Bill C-15 (Historical)

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts

Bill C-15

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am asking this question because my constituents in Yukon have an interest in the wording of Bill C-15. Canadians agree that cruelty to animals should be prohibited in society. While we must not put at risk the current legal practices of fishing and hunting, we must stop the worst cases of cruelty and abuse.

Could the Minister of Justice reassure Canadians that the wording of Bill C-15 will be clear and precise enough to target the true abuse of animals?

Criminal Code

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this private member's bill. I am also honoured to follow my colleague from Provencher and attach myself to his remarks.

The bill has a great deal of pragmatism and takes a practical common sense approach to the very real problem of home invasion. I commend the hon. member for his intent and his perseverance in bringing the matter to the forefront.

The bill would amend the criminal code to provide for minimum mandatory imprisonment of two years upon a second or subsequent conviction for breaking and entering in relation to a dwelling house. The dwelling house is the key principle. The home is the castle, the sacrosanct place where Canadians first and foremost should feel a sense of security.

This offence has become rampant not just in cities and towns but in rural Canada. In isolated areas the chances of home invasion are sometimes increased by the isolation.

Sadly, this crime is on the rise among youth and particularly young women. It is popular among gangs because of the lucrative rewards involved. I say rewards in a negative sense because those who engage in the activity seem to feel they can achieve something by breaking into people's homes and taking their possessions.

The real danger is when individuals are at home and find someone in their domain, particularly at night under the cover of darkness. The potential for violence is very real. It has happened on numerous occasions when individuals were protecting their home, their possessions and their loved ones. It is a recipe for disaster and violence. Why would we as legislators in the Parliament of Canada not want to put great emphasis on something that is happening with alarming frequency?

Many have complained about the legislation. The parliamentary secretary has referred to it as infringing upon judicial jurisdiction. He says that it would infringe upon a judge's natural task of assessing each case separately. Surely the emphasis by judges is always upon the facts in a particular case.

When we talk about recidivism and repeat offences, the scales of justice must be tipped in favour of protecting the public. The scales of justice must be tipped toward deterrence and denunciation of that particular type of offence.

If we do not take the chance that has been put before us with the legislation, we will miss the opportunity to send a message to those offenders who choose to act in this way and who watch with some glee when a light sentence is handed down, to the horror of victims and to those living in fear of having their home invaded, their possessions stolen or to potentially face violence in their homes where they should feel most secure.

The Conservative Party supports the principle of the bill which recognizes the public safety concerns that arise from such offences. The type of offence that is portrayed in the bill endangers people's lives. That is part of the entire equation. That is why the judiciary in some instances must be reminded of the important message of deterrence.

Home invasion is described as breaking and entering into a home when the invader either knows or ought to know that the dwelling is occupied. Currently such an offence is considered by judges to be an aggravating factor. This comes from Bill C-15 wherein it talks about it being an aggravating factor in cases stemming from break and enter, assault and drug related offences, depending on the particular case. Breaking into a home when the offender knows that the individual is at home is a penetrating statement of the obvious. That is an aggravating factor. What could be more aggravating and what could be more distressing to an individual?

The Liberal government's response to this issue has been nothing more than the typical Liberal legislative half measure to please everyone and to appear to be addressing the problem when the upshot of the legislation really falls far short of what it should be achieving.

Bill C-15, which was tabled in a previous parliament and is now back in its watered down form, does not really achieve that goal. It does not achieve the message of deterrence. It does not achieve the goal of sending a clear direction to the judiciary or to the general public that public safety has to take priority when it comes to this type of offence.

In light of public demand for this type of legislation, the federal Minister of Justice had an opportunity to send that message to those who invade homes and to those who put their own lives in jeopardy. In some sense this type of situation almost encourages vigilante justice because of the sheer frustration that exists on the part of those who have been victimized and those who see offenders constantly being treated leniently by the system. They are then left to feel that they have no recourse but to take the law into their own hands. Nobody wants to condone or encourage that but that is very much the sense that I get from talking to people who have been victims of this type of offence.

Bill C-15 had the potential to correct this anomaly and correct the impression that home invasion would be treated with a strong hand. It did not happen. There is a strong faction in the Liberal Party who would like to embrace the legislation and the ideal that we have to do more to deter those who choose to break and enter into people's homes.

Judges definitely have a great deal of discretion when looking at sentencing. It seems to me that if we break and enter on one occasion and we are caught, apprehended and brought to justice and we do it again, a two year mandatory minimum sentence sends a very clear and concise message that it will not be tolerated.

We should not shy away from this type of direction to the judiciary. There are occasions where the offence is so serious and the implications so grave that there should be a legislative directive. Why on earth would we shirk that duty?

In terms of the Criminal Code of Canada that is very much within the domain of those who dwell in these hallowed halls and who look for ways to improve upon legislation. The criminal code was a product of this Chamber many years ago. It has been subject to all sorts of amendments. Why should we for a moment believe that it is not proper to bring forward this type of amendment?

Home invaders have been victimizing Canadians from coast to coast. This is not a regional epidemic. It has been happening with alarming numbers throughout the country. Senior citizens appear to be those most vulnerable and those most affected. The terror and the mental anguish that result from this type of crime is something that is very lasting.

I am sure members can relate to the fear that people would feel when their home has been invaded even if they were not at home at the time. Their sense of security is shattered every time they come into their home after something like this has happened, where their personal belongings have been tampered with. They are looking behind doors and always wanting the lights on. I have heard these remarks from seniors who have been victimized by home invasion. This type of mental anguish is incalculable. It is difficult for a sentencing judge to take into consideration just how disruptive and how unsettling this is for a person.

I know that many Nova Scotians were very pleased that the Conservative government of John Hamm responded by handing down tougher sentencing directions for home invasions. The justice minister, Michael Baker, took a very lead role and position with his provincial counterparts in lobbying the federal justice minister to enact legislation to create a separate criminal code offence for home invasion which accomplished very much of what the hon. member from Calgary intends his private member's bill to do.

Justice Minister Baker argued that a separate offence could give the court an opportunity to send that clear message but also provide an opportunity for communities to more effectively measure the impact and therefore deal with the problem of home invasion specifically.

I have before the House a private member's motion that deals with marrying this exact initiative on the part of Nova Scotia. The bill, although impugned to effect judicial discretion, would very much assist judges in putting the emphasis that many of them would like to put on this type of offence.

I would be more comforted if there was a limitation on the timeframe in which the offences occurred. I would favour the mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of two years if there was a subsequent conviction within a set period of time, for example five years. This would do away with the possible anomaly of having committed an offence as a youth and then 10 or 15 years later a subsequent offence.

I support the bill in principle. I would hope that all members give it due consideration and embrace this type of initiative. I congratulate the member for Calgary East.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-290, an act to amend the criminal code with respect to breaking and entering, which has been introduced by the hon. member for Calgary East.

The safety and security of Canadians within their own homes is a key priority for the Government of Canada. The government has responded to concerns about home invasions by including section 23 in Bill C-15, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, introduced on March 14, 2001.

Proposed amendments to the criminal code would indicate that where the offender's conduct was in the nature of a home invasion, the court must consider this to be an aggravating factor when determining the sentence to be imposed.

Bill C-290 would amend subsection 348(1)(d) of the criminal code by providing, in the case of a first offence, for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and in the case of second or subsequent offence, a maximum life sentence and a minimum sentence of two years imprisonment.

Section 348 of the code makes it an offence to enter a place with intent to commit an indictable offence, to actually commit an indictable offence, or to have broken out of a place after having committed or intending to commit an indictable offence. The current maximum penalty for committing any of these acts in a dwelling place is life imprisonment. I would add that the offence of robbery also carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

I suspect most Canadians would be surprised that these offences attract such a severe maximum penalty. In fact, surveys conducted by the Canadian Sentencing Commission in the mid-1980s showed that the public has very little knowledge of either maximum or minimum penalties generally and that many were taken aback by the severity of the existing maxima.

The current maximum penalties for breaking and entering and robbery demonstrate that the government recognizes this conduct is of serious nature which may have significant impacts upon its victims. The sanctity of an individual's home as a place of safety and one free from intrusion has been recognized at common law for hundreds of years. It is, in part, for this reason that the criminal code offences of robbery and break and enter of a dwelling house are subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The criminal code states that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

The objectives of sentencing in the criminal code include denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring those who would commit offences and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders in acknowledging the harm they have done to victims and to the community.

The government shares the concerns of Canadians with regard to the relatively new phenomenon of home invasion robberies which occur while the home is occupied. To protect the right of individuals to feel secure in their own homes and to address the need for denunciation and deterrence, courts across Canada have been imposing stiff sentences for this crime.

The proposed amendment signals that home invasions are a serious crime that should be met with significant penalties. In addition to the maximum life imprisonment already in the criminal code for breaking and entering into a dwelling house, Bill C-290 would provide a mandatory minimum of two years' imprisonment for a second or subsequent offence.

Canada has historically utilized mandatory minimum sentences with restraint and allowed courts the discretion to fashion sentences proportionate to the gravity of the offence and conduct of the offender. Judges, who have the benefit of knowing all the facts and evidence regarding the offence and the offender, are well placed to determine the appropriate sentence in individual cases. Such circumstances must be weighed in light of the sentencing principles I have outlined.

There is no clearly demonstrated need for a minimum penalty for second or subsequent convictions for breaking and entering into a dwelling house given the high maximum penalty already in the code. Courts also take into account whether an offender has previous convictions for the same or related offences. A prior criminal record is an aggravating factor and the greatest predictor of a longer sentence.

With respect to home invasion, the creation of an aggravating sentencing provision in Bill C-15 would encourage judges to use the tough penalties already available. As noted, courts throughout Canada are already doing so in recognition of the seriousness of this offence and its devastating impact upon victims.

I recognize the concerns of the hon. member for Calgary East with respect to breaking and entering. However I believe the existing penalty of life imprisonment for this offence and clause 23 of Bill C-15 clearly demonstrate our commitment to providing safe homes for all Canadians.

Gun Registry

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.

The ludicrous, unenforceable long gun registry has taken a new twist. Omnibus Bill C-15 will designate paint ball players and operators as criminals. Because of the definition of firearms and the velocity at which these projectiles are fired, thousands would automatically be charged and I suspect many businesses will go under.

Will the minister agree that the focus should be on combating real firearms violence, not games or sports that are a legitimate form of entertainment? Will she commit to amending this anomaly in Bill C-15?

Charities Registration (Security Information) Act

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly to the referral of Bill C-16 to committee. It is a procedure that is not used all that often.

Bill C-16 is a bill which is well suited to this kind of examination in committee before second reading so that no parties in the House, and particularly the government, find themselves committed to any particular position on the bill. It leaves the way open for members on the committee to explore all the various concerns that a great many people have expressed about the bill.

Having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General, it seemed to me that he made a speech that was more appropriate for a traditional second reading debate in which he vigorously defended the bill and the government's position on the bill. That is not what should be happening now. The bill is going to committee before second reading presumably because the government has some sense that there are things which need to be looked at before any final commitment on the part of the government is made to the passage of the bill.

There would be an opportunity for people to come forward, as they have been doing through correspondence to various members of parliament, particularly those associated with this file, and express their concerns on the record before the committee.

Another bill which may be suited to this kind of process would be a bill that the government could bring forward having to do with workplace safety and changes to the criminal code with respect to the charging of companies or individuals of companies responsible for the death of workers on the job through corporate negligence.

I am referring to a bill that existed in the last parliament that was sometimes called the Westray bill. Our party was pushing that bill in the last parliament, particularly our leader, the hon. member for Halifax. We were urging the government to act on that particular issue.

It would seem to me if the Minister of Justice, as she has said to me, wants to hear from more Canadians, if she is not prepared to act on the Westray file at this moment, that bringing forward a piece of legislation and referring it to committee before second reading so that more people could be heard on that particular subject would be a good idea.

I make no apologies for using the opportunity when we are employing that process with respect to Bill C-16 to say that there are other issues which are equally important and which I think the government should act on by using this particular process. One of them could certainly be acting on the Westray file, that is to say, changing the criminal code in such a way that the kind of activity that led to that particular tragedy would be the kind of activity that could be gone after much more efficiently than it can be gone after now.

With respect to Bill C-16, there is no need to speak at great length about the bill. We want to see it go to committee. I would say that the government should be open, as I think I already know it is, as to whether or not it finally should go to the justice and human rights committee because the justice and human rights committee is a very busy committee. We have Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act, Bill C-15, the omnibus amendments to the criminal code and the organized crime bill, and there will be more. I would hope the government would consider whether or not at some point, perhaps in discussion with House leaders, if we could agree to send this bill for this kind of an examination to some other committee, a committee that can do it sooner. It is not because we do not want to do it in the justice committee, but perhaps we could agree to send it to some other committee whose calendar of work would permit it to do this earlier.

Surely all Canadians would agree that if this is a problem that needs to be addressed then it should be addressed sooner rather than later. I put it on the record that we should look at perhaps where we might refer this bill for this kind of study. We could always change it by unanimous consent.

A number of groups have already expressed concern about the bill, but I will say briefly that we in the NDP support the principle of the bill, which is that taxpayers should not be funding, surreptitiously or innocently by virtue of deception any particular organization or terrorism activity either here or in any other country.

If my understanding of the bill is correct, I think what the government has in mind here is terrorism abroad. When I listened to the Alliance spokesperson complain that the bill does not fight terrorism in the many ways that he thinks it should, he may be right that there are other things the government could be doing to fight terrorism, but the bill is directed toward amendments that need to be made to the charities act.

In fairness to the government, we could say that it should be doing this, that and the other thing, and that all may be true, but the bill itself, it seems to me, zeros in on a particular problem and that is, how can we prevent the Canadian taxpayer from subsidizing terrorism through the charities act? How can we do that in a way that does not interfere with the legitimate activities of a great many charities which may in fact be configured in relationship, not necessarily to another country or to a cause in another country, but configured culturally or ethnically in a way that leaves them open to that suspicion or may in fact, depending on what is actually the case, leave them open to being used in that particular way?

Many of the groups that would fall into that category have a legitimate concern, I think, that they not be dragged through a process in which, even if at the end of that process they are found to be innocent, they would nevertheless have expended a great deal of time, energy and perhaps reputation in defending themselves against that charge. How can we balance that concern with the very real concern that some organizations may actually be or may be tempted to be or may in the past have been or may in the future act in such a way that the moneys which Canadians give to them, which are tax deductible, are used in some way or another for terrorism?

I will end by saying that one of the things we need to keep in mind while trying to find this balance is that we also need to do a lot more critical thinking about what constitutes terrorism, particularly when we are talking about terrorism abroad, which is mostly the kind of terrorism we are talking about. It is sometimes a very political matter what is defined as terrorism, which is obviously unacceptable, and what is defined as resistance or legitimate rebellion or whatever.

One is reminded of a time in the House when one left oneself open to very severe criticism if one spoke in any sort of supportive way of the African National Congress and the anti-apartheid movement. Yet there were acts of violence associated with the anti-apartheid movement and the African National Congress within South Africa. Would that have meant in the context of this bill that anti-apartheid groups in Canada who were raising money for the cause of anti-apartheid in South Africa could have been dragged through the process that this bill lays out?

I ask that question because it is a legitimate concern. The task of the committee will be to address that concern while at the same time respecting the principle of the bill that Canadian taxpayers should not be funding terrorism.

Criminal Code

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the private member's bill introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

The bill would amend sections of the criminal code that deal with prohibited sexual acts committed with children under the age of 14 and in the presence of children under the age of 14. The bill would extend the prohibition to acts committed with children under the age of 16 or in the presence of children under the age of 16.

This is the fourth time the hon. member has introduced this bill. His perseverance and dedication on behalf of children and families needs to be recognized and commended. It is a valuable bill and one that aims to protect the young and vulnerable in our society from sexual predators.

As a former police officer, the hon. member has no doubt witnessed first hand the devastating effects on 14 and 15 year old children who have been victims of the manipulation and coercion of adult sexual predators.

A person under the age of 16 is still considered a child in our society, deserving and requiring protection. Although the law states that a 14 year old has the legal authority to consent to sex with an adult, a person must be a full 18 years of age to participate in pornography. This is because the creation of permanent records of teenagers' sexual activities has consequences which children of that age may not have sufficient maturity to understand.

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Sharpe, aside from two exceptions, substantially upheld this law. However one could argue that the average 14 year old or 15 year old does not have the maturity, confidence or understanding to make a rational decision to become sexually involved with an adult. With regard to children 14 years of age and older, parents really have no legal recourse if they find that their child has been enticed into a sexual relationship with an adult.

On this note I believe that the reintroduction of this bill is very timely. It goes to answer some of the concerns raised by the secretary of state or the parliamentary assistant to the minister.

With Bill C-15 the government has recently introduced long needed legislation to protect children from Internet predators. Unfortunately, with the current age of sexual consent, this protection is only substantially provided to children under 14 years of age. Many Canadians, including concerned parents, are not aware of this present serious deficiency in the law. For example, a 30 year old man could pose as a 16 year old boy over the Internet, converse with a 14 year old girl and lure her to a private residence or hotel room. Provided that he obtains a so-called legal consent from the girl, he may legally have sexual contact with her.

Canada has one of the lowest age of consent laws in the developed world. Albania, Bolivia, Colombia, Iran, Kosovo, Romania and Serbia are among the nations that have set the age at 14. I do not think that is company we should be proud of being in with respect to this particular issue.

In contrast, the age of consent in Australia varies depending on the region, because of course the criminal law there is state based rather than based on the federal government. It varies between 16 and 17, as it does in the United Kingdom. New Zealand's age is also set at 16. The age of consent for most American states also ranges from ages 16 to 18. Only four states, Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri and South Carolina, have set the age at 14.

Simply looking at our counterparts in other developed nations should give us an indication that we may need to rethink our current age of sexual consent. For the member opposite to stand up and say we need to do more studies on this is simply avoiding the problem, trying to excuse years of inaction that the member for Calgary Northeast has identified and, to his credit, continues to raise in the House.

There are a number of groups and lobbyists and others who would like to see the legislation changed, including a very prominent group in my hometown province, Child Find Manitoba. This group has first hand experience dealing with sexual crimes against children and we need to take its concerns seriously. I recently had occasion to meet with members of that group and they are clearly concerned about the current age of sexual consent.

Sexual predators need to be controlled by specific constraints that are set out in the law. Setting the age of sexual consent at 16 would give parents and law enforcement officers the legal protection and authority they need to give these children proper protection from predators. We need to protect these children from criminals who use the current law as a defence as they coerce children into giving their consent.

One need not go very far in looking at examples. Mr. Sharpe, whose case was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada, had the audacity to say on national TV or radio that because children's bodies might be sexually maturing at age 12 he saw this as a God-given justification for allowing predators like him to take advantage of children like that.

I am not going to raise the numerous and lengthy arguments about why that kind of reasoning is perverse. I think every member here recognizes the perversity of that reasoning and the perversity of that individual. However, it does illustrate that there are actually people in our free and democratic society who think in that manner.

The amendment will send a very strong and clear signal from the Government of Canada and from this parliament to the people who look to parliament to establish these guidelines and these rules.

Speaking as a former crown prosecutor and as a member of the Manitoba attorney general's department for many years, during which time I also did child welfare work, the excuse put forward by the Liberal member that this is a complex matter is simply not correct. If there was any concern on the part of government about this issue, this law could easily accommodate concerns raised. Any consequential amendments that would have to be put in place are minor. It is simply an excuse that should not be given any credence here.

The simple reason, the simple answer, is that the government does not care enough to make these changes to protect these children and to give our parents and our law enforcement authorities the necessary jurisdiction.

Justice

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, Bill C-15, which includes a section in relation to home invasions, will be debated in the House on Monday.

I look forward to the hon. member's support to speed Bill C-15 through passage in the House.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have another release from the Surrey RCMP. Another elderly man was beaten severely in his own home.

Over two years ago I asked the justice committee to address the issue of home invasions and I was called silly by a Liberal member of the committee. The minister now will undoubtedly talk about Bill C-15, an omnibus bill, in which home invasions is mired. It is not even on the legislative radar screen.

How much longer will Canadians have to wait for some effective legislation on home invasions?

International Boundary Waters Treaty Act

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to speak to Bill C-6, an act to amend the 80 year old International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

When the Minister of the Environment spoke on the bill this afternoon he came out very strongly and proudly, with his thumbs pounding, stating that his government has acted decisively to address the concerns of Canadians in reference to the export of water. He proudly said that the bill would stop the export of water and fulfill the commitment made to Canadians about the export of water. He went on to say that his government was putting a tremendous amount of priority on the bill.

I was a little surprised. I would like explain to those who are listening to my speech today what the bill amounts to and what the Liberal government has not done for our water. It is still hanging out in limbo because of the inability of the government to address the issue seriously.

The government said that it put a priority on the bill. I spoke to the bill in the 36th parliament. It was the last bill that was presented to parliament. I made a speech and thereafter the bill was off the table because the government had another agenda. It did not care about that agenda. It wanted to get re-elected.

Today, because the government has no vision for the next three or four years and needs to do some housekeeping, it brings back this bill because there is nothing else on its agenda. Now it is saying that it is committed to stopping the export of water and that it is committed to this bill. What a contradictory statement and action that has taken place.

Bill C-15, as the water bill was called in the 36th parliament, came up for debate during one of the final days leading up to the election, as I mentioned. The bill was debated only for one day and then disappeared. I think that shows the importance the government places on protecting Canada's waters.

As we know, water is an issue that touches the lives of all Canadians as it is part of our Canadian heritage. Canadians are very concerned by the thought of losing control of our freshwater resources. It is a legitimate concern because a thirsty world will sooner or later turn its attention to our lost freshwater resources.

In fact, water export was never supposed to be an issue in Canada. A number of federal politicians in the early 1990s claimed that Canada had a sovereign right to manage its own water and that water would never be challenged under any international agreement. Unfortunately, this has proven to be false and the water issue is back on the table.

The Liberal government is on the record as saying that NAFTA should be amended to prohibit bulk water exports. Had the Liberals kept their promise, Canadians would not have to worry about the issue of bulk water export and we would certainly not be discussing this matter today.

Regardless of its promise, this government signed the NAFTA deal without a side agreement on water. Raw logs and unprocessed fish were exempted from NAFTA but the best arrangement Canada could get on water was the following side deal signed on December 2, 1993, by Canada, the U.S.A. and Mexico. It states:

The NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any party of the agreement.

Ultimately, this side deal is of little legal value because unless water in any form has entered into commerce and become a good or product it is not covered by the provisions of any trade agreement, including NAFTA.

Nothing in NAFTA obliges any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use or to begin exporting water in any form. Water in its natural state in lakes, reservoirs, water basins and the like is not a good or a product. It is not traded and therefore is not and never has been subject to the terms of any trade agreement.

This side agreement worked as long as Canada never allowed water to enter into commerce and become a good or a product. Let me repeat that: this side agreement worked as long as Canada never allowed water to enter into commerce and become a good or a product.

However, with the exception of international boundary waters, the vast majority of water in its natural state is owned and managed by the province. It is a provincial responsibility to manage the resource carefully, just as a province manages its forests and its oil and gas. If one of the provinces enters the business of tendering contracts to export bulk water, it must, according to chapter 11 of NAFTA, treat Canadian, American and Mexican companies in a similar fashion.

National treatment provisions give the right to all corporations of our NAFTA partners to help themselves to our water the moment any Canadian company is given an export permit. If any Canadian company is given an export permit by a province, because it is a provincial resource, then it falls under NAFTA where we have to treat the Americans and the Mexicans in the same manner. Now that we are going into FTAA agreements which will be coming up in the next five years, I hope that the government will have water exempted. Otherwise we will be facing the same difficulties.

In fact water is not exempt from NAFTA, as I said. Once water starts being shipped, either the government is powerless to stop it or, if it does, the government would have to compensate for the lost income under the investor state provisions.

The government did not have the foresight to think that some provinces might one day look into the possibility of licensing the export of water, but recent examples show us the opposite.

First, the province of Newfoundland granted an export permit to McCurdy Enterprises Ltd. to export water from Gisborne Lake. Second, in Ontario the Nova Group received a licence to extract water from Lake Superior. Finally, in British Columbia, Sun Belt, a Californian company that wanted to export water from B.C., is now demanding up to $10.5 billion in damages from the federal and B.C. governments alleging that its rights under NAFTA have been violated. Sun Belt is demanding restoration of a water export licence that the B.C. government cancelled in 1991 as well as compensation for lost business opportunities.

Although the provinces eventually pulled out of these proposals, they renewed the fears about water export and the impact of our trade agreements.

The government, having failed to protect Canadian sovereignty over water during the NAFTA negotiations, is now proposing a backup solution. Bill C-6 proposes to prohibit bulk water removal out of the boundary waters between Canada and the U.S.A., which covers only 15% of Canada's water resources. The provinces manage the remaining 85%.

That is what I meant when I said I do not understand the Minister of the Environment when he talks about stopping bulk water export. His bill would cover only 15% of Canada's water resources. That is fine. I hope he will tell Canadians that it would cover only 15%. The government should not say that the bill would address the issue about water resources.

Clearly, 85% of the water resource is held by the provinces. They control it. It is their natural resource. It is not controlled by the federal government. If any province so desires to sell water from its basins, from its lakes, then suddenly we have a federal government that is powerless. It can run to the provinces but the provinces can tell the federal government no. They can say they want to sell it.

Canadians have a right. It is theirs. Canadians demand that right. However, the government failed to remove water from NAFTA as it had promised in the election platform, because it failed to renegotiate NAFTA and get water out of NAFTA and have it exempted. It was the right only of Canadians to say yes if they wanted to export water. Now we have this jurisdictional problem with the federal government practically unable to have any teeth to stop bulk water export for 85% of our water supply.

The government is trying to have a Canada wide accord to prohibit bulk water removal. It has recognized this problem so it is trying to get a Canada wide accord to prohibit the removal of bulk water. The problem is, as I have just mentioned, that five provinces have refused to endorse the accord, leaving the country's water vulnerable to exportation.

The federal strategy was designed in the belief that all provinces would agree on a national ban. It is quite obvious, after the two day debate in Kananaskis in Alberta in November 1999, that the government has failed to achieve this goal. The parties could not come to an agreement.

It is very important to note that the bill deliberately avoids the term export. With good reason, the Liberals fear that the term export will imply that water is a commercial good. What the absence of the term export really means is that water was in fact part of the negotiations during the NAFTA talks and nothing was done. That is one thing the government should admit.

As it stands now we can say yes or no, but we have lost the right for only Canadians to say yes. What I mean by that is what I just emphasized, that is, under NAFTA if water is exported because it is not exempted that gives the opportunity to allow opening up the doors to American and Mexican companies to come and export our water. This is the real fear.

Canadians have lost the right to say yes to this precious resource. Whether they want to export or do not want to export, this should be a right that should remain with Canadians. They can decide whether they wish to export water. They can decide whether they want or do not want to export water as a natural resource, or whether under certain conditions they want to or do not want to.

There are many options we can use. Some small communities may want to do it as part of an economic reason and we can do so if it does not damage the environment. However, this right should be the right of Canadians. We have lost that right because the government failed in its election promise to remove water from NAFTA.

In 1993 while the government was busy signing away our sovereignty over water, the Canadian Alliance made a specific statement on the protection of our freshwater. The Canadian Alliance stated that exclusive and unrestricted control of water in all its forms should be maintained by and for Canadians.

Canada possess about 9% of the world's renewable resources and 20% of the world's total freshwater resources. This includes water captured in glaciers and polar ice caps. Protection of our sovereignty over this valuable resource is critical to Canadians and to our national identity.

The Canadian Alliance believes that Canadians should retain control over our water resources and supports exempting water from our international agreements, including NAFTA. An outright ban on water exports could run contrary to our NAFTA commitment because water was not exempt from that agreement. Therefore, a side agreement would have to be negotiated which would exempt water from NAFTA before a ban on water exports could even be considered.

Until an exemption is achieved, we encourage the provinces to place a moratorium on commercial water licensing so that water in bulk form never becomes a good governed by NAFTA rules. Once an exemption from NAFTA is in place, the decision to export water in bulk should rest with the provinces who own the resources. That means once the decision is given to the provinces, which are elected governments, it is up to Canadians to decide what to do with water. They can decide.

I would like to emphasize again that we are heading into an FTAA agreement. The Quebec summit chose that path and the Alliance supports it. We think that if it is handled correctly, free trade will bring prosperity. However, there are always dangers when we sign blindly, as we have found out now with this water issue. No long term thought was given to this. When it was signed, no thought was given to what would happen if the provinces said no. No thought was given to the fact that the government was signing an international agreement on one of the most important resources we have, a resource controlled by the provinces. Its strategy, which was to have a total ban by convincing the provinces to do so, has failed.

As I mentioned, the 1999 Kananaskis meeting clearly showed that the provinces were not on board with the federal government on this issue. They wanted the right to do whatever they wanted to with a natural resource that they feel is their responsibility.

In the absence of exempting water from NAFTA, the Canadian Alliance will support the bill. We will support it because it represents the only viable approach the federal government can take and the only constitutionally valid NAFTA compatible ban on bulk water export that can be achieved.

The Canadian Alliance has indicated quite clearly that it favours a ban on water export. All export of water should be done by Canadians only. Since the ban is not there, the Canadian Alliance feels that the bill would in some degree ensure that water is not taken away from the international boundaries basins, and it is a NAFTA compatible ban on bulk water exports.

However, I would like to see the government propose real answers to this issue and show some leadership in exempting water from our trade agreements.

I was hoping today that the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when they presented the bill and talked about the commitment of the government not to export water, would listen to Canadians. In reality they failed to say that the bill was only dealing with 15% of the issues.

I hope the government takes the initiative and try to get water exempted from other trade agreements. It would have been preferable to exempt water from NAFTA but, failing that, Bill C-6 will have to do as second best.

Canadians should realize that we no longer have sovereignty over our water. We have that threat over our heads because of our international trade agreement called NAFTA and the failure of the government to take water out of it.

Future generations would also lose sovereignty over water if something is not done to change this. That is why the government should do something. Bill C-6 or not, the bottom line is that Canada's water resources are vulnerable to exportation.

While I am a strong supporter of free trade, I believe it should not come at the expense of our sovereignty over water. Perhaps one day Canada will decide to export water if it is proven environmentally sound. If that ever happens, and I strongly stress if, the tap should belong to Canadians only.

The Canadian Alliance will be supporting Bill C-6. However I re-emphasize that the federal government should work with the provinces now to ensure that water does not become an export commodity. It should try to get water exempted from our international trade agreement.

Justice

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important issue. As we all know, the Internet and technology can be used for good but also used for ill, in particular in the exploitation of our children. That is why I was very pleased this week to introduce Bill C-15 on behalf of the government, in which we create a new offence of Internet luring.

In addition, we will modernize the criminal code so that no one is under any illusion or misunderstanding, in that the criminal code will prohibit transmission and will prohibit making available the exportation or the intentionally—

Privilege

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend you for listening to the representations that were made in the House. I also commend you on your fairness and your integrity. I believe that when members of the House voted for you to take the chair, these are the kinds of fair and well thought out decisions that members were expecting from you.

This decision certainly does not disappoint me. You in fact are upholding the integrity, not only of the rights of individual members but of the House with respect of your ruling. I think in the past the government has got away with some of these issues.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, you want me to move the motion, but I want to say that the steps you took were important to stop this slide. Therefore I move:

That the matter of the question of privilege raised on March 14, 2001, by the Member for Provencher regarding the Department of Justice briefing the media on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts, prior to it being tabled in the House of Commons and at the exclusion of members of parliament, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Again I commend you, Mr. Speaker, on your fairness and your integrity with respect to your ruling. I will make a few comments before concluding this matter in the House.

Over the past number of years there has been a gradual slide in terms of the respect to which parliament is entitled. This ruling by you today does much to ensure that the integrity of the House and the process here is continued.

I challenge the Liberal majority in the House and on the committee to put aside its partisan issues, come to the aid of parliament and preserve its dignity, its authority and that of its members.

What you are doing today, Mr. Speaker, gives us an opportunity to take meaningful steps to deal with this very contentious and difficult issue.

I would like to put a few other situations on the record which I think may form part of the discussions that we will have in committee concerning the prima facie contempt that you have found that has occurred in respect of parliament.

I refer, to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board matter dated October 23 of last year. A government news release announced that provincial and federal governments had constituted a nominating committee to nominate candidates for the new Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The nominating committee was to have been set up under a clause that had not yet been adopted by the House.

Similarly, on January 21, 1998, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board met in Regina to discuss the rules for the election of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board as proposed in Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4, tabled at report stage by opposition members, had not been debated, and while the House was still in the process of debating how many directors should be elected, the minister was in fact holding meetings as though the bill were already law.

We recognize that the Liberal government has a majority in the House and in committees but, for the integrity of the process, it is essential that members of the opposition, who were also elected by the people of Canada to represent their views, be given that opportunity.

While we have witnessed a gradual slide in the respect that the government has shown to the institution of parliament, your ruling today, Mr. Speaker, will, if the Liberal members opposite co-operate, bring about rules that will perhaps govern this kind of situation in the future.

This is not simply a matter that I, as an opposition critic, have been embarrassed or that my colleagues, who received phone calls asking for their comments, have been embarrassed, it is for the integrity of the House and for the voters who sent us here.

With those few brief words, Mr. Speaker, I again thank you. We appreciate the fairness that you have demonstrated. We look forward to working on a co-operative basis with all opposition members and Liberal members of the House whom I believe your ruling will also benefit.

If we follow the matter to its appropriate and proper conclusion, it will once again put parliament in the hands of the individual elected members. It will remind the members of the executive that even though they are appointed by the Prime Minister they must serve each and every member of the House in the same manner that we as individual members serve the people of Canada.

[The Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Provencher on March 14, 2001, regarding a briefing the Department of Justice held on a bill on notice that had not yet been introduced in the House.

The bill has now received first reading as Bill C-15, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts.

I wish to thank the hon. government House leader, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, and the hon. opposition House leader for their interventions.

Let me first summarize the events that led up to this question of privilege being raised. From the interventions of members it appears that the Department of Justice sent out a media advisory notifying recipients that there would be a technical briefing given by justice officials at 11.45 a.m. on Wednesday, March 14, with regard to the omnibus bill, now Bill C-15, that was to be introduced in the House by the hon. Minister of Justice that afternoon.

According to the hon. member for Provencher, members of parliament and their staff were denied access to the briefing. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville added that while his assistant was denied access to the briefing, the assistant of a government member was granted entry. In any event, there is no disputing that the invitation to this so-called technical briefing went out as a media advisory and was designed for members of the media.

The hon. member for Provencher indicated that following the briefing media representatives began phoning his office and asking for his reaction to the bill, a situation he found embarrassing, not only for himself and other members of the opposition, but also for the House of Commons as a whole since they had not seen the bill and were not privy to its contents.

The hon. government House leader confirmed that opposition critics were given a courtesy copy of Bill C-15 about an hour and a quarter before the bill's introduction.

The minister explained that during the briefing, the media had not received actual copies of the bill or any other documentation. He went on to indicate that the briefing itself was under embargo until the bill was introduced, a fact confirmed by the copy of the original media advisory that the Chair has obtained.

The member for Provencher, as well as the other opposition members who participated in the discussion, argued that by not providing information to members of parliament and by refusing to allow members to participate in a briefing where the media were present, the government, and in particular the Department of Justice, showed contempt for the House of Commons and its members.

As I see it, there are two issues here: the matter of the embargoed briefing to the media and the issue of members' access to information required to fulfil their duties.

As members know, the use of media embargoes, as well as the use of lock-ups, have long played a role in the way parliamentary business is conducted. For example, it has been our practice to permit briefings in lock-ups prior to the tabling of reports by the auditor general. Similarly, and perhaps more on point, is the lock-up held on the day of a budget presentation. Two features of these lock-ups are that members are invited to be present and members of the media are detained until the event in question has occurred; that is the auditor general's report tabled or the budget speech begun. These are the features one might argue that have made these lock-ups so successful and so useful to the conduct of parliamentary business.

It must, however, be remembered that when the different arrangements have been made for early briefings, previous Speakers have consistently held that it is not a breach of privilege to exclude members from lock-ups. I refer the House, for example, to the ruling of Speaker Jerome, in Debates , November 27, 1978, p. 1518-9, and the ruling of Speaker Sauvé, in Debates , February 25, 1981, p. 7670.

The House recognizes that when complex or technical documents are to be presented in this Chamber, media briefings are highly useful. They ensure that the public receives information that is both timely and accurate concerning business before the House.

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

Thus, the issue of denying to members information that they need to do their work has been the key consideration for the Chair in reviewing this particular question of privilege. To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

Even if no documents were given out at the briefing, as the hon. government House leader has assured the House, it is undisputed that confidential information about the bill was provided. While it may have been the intention to embargo that information as an essential safeguard of the rights of this House, the evidence would indicate that no effective embargo occurred.

In this case it is clear that information concerning legislation, although denied to members, was given to members of the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House.

I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House and I invite the hon. member for Provencher to move a motion.

Canada Shipping Act, 2001

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

The member on the Liberal side who was a Conservative is saying that his former party—or maybe he is saying his party—is going down like the Titanic . I am not sure that all members would agree with him on that. Perhaps some would.

The point about reporting to parliament is an important one. We saw in this place today an example of what happens when a minister of the crown does not report to parliament and does not present a piece of legislation first in this place before holding a briefing and giving information about an important piece of legislation, in this case Bill C-15, the justice bill. The minister's department gave information to the media first, excluding members of parliament from attending the briefing, saying that it was an embargoed briefing.

I know that Mr. Speaker will be ruling on the matter, but I think it is worth mentioning again in this place that the government needs to follow the proper procedures and process to restore people's faith in this place and that we are in fact the leaders in terms of what we are doing with legislation and moving forward together.

What happened here today is an example of why it is important to follow process. Unfortunately the Minister of Justice did not do that. We are disappointed with that.

My time is growing short. I will wrap up my comments knowing that I will have more time at another sitting of the House to discuss this important bill.

I thank my Liberal colleagues for their agreement with what I have said today and for their comments and congratulations. We hope to see them working together with us on many other issues.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)