Vic Toews

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to add as well. The first issue I want to address is the issue of Bill C-68, the long gun registry.

As we know, that registry is now an $800 million boondoggle. It spends about $100 million a year of taxpayer money. We are very concerned. What the bill is doing is stripping more resources out of the health care and frontline policing.

These amendments are being introduced on the basis that this will introduce administrative efficiency. Administrative efficiency is important if someone is going somewhere. In this case we are placing into effect laws that provide efficiency on a road to nowhere. We are not going anywhere with this legislation. In fact, all we are doing is flushing taxpayer money down the toilet.

If people want to persist in being efficient in doing that, then the House has fallen a long way from the aim of providing good government to the people of Canada.

The second issue is, of course, the contentious issue regarding the animal cruelty sections. Members of the Alliance caucus have stated over and over again that we support tougher legislation in terms of penalties. We see that even with the existing legislation rarely does the crown ask for sentences that reflect the maximums permissible now. Nor do the courts impose anywhere near the maximum.

If this is what the bill would do, it will not accomplish anything in terms of creating tougher penalties.

What has caused me some concern today is an announcement by the member of parliament for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, in which he says he is now of the opinion that the bill is a good bill, on the basis that the Minister of Justice has promised him that we will see amendments not in this House, but in the other House. The Minister of Justice does not want to see the amendment that he is proposing scrutinized here. He is promising the rural members of the Liberal caucus that there will be an amendment produced in the other House.

If that amendment is worthy of consideration, why does the Minister of Justice not have the courage to put it before the elected representatives of the people to determine whether in fact this does ease some of our concerns?

I have had the opportunity to speak to the Minister of Justice about the bill. I said that there were a few minor amendments in terms of legislative work that could be put in place to make the bill satisfactory. One of these was simply giving substance to the assurances that were brought forward by the former minister of justice.

As we know, the sections are being moved out of the property sections of the criminal code and there will be a new shrine to animals in a particular part of the criminal code. Unfortunately, what the former minister of justice and now this Minister of Justice have failed to do is take those defences from section 429 applicable to property offences and also transfer them to this new area of the law.

The Minister of Justice has raised a very unique argument. The Minister of Justice says that not only are they implicit in the criminal code, but those same defences are available under subsection 8(3). This really does damage to the minister's credibility and indeed to his legal powers of observation.

If those defences in subsection 8(3) which relate to common law defences were exactly the same as those in section 429, which are now being destroyed, why did earlier parliaments see fit to have specific defences put into place in section 429 with respect to the animal cruelty sections? How could it be that by removing those specific guarantees made in respect of animal cruelty, we can say now that they were always there, that they were duplicated in subsection 8(3)? That is absolute nonsense. It does not stand the test of legal analysis.

What the minister is doing is honouring a political commitment that was made to radical, urban based animal rights groups, which was, if they were to help the former minister of justice in her riding in the last federal election, she would introduce this bill. We know that the agenda of these radical, urban based animal rights organizations is to destroy the animal production and husbandry business in Canada. That is simply their agenda.

What really bothers me is that the humane societies are all on board with these radical animal rights organizations. Of course they have been bought off. There are specific amendments that provide certain financial incentives for the humane societies to participate in the destruction of a rural way of life and animal production in Canada. That is really shameful. Unfortunately what the humane societies will learn is that once this legislation is passed, these animal rights organizations will turn on them in the same way that happened in the American experience.

I do not think we need to wait to allow history to repeat itself here. Aside from the very good work that human societies have done in investigating and enforcing not only criminal code provisions but provincial statutes, we have to be mindful of the concerns that have been raised with this bill.

It is not just in respect of the livelihood of farmers, ranchers and long established practices that are indeed humane, but with scientific researchers. We had the eminent Canadian, Mr. Pierre Berton, indicate in a letter to the committee, a letter which has been distributed in the House, that he was concerned that this legislation would put a chill into health research, research that helps Canadians in respect to so many issues.

I find it interesting that the Liberal majority would support legislation that permits scientific experimentation on human embryos, yet allow full protection to animals, so that animals are protected from research. Animals receive a higher priority from the government than human embryos do. Where is the rationale?

The Liberals can correct this by bringing the amendment they are talking about into the House, if they have the courage to face the members who are elected by the people of Canada rather than doing a shuffle with a back door deal with rural Liberal caucus members.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, closure is not just about the jackboot of the Liberal majority coming down on the neck of parliament, it means that the Liberals are bringing forward legislation that destroys the explicit defences available previously in the property sections.

The former minister said that the explicit defences that were now being destroyed by this legislation were in fact implicit in the legislation. We are talking about the civil and property rights of Canadian citizens. Interpretation is not enough; they need explicit protection.

Why will the minister not make explicit the defences that the former minister said were implicit? It is not good enough for the people of Canada to rely on the empty hollow assurances of this Minister of Justice. Why will he not do the right thing? Why will he not make the defences explicit so as to protect the people of Canada?

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

We made a mistake.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

A little above your head, Don.

[Privilege, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

[Criminal Code, May 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the matter. While I cannot speak for the Canadian Alliance on the issue I can speak for myself and my constituents.

I have no doubt that every member of the House is firmly opposed to all forms of genocide and the public incitement of hatred against others. At the same time it is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that any legislation to censure these acts is consistent with both the principle of fundamental justice and our Canadian ideal of a free and democratic society. I prefer to deal with the issue on a principled and rational basis than on the emotional basis that has sometimes accompanied the debate.

In 1995 the Reform Party put forward a persuasive argument against adding section 718.2 to the criminal code. The section instructs sentencing judges to take into consideration whether offences are motivated by hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental of physical disability, sexual orientation or any similar factor.

Reform Party members opposed the addition of the section on the basis that all criminals should receive appropriate sentences regardless of their reasons for committing a crime. The Alliance continues to maintain that political and social ideas that may motivate an offender to commit a crime are irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts of the crime and how to deal appropriately with the offender. Similarly, victims who suffer from crimes motivated by greed should never be treated with less dignity than victims of crime based on hatred.

For similar reasons members of the Canadian Alliance opposed the definition of terrorist activity in the first anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36, which referred to the religious, political or philosophical motivations of a person committing a terrorist act. People's political or religious thoughts at the time should have no bearing on whether they are convicted of a terrorist offence or on the severity of the sentence they receive if convicted.

The issues we are dealing with in the hate propaganda laws are somewhat more nuanced and complex. Some speakers glossed over the distinctions between hate propaganda and advocating genocide. These are very different issues and considerations, yet they seem to lump them all together.

I do not intend to wade into the convoluted and intricate arguments that surround the discussion of how freedom of speech can or cannot be applied to hate literature. However I would point to two specific concerns in the bill which must be addressed and which form the grounds of my opposition to the legislation.

First, the legislation would extend protection from hate propaganda to some groups while excluding others. While the bill would add sexual orientation to the list of groups who may claim protection from hate literature, a number of other Canadians who may be targeted for reasons of age, health, disability, social status or a number of other characteristics would not be afforded the same protection.

What concerns me is not only the piecemeal way we are approaching the law but the exclusion of a number of vulnerable groups in our society that are routinely subject to discrimination and inequality. Discrimination based on age will present an increasingly difficult moral dilemma in the ongoing public debate surrounding euthanasia and how we treat elderly members of our society. Promoting hatred or genocide against those perceived by some to be a drain or to no longer be contributing members of society is a real concern. It will undoubtedly present a challenge for us in the future, particularly in the contemporary climate of modern technology.

A more broadly based approach would assist in addressing the challenges the mentally or physically infirm may face from those who advocate eugenics or euthanasia. The unfortunate case of Robert Latimer, a father who took the life of his severely disabled daughter in the hopes of relieving her pain and suffering, has brought the issue to the forefront of moral and ethical debate in Canada.

Groups representing disabled Canadians have voiced concerns that they may become targets without their consent. To address the issue there are two possible solutions. First, the definition of identifiable group could be expanded along the lines of our current standard in the charter of rights and freedoms. The charter currently extends protection from discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

Amending the definition in this manner has been suggested in the past. In April, 1985 the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution recommended the definition be broadened to include sex, age, and mental or physical disability. The Law Reform Commission of Canada recommended the same so the provisions would be consistent with the charter of rights and freedoms. A broader definition would be consistent with international standards such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees that everyone is entitled to rights and freedoms:

--without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Second, I would prefer to remove the definition that applies to the offence of advocating genocide, since genocide in itself is self-defining. This way any group which found itself subject to abuse could seek and receive the necessary legal protection.

It is second reading and I am not entitled to move an amendment. It will therefore have to wait. At the same time, given the shortcomings of the bill I cannot support it either.

Another concern about the legislation relates to the issue of legal defences. Section 319 of the criminal code proscribes public incitement of hatred. One of the four defences set out in the section would likely preclude prosecution in the context of the expression of a religious opinion. Subsection 319(3) reads:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject--

These defences do not currently apply to section 318. There is a substantive difference between section 319 and section 318. However problems immediately arise that need to be addressed, and Bill C-415 ignores the difficulty in a simplistic way.

The absence of defences in section 318 could pose a problem for a number of common publications including the Bible, the most widely read and widely published book in Canada and across the globe. This would affect both Christians and Jews. In addition, many Muslims do not believe homosexuality should be permitted. Specific books of Islamic law dictate that homosexuals should be punished harshly. Under a broad definition of the law this could arguably fit into the definition of advocating genocide based on sexual orientation.

Is this the intention of the amendment? If it is, or if this is its effect, we cannot support it. I do not believe this kind of material was intended to be prohibited under these laws. However without specific defences in place individuals could be subject to costly prosecutions. Religious publications of many varieties could be subject to censorship or even prohibition. If Bill C-415 passes second reading we must require the committee to consider which legal defences would be appropriate in this context.

The Canadian Alliance has always promoted equal treatment of all Canadians under the law. However we are not in favour of preferential treatment of any group, something the legislation in its current form would do. We must be mindful that one man's or woman's freedom is not arbitrarily exchanged for another's based on what happens to be the current political flavour.

I will continue to work to extend equality and freedom from discrimination to all Canadians. Although I will not be supporting his bill I thank the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas for bringing the matter forward for debate.

[Government Grants, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that explanation goes nowhere. The solicitor general should not put political pressure on the RCMP. An independent police force is the hallmark of a democratic society.

How then can the solicitor general possibly suggest he was doing his job when he put political pressure on the RCMP commissioner to reconsider the decision? How can corrupting the RCMP be doing his job?

[Government Grants, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the president of Holland College is the brother of the solicitor general. In January the RCMP wrote Holland College to tell it there was no funding for its $3.5 million proposal.

Yesterday the Prime Minister admitted that the solicitor general raised this matter with the RCMP in a meeting in May. Today he admits that the solicitor general was lobbying.

Why did the solicitor general reopen this matter with the RCMP when the RCMP formally denied the request?

[Government Grants, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has raised all types of fog in trying to avoid the question. I have respect for the solicitor general. Why does the solicitor general not have the courage to stand in the House and state did he or did he not talk to the commissioner about this proposal? Regardless of whether it was his brother's college or somebody else's college, did he talk to the commissioner about this proposal?

[Government Grants, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think the people of Canada missed the answer to the question directed at the solicitor general.

My colleague asked him if he talked to the commissioner of the RCMP regarding the $3.5 million proposal from his brother who is the head of the college. There may well have been other colleges as well, but did he talk to the RCMP commissioner about that proposal?