Don BOUDRIA

BOUDRIA, The Hon. Don, P.C., B.A.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Glengarry--Prescott--Russell (Ontario)
Birth Date
August 30, 1949
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Boudria
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=efec68a7-e1fd-490f-8b6a-95313440440c&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
public servant, purchasing agent

Parliamentary Career

September 4, 1984 - October 1, 1988
LIB
  Glengarry--Prescott--Russell (Ontario)
November 21, 1988 - September 8, 1993
LIB
  Glengarry--Prescott--Russell (Ontario)
  • Deputy Whip of the Liberal Party (December 1, 1988 - January 29, 1991)
  • Liberal Party Deputy House Leader (September 1, 1990 - November 1, 1993)
  • Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition (January 30, 1991 - November 1, 1993)
October 25, 1993 - April 27, 1997
LIB
  Glengarry--Prescott--Russell (Ontario)
  • Liberal Party Deputy House Leader (September 1, 1990 - November 1, 1993)
  • Deputy House Leader of the Official Opposition (January 30, 1991 - November 1, 1993)
  • Chief Government Whip's assistant (November 4, 1993 - September 26, 1994)
  • Deputy Whip of the Liberal Party (November 4, 1993 - September 26, 1994)
  • Chief Government Whip (September 15, 1994 - October 4, 1996)
  • Whip of the Liberal Party (September 15, 1994 - October 4, 1996)
  • Minister responsible for La Francophonie (October 4, 1996 - June 10, 1997)
  • Minister for International Cooperation (October 4, 1996 - June 10, 1997)
June 2, 1997 - October 22, 2000
LIB
  Glengarry--Prescott--Russell (Ontario)
  • Minister responsible for La Francophonie (October 4, 1996 - June 10, 1997)
  • Minister for International Cooperation (October 4, 1996 - June 10, 1997)
  • Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (June 11, 1997 - January 14, 2002)
  • Liberal Party House Leader (September 22, 1997 - January 14, 2002)
November 27, 2000 - May 23, 2004
LIB
  Glengarry--Prescott--Russell (Ontario)
  • Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (June 11, 1997 - January 14, 2002)
  • Liberal Party House Leader (September 22, 1997 - January 14, 2002)
  • Minister of Public Works and Government Services (January 15, 2002 - May 25, 2002)
  • Liberal Party House Leader (May 26, 2002 - December 11, 2003)
  • Minister of State (Without Portfolio) (May 26, 2002 - December 11, 2003)
  • Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (May 26, 2002 - December 11, 2003)
June 28, 2004 - November 29, 2005
LIB
  Glengarry--Prescott--Russell (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 1683)


November 21, 2005

Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-50, an act to amend the Criminal Code in respect of cruelty to animals.

As we have heard, a number of members on the other side of the House oppose the bill currently before it. We have just heard a member say that only specific interest groups, such as vegetarians and others he mentioned supported the bill—I have nothing against vegetarians, although I am not one myself—however, it is quite wrong to say that such is the case.

In 2003, the House passed the bill in question, which was sent to the Senate. It then proposed amendments, which the House considered and adopted. The bill could not be passed for lack of time.

I repeat what I said earlier. Some of these amendments were supported by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. It is not an interest group that deserves to be described as marginal or the like.

I heard the member for Leeds—Grenville claim that we in Canada passed laws that were not found anywhere else. People from outside Canada visiting his riding come from the state of New York, a few kilometres from where he is from, and the laws are that much stricter there.

I am not a believer in there being no laws at all. Of course, there should be a law, in criminal law, to prevent cruelty to animals while protecting the people of Canada, those who hunt and fish and pursue other similar activities. There is no need to say agriculture and the slaughter practices need to be protected—it goes without saying. These areas are clearly not covered by this bill. The proof of this is that national groups representing farmers have already confirmed it.

I will give another quote, “This amended legislation”, that is the bill as it is with the two amendments from before, “is technically sound and is as strong as ever”. With that, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture encouraged Parliament to pass the legislation.

As I said a while ago, the legislation then died on the order paper in the other place where there continued to be attention paid to two other amendments which were not requested or supported by industry groups or by the House. That is where we were in 2003.

Let us fast forward a little. In November 2004, several months after the opening of this Parliament, the Minister of Justice received a letter from a large coalition of industry groups that explicitly requested a retabling, which is not really the right word, but the reintroduction of a new bill on the issue of cruelty to animals with the amendments that I described, and those amendments are in the bill.

I will get back to the comments by the member for Prince Albert and the member for Leeds--Grenville. I will read into the record the names of these groups: the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association, the Ontario Farm Animal Council and the Dairy Farmers of Canada. They must know a little about animals. How about the Ontario Egg Producers? Some people were mentioning chicken a while ago. Those are the groups of people who are supporting this. Those are the people who asked us to go ahead with this bill.

I can go on. Some people will want to ask about hunting and about the raising of animals for fur. I am glad they asked. We have the Canada Mink Breeders Association, the Fur Institute of Canada and the Fur Council of Canada. People may then ask whether those using animals for research are against the bill. No. The Canadian Animal Health Institute, the Canadian Association of Laboratory Animal Sciences, the Canadians for Health Research and Canada's Research Base Pharmaceutical Companies are all in favour of the bill.

I say to the Conservatives across the way that it is high time they start to get with it. This is not an urban issue versus rural. It is nothing like that.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Criminal Code
Full View Permalink

November 21, 2005

Hon. Don Boudria

It is not sloppy legislation. If the hon. member across says that it is sloppy legislation, then he had better go to all these groups, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and tell them that all of them are wrong, if that is what he thinks. The hon. member across is entitled to say that all of the agricultural groups are wrong and maybe he can go tell them that they are wrong.

I understand tomorrow will be a big lobby day on the Hill for some of the agricultural industries, particularly in supply management. The reason I know this is that I am sponsoring the event, which will be a large social event. Perhaps the member could tell them how they are all wrong in supporting this bill. They will be pleased to know how the hon. member thinks he is so much smarter than all of them. They might have a different opinion of the hon. member after he has told them that but he is perfectly entitled to do so.

I will be at the lobby event tomorrow shaking hands with the hon. member when he enters the room to explain all this to my constituents, agricultural constituents and all the others across Canada who support the bill.

Just in case the hon. member and others did not get it, I will repeat what I said. The industry organizations wrote, as in paper, to the Minister of Justice before this legislation was introduced and requested it. All these agricultural organizations and everyone else who asked for the bill, who the hon. member says are wrong, wrote and requested this. With no disrespect, these people know a little bit more about agriculture than some of us and they are in favour of the bill.

These same groups wrote again to the minister in February 2005, three months before Bill C-50 was introduced, and again requested its introduction. I just happen to have the text of that letter here and it says, “We once again ask you to move forward with the reintroduction of Bill C-22”. Bill C-22 was the original bill as I indicated a while ago. People in the agricultural sector asked, not only once for the bill but they wrote a second letter asking for it again.

The moral of this story is that no matter whether one lives in urban Canada or rural Canada the issues are not that different. There will be people on the margins here and there, on the extreme side one way or the other, but no one can tell me that my constituents who work in agriculture are less conscious of proper animal husbandry and less conscious of issues involving cruelty to animals than people living in the urban parts of my constituency who may never have been inside a slaughter house or anything close to it. One might know more about how it is done than the other, and as someone who was raised on a farm I believe that, but that does not mean that one group is less concerned about animal welfare than the other.

When it is time for a cow to give birth, how many of us know that a farmer will be up all night attending to it? They take a lot of care in feeding their animals. Sometimes they are more careful with feeding their animals than they are with their own diet, but that is another matter.

All of that is to say that this is good legislation for either rural or urban Canada and it is supported by rural Canada.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Criminal Code
Full View Permalink

November 21, 2005

Hon. Don Boudria

I hope I do not crash.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Criminal Code
Full View Permalink

November 21, 2005

Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief so as not to delay the adoption at second reading of this bill, which will undergo consideration in committee very shortly.

We know that this is the second attempt—if that is the right term—to legislate in this area . As other parliamentarians have noted, there was Bill C-13. The use of DNA to identify genetic ties and so forth is completely new to all of us, the criminal justice system and even other sectors.

This completely new technology has been used for such purposes for several years now. It has proved effective, to the point that it can now be integrated into our criminal law procedures, particularly with regard to taking DNA samples. Previously, for example, fingerprints were taken or other methods used. Now, of course, our methods are much more sophisticated and the applications very different from those in the past.

According to the bill summary, the bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act—meaning Bill C-13—and the National Defence Act to facilitate the implementation of the acts in question.

The first element is somewhat different from the others. It:

(a) allows a court to require a person who is given notice of an application under subsection 487.055(1) of the Criminal Code and who wishes to participate in the hearing to appear by closed-circuit television or a similar means of communication;

Once again, this is very different, in technological terms, from the rest of the bill. However, this technology enables and allows Canadian criminal law to better function.

The second element also mentions the following:

(b) allows samples of bodily substances to be taken as soon as feasible after the time set by an order or a summons for the taking of the samples....

This is very important in order for a proper inquiry to take place to have a summons and then be able to utilize that instrument to obtain bodily samples in order to make the later determinations that are required.

The next element of the bill reads:

(c) requires the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy to destroy the bodily substances collected under an order or authorization and the information transmitted with it if, in the opinion of the Attorney General or the Director of Military Prosecutions, as the case may be, the offence to which the order or authorization relates is not a designated offence;

In other words, if the material was accumulated and it was not one of the designated offences, this is an order to have what was acquired destroyed. I believe a colleague from the New Democratic Party referred to these data banks based on people not having been convicted of anything or at least not having been convicted of offences where this would normally be permitted. In other words, we do not utilize the process for an offence that is not covered, obtain the information and then keep it in case someone does commit an offence in which it would qualify. Obviously that would not be appropriate.

The next element reads:

(d) enables the Commissioner to communicate internationally the information that may be communicated within Canada....

Consequently, if data has been collected in Canada in connection with what I have just listed, we are allowed, but only in keeping with Canadian legislation, to share that data with similar authorities in other countries. Once again, this is very logical, provided we keep within the guidelines we have set for ourselves in Canada, so as not to provide to a foreign authority information that it would not be acceptable to disclose within this country.

Lastly, the commissioner is authorized to communicate information for the purpose of the investigation of criminal offences, and to subsequently communicate that information for the purpose of the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences.

That is the main thrust of this bill, a bill I recommend to the House and will be pleased to support myself. I will not take up any more of the House's time, but will close by saying that I hope to see this bill passed in the very near future.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Criminal Code
Full View Permalink

November 21, 2005

Hon. Don Boudria

Madam Speaker, it is a little hard to follow what is going on across the way this afternoon. The first speaker on the opposition side said that he was in favour of the bill and wanted it to go to committee to see if the bill could be improved.

The second speaker said that he was against everything in the bill because, in his view, with his riding being close to the United States and so on, it would harm what he called the hunting and so on. Clearly, the bill does not do anything like that.

Then the member from St. Albert said that the only people supporting it were the special interest groups. We read, of course, that the special interest groups he referred to were all the agricultural organizations across Canada. Then of course he had to backtrack a little bit and redefine what he had said.

Now the hon. member is saying that we are adopting the bill because it pleases our friends who are judges and lawyers, or words to that effect.

Maybe they should have read the bill first and gave the speeches later, instead of the other way round.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Criminal Code
Full View Permalink