GOVERNMENT ORDERS

DIVORCE ACT

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the House will recall that on Tuesday when I spoke last on this bill I only had two minutes to speak on it. I am pleased to have a few more minutes to intervene and to add some considerations to my colleagues' interventions who will be voting on this bill.

Bill C-41 is an act to amend four other long acts. The intent of the bill is to strengthen the provisions and terms under which people who are responsible to pay child support are enforced and dealt with. There are four main provisions of this bill. I will speak to each one and outline how sufficient the legislation is in dealing with each of these areas.

(1010 )

The four main provisions are: to have a grid or some legislated guidelines for child support amounts; to open up Revenue Canada databases so that defaulting parents can be located; to allow for the garnishment of public service pension benefits and seamen's wages; and to mandate or allow for the withdrawal of federal licences. The term federal licence is defined in such a way as to include passports. There are other provisions in the bill but those are the four main areas in which the government is attempting to tighten up the whole area of child support and the enforcement of maintenance payments in support of children.

When we deal with issues relating to children and issues relating to family breakdowns, the allocation of responsibilities and the onus that is being placed on parents in a divided family situation, very strong feelings come forward. This is not at all surprising. Our families, our children and our own personal emotional difficulties, hurts and disappointments that necessitate the kind of legislation we are dealing with today call for some very strong feelings and emotions.

I know other members, like myself, have had calls from very concerned and upset custodial parents, mostly women, who are beside themselves that the father of their child, who is no longer part of the marriage picture, chooses to be derelict in his duty and responsibility to assist the mother as the custodial person. They find it very difficult to understand why a simple court order allowing them to provide the necessities for their children cannot be better enforced. They are demanding that there be a better enforcement mechanism. It is in response to those kinds of demands that this legislation has been brought forward and was needed to be brought forward.

It is also fair to point out that there have been calls from many parents who are paying child support, who are mostly men. They have been very concerned about the one-sidedness of this kind of legislation where only the monetary responsibilities they have been given are enforced, dealt with and seem to be important. The other rights and responsibilities they have as parents seem to be ignored and violated without any corresponding concern on the part of government and legislators.

One of the things we need to look at is whether the balance and thrust of this legislation, while it is necessary and clearly to the benefit of ensuring proper support for children, is as it ought to be.

There is a tendency sometimes in the debate on enforcement of child support, to talk about deadbeat parents, parents who abdicate, ignore and renege on their responsibilities to the children they have brought into this world and seem to have no care or concern as to whether these children have proper income so that they can be fed, clothed, educated and raised properly. There seems to be some concern about putting the emphasis on money and treating fathers, as one gentleman said to me, like a wallet, but ignoring other parental responsibilities and prerogatives.

I happened to pick up a copy of Psychology Today this summer. I read an interesting article about violence against women. In that same magazine was an interesting article about the roles of fathers in the lives of their children. The article cited studies that showed a father has a very complex role in the emotional and intellectual growth of his child. Although a father may interact with his child in more physical and less intimate way than a mother, he has a key impact on his child's development. The article also stated that a father with emotional problems will have a more dire effect on his child than a mother with similar problems.

(1015)

This is only one article that looked at studies. There are many others that state it is very important for children that fathers continue to have a role in their lives. Many fathers are asking that their responsibility for support be looked at. They would also like ongoing access to their children to be part of the equation. That is not the case in this legislation.

Other speakers have raised the concern that if we are going to deal with the matter of ensuring the well-being of children, we should include in their need for monetary support their need for emotional and intellectual support in ongoing relationships and training.

I recommend that the government seriously consider this whole area. When it brings in legislation to deal with the well-being of children it should look at other aspects of their well-being, other needs. It should not suggest by the way it frames legislation that as long as money is coming to the custodial parent that is satisfactory. That is not the only thing needed to be looked at in relation to the best interests of children.

One of the main provisions in this legislation is that a grid or guidelines for the amount of child support payable will be put into place. According to some of the information that has been put forward by government, these guidelines were drawn up after a

broad consultation with people who were familiar with the area of child maintenance and child support, and I think that is good.

We can accept that the amounts on the grid and the guidelines represent a reasonable and honest effort to put in place amounts based on the income and circumstances of the parties. Generally speaking, that will be fair.

My concern is with what this legislation does not deal with. A one size fits all award of maintenance is not practical when one considers the wide variety of circumstances and employment realities that are factored into calculations of the need, the reasonableness and the propriety of a particular monetary award for child support.

There is concern that the discretion of the courts, which have many judges-most judges have a great deal of experience and background in calculating these awards for support-will be taken away in favour of a rigid one size fits all system. There must be more thought and debate before this happens.

There is a great deal of concern about rigid awards, particularly where circumstances change quickly and often. Parents who are paying child support simply cannot come back to court on a regular basis every time their circumstances shift. In this economy, for example, many people are under-employed. Many people are unemployed. Many people are concerned about job loss. Many people are self-employed on a consulting basis and have irregular income. These hard and fast awards, guidelines and grids, are not properly reflective of the economic realities of the citizens. They create hardship and frustration for the people who must adhere to them. I would ask the government to reconsider the rigidity of the rules which it is trying to implement.

(1020)

Certain areas in the legislation provide for a variation of the awards handed down under the grid, however, the provision for a variation or for taking into account unusual or different circumstances is too narrow to be of much assistance to most parents who are paying child support.

Second, the legislation will allow Revenue Canada databases to be opened in order to locate parents who default on their child support payments. Most Canadians believe that parents have a strong obligation to their children. Children need to know that their needs are going to be met by both parents on an ongoing basis. That is a very important consideration for them.

Parents have the primary responsibility for the care and support of their children. This burden should not be placed on other members of society simply because parents decide to be irresponsible.

Any measures which will ensure that parents carry out their obligations should be applauded. However, we must ensure that the opening up of Revenue Canada databases does not unfairly or inappropriately breach the privacy rights of the parent who is under a maintenance order.

Substantial concerns have been raised about whether access to private financial information will be fairly administered. Will the databases be opened up when there are substantial arrears or when there is simply an allegation of arrears? Will private information, which is not necessary to locate the defaulting parent, be given to other parties? We need to look very closely at the issue of fairness. There can be a number of circumstances involved in a default situation. Perhaps a default has been alleged but has not taken place. The rights and privacy of all parties concerned need to be protected.

Sometimes there is a tendency to hammer everyone involved and, in doing so, violate the rights of everyone, rather than the minority who are at fault. Most parents who are under an agreement or a court order to support their children do so. They do so gladly, regularly and in a responsible manner. We have to be careful to ensure that the majority of parents are not unfairly treated simply to get at the minority. Caution must be taken because a lot of lives and rights will be affected. Third, the provisions being brought forward for the garnishment of public service pension benefits and a broader ability to ensure that every parent who is obligated to pay child support actually does pay are good. Again, we need to be careful of the fairness factor. Unfortunately, the regulations that will show how these measures will be implemented are absent. They will be introduced later. They will not be debated. They will simply be put into place.

(1025)

We have a real responsibility to the people who are going to be affected by the legislation. It is important that their human rights and freedoms are not unduly impinged upon because of the way this legislation is constructed. The same principle holds true when we are withdrawing rights of citizens such as drivers' licences and passports.

It is fair to say that the sentiment behind this legislation is good, however, it is not as balanced as it needs to be. There are a lot of unanswered questions about how it will actually be administered at the end of the day.

On behalf of citizens who will be very seriously affected by this legislation, I would ask for a re-examination of it to see whether it can be better balanced and whether more fairness and certainty can be assured when it is finally implemented.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I was very interested to hear the comments of my hon. colleague from Calgary North on this very critical piece of legislation concerning families, especially children.

In light of some of the legislation that has been passed, particularly in California, Florida and Washington state, among others, which reflects those governments' policies of encouraging parenting by both parents after divorce, I wonder if my colleague could give us her views on what steps she might feel the government could take to encourage and develop that type of legislation and that thinking in Canada.

Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, when we have legislation of this type, it should not just address one injustice, one problem or one difficulty that relates to the well-being of our children. It should be balanced and talk about the other needs of children as well.

A measure that could bring a greater involvement into children's lives by their father, which many studies show is vital to their well-being, would be addressing this whole matter of access.

As my colleagues are aware, orders relating to children in separation or divorce situations not only address monetary support for children but also the ongoing involvement through access and other areas where fathers particularly, or the non-custodial parent, continue to have as strong and healthy a relationship with their children as possible.

I would suggest that, if legislation of this type were as strong on ensuring that parents' involvements and responsibilities were equally upheld and enforced, it would be to the very great benefit of children.

Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from Calgary North. She always brings a different perspective to this question when we debate it in the House because of her experience in law. I think she may be able to help me on this particular issue. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the prospect of mediation before access and custody is even decided or settled, usually prior to divorce. It would then be agreed by both parents and hopefully on the needs for the child and the ability of the non-custodial spouse to pay. Hopefully that would make for a better and lasting settlement and would probably result in payments being made on a regular basis.

(1030)

Would my colleague also comment on the program called parenting after divorce? It became mandatory in Alberta after February 1, and Alberta justice minister Brian Evans said that the program is intended to help children and also to save the courts time and money since our courts are already overburdened. The program was basically brought in to minimize the impact of divorce on children. Would my colleague comment on whether she feels mediation would help and if so, should it be in the bill?

Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, it certainly has been my experience in my practice of law and some of the work I did in the area of divorce that the divorce proceedings and process are unnecessarily adversarial, particularly when it has to be considered that a good relationship with both parents on a continuing basis is absolutely vital to the well-being of children.

If there is an adversarial situation where someone is the bad guy and somebody is the good guy, a very difficult situation has been set up for children. Very often they are put in the position of judging who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. Whereas, their real needs and what is best for them would be to sorrowfully accept that parents have differences that are not going to allow them to live together, but that these are both people they be proud of, respect and have good relationship with.

I think moving more toward a mediated approach or mediated settlement of the issues in a divorce situation would be much healthier for the children.

My colleague from Mission-Coquitlam also mentioned the training which is being implemented in Alberta which assists both parents in the kind of training, education and skills building that would be necessary for both parents to continue to play a very positive and very necessary role in the lives of their children. I would certainly recommend that the government look at those kinds of measures to make the legislation more balanced.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, before I get into my remarks today on Bill C-41, I would like to take a moment or two to reflect on what happened in this place yesterday. I feel it is very relevant to everything we as individual members of Parliament endeavour to do in the House of Commons.

Yesterday we witnessed not only the breaking of a Liberal red book promise, but I believe the powerlessness of individual MPs was truly revealed. The Prime Minister promised during the last election campaign to give individual MPs, those in opposition as well as his own backbenchers, a greater say in the running of government. Yesterday showed how seriously he took this commitment to the Canadian people.

Yesterday the government brought in time allocation to cut off debate on Bill C-45, a bill which we should never have debated in the first place. This in itself is not surprising, because the Liberals have closed debate about 24 times in this 35th Parliament, despite their howls of protest to the Tories in the last Parliament when the Tories took similar parliamentary action.

In this place we should have been debating the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code as outlined in the private member's bill of the member for York South-Weston, Bill C-234.

I believe it is obvious to all here and, more important, out in the real world just how hopeless it is for an individual MP to affect change in this place.

Canadians were and are demanding the repeal of section 745. A member responded by drafting and introducing a private member's bill in response. The majority of the members in the House of Commons supported it, sent it to the justice committee and it disappeared. Democracy. It is enough to make a grown man weep.

(1035)

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-41 which seeks to make some sense out of this country's system of child support payments. Here we have yet another example of the Liberal government's attempt at patchwork legislation. Canadians have been clamouring for change in how child support payments are determined and enforced. The Liberals pretend to be listening and respond with proposals that do not truly address the basic issues of child custody. While this bill does take some great strides in improving the enforcement of child support payments, or getting tough on so-called deadbeat dads, it entirely skips the issue of custody arrangements and mediation of disputes.

The federal government plans to involve itself in a strong arm approach to enforcement without looking at original access issues. This includes revoking or refusing to renew passports, the use of Revenue Canada's data banks in order to locate defaulting parents, the garnishment of public service pensions to pay child support as well as the wages of those working at sea.

This get tough attitude toward delinquent support payments is appropriate only after all circumstances surrounding the original custody arrangements have been thoroughly analysed and only after attempts at voluntary support have been exhausted.

This means that before taking such invasive measures it must be shown that the non-custodial parent is getting the entitled access to their children and that all other outstanding questions surrounding the custody arrangements have been resolved.

Automated steps to withhold someone's passport, crack open their private income tax information or garnish their wages are irresponsible if used without a thorough investigation of the individual case. This bill does not include proposals to do this.

There are two sides to every issue and while there is no doubt that children across this country are suffering because child support payments are going unpaid, Bill C-41 ignores that many children are also suffering because their right to see and enjoy the love of their non-custodial parent is being denied.

I join with most of the members of this House in getting tough with parents who do not meet support commitments, but let us not encourage the problem with unfair laws. There is a relationship between access to children and non-compliance in support payments. A non-custodial parent who sees his child more often is much more likely to make his payments. This bill does not even touch on this aspect. In many cases the denial of payment is rooted in the non-custodial parent's frustration at being denied access to their children.

According to a 1995 study by the U.S. bureau of statistics non-custodial parents with visitation and or joint custody were much more likely to pay support; 79 per cent of those with access paid support while only 59 per cent of those without access paid.

A May 1992 a study by the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family found that almost 75 per cent of non-custodial parents reported problems in visiting their children. This shows that access and visitation rights in Canada are not working and this results in many problems, including non-compliance in child support.

On March 20 of this year I introduced a private member's bill in the House that would also amend the Divorce Act so that joint custody would be automatic. Right now custody automatically goes to one parent unless an application for joint custody is made. Bill C-242 says it should be the reverse. Kids need the love and security of both parents. Joint custody should be automatic except in cases of abuse, neglect or where it is not in the child's best interests.

We would no doubt see the number of delinquent support payments drop significantly once joint custody eliminated many of the access disputes that lead to non-payment in the first place. In many cases non-payment boils down to an issue of guaranteed access to both parents, not dollars and cents.

(1040)

In 1992 Canadian courts awarded joint custody only 16 per cent of the time. Sole custody is awarded to mothers approximately 72 per cent of the time and to fathers in only 12 per cent of divorces.

This brings about another point to consider when looking at the non-payment of child support. How much potential child support money has been tied up or wasted in fighting over access rights in the courts? The separation and divorce industry drains parents of thousands of dollars. With automatic joint custody legislation that is money that could go to the children instead. It can be difficult for a parent to pay child support while they are doling out $10,000 in legal fees just to see their child.

If the custodial parent moves a child to another province or country, the non-custodial parent is suddenly left with no opportunity to see their child or faces great travel expenses to do so. Making certain that non-custodial parents are accountable for continued financial support even when they have chosen to move to a different provinces is a common goal of the courts and all levels of government. When it comes to ensuring that non-custodial

parents have reasonable access to their children, the governments and courts are strangely silent. This is a double standard.

In my riding of Prince George-Peace River in British Columbia and in other northern areas a divorce can often result in the custodial parent moving with the children to the lower mainland, severely limiting access for the non-custodial parent. It is little wonder that some parents withhold support payments in protest.

Under Bill C-41 the fact that the parent's right to access was arbitrarily taken away would not be considered and the federal government would simply start proceedings to enforce payment.

This would overlook even a supreme court ruling in May of this year concerning a Saskatchewan mother who choose to move with her daughter to Australia against the wishes of her ex-husband. The supreme court's decision took into account the effect of a custodial parent's geographic move on the access rights of the former spouse.

Did the Liberals consider this when they attempted to address the issue of child support payments? I do not believe so. The Liberals have spent a good part of their mandate reviewing child custody and taxation issues, yet they still did not get it right. The finance minister has said that the first obligation of a parent is financial. I could not disagree more. Yes, children need financial security, certainly, but the emotional security of access to both parents cannot be overlooked. Until such time as the federal government is willing to take a look at the entire issue of child custody, the complete picture, it is not qualified to proceed with enforcement.

At the very least in the absence of legislating automatic joint custody the federal government should be encouraging the provinces to be more vigilant in enforcing access problems before they agree to help with the enforcement of child support payments.

The Canadian Council for Co-Parenting, a custody and access support group for divorcing couples, agrees that the deadbeat scenario is not that simple. On its position paper on custody access and child support the CCC claims that many loving parents are deparented by a legal system content with the win-lose approach. It says that many non-custodial parents withdraw disgusted, dismayed and angered by the inequities and imbalance of many court decisions.

The justice minister should be familiar with the Canadian Council for Co-Parenting. The CCC has formally stated its dissatisfaction with Bill C-41. I will quote from a letter which the CCC sent to the justice minister. These are words which is he obviously ignoring: ``Our position on Bill C-41 guidelines released in June of 1996 is that they must be reworked. They are seriously flawed in their omission of shared parenting principles of treating both parents fairly. No loving parent, male or female, in a time of great turmoil or anger should be ostracized from the lives of their children for no good reason. C-41 aggravates and enhances the current inhumane imbalances in family law''. Of course the CCC is just one of many organizations and individuals concerned with the ramifications of Bill C-41.

(1045)

Another issue that this bill neglects involves spending accountability by the custodial parent. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact that some custodial parents are not using child support payments to properly feed or clothe the child. That parent may be receiving substantial amounts of money from the non-custodial parent but they are not required to account for how the funds are spent. There is no mechanism in place that ensures the child support is used for example to buy a winter coat for a child instead of being spent by the custodial parent on alcohol, cigarettes or whatever.

I want to be perfectly clear that I am not saying this is a prevalent occurrence. However, before the federal government begins vigorous enforcement actions, it must recognize that non-payment of child support may be due to the non-custodial parent's awareness that their child is not the one benefiting from those support payments.

Once again there are many ambiguous questions surrounding child custody cases. A responsible enforcer must first scratch beneath the surface, investigate and then take action based upon complete knowledge of all the pertinent facts.

I would like to further clarify my position on child custody laws. It is not my intent or desire to take sides on this issue. I am neither an advocate for the mothers or the fathers. I am not siding with custodial parents or non-custodial parents. My goal for introducing Bill C-242 and opposing Bill C-41 as it is currently drafted is twofold.

First, the law should be administered as fairly as possible, treating both parents equally. When married and the relationship is intact, it is assumed that both people are good parents. Why assume otherwise just because they are divorced?

Second and most important, I believe in supporting the children. When a relationship ends, they are the innocent victims. I believe very strongly that their emotional and psychological welfare is best supported by maintaining physical contact with both parents and there are studies that bear this out. In other words, I am an advocate for the kids.

If we remove the issue of who will have sole custody from the equation, parents will obviously no longer be able to use custody as a bargaining chip. Fathers would not be able to threaten to seek sole custody unless the mother agrees to unreasonably low maintenance. Mothers likewise would be prevented from holding restricted access over the father's head to obtain a better divorce

settlement. If both parents knew ahead of time with reasonable certainty that custody would be awarded jointly and therefore was not going to be an issue, there would be one less issue to fight about.

As a loving parent, I cannot imagine anything worse than being prevented from seeing my kids. The mere thought of not having access to them on a continual basis provokes angry, protective emotions.

When a marriage ends it is natural for the spouses to blame each other, to have lost respect for each other as a spouse, a lover and a friend. However, if the separating couple can be assisted and encouraged to still respect each other as loving and caring parents, it will provide as positive an environment as possible for the children.

The awarding of joint custody in the vast majority of cases will nurture this respect for each other as parents and will remove the greatest fear every parent faces: the loss of a child. It will also reduce the chances of partners remaining in a potentially abusive relationship because they know that if they walk out without the children, it will be currently held against them at the custody hearing.

Bill C-41 is an inadequate piece of legislation. It is inadequate because it does not responsibly and fairly address child custody laws in their entirety. This is yet another example of quick fix legislation. The government knows there are problems with the child support system and that Canadians are demanding change. However, instead of looking for the root of the problem, the government is proposing superficial and brash changes which it believes will appease voters in the next election.

(1050)

In its current form Bill C-41 will bring little satisfaction to anyone. It will only result in further emotional suffering for the children who are caught up in these tragic child custody laws.

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, before the Liberal government became involved in the issue of child support payments, the system was that the payer deducted the amount of child support payments and the recipient paid the tax on it. The logic for that was that usually the person who received the child support payments was in a lower income bracket and consequently would be taxed less and would therefore have more money available. Also, the person who was making the payments would be more willing to give the maximum because the payments would be deductible.

The justice minister has changed that system and now child support is non-deductible and non-taxable. The non-deductibility aspect of child support payments will mean that the government will receive an additional $300 million in revenue. The government claims it will put the money into some form of child support subsidy or child care benefit for the Canadian public. We will have to wait and see.

My concern is, with the government having made these changes, eliminating deductibility will encourage those people who have to pay to give less. Ultimately the children will suffer. They will receive less in benefits because less money will be given to them.

I recognize that my colleague does not wish to pick sides on the issue between mother and father, but let us pick on the government a bit. Let us see if in its wisdom the government has actually done a great service or whether it has made it worse with its half measures and tinkering.

I wonder if my colleague has a comment on the effect of the impact of what appears to be another tax grab by the government to generate $300 million in revenue at the expense of children.

Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague from Calgary Centre.

He is quite right. I do not see the logic behind the changes which the government has made. I recognize there is a problem in the area of taxation of child support and the government moved on that. The reality is that the children will be poorer for it. As he correctly pointed out, the money will now flow into government coffers rather than staying in the hands of the children.

While I recognize that Bill C-41 is moving toward setting some base rates for child support so that we will not see it diminish in cases of real need, I believe that the changes which have been made by the government have actually created more of an adversarial approach. That is unfortunate because there is already enough adversary surrounding divorce. It is one of the reasons in many cases that these things drag on for so long. They get tied up in the courts and people get more and more angry with the whole process.

(1055 )

I believe quite strongly that we have to move toward more mediation in these matters. The issue of who would get the tax credit could be decided between the parents and in the best interests of the children. As I said earlier, I am involved in this issue because I feel very strongly in being an advocate for the children, which is why I am speaking against this legislation.

I will quote an expert in the field, Professor Ross Finnie of Carleton University School of Public Administration, on Bill C-41. He calls for Bill C-41 to be revisited by the justice department. He is not a Reformer criticizing the government. I heard an hon. colleague from the other side say a minute ago that nothing is new in that we should be criticizing the government. Part of our role is to criticize the government when we see there are things wrong with what it brings forward. In this case it is not a Reformer making this observation but an acknowledged expert in the field.

In his review, ``Good Idea, Bad Execution: The Government's Child Support Package'', Professor Finnie comments: ``In short, the basic unfairness incorporated in the current guideline proposals might undermine the basic goal of the whole guideline exercise''. He argues that overall the package is likely to worsen the child support situation in Canada.

This is an expert in the field making his comments on Bill C-41. It is important to remember that it is not just a few Reformers, people like myself and my colleagues, who are being critical of the government; there are also people with a lot of background knowledge who are calling into question this legislation.

Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand in my place today to support Bill C-41 which amends various existing legislation to ensure that child support reforms become law.

I am proud to do so because the Department of the Status of Women Canada and my predecessor, the hon. member for Mount Royal, played a major role in bringing this legislation to the fore. The hon. member did so by going around this country with a three person task force to meet with women, with custodial and non-custodial parents and the public in general. They listened to some of the problems and ideas that came from women, men and children with regard to child support. As a result, some of this legislation was brought into the fore.

This was also brought about by working with the Law Reform Commission of Canada which again has the body of expertise that can understand and deal with the law. The family law committee of federal, provincial and territorial representatives brought understanding and expertise on what happens when people divorce, on what happens to the child.

This piece of legislation speaks clearly to and in support of one person in this problem: the child. It speaks to one group of people who have had no one to advocate for them very strongly. This government has decided that we will advocate for the child.

Above all, this reform is a tribute to the hundreds of people across Canada who contributed to the dialogue. We heard from men and women, advocates for children, for mothers and fathers. We heard from accountants, lawyers and social service providers to name only a few.

The result before us is a law that will create a system of child support that is fair, equitable and beneficial to all Canadians. But above all, this legislation represents a balanced approach that is fair for children. It puts children first.

If I could summarize this bill in one phrase, it would be that child support is not a discretionary payment. Both parents must assume responsibility for their children, whether they live together or not. This is a duty, a responsibility. It is not something that a non-custodial parent can choose to ignore because the non-custodial parent has suddenly assumed a new life and wants to undertake a new lifestyle. The child is a responsibility of both parents.

(1100)

We have seen clearly that children live in the same socioeconomic status of the custodial parent. I am using the term custodial parent, but we know that the majority of custodial parents in the country are women and that the majority of single women with children are living in poverty. These children must be supported first and foremost by both parents. They must, if possible, be assisted in support by the state wherever it can be done. This is where the working income supplement will apply.

When families break up it is generally the children who suffer. As a physician who has spent 25 years in practice, I can say that children suffer greatly. Many children of divorce who live with the mother do not have the same access to post-secondary education that other children have. We know many of these children are living pretty close to the poverty line. They are a shared responsibility. It is the right of the child to be financially supported by both parents.

We would then create a system where families would still be united. But there are divorced parents and the children, therefore, live in different status purely because they happen through no fault of their own to be living in a divorced situation. Children should not have to bear the brunt of that. There should not be two classes of children in this country.

The government applied gender based analyses to these reforms to ensure that neither women nor men are unfairly disadvantaged by the legislation. We have ensured that the outcome of the changes are fair and equitable to both men and women.

The child support strategy rests on four very important pillars. One is the tax treatment of support payments for children. I want to stress the tax treatment of support payments for children, not of spousal support. We are talking only of child support. We have set up guidelines that will make it clear across the country that we are no longer going to have to depend on the discretion of lawyers, judges or courts. It will be a fair system of guidelines, based on the income of the non-custodial parent. It takes into consideration whether the non-custodial parent can afford to pay or not. It also makes very clear that afford to pay does not mean that child support for a non-custodial parent comes after the car, the holidays and the investments, but that child support is considered as one of the first and foremost duties of the non-custodial parent and not as a second thought.

These guidelines are clear, equitable and they will be the same no matter where those people pay live in this country. It takes into consideration the cost of living, the standard of living and the tax treatments of each province. Different provinces will have clear guidelines for what the non-custodial parent must pay, based on the number of children, as a percentage of the income of the non-custodial parent.

The third pillar on which this rests is enforcement of child support guidelines and child support, period. We know that many children do not get child support. This is a major problem. I do not think hon. members across in the third party would disagree that enforcement is extremely important.

The fourth pillar is the working income supplement. This is the so-called tax grab that the hon. member just spoke about. We know that by changing the tax treatment of child support the federal government will receive a windfall of money. That money is not going back into federal government coffers. After $50 million of that money has been taken to set up the data bases and to assist provinces to get this going, the rest will go into a working income supplement which will assist 700,000 children.

(1105)

As a state we need to ensure that our children are clearly supported and that our children are treated equally whether their parents can afford to or not. Children are the future of this country.

The first pillar of change is the way in which the child support system is taxed. This system has been place for 54 years. It has become outdated. It was an inequitable system which said parents who live together and who are bringing up a family do not get to tax deduct the money they spend on their children, but if they become divorced all of a sudden their child because a tax deductible expense. This did not make any sense at all because it was creating an uneven playing field.

It was saying that if you were divorced it was better for you to be able to support your child because you got the tax deduction. If you live together as a family you were in fact being discriminated against in terms of caring for your children because caring for your children is not a tax deductible expense. It is not an expense of business. It is not a discretionary expense. It is a duty and a responsibility for parents.

Under the new system the full amount of the support payments can be used to care for the child so that when a custodial parent is given a sum of money that custodial parent knows that all of that money is going to the child and that some of it does not have to go back to Revenue Canada so that the child only gets part of the money.

Child support payment under a written agreement or court order made on after May 1 will therefore not be deductible to the payer or included in the income of the recipient for tax purposes. This has finally given us an equitable system and not a system that is based on the fact that if the custodial parent can afford a good lawyer, then the custodial parent gets a better amount of money for the child.

We know that many custodial parents did have the money and it really rested on who could afford the better lawyer. This has been taken away now. The system is going to be fair and equitable and that is the second component of the pillars of this legislation. The guidelines are clearly set and clearly written down so that there is no more trying to see who could argue their way out of the paper bag that we have had in the past in terms of how child support has been accepted.

The tax rules, however, will not automatically apply to existing orders. Governments cannot unilaterally change support agreements between parents negotiated on the basis of another set of rules. This is not going to be grandfathered. We know that if parents are not happy with the way their child support has been structured they can go back and seek to change it and bring it under the new rules if they work together to do that and if they work together in the best interests of the child.

Implementation of the new rules will not take effect until the spring for two very important reasons. First, we expect there will be a large increase in applications to change existing orders to conform to the new child support rules because in many cases much of the child support that is today given is not being enforced and is not enough. It would cause chaos if the federal government did not have the provinces to establish a more efficient way to deal with the sudden influx of support orders.

For that reason we have established a $50 million fund that will be used in partnership with the provincial government to develop, pilot and implement efficient and cost-effective mechanisms to help parents obtain, vary and update their awards.

The second reason for leaving the implementation until May 1997 brings me to the second pillar of child support. The implementation date allows us time to enact federal child support guidelines. These guidelines are going to make the system equitable.

If I could sum up this bill in one phrase it would be that child support is the single most important thing that we can do for our children tomorrow. This legislation introduces a number of measures that the provinces and the territories can draw on in partnership with the federal government to enforce support payments.

Federal pensions can be diverted so that we can garnishee from a federal employee who is not paying child support. We can garnishee out of that federal employee packages, whether it be pension funds or some sort of benefit funds, in order to ensure the child gets the support.

Revenue Canada's data base will now be used for the federal information network so that we can track defaulters. In other words, they can move from province to province and they can run but they cannot hide.

Passports and even certain federal licences can be suspended if a debtor is in persistent arrears. We will develop finally a standardized data base across this country so that there will be compliance with the support orders in Canada.

(1110)

This will help both levels of government to design more effective mechanisms for support enforcement. In addition, the legislation provides for measures to help the provinces streamline the collection of out of province orders. In these ways the federal government will help the provinces to pursue what is really their jurisdiction which is to support enforcement programs.

Although it is not covered in this legislation it will be noted that the fourth pillar of our child support strategy is the doubling of the working income supplement of the federal child tax benefit. This is the tax grab the hon. member across spoke about and conveniently ignored, that the money is to be going over the next five years, half a billion dollars, to support approximately 700,000 low income working families. About one-third of these families are single parents. These single parent families are predominantly led by women and they predominantly live in poverty.

We as a government are making a very strong statement. We are saying that we as Canadians, all of us, whether we have children or not, whether we are living together with our children or not, owe it to all Canadian children to prepare them for the future, to prepare them for tomorrow, to give them equal opportunity so they can realize their fullest potential, so we do not continue to foster two sets of levels of children, those who have and those who do not have and who will be the people we look to carry this country forward in the next century. If we do not give them the tools and the skills, if we do not give all our children the opportunity and value our children, we are not truly looking to our future for tomorrow.

The four pillars in our child support strategy reinforce one another. These changes have long been overdue. The government has studied these issues carefully and we have worked closely with all the stakeholders, not only the public but accountants, men and women, and lawyers to talk about this issue and to find the right answers. This is not a thrown together piece of legislation, as hon. members across the floor would have us believe. This was discussed in public hearings. I do not know if the hon. members even went to the public hearings or even listened to some of the information we heard from men and women who spoke on behalf of the children of this country.

More important, our children deserve the right to be treated fairly. They deserve the right not to have to be forced to live with

the consequences of what their parents have done and with the power struggles between parents as we have seen in the past. Our children deserve to be given every opportunity. This bill does exactly that for all our children.

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would like to summarize this bill in one word for the hon. parliamentary secretary who spoke with such glowing words. It is a mistake.

It is a mistake in a lot of ways. There were some misconceptions within her statements that I would like to clarify. The parliamentary secretary is concerned about child support and how children are important and I agree 150 per cent. However, the way the government is going about will hurt the children more than help them.

In that tax grab that we talk about, which she has now identified, in the neighbourhood of $.5 billion, 30 per cent to 40 per cent of that goes, as she admitted herself, into overhead, into a federal bureaucracy, into a federal administration. She said initially it will take $50 million of that. That is not helping children. That is creating jobs in government. That is what it is doing. It is hurting the children, at the expense of children.

The parliamentary secretary talks about how the person who pays used it as a tax deduction and a person might as well get a divorce because they got a tax deduction if they have children. The adjudicator determined between the couple divorcing in the case of children the amount of money paid based on need and ability to pay and an amount was set. Yes, it was deductible and taxable. What that really is, if the parliamentary secretary considers this for a moment, is if the amount is $10,000 and the individual makes $50,000 to $60,000 in income, it is a deferral of $10,000 of income to the person who is looking after the children.

The principle of taxation is that we tax income. That deferral from the $50,000, $60,000, $25,000 or $100,000 is a deferral to the custodial parent. That parent paid the tax. Do you know what? In that system, that is a tight system. There is no leakage there. There is no government bureaucracy taking 30 or 40 per cent of that money. All the money is going to the children. The taxes paid on that are paid at a lower rate.

(1115)

I submit that the single biggest mistake in this bill is doing away with deductibility and taxability of child support. Arbitrarily setting amounts across the country no matter where a person lives-this is the amount-is a good principle. It should be applied to UI as well.

Why should somebody in Alberta paying $1 get 75 cents in benefits and somebody in Newfoundland paying $1 getting $3.75

in benefits? If the parliamentary secretary would apply that same principle to UI, then the government might be making some sense.

This bill is a mistake. It is a mistake to intrude into the lives of people in a way that will just support more government bureaucracy. It is a mistake to intrude into the lives of people and say that government will now look after the children, not the parents. Government is taking money away from the parents' ability to look after the children.

Ms. Fry: Madam Speaker, I find the hon. member's question to be so absolutely typical of someone who does not really understand. He has never been there and does not even understand the reality of the lives of divorced families and of children of divorce.

This is the kind of statement that you would hear from an upper middle class male who does not have a clue. The hon. member talks about child support and that the adjudicator takes into consideration the real need and ability of the parent to pay. That is absolute rubbish.

Child support has, in the past, been dictated by who had the better lawyer. Invariably the custodial parent did not have the money to have the better lawyer and was at the wrong end of the stick. The point here is that it is the children who suffer.

The hon. member talked about income tax and child support. The interesting thing is that we get this kind of information coming across the floor because when you try to answer the question, you are not even given the courtesy of their listening to the answer. Misinformation continues to be fostered. They really do not want to hear the answer. The answer is that child support is not spousal support. Spousal support is income in the hands of the custodial parent. Child support is income in the hands of the child.

Parents who live together do not deduct the support for their child. They do not get to deduct it. Why should it be that we have this uneven system of parents who are not living together with their family get to deduct child support? Child support is not a discretionary thing. Child support is an absolute duty to the child.

I also heard the hon. member asking me about using 30 to 40 per cent of the half a million dollars in order to create a bureaucratic structure. I am not a mathematician. I certainly never claimed to be one. However, when I last looked 40 per cent of a half billion was not $15 million. This is grade 2 arithmetic we are talking about here. It is interesting that this kind of arithmetic comes out. Fifteen million dollars is not half of a half billion dollars. That is not 40 per cent of it.

One of the important things to remember is that if there is a system that is fair and equitable, that is going to be tracking people, you have to use the technology so the information is available across this country. That has been the major problem of enforcement. People leave provinces. They go to other provinces. No one can find them. They do not know where they are. If the defaulter cannot be tracked, support payments cannot be enforced.

It is a clear issue. We know that 43 per cent of non-custodial parents in the province of Ontario today do not pay a penny of child support. Of the remainder, only about 30 per cent of them manage to pay the full amount.

We are talking here about major default. We have to set into place the structures to help these children. Saying that this is a lot of rubbish actually means that the hon. member does not even understand the issue to start off with.

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I listened to the minister with interest, especially in her response to the comments to the member for Calgary Centre.

(1120 )

What I heard the minister say was that the non-custodial parent had a duty to make payments but that the payments were not put in the hands of the custodial parent but in the hands of the children. That simply is not true. The custodial parent administers the payments that are made to those children.

The minister also said earlier in her speech that the non-custodial parent has a duty to make sure there was an enforcement of child support payments. I agree with that, but I would like to ask if she thinks there is also a duty, on behalf of the custodial parent, to spend that money on the children. We all know of cases where the money is not necessarily spent on those children. Is there not a duty for the custodial parent as well?

Ms. Fry: Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. Maybe I did not make my point clearly enough. I did not say that the money for child support was not money put in the hands of the non-custodial parent. It was not directed to the custodial parent. It was directed to the child. Of course if the child is a minor then the custodial parent has a duty to use the money in the best interest of the child. This is different from spousal support which is not what we are talking about here. Spousal support is income in the hands of the custodial spouse and is tax deductible and should be. We are talking about two very different things here.

The hon. member asks whether it is the duty of the custodial parent to take the money for child support and spent it on the child. Yes, it is the duty.

Whatever stories or anecdotes we hear from the hon. member opposite to try to support his position that most custodial parents take that money and fritter it away on something for themselves is absolute nonsense. Most children of divorced parents are living a very low income status. The custodial parents are trying very hard to use that money in the best interest of the child. Often these children are not clothed or fed properly because the money is given back in taxes to the government. We are saying that is no longer

appropriate. Money should go directly to the child and not to the Government of Canada.

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues to debate Bill C-41. One of my hon. friends said that it is a mistake that this legislation is before us. We just had a long speech from the Minister of State for the Status of Women and not once did I hear her say she cared for and supported families, that she wanted to nurture families, that families were the fundamental building blocks of our society and that if we were to focus on nurturing, supporting, protecting and building the families, a lot of the problems we have would not occur.

Instead, we find that the government wants to probe, analyse, tax, regulate and push around families, as if they are something like a vehicle that everybody jumps into and they can just control the vehicle.

The point is that the government has it wrong. This whole concept that families can be probed, analysed, regulated and taxed and the money can be passed through the government's pocket, that they take from one and give to another and pay the bureaucrats in between. Surely we should be talking about protecting, nurturing, building and strengthening families. We should ensure that families play the real role in our society. No one can raise kids better than families. That is why the bill is a mistake.

(1125)

The Minister of State for the Status of Women talked about how important it is that we are going to regulate the system, how important it is that we are going to collect all this taxation, how important it is that we are going to have a new program and how important it is that we are going to give the money back to the kids. The government has missed the point. Where is the support?

We have known for years that the Income Tax Act penalizes families. We know that the Income Tax Act has given a greater benefit to families that break up rather than to the families which stay together. That is a terrible indictment for a government which is in charge of helping our society. It seems to be quite happy with the concept of regulating. If the family breaks up the government will give it another program. If the family breaks up the government will collect taxes in a different way and channel them back through the bureaucracy.

We on this side of the House have always said that the dollars which are left in the hands of the families will be better administered than if those dollars are handed back to the families through a program. The government has missed the point entirely.

I had an accounting business before I got into this game. I met many families which had broken up. The statistics published by Statistics Canada confirm what I saw personally. There is hurt and damage. Self-confidence is destroyed. Job stability is threatened. The family breaks apart and one-half moves to a different location. Sometimes the family is destroyed. There is little doubt that in many cases the standard of living goes down. That is unfortunate. We have to help these people.

We do not help them by bringing in legislation which contains a bunch of rules and regulations. On page 22 of the bill, at clause 77, after the government has poked and probed and administered and regulated and pushed around all these families, Her Majesty, in right of Canada, disclaims all responsibility for discharging the obligations under the act. While the government figures that it can get involved in the day to day administration of families, in the running of families, and so on and so forth, if it screws up, do not blame the government.

The Minister of State for the Status of Women mentioned the hearings which were held across Canada where women could say this and women could say that. I did not hear anything about men being invited to participate. That being so, we have to take a look at the failure of the Liberal policies over the years.

Back in the sixties the government introduced the great concept of universality for pensioners. It said: ``Do not worry. We are here. We are going to look after everybody. Everybody is going to get the same old age security. Everybody is going to get a pension''. The first thousand dollars of pension money that a senior would get would be tax free. That rule has been in place for many years. That universality is gone. In 2001 it will be gone. Pensioners will not get old age security because in the year 2001 there will be no old age security. It will be gone. The first thousand dollars of income tax deduction which pensioners have relied on for many years will be gone. The age deduction for seniors in the year 2001 will be gone. The guaranteed income supplement for the poor in the year 2001 will be gone. Universality is going out the window with it and in comes another seniors benefit program. We are going to massage, regulate, poke, administer and push around all these seniors though all the paperwork they will have to file. Their universality program for seniors failed. So they just walked away.

(1130)

Now the Prime Minister stands in the House and says: ``Health care. We go for universality, one of the five principles; universality of health care in this country. That it is important to Canadians''.

Remember, the federal government says that universality across the country is provincially administered. I have a letter on my desk from someone who lives in Edmonton. This person happens to be a Canadian missionary who lives here and travels the world spreading the good word, doing good work with the poor and the underprivileged. She also works in countries in Africa where the standard of living is abysmally low. She returns to Canada for

some months to visit with her family and then returns to foreign countries. She is a Canadian citizen and she has no health care.

She comes and goes as resident of Canada, a Canadian citizen, paying Canadian taxes. Under the universal health care program promoted by the Prime Minister and the Liberal government she has nothing, absolutely nothing. The universality of health care is eroding.

The government said: ``We blew it with pensions, health care is crumbling. What about kids? Let us move on to kids''. Bill C-41 is now the social engineering for kids. We heard the minister of state for the status of women say that all kids are going to be equal. We are going to ensure that all kids are equal. There is no such thing as equal opportunity anymore, but there are going to be equal results. Therefore we know that when there are equal results it means poverty for all. There will be no opportunity to rise above and be the best possible because as soon as a person says he is going to work hard a be a great Canadian, do the best he can to have a good standard of living-zap, taxation.

These are the types of things, this social engineer, the government is trying to do and must be stopped.

There is no mention in the bill about mediation. I am married, I have a wife and two kids and sometimes we have our disagreements so we have to mediate and resolve our differences. Families that break up are those that have differences they cannot resolve by themselves. Mediation has proven to work. It works to help families stay together. It works in every other environment. Employers and employees mediate.

General Motors and its union last night mediated to the point where they disagreed and said they agree to disagree. But they will get together one day soon and the workers will get back to work through mediation. Families that have problems need mediation.

(1135 )

But Bill C-41 says no, we are going to regulate this broken marriage, we are going to regulate the kids and we are going to collect the taxes from one and give to the other because we know how it is done. We know that one shoe fits all, one rule fits all and there is no such thing as families being themselves. The government is going to get right into administering the families and right into the bedrooms.

Remember Mr. Trudeau said the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Here is an interesting side note. Last week Statistics Canada phoned a couple in my riding. The questions asked by its representatives do not belong in this House. Questions about the personal intimate things that go on in the bedrooms of the nation are being asked by Stats Canada: ``Can you tell me all the things that go on in there?''

And when they finished with the questionnaire, the Stats Canada representative asked for my constituent's Alberta health care number so they could go back to the record and know who gave certain answers to the questions: ``Now I can relate these questions about bedroom activities with their health status''.

This government is getting far too intrusive. It is time for it to recognize the sanctity of the family, to promote the family, to help the family. When families need it, they should get mediation.

The government introduced a grid to make everything fair, so everyone would get the same. We have judges who make $130,000 a year and we give them the right to determine if somebody will be locked up for 25 years or longer or if he will walk free. We give them the total and absolute freedom to make decisions on many things.

They decide on the validity of multi-billion dollar contracts. They decide who gets what. They have total and absolute power over everything, but we do not give them the discretion to take a look at the family standing before them to decide what is best.

These people are educated. They are the best trained in the country. They are compassionate people. They have the interests of the family in mind. But this government says that while judges have authority on everything else, it will not trust them with deciding how much should be paid in child support.

It is a disgusting disgrace that this government wants to impose that type of an affront on the judiciary of this country which is perfectly capable of making these decisions itself. Because every family is unique, judges should be given the opportunity to decide what is important.

Think of the commission salesman. Think of the seasonal employee whose income goes up and down. But he will get a court order that every month he must come up with this cash. When the family was together its fortunes rose and fell according to his income. As a seasonal employee, in the good months the cash would flow in and the family could enjoy a little luxury, but it had to tighten the reins when the money was not so readily available.

It is the same with the commission salesman. If he has a good month, he will get a big paycheque; if he has a bad month, his income will go down. And the family goes along with it.

Not anymore. The non-custodial parent is going to see these fluctuations through on their own, and according to this grid the family will be protected from the vagaries and fluctuations of the non-custodial parent's income. That person will be hounded practically down the road for his last dollar if he does not live up to his agreement. Is that helping families?

This government has not thought about these kind of people. It has not built that into the system.

(1140)

With regard to violation of privacy, we have a longstanding tradition in this country that says our income tax files are private, but not anymore. Through social engineering, Bill C-41 allows people to have access to Revenue Canada.

On page 16, section 19, it says section 15 of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act is replaced by the following: ``Information banks that may be searched under this part are the information banks designated by regulations from among the information banks controlled by the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of National Revenue, Canada Employment and Immigration Commission''.

If there is a deadbeat non-custodial parent out there you can guarantee he is not going to file a tax return anymore. You are not going to get your money and the family is not going to get the money and we now have two losers instead of one because this government's heavy handedness says there is nothing that we want to protect from intrusion. Privacy means nothing when it comes to the government. The information banks we always thought were private are no longer private. Therefore you can guarantee that we will not see any income tax return or any taxes collected from someone who wishes to evade the whole system.

It is very unfortunate that this government will not support families. The member for Mission-Coquitlam has talked long about grandparents rights; visiting rights for grandparents who when a family breaks up, if they are the parents of the non-custodial parent, cannot see their grandchildren. The love and the nurturing that grandparents want to bestow on the children are denied sometimes, and this government does not care.

Surely that is what it is all about, the love and nurturing of families, not the regulation, the taxation, the poking, the pushing, the managing and manipulating this government is going to do.

Let me leave it there. It would please me if the government would withdraw this bill and bring in something positive that would help families.

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I truly enjoy rising when a member of the third party is done because it is easy to ask questions of his intervention in the House. I have a few questions. I will make them quick because I would like to get up on my feet again to ask another series of questions if I get the chance.

I listened very carefully to the member's speech as to where the Reform Party stands. In all that rambling I heard in the last 20

minutes he never once told us what the Reform would do as it relates to individuals who, as the member put it, are not capable of reconciling whether it be through mediation or one process or another.

The member was unclear but he was suggesting in his remarks that an individual who happens to be divorced, in most cases a mother who has one, two or three children, is not a family. Can the member explain to me why he seems to think the only definition of a family is someone that has two parents and a number of children, whether he agrees with the reality of the situation that in Canada it is a pretty close even split that there are many families that have only one parent either because they decide to through divorce and cannot reconcile or a parent passes away and they carry on as a single parent.

I would like those two questions answers. The one that is the most important is the definition. The other one, and I am not surprised, is what is Reform suggesting in that it does not like this bill? That is acceptable I suppose to us on this side. That means it must be a pretty good one. What would Reform do to replace it?

(1145 )

Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised that the member would ask where the Reform Party stands, when it is the government that has brought forward this bill. I thought it was this bill that we were debating but I am pleased to answer the member's question.

We stand for families. Government should help nurture and encourage families rather than regulate and tax them. Remember, as I said, the Income Tax Act has always discriminated against a family that has stayed together and a family that splits apart. That is discriminated against. Yet we know that families are the building blocks of our society and we discriminate against them.

The second point is families that have children usually start off with a couple of parents, as far as I am aware. They come together and unfortunately through problems they do not stay together. They are people, they are Canadians and we have to respect their right to live, work and try to be the best that they can be.

My experience is that when a family falls apart, everyone suffers. The non-custodial parent suffers and the custodial parent suffers and it is what we call a broken family. There are children involved and usually they are innocent of the causes of the broken family, but they are definitely, according to the research we have, the group that suffers the most.

That is why I said we believe in mediation first because mediation works within families who stay together. Mediation works in other environments but there is not the slightest hint of

one nickel of time, effort or any other commitment by this government toward mediation to keep that family together.

We say get the grid out of there because a judge who makes $130,000 and passes judgment can surely decide what is best for that family when it is sitting or standing in front of him. As in the couple of examples I gave, a grid will destroy individuals, not help them.

I am totally opposed to the income tax change because people will stop filing tax returns. The government will lose. The government will not collect the money. There will be no opportunity for parents to get back together. It will drive a wedge between them and will force them even further apart.

As I also mentioned, grandparents are a part of families too. My hon. colleague from Mission-Coquitlam has tried hard to get this government to recognize grandparents who want to love and nurture their grandchildren. They are not even recognized by this government as playing any role whatsoever. They can play a major role in helping children.

Mr. Nault: Madam Speaker, for the record, the member was not willing to verify whether he or his party agree that a single parent with children is a family. He skirted around it and said they were good Canadians and the whole bit but he would not say whether he thought they were truly a family like every other family which happens to be in Canada.

I want to ask the member about this whole issue of intrusiveness in the family and the whole issue of the Income Tax Act.

I will refer to what has been taking place in the provincial legislature in Ontario in the last few days. Members on the other side like to talk about their great friend the Mike Harris government and how close it relates to the Reform Party. That government just introduced a child support payment bill. I want to bring to the member's attention a couple of areas in the bill and ask him if he agrees or disagrees with what the Ontario government is doing. It is important if in fact he believes that our bill is so intrusive.

In the new bill that was presented to the legislature this is what the Ontario government is proposing to do. Parents who default on payments under the government's family support plan could have their driver's licences suspended and their names could be reported to credit bureaus.

(1150 )

Also included is obtaining financial statements of defaulters and making support orders against third parties who shelter the defaulter's assets; seizing 50 per cent of any funds in a joint bank account with the delinquent parent's new partner; and seizing lottery winnings of more than $1,000. Keep in mind that 77 per cent in default owe more than $1 billion in the province of Ontario. In fact, 97 per cent of those defaulters are fathers of that family the member talks about.

I want the member to answer one question. Does he think this is too intrusive? It sounds similar to what we are proposing to do when he talked especially about obtaining financial statements. I would like to know whether he agrees or disagrees with the Ontario government's move in relation to trying to deal with what is called in this article, deadbeat parents.

Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, let us remember that this government is setting up this whole regulatory process before mediation. There is no mention of mediation. There is no mention of positive help for a family. All it is concerned about is picking up and regulating the broken pieces.

Yes, there are situations where people try to avoid their responsibilities. The Reform Party is concerned about those as much as anyone else. These are the unfortunate types of things that have to be dealt with as a last resort but this government is dealing with them as a first resort. That is the point I want to get across. The government's first resort is: let us regulate, let us browbeat, let us help ourselves, let us seize, let us take away, let us tax. There is no help, no sympathy, no recognition of these people as individuals. If we could help them get back together, all this regulation would then be irrelevant, except in a small number of situations.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Resuming debate. I would like to remind the hon. members in this House that we are now in the 10-minute speech period with no questions or comments.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join in this debate, although most everything has probably been said. When I listened to the comments coming from across the floor, certainly everything there is being said again because it simply does not seem to get through.

I just listened to the member for Kenora-Rainy River for some reason try to trap my colleague from St. Albert into some kind of remark about families including single parent families. Of course no one on this side of the House would deny that single parents with children are families. Certainly I will not apologize and I do not think anyone should apologize for supporting the traditional two parent family with children. That is the ideal.

If we were to talk to single parents anywhere in this country, be they men or women, they would choose to be in a relationship with two parents and with children. That is what everyone in this country strives for. We in this party make no apologies for supporting the traditional family and opposing the government in its recognition of all manner of alternative arrangements it would propose to refer to as families.

There have been huge problems around the whole issue of divorce, family break-up, child support and child custody. There is a need in this country for the government to address those issues.

The minister of state said earlier that they had travelled across the country listening to Canadians on the issue before the bill was drafted. Unfortunately what I see in this bill, if they truly went out and listened to Canadians, is not what Canadians were telling them. It certainly addresses one issue that probably one segment of Canadians would have them address, but it does not address the whole issue in a comprehensive way.

(1155)

In some instances the failure of non-custodial parents to pay child support is a major problem and needed to be addressed in a pretty substantive way. This bill establishes four different areas of federal guidelines for support. There is the grid we have heard so much about. I will talk more about each area a little later.

There is also the opening of the Revenue Canada databases for search in cases of payment default; the denying of passports and licences to individuals who are persistently in arrears; and a provision for the garnishment of wages from public servants and seamen. On the last one, I find it interesting that the government would single out individuals working at sea. I do not know where that one comes from. Why do individuals at sea warrant specific attention any more than individuals working anywhere else? Maybe it has something to do with the longstanding reputation of sailors around the world. However, it seems strange that it is in there.

This issue is a major problem and I applaud the government for at least attempting to address part of it.

I listened to the minister talk at some length about child poverty, the favourite Liberal buzzword. It always disturbs me when I hear parliamentarians refer to the absolute necessity of solving child poverty in this country. It is unrealistic. We do not solve child poverty without solving family poverty.

If addressing the default in support payments is an attempt to address the problem of family poverty, it should strike fear into the hearts of non-custodial parents everywhere. If they are expected to solve the problem of single mothers with children living in poverty, then a huge responsibility is being put on them. I do not believe that is fair.

One of the problems all of us in Canada are quite familiar with is that 50 per cent of marriages end in divorce. Most of us have either been touched by the reality of divorce or have personally experienced it. As a member of parliament, I have certainly heard many divorced mothers and fathers discuss the problems surrounding this issue. There are a lot of real issues that need to be addressed. I wish the government had used a broader brush when it dealt with this matter and had dealt with some of the other issues besides support payments.

While at first glance the bill certainly looks broad and all encompassing, when one examines it, the bill is lacking. One of the issues we heard discussed earlier which has not been addressed in the bill but should have been is the whole issue of tax deductibility of child support payments as announced in the last budget. The fact that the government took half a billion dollars out of the hands of single mothers and custodial parents and put it into the government coffers saying that it was much more able to provide benefits to children by taking that away from parents and providing the benefits through government programs is assuming an awful lot on the part of government. One of the other issues that I hear about when I talk to divorced fathers who do not have custody of their children is the problem of access. Because of the adversarial court system, it is not the children going to court against the parents, it is one parent going to court against the other parent. One parent loses and one parent wins. That is the nature of court settlements. Often what is good for the child is not taken into account. In many instances custody is not dealt with fairly and access has not been addressed. It is unfortunate that the issue of access was not addressed by this bill.

(1200)

This is a piecemeal bill, not unlike many other initiatives which the government has brought forward over the last three years. The Liberal government addresses the issues that the Canadian public wants it to address, but it only deals with the issues that are easy to deal with and avoids the more controversial ones. That is unfortunate.

The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River asked what we would do in this situation. It has been stated before, but I will repeat it. We would approach the whole problem in a more comprehensive manner and would deal with the issue as a whole. We would focus on the issue of family support payments and enforcement of those support payments. That part of the bill is good. However, we would begin with a compulsory mediation process.

Those of us, like myself, who have been married for 30 years and have raised a family, know what it takes to make a marriage work. A willingness to mediate disputes is one of the things which keeps marriages together. When a marriage is falling apart, a system of compulsory mediation would go a long way in getting the marriage back on track. If it failed, at least it would make the split less painful for the children.

We would also include access provisions for both parents, unless that was not in the best interests of the children. Of course there are cases when a parent should not have access, but those truly are the

exception. We would also include access provisions for the extended family, which would include grandparents.

We would also deal with the way the tax system treats families and give all the benefits and encouragement that we possibly could to traditional family units under the tax system. It is quite clear that we would take a much broader approach to this whole issue.

I would like to address briefly the grid issue. It would be nice if everyone's life was as structured as the grid would have it. We could lay out the grid and someone making this much would pay this much money. That would be great, but unfortunately that is not the way life is. Different families with the same family income certainly do not have the same standard of living, nor do they enjoy the same benefits. Everyone has different circumstances and everyone manages their lives differently. It is unfortunate the government is trying to make everyone fit into these square holes. There needs to be more flexibility by the courts in addressing different circumstances. It is very unfortunate that the bill is so rigid-

(1205)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member's time has lapsed, even with some additional time. I understand we are at the stage of debate where 10 minutes are the maximum allowable.

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have it.

An hon. member: On division.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried on division.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

CRIMINAL CODE

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a bill that will make an important contribution to the safety of our communities. The high risk offender bill responds to a problem that Canadians have told us is their priority concern in the criminal justice area, namely the threat they perceive from sex offenders and other violent offenders.

In effect, Bill C-55 lays out a new sentencing regime for the worst categories of offenders. It changes and fortifies several parts of the Criminal Code and I invite members to give close attention to these amendments, particularly to the amendments that have potential to help the police, the prosecutors, judges and correctional authorities to do their jobs better.

These amendments improve the dangerous offender procedure of part XXIV of the Criminal Code, create a new long term offender sentencing category targeted at sex offenders, and establish a new form of judicial restraint order that will place controls on persons who clearly pose a threat to the security of our communities.

The Minister of Justice has held the portfolio for three years. He recognizes the passions and fears that the issue of crime inspires in many Canadians. The government has acknowledged the challenge of violent crime in the first speech from the throne. Since then the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice have worked steadily to develop effective anti-crime legislation.

The government has sought the views of all Canadians in this process. The Minister of Justice has tried to meet as many Canadians as possible to obtain their insights into community safety and how to ensure it. He has frequently met with victims groups, police groups and crime prevention committees.

(1210 )

He has discovered that Canadians want the justice system to be more focused as far as violent crime is concerned. They want to see tough measures applied to high risk offenders but the more he consults, the more he hears that people do not want simplistic solutions.

Whether talking about crime prevention, policing, sentencing or parole, Canadians expect governments to devise well crafted well focused laws that really home in on the categories or sub-categories of offenders who commit serious crimes of personal violence.

Let me turn to the proposal for a long term offender sentencing category because it is central to the package and exemplifies what I believe is a well tailored and well focused strategy.

The new long term offender procedure would be created in the Criminal Code to help us in the sentencing of repeat sex offenders. I am referring to pedophiles, the various levels of sexual assault, sexual touching, sexual exploitation, exposure and sexual interference. These are offences which may involved children or adults as victims. These are offenders who, unfortunately, frequently show a long pattern of offending.

Under the new procedure, when the prosecution identifies such repeat offending, it can make an application for a special hearing into the risks posed by the persons found guilty under these sections of the Criminal Code. Where the court finds that there is a pattern of repetitive behaviour showing a likelihood of the offender causing death or injury to other persons or inflicting severe psychological damage, it can declare him or her to be a long term offender.

The judge will then impose a penitentiary sentence-in effect the normal sentence for the sex crime in question-but also make an order which can add up to 10 years of intensive community supervision. This long term supervision period begins only when the long term offender has finished the full prison sentence, including parole and any other period of conditional release.

Thus, for example, someone convicted of sexual assault might receive a sentence of eight years imprisonment with an added ten years of supervision. Eight years from now, after completing the full sentence of imprisonment and any parole time, the offender would begin 10 years of supervision. The National Parole Board would set whatever conditions were necessary. These could involve very intensive rules for the offender, controlling his conduct, his use of alcohol, his access to places where children congregate and so forth. A requirement to report to a Correctional Service of Canada supervisor as often as is deemed necessary could also be made a condition.

We are giving teeth to this supervision system. We propose a new Criminal Code offence of breach of an order of long term supervision. This is an indictable offence carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. A charge can be laid whenever a long term offender without reasonable excuse fails or refuses to comply with the order. These new sentencing tools will extend the authority of the criminal justice system to monitor and control sex offenders.

I want to take a moment to clarify the relationship between the long term offender category and the dangerous offender procedure. The question will be raised, should not the dangerous offender procedure, which carries an indeterminate sentence, be applied to all these sex offenders? The short answer is that it often will be. Most of the sex offences in the long term offender category, such as sexual assault, can equally support a dangerous offender application.

The solicitor general, a colleague of the Minister of Justice, released a research study in May which showed that 92 per cent of the successful dangerous offender applications involved sex offences. Dangerous offender and long term offender sentencing are complementary but they are not necessarily redundant.

(1215)

Over the past 20 years dangerous offender rulings averaged 13 to 15 offenders annually. However, several hundred sex offenders are admitted to federal penitentiaries each year. Some may be potential dangerous offender candidates but many more, though certainly not all, could be candidates for the long term offender application. The difference is, in the assessment of risk in a long term offender case, the court must find not only that there is a substantial risk of reoffending but at the same time there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of that risk through community supervision.

As I have described, the judge will then structure the sentence with the appropriate combination of penitentiary time and the community supervision order. In effect, prosecutors will have flexibility in seeking a dangerous offender finding or a long term offender finding.

When a conviction for a serious sex offence occurs the crown can ask the court to remand the offender for a detailed assessment of the nature and degree of risk posed by that individual. The crown can then decide which way to go, dangerous offender application or a long term offender application.

Actually Bill C-55 provides that if the court does not find that the criteria for a dangerous offender finding are satisfied it can still make a long term offender finding and sentence the offender accordingly.

Some will ask why we are not simply increasing the prison periods for all sex offenders. We are calling this the high risk offender bill, not the throw away the key bill. The Criminal Code already provides for lengthy sentences for sex offences. For example, sexual assault causing bodily harm carries a maximum of 14 years.

Our goal is not simply to lock up every sex offender indefinitely although, as noted, an indeterminate dangerous offender sentence remains an option in some cases. Our goal is to reduce the risk posed by this special group of offenders. The reality is most offenders will eventually return to the community having served their time. Community safety is not assured by the sudden release of offenders from a prison environment.

We need to control sex offenders through a combination of jail time and managed reintegration. A long term supervision order

can result in an effective doubling of the period that a sex offender remains under the control of the state, the control of Correctional Service Canada.

I share the concern of Canadians about recidivism by pedophiles and other sex offenders. Now we will be able to structure the sentence, closely monitor the conduct of the long term offender and provide the support the offender needs to successfully readapt to the community.

I am sure figures will be thrown at me showing that pedophiles remain an ongoing risk, that the risk of reoffending is still there even after several years. Do not forget that long term offender procedure includes enforceable conditions. Any breach of the conditions of a long term supervision order can result in the offender's being immediately brought back into custody and if serious enough lead to the prosecution for a newly created offence of breach of an order.

On the other hand, it seems that full compliance over a 10 year period with the potentially stringent conditions of a long term supervision order will be a good indication of a reduced risk of reoffending.

I have mentioned the dangerous offender procedure several times. We are introducing amendments to improve part XXIV of the Criminal Code without changing the essential elements of the system which the Supreme Court of Canada has described as a valid form of sentencing. It will no longer be possible for the court to hand down a fixed sentence to a dangerous offender. An indeterminate sentence will be the only option. Of the 176 dangerous offenders to date only 7 have received a determinate or fixed sentence.

(1220)

Nevertheless, we believe that it makes little sense for the courts and the prosecution to go through the extensive dangerous offender procedure only to obtain a fixed sentence that might be close to what the offender would have received in ordinary circumstances. The core of the dangerous offender finding is that the individuals represent an ongoing risk, the limits of which cannot easily be predicted.

An indeterminate sentence is the appropriate one. Currently a dangerous offender gets an initial parole review at the third year point; that is, three years after being taken into custody. We propose to move the initial parole review date from the third year to the seventh year. Subsequent parole reviews would occur every two years thereafter.

We feel this change is justified by the fact that dangerous offenders present a very high level of risk to the public and that risk is not likely to soon abate. In fact, no dangerous offender has obtained parole on the first review.

The Minister of Justice discussed the dangerous offender procedure on several occasions with the ministers of justice and attorneys general of the provinces. After all, it is the provinces that are to be making the prosecutorial decisions in these cases. The minister's provincial colleagues unanimously agree that part XXIV is a useful mechanism and there are signs that dangerous offender applications are being used more frequently across the country.

The dangerous offender procedure requires the prosecution to meet a high standard of proof, proof of a pattern of offending, of brutality and of risk. This is as it should be given that the sentence provided is the most serious of any in the Criminal Code with the exception of life sentences for murder.

The prosecution should be able to gather the necessary evidence at the time of trial and conviction. There may be rare exceptions, however, where the crown believes that additional information not available at the time of trial may exist to support a dangerous offender application.

Bill C-55 will allow the prosecution to bring an application within six months of conviction in respect of convictions for serious personal injury offences.

I would emphasize that this is a very limited window of opportunity for the crown. The prosecution must give notice at the time of conviction of its intention to apply and must actually do so within six months. Furthermore it must show that relevant evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the imposition of the sentence became available in the interim.

There is a third pillar to this legislation, one that I believe will strengthen the community policing capacity of our police forces across this nation. This bill proposes a new form of judicial restraint order in the Criminal Code to become section 810.2. This comes within the part of the code entitled ``Sureties to Keep the Peace''.

The Canadian legal system has always provided for various forms of restraining orders, both common law and within the Criminal Code. In 1993 this House adopted a special form of judicial restraint order contained in section 810.1. It allows the court to impose an order where there are reasonable grounds to fear that a person will commit a sex offence against someone under the age of 14 years. The order can last up to a year. Conditions can be attached to the order and a breach of conditions constitutes a distinct offence.

The potential victim need not be named, nor does the section explicitly require that the person be a convicted child sex offender. Police forces and provincial prosecutors report the law is proving useful. It is frequently used in Ontario and Manitoba, and successively used.

The proposed new judicial restraint order, let us call it a section 810.2 order, has been modelled on the existing section 810.1 which I have just described.

(1225)

The order would apply for up to 12 months and would include conditions. It would be used where there are reasonable grounds to fear the commission of a serious personal injury offence. The focus therefore is on serious sex offences and other serious crimes of violence. The persons potentially at risk need not be under the age of 14, although they could be.

Section 810.2 allows the judge to set conditions with the overall objective of securing the good conduct of the defendant. In addition, Bill C-55 will specify that the judge can order the person to report to a provincial correctional authority, an appropriate police authority or to comply with a program of electronic monitoring provided that such a program is available in the place where the person resides.

I do not claim that this provision will be a panacea to the problem of individuals who pose a risk to neighbourhood safety. Rather, it is a crime prevention measure that will assist police and prosecutors to do their difficult jobs in a better fashion.

We are building on the initial promise of the existing section 810.1 provision by establishing a limited form of judicial restraint where it is clearly established that a risk of committing a serious personal injury offence is present.

I will not feel slighted if anyone characterizes this bill as a get tough package. It is that, but it is not a simplistic package. It does not climb on to the American bandwagon of simply adding prison time to every felony or, in our case, every indictable offence.

Some in this country regard the American experience as the model for us, following the American justice system down the road of three strikes and you are out or two strikes and you are out, whatever the flavour of the day happens to be, more imprisonments and massive prison construction.

I also watched the American experiment with grim fascination. There are now 1.6 million United States citizens in jail. The state of Texas now incarcerates more of its citizens than were imprisoned in the entire country several years ago.

California, with its constitutionally entrenched three strikes law, is spending more on new prisons than it is on higher education. Something is definitely wrong with that model. We are not interested in repeating that experience in this country.

I am not interested in amending the Criminal Code for the benefit of a new prison industry. There are some useful American approaches to criminal justice policy, but the facts show that too often prison is seen as the solution to every crime problem resulting in too many non-violent and low risk offenders being caught in the net.

It is too simplistic, too expensive and it simply does not work. The alternative is the one that this government has proposed, a targeted approach where we use imprisonment for serious offenders and use community based controls for others.

I want to briefly mention the federal-provincial co-operation that has gone into the development of this legislation. Unlike many other countries, our Constitution confers legislative authority over criminal law to the federal Parliament.

This division of power ensures a consistent criminal law nationwide. It also dictates that the federal government be sensitive to the role of the provinces which, for the most part, administer the law.

The Minister of Justice has received extensive help from the provincial attorneys and solicitors general in this instance. Most recently, in May 1996, they expressed strong support for the major components of this bill despite the recent comments by the Ontario solicitor general about our resolve in the area of high risk policy.

(1230 )

The federal Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice have introduced a series of measures in the House over the past two years that keep the focus where it belongs: on the prediction and the management of risk. The punishment must match the crime. The overall sentence must match the risk.

I am very pleased that chapter 22, the sentencing legislation, is now in force. It sets out clearly the fundamental premises of sentencing in criminal cases. The bill being considered today is totally consistent with these principles in its strategic use of imprisonment, supervision and crime prevention, and its focus on risk management.

Our other legislation is equally consistent and focused. Bill C-45 for example tightens the rules and criteria for lifers who want to be considered for early parole. Bill C-104, which was proclaimed in July, improves the ability of police to investigate serious crime by allowing them to obtain DNA evidence. Bill C-17, now in committee, contains over 140 separate amendments to the Criminal Code that modernize the administration of justice and the criminal law.

To bring this full circle, let me reiterate that this bill, by improving sentencing options in regard to sex offenders and other high risk offenders, is consistent with our approach to the most serious kinds of crimes. It is consistent with a series of bills we have introduced in the area of sex offences, for example: Bill C-72, now in force, dealing with self-induced intoxication; Bill C-46,

addressing the question of evidence in sex offence cases; and Bill C-27, concerning child prostitution, child sex tourism and stalking.

Certainly there is more to be done, but I would urge the members to support this bill as an important step. I would urge members to support this bill as one of the many bills that have been introduced by this government to toughen up and improve the criminal law of this country.

This government continues to pursue its agenda, strategic, well targeted, tough minded, to ensure that all citizens of Canada can live secure in safe homes on safe streets.

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River's speech on Bill C-55. Let me say right off the bat that both his speech and Bill C-55 contain some things I like, other things I do not like at all, and yet other things that are in a grey area.

When the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River talks about improving the law, about protecting society, in some regards I can only agree with his statements of principle. For example, the hon. government member who tabled this bill talks about convicted criminals, especially sexual offenders. The cases that are being raised the most often and that we find particularly troubling are obviously those associated with pedophilia and with sexual assaults against people.

Let us look more closely at the pedophilia cases. Incarceration does not cure pedophilia. Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children. Keeping a pedophile behind bars for five, six or seven years will not cure him. Society will be protected, but once the sentence has been served and the person released, he remains a high-risk offender. Unless we resort to extreme measures like chemical or surgical castration, there is no way to guarantee that he will not reoffend.

Under the new provisions in Bill C-55, after serving their sentences, convicted sexual offenders may be kept under supervision for up to 10 years. So by keeping them under supervision after their release, we can exert a measure of control. I think that is reasonable in a free and democratic society, where a happy medium must be found between individual rights and the right of the community to protection.

(1235)

Incidents like those witnessed recently in Sherbrooke for instance are the kind of thing we must strive to prevent as much as possible by increasing the level of awareness of the decision makers, be it only regarding parole. If the provisions of the Parole Act had been enforced in Canada, we would not have cases like the one in Sherbrooke and the one involving young Isabelle Bolduc, because the offenders in these cases would not have been released when they were.

Bill C-55 also aims to make it easier for the crown to have a convicted offender found to be a dangerous offender or a long-term offender. This new terminology will have to be incorporated into our criminal law.

Basically, the crown will no longer be required by law to select one or the other immediately after the verdict is rendered and before sentencing. The crown will now have six months to make application for a court hearing to have a person who has been found guilty of a crime declared a dangerous offender or a long-term offender.

This six-month period sounds like a good thing to me in that it will give crown attorneys, who, in most judicial districts in Canada, are already overburdened, the time to assess the case properly, seeking the advice of social workers, police and the community involved on whether or not this person should be declared a dangerous offender or a long-term offender. This will make for a more considered decision.

There will be less chance of the crown's overlooking obvious cases or missing cases on which it should have acted because, at present, if the crown does not make its case immediately after conviction, which means before sentencing, it loses any right to do so. It sounds reasonable to me. I agree that it is an improvement over the existing legislation to give the crown another six months and to ease the crown's burden of proving, with the help of two psychiatrists, that an offender has to be declared a dangerous offender and now a long-term offender, according to the new terminology used in section 752.1 of the Code.

The aim of this bill is to have an individual considered to be a dangerous offender or a long-term offender given an indeterminate sentence. At present, in Canada, there are orders-not many admittedly-that set specific dates. In the future, the rule will be the same for everyone: indeterminate sentence. I think this shift will also foster a more uniform application of the law in Canada.

Finally, one last measure regarding dangerous offenders and long-term offenders. A person who has been declared a dangerous offender or a long-term offender will now have to wait not three years, but seven years to apply for parole to the National Parole Board. We can agree, in essence, with measures like these ones, given the rise in crime in society.

(1240)

It is true that, in Canada, the trend generally is to say that crime is on the decrease. However, there is a rise in certain types of crimes we have not had to deal with in the past.

The proposed amendments are the new tools to deal with these different forms of crime. Traditionally, murders, theft or armed robberies accounted for some 80 per cent of the crimes brought before the courts.

In order to deal with specific crimes, we must give ourselves specific tools and modernize criminal law.

My comments apply to the bill generally. I also said at the beginning that I am not so happy about some provisions, while I truly dislike other ones, including section 810.2.

Should the bill be passed as it now stands, clause 810.2 and the ones that follow it would allow a judge, who has acquitted an individual, to impose measures to have the individual monitored. This contradicts traditional British criminal law, which is premised on the presumption of innocence and on the weight of an acquittal. How can we sentence someone who was acquitted? If one is guilty of a crime, he must pay for it by going to jail or, if the offence is minor, by paying a fine. However, a person who is acquitted can go home, unless he is being detained for another offence committed under other circumstances. A verdict of acquittal means the person is free to go. There is no grey area between the two possibilities.

The bill introduces the notion whereby someone can be acquitted but still be under probation. It basically says: ``You are acquitted, but something about you makes me feel you are a risk to society. Therefore, for a period of some ten years, you will have to regularly report to police authorities, and you will have to stay home between 11 p.m. and 8 a.m.''.

We cannot function with such rules in a society where the rule of law prevails. This is a debate that took place almost 320 years ago. In 1679, when the law of habeas corpus was passed under King Charles II, the issue was precisely that some people, whose face or behaviour the prince did not like, were detained in the Tower of London, by virtue of an order bearing the sovereign's seal. Parliament reacted by passing the law of habeas corpus, which gave people, and which still gives them, because it is enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, the right to petition a judge on any scrap of paper available-a piece of toilet paper was once used-to have the jailer bring them before the judge and justify the legality of their detention. That was what habeas corpus meant in 1679, and that is what it still means today. It is not often used in our country, precisely because it is there, a sword of Damocles preventing the violation of citizens' basic rights.

When a writ of habeas corpus is issued, prison authorities must explain why someone is being detained. One justification may be to show that there was a warrant of committal following sentencing by a judge at the conclusion of a duly held trial. But if there was an acquittal, the accused, who is no longer the accused, however, because he was acquitted and told: ``I acquit you'' is also told that now, for ten, three or five years, he will be the object of certain special measures.

In the provinces where it is possible, he could even be electronically monitored. He is told: ``You will be required to wear a small bracelet and stay near a telephone line, and when the signal is interrupted or cut off, will come to your home to see if you are there'', well, the accused, it would seem to me, is justified, under the Canadian Charter, under the rules of habeas corpus, in saying: ``I require you to justify the legality of my detention''.

(1245)

This is a 300 year step back in the history of criminal law. Under no circumstances can we support provisions creating sentences for individuals who have been acquitted.

However, we can quite happily support more stringent, more appropriate measures for those found guilty who are at risk of reoffending. That is one thing, and Bill C-55 deals with that problem, but it is another thing to sentence, in a roundabout way, those who have already been acquitted. This is not a concept that belongs in our criminal law.

I taught criminal law for twenty some years and at the end of each session in various groups I invariably put the following question, or something along these lines: ``What should be the sentence for someone who has just been acquitted for the third time of murder in the first degree?'' I underlined the words ``murder in the first degree''. Invariably, two thirds of the class would tell me: life imprisonment. In the next class, I always got a kick out of telling them that we were lucky to live in a country where there were no sentences for people who had been acquitted.

If I go back to teaching law, I will have to revise my thinking. I will have to tell my students: now, because of Bill C-55, a person acquitted in our country can be sentenced. There is something fundamentally wrong with this.

Canadians know the rules of criminal law. We are all familiar with the concept of presumption of innocence. We all know that the crown is bound to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I think people are most familiar with this aspect of the law because it is so often applied by the average person. The jury rule, which essentially goes back to 1215 and the Magna Carta, is a concept that has forged our legal thinking, even that of the average citizen.

When we talk to constituents in our ridings, they are often more familiar with the rules of criminal law than civil law. These are not complicated rules. They are simple rules based on logic and common sense. In this case, the government is no longer using common sense, and when concepts get confused, citizens get confused as well.

I hope, and the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River might discuss this with his minister, that the idea of giving a sentence to a person who has been found not guilty will be dropped when the bill is considered in committee.

It is not our intention to vote against the bill at the second reading stage. We want this bill to be studied in committee. However, we do not want a replay of what happened in the case of Bill C-45 last June, when the government wanted Parliament to pass all stages of the bill in a matter of days. There should be a thorough study of the bill.

And should the government ever decide to maintain the provisions in section 810.2-a government that is so fond of making references to the Supreme Court-I think that before issuing an order in council for the coming into force of this bill, the bill should be referred to the Supreme Court for an opinion on the constitutionality of section 810.2 and following, in the light of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, more specifically, sections 11(d) and 11(h) of the Charter.

I will read these two sections. We read the following:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right:

(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again;

(1250)

I believe that the government is taking considerable risk, perhaps unawares. If it has not seen that risk, probably the questions we are raising today will prompt it to take a second look, or, to use the oft-repeated expression, to go back to the drawing board. No one will hold it against the government if it has to improve its own bill when it comes to the committee stage, after redoing its homework.

If the government is aware, and is doing this knowingly, one may well wonder what its purpose is. Does it really want to change the Criminal Code in order to improve the application and administration of justice, or does it want to make a political statement? Is it courting a certain segment of the electorate who would be delighted to see the innocent detained?

The other day I heard the hon. member for Crowfoot defending some positions similar to mine. In appearing before a parliamentary committee discussing a bill, he said that it is one thing to punish a person who has been found guilty, but it is quite another thing to take away the freedom or fundamental rights of a person who is presumed innocent, or worse yet who has been found innocent of the crime of which he was accused. This is a serious reservation.

If the same bill were to come back to us at third reading with no guarantee of the rights of those who have been acquitted, potentially anyone of us in this House, you, me, anyone, could be the target of section 810.2, where there is a return to guilt by association, guilt by suspicion, like there was under the Mussolini regime in the 1930s. Then anyone could be found guilty on legitimate suspicion.

In Canada, we operate on the principle that proof must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Other jurisdictions in other countries say that there must be sufficiently convincing proof. Italy in the 30's established the criterion of legitimate suspicion. Why? Among other things, in order to fight organized crime. This did not work, because it constantly lowered the degree of evidence a judge needed to find someone guilty.

What is legitimate suspicion? This can expand to crimes that may be committed, thought crimes, any kind of crime. It is a criterion which does not go into sufficient depth. With section 810.2, the government is going back to the Mussolini laws of 1930, which allowed people to be found guilty based on legitimate suspicion.

On the one hand, using the criterion of proof beyond reasonable doubt, someone is acquitted. On the other hand, using the criterion of legitimate suspicion, someone is acquitted, but subject to certain measures, to supervision for a given number of years. There is something wrong with this.

I believe that, the further this bill moves along in the House and in committee, the more it will be realized that these clauses are privative and need to be taken out of the bill. On these grounds, the official opposition will support second reading of this bill, but will take steps to see that section 810.2 and all those clauses which, to all intents and purposes, are intended to sentence an acquitted person, are deleted.

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find this bill quite substantial in content. It takes a considerable amount of time to grasp everything that is recorded here and what impact it

will have on Canadians, on criminal justice and certainly policing and the courts.

(1255 )

I had an opportunity to go through a good portion of the bill in detail. I tried to cross reference it with the Criminal Code. It was not an easy task because the bill touches on so many areas, not only of the Criminal Code but of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and other statutes.

In my preamble relating to criminal justice matters I will relate some of the concerns that Canadians, including those in my caucus, have expressed to me, and then I will get into the bill.

Let me reflect on what the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister has stated. He has trumpeted this legislation by the justice minister as evidence of the government's commitment to get tough on criminals. He even said that he would not apologize for that statement if anyone accused him or his government of getting tough. But I will question it.

Although the parliamentary secretary is prone to that kind of rhetoric, he really has not looked closely at his statements nor at the bill. If he looked at the bill, he would not say such nonsensical things. It is not a tough bill, as this debate will clearly show. Reformers will certainly examine this claim in the debate that follows. I trust the parliamentary secretary and the justice minister will listen intently.

In the end, Canadians will judge whether this bill properly addresses their well founded concern over rising violent crime, the unchecked activities of sexual predators and the proliferation of pedophiles within our communities.

Before my colleagues and I address the technical aspects of the bill, let me spell out what Canadians are calling for in terms of protecting their communities, their families and their sense of personal security.

Canadians deserve to feel that they and their families are safe in their homes, at work, at school, on the street and in their communities. They want to live in a country where their children can play in parks, go to school and grow up without fear. They want a justice system that does more to protect law-abiding citizens than it does for criminals. Canadians want a country where they can look to the future instead of over their shoulders.

How can this be done? I know the justice minister will say that Bill C-55 is the solution. He will consider this bill to be his trump card going into the next election. However, Reformers will let Canadians judge how convincing are the arguments of the justice minister and the parliamentary secretary.

Canadians tell Reformers at town hall forums, community meetings, victims' memorials and rallies, coffee shops, truck stops and outside bank machines that the justice system has failed them. I do not know where the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister has been but obviously he has not been talking to people in front of a bank machine to listen to what the average citizen has to say.

Reformers never feel awkward about looking Canadians in the eye. In fact, we look them straight in the eye and we listen to what they have to say. They tell us to enact a victims' bill of rights that puts the rights of law-abiding citizens ahead of criminals' rights. That is probably the most contentious issue that exists today when it comes to the penal system. Canadians want to see some punishment in it and there is none. Of course the government side is not listening to that at all.

Canadians say the justice system should be reformed to provide safer communities, safer streets and safer homes. They say, hold a binding national referendum on the return of the death penalty for first degree murderers. Canadians believe they should have the final determination, not ivory tower, soft on crime Liberal lawyers, in choosing a fair and just punishment for monsters such as Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo.

(1300 )

Well over 76 per cent of Canadians seek to have the death penalty reinstated. However the Minister of Justice, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, the Solicitor General, and those sitting in that front row will not consider reinstating the death penalty or even asking Canadians what they would like the government to do.

They say that Canadians want the Liberals' $400 million gun registry replaced with meaningful laws to fight the criminal use of firearms. Just to touch on that one point, the amount of money that is being spent on this registration system is indecent and insane. And it is not protecting Canadians one iota.

Canadians want meaningful reform to the parole system and at the very minimum they want parole abolished for first degree murderers. Clearly the debate in the House over Bill C-45 brought that message home loud and clear. I know for a fact that Canadians have been pointedly telling those in that front row over there on the other side that section 745 should be stricken from the record, scrapped and repealed.

Canadians also want the Young Offenders Act repealed, or at least replaced with measures that would hold young criminals accountable for their actions. This is a very common sense request on the part of Canadians which has now become a demand that the government do that, but again deaf ears on that side.

These are the things Canadians are saying. This will be the criteria by which Canadians judge the justice minister's claim that Bill C-55 will get tough on violent criminals or high risk offenders.

Canadians will also judge the strengths and weaknesses of this legislation in terms of how it proposes to change the justice system with a view to getting tough on crime. Those are the parliamentary secretary's specific words. The parliamentary secretary says they are getting tough on crime. Let us look closely at the bill and see how tough, if at all.

Canadians tell Reformers that they want to see very specific and very broad changes to the criminal justice system. They tell us that they want some of the following measures introduced into the justice legislation. The guiding question should be: How far does Bill C-55 go toward changing the criminal justice system? Will Bill C-55 for example implement truth in sentencing, meaning that the sentence given will be the sentence served by all violent offenders?

I listened to the parliamentary secretary talk about sexual assault. Obviously the parliamentary secretary has not been in a courtroom for some time or he would realize that judges are handing down two and three-year sentences to rapists, not the 14 years as outlined in the Criminal Code as the maximum sentence. That is reality.

Will Bill C-55 for example implement two strikes laws, meaning that violent offenders who commit on two separate occasions an offence causing serious personal injury will be sentenced to an automatic indeterminate life sentence? Will the bill do that? No.

Will parole be limited, earned and tightly monitored under the proposals put forward in Bill C-55? Can a dangerous offender application be made at any time during a criminal's sentence, not just at the beginning of court proceedings? Will section 745 of the Criminal Code be repealed, scrapped and abolished, not simply tinkered with, to ensure that no murderer receives early parole?

(1305 )

Those will be the questions and criteria by which Canadians will judge this legislation. On behalf of Canadians, Reformers will certainly do their part to bring the government to task on these very important concerns, especially with respect to Bill C-55.

Let us examine the specifics of the bill. Essentially, Bill C-55 is made up of three components: a new and expanded dangerous offender provision; a new long term offender provision; and a new judicial restraint clause. Also of concern is clause 15 which grants special rights in respect of aboriginal convicted offenders.

Let us look at the dangerous offender provision. The new dangerous offender provision in Bill C-55 recognizes that the current process by which certain criminals are assigned dangerous offender status and are therefore required to serve an indefinite penitentiary sentence is not sufficiently strong enough to protect Canadian communities against violent criminals.

Reformers applaud the new provisions which expand the criteria for designating violent criminals as dangerous offenders. That is one positive aspect of the bill. However, the proposed changes for designating certain criminals as dangerous offenders do not go far enough.

Section 753(1), (2), (3) and (4) in Bill C-55 would allow the crown up to six months after conviction to bring about a dangerous offender application. At present the current rules afford the crown only a narrow and limited window at the time of conviction to bring about a dangerous offender application. Even under the proposed changes the provision would apply only if the crown gives notice at the time of conviction of the possibility of a delayed dangerous offender application and where relevant, information emerges to support the application.

The Reform Party will be proposing several amendments in committee to this part of the bill. In the past a dangerous offender application had to be made at the time of sentencing. This bill proposes a slight extension to that window.

There has been a problem with releasing high risk offenders into the community. They will reoffend. The authorities have stated this time and time again. There are no provisions in the bill which address this point. The fumbling way the justice minister has attempted to address this has been to impose a judicial restraint order after the fact. In other words, after the offender has served his time and he most likely is not under any parole supervision, the justice minister will go to the attorney general of the province to apply for a judicial restraint order. I will get into that point in more detail later.

I want to reflect on what Reformers will do as far as the proposed amendments are concerned.

We will propose that Bill C-55 allow for dangerous offender findings to be made at any time after sentencing. To be clear, the crown should be given the right to seek dangerous offender status for persons convicted of crimes causing serious personal injury at any time during the offender's penitentiary sentence. One of our members submitted Bill C-254 which addresses the issue in detail, but unfortunately members on the other side of the House voted it down.

(1310)

We also propose that Bill C-55 be amended for greater certainty to require the courts to automatically place a dangerous offender finding upon any person who commits on two or more separate occasions an offence constituting a serious personal injury offence. Under the present system the crown may or may not apply for a dangerous offender finding after any number of offences. Reform's

proposal would require the courts to automatically effect a dangerous offender finding after the second offence.

Another thing disturbed me about the bill as I was going through it this morning. One can make the application for dangerous offender. That is a given; there is no question that this application can be made but that is not the end of it. The offender's agent, the lawyer, can then appeal that dangerous offender statement by the court. So it does not end there. It does not matter if the person is a dangerous offender or a long term offender, the lawyer can again bring that person before a court of appeal and the whole process starts all over again. I find that to be questionable.

What are we creating here, another bill of so-called Liberal justice? We are saying it should be automatic. Once that offender has committed a second offence, he is gone away for an indeterminate sentence and there is no opportunity to appeal.

Mr. Morrison: Then there would be less work for lawyers.

Mr. Hanger: My colleague points out that it might put a few lawyers out of work.

That in itself is not the most disturbing part. I looked even further and it reflects on the whole area of appeal. Another very interesting part of the bill deals with section 760 and reads as follows:

Where a court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender or a long term offender, the court shall order that a copy of all reports and testimony given by psychiatrists, psychologists, criminologists and other experts and any observations of the court with respect to the reasons for the finding, together with a transcript of the trial of the offender, be forwarded to the Correctional Service of Canada for information.

The parliamentary secretary talked about dealing with the legislation in a very open fashion when it is fraught with all kinds of hidden agendas and this is one of them. There will be endless hearings, endless court cases, endless record keeping, endless filing. It goes on and on to further perpetuate the problems our justice system is already in. It will be bogged down with more and more administration. It will be a bureaucratic nightmare.

There can be no question that pedophiles and sexual predators are dangerous offenders. Therefore, we propose that Bill C-55 take into account pedophiles and sexual predators, especially to expand the list of Criminal Code offences upon which a dangerous offender application may be brought about.

(1315)

Specifically, we suggest that the following provisions be added to the dangerous offender designation: an offence under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code, section 151, sexual interference; section 152, invitation to sexual touching; section 153, sexual exploitation; subsection 160(3), bestiality in the presence of or inciting a child to commit bestiality; 170, parent or guardian procuring sexual activity; 171, householder permitting sexual activity by child; section 172, corrupting children; section 212(2), living off the avails of prostitution by a child; section 212(4), obtaining sexual services of a child.

Under part (b), an offence under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code involving a person under the age of 18: section 155, incest; 159, anal intercourse; 161(1) and (2), bestiality and compelling bestiality; section 271, sexual assault; section 272, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm.

Under part (c), an offence involving a person under the age of 18 years under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code, Chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970 as they read immediately before January 4, 1983: 144, rape; section 145, attempt to commit rape; section 149, indecent assault on a female; section 156, indecent assault on a male.

Those sections reflect on our children, on our families and are not included in the present bill put forward by the justice minister. It is our suggestion that they will come forward in the form of a motion that may be included.

In point three, under the dangerous offender provision, Bill C-55 proposes to change section 761, which would review indeterminate sentences after seven years of custody rather than the previous three years.

This is an improvement on the previous review process but it is not tough enough. Therefore Reform proposes that section 761 be amended to allow review of indeterminate sentences after 15 years of custody rather than the existing provision of three years or the proposed seven years as advanced in Bill C-55.

Let us talk about the long term offender provision. Bill C-55 would amend the Criminal Code to proposed section 753.1(1) which would permit a court to find a person to be a new category of offender, a long term offender, if it can be determined among other criteria that there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend.

Under section 753.1(2), it is further required that the court shall be satisfied that there is a substantial risk if the offender is convicted of an offence under ones that have been previously related to sections 151, 152 and 153, subsection 173(2), sections 271, 272 and 273.

Reform believes that this list of Criminal Code provisions does not again go far enough for the stated purpose of assigning long term offender status to certain criminals.

(1320)

Therefore for greater certainty and to include a broader range of offences committed by sexual predators and pedophiles, we propose that Bill C-55 be amended to include under proposed section 753.1(2), part (a), an offence under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code: subsection 160(3), bestiality in the presence of or inciting a child to commit bestiality; section 170, parent or guardian procuring sexual activity; section 171, householder permitting sexual activity by a child; section 172, corrupting children; section 212(2), living off the avails of prostitution by a child; section 212(4), obtaining sexual services of a child.

Part (b), an offence under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code involving a person under the age of 18 years: section 155, incest; section 159, anal intercourse; sections 160(1) and (2), bestiality and compelling bestiality.

Part (c), an offence involving a person under the age of 18 years under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code, Chapter C-34, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970 as they read immediately before January 4, 1983: section 144, rape; section 145, attempt to commit rape; section 149, indecent assault on a female; section 156, indecent assault on a male.

Those are the long term offender provisions that the Reform Party will certainly be entering in the form of amendment.

The final point is that of judicial restraint provisions. Bill C-55 proposes that section 810.2 be added to the Criminal Code, thereby permitting the attorney general to lay an information against anyone the attorney general believes will commit a serious personal injury offence. The individual then appears before a provincial court judge. If the judge is satisfied of the concern, an order to enter into recognizance with reasonable conditions for up to one year may be made. If the individual fails or refuses to enter into recognizance the judge may commit the defendant to a prison term not exceeding 12 months. That is substantial considering there are no charges, no convictions and really nothing more than a mere suspicion.

The judge may also prohibit the possession of firearms or ammunition and order the surrender of firearms acquisition certificates. Conditions can include reporting to the correction authority of a province, police authority or complying with a program of electronic monitoring if available.

This provision may be made even though the individuals may have been acquitted of any charge or never even charged with a criminal offence and is probably the most obnoxious part of this bill. It is a violation of civil liberties.

Reform believes that this clause constitutes a broad indiscriminate infringement of personal liberty which unduly violates the civil rights of an individual. The judicial remedies proposed in clause 9 of Bill C-55 should only be contemplated in matters where individuals have been convicted of offences under the Criminal Code of Canada and according to due process of law.

Therefore in our list of amendments that will be forthcoming at another time Reform proposes that clause 9 be struck in its totality from Bill C-55.

I am going to again briefly reflect on something else that comes to mind on this bill, another point that makes this legislation somewhat weaker than what the minister or the parliamentary secretary has just indicated.

I was going through the bill on section 753.3 where an accused has been placed on long term supervision and has been released into the community where monitoring has been required of the individual. It is noted that if that offender steps outside the province, the conditions that he is to meet no longer apply. I suggest there is going to be quite a movement of long term offenders about this country as they hop from one province to another. Just think of the implications that will have on our police departments trying to keep track of these wandering long term offenders.

(1325)

If the long term offender commits another offence in that province it is not an automatic thing that he be suspended or placed back into incarceration. Rather, the police agency is required to do the following: ``Where the accused is found, is arrested or is in custody, but if the place where the accused is found, is arrested or in is custody is outside the province in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, no proceedings in respect of that offence shall be instituted in that place without the consent of the attorney general of that province''.

In other words what do we have? We have another glitch in the so-called tough legislation presented by the Minister of Justice. As we dig more and more into this bill it is becoming evident that it is far from getting tough on crime and it is not going to be this trump card that the minister thinks he will be walking into the election with.

I want to address one point before concluding, clause 15. Clause 15 deals with the provisions of the aboriginal community. It states that if the long term offender expresses the interest in being supervised in an aboriginal community, that community must receive notice of the supervision order and have the opportunity to propose a plan for release and integration into the community.

This point does not apply to any community in the country except an aboriginal community. This would again appear to be an example of the Liberal government's decision to treat some Canadians differently and bring about inequality. Aboriginal communities will have the right to notice of release of a high risk offender into their community and the right to become involved in planning for that release. Other Canadian communities do not receive this notice or this opportunity.

We will propose that clause 15 be amended so that ``aboriginal community'' reads ``local community'' so that it will be applicable to every community in this country, not just those as indicated by the Liberal justice minister's form of justice. That concludes my statement on Bill C-55.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Brampton.

I have a number of thoughts to express to the House today, having consulted widely with my constituents of London-Middlesex on this bill and having received considerable input from them.

The hon. member who just spoke, my colleague opposite from the Reform Party, in his last point addressed the matter of application of this bill to the aboriginal community. Frankly, I get a little tired of hearing from the Reform Party that unless we treat each and every Canadian in the exactly the same way on exactly every piece of legislation, somehow we are taking a wrong approach or that we are being unfair. That simply perpetuates a myth that ought to be debunked right now.

Mr. Thompson: Do you have a problem with equality?

(1330 )

Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex): I believe the member for Wild Rose, in interjecting just now, asked if I have a problem with equality. No, I do not have a problem with equality. However, not every single Canadian has to be treated in exactly the same way in every single aspect of our society in order to respect equality. As a matter of fact, I suggest that it is just the opposite. That kind of an attitude fails to recognize that there exists in this great land, from coast to coast to coast, a number of differences among Canadians.

I would ask my colleagues from the Reform Party to respect my opportunity to speak to the House without heckling me as I certainly did with them when they were speaking, although I disagreed with some of their points of view. I would certainly welcome their questions within the spirit of the rules.

It is obvious that our aboriginal peoples, respecting their traditions and what reality has shown us is more effective in dealing with offenders from the aboriginal community, that there is nothing wrong with taking a look at how this bill can be most effectively applied to aboriginal offenders. I would be disappointed in the Minister of Justice and in this bill if it did not hold out that possibility. That was the first point I want to make.

I am sure all of us, as members of Parliament, whatever part of the House we sit in, are well aware of the public perception that the rate of violent crimes has increased. I hear that from time to time from some of my constituents. However, I also hear from police officers, chiefs of police and other experts in the law enforcement field that fortunately the reality is that we do not have this massive increase in violent crime. We have some alarming trends that need to be dealt with and the purpose of Bill C-55 is to do just that. It is to address the reality of high risk offenders and to deal with those people effectively.

However, as members of Parliament, it is very important that we not subscribe to, let alone fuel, the perception that Canada is seeing a massive increase in violent crime because it is simply not the case. Anybody, whether he be an elected member of the House of Commons or a non-elected Canadian citizen, who fuels that myth and buys into it is doing a disservice to our society. Statistics and facts do not bear it out.

In my view, we need to ask where the dangerous trends are in our society vis-à-vis violent crime and address those. I believe Bill C-55 will do that very effectively.

First, as the speech from the throne made the commitment to the Canadian people, there has been widespread, public consultation on this bill. As one member of Parliament, I believe that the vast majority of Canadians agree with this bill and will support it becoming legislation.

Most experts, whether they be in law enforcement or other aspects of the criminal justice system, support this move by the government. I quote Mr. Scott Newark, executive officer of the Canadian Police Association, in speaking to this bill. He said: ``The proposed high risk offenders legislation is the single most important improvement in Canadian public safety legislation in the last 20 years''. That does not come from me as a Liberal member of Parliament. I am quoting the executive officer of the Canadian Police Association.

On matters of crime and justice, whether it was Bill C-68, the gun legislation issue was so emotional, or whether it is this bill, I do not purport to be an expert in law enforcement or in the justice system. I am not a lawyer as most Canadians are not lawyers.

(1335 )

I have learned through 16 years of elected office at the municipal and now federal level that we ought very carefully to seek out expert opinion before casting a vote on important legislation. It is very important to me to hear from the law enforcement community on issues such as gun control and Bill C-55. I put great stock in the comments of the executive officer of the Canadian Police Association.

There was widespread public input on the bill. There is very general and widespread support for Bill C-55. Several initiatives are set out in the bill, three of which are most important.

It creates a new long term offender designation that targets sex offenders and adds a period of long term supervision of up to 10 years following release from prison. That is a very valid concern of the people who have contacted me as a member of Parliament. Unfortunately, repeat violent offenders will pose a risk to public safety now and in the years to come. Some of them will pose a risk for the remainder of their lives. This legislation seeks to deal specifically with the threat to public safety.

The second important initiative is the strengthening of the dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code.

The third initiative is the new judicial restraint provision to permit controls, including electronic monitoring, to be applied to individuals who pose a high risk of committing a serious personal injury offence.

Public perception matches the reality of the statistics. Although there has not been a massive increase in violent crime in Canada, a number of individuals who are repeat violent offenders, pose a serious threat to public safety. The initiatives to which I have just referred very effectively deal with those people.

Concomitant with that, and very important in my mind, is the fact that the government also is taking an initiative to deal with low risk, non-violent offenders in other ways besides incarceration. The answer is not simply to build more jails. If that were true the safest society in the world would be the United States of America. It incarcerates an incredible percentage of its population. Statistics tell us that on a per capita basis the most dangerous society in the world in which to live-the society in which a person has the greatest odds of being assaulted, robbed, sexually assaulted or murdered-is the United States of America. The building of more jails in the U.S.A. has not resulted in a safer society. As a matter of fact, it has not dealt with the problem effectively at all.

I am very pleased to be a member of a government which is going to proceed, through this and other pieces of legislation, to deal more effectively with repeat violent offenders, including sexual offenders. However, at the same time a more enlightened, effective and efficient approach has to be taken in dealing with those offenders who are low risk, non-violent offenders. Both initiatives have to be seen as complementary.

The fact of the matter is that the public will see more effective measures to deal with high risk offenders. What do I mean exactly by a high risk offender? It is someone who has been convicted of a serious violent crime and who has been found to have a strong likelihood of reoffending, but who cannot be shown to meet the narrow definition of the dangerous offender which would result in indefinite incarceration.

The bill increases the options of the government in dealing with violent offenders. Suffice it to say that most of the constituents who have contacted me regard this bill as good legislation. They support it. That includes lay people and law enforcement officers in my community. They support it as a necessary improvement in dealing with serious violent offenders, and I am pleased to support the legislation.

(1340)

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief so my colleague can get in his question as well.

I first want to comment on the equality statement that was made by the hon. member in his speech. This bill outlines that the law it is presenting is prepared to go into community a and prepare it for the release of a violent offender.

Why would the hon. member not be willing to see community b or community c receive the same kind of preparedness? Why only one community? It is a good idea so why not do it all the way through the system? Or are we talking about discrimination here? I do not understand where the member is coming from when he says that community a should get this but the others should not.

Second, has the member checked lately the number of unreported violent crimes? When experts talk about the number of violent crimes going down, it is the number of violent crimes being reported that is going down.

When we ask individuals who have had offences committed against them why they did not report them, they say that they have seen from the experiences of others who have gone through the same things that due to this soft Liberal approach on crime, the criminals and their rights are up front and the victims and their rights are not considered. The victim suffers more in some cases by reporting a crime than by not reporting it. The victim would rather not go through further suffering.

Is the member aware that that actually exists in this country, or is he living in some dreamland where he thinks that does not happen?

I have one comment to make on the bill as a whole. I hope when the justice minister goes home at night he does not travel the way he makes legislation, because if he does he would never get home. He would only get half way. I wish the Liberals would go all the way with some of their legislation and cover all the aspects and quit leaving big holes in these bills.

Of course, most of the legislation I have seen in the past has been built by lawyers for lawyers, and benefits lawyers. We are quite

concerned about the amount of court time that will be involved in implementing this entire package.

Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, I hardly know where to begin. My colleague from Wild Rose has raised several points.

Let me begin with the hon. member's assertion that this is legislation built by lawyers for lawyers. Perhaps he was not in the Chamber when I quoted the statement of Mr. Newark, executive officer the Canadian Police Association: ``This proposed high risk offenders legislation is the single most important improvement in Canadian public safety legislation in the last 20 years''. Mr. Newark is not a lawyer. He is a law enforcement officer and I take his comments very advisedly. It speaks very clearly to the fact that experts in the field besides lawyers view this legislation as a very important improvement.

As to my comments about the application of Bill C-55 to the aboriginal community, with all due respect to my colleague, I certainly did not say that one community should get this but others should not. He attributed those comments to me but I certainly did not say that.

I was reacting to his colleague who spoke just before me. He said that he saw no way this bill should be applied any differently to the aboriginal community than to the rest of Canadian society. I repeat, in my opinion that is a very short sighted view of Canadian society. The reality of the aboriginal community in Canada is that different techniques are more effective within that community. But because we can apply a bill in a different way with one community does not mean than we are favouring one community over another.

(1345)

If that were the case, as a parent with three children, two boys and one girl, I would have to treat them exactly the same in every aspect of their lives. That is just not common sense in a family situation or in the justice system. That is the point I was trying to make.

With reference to how this may apply in other communities, I would only say to my hon. friend opposite that we live a dynamic society. The bill is an improvement. That is not to say it is perfect or that over time it cannot be improved. Perhaps there will be opportunities to apply it differently in various communities as the cases may warrant.

Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I hope we can interpret the hon. member's statement as saying that there may be an amendment to this bill to make it equally applicable to all sectors of society.

My specific question deals with the hon. member's reference to statistics. I do not know how much he knows about the subject. I know a considerable amount because it is part of my background. It is very easy to pull a short section out of a statistical trend and say look, it is rising, it is dropping. If we are going to study a trend we have to study it over a reasonable period of time. I will grant that over the last couple of years there has been a very minor drop in the rate of violent crime in the country. But if we look at the statistics from about 1962 onward we can see many positive and negative blips. There is no such thing as a flat statistic trend.

Then the hard fact of the matter is that the rate of violent crime in Canada since 1962 has increased by almost 400 per cent. I suspect the hon. member knows that. I wish that when he uses statistics he would use them a little more broadly and generously.

Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, I am not given to long statistical arguments. I would invite my colleague to review my comments. I did not cite specific statistics. I did speak to the misperception which has been statistically proven as a misperception by experts in the field, both in the justice and law enforcement system.

Mr. Morrison: What about Statistics Canada?

Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, the member asked me a question and now he does not seem to want the answer.

The fact is that statistics prove that the misperception that we are on some rampant, runaway course of increase in violent crime in Canada today is simply not the case and it does none of us credit to fuel that misperception.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, justice policies often deal with issues which are the focus of great concern among Canadians. It is an area of public policy that comes under scrutiny daily in homes across the country as Canadians read their newspapers and watch the news. Unfortunately, it is also a source of a great deal of frustration.

The failure of successive governments to effectively combat high risk offenders has left Canadians feeling wary and cynical. Canadians are well aware of the types of crimes that occur and reoccur in their communities. They are well aware of the challenges we as parliamentarians face. That is why it is difficult for me as a member of Parliament and a democrat to act on the conventional wisdom prevalent among so-called experts. They claim the concern among Canadians over crime issues is overstated. They would have us spend our energies telling our constituents that they have no reason to worry about crime in this country.

(1350 )

I speak to my constituents every day and every day they tell me they are frustrated and afraid because of the level of violent crime in Canada. I am pleased to speak to this proposed legislation which addresses many of the concerns expressed by my constituents.

This legislation addresses very legitimate fears among Canadians over the ability of the justice system to deal with repeat sex offenders and specifically high risk offenders. It introduces tough

but effective controls to tip the balance in the fight against crime in our favour.

A case in point is the new long term offender designation. This designation was created to respond to the threat posed by sex offenders who do not quite qualify as dangerous offenders but still pose a risk to society. Bill C-55 proposes to add a period of supervision of up to 10 years following release from prison. This designation applies to a wide range of serious sexual offences from sexual touching to aggravated sexual assault.

The long term offender designation could also be applied to a person who committed another offence that had a sexual component, for example, somebody who committed a break and enter with a clear intention of sexually assaulting the occupants.

Canadians have consistently expressed frustration with the release from prison of sex offenders who are likely to reoffend. The dangerous offender designation responds to this concern in only the most extreme cases, leaving a significant gap in the high risk offender sentencing regime. The creation of the long term offender designation fills this gap.

A long term offender finding can be made only where the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable possibility of eventually controlling the risk imposed by the individual to the community. This allows a more structured kind of sentence for this type of offender, allowing the courts to pass tailor made effective sentences within a broad framework. This approach to justice policy is characteristic of the manner in which this government and this minister have responded to the challenges of this very important portfolio.

Efforts to streamline the sentencing process are evident in the proposed amendments to the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code. Currently judges have the discretion to establish fixed sentences for individuals who are designated dangerous offenders. This is problematic.

The federal-provincial-territorial task force on high risk violent offenders correctly reported last year that it makes no sense to go through the dangerous offender procedure only to obtain a fixed sentence comparable to what might have been obtained without this lengthy exercise.

Under Bill C-55 when a dangerous offender application is successful the offender will automatically be sentenced to a period of indefinite incarceration. This measure is a recognition that dangerous offenders are just that and that the onus rests with them to demonstrate that they should be released from prison.

Other measures in the proposed legislation underline this message. The initial parole review of a dangerous offender would be moved to the seventh year from the third of incarceration and the number of psychiatrists required to testify has been reduced from two to one.

The introduction of a mechanism to allow a dangerous offender application up to six months after conviction rather than at the time of sentencing will allow the crown to act on information which may be brought to its attention following the conviction of an offender.

A third aspect of this legislation is the new judicial restraint provision which permits controls, including electronic monitoring of high risk offenders. This provision is much needed and has great potential for monitoring and controlling the movement of individuals who pose a risk of committing a serious personal injury offence. It should be noted that the exercise of this option does not depend on the individual's having committed a criminal offence. It is a preventive measure which will equip police with the means to monitor the conduct of offenders who pose a risk to society.

I might suggest that one feature of this legislation be singled out for intense study in committee, the long term offender designation. This is a very innovative and desirable aspect of the proposed legislation which deserves special attention. The committee should ensure that judges have a great deal of flexibility in the substance of its application. I have a specific use in mind.

(1355)

Judges should have the ability to prescribe the application of new technologies for use in the monitoring of high risk offenders. Electronic monitoring has a multiplicity of uses in the fight against crime.

Judges should be vested with the ability to put this technology to use in monitoring high risk offenders. The committee should make every effort to ensure that the necessary legislation is in place to allow the application of new and emerging technologies to monitor long term offenders.

This legislation represents a well thought out, effective approach to dealing with justice issues which are paramount in the minds of Canadians. Some politicians have made a career of demanding monolithic, inflexible blanket legislation which imposes hefty minimum sentences. They will no doubt argue, as they always do, that this legislation does not go far enough in the war against crime. To them and their supporters, I offer the following observations.

It is true that we can draft any bill conceivable as long as it is within the jurisdiction of the federal government. However, if it will not work in the real world, the world that exists beyond these four walls, we are just wasting our time and betraying the trust of the people who put us here.

Let us not take the easy way out. Let us take the time to draft effective legislation that works. I would like to remind all hon. members that drafting justice policy is always a very difficult task.

We must balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the victims and the entitlement of society to an effective, fair justice system.

We must not fall into the trap of introducing laws that are inflexible and therefore incompatible with the task of achieving individual acts of justice within a broad public policy framework.

In the end, the true measure of an effective justice policy is the sum of the individual acts of the justice it achieves. We must strive to have effective laws. Bill C-55 achieves the balance required of good justice policy. I would encourage hon. members to give it their support.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member intently as she made her presentation on Bill C-55. In her opinion this legislation was tough, it was going to really answer the concerns of a lot of Canadians.

I have one major concern that Canadians have regarding sexual offenders, particularly pedophiles. The concern is that a pedophile, a sexual offender, is sentenced to a definite term. Because that person refused treatment, refused to follow through on the criteria set before them as far as rehabilitation in the Liberal sense, because the law is the law when the warrant expiry comes up, the offender is released into the community in spite of statements by psychiatrists, psychologists, those who in the know, prison officials, that clearly point to the fact that this individual is high risk, that this individual will reoffend.

I do not see any provision in this bill that deals with the concern that Canadians have here. The minister had placed that point forward that the minister will allow a window of six months for a dangerous offender application to be made, thus determining an indeterminate sentence for that offender.

I would like the member to comment on that provision because there is a lack of teeth, if you will, still in Bill C-55 dealing with the sexual predators of this world.

The Speaker: If the hon. member for Brampton would care to answer now, I will permit a very brief answer. If not, the hon. member might want to answer right after the question period.

Ms. Beaumier: Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party view everything in black and white. There is no acknowledgement on their part that there are differences in sex offences. There has to be a provision for individual sentencing and determinations to occur.

The member for Wild Rose said earlier that there are so many crimes that are not being reported. At the same time, they are saying that violence is increasing. We dealt with this a year ago.

The Speaker: You still have another minute and a half, but it being 2 p.m. I will proceed to statements by members.