large majority of these recommendations have been addressed in the bill, including with respect to a mandatory review, annual reporting requirements and various technical amendments.

Moreover, as I have indicated, the bill also includes the Senate amendments that were made during its consideration of former Bill S-3, as well as the additional amendment that I have highlighted.

The government has not taken up a particular recommendation made by the House subcommittee in its interim report. In that report it recommended that the investigative hearing not deal with information gathered in respect of past terrorism offences, but should be limited to the collection of information only in relation to imminent terrorist offences. In this regard, it should be noted that the special Senate committee did not take a similar position.

Perhaps when people speak of past terrorism offences, they may think in terms of years. For example, as we know, the tragedy of Air India happened in 1985. Bill C-19 recognizes the significant value of being able to acquire historical information as well as information that may prevent the commission of future terrorist acts. Accordingly it does not propose to limit the application of the information gathered in the investigative hearing to imminent terrorist offences.

As for the argument that the provisions are unnecessary, we need to be reminded of the increasing number of terrorist attacks all over the world and the gravity of the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, it is folly to believe that Canada and Canadians are immune from the threat of terrorism. If we look at this issue realistically, we know that this is not the case.

Terrorism trials are taking place in our country as we speak. Clearly the threat of a terrorist attack, which these provisions are designed to prevent, continues. We need to be ready to respond to terrorist threats and it is important that our law enforcement authorities are properly equipped to do so.

Both the investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions, as provided for in the bill, would be replete with human rights safeguards. With respect to the investigative hearing, these safeguards would include the following. There could be no investigative hearing without the consent of the relevant attorney general. Only a judge of the provincial court or of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction could hear a peace officer's application for an information gathering order and could preside over an information gathering proceeding.

There would have to be reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence has been or will be committed. The judge would have to be satisfied that reasonable attempts had been made to obtain the information by other means. The judge could include any terms and conditions in the order that the judge considered to be desirable to protect the interests of the witness or third parties. The witness would have the right to retain and instruct counsel at any stage of the proceeding.

The bill also incorporates protections against self-incrimination, including in relation to the derivative use of the evidence in further criminal proceedings against the person testifying, except for perjury or giving contradictory evidence.

Members should also be reminded that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the investigative hearing in 2004 in application under section 83.28 of the Criminal Code. I would note in this regard that the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the protection against self-incrimination found in the investigative hearing was greater than that afforded to witnesses compelled to testify in other proceedings, such as in a criminal trial.

[Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, June 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and again it is pretty typical of what I would expect from the other side.

We do appreciate the support for the bill, but a number of issues were raised, challenges with the current sex offender registry. It may be for the information of the member, but what police have told us over and over is that the problems with the current registry, and the lack of completeness in the registry that has been so detrimental, is the way it was drafted initially. It has left too many loopholes and that is why this bill will require mandatory inclusion in the sex offender registry and in the DNA data bank for someone who has committed one of these crimes.

He mentioned resources. Again, it was under the previous Liberal government that resources for police were cut to the bone.

He also mentioned the discomfort in talking about the rights of criminals. We have no discomfort on this side. We have been talking about the rights of law-abiding citizens, the rights of Canadians not to be victimized. That is why this piece of legislation has to be improved. We respect the human rights of all Canadians and the right of all Canadians to live in a country where they feel safe.

I have two questions for the member. Has anyone on his side explained why there were so many glaring holes left in the original registry that this bill is attempting to plug? Also, through the nineties, why was funding for the police and the RCMP slashed to the bone?

[Justice, May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced a very important piece of legislation that is this government's latest step in tackling crime. It includes the right of police to fingerprint a person who has been arrested for a serious indictable offence, such as murder, kidnapping and sexual assault. If the hon. member has a problem with that, I encourage him to explain it to his constituents.

[Justice, May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that Canadians know they can count on from this government, it is to stand up for the rights of victims, to stand up for the rights of law-abiding citizens, to take the criminal justice situation in this country seriously, and to do what it takes to protect Canadian society.

[Supreme Court Act, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member who just spoke and the member who sponsored this private member's bill, I believe that all members can agree that the Supreme Court consistently demonstrates that it has the capacity to conduct its business at the highest level in both official languages and there is no indication that the court has provided less than the highest quality of justice.

There has never been any question that the quality of the decisions of our highest court is lacking or that there is a failure to indeed understand the law. Is the hon. member suggesting that the rulings of our Supreme Court are not impartial and objective when the justices use the interpretive services available? With the greatest respect, if this is the suggestion, then I must disagree in the strongest possible terms.

To the contrary, institutions such as the Supreme Court of Canada have enabled our country to forge an international reputation as a peaceful, democratic and stable society. The court is respected and admired all around the world and stands as a symbol of Canada's shared commitment to opportunity, fairness and the rule of law.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst is concerned about the interpretation services at the Supreme Court and suggests his concerns are based on his experience with the interpretation service provided to this esteemed chamber. I do not think that the quality of interpretation, whatever the hon. member's concerns might be, is in any way relevant to this debate. The interpretation and translation services available at the Supreme Court are of the highest quality and the interpreters are professionals trained to capture the legal complexities of the arguments before the court.

No one can reasonably suggest that the judges of the Supreme Court are not able to fully appreciate and understand the representations made by lawyers during hearings. I am confident that the individuals appointed to the Supreme Court will continue to make an outstanding contribution to the work of the court and serve this country honourably. It is therefore essential that the best and the brightest be appointed on the basis of legal merit, excellence and personal suitability. Bilingualism is certainly an important factor to be considered prior to making an appointment, but must be weighed among many others.

I ask myself, would the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst like to see a highly qualified French jurist excluded from sitting on our highest court simply because he or she is not bilingual and does not possess the capacity to, in using the terminology of the hon. member, understand the subtleties of the law in the English language? I would suggest not. The hon. member's bill would do exactly that. It would exclude a brilliant mind from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada is in many respects a unique body because it usually sits collegially with all nine judges chosen from different regions of the country hearing some of the most important constitutional and legal cases of our times. Indeed, it was such considerations that militated in favour of exempting the Supreme Court from the duty imposed upon other federal courts in section 16 of the Official Languages Act in 1988.

I will again stress to hon. members the fact that this bill hinders regional representation by limiting the pool of qualified candidates in regions of the country where a percentage of potential qualified candidates capable of hearing a case in both official languages is not as high as in Quebec and in the member's home province of New Brunswick.

As the former president of the Canadian Bar Association said on the issue:

The CBA advocates appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada based solely on merit, and ultimately representative of the diversity of society as a whole. The CBA adds that bilingualism should be one aspect of merit in selecting candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court. Other qualities include high moral character, human qualities such as sympathy, generosity, charity, patience, experience in the law, intellectual and judgemental ability, good health and good work habits.

For all these reasons, I urge hon. members to oppose the bill.

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime).

The bill is aimed at tackling the separate but related problems of auto theft and trafficking in stolen property and other property obtained by crime. The bill reintroduces offences for tampering with a vehicle identification number and for trafficking in property obtained by a crime, which was initially set out in Bill C-53, a bill that our government introduced in the 39th Parliament.

Bill C-26 also proposes a new distinct offence of theft of a motor vehicle, which is similar to the offence proposed in Bill C-343, a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, which died on the order paper in the last Parliament. I would be remiss if I did not mention at this time the efforts of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his outstanding work on behalf of his constituents and for raising awareness of this serious issue.

Auto theft is one of the most pervasive forms of property crime in Canada. While there has been a downward trend in auto theft rates in the last decade, it stills remains one of the highest-volume offences in Canada. In its December 2008 report on motor vehicle theft, Statistics Canada reported that in 2007 approximately 146,000 motor vehicle thefts were reported to the police across Canada, averaging 400 thefts per day.

Motor vehicle theft has created a significant impact on owners, law enforcement and the insurance industry. The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that auto theft costs Canadian more than $1 billion each year, including non-insured vehicle theft, policing, health care, legal costs and out-of-pocket costs such as insurance deductibles.

Motor vehicle theft also creates public safety concerns for Canadians, as stolen vehicles are often involved in police chases or dangerous driving, which can result in injury or death to innocent bystanders. Such was the case of the tragic death of Theresa McEvoy, a Nova Scotia educator and mother of three children who was killed on October 14, 2004, when her car was struck by a youth driving a stolen vehicle. Sadly, this is not a rare incident. A study carried out by the National Committee to Reduce Auto Theft reported that in the period of 1999-2001, 81 people were killed as a result of auto theft and another 127 people were seriously injured.

The bill therefore proposes that a new offence of motor vehicle theft be added at section 333.1 of the Criminal Code. It is true that many offences in the Criminal Code already address motor vehicle theft, such as theft, fraud, joyriding, possession of property obtained by crime and flight from a police officer. However, the bill would create a distinct offence with an enhanced penalty for a third and subsequent conviction in the form of a mandatory minimum sentence of six months imprisonment.

The creation of this distinct offence is an important measure that will assist prosecutors. A problem currently facing the courts is that very often a prosecutor is unaware that the offender is a career car thief. Normally, the offender is simply charged with theft over $5,000 or possession of property over $5,000 and there is no indication on the available record as to the type of property that was stolen. The result is the prosecutor and the judge do not know if they are dealing with a prolific car thief or with a car thief involved with organized crime. The proposed distinct offence will help give the courts a clearer picture of the nature of the offender for bail hearings and when it comes time to impose a sentence.

In a report published in 2004, Statistics Canada estimated that roughly 20% of stolen cars were linked to organized crime activity. Organized crime groups participate in the trafficking of stolen autos in at least three ways. First, they operate chop shops, where stolen vehicles are disassembled and their parts are trafficked, often to unsuspecting customers. Second, organized crime is involved in the process of altering a car's legal identity through changing its vehicle identification number, commonly known as its VIN. Third, high-end, late-model luxury sedans and sport utility vehicles are exported from Canadian ports to far-off locations in areas such as Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

The bill takes serious steps to address organized crime's involvement in motor vehicle theft in a number of ways, including by the proposed creation of two new offences of general application that will target trafficking in property obtained by crime whether stolen property or property obtained by fraud or other crimes. Let me be clear, though. The scope of the proposed trafficking offences is comprehensive and will extend to all forms of trafficking and property obtained by crime, not just stolen autos.

To understand how the proposed offence of trafficking and property obtained by crime would help, consider what ultimately happens to personal property when it is stolen during a typical break and enter. Members in the House probably have constituents who can relate to the offence of break and enter. When thieves break into homes, the first thing they usually do with the goods is sell them to a fence, who buys them at a significant discount and then sells the stolen property at a profit, either to pawn shops, legitimate businesses or directly to customers who have ordered a specific item such as a high-end bicycle or electronics.

In the theft cycle it is the fence who provides the avenue to pursue the financial incentive that motivates the thief to commit the initial crime.

Another example of trafficking involves the stealing of vehicles to export or dismantle for parts. This is a lucrative business for organized crime and one that affects the legitimate retail industry. Stolen parts are easily fenced and often sold to unsuspecting customers or garages. It is far easier to traffic automotive parts than entire vehicles, especially when exporting by sea.

Selling automotive parts can also be more lucrative than selling an entire automobile because parts from cars older than five years old are often worth much more than the vehicle would be worth if it was sold as a whole.

Chop shops that disassemble stolen cars thrive in urban areas, especially those with easy access to ports. Canadian chop shops export automotive parts throughout the world.

Presently the general offence of possession of property obtained by crime in section 354 of our Criminal Code carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment for property valued over $5,000. It is the principle Criminal Code offence that is used to address trafficking in property obtained by crime. There is no specific trafficking offence that adequately captures the full range of activities involved in trafficking, such as selling, giving, transferring, transporting, importing, exporting, sending or delivering stolen goods. The current theft and possession provisions also do not recognize organized crime involvement in these activities.

There is an organized nature to the activities involved in dealing in property obtained by crime. Take auto theft as an example. Chop shops often keep as little inventory as possible to avoid detection and to minimize the risk of multiple counts in the event of a raid. The offence of possession of property obtained by crime does not capture the fact that the chop shop operation processes far more motor vehicles than are normally seized during a raid. Additionally, the police often only charge the person who is in possession of the property at the time of the raid. In many cases none of the other players can be fully prosecuted during the existing theft or possession offences.

To more effectively address organized crime, including commercial auto theft, it is necessary to target all the middlemen, including the seller, the distributor, the person chopping the car, the transporter and the person arranging and organizing these transactions. This is also the case in regard to the trafficking of stolen property in general.

The proposed reforms in Bill C-26 will give law enforcement and prosecutors new tools to target those who participate in any part of the entire range of activities that are involved in the disposal of illegally obtained goods. To this end, it will make it an offence to traffic in or possess for the purpose of trafficking in property obtained by crime.

The proposed offences will be based on a wide definition of trafficking. It will include the selling, giving, transferring, transporting, importing, exporting, sending or delivering of goods or offering to do any of the above. As such this, new law will target all of the middlemen who move stolen property from the initial criminal act through to its sale to the ultimate consumer.

I should mention that there are victims at both ends of the spectrum, the individuals who have had their property stolen and the unsuspecting purchasers of goods obtained through the theft from innocent victims.

This government believes that serious crime should be appropriately punished. Accordingly the proposed trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking offences will have higher penalties than the existing possession offence in section 354 of the Criminal Code. If the value of the item trafficked exceeds $5,000, the maximum penalty will be 14 years imprisonment. If the value is less than $5,000, the matter will be a hybrid offence and will carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment on indictment or six months on summary conviction.

As noted, the movement of stolen property across Canada's international borders, especially automobiles, is a particular problem. However, at our ports now, Canada Border Services Agency officials cannot use their administrative powers under the Customs Act to stop suspected stolen vehicles from leaving our ports. In order for the CBSA to be able to bar the cross-border movement of property obtained by crime, goods must first be classified as prohibited goods for the purpose of importation or exportation.

No such classification is currently set out under federal law. If customs officials come across suspected stolen automobiles, they do not currently have the administrative authority to detain the shipment, or even to determine themselves whether the cars are stolen by accessing databases. They can, of course, refer clear cases of criminal activity to the police, but the application of administrative customs' powers would be far more effective in helping to interdict the export of stolen goods.

To address this concern, I am pleased to say that the bill proposes to supply the necessary express prohibition against the importation or exportation of property obtained by crime. This would trigger the administrative enforcement powers of the Canada Border Services Agency.

In the case of auto theft, for example, CBSA officers would be able to investigate, identify and detain imported vehicles or vehicles about to be exported, and to search databases to determine whether such vehicles were indeed stolen. These actions could ultimately produce evidence that would allow the police to conduct criminal investigations and lay criminal charges.

As I have mentioned, another one of the ways in which organized vehicle theft is facilitated involves disguising the identity of stolen vehicles. This process involves stripping the vehicle of all existing labels, plates and other markings bearing the true vehicle identification number, and then manufacturing replacement labels, plates and other markings bearing a false vehicle identification number obtained from imported or salvaged vehicles.

There is currently no offence in the Criminal Code that directly prohibits tampering with a vehicle identification number. Like trafficking, the current Criminal Code provision used to address VIN tampering is the general offence of possession of property obtained by crime.

The proposed amendment would make it an offence to wholly or partially alter, obliterate or remove a VIN on a motor vehicle. Under the new offence, anyone convicted of tampering with a vehicle identification number could face imprisonment for a term of up to five years on indictment, or punishment on summary conviction.

As of October 1, 2008, when Bill C-13 came into force, the general penalty for an offence punishable on summary conviction is now a fine of not more than $5,000, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. This would be an additional offence. A person could be charged with both the possession of property obtained by crime and the proposed VIN tampering offence, which could result in a longer sentence. In order to ensure that the proposed VIN tampering offence does not capture lawful behaviour such as automobile body repair, recycling and wrecking, the offence also includes an express exemption provision.

This government is serious about fighting crime, and this legislation is a strong measure to help law enforcement and prosecutors punish criminals who commit auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime.

I want to take this opportunity to thank our Minister of Justice, who has carried the ball on a number of significant measures that tackle violent crime, gang crime, organized crime and motor vehicle theft. As he is fond of saying, we are just getting started.

There is so much more we can do, and we are doing that. This bill is a big part of protecting all Canadians from the offence of motor vehicle theft.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, what I have heard here is an example of an extremely flawed logic. It is the logic that got us into the mess of the gun registry in the first place.

The hon. member seems to believe that we should be targeting, with a giant bureaucracy costing over $1 billion, law-abiding citizens, citizens like the people who live in my riding of Fundy Royal, many of whom have never had a speeding ticket in their life. He wants to have a law that brings them into violation of the Criminal Code.

Yesterday we had an opportunity in the justice committee to target the real perpetrators of crime, target gang violence. Our government bill, which targets gang violence, was before the committee. It specifically targets the offence, which we all agree is a terrible offence, of drive-by shootings. Our bill has a mandatory minimum four year penalty for someone who commits a drive-by shooting but the hon. member introduced a motion that eliminated that mandatory minimum.

On one hand, we have someone saying that we should target the grandma and grandpa in my riding who happen to have a rifle or a shotgun, the people who have never been in violation of the law in their life, with a giant bureaucracy and bring the full weight of the federal government down on those people but do not target someone who has perpetrated the crime of a drive-by shooting. I do not understand the logic.

Could the member reconcile those differences?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. I always find it fascinating. The hon. member represents the riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. We share the town of Riverview. I represent a portion of the town of Riverview. It is a great town with great people. Yet in representing the same town, the member is in a party that I feel is in an alternate universe to where Canadians are when it comes to the justice system. It seemed incredulous to him that after three years of our being in government there is still crime in Canada.

I have to reject the premise of part of his speech where he said that we had indicated that this would be the be all and the end all. Our Minister of Justice and Attorney General has said that when it comes to criminal justice, we are just getting started. We have passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which raises the age of consent, toughens up on gun crime, and deals with dangerous offenders.

When the hon. member looks around at his colleagues in the Liberal Party, does he ever ask, to quote his leader, “After 13 years on justice, why did we not get it done?”

[Petitions, March 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition from a number of students in Saskatchewan. The petitioners call for a toughening of the laws dealing with illicit drugs, particularly illicit drugs in schools.

[Petitions, March 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by a number of citizens from Ontario. The petitioners call upon the government to take strong action in the Criminal Code on animal cruelty.