Sue Barnes

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak today on Bill C-7, the controlled drugs and substances act.

Bill C-7 consolidates and supplements the Narcotics Control Act and parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act. It combines a regulatory scheme for drugs used in medicine with the criminal law regime for illicit substances.

The bill is a reintroduction of Bill C-85, the Psychoactive Substance Control Act, introduced by the Conservative government in the previous Parliament. Bill C-85 died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament due to the election call. While it was reintroduced into this Parliament by the Minister of Health, aspects of it fall under the concerns of the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada.

One main object of the bill as originally conceived was to bring our drug laws into conformity with provisions in certain international agreements we had signed. These agreements include the

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971, and the relevant portions of the United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, 1988.

In keeping with the spirit of these instruments, Bill C-7 adopted an interdiction and criminalization approach to the production, traffic and the possession and use of illicit substances.

The legislation was also supposed to cohere with Canada's drug strategy which had been unveiled in May 1987. The key object of the drug strategy is to reduce harm to individuals, families and communities caused by alcohol and other drugs. Canada's drug strategy was designed to place greater emphasis on reducing demand for illicit substances through prevention, education and drug treatment programs instead of relying solely on the interdiction efforts of police and penal institutions for the reduction of the supply of illicit drugs.

In contrast to these methods, harm reduction seeks to reduce the harm caused by those who have a problem with substance abuse, including harm done to themselves, to their families and to other persons. It takes a public health approach to the problem of drug abuse rather than a moralistic, punitive one which views such abuse as criminal in and of itself.

The bill passed second reading and was sent to a subcommittee of the Standing Committee of Health in April last year. As members will recall, the red book promised us that MPs would be given a greater role in drafting legislation through their work on House of Commons committees. The work done on Bill C-7 by the subcommittee chaired by the member for Mississauga South and the participation of other parliamentarians in making significant changes to the bill despite its having passed second reading is a perfect example of this commitment put into action.

Officials from the departments of health and justice have explained that the bill was a consolidation of existing legislation and that the changes it contained were required to fulfil the international agreements we had signed. They emphasized that our international partners were exerting pressure on us to pass this legislation.

As the subcommittee analyzed the bill more closely and listened to the arguments of witnesses a variety of issues began to emerge. Although there was not a single unanimous view, nonetheless members of each of the three parties expressed similar concerns about the substance of the bill, as did other parliamentarians including me.

As many Liberals see it, Canada's approach to illegal drugs has required adjustment for some time. At different times the Liberal Party of Canada has in non-binding party resolutions advocated certain fundamental changes to our drug policies. To simply consolidate and thereby reaffirm existing approaches to drugs would be to miss an important opportunity to effect modern rational policies on drugs.

What were the concerns some had with the original Bill C-7? Bill C-7 is a complex piece of legislation. In my view the following were among the most important concerns. First, the bill lacked provisions for rehabilitation and treatment options for sentencing as an alternative to incarceration or fines. Second, the bill categorized illicit substances according to outdated schedules.

Third, the bill reaffirmed lengthy maximum prison terms and increased the fines for the simple possession of cannabis in contrast to current court practices and evolved societal attitudes.

Fourth, Bill C-7 included a deeming provision for illicit substances which seemed to us to contradict the fundamental legal principle that conduct subject to criminal sanction should be specified clearly in acts.

Let us deal with these concerns. First, the bill lacked provisions for rehabilitation and treatment options for sentencing as an alternative to incarceration and fines. Many members felt Bill C-7, drafted under the lead of the Department of Health, did not squarely address the public health dimensions of the illicit drug problem. Among experts in public health and addiction research, the consensus has emerged in recent years which emphasizes a strategy called harm reduction. It emphasizes the broader reduction of harms to society caused by illegal drug use, as well as by inappropriate institutional responses to drug problems.

As the experts know, a harm reduction approach seeks to reduce the harm caused by those who have a problem with substance abuse, including harm done to themselves, to their families and to other persons. It evaluates strategies for dealing with illicit substances in part by situating them within the context of substance abuse generally, including that of alcohol and tobacco. A less ideological perspective on the problem begins with honest epidemiological comparisons to strategies for dealing with such legal and potentially very dangerous substances.

Harm reduction initiatives include needle exchange programs, methadone treatment, counselling and rehabilitation efforts. Education efforts which stress the health risks associated with legal and illegal drug use are also important in the prevention of drug dependencies or addictions.

I contrast this approach with what I would call prohibitionism. One treats the consumption of drugs as a moral evil where criminal sanction is seen as the only appropriate response. Rather than recognizing the users of illicit substances as endangering their health and taking appropriate steps to help them, the prohibitionist perspective would treat them solely as criminals who require the

threat of criminal penalties and a criminal record to deter them from such behaviour.

Were this an effective approach, the United States with its heavy emphasis on interdiction and punishment would be nearly drug free by now. As we know, the number of prisoners in jail for drug offences in that country continues to grow with little sign of any stemming of the insidious drug trade or the use of illegal drugs.

Despite being part of Canada's drug strategy which emphasizes harm reduction as its primary goal, Bill C-7 in its original form did not mention or encourage judges to consider rehabilitation or treatment as alternatives to fines or incarceration for those convicted of possession of illicit substances. This was a concern now remedied.

Criminal sanctions should not be our only tool for dealing with illicit drugs or for changing the habits of persons who are addicted or at risk of drug addiction. Prohibitionism toward drug users on its own arguably inflicts greater harms on individuals and families than the harms it purports to prevent. We should also bear in mind the far greater number of deaths and amounts of disease associated each year with the use of such legal drugs as tobacco and alcohol. In my opinion the sums and energies we expend in fighting the use of illicit drugs should be allocated with due regard for their overall impact on population health.

Wisely and responsibly, the government has amended Bill C-7 to include a clause that addresses rehabilitation. Clause 11(1) declares: "The fundamental purpose of any sentence for an offence arising under part I is to contribute to respect for law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society, while encouraging rehabilitation and treatment in appropriate circumstances of offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community".

The second concern I raised was that the bill categorized illicit substances according to outdated schedules. No one would dispute our drug policy must be reflective of current scientific knowledge. The parliamentary committee repeatedly stressed the schedules proposed in Bill C-7 are outdated. This was put forward by witnesses. While they are housed in the 1971 UN convention, their arrangement derives from public policies of the 1920s when policy makers knew relatively little science about the nature, the effects and the potential for societal harm posed by these drugs.

The most serious example of the lack of pharmacology reflected in the schedules was the placement of cannabis in the schedule I of the UN convention. Schedule I is supposed to be reserved for the most socially harmful drugs such as morphine, heroin and opium.

Heavy regular use of cannabis can certainly sap motivation and affect short term memory. Many will contend that while it may be carcinogenic, the risks of the light use of cannabis do not appear to be significantly worse than those associated with moderate use of legal substances like alcohol. While we have heard calls from some for decriminalization, in my opinion dependency on marijuana should be strongly discouraged. Nonetheless, the drug schedules used in Canada should reflect the best scientific knowledge we possess. We should not be obligated to accept outdated schedules.

In response to the concerns raised, the bill has been amended to incorporate an additional schedule, I(i), which deals exclusively with cannabis and its derivatives. Read together with the new penalty provisions which I shall discuss next, this amendment takes cannabis out of the company of far more deleterious drugs like heroin and cocaine while keeping it within the realm of the Criminal Code. In a minute I will also discuss the international schedules and our response to that issue.

The third concern with the original Bill C-7 was it reaffirmed maximum prison terms and increased the fines for the simple possession of cannabis, in contrast to current court practices and involved societal attitudes.

Should pot smokers have the threat of a lengthy jail term hanging over their heads? Is this the best way to discourage use? Does it make Canada safer? Does it make it healthier?

As originally drafted, Bill C-7 retained a maximum penalty of seven years for simple possession of cannabis. It doubled the fine for a first offence and more than doubled it for a second offence. These maximum penalties contrasted with what is generally now meted out by Canadian courts for a first time offence, which is usually a small fine and sometimes an absolute discharge.

It is estimated that we charge over 40,000 people a year with simple possession of cannabis, a costly burden on the court and the police systems. This represents approximately 3 per cent of the estimated over one million regular cannabis users in Canada.

Further, while 3 per cent of those charged will face incarceration, over half a million Canadians have criminal records because of cannabis convictions. These people can apply for pardons in due course, since the convictions that they have can be a serious hindrance for employability and for travel. Penalties tend to vary with different police officers, the judges, the regions of the country and the socioeconomic status of the accused. Would that it were not so, but it is true.

In many communities across Canada, the courts, the legal profession, the police on the beat and the average person do not appear to view cannabis possession as meriting the severe penalties set out for it in existing law. Reaffirming these penalties would effectively express our legislator's faith in the existing penalty structure. What signals should such reaffirmations send to our courts? When law lags behind court practices and societal attitudes

and such laws come up for review, the laws must be adjusted, not reaffirmed.

Penalties for offences under the act should be proportionate to the social and personal harm they entail. In keeping with this principle, the bill has been amended to incorporate a new schedule which establishes threshold amounts of cannabis for the offence of simple possession. Persons charged with possession of lesser amounts will be subject only to summary conviction proceedings, with a correspondingly lower range of penalties. This is still a criminal conviction and I stress this. However, in those cases involving the lesser amounts with simple possession charges, there will not be fingerprinting, there will not be photography or entering into a CPIC system for tracing purposes.

By reducing penalties and recommending treatment and rehabilitation alternatives in Bill C-7, we send a clear signal to the courts encouraging them to pursue the available harm reduction avenues.

The fourth concern I originally mentioned, that the bill as originally drafted included a deeming provision for illicit substances which appears to contradict the fundamental legal principle that conduct subject to criminal sanction should be specified clearly in acts.

The deeming provision in Bill C-7 allowed new, previously unscheduled substances to be deemed by regulators to belong to a particular schedule and the attached penalty provisions to come into force at that point. The bill would have extended a definition of controlled substances and their analogues beyond drugs cited in the schedules, to such drugs as were deemed by regulators to have an effect substantially similar to, or greater than, schedule substances.

Using this provision, the government would thus have been able to adopt regulations to control, govern and limit the use of as yet undesignated substances. This would be a significant departure from current provisions of the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act, the offences and associated punishments set out in these acts would apply only to such drugs as are specifically cited in the attached schedules. The purpose of this provision would be to allow regulators to respond quickly to the introduction of new so-called look alike drugs on our streets.

While this purpose is laudable, it has yet to be shown that this problem of undesignated drugs is out of control and in guarding against it, we must be careful not to trample on other fundamental legal principles. Citizens must know what the law is beforehand, so that they can govern their behaviour accordingly. If something is illegal, then there must be a law saying so unambiguously. To declare x a crime after the fact is unacceptable.

Further, many consumers and vendors of natural health remedies expressed concern that this provision could allow regulators to declare these products included in restricted or banned schedules. This provision, in fact, only dealt with parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act and herbs have historically been covered by parts I and II. Accordingly, this provision has been deleted now as the amended act Bill C-7 by the government.

I have dwelt at some length on the substantial improvements that members were able to bring to this bill after second reading.

Most of my remarks have concerned the demand side of the drug equation. There is also the supply side to consider. Bill C-7 introduces three important measures to combat drug trafficking. First, it includes a provision whereby judges are required to take aggravating factors into account when sentencing. Written reasons will now be required of a judge who fails to impose a prison term in the presence of any one of a list of aggravating factors.

The court will be required to regard as aggravating factors: first, use of a weapon or use of threat of violence; second, trafficking on school grounds or to a minor or in or near public places frequented by minors; third, any previous convictions of a drug offence and fourth, using the services of a minor in the perpetration of a designated substance offence. It is anticipated and hoped these provisions will deter drug dealers from using weapons, threatening violence, selling to young people or recruiting their services.

Second, schedule V in Bill C-7 introduces the notion of precursor substances, adding them to the list of controlled substances. This innovation keeps us in line with our international obligations under the single convention on narcotic drugs, 1961 and the 1988 Vienna convention.

Precursors do not by themselves produce any psychotropics or psychoactive effect but can be converted or used to produce designer drugs, look alike drugs or scheduled substances. Regulations enacted to control the import and export of precursors would attempt thereby to thwart the production of psychoactive substances in Canada and elsewhere. Canada has become a conduit for these and we owe it to our international partners to put a stop to this.

Finally, Bill C-7 allows police to use reverse sting measures, that is selling quantities of drugs to dealers for the sake of making arrests. Under the regulations of the Narcotic Control Act police officers have been permitted to possess drugs as part of their undercover work but without legislative authority to sell. Quite reasonably they wish to have clarified that they are so permitted by including a clause exempting them from the criminal provisions of the new act. That has been done.

Legislation is an evolutionary process as it should be. I believe that Bill C-7, as amended, has come a long way. The subcommittee has also recommended that a comprehensive drug policy review be undertaken by a parliamentary committee. Further, there has also been a recommendation that a task force of experts be established to examine and redefine the criteria for the the scheduling of drugs. Thus Canada could be a leading force in the modernization of international drug scheduling.

Although I admit to not being an expert in these matters, I do know that it is the time to look forward to a drug policy appropriate to the 21st century, one that incorporates criminal law, enforcement, public health and modern societal attitudes.

I publicly commend our ministers, the subcommittee members and our colleagues in the House of all parties in the development of the bill as deliberated today and I will support it.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way. I do want to address that, because there is a misapprehension that we somehow care less about adult sexual assault victims. That is not the case.

The case is that we really want an equalized treatment. Most adult women who are sexually assaulted do realize and recognize very rapidly the impact of that assault and are usually in some manner able to articulate that well. The parole board can be given information by the victim of that assault and that will be in the case preparation material. They can file materials that will help build that case. But that is not true and that has not worked for young sexual assault victims. There are many instances where young children are sexually assaulted and they have great difficulty in articulating this and sometimes keep secret what happened.

In that instance, we have taken corrective action in this act. It is not to minimize assault to any person, but there is a mechanism there to prevent something that was not allowing us to realize the impact of the serious harm done to somebody.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

The parole system is very difficult to understand if you have not been involved with it personally or if it has not been thoroughly explained.

Failures will always occur in any system invented and dealt with by humans. Unfortunately, we are not clones of one perfect being on this planet and there will be error. We have to strive to create the best system we are capable of.

The law will change and will continue to change. I do not think any of these ministers who are trying to accommodate the concern of the public and the reality of our system of justice in the country will stop providing better and better legislation as time goes on. We move forward one step at a time. What I want to point out to the member though, is that what this act talks about are sections dealing with the parole decisions. It is a fact that we do have more successful interventions by our justice system with the parole system where people get conditional releases than if they just hit the wall where they are released into the public, where there is no parole given.

In actual fact, our success rate is much higher than if somebody comes to the end of the time they have to serve by law and walks onto the street, because there has been no management in the community with the assistance and the tools that we can provide, and this act provides, if we just say the time is up and let them go. Our success rate is better with this parole system. Fortunately for Canadians, these are the statistics and they are correct.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today on the motion for third reading of Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and related statutes.

Recent polls and letters received from constituents indicate that crime is a major concern among Canadians today. Among other vital issues such as national unity and the health care system, individuals are greatly concerned with crime. Only matters relating to the economy and the deficit seem more important to our fellow citizens. It is clear that the government must assume leadership in this area.

We have already made a commitment to address the issue. The red book stipulated our commitment to fight crime and violence by more effective measures and social reform. Last fall the solicitor general introduced the bill as part of a strategic framework of initiatives for safe homes and safe streets for all Canadians.

I will address the second main area of change resulting from Bill C-45, the accountability of National Parole Board members. However first let me briefly explain the concept of parole.

Canada's discretionary conditional release system is based on the principle that a gradual, controlled re-entry to the community better serves the interests of public safety than does direct release. It is a way of managing with supervision and conditions the transition from incarceration to life in the community. The numbers support the principle.

Clearly the performance of the National Parole Board is only as good as the decision it makes. Consequently the credibility and accountability of the board are directly linked to the qualifications and judgment exercised by its own members and to the quality, completeness and accuracy of the information provided to the board for review. The requirement for board members to have the relevant skills and knowledge to make sound decisions is essential in order to perform their responsibilities professionally.

Board members face the difficult task of making decisions about the timing and conditions of an offender's release in a manner that contributes to the long term protection of society. It is therefore only logical that the individuals who make those decisions are chosen from the best qualified candidates.

As mentioned by my hon. colleagues, there has already been considerable progress in this area and in others. Over the last several months a number of important events and activities have taken place which have helped to shape a renewed course for the National Parole Board.

This was largely brought about with the appointment of a new chairperson, Mr. Willie Gibbs, who brought to the board impressive knowledge and experience in the criminal justice system. Mr. Gibbs was chosen after a comprehensive selection process, and a similar system is now in place for all member appointments. Already new board members have been recruited under these provisions. It should be noted also that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has the ability, which it has been using, to call new appointees before the committee for questioning.

Let me explain these measures in more detail. These appointment provisions include a set of revised criteria which all applicants must meet, emphasizing experience and knowledge of the criminal justice system and in particular corrections and conditional release systems in Canada.

National Parole Board vacancies are now advertised in the Canada Gazette and include the qualifications and abilities required. After a screening process those who ranked highest in meeting the criteria are interviewed by a committee chaired by either the chairperson or the executive vice-chair of the National Parole Board. A list of successful candidates is then submitted to

the Solicitor General of Canada. That list is then reviewed and sent to the Privy Council Office for the final appointment.

In all regions of Canada applicants have gone through the process and new part time and full time board members have been selected.

The revised appointment process does not preclude the fact that current board members are competent, but it does underscore that the Government of Canada recognizes the difficulties of being a board member and ensuring the challenges are met with the kind of knowledge and competence these positions demand.

In addition to the improvements I have already mentioned, the National Parole Board adopted a code of professional conduct and performance standards to guide all board members in their duties. The specific provisions of the code of professional conduct cover such areas as promotion of integrity and independence, general conduct, conflict of interest, decision making, conduct during proceedings, continuing professional development, and disqualification and reporting, to name just a few.

These standards and the code of conduct were created to better articulate board members' individual accountability as decision makers and to preserve the integrity of the board itself. They represent the members' acceptance of the highest ideals of professional conduct and the responsibility of board members for decisions that directly affect the interests and safety of entire communities as well as individual victims, offenders, and their families. Most important, these high standards promote respect for the law and will help to improve public confidence.

The proposed amendments for the adoption of a disciplinary system for board members were made in order to correct a board member's performance if it has fallen below acceptable standards. The enactment authorizes the chairperson of the National Parole Board to recommend to the minister that an inquiry be conducted by a federal court judge to determine whether a board member should be suspended without pay, be removed from his or her office, or be subject to other disciplinary or remedial measures. This measure is not intended to second guess board members or to respond punitively where a case has gone wrong despite everyone's best efforts. Rather, this would be a review mechanism available where a member is clearly not performing up to acceptable standards.

The solicitor general has stated that he hopes this provision will never be used. I am confident this is a hope all of us share on all sides of the House, as it will mean that the renewed appointment process and proper training are working well.

The solicitor general also mentioned the need to improve the quality of decision making at the National Parole Board. This is another area in which the board continues to adapt to changing needs to ensure the best possible decisions are made. These measures have already been implemented and I name here just a few.

First, the board has created a national training framework. Board members require comprehensive orientation and continuous and continual training and development to keep abreast of changes in law, policies and procedures, risk assessment and management, and generally to improve their performance.

Second, thorough reviews of specific case audits in national investigations are used as training tools to ensure procedures are followed and duties are performed in accordance with the law. Investigation findings and recommendations may also be used in performance appraisal systems.

Third, all board members are currently subject to annual reviews of their performance. The first round of appraisals is now completed and has provided the board with an opportunity to address any weaknesses identified, provide the needed training, and take appropriate corrective action in certain cases.

Fourth, a new training package is provided to board members, which addresses the area of risk assessment alone. This cohesive training package focuses on how current research, theory, and opinion in the human and social sciences can assist National Parole Board members in their decision making relating to risk management and risk reduction.

It is obvious that despite the most recent and precise risk assessment tools available, tragedies can and do occur. These tragedies affect all of us deeply and we must react by seeking solutions to prevent further tragedies. However, we have all come to recognize that each case represents different and often complex challenges and that even the best research can yield less than perfect predictions of reoffending. Our corrections and conditional release system is based on human assessments of fellow human beings. Even with all of the available information, predicting human behaviour has never been and will never be an exact science.

I think it is important for Canadians to have a clear understanding about the success of parole as measured by recidivism rates. A successful parole is measured by completion of sentence time without revocation of parole. Follow-up studies done for the parole board over the last few years have shown a success rate of approximately 70 per cent for full parole releases granted by the board. Studies showed that some 15 per cent of full parolees were returned to prison because of breach of a parole condition, while 13 per cent committed a new crime.

Primary consideration of any parole board decision revolves on the concern always for public protection. We should also note that the average annual cost to incarcerate an adult in Canada is $46,000, while supervision of an adult in the community costs on average $8,500 per year.

There are other areas in which we can work together to minimize the risk posed by offenders. Bill C-45, including its changes to the National Parole Board, clearly represents a step toward the government's commitment to public safety and security. The changes dealing with the National Parole Board have not been created and will not be carried out in a vacuum. They are only as good as the criminal justice system in which they operate. Every effort must be made to work in partnership with other agencies and with the communities we represent so that use of the limited government resources is maximized to ensure public safety at every stage in the offender's contact with the criminal justice system.

As the MP for London West, I have spent time in my city visiting the facilities and the people involved with our parole system. As the solicitor general has stated, the system will work best if it is well integrated and co-ordinated.

I am sure we all seek an efficient, professional corrections and conditional release system. To this end, I join with my other colleagues in the House in urging all members of the Chamber to support the amendments reflected in Bill C-45.

[John And Jesse Davidson, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow two special constituents, their families, friends, supporters, and hopefully many in this Chamber will walk the final kilometres of a courageous journey.

Jesse's journey started on May 20 when John Davidson began pushing his son Jesse across Ontario to raise awareness and funds for gene research. Jesse is 15 years old and is confined to a wheelchair, afflicted with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Together they have seen the faces, hearts and beauty of our province and its people. It was a humbling experience for those who have shared some road time in these past months with John and Jesse.

Medical research has gained from this 3,300-kilometre walk. To date, funds donated are in excess of $700,000. I believe though that for John and Jesse the summer of 1995 has been more a testament to the love and the caring of the Davidson family.

Congratulations. Félicitations et bravo.

[Petitions, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from my riding and parts of the city of London, Ontario which contains four pages of signatures.

This is a petition calling on Parliament to act quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

It notes acts of discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual Canadians are an every day reality in all regions of Canada and that this type of discrimination is unacceptable in a country known for its commitment to human rights, equality and dignity for all citizens.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Because the psychiatric evidence tells us that. Because it is common psychiatric evidence.

Mr. Speaker, I will speak through you because it is difficult to educate some members on the other side. It is not so difficult to go to people when they are concerned about the real issue of this bill and explain to them in a calm manner when the decibel levels are not so high and say: "This is what is really happening. We have a Criminal Code statute. We are not addressing morality in this bill".

It is easy to joke. I came here as a lawyer to become a politician. I guess in some people's books I have two strikes against me. I do not know what the third one is. Maybe it is becoming a Reformer.

I think my comments have probably used up five minutes. There is no question to the member of the third party.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment about what has been said in this debate tonight. I want to compare that with a debate and question and answer session I had which I found extremely informative in two ways. It occurred in my riding and it concerned this bill. It occurred on a Sunday afternoon from four o'clock until around six o'clock at the London Salvation Army Citadel. It was about section 718.2.

What was so interesting was all the misinformation that came into that room that day with those people who came to have a fellowship and information session. They were very concerned about the moral fibre and changing laws in Canada.

The minister of that congregation came to see me in my constituency office. He was very concerned. He said: "I think I cannot go to my pulpit any more and preach what I want to preach in my church and this disturbs me". I asked whether his sermon was a criminal offence to which he replied: "Of course not". I told him not to be concerned because there is no offence created in this bill.

When I asked him what else concerned him, he said: " There is a slippery slope. If you do this we are going to end up over here and all of my beliefs I feel very strongly about will be gone". I said: "If that concerns you and if it concerns other constituents why don't I come to you in your forum?"

That is what I did. We walked through this section step by step telling them what the bill said, outlining the abuses of positions of trust in this section that we are concerned about and the crimes that are going on in our communities across this country. It was a long discussion. I went through the section as it stood before the amendments which in my opinion have actually added to it and have made it even a better section. At the end of the day they were very satisfied that their concerns were addressed.

I have offered that to other churches in my community. They have not accepted my invitation to go to them and explain this section. That concerns me. I think a lot of people think this section does something that it does not do.

I want to comment on one other thing. When I practised law, part of my job was with the psychiatric Criminal Code review board in Ontario. In that part time position on many occasions I had to deal with situations where pedophiles were involved. I want to say very clearly it is my honest belief that pedophilia is not covered in this bill at all. I have had to deal with pedophiles. I have been there.

This is not a bill that sanctions pedophilia. Pedophilia is a crime in Canada, as I explained to the Salvation Army people that day in the church. Pedophilia is actually a mental disorder under DMS-IV. It was III when I was doing that type of work. Heterosexuals often commit the crime of pedophilia. It is more prevalent with heterosexuals.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for very clearly stating that we are not debating morality in the House. We are debating criminal law and how we want our sentencing bills to be now and for the future.

He has clearly expressed the views that have been a consensus across the country. It is not just the gay, lesbian and bisexual groups that are in favour of this legislation. It is the United Church of Canada, B'nai Brith, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations and the Urban Alliance on Race Relations.

I know the member is from Quebec so I will rely on some of the material that has been forwarded by Quebec. I specifically rely on the Quebec human rights commission, November 1993, which convened the first public inquiry into discrimination on violence against gays and lesbians. The hearings received a fair profile in that province and across the country. They acquired that profile because 15 homosexual men in Montreal between 1989 and 1993 were murdered. That was the trigger which started the debate in that province.

Other debates went on in Vancouver, Toronto and across the country with the police forces.

We have the Ottawa police chief saying he is in favour of this legislation, we have the metropolitan police force. We need this legislation everywhere. What I want to know from this member is what other experiences does he know about that go on every day in the lives of gays and lesbians for the hate motivated section of this bill to be necessary for all of Canada?

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41 has proven to be a very controversial bill based exclusively on the inclusion of the term sexual orientation in section 718.2, two words in a bill that runs 75 pages in length. These objections, even with a cursory study, do not stand up to scrutiny.

First I want to briefly deal with what the rest of C-41 talks about. C-41 provides the courts with a clear statement of principles and guidelines to be considered when sentencing offenders. Sentencing is a very delicate balance between competing principles. There is far more to consider than simply locking up the offender and separating him from society. This is not to say that the safety of society must not be the paramount goal, but we must also rehabilitate where we can and use our limited financial correctional resources in the wisest possible fashion.

Canada has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the western world. This is not because we are a violent or lawless people. On the contrary, only 10 per cent of crime in this country actually involves violence. Over half of all crimes involve property, not people. And frequently offenders are locked up not because they represent in any way a threat to society but because we simply do not know what to do with them. We do not have the resources at present in our code.

For example, nearly a third of the people liable to incarceration in our provincial jails are in that situation because they could not pay fines. Particularly hard hit of course are aboriginal and poor Canadians. The bill provides measures to help the provinces collect outstanding fines through the civil court system or levy community service or withhold provincial licences or permits in lieu of fines.

The bill also takes into much greater account the victims of crime, the people so often overlooked in the sentencing process. The new law will revise the parole provisions of the code. Henceforth, when an offender brings an application for an earlier parole eligibility date the court will specifically be required to take into account the perspective and evidence of the victim or the victim's family in deciding whether permission should be granted to the applicant to seek early parole.

The bill also gives priority to the principle of restitution. Offenders must be made to understand the consequences of their crimes. To do this, the code will be amended to ensure that restitution orders can be enforced through civil courts like any other court order, through garnishment of wages, seizure, sale or otherwise. At the same time, the restitution order will not preclude the victim from suing for damages in the civil courts in that province.

Jails should be reserved for those who need them. Bill C-41 proposes alternatives to create a more equitable, less costly, and more effective system which Canadians can trust. It introduces a diversion program for adults guilty of minor crimes, for instance shoplifting, that will allow the courts to divert the offender into a program of community service and counselling to deal with the problem in a more humane and less costly manner.

Another new aspect of the bill is the conditional sentence. This provision will give authorities the discretion to have the offender serve his or her sentence in the community where-and I want to stress this-the court is satisfied that the offender would not endanger the safety of the community. If the offender does not comply with the conditions imposed as part of that sentence, he or she is brought back before the court to explain. If the court is not satisfied, it can order that the remainder of the sentence be served in custody.

Last, Bill C-41 will require that a judge passing sentence state her or his reasons and enter those reasons in the record of proceeding. This will increase public understanding of the judicial decision making process, encouraging judges to make consistent, well-informed, reasoned decisions based on the principles enunciated in the bill.

Now to section 718. Hate crime is increasingly manifest in Canada. There are over 40 organized hate groups operating in Canada today, and there is no evidence that the number is abating. It is with this in mind that the Liberal government has moved to toughen up the Criminal Code to crack down on crime and to make it known in absolutely unequivocal terms that we cannot and will not allow hatred and prejudice to tear us apart in this country. This was our promise to the Canadian people during the election campaign. We say now that crimes motivated by hate will be and indeed must be more severely punished.

Hatred comes in many guises. There is neo-Nazism, anti-Semitism, racism. They are only the obvious forms. Prejudice based on sexual orientation is just as real and one of the most common forms of discrimination we encounter today.

Some studies estimate that as much as 12 per cent of the population is gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Others purport to put the number as low as 3 per cent. Whatever the percentage, be it 1 per cent or 50 per cent, the fact is that we cannot tolerate prejudice and hate motivated crimes against any segment of our population, no matter how small. In fact, I will argue that if it is smaller then they need our protection more, since they do not have the numbers to protect themselves.

Studies show that as many as one-third of the people we are talking about here-or they are talking about, that great they over on the other side-have been threatened or subjected to violence simply because of who they are. According to the Metro Toronto police force, hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation today represent the third largest category of hate related offences.

The evidence all points to a steady increase in hate crime, particularly in the United States. It is naive to think that this does not spill over to Canada. If we contemn hatred, we must contemn all hatred, not just against some groups, but against all groups equally.

Some people have expressed a concern that the new law would legalize pedophilia. Let us be perfectly clear here. This legislation does not legalize any sexual activity that is currently outlawed, and the bill explicitly states so. A person's sexual orientation no more includes pedophilia than it does sexual assault or incest. I wonder how many heterosexuals think of themselves as rapists.

People who violate the sexual offences in the existing Criminal Code will continue to be punished to the full extent of the law. In fact, section 718.2.(ii) of the bill will allow for even harsher sentences to be imposed on sex offenders where the victim is in a relationship of trust to the offender, for example, where a doctor molests a patient, a teacher a young student, a babysitter his or her charge, or a priest his parishioner.

I have also heard it said that the new bill will make it a crime to speak out publicly against homosexuality. Again, let us be perfectly clear. It is the right of every Canadian to be able to speak his or her mind. A church sermon expressing a moral view is not a crime. Freedom of speech and religion are both specifically protected under our charter of rights and freedoms.

Bill C-41 as a sentencing bill will become operative only after someone is found guilty of a crime. Only at the sentencing hearing may a judge hear evidence that the crime was motivated by hatred, and only then may the judge take it into account in passing sentence.

Some critics have expressed concern that the bill will open the door to sweeping changes leading to the recognition of same sex families or gay and lesbian spouses. Bill C-41 does not and will not have this effect. You are in the wrong act, people. It does nothing more than what it appears to do. It is a bill to give the court guidance in determining a sentence where a crime has been committed. The bill does not advocate or encourage any lifestyle, nor does it undermine in any way the traditional family. It does not even speak to the subject. It is relevant only to the criminal law.

Bill C-41 is about many things. It is about the right of everyone to live as they choose within the law and to live their lives free from fear. It is far more than a debate on sexual orientation. It is about sentencing. It is designed to restore faith in our courts, faith in our system of justice, and faith in our communities, where people need to be reintegrated.

I urge all members of the House to give their support to this important bill.

I must say that I have felt ashamed in the last two days about statements of intolerance I have heard in the debate. I hope I never rise again saying that I feel ashamed about statements of intolerance in the greatest democracy in the world today, Canada.