GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[English]

CRIMINAL LAW IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce second reading debate on Bill C-17.

Bill C-17 was originally introduced as Bill C-118 on December 14, 1995. At that time it was pointed out that it completed a series of significant criminal law reforms begun in June 1994 with the introduction of a similar bill, Bill C-42. Most of Bill C-42, now the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1994, was brought into force on February 15, 1995 with the remainder on April 1, 1995.

Historically, bills containing general Criminal Code amendments were introduced on a regular basis. However when Bill C-42 was being debated, it was noted that the last such bill was introduced in 1985. Therefore a commitment was given on behalf of the Minister of Justice at the time by the hon. member for London West to return to the previous pattern of periodically updating the criminal law. Bill C-17 is a product of that commitment.

Bill C-42 was well received and the Minister of Justice was asked by his provincial and territorial colleagues as recently as earlier this month at the annual meeting of federal, provincial and territorial Ministers of Justice to get on with producing the follow up bill to continue the development begun with Bill C-42.

This follow up bill which, if passed, would be known as the criminal law improvement act, 1996, focuses mainly on the Criminal Code. It also contains amendments to the Canada Evidence Act, the National Defence Act, the Seized Property Management Act and the Supreme Court Act.

The summary of the bill indicates that in developing this bill we have taken great care to obtain the input of those who have the greatest knowledge and hands on experience with our criminal justice system. The amendments in the bill originate from proposals made by the criminal law section of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, from the former Law Reform Commission of Canada, from numerous judges of provincial and federal courts, from members of the bar, from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, from the Canadian Police Association, the frontline officers, and from federal and provincial justice departments and officials.

There are also amendments which were suggested by other sources. For example in a letter to the Minister of Justice, Child Find Canada noted that authorizations for wiretaps cannot be obtained for certain abduction offences. As a result Bill C-17 will amend the definitions of offence in section 183 of the Criminal Code to include these abduction offences. Wiretaps will then be available.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities adopted a resolution aimed at making it easier for police to enforce the offence of obstructing persons in public places by loitering. As a result Bill C-17 will amend section 175(2) of the Criminal Code to make it easier for police to provide evidence in relation to loiterers who obstruct persons in public places.

The Canadian Bankers Association wrote the Minister of Justice indicating its concerns regarding the increasing number of high tech crimes involving credit cards and computers. The Insurance Bureau of Canada along with the Canadian police community pointed out that passengers in automobiles taken without the owner's consent could not be charged with joy riding as the code is currently drafted.

We appreciate it when concerned citizens tell me the problems they have identified with our criminal law. We are pleased to be able to address some of these concerns in this bill. Responding to the problems pointed out by the criminal justice professionals and the Canadian public can only enhance confidence in our criminal justice system. Indeed enhancing public confidence in our criminal justice system is one of the principal objectives of this initiative and of this government.

In Bill C-17 we also seek to make the Criminal Code provisions more cost-effective and more efficient, to implement or achieve compliance with court decisions, fill perceived gaps in the Criminal Code, to take advantage of advances in computer communications and video technology, to improve court procedures and to ensure greater fairness to the participants in the procedural process.

(1210 )

I am confident these proposals will result in a more cost effective system of criminal justice, without detracting from the fundamen-

tal fairness of our criminal justice system. Modernizing and streamlining our criminal law is particularly important in these times of fiscal restraint. We are all being asked to do more with less. This requires that scarce court resources be allocated wisely. It requires that available resources be devoted only to procedures that serve useful purposes.

We must do what we can to reduce pressures on justice budgets. This applies not just to the costs that police, prosecutors and the courts must bear, but to the legal costs associated with defending criminal charges whether these costs are paid by the accused persons or by legal aid.

In short, we are aiming at a smaller, more focused criminal justice system. The improvements proposed in this bill will take us a long way toward that goal.

One of the ways to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Criminal Code is to modernize certain in court and out of court procedures. For example, as it stands now, a peace officer who gives a notice or serves a document on an accused person or witness has to seek out a commissioner for taking oaths in order to swear out an affidavit. The only alternative, and it is even worse, is for the officer to appear as a witness in court to testify to that routine procedure. This is necessary, notwithstanding that the action is almost always uncontested in court.

With the amendment proposed in clause 2 of the bill, the peace officer would be able to prove the notice or service simply by making a statement in writing that he or she served the document or gave the notice. One province estimates that this simple amendment may save up to half a million dollars. More important, scarce police resources will be kept out of the court houses so that more time can be spent keeping our homes and streets safe.

Other amendments seek to take advantage of modern technology. For example, we will permit more court proceedings to be carried out using video conferencing technology. For bail hearings and non-testimonial portions of preliminary inquiries and trials, we will permit the proceedings to be conducted using closed circuit television between the place of confinement of the accused and the court.

Bill C-17 also seeks to improve trial procedure. Continual interruptions of the trial to resolve procedural issues can disrupt the orderly flow of evidence. In this age of court TV and all-news networks, most of us know what sidebars are. We know how tedious it can be to send out the jury while the lawyers wrangle with the judge.

Amendments to Bill C-17 will encourage lawyers to sort out more issues at pretrial conferences. For example, clause 73 proposes an amendment to section 625(1) of the Criminal Code to authorize a judge to hold a conference to deal with matters that, to promote a fair and expeditious hearing, would be better decided before the start of the proceedings and to make arrangements for decisions on those matters.

What might these matters be? This amendment reflects a recommendation made by the former Law Reform Commission of Canada in a study called ``Trial within a Reasonable Time''. The study stated that using the pretrial conference to allow the court to exercise control at an early stage would have clear benefits for bringing cases to trial within a reasonable time.

It suggested that many issues could be dealt with before trial. These included: whether the accused or the prosecutor intended to raise any matter capable of being dealt with by way of pretrial motions and arrangements for determining these motions; whether any party intended to raise any matter that would normally be dealt with in the absence of a jury and arrangements for hearing and determination of these matters; and whether an agreed statement of facts could be prepared or whether either party was prepared to make any admissions. These are examples of things that if sorted out as early as possible would expedite the trial.

(1215)

Another amendment proposed by the Law Reform Commission would explicitly provide authority for the trial judge to confer with the prosecution and defence on matters that should be explained to the jury and the instructions that should be given to assist the jury in its deliberations. The Law Reform Commission noted there is nothing to prevent judges from doing this now, but it has not been common practice.

Three reasons were given for this proposal. First, it would enable counsel to fully inform the judge of its views of the facts and the law. Second, it would permit counsel to prepare its arguments based on the legal principles on which the jury would be instructed. Third and perhaps most important, it would reduce counsel's objections to the charge, thereby reducing objections after the fact both at trial and on appeal. This change would accelerate the trend to develop standard jury instructions, which many believe will reduce the number of successful appeals.

Bill C-17 contains another amendment relating to jury trials. Jury trials are becoming lengthier and more complex. If during a trial a juror becomes indisposed or for any other reason is unable to continue, the code provides that the trail can continue as long as the number of jurors does not fall below 10.

What happens if a juror becomes indisposed or otherwise is unable to continue before the trial, that is before the jury has begun to hear evidence? Presently the only options are to stop the proceedings and hold another trial or to continue the trial and hope the other jurors do not become indisposed. This bill will provide a welcomed alternative. It will permit the replacement of a juror as long as the jury has not begun to hear evidence.

Bill C-42 made some changes aimed at improving efficiency through the use of technology. This bill continues that trend. I have already mentioned that provisions which will broaden the use of closed circuit television or similar technology on other proposed amendments take advantage of modern technology by permitting more warrants to be obtained using telephone or fax machine. It will also be possible for peace officers to lay informations by fax, and fax copies such as summons, warrants or subpoenas will be admissible as if they were the originals.

More changes of this kind are anticipated. My officials are working with provincial officials to determine what changes are needed to allow cases to be processed as much as possible outside the courtroom and to permit procedural functions to be carried out in a less labour intensive fashion.

A number of proposals in Bill C-17 relate to arrest, pretrial release and other matters involving police practices and procedures. These will enable the police to make better use of our shrinking police and court resources. For instance, we will permit police to release an arrested person on certain conditions relating to firearms, alcohol and drug use and reporting. If the police believe these conditions are needed the accused must be detained in custody until a hearing before the justice of the peace can be arranged. However, there is often agreement between the prosecutor and defence counsel on conditions, and the justice simply affirms the conditions accepted by the accused.

There is another extension of amendments adopted in Bill C-42 which permitted the release of an accused who was prepared to abide by certain other conditions. The earlier changes have reduced unnecessary pretrial custody for many accused persons. Police are able to spend more time on the beat preventing crime or detecting offenders rather than waiting in the corridors of courtrooms or police station lock-ups.

Court costs and legal aid costs have also been reduced. However, it has been observed that Bill C-42 provisions are not being used as often as they could be due to the absence of the three conditions now being proposed.

Another kind of change that will lead to a more effective, more efficient and less expensive criminal justice system is directed at trial procedures applicable to certain offences.

Presently the offences of unlawful confinement, break and enter of a non-dwelling house, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, forgery and uttering a forged document are indictable offences solely. This means that regardless of the seriousness of the offence or the circumstances of the offence the case will be tried in a superior court. It means that a preliminary inquiry will be held. It means a police officer will have to appear not only for the trial but for the preliminary hearing. It means witnesses will have to appear twice. As a result, the time and expense of dealing with these offences frequently are completely out of line with the severity of the offence.

(1220)

For example, forgery could involve merely a forgery of a $50 cheque. Nevertheless, to convict the accused, the system permits a preliminary inquiry and makes all the related demands on the police and witnesses. As a result, the police tell us they expend huge resources to deal with minor offences. Therefore, in light of their need to allocate resources wisely these offences may not even be pursued.

In Bill C-17 the choice of trial procedure, summary conviction or indictable, would be given to the crown for these offences. With this change the crown will be able to select a procedure more in tune with the likely sanction. This will keep more cases in provincial courts and relieve court congestion in the superior courts. Witnesses, particularly victims, will have to testify only once. The time needed to deal with these cases should be reduced, which is important in order to adhere to the requirements of the charter of rights and freedoms which mandates a trial within a reasonable time.

The sentences given in most cases for convictions of these offences are well within the summary conviction range. For example, 18 months for an unlawful confinement offence and 6 months for the others. Although the present maximum term of imprisonment for forgery offences will be reduced from 14 to 10 years, we do not anticipate that any of these changes will reduce the sentences for these offences. It is our view that having a statutory maximum sentence more in line with the sentences actually imposed increases the respect for the judicial system because it reduces the feelings of the convicted that they have gotten away with something after receiving a sentence so far removed from the maximum available.

A number of proposed amendments have to do with searches and seizures. With the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms the courts are increasingly scrutinizing actions by law enforcement personnel in investigations relating to offences. Perhaps the area most subject to attention relates to searches and seizures. Often whether a conviction or an acquittal will result depends on whether the court will admit evidence seized in a search. The charter guarantees everyone the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

With these amendments in Bill C-17 we seek to ensure that the police are able to do their jobs in a way which will conform to the charter. Some proposals would adjust provisions applicable to the property seized under a warrant or other statutory or common law authority. These are aimed at reducing the administrative burden on law enforcement agencies and persons from whom property has been seized.

Other proposals clarify that warrants for searches of computer systems can be obtained. They are modelled after provisions found in other statutes which explicitly deal with searches in relation to computers.

As mentioned already, other proposals would make it possible to obtain warrants using fax or telephone communications.

There are other proposals codifying the circumstances under which police and others performing statutory duties can search and seize without a warrant. For example, where exigent circumstances clearly exist, evidence of criminal activity in the plain view of police and others with law enforcement responsibility carrying out their lawful functions would also be subject to seizure and control under the criminal code.

When it would be necessary to execute a search warrant at night the justice would be able to authorize this only when satisfied there are reasonable grounds to do so. A justice would also have the authority to permit the sale or destruction of perishables or other things which depreciate rapidly.

(1225 )

Finally, a warrant would be available to obtain any handprint, fingerprint, footprint, foot impression, teeth impression or other print or impression provided that the criteria generally needed to obtain a search warrant exist and that it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so. This provision fills in a gap between the warrant for tangible evidence and the DNA warrant provided for in Bill C-104, which was enacted last session.

Obviously this bill is very wide ranging. It covers a wider range of matters than I have indicated in these remarks. Over 140 clauses of this bill contain many provisions that are technical and may not attract attention in the course of this debate, but along with those outlined they are all aimed at improving the administration of criminal justice in Canada and the confidence the public must have in our criminal law.

This bill has very broad support, including the provinces and territories, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association. It implements recommendations brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice by many disparate groups of Canadians, including judges, child care authorities and the Uniform Law Conference of Canada.

Therefore I call on all parties in the House to support Bill C-17 to improve the administration of criminal justice in Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, right off the bat I am going to make a liar of all those who say that the opposition is here for the sole purpose of criticizing and tearing apart the government's bills because, on the whole, the official opposition is in agreement with the amendments made to Bill C-17.

In effect, this bill amends the Criminal Code and several related acts, such as the Canada Evidence Act, the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, the Narcotic Control Act, the National Defence Act, the Seized Property Management Act and the Supreme Court Act. Clearly, this is an extremely broad bill, a bill that brings a breath of fresh air to a number of the aforementioned acts.

The proposed amendments range from a minor correction to the creation of new offences, particularly with respect to fraudulently using credit cards or fraudulently obtaining computer services. They complete the update of the Criminal Code undertaken by Bill C-42, passed on December 15, 1994.

Other measures are designed to modernize the legal system, by allowing general use, under certain conditions, of modern means of communication, such as closed circuit television, the telephone and the telecopier or fax machine. They will also help to reduce the cost of justice and increase the effectiveness of the courts by making it unnecessary to move inmates around, for example, or by making it easier to obtain search warrants.

This bill, as I have already said, creates mixed or hybrid charges, that is to say ones which could involve either summary conviction or indictment. These new hybrids are: break and enter into a place other than a dwelling-house, forceable confinement, unlawful presence in a dwelling house, forgery and uttering. This will have the effect of eliminating the necessity of a preliminary investigation prior to the hearing, when the Attorney General's prosecutor has opted to proceed via summary conviction. This will result in substantial savings of time and money, particularly legal aid fees. Pre-trial delays will also be reduced.

I feel that these are amendments which will be welcomed by all Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, since it is obvious that the longer a procedure takes, the more it will cost. The purpose of this bill is to shorten these delays.

As well, the indictment approach will be reserved for only the most serious crimes, as decided by the crown prosecutor. Thus, jury trials will be less common and the process will be shortened for cases deemed to be of lesser severity.

(1230)

Some of the proposals, however, immediately raise some questions, but I must point out immediately that these criticisms do not jeopardize our support of this bill, they merely raise certain legitimate concerns. It is, for instance, proposed to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning impaired driving, in

order to make it harder to use a defence that contests breathalyser readings.

From now on, if the amendment is passed by this House, the defence will have to produce evidence to show that the blood alcohol levels of the accused at the time the offence was alleged to have been committed did not exceed 80 milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood. In other words, the reversal of proof as we now know it. This amendment would put the onus on the accused to prove his innocence. This position raises questions about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In his effort to prevent people from driving with a alcohol reading over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, is the minister not running the risk of having innocent people charged?

It may be impossible for someone charged to establish that his blood alcohol level was below 8o milligrams and thus avoid the consequences of conviction, such as the loss of his driver's permit for a year, as is the case in most provinces. Here again, is this amendment justified?

This provision would certainly be contested in the courts, right up to the Supreme Court, because the consequences are extremely serious. We have only to look at the number of court cases and legal challenges to this provision. If the past is any indication of the future, clearly there will be cases in the lower courts that will go as high as the Supreme Court for clarification of this provision of the bill, if the bill is passed as it stands, of course. Rest assured that we will follow the consequences in law of this amendment with great interest.

Another provision proposed would increase the number of people detained. The court may order an accused to be held during proceedings on additional grounds. It will now be permissible to detain an accused for just cause, when detention is necessary, so as not to undermine the public's confidence in the administration of justice. At the moment, detention pending the end of proceedings is permissible only to ensure the accused's presence in court or to protect the public. As we are trying to keep as few people as possible in prison, I raise the question: Is it warranted to add these additional grounds?

Furthermore, it is up to us members to decide the grounds for detention. The expression ``just cause'' in the bill, like ``public interest'', opens the door to court interpretation, to a hundred uncertainties that will not be resolved until the Supreme Court establishes the meaning of these expressions. So, why, with this bill before us, not establish more guidelines to limit interpretation and achieve the objective we are aiming for with this bill?

Another proposed amendment will give police forces additional tools to find out who committed a crime by making it possible to get a warrant allowing a peace officer to obtain any handprint, fingerprint, footprint, foot impression, teeth impression or other print or impression of the body in respect of the person, provided, of course, that certain conditions are met.

The law already allows police to take samples of a bodily substance from someone for genetic analysis. These provisions also make it possible for an individual to prove that he or she is innocent. I think this amendment can help the accused prove his or her innocence just as much as it can help the prosecutor.

We suggest that this provision should be improved by making it possible to photograph a person or part of his or her body. This would help establish whether or not, for example, an accused has a tattoo or other distinguishing marks. In a recent sexual assault case-which, I am sure, hon. members remember-some children claimed that their assailant had certain marks on his body.

(1235)

One simple way to verify if these children were telling the truth would have been to obtain a warrant to photograph part of the accused's body. This would have made it possible to determine if the young people's accusations were justified and, as I said earlier, it would have helped the accused as much as the prosecutor if the information given by the children in this sexual assault case turned out to be false.

Another amendment in this bill is aimed at making it easier to prove that someone helped launder the proceeds from crime. I must say right away that this is a step forward. We in the opposition have sought and continue to seek a major change, or at least a tougher attitude, in this regard, given that several countries consider Canada as an ideal place to launder money. I think this amendment is a step forward, but we will still need to look very seriously into this issue at some point in time, to ensure that Canada does not keep this unenviable title of crime money laundering paradise.

For the time being however, as far as the bill before us, Bill C-17, is concerned, we suggest adding to the list of ways of participating in the laundering of proceeds of crime the fact that a person accepts that money be deposited in an account under his or her name, while knowing or believing this money was derived from a designated offence.

Recently, several people have received letters requesting permission to deposit certain amounts in their banks accounts. Again, this is a current concern. There was a piece on this in L'Actualité a few months ago. Those who accepted later found their bank accounts to have been emptied out. Certainly, there is an element of voluntary blindness in accepting money from some unknown source abroad, under the mere promise of an eventual profit. But it did not pay off in the end, as the defrauder, who had deposited money in their bank accounts, then took it out, along with all their savings. This may be one of the means used to hide and launder proceeds from crime and, as I said, I think it should be provided for and included in Bill C-17.

Other provisions complement existing provisions regarding credit card forgery and unlawfully obtaining computer services. For instance, it will now be illegal to possess or use a computer password to unlawfully obtain computer services. We must keep up with our times, and I think that the Criminal Code was in great need of updating, from a legal point of view, to be in step with new technologies, such as computer services.

Bill C-17 includes many amendments affecting existing acts. It goes without saying that I cannot discuss all of them in the time allotted to me, but I want to mention the main ones.

If the bill goes through, peace officers will be allowed to release a person arrested with or without a warrant by imposing conditions such as to abstain from possessing a firearm, to report at the times specified in the undertaking to a peace officer or other person, and to abstain from consuming alcohol or other intoxicating substances. These conditions would be in addition to those which peace officers may already impose. This provision will make it possible to release more quickly people who normally had to be taken before a justice of the peace within 24 hours, but who often ended up spending the weekend in jail in areas where justices of the peace and Crown attorneys are not readily available on weekends.

This is a fair measure which will benefit people living in regions, including my riding of Berthier-Montcalm. I was a lawyer before becoming a member of Parliament and I know that people in regions are sometimes penalized in that regard. Bill C-17 will improve the situation regarding weekend court appearances in the regions.

These increased powers for peace officers should almost eliminate the need for justices of the peace and Crown attorneys to hold court appearances on weekends for the release of people, when imposing usual conditions would ensure adequate protection of the public.

(1240)

This will be greatly appreciated by the justiciable, but also by taxpayers since, in the end, they are the ones paying for the costs related to the legal system.

Another good amendment included in the bill would allow an expert to testify by submitting a report, along with an affidavit or a solemn declaration. This exception to the rule prohibiting written testimonies will certainly be welcomed by expert witnesses, who have a busy schedule and who may even have to testify in two different places at the same time.

It will also be welcomed by taxpayers, given that an expert witness if often asked to testify at a certain place and time and that, for some reasons, the trial is postponed. The expert witness then has to come back again, thus increasing costs. Thanks to this amendment, experts will be allowed to submit their report, along with an affidavit, thus saving time and money.

The bill also includes a provision that will please an accused who fails to appear at the time and place stated in a notice for the purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act. From now on, a justice will be allowed to issue a warrant indicating a period during which proceedings are suspended, to allow the accused to voluntarily appear before a judge, thus avoiding arrest and detention until his or her appearance before a justice of the peace.

This procedure should also apply when an accused fails to appear before the court at any stage of the proceedings. Courts currently take the warrant under advisement when the absence of an accused seems justifiable or the situation could easily be corrected. But the legality of this measure of suspending an order is debatable and has the disadvantage that only the judge who ordered the suspension may take the final decision.

Therefore, you can see that on the whole the official opposition supports Bill C-17 now before us. But we have some concerns about a few minor points. I think that in this bill the government has shown itself to be open minded, that it has listened to those who said the Criminal Code should be modernized.

Since we have gone this far, we could perhaps clarify the points raised in order to prevent too broad an interpretation of the wording used, among other things, so that accused cannot take their case to higher courts, and even all the way to the Supreme Court, claiming Charter violations, as I mentioned earlier. For all these reasons, the official opposition will support the bill at this stage.

[English]

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-17 and I must oppose this bill. Bill C-17 contains a significant number of updates and improvements to the administration of law which are long overdue and the Reform Party supports this portion of the bill.

The efficiency of peace officers and courts would be aided through a number of the amendments contained within Bill C-17. Subclauses 4(6) and (7) of Bill C-17 will allow a peace officer to provide a statement of service without having to seek out a justice of the peace or notary to have the service sworn. This change will improve police officers' efficiency and reduce the workload of justices of the peace and redirect their expertise to where it is needed.

Similarly subclause 145(5) and a number of subsequent clauses of Bill C-17 will permit any peace officer to release an accused on recognizance. Currently only the officer in charge can do so. This

amendment improves police efficiency by negating the necessity to bring in the officer in charge for a mere procedural action.

(1245)

Reform members support the changes in this bill that would enhance the way the police and the courts would be able to conduct their business. We also support the portion of the bill which strengthens the proceeds of crime legislation by ensuring that criminals do not retain the profits of their crimes, but we cannot support Bill C-17.

We do not support Bill C-17 because we are vehemently opposed to that portion of the bill which lessens the penalty for certain offences. That the justice minister felt it was necessary to slip this into an otherwise supportable bill is very regrettable in my eyes.

We oppose Bill C-17 because it places Canadians at risk through continued Liberal leniency. The Reform Party will only support a judicial system, and changes within that system, that places the punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property ahead of all other objectives and considerations.

The justice minister has been less than forthright with Canadians about the full impact of Bill C-17. The minister has touted the merits of this bill in that it modernizes the law and streamlines court proceedings, but he has been noticeably silent about the reduction in penalties for certain very serious offences.

Although Reform supports the administrative changes contained within Bill C-17, I would be remiss if I did not say that this bill is a nebulous, inconsequential piece of legislation to the vast majority of Canadians because it will be of little significance to the enhancement of the safety of Canadians, their children and their property.

Canadians are very concerned about their personal security and that of their families. These administrative changes will do nothing to protect Canadians from the murderers, rapists and other sadistic criminals that roam our streets and enter our homes.

Bill C-17 will not stop serial child killer Clifford Olson from applying for early release. Only a bill repealing section 745 of the Criminal Code will keep Olson locked up where he belongs but the minister has not brought in a bill of this nature.

Bill C-17 will not stop Robert Noyes from sexually molesting another child. The former Ashcroft teacher admitted to abusing more than 60 children. As a dangerous offender, he was sentenced to an indefinite period of incarceration on 19 sex related charges and now the justice system is turning him loose. The National Parole Board has granted Noyes escorted temporary leave and if this goes well, in nine months he will be eligible for unescorted leave with day parole following. Only a bill like the one proposed by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley requiring the examination of sex offenders by two psychiatrists will keep people like this locked up where they belong.

Bill C-17 will not alleviate Canadian parents' fears that their children could be abducted, sexually molested or killed in any one of our communities or on our streets. The justice minister's news release at the time of the introduction of this bill stated these amendments illustrate further progress on the government's safe home, safe streets agenda. That is absolute nonsense. It is simply not true. How do you make safer streets and safer homes by reducing the penalties for crimes such as the forcible confinement of individuals and being unlawfully in their homes? I simply do not see it.

Canadians want substantive change within the justice system. They want legislation that effectively enhances public safety. They want legislation that sends a clear message to criminals that if you are going to commit the crime you must serve the time. Canadians want this legislation in the hope that it will deter ruthless thieves from entering and destroying the sanctity of their homes. Canadians want a bill which repeals section 745 of the Criminal Code. They want the Minister of Justice to vote in favour of victims and victims' rights. They do not want a minister that upholds and protects the rights of criminals to the detriment of the law-abiding, peace loving citizen.

Last year the minister voted against private member's Bill C-26, which would have extinguished the right of first degree murderers to a parole eligibility hearing after serving only 15 years of a life sentence. Canadians do not want the minister giving killers this so-called glimmer of hope. They want killers behind bars and they want them there for a minimum of 25 years as the law originally intended; not 15 years and not 20 years. Canadians overwhelmingly want murderers behind bars for the full length of their life sentences.

(1250)

What is the value of a human life to the justice minister, the Prime Minister, the Liberal government? Is it just 15 years? That is what they are telling the people of Canada. They are telling Canadians their laws are enhancing public safety. Nothing could be further from the truth.

August 12, the day Clifford Olson is eligible to apply for a parole eligibility hearing, is rapidly approaching and the minister still has not introduced a bill which will deny this serial child killer the right of appeal after serving just 15 years of a life sentence. That is how this justice minister is getting tough on crime. That is how he is making our streets and our homes safer.

Olson is not the only murderer with a glimmer of hope to get out before serving his full sentence. Ralph Ernest Malcolm Power is eligible July 10 to apply for early parole on his first degree murder conviction. In 1981, 28-year old Power, an ex-con out on mandatory supervision, beat 20-year old Sheryl Gardner's face to a bloody

pulp with a hammer. He confessed that he was attempting to stun her just a little so he could rape her. Power was arrested for the murder of Sheryl after attempting to kill another woman.

The Minister of Justice should have brought in a bill that would keep Clifford Olson, Ralph Power and many others behind bars. Why is the Minister of Justice not listening to the victims of violence and the Canadian Police Association? Why has the minister not repealed section 45 of the Criminal Code? The Minister of Justice should be dealing with crime first and then administrative matters, not vice versa.

In the wake of the horrific crimes against Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, capital punishment is resurfacing as a major issue with Canadians. The evidence is growing that if Canadians were given the opportunity to vote in a binding referendum on capital punishment, an initiative supported by the Reform Party, Canadians would choose to sentence our most ruthless and sadistic killers, like Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson, to death. The Liberal government refuses to give Canadians this right and this opportunity.

Canadians also want the Minister of Justice to bring in dangerous offender legislation. They want the minister to end statutory release. They want the minister to end the automatic release of prisoners after serving only two-thirds of their sentences even when signs indicate these people will commit further crimes. Melanie Carpenter who was kidnapped, raped and murdered is one of the latest victims of this kind of Liberal thinking and mentality.

The minister has promised to bring in an omnibus bill which will encompass these two initiatives, initiatives which would significantly enhance public safety, but we have yet to see the bill. Instead, all we have been given in the last year is Bill C-2 and Bill C-42 which amend the Judges Act, Bill C-9 which reinstituted the law commission, and now Bill C-17.

Bill C-27, which we support because it deals with child prostitution and stalking, should have pre-empted all of these bills. All Bills C-2, C-42, C-9 and now C-17 do is make life a little easier for those involved in the justice system. They do not and will not make Canadians safer.

In fact, Bill C-17 will give Canadians more reason to be concerned about home invasions because the Liberal government, through Bill C-17, has lessened the punishment for this Criminal Code offence. Bill C-17 reduces maximum sentences and changes strictly indictable offences to dual procedure offences.

The redesignation of offences from indictable to dual procedure permits and encourages judges to consider those offences as less serious and therefore permissive of lesser punishment to include mere financial penalties. While most of these offences are non-violent, with the exception of forcible confinement, they involve intrusion into the sanctity of our homes and forgery which may deprive our most vulnerable citizens, our seniors, of valuable financial assets.

(1255 )

According to Statistics Canada, in 1994 break and enter accounted for 15 per cent of all Criminal Code offences while 25 per cent of all Criminal Code offences were for property offences. Eighty-one per cent of break and enters involved forced entry. Property was damaged in 71 per cent of the cases and property was stolen in 81 per cent of cases.

Instead of expressing concern and outrage over these figures, the Liberal government is now saying these offences deserve a lesser penalty. These offences, which infringe on the financial and mental security of Canadian citizens, are going to be dealt with more leniently because of Bill C-17.

Unbeknownst to Canadians, the Liberal government has been slowly moving in this direction over the course of its mandate, a direction we are opposed to because not only has it not been sanctioned by Canadians, it may very well lead to an increase in crime, not a reduction, which is what we in this party, as most Canadians, seek.

A shift of this magnitude in how we punish-or should I say in a politically correct manner, how we hold criminals accountable for their actions-should be reviewed and then approved by the public. Bill C-41 which passed a year ago introduced alternative to incarceration. This portion of Bill C-41 was overshadowed by the hate crime part of the bill which gave an added protection under the law to a category of citizens, including those classified by sexual orientation.

If asked today I am confident very few Canadians would known that the Liberal government has provided the means for a whole host of criminals, including sex and other violent offenders, to do community work rather than spend time in jail.

It is most unfortunate Canadians were not aware of the full scope of Bill C-41 which was described by the Canadian Police Association in the following manner: ``Bill C-41 with few exceptions is unwieldy, complicated, internally self-contradictory, duplicitous and what is worse in all of it, completely unnecessary for anyone of any knowledge of or use for the common law heritage of Canada''.

The police went on to say: ``While it would attempt to codify basic sentencing principles, eliminating this most basic judicial discretion at that the same time it would bestow huge new discretionary powers to a whole range of persons within the justice system. The common thread in those new powers is that all are to the benefit of the offender in the sense of non-custodial consequences for criminal actions.

``Where sentencing reform calls for protection this bill offers platitudes, where it calls for clarity it offers confusion and outright hypocrisy. It will almost certainly cause the already skyrocketing criminal justice budget to expand further still.''

That was a statement made to the standing committee on Bill C-41. I could not have better summarized this Liberal justice bill nor the mentality or thinking behind it which is reflected again in Bill C-17. What better words to use than those of the Canadian Police Association, an authority to which the justice minister readily turned to add credence to his gun registration bill.

Section 717 of Bill C-41, the Liberal's response to the overcrowding in Canadian prisons, was the most contentious part of the bill. Rather than attempt to reduce or prevent crime by dealing with the causes of crime, something Reform has been urging the government to do, the Liberals have decided to turn prisoners loose, a sentiment which has been echoed by the former head of corrections services, Mr. John Edwards and the head of the parole board, Mr. Willie Gibbs.

We would not have objected so vehemently to this section of Bill C-41 if the government had specified which offences may be applicable to alternative measures. We could support the use of alternative measures for specific non-violent offences to reduce expensive court proceedings and incarceration. However, no such specifications appeared in Bill C-41.

The Canadian Police Association and the Victims of Violence recommended section 717 be amended to ``restrict the availability of the program to persons who have committed less serious offences and first time offenders''. Specifically reflecting the opinions expressed by these witnesses, the Reform Party introduced an amendment during the clause by clause consideration of that bill to limit the use of alternative measures to non-violent offences. Our amendment was defeated by the Liberal majority on that committee.

(1300)

Alternative measures have been used for years by police officers in this country. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has cautioned the police to restrictively use their discretion in dealing with offenders.

Fearing they could be violating an offender's right, the police are strictly playing by the book in many cases in arresting, charging and finally convicting an offender, whereas before if they picked someone up for a minor violation, they may have dealt with the matter informally, providing only a stern warning and exposing to them the threat of being charged the next time should they violate the law again.

I agree with the Canadian Police Association. We cannot limit police discretion in this area by creating an expensive unnecessary bureaucracy, such as that imposed by Bill C-41, which will potentially allow violent offenders to go free under the guise of alternatives to incarceration.

We cannot lessen the penalty for criminal offences as proposed by the justice minister in Bill C-17 and say to the people we are getting tougher on crime.

I draw to the attention of the House the sections of Bill C-17 which make it impossible for Reform to support this bill, a very small portion of an otherwise supportable bill.

The existing laws dealing with forceful confinement of a human being makes this offence an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years which classifies this as a very serious offence. If Bill C-17 passes unamended the severity of this offence will be lowered significantly. The maximum penalty will still be 10 years. However, it will become a dual procedure offence which may be processed by either indictment or summary conviction.

This means that under a summary conviction procedure this offence can be reduced to a maximum sentence of 18 months or only a fine of up to $2,000. The criminals who held in confinement a B.C. woman who was nine months pregnant could receive as little as a fine under this new amendment.

Is this making our streets and communities safer? I do not see it. I do not understand how. This Criminal Code amendment clearly signals to the courts this type of offence is to be treated in a less severe manner than is currently the case.

Admittedly, the Liberals may argue, the decision on whether to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction is made by the crown. The courts will undoubtedly be influenced by this downward trend in sentencing.

Section 348(1)(e) of the Criminal Code regarding breaking and entering for places other than a dwelling house will also be changed to a dual procedure offence. The maximum sentence will be reduced from 14 years to 10 years under indictment. Not only that, it can be tried by summary conviction with a maximum penalty of 18 months or simply a fine. What does this say to society? What does it say to the criminal element?

The offence of being unlawfully in a dwelling house, Criminal Code section 349(1), has also been changed to dual procedure with imprisonment up to 10 years or processed by summary conviction, again with a maximum penalty of 18 months or simply a fine.

Currently unlawfully being in a dwelling house is an indictable offence with a maximum imprisonment of up to 10 years. This is another downward trend in sentencing and flies in the face of the statement made by the justice minister that he is getting tough on crime.

Similarly, section 367 of the code regarding forgery and section 368(1), uttering forged documents, will be amended to dual procedure offences with imprisonment of up to 10 years or processed by summary conviction whereas the current punishment is indictable only with the imprisonment of up to 14 years. This is another unacceptable downward trend in sentencing that lessens

the penalty for serious crime which will not be lost on those who prey on innocent people.

Canada is faced with rising crime rates, particularly violent crime, rising fears regarding personal safety, escalating costs to administer justice and to house prisoners and, to top it all off, a growing debt which severely limits spending. The task of the federal Minister of Justice to deal with these problems in unison will be difficult but not insurmountable.

Bill C-17 is not at this time part of the answer. It does not address the increase in crime in Canada and it does absolutely nothing to confront the cause of crime.

Bill C-17 if enacted unamended will lend itself to an increase, not a decrease, in crime thereby threatening, not enhancing, public safety.

Bill C-17 is living proof the justice minister does not-I say this with respect-seem to know what he is doing. On one hand he states he will get tougher on crime, that he will make our streets and homes safer when what he is actually doing is making it easier on criminals by reducing penalties. I cannot do anything other than oppose Bill C-17.

(1305)

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The vote stands deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m.

* * *

CRIMINAL CODE

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-27.

In addition to the provisions of Bill C-119, which died on the Order Paper when the last session was prorogued, this bill includes provisions with respect to child sex tourism.

The government continues to have concerns regarding violence against women and children. These concerns have led us to present the amendments proposed in Bill C-27 addressing child prostitution, criminal harassment and female genital mutilation.

At the ninth U.N. conference on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders in Cairo in 1995, member states were urged to adopt effective measures against practices harmful to women and children.

In 1993 the United Nations declaration on the elimination of violence against women and the 1995 platform for action for the fourth world conference on women recognized that violence against women violates their human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Canada has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This bill will help to fulfil our commitment as set out in the convention to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and unlawful sexual practices. These concerns extend to the prostitution of children, whether in or outside Canada.

The improvements proposed in Bill C-27 are a first step in the federal response to the joint federal-provincial-territorial consultation on prostitution. While this consultation is still ongoing, the need to deal with the prostitution of children, that is persons under 18 years of age, has become increasingly apparent.

Our communities are alarmed at the growing number of young people involved in prostitution. Most adult prostitutes state they entered prostitution as youths. Both sex trade workers and professionals suggest the average age of entry is 14. There have been cases of children as young as 8 or 9 being sexually procured.

There have been extensive consultations on the subject of prostitution. There is a general feeling that the involvement of young persons in prostitution is the issue which most urgently needs to be dealt with.

(1310)

The preamble of Bill C-27 stresses the particular vulnerability of young people and their need for protection. It also stresses how reprehensible it is to involve youth in prostitution related activities and that the sexual exploitation of children is to be treated extremely seriously, including in the sentencing of such crimes.

The changes proposed in the bill are aimed at protecting children from adult predators who seek children for sexual services or to exploit young prostitutes for economic gain. They would make it easier to apprehend customers of young prostitutes by modifying a Criminal Code provision to make it illegal to attempt to procure the sexual services of a person the offender believes is under the age of 18. The evidentiary presumption has specifically been proposed to facilitate the proof of this belief.

One of the main points of discussion during consultations was that traditional policing methods are not appropriate for the enforcement of current Criminal Code provisions and that these provisions have not been very successful in allowing police to bring customers and procurers to justice in many jurisdictions.

These provisions work only when a prostitute gives evidence against a procurer, but in most cases child prostitutes do not wish to appear as witnesses against their pimps.

For the most part, the Criminal Code is enforceable only when the customer is caught in the act of obtaining sexual services from a young person for consideration. The proposed change in the wording of the relevant sections and the addition of a presumption would greatly assist the enforcement of these provisions. A new offence of aggravated procuring would carry a five year minimum sentence. It would also be created for those who for their own profit and while living on the avails of child prostitution use violence or intimidation in carrying out prostitution related activities.

It is our view society should denounce such a crime in strong terms and send a signal of the community's abhorrence of this type of crime by imposing a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Both public protection and the expression of public revulsion for such conduct would appear to require that a minimum time served in the correctional system be subject to legislative rather than judicial and administrative control.

Some persons believe prostitution is a victimless crime, that youths involved in prostitution are all on the street by choice. This perception might be exacerbated by the fact that only some prostitution related activities, as opposed to prostitution as a whole, constitute crime. This perception is wrong.

It is important to send a strong message of social disapproval with respect to the prostitution of young people. The creation of a mandatory minimum sentence will send the strong message that while procuring youth is never acceptable, as evidenced by the high sentences already included in the Criminal Code, procuring youth with these added serious circumstances is even less tolerable and is to be punished by severe sentences.

The creation of a separate aggravated offence assists in the fulfilling of the spirit of the red book commitment to toughen laws against pimps. Special protections to ease the burden for young persons testifying in court will be made available to child prostitutes testifying against their exploiters. These protections involve testimony from behind a screen and other methods of testifying that are less intimidating than a courtroom testimony such as videotaped evidence or the use of a closed circuit television system. Young prostitutes would have the same protection in this respect as other victims of child sexual abuse.

The bill also proposes to extend the use of devices such as a screen, closed circuit television or videotaped evidence to young victims of child pornography or assault.

(1315 )

Bill C-27 also proposes to allow the courts to make an order restricting the publication or broadcast of the identity of a complainant or witness in a prostitution related case. This will encourage prostitutes, particularly young prostitutes, to testify in these cases.

In addition to the legislative amendments of Bill C-27, efforts are being made to increase the awareness of justice system personnel regarding the exploitation and victimization resulting from prostitution. These include: developing models to provide training for police, prosecutors, judges, social workers who are involved with young prostitutes; encouraging provinces and territories to create strong police, crown and child welfare partnerships to deal with prostitution cases involving children; in co-operation with the provinces, developing an enforcement guide for the use of police and prosecutors in child prostitution cases; and encouraging provincial authorities to dedicate resources to fight child prostitution vigorously and to rigorously enforce the Criminal Code provisions focusing on pimps and customers of child prostitutes.

Bill C-27 also acts on the commitment made by this government in the February throne speech, namely the protection of the rights of children as a Canadian priority.

This bill proposes further amendments to the Criminal Code to enable criminal prosecution in Canada of Canadian citizens and permanent residents who travel abroad to engage in the sexual exploitation of children for money and other considerations. This practice, which is sometimes referred to as sex tourism, can only be stopped by international commitments and collaboration. Bill C-27 recognizes this commitment and sends a very strong message internationally about Canada's intolerance of such practices. With this amendment Canada will join 11 other countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Belgium, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and the United States which have already enacted similar legislative measures.

The federal government has made a strong commitment to address the serious problem of violence against women and children. Bill C-27 proposes to strengthen the existing Criminal Code prohibition of criminal harassment or stalking as it is sometimes referred to. These amendments will serve to provide increased protection to women and children who are the primary victims of criminal harassment from such conduct.

These proposals also respond to an earlier commitment the Minister of Justice made in response to recommendations made by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice and by other partners in the criminal justice system.

Bill C-27 proposes that a person who commits murder while stalking in circumstances where he or she intended to make the victim fear for their safety or the safety of others, for example the victim's children, can be found guilty of first degree murder whether or not it can be proved that the murder itself was planned and deliberate.

First degree murder carries a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 25 years. This amendment clearly indicates that murder committed in the course of stalking a victim is an exceptionally serious crime and will be treated as such.

Bill C-27 further proposes that a court imposing a sentence on a person who is convicted of stalking while under a restraining order or peace bond shall treat that as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

Another proposal in this bill concerns the practice of female genital mutilation which involves excising or mutilating the genitals of female infants or children. This practice can cause severe and irreversible health problems. The Department of Justice is currently collaborating with Health Canada, the Status of Women, Canadian Heritage, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada on the development of public legal, health and cultural education and information materials on female genital mutilation.

It has been the government's position, and still is, that female genital mutilation is already covered by the Criminal Code. We are nevertheless proposing an amendment to clarify this prohibition so that it will be very clear that no form of female genital mutilation is permitted by Canadian law. I am confident this clarification together with our collaborative efforts on public education and information will play an important role in protecting Canadian children from the practice of female genital mutilation.

(1320)

Finally, Bill C-27 contains minor amendments to some prostitution offences with a view to removing archaic terminologies such as references to ``house of assignation'' or a ``person of known immoral character''.

As I have said, our Canadian youth matter a great deal. We are demonstrating our leadership by squarely addressing several issues where young people in particular are vulnerable: juvenile prostitution, child sex tourism, female genital mutilation. It is important to send a strong message of social disapproval with respect to the abuse, exploitation and prostitution of young people. Young people deserve our respect. Young people need our protection.

In Bill C-27 we are dealing with the important issue of criminal harassment. Women and children are more frequent victims of stalking. They should be protected. This bill is important for all Canadians. It is in keeping with the ideals of Canadian society, a society which does not tolerate violence against women and children. Bill C-27 will help curb the problem of abuse and violence against women and children.

I would particularly like to commend the efforts of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice. Both have worked very hard in these regards and both very strongly, precisely and ably have spoken out to protect those who are most vulnerable in our society.

I seek the support of the House for swift passage of this bill.

[Translation]

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 addresses a number of issues, including female genital mutilation, criminal harassment, child sex tourism, testimony by children and procuring.

I will deal first with child sex tourism, and then female genital mutilation. Both are problems I feel a particular concern about, having initiated the related bills. I will conclude by discussing the three other aspects of the bill.

First of all, I will look at child sex tourism. I will begin by telling you a story reported in the November 1993 Reader's Digest.

In 1992, near the border of Thailand, a young girl of 14 was walking toward the rice fields where her parents were working. Suddenly, a truck stopped in front of her and the driver forced her to get in. She was illegally confined in a brothel in Bangkok and raped ten times a day. When she cried out, she was beaten. She was robbed of her youth.

In another country, Sri Lanka, men from London, Stuttgart, and San Francisco tan on the beach. Not far away, young Ceylonese boys lie on the sand. A middle-aged German accosts a ten-year old. He asks his name and, without any further ado, orders him to accompany him to his hotel. This is how they contribute to the country's economy, it is said.

These are just two of hundreds of cases reported by journalists and others who have looked into child sex tourism. These two

examples are a good illustration of the terrible reality behind the sexual exploitation of children.

As I have just said, this is a terrible reality, because we have here one of mankind's most reprehensible behaviours, the exploitation and victimization of children for sexual reward.

What makes child sex tourism particularly terrible is that the children that are its victims are already disadvantaged. They are poor and come from developing countries where people's basic needs are not always met, far from it.

In the name of the almighty dollar, these children are kidnapped, held in brothels, beaten, humiliated and continually exposed to the worst diseases, from which they will eventually die in their early twenties, just when our children are entering adulthood and setting out on a life full of promise. That is the ``local'' aspect of the operation.

(1325)

Then there is the customer, who comes from a rich country and is personally well off. This person can afford trips to exotic countries for the purpose, sometimes the sole purpose, of purchasing the sexual services of children.

Let us not fool ourselves, this customer knows full well that he is committing a criminal act. He knows full well that involvement in the same activity in his own country would put him at risk of landing in jail for several years. This very morning, our newspapers were reporting that an Ontario man had been sentenced to three years in prison for having been found guilty of sexual relations with children between the ages of 9 and 14.

Just because this is taking place elsewhere is not a reason not be concerned by it. As I was saying, the customer knows full well that this is one of the behaviours his society tolerates least. Why then should he feel so free to go abroad to take advantage of children in other countries?

Some of these homosexual pedophiles claim to feel great love for their victims, and claim that the children feel the same way about them. They also claim that our laws are prohibitive and ought to acknowledge the possibility of supposedly affectionate relations between adults and children.

I would remind you that these children are often no more than 10 years old, sometimes even younger. This is an absolutely fallacious argument. How can anyone believe that a child forced to prostitute himself with strangers, sometimes horrifying numbers of them in one day, can feel any sort of affection whatsoever for his aggressors? The answer to this question is so obvious as to not even merit a reply.

Another argument these tourists raise is the matter of cultural differences. They claim that in the countries where they go to purchase the services of children there is a different mentality, that these youngsters are love children, that sexual morality is different there, that sexual relations between children and adults are perceived differently, are part of the mores of the country. What nonsense.

We need only listen to the testimony of these poor children to know that this argument is, at the very least, misleading propaganda and, at most, a totally abusive justification of attacks on defenceless victims who are totally at the mercy of their tormenters.

What is more, how could these same people explain that these same foreign countries themselves have legislation against juvenile prostitution? Are not the laws of a country supposed to reflect the morality of its people?

While it appears true that, in certain countries, the laws on child prostitution are not being applied as fully as they ought, we must not rule out poverty based corruption as an explanation. It is in no way a matter of different sexual morals.

Our society does not tolerate the purchase of sexual services from children, whether at home or abroad. Our society does not tolerate the kidnapping of children, who are mistreated in order to provide thrills for certain adults. This practice flies in the face of all the rights accorded children globally, nationally or internationally. A child's right to safety, health and life is sacred. All our laws are aimed at protecting them. Our criminal code, our charters, our laws on child protection all have only one aim, which is to ensure that all children live in safety, free from exploitation and mistreatment. Regardless of sexual tourists' fine words, their degrading behaviour violates the fundamental rights of their victims. These tourists are intolerable; they are criminals.

This brings us to Bill C-27, which contains a provision making it easier to arrest and prosecute the clientele of children involved in prostitution in Canada and abroad.

(1330)

This breaks new legal ground, because of the extraterritorial scope accorded the Criminal Code. With this new legislation, the authorities will now be able to prosecute Canadian nationals buying the sexual services of children abroad.

I am delighted by this government initiative. I am particularly happy because this is an area that concerns me a lot and that was the focus of a private member's bill I introduced in this House over a year ago. I was contacted after introducing it by organizations and people thanking me and encouraging me to continue to help protect defenceless children.

As a member of Parliament, I can only be happy to make a contribution, however modest it may be, to this cause untiringly fought for out there by many people who care about defending children and who, in some cases, put their own lives at risk. I thank

the Hon. Minister of Justice for recognizing the importance of legislating in this area.

I, however, have a few comments to make regarding the kind of action taken by the minister in this matter. I think that two important elements are missing from this bill. I am speaking of the impact of this bill in terms of quality and of the role it is playing in the commission of a crime. Let me explain.

First of all, Bill C-27 provides only for the prosecution of Canadian citizens and landed immigrants. I think this category is too narrow and I intend to propose, during committee consideration, that the minister expand the classes of people who can be prosecuted. I think it is important that any individual, regardless of his or her legal status in Canada, be subject to prosecution if he or she commits this crime. I think the bill is too restrictive in this regard.

Second, I think this bill must specifically target not only the customers but also all the people and companies directly or indirectly involved in this kind of sex tourism. The law should explicitly prohibit travel agencies and carriers from participating in or promoting this trade.

I think the culpability of promoters and carriers must be recognized since these people benefit from and promote sex tourism just to make money. This is another amendment we should consider.

I would now like to move on to the second part of Bill C-27, which deals with female genital mutilation. As in the case of sex tourism, I am pleased to note that the Minister of Justice has seen fit to take action to amend the Criminal Code for the purpose of naming and prohibiting the practice of female genital mutilation.

Both these practices deny children's right to personal security and, in some cases, their right to life. They are therefore very important. In September 1994, I introduced at first reading a bill that would prohibit the practice of female genital mutilation and provide for the prosecution of those involved. That bill is now at the committee stage.

My bill attracted the attention of many people and organizations in both Quebec and Canada. I noticed how seriously groups dealing with health and social issues, groups involved in putting an end to violence against women got together to examine the situation and try to remedy it.

As in the case of child sex tourism, there is a consensus not only internationally, but also nationally and locally, around the fact that genital mutilation should be eradicated. Mutilation violates women's right to life and security of the person and, as such, cannot be tolerated.

I spoke at length about this subject in the House. Now the time has come to stop talking and start acting. Once a consensus has been achieved, we must look at what can be done.

(1335)

I also noted, much to my relief, the climate of respect and sensitivity in which the debates on this subject take place. Every conversation I have had, every discussion meeting I have attended and every study I have read have all been stamped with profound respect for the person, whether the victim or those close to them. The consensus is that this practice must end, but the means developed to achieve this goal show great respect for those concerned.

For instance, there is much talk about educating affected communities and about the difference between respecting a cultural practice and respecting basic human rights. I think we are on the right track and I am convinced that it is not by denigrating individuals that we will succeed in getting them to give up certain practices.

Having said that, even if education and information are the basic tools of the fight against genital mutilation, the fact remains that penalties must be provided for in the legislation for those who knowingly carry on a practice violating human rights. In that sense, the minister's initiative addresses my concerns and those of every person concerned about mutilation.

I commend this initiative, even though, as I said, it has its flaws. Before looking at these flaws, I must insist on the importance of having a common goal. I know that we all have the same goal, which will ensure that the best possible legislation will be passed.

As for the flaws of this legislation, I want to say a word on the approach used by the minister to prohibit female genital mutilation. Contrary to my bill, which established a new offence, Bill C-27 merely points out that female genital mutilation is a form of aggravated assault.

In other words, the bill only makes the definition more clear. This way of doing things will not enable us to reach our objective. Through readings and conversations, I have learned that members of the communities still practising genital mutilation are not at all aware of the fact that they are actually taking part in a form of aggravated assault. In fact, most of these people would take exception to such a view.

Therefore, since these people feel the operation is merely a cultural practice, in fact a necessary one, it should be dissociated from the usual notion of aggravated assault. The Criminal Code must include a provision dealing exclusively with female genital mutilation, to make people aware of the fact that this specific practice is illegal.

There is another flaw in Bill C-27 regarding the persons associated with this practice. Indeed, the prohibition only applies

to those actually performing the surgical procedure. This is an essential first step. However, as I said on numerous occasions, it is also important, if we are to reach our goal of eradicating this practice, that all those involved be sued, whether it is a family member giving the authorization, a person looking after the travel arrangements of the victim to the country of origin, or of the midwife to Canada, or a person who, for example, puts parents in contact with someone prepared to perform the operation.

Why charge everyone involved? Because this is a cultural practice, it is of primary importance for concerned members of the community to feel answerable to the law. In order to eradicate a practice, all those involved must be made to feel responsible. They must be made to know that, like any other act that is deemed to be criminal, any form of participation in the commission of that act is punishable. Thus, if each individual involved is aware that his role contributes to the commission of a criminal act, the chance of the operation being done successfully are reduced accordingly.

If one link in the chain is missing, the chain is likely to be broken, and that is what we want. We want to see the chain broken so that the physical integrity of women and young girls is respected.

(1340)

Since, by definition, genital mutilation require a very young victim, obviously a person in authority must give authorization. It is said that some six million women yearly undergo excision. Obviously, the person who does this must be recruited by someone. It also seems that, in many cases, the child is taken out of the country to undergo the operation.

She does not get there alone. If one of the people involved did not fulfil his or her role, the operation would not take place. It is important, therefore, to include in a legal text that these persons are committing a criminal act by playing their role in it. It is important that they know that they will be punished. The practice will be ended if all of the bases are covered.

As well, since we know that the operation on Canadian nationals is often carried out outside the country, I am suggesting that the minister do as he has done in the case of child sex tourism and include extraterritoriality in the section pertaining to female genital mutilation. This would allow Canadian prosecution of persons taking a child abroad or organizing such a trip for the purpose of this operation. This extraterritoriality would make it possible to stop people from continuing to work around the law and would protect the children more effectively, which is, I say again, the purpose of the bill.

Third, I would like to again question the exception for supposedly ``necessary'' surgical procedures. Discussions I have had with a representative of Canada's obstetricians and gynaecologists and the positions taken by physicians' associations have convinced me that there is absolutely no need for such an exception and that, in fact, its effect might be the opposite of that intended by the law.

In fact, I wonder whether such an exception might not lead to operations on the grounds they are necessary for a woman's health. From the information I received, physicians do not need legislation to know when a medical intervention is necessary. As they do not consider female genital mutilation a medical intervention, there is no need for its mention in the text of a law. I consider therefore that this exception should be eliminated.

Finally, I would like to debate the possibility provided in Bill C-27 of an adult's consenting to a form of genital mutilation. I reject this possibility as strongly as I possibly can, because it runs completely counter to the intended objective, which is eradicating female genital mutilation.

In the name of what principle exactly can the text of a law provide that an individual may consent to being mutilated? How do we expect to put an end to a centuries old cultural practice widely followed in certain cultures by permitting its being done to adults? How can we lose sight of the fact that family and social pressure may force women to agree to the operation when they reach age 18, the age of majority?

I cannot accept our protecting women before they reach the age of majority and subsequently leaving them unprotected. Female genital mutilation, like the sexual exploitation of children, must be stopped. I will be happy to co-operate with the Minister of Justice to come up with the best possible legislation on these two aspects of the government bill.

As the House knows, Bill C-27 addresses other key issues in protecting women and children. I would like to take a quick look at them, although I expect some of my colleagues to do a more in-depth analysis. Criminal harassment is a relatively recent offence in the history of our criminal law. In fact, it was only in 1991 that the government finally bowed to the arguments made by women, who had for a long time demanded protection against criminal harassment.

(1345)

Criminal harassment is an insidious form of violence against women. It shows the possessive jealously some men feel toward their wives. This feeling causes them to take some very specific actions against their victims such as spying on everything they do, making threats and trying to intimidate them.

A criminal harassment victim is not free and never feels safe. Her whole life and that of other people around her is affected to a significant degree by the harasser's behaviour and the fears it arouses.

Apparently, women have not won this battle yet, given the judicial system's anemic response to the 1991 legislative initiative. That is why we now find in Bill C-27 a new provision that would give some teeth to those already in place. We agree.

The effort to eliminate violence against women must be taken seriously by all stakeholders, be they police officers, Crown prosecutors or judges. How many women killed by their former husbands were harassed by them long before and right until they died? How many women fruitlessly appealed for help until it was too late?

The Bloc Quebecois strongly supports any measure to protect the lives of women and save them from the most pernicious kind of violence, the kind perpetrated by a spouse or former spouse.

Bill C-27 also addresses another crime: child prostitution. More adults exploiting children for sexual purposes or for the purpose of gain. In fact, what pimps are doing with their victims is a form of modern-day slavery which is, still today, condemned by the International Labour Office. Data issued by the office show that tens of millions of children have been enslaved, and a great many of them in the sex industry. That is what the papers were reporting this morning.

As we know, often pimps do not only exploit their victims, they also abuse them. It is a hellish situation young prostitutes. both boys and girls, have the greatest difficulty getting out of. Those who succeed need years to piece their lives back together.

Léon Bernier and Jean Trépanier, two Quebec researchers who looked into the issue of juvenile prostitution, have compiled a list of problems related to prostitution. This list includes sexually transmitted diseases, emotional disturbances and socio-affective disorders, violence, delinquency and drug use.

The Bloc Quebecois agrees with imposing stiffer sentences on pimps who use violence and live off the proceeds of the exploitation of youngsters.

As far as the provision on agents provocateurs is concerned, however, we think perhaps further consideration is required, in the context where it may not necessarily be the role of the state to trip up individual citizens. We therefore urge the minister to think this over.

Finally, I would like to assure the justice minister of the Bloc Quebecois' support for those provisions that will help young prostitutes come out and testify against their pimps. By allowing special measures to extend to the testimony of young victims of violence or procuring as well as of witnesses under the age of 18 in such matters, the government is seeking to reduce procuring through the conviction of those who commit a crime which, in my sense, is the most blameworthy of all crimes: child abuse.

Any society that respects itself and wishes to survive protects its children. We will support any measure geared to achieving this objective while not violating basic human rights.

(1350)

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-27. This is one of the few times the Minister of Justice has put together legislation that goes somewhat in the right direction.

Looking back over the last few years, much from the Department of Justice was based on the bleeding heart mentality of the Liberals. One might say they had no sense of direction and no sense of putting public safety as the number one priority, certainly not a reflection of mainstream Canadian values.

With Bill C-37, which amends the Young Offenders Act, the minister was too lenient, providing more rights it seems to the offender than to victim. The minister had an opportunity to lower the age limit in the Young Offenders Act, something the majority of Canadians were pressing for, but he left the age alone simply to perhaps please the bleeding hearts. Now we have more committee study.

With Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, the minister could not demonstrate that a ban on guns would put a stop to crime. Time will tell how this bill did nothing to curb violent crime involving weapons. Certainly this will be the minister's legacy, much about disruptive cost, very little to do with public safety.

Bills C-41 and C-33, the two bills which included the term sexual orientation into both the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act, prove the minister is all for giving special status to certain groups instead of providing equal protection for all.

I am talking about the track record in the context of this bill. The track record of this minister is enough to single handedly perhaps undermine Canada's justice system. Where are we going? When I am back in my riding one of the comments I often hear is ``do not let the justice minister get away with the softening of crime''.

People are generally afraid in their communities. They are afraid that criminals seem to have more rights than the average Canadian citizen. They are afraid knowing that sections of the Criminal Code like 745 are giving mass murderers like Clifford Olson at least a glimmer of hope of being released before their sentence is up.

Specifically on this bill today, the government could have repealed section 745 but it did not. One of the markers of this minor criminal justice bill is significantly what is not in it and what could have been in it rather than what is.

Many Canadians have written to the minister and have submitted countless petitions asking for the repeal of section 745, yet nothing has been done because the minority of bleeding hearts in this country are maybe supporting the Liberals. They know they are tied to special interest. Therefore because of political manoeuvring and expediency, the safety of Canadians is continuing to be put in jeopardy.

I think we should expect more from our justice minister, after all he is the justice minister for our whole country. We look to him for guidance in being able to put a climate of laws in place to protect the community. We should expect him to represent the grassroots of ordinary communities and not special interests.

The minister says he does respect the grassroots, except his legislation he almost always proves the opposite to be true. In view of what is not in this bill, who then does have the ear of the justice minister? It certainly does not appear to be the ordinary Canadian.

Yes, I did say almost always. In my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby, for example, prostitution is a serious problem, as is the case in most of the larger Canadian cities. Prostitutes gather for a time in one given area until a group of concerned citizens pushes them away. Except they do not really go away, they simply move to the other side of the tracks or another part of town.

While Bill C-27 goes in the right direction in this matter and respects some of the wishes of the grassroots, it again, in the typical pattern I have pointed out, does not go far enough. Like most Liberal bills, stricter penalties are frowned on. Sadly this is what communities really want.

In concert with helping programs, we need a climate of legal control so they can operate successfully. It is all a matter of balance and the courage to act. This bill deals with prostitution as a problem but it does not go far enough.

In September 1994, I recall when New Westminster activist Neil Douglas put together a group of neighbours who were frustrated with finding used condoms and needles lying around in his community, not to mention the indecent acts that were happening right in the middle of the street. This group set up a campaign to stop the Johns from picking up prostitutes in their local area. They would set up all night vigilance in areas frequented by prostitutes in an effort to shame the Johns, and the campaign did work. It was citizen action, not certainly will the help of our legal climate, except for one problem. When the New Westminster group drive the prostitutes out of their area, the prostitutes migrate over to my neighbouring city Burnaby. Then a Burnaby watch group does a similar action, takes over and drives the prostitutes back to New Westminster. This is going on back and forth.

(1355)

Citizens are understandably frustrated. Unfortunately the lack of resources from local police and the lack of the appropriate legal climate makes residents take matters into their own hands. This is when the whole issue becomes much more serious. This is why the Criminal Code needs to be changed to reflect the needs of society.

In March of this year I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-248, which would make changes to section 213 of the Criminal Code. The way it currently stands every person who in a public place or any place open to public view stops or attempts to stop a motor vehicle, impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or stops any person for the purposes to communicate to engage in prostitution is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Since my community is plagued with this problem, I went to it to ask for possible solutions. One that came up time after time was to stiffen the penalty. I proposed that in my private member's bill. It would make the penalty for communicating an indictable offence liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

This would allow the judge greater freedom from the current penalty of simply applying a summary conviction offence. It makes the offences electable and permits greater latitude for police discretion to arrest and to identify.

In March 1995 a consultation paper was prepared by the working group on prostitution, a group established in 1992 by the federal, provincial and territorial deputy ministers responsible for justice. The report suggested exactly what I proposed in Bill C-248 and suggested making section 213 of the Criminal Code a dual procedure or hybrid offence.

I want to read what the committee said for the reasons for such a suggestion:

This option would give the crown the choice of proceeding by way of summary conviction or on indictment if prostitutes or their customers were arrested under section 213. It would provide a higher maximum penalty if the crown chose to proceed by indictment and would also allow fingerprints and photographs to be taken upon arrest. Being able to take fingerprints upon arrest would help the police and the courts enforce the legislation by minimizing the use of false identity especially by repeat offenders.

Prostitutes, particularly youths and runaways who could be identified, could be assisted in leaving the sex trade. This option might help programs for deterring street prostitution when those programs depend on knowing the identities of people in the sex trade.

There are only two ways police would be able to fingerprint a prostitute charged with solicitation.

The Speaker: You will have the floor when we return to debate after question period. It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

_____________________________________________