Debates of Feb. 7th, 2005

Food and Drugs Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 9, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

Criminal Code

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-10 and to encourage all members of the House to support this reform.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights reviewed the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code in 2002. The work of the committee is reflected in Bill C-10.

The public may recall the old law that used the term “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The current and modern criminal law refers to persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and those found unfit to stand trial. These terms better reflect the reality, however, the law is not well-known and is often misunderstood. There remains a perception that a person who commits an offence and is found not criminally responsible gets away with their crime. This is not the case. There are consequences and in some cases they may appear to be more severe than where an accused is convicted.

The law governing persons found unfit and not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder does provide consequences: usually treatment and supervision that can last indefinitely, and for some, detention in a secure psychiatric facility.

Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code provides a comprehensive regime to regulate effectively and equitably the supervision and treatment of a mentally disordered accused and the protection of public security.

I indicated that this area of the law is not well understood, even by some lawyers. For victims of criminal acts, criminal law and the criminal justice system are generally overpowering, complex and often daunting. Victims rarely need to know the law until they find themselves at the core of the justice system.

When an accused is found to be unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, victims of criminal acts are even more confused and are confronted with more obstacles in their pursuit of justice.

Victims of crime desire and deserve information about the justice system and about the case in which they are personally involved. Law reforms, as well as changes in policies and expansion of services, have given victims a greater role in criminal proceedings.

For example, amendments to the Criminal Code in 1988 introduced the notion of the victim impact statement as a mechanism for victims of crime to describe the harm or loss suffered because of the crime. Publication bans to protect the identity of sexual assault victims were also enacted in 1988.

Criminal Code amendments over the last 15 years have further enhanced the role of victims of crime while respecting the rights of accused persons.

In response to the 1998 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, “Victims' Rights: A Voice, Not A Veto”, the government enacted a package of reforms in the Criminal Code in 1999 to, among other things, ensure the victims were made aware of the opportunity to submit a victim impact statement.

We also wanted to make sure that the safety of the victim was considered in the judicial interim release decisions, fix the amount and clarify the automatic imposition of a victim surcharge, and allow judges discretion to order a publication ban on the identity of any victim or witness where necessary for the proper administration of justice.

The 1999 amendments also apply to the victim of an offence committed by an accused who is suffering from mental disorder, and they provide for the preparation and presentation of a statement by the victim to the court or the review board at a hearing to make a decision, under section 672.541, in the case of an accused who is not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The court or the review board shall take into consideration any statement filed “to the extent that the statement is relevant to its consideration of the criteria set out in section 672.54”. However, in each case, it is the victim who will decide whether he or she will prepare and file a statement.

The victim impact statement is provided for in subsection 672.5(14) which states:

A victim of the offence may prepare and file with the court or Review Board, a written statement describing the harm done to, or loss suffered by, the victim arising from the commission of the offence.

Where an accused person is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, the review board decides how the accused is to be supervised.

Victims of crime have been overlooked in many cases and receive little information about what will happen next, how their safety concerns will be addressed or whether they will have any role or access to any information.

The standing committee in its review of Bill C-10 considered additional amendments to enhance the role of the victim. The committee heard several witnesses, some who advocated for a greater role for victims and others who were not supportive of the victim interests. The committee clearly rejected the submissions of those who sought to restrict the victim's role. The committee also considered the existing code provisions and other measures that should be addressed in policy rather than legislation to improve the response to victims.

The amendments included in Bill C-10 would enhance the role of victims of crime where the accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. However, the new provisions for victims fully respect the differences between the law the governs a person who is criminally responsible, convicted and sentenced and those who are not criminally responsible.

The accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is not held accountable for his or her conduct, and the appropriate disposition in section 672.54 must take into account several factors, including the need to protect the public, the mental condition of the accused and the reintegration of the accused into society. The impact of the crime on the victim may be relevant only to some of the criteria. Where the court or review board is considering a conditional discharge, the victim statement may be relevant to the crafting of particular conditions, for example, that the accused not contact the victim or that the accused not go to certain places. There also may be benefits to the victim of submitting a victim impact statement, even where the accused's condition is unchanged.

Again, I should point out that the administration of justice and the delivery of services to victims come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The services provided to victims in the administration of justice are also provincial responsibilities.

The provision of forms for the victim's statement, the assistance provided to the victim to help him or her fill out the forms, the gathering and presentation of the statements to the Crown or to the court are generally managed through the provincial victim services programs.

The standing committee in its 2002 review recommended that courts or review boards conducting a review hearing notify the victim where the victim had indicated interest in receiving such notification. Bill C-10 includes provisions to require a court conducting an initial disposition hearing or a review board conducting the initial disposition hearing where the court has not to inquire of the crown or the victim whether the victim has been advised of the opportunity to prepare a statement. As a result of an amendment passed by the committee, notice of the hearing and of the relevant criminal code provisions, including the victim impact statement provisions, will be provided to the victim. The manner and time for the notice will be established by the rules of the court or review board. Other non-legislative initiatives are required to inform victims of crime about the provision of the code which apply to them and about relevant dates of proceedings, the terms of a disposition and other essential information.

Let us not forget that the victim should, until the accused has been declared not criminally responsible, benefit from the implementation of all the provisions of the code that are aimed at facilitating victims' participation and at protecting their safety and private life. It is only once the accused has been declared not criminally responsible that the implementation of the code's new special provisions is necessary to ensure the victim's participation in the hearings of the review board.

Bull C-10 also includes the following provisions, which seek to strengthen the role of victims of criminal acts.

Victims would be permitted to orally present their victim impact statements at the review board hearing. The statement would be prepared in advance and the victim could read it aloud or in some cases present it in another manner.

Following the delivery of the verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, the court or review board chairperson must ask the Crown, victim or victim representative whether the victim has been made aware that he or she can submit a victim impact statement.

The first hearing may be adjourned to allow the victim to prepare a statement, if he or she so wishes. The review boards will have new powers allowing them to impose a publication ban on the identity of the victims and witnesses, when this serves the interests of justice.

As a result of a committee amendment, at the victim's request, notice of the hearing or other code provisions would be given to the victim. Rules of the court or review board would be set out how this notice should be provided.

Also, as a result of an amendment passed by the committee, review boards would be required to provide a specific notice to victims where, based on an assessment report of the accused that indicates an improvement in the conditions of the accused, they anticipate the accused would be given an absolute discharge or conditional disposition. The victim would then be advised of the opportunity to prepare and submit a victim impact statement.

To the extent possible, Bill C-10 includes provisions for victims similar to those of the Criminal Code that apply when an accused is found guilty and is sentenced.

The government places a high priority on addressing the concerns of victims of crime. This is shared by all members of the House, and was reflected in the improvements made by the standing committee to Bill C-10. The amendments to Bill C-10 are a contribution of the evolution in our justice system that recognizes the roles of victims of crime.

I would encourage hon. members to support Bill C-10. I believe that these amendments provide greater protection for mentally disordered accused persons and a greater role for victims of crime.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had a chance to speak in support of Bill C-10, and I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to do so today.

The entire debate of the bill in the House and in committee should serve as an example of how Parliament should work. I want to thank the hon. member for Provencher and the other members of the justice committee for the role they played in making Bill C-10 an even better piece of legislation.

The bill would modernize the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code to make it more fair and efficient, while preserving the overall framework of the provisions.

Bill C-10 explains and modernizes the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with mental disability. The bill also would make consequential amendments to several related statutes to ensure consistency with the Criminal Code provisions on mental disorder.

Bill C-10 attempts to respect individual rights while ensuring public safety. Its amendments cover: review board authority; “permanently unfit accused victims;” repeal of unproclaimed provisions of the 1992 reforms to the Criminal Code; interprovincial transfer of unfit accused persons; and police powers. They run the entire gamut in regard to this issue.

Bill C-10 is the second step that the federal government has taken to elaborate and clarify a defence in the Criminal Code based on the mental disorder. Bill C-30 was the first.

Following the production of several reports between 1979 and 1985, in 1985 the Department of Justice released the final report of the mental disorder project. Based on that report, a draft bill was proposed by the Minister of Justice in 1986 to deal with the criminal insanity defence. Consultations on the bill continued through to the 1988 election.

The final push for change came in 1991 with the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Regina v. Swain, dealing with the defence of insanity. The Supreme Court struck down the legislation and common law practices dealing with this defence as unconstitutional.

Following this decision in 1991, the former Progressive Conservative government introduced Bill C-30 to modernize the insanity defence, to remedy the parts that the Supreme Court had deemed against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to allow the courts to use certain set criteria in determining whether an accused person was unfit to stand trial.

Bill C-30 modernized the insanity test by replacing “in a state of natural imbecility” and “disease of the mind” in subsection 16(1) of the Criminal Code with the words “mental disorder”. However, “mental disorder” continued to be defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code as a “disease of the mind,” allowing common law rules to continue governing the application of the previously known as “insanity defence”.

Bill C-30 provided a new definition and criteria for “fitness” as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, as well as allowing the courts to order involuntary treatment for the mentally disordered.

Bill C-30 also introduced an extension to the 10 year detention cap for a mentally disordered person if they were accused of a serious personal injury offence, carrying a penalty of 10 years or more. These provisions allowed the courts to detain such offenders for life instead of 10 years. Bill C-30 received royal assent in 1992.

In response to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2002, the government introduced Bill C-10 to address some of the concerns raised regarding mental disorder provisions in the Criminal Code.

The report that was put forward in 2002 was approved by all parties. In fact, the result of the review is an important example of how committees, when they are focused on the issues rather than partisan politics, can work in a cooperative fashion. This report is a demonstration of that cooperation and the value of committee work. I wish more committees would take note of the fact that we can work cooperatively and achieve our common goals.

Bill C-10 takes into account many of the recommendations of the justice committee's report in June 2002 as well as further input from the Department of Justice consultations with stakeholders.

The amendments in Bill C-10 address six key areas: first, the expansion of the review board powers; second, permitting the court to order a stay of proceedings for permanently unfit accused; third, allowing a victim impact statement to be read; fourth, the repeal of unproclaimed provisions; fifth, the streamlining of transfer provisions between provinces; and sixth, the expansion of police powers to enforce dispositions and assessment orders.

Bill C-10 was introduced and read the first time on October 8, 2004. On October 22, 2004, the motion was adopted and the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness before second reading. The justice committee held six meetings and heard 24 witnesses and reported the bill back to the House with amendments on December 10, 2004. Bill C-10 was concurred in at report stage on February 4, 2005.

The amendments made to Bill C-10 were primarily minor technical ones that included: an amendment that made the description of what kinds of health professionals could do assessments on mentally disordered accused more flexible; amendments that clarify how copies of documents can be provided to review boards; amendments concerned with victims' rights in terms of how and when they are notified of hearings as well as in terms of their victim impact statements; amendments dealing with summons for the accused; amendments dealing with how we determine the fitness of the accused to stand trial; an amendment incorporating the language recommended by the Supreme Court case regarding clear evidence, even though our party did not agree with this language because it was not clear what was meant by “clear evidence”; an amendment clarifying a provision giving flexibility to police; and several amendments clarifying the French expressions and ensuring that they mirror the English expressions in meaning and intent.

In closing, I would like to thank the members of the House and the members of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for the cooperative spirit with which they addressed the debate and the amending of this important piece of legislation.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased today to speak on Bill C-10, currently before the House. Like many bills considered by the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, this is an extremely important bill because it concerns, on the one hand, the rights and freedoms of numerous individuals, in this case those with psychiatric disorders and, on the other, public safety.

It is, therefore, our duty as parliamentarians, particularly the ones who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, to find the necessary balance between these two fundamental positions in our society: respect for individual rights and freedoms and for public safety, which obviously includes security of the person.

The Bloc Québécois is always cognizant of the need to maintain this extremely fragile balance, in our societies, often more fragile than we know. This balance was, in our opinion, destroyed by Bill C-36 and the anti-terrorism legislation introduced by this government in the last Parliament. So, we are carefully watching these areas because they are of great concern to us, even more so since, in the past, the government has destroyed this balance with other bills and legislation it has passed in this House. This makes us twice as careful about similar issues.

I will echo my Conservative predecessor. I took part in this process based on a desire to cooperate. I have personally tested how this minority government works since it was elected on June 28. At that time, as we know, 54 Bloc members were elected. This is a shining victory for our party, due, among other things, to the quite exceptional performance of our leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, during the election campaign. As a result, it is the duty and obligation of the government to work in cooperation with all the parties. It has no choice.

I have to admit this was not the case in the past. The Liberal Party of Canada, with its too frequent tendency to feel proprietorial about the seat of government, has tended to be far too arrogant and disagreeable, not just toward Canadians in general, but toward MPs of all parties in this House. It has had an all too frequent tendency to make decisions with little consultation and very little cooperation with the parties in opposition, saying that it would simply ensure that this or that bill got passed because of its majority position. Too often, in my opinion, this House as well as the entire legislative process suffered in the process. As a result, Quebec, and all of Canada, were deprived of the positive input that could have come from their representatives, the opposition MPs in particular.

It is important to point out that question period, which will start in another hour and a half or so, is very much a confrontational situation, despite its very important parliamentary role. The opposition calls for an accounting from the government, and it has to provide answers in the House. This is very much a confrontational exercise. In a parliament based on the British tradition, moreover, the members are placed in such a way as to encourage confrontation across the floor.

What the general public is less aware of is that the committee context offers an opportunity to work together, if the will is there of course, without partisan politics, in order to achieve objectives that are, when it comes down to it, quite similar for all parties, with the obvious exception of the Bloc Québécois objective of making Quebec a sovereign country.

I have tested the government's declared willingness to cooperate. I have found both the Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary willing to sit down with us, willing to consult us and willing to explain their point of view. In addition, for the first time in a very long time—I have been a member of Parliament since 1997—I found them demonstrating a willingness to listen to what opposition members had to say regarding the various bills, including Bill C-10.

I can tell the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Justice that I am prepared to continue working with them in this spirit of collaboration which they exhibited concerning Bill C-10. I hope that this willingness to cooperate will continue for the good of the entire population. This willingness to cooperate has been demonstrated with respect to the amendments to Bill C-10 proposed by the Bloc Québécois, which were of course based on research and detailed legal analysis of that bill, as well as on the considerable amount of testimony heard by the committee.

The quality of the witnesses appearing before the justice committee is exceptional. We benefit from listening to them and retaining their suggestions, because the men and women who come to give us their viewpoint do so admirably and they are thoroughly familiar with the issue. Often, just among ourselves, they know the issue much better than the members of Parliament do, at least as the legislative process begins. Thus they can shed light on certain questions which in our first analysis, we might have ignored, or to which we might not have given the attention they deserved.

Two questions have been studied by the committee, particularly by the Bloc members. I would like to say something about each of them. First, there is the question of who will conduct the psychiatric assessment of these people. We know that many of us here in this House come from regions where psychiatrists are scarce. It was important to ensure that people who must be assessed could be assessed not only by psychiatrists, but also by other, perhaps differently qualified individuals, selected by the government of each province.

This would allow people with mental disorders to be assessed in their own regions without having to go to big cities and would prevent the provincial governments from having to spend a fortune on sending a psychiatrist to a region without one.

This amendment, which was suggested by many witnesses, was presented in the committee by the Bloc. Although the wording has been changed, the government and I did manage to agree on it. This amendment was presented and adopted in the committee.

We worked on another amendment, which has to do with the victims. We know that victims are far too often forgotten in the cumbersome legal process. They are the ones who have been hurt by a certain action. They might be hurt physically, psychologically or often both. It is very important for me to make this a basic issue in any discussion I have on this matter as Bloc Québécois justice critic. It is a basic and unwaivering concern of mine to ensure that these men and women who are victims of violence do not feel lost in the justice system, which is very complex, even to lawyers.

One of the amendments we proposed, which was also changed in cooperation with the government, would ensure that victims' rights are taken into consideration.

There are a few other amendments that I proposed in the committee. For those who have followed the work of the committee, I tabled amendment BQ-1, which I withdrew following a commitment made by the government.

As I was saying earlier to the parliamentary secretary, just before my speech, after I withdrew my amendment to redefine unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible, the government promised that this issue would be raised during a meeting of the federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers. By the end of this session, before the summer adjournment, the government will come back before the committee to give a progress report on its work on this part of the bill. The government repeated this commitment earlier.

Besides amendment BQ-1 and all subsequent amendments, another very important amendment was withdrawn, namely amendment BQ-10. I am sorry to be so technical. The government promised to revisit the matter. This is an amendment to paragraph 672.5(8), which stood in my name. The government had asked me to withdraw my amendment because it believed that it was placing a rather heavy obligation on the provinces and on the legal aid system in particular.

The government made a commitment to come back before the committee after raising this issue once more at a federal-provincial conference. I am very anxious to hear what the government will have to say on the matter. As I said at the beginning of my speech, any legislation dealing with the balance between the rights and freedoms of individuals and those of society deserves our full attention, and there is always room for improvement.

Depending on the government's response following its discussions with the provinces, I may have to come back with a bill or go back to committee to try and amend this bill again.

Finally, amendment BQ-19 was the last one to be withdrawn following discussions with the government. I cannot go through all the amendments. It was withdrawn following a very productive meeting I had at my office with the various Justice officials before attending a committee meeting.

All that to say that, at this stage, we support Bill C-10, which was improved on through the consensual effort of the different parties in the House of Commons. I hope this atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration will continue.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I pledge to continue working along those lines, because the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians are much better served when parliamentarians and the different parties work together to provide the people who send us here with the very best legislation.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc Québécois is a tough act to follow. He speaks so eloquently in both official languages.

The federal New Democratic Party will be supporting Bill C-10 and the efforts of the committee and others in order that the bill passes quickly. On behalf of our colleague from Windsor--Tecumseh, the justice critic for the federal NDP, I wish to state briefly the reasons we are supporting the bill.

At first glance it is a response to the June 2002 report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness which reviewed the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code. The bill addresses the issue of how to deal with an accused who is unfit to stand trial. In other words the accused is so incapacitated that he or she cannot be tried and convicted or acquitted.

Provincially appointed review boards are charged with the task of determining how an unfit accused should be supervised. Bill C-10 increases the authority of the review boards, including allowing them to order psychiatric assessments of the accused, requiring the accused's presence at a hearing, and lengthening the time between review hearings when appropriate. The bill also allows victims to read a victim impact statement at board hearings and allows for publication bans to protect victims or witnesses.

Changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act are also included in the proposed legislation to ensure consistency with the Criminal Code reforms on mental disorder provisions. The proposed changes to the National Defence Act would address issues arising from court martial proceedings.

If I may go slightly off topic, we talked about the review boards and the provincial side and we also talked about the rights of the accused. There are two very glaring problems in this country which need to be addressed. I was hoping that they would be addressed in order to facilitate the passage of this bill because once the bill is passed, it will leave our House and we more or less will have washed our hands of it.

There is a very serious shortage of psychiatrists and psychologists throughout Canada. Many people who are suffering from mental challenges are not getting the help they need because there simply are not enough of those trained professionals across the country. It is also very expensive to hire and to train psychologists and psychiatrists in order to assist our mentally challenged.

Without proper and adequate funding to ensure that the provinces have the resources in order to hire these individuals, then something like Bill C-10 may fall through the cracks. If victims who are mentally challenged or who fall under the parameters of mental disorders cannot get the help they need, or if the courts do not have access to the professionals for an analysis of the situation, there could be problems down the road.

There is also the issue of people in poverty and their access to legal aid. Throughout the country there is not one jurisdiction where legal aid is not suffering under the weight of a lack of resources. There is a lack of legal professionals and a lack of attention being paid to legal aid.

This country was founded upon the principle that everyone is equal before the law and everyone should have their day in court. We know all too well that there are two justice systems in this country, one for the poor and one for the wealthy. That should not happen. People who are accused of anything in this country, especially those with mental disorders, should have access to psychiatric help and analysis, and should have access to legal aid if they cannot afford a lawyer. This is so critical.

In my riding we deal with a lot of cases where people have been charged with an offence or they are before the courts. Very few Canadians really understand the court system until they themselves appear before a judge or a jury. One thing that is very helpful is the access to legal assistance and legal aid. This country is severely lacking adequate resources for trained psychologists and psychiatric personnel as well as for legal aid professionals. If we assist in those areas across the country, upgrading those two professions, then people who eventually run across something like Bill C-10 or run across the legal system in any way will have timely and adequate assistance in dealing with their cases before the law and in other jurisdictions.

My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh and I want to say that the committee has worked very well on this particular subject. As my colleague from the Conservatives indicated, this is how Parliament should work. When there are slight disagreements, we work them out together and come up with something that everyone can accept.

Bill C-10 is something the House should be able to adopt and move on fairly quickly. At the same time we cannot drop the ball on the issue of funding resources and training for psychiatric personnel and professionals and those people within the legal aid system throughout the country.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I would like to thank the previous speakers for their recognition of the way the bill demonstrates how committees can cooperate for the general good. This spirit is most reassuring to all Canadians, to see all parties rise in support of the bill.

Bill C-10 will reform the provisions of the criminal law that govern persons found unfit to stand trial and not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

These provisions are found in part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

I would also point out that the National Defence Act includes similar provisions that are also amended by Bill C-10 to ensure consistency.

By way of background, in 1991 Parliament made significant reforms to modernize the law that governed persons found not guilty by reason of insanity. The 1991 reforms reflected the need to balance the rights of the mentally ill and the protection of public safety.

The reforms in Bill C-10 reflect and build upon the same goals as the 1991 reforms. Bill C-10 will further modernize the law and will effectively balance the rights of the mentally ill who come into conflict with the law with the public's right to safety.

The reforms complement and enhance the existing provisions of part XX.1 and more generally of the whole Criminal Code as it applies to persons ultimately found unfit to stand trial, or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

It is important to remind ourselves that when we are dealing with a bill to amend an existing act such as the Criminal Code, we must consider how the proposed amendments fit into the act. Bill C-10 is not a stand-alone regime to govern mentally disordered accused. The code already includes a comprehensive regime which will continue to apply, but will be improved in several important respects by the amendments in Bill C-10.

The criticism of this bill, like others before, is that it is too complicated and impossible to understand for a non-lawyer. We cannot deny that it is difficult to get a comprehensive view of the impact of this legislation if we merely read the amendments included in it. The fact is that this complexity is largely unavoidable. Indeed, the bill must use the same terminology as the Criminal Code and the appropriate legal language.

Some witnesses who appeared before the standing committee commented that a layman's guide would be helpful. I agree that some information material geared to the general public and also to victims of mentally disordered offenders should be developed. The committee would certainly encourage the Department of Justice to work with other stakeholders to develop this.

Members may recall that amendments enacted in 1991 called for a parliamentary review of the legislation five years following proclamation. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conducted the required review of the legislation in the spring of 2002. The committee's review was thorough and comprehensive. Oral or written submissions were made by 30 stakeholders, including members of the bar, crown attorneys, psychiatric hospital administrators, review board chairpersons, service providers and mental health advocates.

In June 2002 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled its report and made recommendations calling for legislative reform and other initiatives. The committee found that in general the law was working very well. However, the report noted that particular reforms were needed and proposed some specific amendments.

The main recommendations of the committee were intended to increase the powers of the boards responsible for reviewing the situation of an accused.

The repeal of the parts of the 1991 regime that were never proclaimed into force, including the capping provisions that would have set a maximum time limit on the supervision or detention of the accused and streamlining the transfer of accused persons between territories and provinces, new provisions to deal with persons who are permanently unfit to stand trial, enhanced protections for victims of crime who attend review board hearings, for example, publication bans on their identity in appropriate circumstances, and the opportunity to prepare and read a victim impact statement.

The committee also made recommendations calling for more in-depth research and consultation on emerging issues. The need to review the resources available to meet the needs of mentally disordered accused, including youth, and the need for better data collection and research. Bill C-10 reflects the advice and guidance provided by the committee and all those who appeared before the committee. It also includes additional necessary forums to address issues raised in the case law and in consultations conducted by the Department of Justice with key stakeholders over the past 10 years.

Bill C-10 was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness following first reading. As noted in the debate on the motion to refer the bill to committee, hon. members were eager to carefully examine Bill C-10 to ensure that these reforms reflected their 2002 recommendations.

The standing committee has once again conducted a thorough examination of the bill and, based on its review and the testimony of the witnesses who appeared before it, has agreed to amend the bill as drafted to clarify specific provisions both in the code and in the National Defence Act, which has a parallel scheme to cover members found not criminally responsible for an offence under the National Defence Act.

Bill C-10, as introduced by the Minister of Justice and as amended by the standing committee, is an excellent example of collaboration by all members. Bill C-10 reflects our shared goal of providing a fair and balanced criminal law to cover the mentally disordered accused and to protect public safety.

After the committee's review and amendments, the main features of Bill C-10 are now as follows.

New powers for the review boards that exist in each province and territory to make important decisions governing mentally disordered and unfit accused. Review boards would be able to order an assessment of the mental condition of the accused to assist them in making the appropriate disposition for the accused, whether the accused should be discharged, held in custody in a hospital or discharged with conditions.

A new provision would permit the courts to determine whether a judicial stay of proceedings should be ordered for an unfit accused who is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial and who does not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, where a stay is in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

An amendment to be made by the committee will make it clear that the first precondition is that the accused remains unfit and is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial. The court must base its determination of unfitness on clear information. An assessment must be ordered in all cases.

Recently the Supreme Court of Canada held, in Demers, that our law must provide for an accused who may never be fit to stand trial and who does not pose a significant threat to public safety to have criminal proceedings terminated. Bill C-10 includes a carefully crafted approach to ensure that a court may grant a judicial stay of proceedings for an unfit accused who is not likely ever to become fit and who is not dangerous, but public safety and other relevant factors must always be considered.

The need for these amendments was canvassed by the committee in 2002 and has been confirmed and made necessary by the Supreme Court's decision in Demers. The committee has reviewed the specific amendments and has proposed refinements to ensure the objectives are clearly reflected.

Victims impact statements may be read aloud or presented in another agreed upon manner by victims at review board hearings. In addition, notice will be provided to the victims of the hearing and relevant code provisions in accordance with rules to be developed by the court or review board. Review boards will also be required to provide specific notice to victims on request of upcoming hearings that may result in the conditional release of an accused from hospital or an absolute discharge.

Streamlined transfer provisions will be enacted to permit the safe and efficient transfer of a person not found criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or unfit from one province or territory to another.

More options will be available for the police to enforce disposition orders and assessment orders that take into account the need for the accused's treatment to continue. In appropriate cases the police will be able to release the accused after arrest and issue a promise to appear before a justice who will determine how the accused should be dealt with pending the next review board hearing.

The repeal of the provisions of the 1991 law that were never proclaimed, capping and related dangerous mentality disordered accused provisions and the hospital orders provision, have been widely supported.

A series of clarifications and technical amendments seeks to ensure that the bill's objectives are indeed achieved.

The standing committee drafted a number of amendments to clarify Bill C-10.

For example, the committee supported motions to enhance the role of victims, to clarify the test for a judicial stay and to improve and clarify the enforcement provisions.

As noted previously, Bill C-10 is the next step in ensuring that our laws are effective, efficient and fair in governing mentally disordered accused. These reforms are necessary but they do not significantly overhaul the regime that governs the mentally disordered. The law works well and will continue to work well, and now better as a result of Bill C-10.

The provisions of the code have remained unchanged since 1991 but the case law has evolved and new issues have emerged, for example, the expanded role for victims of crime.

The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that our law must respect two goals: protection of the rights of the mentally disordered accused and protection of public safety.

Bill C-10 has been widely supported and carefully reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I am confident that the members of the committee share my goal of speedy passage of the bill by the House. I hope all members will support the amendments.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his support of the bill.

Prior to his discussion I was speaking about the lack of funding for educational concerns when it comes to the training of psychiatrists and psychologists. All provinces are severely lacking in those professions. One of the reasons, they say, is the lack of resources paid to those in that field, as well as the lack of legal aid funding.

As we know, people who do not have the financial means to hire or retain the best possible lawyers to assist them in their cases sometimes fall under the system of legal aid and, unfortunately, legal aid does not have the resources to do all the things that the individuals in legal aid provincially or territorially would like to do. I would like the member's comments on those two aspects.

Would the member encourage his government to ensure that eventually we have adequate funding so that the provinces will have the funding to ensure we have enough trained psychiatrists and psychologists across the country and that there is enough money in legal aid so that when someone requires the assistance of legal aid they are not told that there are no funds and they cannot be helped?

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, both of the hon. member's questions are very valid.

In early January there was a territorial and provincial meeting of the ministers of justice who struck a working committee to address the nature of the financing. In terms of legal aid, the government has renewed and reviewed its commitment for the next three years with a view to expanding that program nationally.

I also would like to speak as the chair of the subcommittee on disabilities because this affects everyone, not just those with a physical disability but those with mental disorders. Bill C-10 would go a long way to addressing that component of the legislation that is being proposed. That is why it is very reassuring for all of us on that committee to see this kind of work coming through.

I am also very cognizant of the member's concern about the lack of psychiatric professional care nationally. I can only concur that it is something that through the ministers of health, and again with their collaboration with the ministers of justice through the recent working group, that I am sure that if any nation is going to address this question and do it right, Canada will be the one to do that.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to express my support to Bill C-10 and to urge all the members of this House to support its reforms.

I will take a few moments to discuss this bill, because we do not want to delay its adoption. In fact, there is some support for referring this legislation to the parliamentary committee as early as today and moving on to the next bill, and I support this approach.

As we mentioned earlier, in 2002, the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness reviewed the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to mental disorder. The work of the committee is reflected in Bill C-10, which is before us today.

The public may remember the former provisions, which referred to “not guilty by reason of insanity”. This term has almost always been a part of our past. Those who studied the history of Louis Riel in our country will remember, for example, that an entire group of people wanted him to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, which Riel refused to do. We know what his fate was. Nonetheless, these measures are very old and this is a term we have always had.

However, modern criminal law refers to people who are found not criminally responsible for reasons of mental disorder and persons declared unfit to stand trial. This better describes the reality. Yet, the law in this field is not well known and often misunderstood.

Unfortunately, people continue to think that someone who commits an offence and is declared to be not criminally responsible is benefiting from some sort of “escape clause”. That is not the case. There are consequences. Sometimes, those consequences are even harsher than for an accused who is found guilty. Once again, this concept is not well known. The law respecting persons declared unfit to stand trial or those found not criminally responsible because of mental disorder provides for consequences. Usually treatment and supervision can potentially go on indefinitely and, in some cases, involves detention in a secure psychiatric facility. Ultimately, it could even mean life imprisonment in a special facility for individuals so afflicted. It is not a matter of not punishing them for the crime for which, at the same time, they are not guilty for the reasons I just described. Naturally, their punishment is different, but they are in no way exonerated.

The Criminal Code includes a whole part, namely part XX.1, which sets out a comprehensive code to ensure, in a fair and effective fashion, the monitoring and treatment of a mentally disordered accused, and also public safety.

I have indicated that this area of the law is not well understood, even by some lawyers. In the case of victims, criminal law and the criminal justice system are often overwhelming, complex and daunting. Victims rarely need to know the law until they find themselves at the core of the justice system, often when they arrive in court. When an accused is found to be unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, victims of criminal acts are confronted with more obstacles in their pursuit of justice.

Victims want to get information on the legal system and on the case that involves them, and they deserve to get such information.

Law reforms, new thrusts and a broadening of the services have given victims a greater role in criminal proceedings. For example, the Criminal Code was amended in 1988 to include the victim impact statement as a means to allow victims of criminal acts to describe the damage or the losses suffered because of the offence that was committed. Incidentally, I remember the debate because I was here at the time.

Before then, the impact on victims was not taken into consideration, or at least the victim did not have a chance to make a statement on it. As a result, rightly or wrongly, in my opinion a bit of both, victims felt that their personal grievances were not reflected in the sentence brought down.

Some provisions passed in 1988 also provide for publication bans to protect the identity of victims of sexual assault. Once again, important changes were made. Other changes made to the Criminal Code over the past 15 years have helped give a more important role to victims of criminal acts, while respecting the rights of the accused. Naturally, that element of respecting the rights of the accused has to be included, because an accused person is not necessarily guilty. On the contrary, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Then he is no longer considered as accused, but as guilty, if that is the finding.

In response to the report published in 1998 by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, entitled “Victims' Rights: A Voice, Not a Veto”, the government adopted a series of amendments to the Criminal Code in 1999 to ensure, among other things, that victims are informed of the possibility of submitting a victim impact statement—which I described earlier; to include the safety of the victims in the factors that have to be taken into account in making a decision on interim release; to specify the automatic imposition of a mandatory victim fine surcharge, and the amount of this surcharge; and to give judges the discretionary power to impose a publication ban to protect the identity of any victim or witness, as required in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

The 1999 amendments also looked at victims of offences committed by an accused suffering from a mental disorder and provided for a victim impact statement to be written and filed with the court or review board at a hearing to determine the sentence for an accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This would concern a person accused under section 671.541 of the Criminal Code, which reads:

—the court or review board shall ... take into consideration any statement filed ... in determining the appropriate disposition or conditions under section 672.54—

And yet, it is the victim, in each case who decides whether to write and file this kind of declaration. The victim impact statement is provided for in paragraph 672.5(14), which states:

A victim of the offence may prepare and file with the court or review board a written statement describing the harm done to, or loss suffered by, the victim arising from the commission of the offence.

Where a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder has been rendered in respect of the accused, the review board has to determine how the accused will be supervised. The victims of crime are often neglected, and receive little information on the follow-up, on how their safety concerns will be met or whether or not they will have a role to play or have access to any information.

We have all heard of instances of constituents who have been the victims of crime wondering whether the inmate will be on provisional or other release and within a few kilometres or metres of their home. That is what they fear anyway. These are concerns often expressed by our constituents. Tools are provided in here to address this problem.

In considering Bill C-10, the standing committee examined other proposals to expand the role of victims of crime. The committee heard several witnesses; some advocated greater victim involvement while others did not support the interests of victims. The committee—it is very important to point out—dismissed the comments of those who sought to restrict the role of victims.

We went further at committee—and eventually at the government level—where the role of victims is concerned, because that was the approach we wanted to take to ensure and enhance the protection of victims of crime.

The committee also examined the existing provisions of the Criminal Code, as well as measures that should be policy rather than statute in order to better meet the victims' concerns.

The amendments in Bill C-10 will strengthen the role played by victims of crime in cases where the accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The new provisions relating to the victims fully take into account the differences between the provisions governing persons who are criminally responsible—who have been found guilty and sentenced—and those governing persons found not criminally responsible.

The accused who is found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is not held responsible for his actions, of course. In its decision, the court must take into account several factors, including the need to protect the public, the accused's mental condition and the need to return the accused to the community eventually.

The impact of the crime on the victim may be relevant to only some of the criteria. Where the court or review board is considering a conditional release, the victim's statement may be relevant in imposing certain conditions: for example, that the accused not contact the victim or that the accused not go certain places.

However, the victim can also benefit from submitting a statement even if the situation of the accused does not change.

It is important to note, once again, that the administration of justice and the delivery of services to the victims are areas of provincial jurisdiction. The provision of victims services as part of the administration of justice is also a matter of provincial responsibility. I know that there was a question about this a few minutes ago.

The provision of victim impact statement forms, assistance in preparing the statements, and the collection and submission of the statements to the Crown or the court are generally handled by the provincial victims services programs.

In 2002, the standing committee recommended that courts or review boards conducting a review notify the victim where the victim has indicated interest in receiving such notification.

Bill C-10 includes provisions that require the court holding an initial hearing, or the review board holding such a hearing, when the court does not, to ask the Crown or the victim whether the latter has been informed that he or she can submit a victim impact statement.

Following an amendment adopted by the committee, as mentioned earlier, the government adopted many, the victim will receive notice of hearing dates and the applicable provisions in the Criminal Code, including relevant provisions on victim impact statements.

The manner and timeframe for issuing such a notice will be established by the rules of the court or the review board. Other non legislative measures will also be needed to inform victims of crime of provisions of the code specific to their case, hearing dates, conditions of a decision and other essential information.

We must bear in mind that, until the accused has been declared not criminally responsible, the victim should benefit from the application of all the provisions of the code that are there to facilitate the victim's involvement and to protect their safety and privacy. Only when the accused has been declared not criminally responsible is the application of the new special provisions in the code necessary in order to ensure that the victim participates in the review board hearings.

Bill C-10 also includes provisions that will strengthen the role played by victims of criminal acts.

These victims would be permitted to make an oral presentation of their statement during the review board hearing. Therefore, it would not be necessary to have a great deal of expertise to draft the statement. The victim would be allowed to present his or her statement orally. The statement would already be drafted, and the victim would be permitted to read it or, in some cases, to provide his or her statement in another form including, for example, by giving a copy of it if this is relevant. It is always up to the victim to decide to draft a statement and even to read it. In these cases, it is the victim who has these alternatives. It is perfectly normal for it to be so, and I am pleased that Bill C-10 allows for such options.

Where a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder has been rendered in respect of the accused, the court or the chair of the review board must ask the prosecutors, the victim or his or her representative whether the victim has been informed that he or she can make a statement.

The first hearing may be adjourned to allow the victim to prepare a statement, if he or she so wishes.

The review boards will have new powers to impose a publication ban to protect the identity of the victim and of the witnesses, as required in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

Following an amendment made in committee, a notice of hearing will be given to the victim and the other relevant provisions of the Criminal Code will be applied, provided the victim makes a request to this effect in the timeframe and the manner provided by the rules of the court or review board.

As we can see, the government went rather far in its efforts to better represent the victims of such criminal acts and, of course, to protect the victim and the public at large, while also looking after the rights of the accused.

I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-10. The amendments that are included in it provide better protection to an accused suffering from mental disorder, while giving a greater role to victims of criminal acts.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

(Bill C-37. On the Order: Government Orders:)

December 13, 2004--The Minister of Industry--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

Telecommunications Act

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, for the Minister of Industry]

moved:

That Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to begin the referral stage debate on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act. This bill would augment the powers of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, to establish a more effective regime to protect consumers against unsolicited telemarketing in Canada.

The essential issue before us is the creation of a national do not call list for telemarketers. I am sure a number of us have received such calls, probably over the last weekend.

I want to assure hon. members that we are proposing a proven model for regulating telemarketing through this bill. It is similar to the model already in place in the United States of America. In the event that some colleagues want to say that this infringes too much on business being able to work, it in fact exists in another jurisdiction.

It is a model that seeks to balance the wishes of Canadian consumers for privacy and protection from unwanted calls, sometimes in the middle of the night, while at the same time recognizing the need for legitimate telemarketing companies to conduct their business in a regulatory framework that enables them to compete.

Let me assure the House that consumers would support this bill and 79% of respondents in a recent Environics survey indicated that they would support the creation of a national do not call list. The industry would support a national list as well as a more efficient and cost effective way to manage the lists of those who will not be receptive to their pitches.

Let me explain to the House the current legislative and regulatory framework governing unsolicited telemarketing. Section 41 of the Telecommunications Act gives the CRTC broad authority to prohibit or regulate the use by any person or telecommunication facility for unsolicited telemarketing. The section gives the commission authority to prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance given due regard to freedom of expression.

In 1994 the CRTC implemented rules that defined a call as unsolicited when explicit consent had not been obtained from the called party prior to the call. Solicitation was defined as “selling or promoting a product or service or soliciting money or moneys whether directly or on behalf of another party”. However, the CRTC restrictions do not apply to unsolicited calls that do not solicit. This includes for example, call for emergency purposes; account collections; and market and survey research.

Finally, under the 1994 rules, telemarketers are required to maintain individual do not call lists. In other words, ABC telemarketers may be notified that we do not wish for them to call, but DEF telemarketers do not know about it and they keep on calling the next weekend after the previous ones were informed not call.

These rules are now in place but in the past 10 years since they were implemented by the CRTC, they have been found to be ineffective and generally for three reasons. First, the rules have resulted in some confusion among consumers. For one thing, few consumers know that they have the right to register on a do not call list or how to go about it. Some 14% of Environics respondents reported that they had tried to make a complaint regarding an unsolicited call, but even for those consumers who wish to take advantage of these lists, the task is simply daunting.

Consumers who do not wish to receive calls need to manage their registration on the do not call lists of hundreds of companies and telemarketing agencies, the problem that I just described a while ago. These registrations are in place for three years after which the consumer must register again.

As if that is not confusing enough, some of these calls are made by way of a fax. We have had this experience. My son was describing the situation in his own home whereby a company attempts to market something or other, and of course he does not know what it is, by way of sending him a fax. That fax usually arrives in the middle of the night, but my son does not have a fax machine, so the phone rings.

However, as for the fax message that would come out on which it says how to deregister, if I can call it that, so he does not get called again, of course he does not get that because he does not have a fax machine on which to get it. The message keeps coming in and coming in. The family has a seven month old baby. The family is awakened often in the middle of the night. It is absolutely horrible to have to deal with this kind of thing.

My son has tried with the telephone company and with all kinds of people to get hold of these culprits who are doing this, but of course he cannot find out who they are. There are essentially only two ways of doing it. One is to buy a fax machine so that he could receive the first fax and then phone them back to tell them not to do it again. Alternatively, he could subscribe to the telephone company messaging service by which he could get hold of the telephone number. This is assuming that he could ever get back to that phone number because of course some of these phones can only dial out. He would not be able to dial back in even if he did that.

This is just an example of how sometimes consumers are prisoners of these kinds of things that are inflicted upon them.

That is why we need to improve the do not call database in the way that the government has recommended to us. That is why the Canadian Marketing Association is advocating a national do not call list. That does not mean that all telemarketing is wrong or fraudulent or anything like that, but there are some people who practice that trade whose ethics have some elasticity of a kind that I have just described.

The current regime, as I have said, is not very effective because it is difficult to enforce. When customers receive further calls from firms for which they registered on the individual do not call list it is hard for them to prove that they were registered on the specific company's list. I have had that problem. In most cases in my own house, the calls are always faxed messages. There is a phone number at the bottom of the fax. One can phone back, but like most people, after we phone to register with them that they should not do it again, if that is what we want to do, we usually throw out the piece of paper. Then when they start it again a month later, it is rather hard to prove that it was the same company.

In any case, if people have received some of this solicitation they know that the letterhead seems to change quite often anyway. I am not sure that a person would ever recognize whether it is the same people making contact or a different group of individuals altogether.

The telecom carriers such as Bell or Telus have the responsibility for enforcing the do not call registrations, but again, these companies are trying to compete for the business of telemarketers. It puts them in a rather difficult situation.

In any case, I am not sure that for the actions I described a moment ago, at least the ones I and other members of my family have personally lived, that we could ever do anything with the phone company about them, because there is no log of a call that has already been made, at least not that I know of.

The telecom carriers are reluctant to pursue action against the company. From the perspective of the consumer, it is difficult to determine with which telecom carrier to lodge a complaint. In short, then, as for enforcement, perhaps non-existent is a strong word, but it is very complicated at best.

The time has come for a more effective approach to regulating unsolicited telemarketing, an approach that will benefit both consumers and the telemarketing industry and one that will be easier to enforce. That is why I am supporting this bill.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will try to put forth all my points within the 10 minute time period.

It is my pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act. At the outset let me state very clearly the Conservative Party position on a do not call registry. The Conservative Party supports the establishment of a do not call registry within the parameters that are clearly defined by Parliament and with reasonable exemptions provided for charities, political parties, polling firms and companies that wish to contact their current customers. Unfortunately, these exemptions are not laid out in this particular bill. Furthermore, the power to determine these details has been delegated through regulatory powers rather than elected representatives.

A second point to make is that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission released a decision in May 2004 which stated that it was not feasible for the CRTC to create and run a national do not call registry properly. The decision went on to say that even if it did have the appropriate tools to run a national registry, the CRTC would recommend a separate administrator, not the CRTC itself. Thus, it is somewhat confusing with regard to this particular piece of legislation because Bill C-37 empowers the CRTC, and I am quoting from proposed section 41.2 of the bill, to “administer databases or information” for the purposes of creating a national do not call list.

My concerns are that the parameters are not set by Parliament in this legislation--in fact, this legislation is very short on details--and that no exemptions whatsoever are provided. We in the Conservative Party will support the establishment of a registry as long as there are parameters established by Parliament. I understand that this bill will be going to committee before second reading, basically on division, so we will try to fix the bill at committee.

I do want to identify some of the exemptions that we believe should receive notice in the bill. Perhaps others will come forward at committee stage.

First of all, we have the charities. Most charities in Canada will tell us that the most effective way for them to solicit donations is to do so through telemarketing. The fact is, I think, that most Canadians would not object to this practice.

Second is the issue of political parties. As currently written, the bill would make it illegal for political parties and political candidates to communicate with the public by phone. As we all know, we contact voters, certainly on election day in getting out the vote. Under this bill, if it is left in its current form, we believe that would not be allowed in Canada.

The third issue deals with polling companies that seek to gain Canadians' input on various issues.

The fourth exemption that we would like to see is for companies communicating with their current clients. For instance, a bank, a financial institution or a phone company that actually has us as a current client should be able to contact us. That is a reasonable exemption. Most of these exemptions are in the American legislation, which the previous speaker referenced. It is interesting to hear the government saying that the American legislation was its model, because in fact it is much more detailed than the legislation before us in the House today.

I want to use some examples to make this practical for people. For example, the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving is certainly an excellent organization. I think all members would agree. Not only would this group have to cancel any calls to current members, because it would not be able to contact their current members, but under this legislation it would be illegal for Mothers Against Drunk Driving to call anyone to ask for a simple donation. We as legislators should be able to empower Mothers Against Drunk Driving to communicate with its own clients and to solicit donations by phone.

In addition to this, the bill as it is currently written would make it illegal not only for political parties or candidates to launch get out the vote campaigns, but also for not for profit organizations such as Egale, the Canadian Auto Workers, Campaign Life or any organization regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum. They would not be able to contact members or non-members by phone, which seems rather undemocratic to me.

Members who were in the House in the last session of Parliament also had an opportunity to debate a private member's bill from a government member, the member for Burlington, who actually did provide exemptions on some of these issues. I do not understand why the government did not use her bill as a model to provide these exemptions. I suppose we will find out at committee stage.

[An hon. member]

Because it made sense.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

As the member from Kelowna says, it made sense. It was a good model. The government should have used it.

The other issue is really the administration and maintenance of a registry in Canada in general, because as so many MPs and Canadians across this country know, the government has been rather lacking in the whole establishment and maintenance of registries, the firearms registry being of course the most obvious example of what not to do in setting up a registry.

There are certain questions that I believe we as legislators should ask at this point. How will this list be maintained? How will the list be accessed? Who will maintain the list? If it is not the CRTC, which organization will do it? What will be required of telemarketers? How often must they check the list? Will there be a maintenance fee for telemarketers? Who will pay for the list? Who will pay for updating, monitoring and enforcing the list?

These are all questions that are not answered in the legislation and they must be before Parliament passes it.

Why is there no requirement for an annual report to Parliament on the cost of the administration of the list? The fact is that we in Parliament must have more details on how the CRTC plans to set up, administer and regulate this do not call registry.

In addition to the private member's bill I mentioned, there are two excellent examples of do not call registries, one in the United Kingdom and one in the United States. I want to touch briefly on the American list because I believe it offers Canada some guidance.

The American act is called the telephone consumer protection act. It is extremely detailed. It restricts the use of phones and fax machines to deliver unsolicited advertisements and it limits the hours during which telemarketers can call, something that was referenced by the previous speaker; we get the same complaints when telemarketers call on Sunday mornings or late at night. These are reasonable restrictions that we can put on telemarketers.

However, my point is that this is all laid out in the American legislation. The Americans did the proper thing. They laid it out in detail instead of just introducing a bill with no details and hoping that the committee could fix it.

On June 26, 2003, the Federal Communications Commission revised its rules implementing the telephone consumer protection act. The FCC established, in coordination with the Federal Trade Commission, a national do not call registry. The registry is nationwide in scope and includes virtually all telemarketers, with the exception of political organizations, charities and telephone surveys, three of the exemptions that I mentioned.

A telemarketer or a seller may call a consumer with whom it has an established business relationship for up to 18 months after the consumer's last purchase, delivery or payment even if the consumer's number is on the national do not call registry. Consumers registered on the national registry will be able to provide prior express permission in writing to companies from which they wish to continue to receive telemarketing calls.

The initial legislation tabled in Congress looked a lot like Bill C-37. The major difference was the oversight embedded in the bill by Congress. The FCC and FTC had to report to the House of Representatives within 45 days of the bill becoming law with an analysis of the telemarketing rules, any inconsistencies between the rules and the effect of such inconsistencies on consumers and persons paying for access to the registry, and proposals to remedy any such inconsistencies.

In addition, the American legislation required an annual report and includes some details required of the report, such as the number of people using the list, the fees collected for access to the registry and an analysis of the progress and the operation and enforcement of the registry.

This is a piece of legislation that the Conservative Party believes we can model our legislation on. We can certainly model our legislation on the private member's bill of the member for Burlington from the last session. It would be interesting to find out why the government in fact did not model Bill C-37 on either of those previous pieces of legislation.

In conclusion, I want to state very clearly that the Conservative Party will support the establishment of a national registry as long as it is detailed in the legislation, as long as the parameters are set by Parliament, as long as we know exactly who is going to administer the list and the details are set out, and as long as there are some reasonable exemptions provided for charities, for political organizations and for companies that wish to contact their current customers.

I think those are all reasonable requests that our party is making. We certainly hope that we can fix this bill at committee and that this type of legislation or this concept of a registry will become law in Canada in a very short time.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, to speak to Bill C-37. Let me read the summary to this bill that amends the Telecommunications Act:

This enactment amends the Telecommunications Act to permit the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to administer databases for the purpose of its power under section 41, namely the power to prohibit or regulate the use by any person of the telecommunications facilities of a Canadian carrier for the provision of unsolicited telecommunications to the extent that the Commission considers it necessary to prevent undue inconvenience or nuisance, giving due regard to freedom of expression.

The enactment also establishes an administrative monetary penalty for the contravention of prohibitions or requirements of the Commission under that section.

This bill follows polls conducted across Canada and Quebec. Indeed, an Environics poll mentioned that 79% of Canadians said that they supported a national do not call list.

For those who perhaps did not understand, the purpose of this bill is to allow Quebeckers and Canadians who so wish to exclude themselves from any telemarketing promotion. Whether through faxes, e-mail or telephone, we are inundated by telemarketing companies that want to sell us the best product in the world. This often has its disadvantages, causes a lot of communications, clogs our e-mail accounts or overwhelms us with paper.

The public wants to have a way of avoiding such solicitation and Bill C-37 would give it to them. The Bloc Québécois will of course be in favour of the principle, and we agree that Quebeckers ought not to have to put up with such calls and ought to have the possibility of adding their names to a do not call list to be administered by the CRTC, if they so desire.

Automatically, if we were on such a list, all companies would no longer be entitled to solicit us, on pain of some relatively severe penalties and fines. The penalty would be $1,500 in the case of an individual and $15,000 for a corporation. Obviously, the employer is responsible for the mandate he has entrusted to a designated person, or in other words the company is responsible for the actions of its employees, hence the heavy fines for failure to fulfill this obligation.

We do, however, question one specific reality. The CRTC has already admitted that it was not in a position to administer this program, and would need a sizeable budget to do so. We feel it should be required of the companies to provide part of their telemarketing profits to maintain this do not call list.

Moreover, the Canadian Marketing Association has already admitted that it would be easier for them if they knew in advance if people did not want to be called. This would reduce costs of staff, faxes and e-mail. Because of these savings, the industry would be prepared to meet the costs of such a system.

On the other hand, there is still one major question that remains if a registry is administered by the government. We just need to think back to the huge amounts of money swallowed up by the firearms registry. I realize that the industry will want to know the costs up front, so as not to get into the incredible overspending that occurred there, with a predicted $2 million cost that has now escalated to over $2 billion.

It is important for us as members of parliament to be able to determine the framework for this registry. Companies would have to make a reasonable contribution. More important than that, members of the public would have prompt responses to their decision to be put on this do not call list.

We also want various amendments to be made to the bill. It must set out exclusions, in other words, establish clear parameters in the legislation, not currently included with regard to the groups that would be excluded.

It must be understand that, if such a list is created, people could be on the do not call list for everything. Charity begins at home. The political parties have asked that individuals not be able to exclude themselves from getting communications we may send them.

Often, people get information from their MP. Since the members of the Bloc Québécois have a close relationship with the public, we regularly send out information explaining the work being done by the charming men and women in the Bloc Québécois who are dedicated to Quebec.

Obviously, we would hope that political parties will always be able to communicate with the public.

There are non-profit charitable organizations too. All too often, the only way for these organizations to obtain funding is by having a direct link with the public. They often send us requests for donations by mail or in some other way. Permission must be given so that charitable organizations can continue to correspond with Quebeckers, who are extremely generous, as we have demonstrated in the past and as we will continue to demonstrate whenever the need arises.

There are also companies that already have an established business connection with their clients. We would not want banks and phone companies—be it only the yellow pages—to be unable to communicate with businesspeople in order to sell advertising space. This concerns, above all, cases where there is a relationship with an existing client. We want a framework to allow businesses to be able to communicate with people with whom they have done business in the past without being penalized for their actions and for the way they do business with their clients.

If these principles were clearly set out in the legislation, if the protection were ensured at a reasonable cost—that is what I want and what the Bloc Québécois will do in its proposed amendments. We will make sure that there is a registry. We will also ensure that this registry allows all Quebeckers and Canadians—those who want to, of course—to opt out of marketing advertising, and that the businesses that have to pay are charged reasonable prices, that the registry has the government's support and that its management is not entrusted to private enterprise. This was requested by the Canadian Marketing Association, among others; otherwise, it would like asking the wolf to watch the sheep.

Hon. members will have gathered that what we want is an entity operating at arm's length from industry, supported by industry at reasonable costs known ahead of time, so that we do not end up with another gun registry and that groups already doing business with the public can continue doing business. We are thinking of charities, political parties, banks, telephone companies and other businesses already using means of telecommunication to contact their clients. They have to be able to continue. If this is provided in the bill, the Bloc Québécois will gladly support this bill, which will be very useful and will prevent Quebeckers from being harassed to get things they do not want.

Health

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Mr. Jon Lynne-Davis, a constituent of Brant. Mr. Lynne-Davis is the author of From Couch Potato to Baked Potato and has dedicated his life to educating Canadians on the seriousness of obesity. Obesity is associated with increased risks for hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and many more life-threatening ailments.

In December 2004 Mr. Lynne-Davis and associates launched a website, WhyIamFat.com. The website and service was developed with the help of educators, physicians, dieticians and exercise physiologists. This site offers information about common problems with obesity and suggests steps for people committed to losing weight.

I would like to ask my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Lynne-Davis for his hard work and dedication to combating this silent disease.

Dairy Industry

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about the effects of BSE on the beef industry in the past several months, but what we have not heard is that this crisis has had a negative impact on the dairy industry as well.

The city of Woodstock in my riding of Oxford is the dairy capital of Canada. Nearly 7% of the dairy farms in the province of Ontario are located in Oxford. Our dedicated farmers and their families deserve recognition and appreciation for the hard work they have invested in Canada's dairy industry despite the many challenges they have faced.

Recent price changes adopted by the Canadian Dairy Commission will hopefully see some reduction in the gap between operating costs and compensation for dairy farmers.

I urge the House to fully support this fundamental Canadian industry by ensuring that it is financially viable, and I want to thank Canadian dairy farmers and their families for all their hard work and dedication.

Finally, I would like to welcome the Dairy Farmers of Canada to Ottawa as it opens its annual dairy policy conference. I hope they enjoy their visit to the nation's capital.

North Vancouver

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the morning of January 19, residents in my riding of North Vancouver were awakened by the news that a mudslide had caused considerable damage to homes in the Blue Ridge and Riverside areas and claimed the life of North Vancouver resident Mrs. Eliza Kuttner and seriously injured her husband, Michael. Our condolences go to Mrs. Kuttner's family and friends as they deal with this terrible tragedy.

This past weekend I attended a wonderful community fundraising event for the Dykes family, Harvey, Colette and their daughter Jacintha, whose home was also struck by the mud and debris flow and who miraculously survived this disaster.

At one point, as many as 100 families had to be evacuated as a precautionary measure. Ten families are still awaiting the go ahead to return to their homes.

I was extremely proud of the manner in which my former municipal colleagues responded to the tragic events: Mayor Harris, CAO James Ridge, Fire Chief Gary Calder. The entire emergency response team sprung into action minutes after the events transpired and did not leave their posts until all were out of danger and those evacuated from their homes were given proper care and shelter.

Both myself and Mayor Harris were heartened to receive a call from the Prime Minister, who was in Tokyo, expressing his concern and support. Hopefully this is a tragedy that will not be repeated.

Jean-Jacques Martel

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region is deeply saddened as it mourns the loss of one of its pioneers, Mr. Jean-Jacques Martel.

Born in 1927, Mr. Martel became a prospector who did a great deal for mining development in the Abitibi area. A generous man, a dedicated builder of our beautiful region, he was the member of Parliament for the former riding of Chapleau from March 31, 1958, to June 18, 1962. With his unequivocal love of the region, he defended his constituents' interests with great energy.

My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois join with me in offering our condolences to the Martel family and the entire community of Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Crescentwood Community Centre

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Crescentwood Community Club celebrating its 60th anniversary.

Located in the heart of south Winnipeg, Crescentwood Community Club started life in 1945 in a converted railway boxcar. In 1949 a permanent facility was constructed totally by volunteer help. The club was further expanded in 1997, and today looks to even further development. Programs continue to evolve to respond to the changing community needs.

This week's 60th anniversary celebration began with a community tea to acknowledge community builders of the past. The week will continue with a host of celebrations for all members of the family.

An important footnote is that this club was integral to Winnipeg's and Canada's musical life. Crescentwood canteen musicians provided the early stage for future superstars such as Burton Cummings, Randy Bachman, Fred Turner and Neil Young, playing in groups such as the Deverons, the Squires, Pink Plum and the Orfans.

Congratulations to this historic community of--