Bill C-22 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to raise the age, from 14 to 16 years, at which a person can consent to non-exploitative sexual activity. It creates an exception in respect of an accused who engages in sexual activity with a 14- or 15-year-old youth and who is less than five years older than the youth. It also creates an exception for transitional purposes in respect of an accused who engages in sexual activity with a 14- or 15-year-old youth and who is five or more years older than the youth if, on the day on which this Act comes into force, the accused is married to the youth. The exception also applies to the accused if, on the day on which this Act comes into force, he or she is the common-law partner of the youth or has been cohabiting with the youth in a conjugal relationship for less than one year and they have had or are expecting to have a child as a result of the relationship, and the sexual activity was not otherwise prohibited before that day.

Criminal Code

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of this bill. After listening to the comments from the hon. member for Joliette, it seems the Bloc is more concerned about the dangerous offender than the victim, or the young child who has been abused, injured or sexually mistreated, or the mother or father of that child, or those potential children who might be abused. If we pass this legislation, this could otherwise be prevented.

As we know, safe streets and communities are important to all constituents in Canada. We are rightly proud of the history of having safe streets and homes, but times are changing and Canadians are experiencing not only an increase in crime, but an increase in a crime of the most heinous kind, one that is violent and abuses the sanctity of people, particularly children. They have called upon the government to take action. They have called upon the government to pass legislation not only in this area, but in other areas as well. We cannot ignore this problem. We must roll up our sleeves, do the job that needs to be done and work in committee to get the bill passed.

During the last election, we promised Canadians that we would crack down on crime, and that is exactly what we propose to do. We promised, we made a commitment and we are moving on it. We have tabled Bill C-27 in that regard.

In a nutshell, Bill C-27 deals with dangerous offenders and provides for ways of dealing with them. In particular, it also deals with section 810, peace bonds, which can put certain restrictions upon them should they ever get released.

To make it clear, many are calling upon the government to take action. Recent events in the area of Whitewood, Saskatchewan have brought many constituents together. They have presented a petition to the government asking for action. They have said that dangerous offenders should not be out on the loose or if they are released, they should be subject to some of the severest of conditions, so the public is not endangered by their actions. They have not only united the community in that area, but all of the constituency that I represent, including Saskatchewan, as well as provinces beyond.

We have received petitions signed by up to 24,000 to 25,000 Canadians who urge this government to take action. Today, I had the opportunity to file those petitions. It is fitting that we would do it on the day we are introducing Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation. Let us see what they call for in that petition.

They have asked the government to proceed with changes to the justice system in legislation that would result in harsher penalties for convicted pedophiles. They have asked for mandatory or compulsory electronic or other forms of monitoring of pedophiles upon release from custody. They have asked for compulsory public notification and movements of convicted pedophiles. They have asked that we ensure repeat offenders are designated as dangerous offenders.

Why has this situation incited such an interest in the many constituencies, people and communities of Canada? Because the public is fed up. People have had enough of this easy justice, especially where people have been convicted of the same serious offences on at least three occasions, offences that require two or more years of jail time. They are saying there comes a point in time where something needs to be done. These people need to be contained or released under very strict conditions.

I am quite pleased to say that the Government of Canada has responded to the petition that my constituents have filed, and its response is interesting to note. It says that the Government of Canada is fully committed to protecting children from sexual offenders. In the last Parliament, Bill C-2 introduced mandatory minimum penalties for many sexual offences committed against children. These offences are, therefore, not eligible for a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Also, a number of criminal law reform initiatives have recently been introduced in this regard, including: Bill C-9 to restrict the availability of conditional sentences, which I just mentioned; Bill C-22 to increase the age of protection; Bill C-27, regarding dangerous and high risk offenders, about whom I speak today; and Bill S-3, regarding improvements to the national sex offender registry.

As introduced, Bill C-9 would toughens penalties for a number of sex offences, including offences against children, by making it clear that the conditional sentence is no longer available. Who could argue against that? Bill C-22 would better protect against youth adult sexual predators by raising the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years.

Who opposes this legislation? The opposition parties, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Party and the New Democratic Party have been obstructionist in committee. They have taken clauses out. They have watered them down. They have made them almost of no effect, when just the opposite is what the people of Canada expect. They expect us to get at least that tough, and tougher. They try to use the argument that it might not be constitutional.

However, these individuals, these victims, need protection, and that is exactly what we are about to do. Most Canadians are calling for us to take that action. It would be a good point for the opposition to take that into account, get behind us and have this legislation passed, as opposed to delaying it in committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate).

The bill was reported back to the House from committee on December 13. It very seldom happens that a bill is reported back without amendments. That shows what can happen when there is strong cooperation between the parties. Actually this is one of six bills the official opposition has called upon the government to work with all parties to pass as soon as possible.

We believe with just a little more cooperation, especially from the government, that in addition to Bill C-26, the following bills could be reported back to the House: Bill C-9, which would restrict the use of conditional sentences; Bill C-18, which would strengthen the DNA data bank; Bill C-19, which would amend the Criminal Code on street racing; Bill C-23, which would amend the Criminal Code and criminal procedure in languages of the accused and sentencing, in other words, update Canada's Criminal Code; and Bill C-22, which would amend the Criminal Code with respect to age of protection, with the importance of protecting children. We believe with a little more cooperation from the government, we could in fact be getting those six bills approved in the House.

In summary, Bill C-26 amends the Criminal Code of Canada to exempt payday lenders who operate in provinces and territories having measures in place to protect borrowers from the application of section 347 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and require jurisdictions that regulate the industry to place limits on the cost to consumers of payday borrowing.

To a great extent a lot of work was done on this bill by previous ministers of industry and justice. A lot of work has gone on with the provinces and territories to get the kind of collaboration needed to put forward this bill in the House of Commons. I congratulate all the folks, including members of the government, who were involved in those discussions to get us where we are at today.

There is certainly a need to ensure consumers that usury interest rates are not allowed in this country. There is no question that there is a lot of authority in the Criminal Code of Canada under section 347 to lay criminal charges for usurious interest rates. Section 347 makes it a criminal offence to charge more than 60% per annum.

As we all know, some payday loan companies have charged far in excess of that rate. In fact, we have heard of outrageous interest charges, when compounded and fees are added, in excess of 1,200% per annum, yet no charges under section 347 to payday loan companies have been made.

Yes, the concern is there, but the payday loan business is a little more complicated jurisdictionally, and I would say on an individual need basis, more than meets the eye. Jurisdictionally payday loan operations are considered to be commercial businesses. They are not banks, although I think many people believe they are. As commercial businesses, to a great extent they fall under provincial jurisdiction.

My colleague, the MP for Scarborough—Rouge River, explained it. I want to quote from his remarks in the House because he gave best explanation on this point:

We are going to keep a Criminal Code provision, but we are going to allow an exemption for a lawful business that lends money using this payday loan mechanism. The exemption will be based on the premise that a province or a territory is regulating the commercial operation.

He went on to say:

Placing this amendment with section 347, will allow the provinces to assume their proper jurisdiction in the regulation of the commercial affairs of their citizens. However, at the same time, we maintain the criminal prohibition with the 60% per annum cap where there is no provincial regulation. We are assuming that a province will provide a form of regulation that will essentially keep the same level of protection the consumers have had up to now.

It is important to mention that because it explains the jurisdictional problem and the difference between the commercialization as a business.

Therefore, the bill does cover off the jurisdictional question under clause 2 by the person being licensed by the province to enter into the agreement, and second, the province has been designated by the governor in council or cabinet under the proposed new section 347.1.3.

On an individual need basis, it is obvious from the demand for transactions, estimated to be $1.3 billion or more, and in fact the parliamentary secretary said it is as high as $2 billion now, and also the increase of payday loan companies that are estimated to be over 1,300. It is obvious from these shocking figures that individual Canadians have an urgent need for short term cash for whatever reason.

Yes, I recognize the amounts are in the low hundreds of dollars, but the cost, as others have said before me, are very high.

Mr. Jenkin with the Department of Industry, who was a witness before committee, indicated:

It's a form of short-term lending through which the consumer typically borrows several hundred dollars for 10 days to two weeks. The borrowing costs are very high, as you probably know. They are usually in the range of, for example, $40 to $75 for a $300 loan for two weeks or less.

I must emphasize that while I support the bill as a way to improve the situation for people who are in need of immediate cash, I still am worried about the impact of the financial strain on individuals. There is no question in my mind that the individuals who are basically forced to use these services are the ones who can least afford to pay these high fees. Maybe they need the dollars to provide food, buy groceries for the family. Maybe they need the dollars for a medical bill or maybe they even need the dollars to pay the minimum payment on a high interest bearing credit card.

Whatever the reason, there is clearly a problem out there that needs to be addressed beyond this bill. I certainly would advise the government and others that we really need to be doing as a country, both at the provincial and federal level, some research into the social or economic reason why people think they are forced to go to these services for those kinds of money. They are the people who can least afford it and I believe that needs to be looks into and addressed.

The bottom line is that we are in favour of this bill. We do believe it is a step in the right direction However, there are other underlying causes that we need to recognize are out there in a social and economic sense and issues that really affect people in their daily lives that forces them to use these services. That is the worrisome point.

The bill is good but I believe the House and the government need to look at the underlying causes of the need to use these services more so.

Age of Consent

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today signed by 25 of my constituents. These constituents are claiming that the existing law regarding the age of sexual consent remains at 14 years of age. They are saying that Bill C-22 was tabled to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years and this petition lobbies the federal government to raise the age of sexual consent to 18 years.

Human Trafficking

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells and speak in favour of Motion No. 153 brought forward by my colleague the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

I agree, as I am sure all members do, to the motion's condemnation of sexual exploitation. I commend the member for her hard work and perseverance in tackling the issue of human trafficking and for urging the government to adopt a comprehensive strategy to combat the trafficking of persons worldwide.

Indeed, the trafficking of women and children, in particular, for the purpose of sexual exploitation is a scourge of the world. As a leader in the world, I believe that Canada has a duty and responsibility to lead in combatting this scourge both here at home and in other countries.

As we speak, raids have been taking place at brothels in B.C. where young women and girls are abused. The world's people often look to Canada for leadership. We must not let them down. That is why I am in full support of the motion. I believe that Canada, blessed as we are, can do a great deal to put a stop to this victimization of vulnerable people around the world.

In developing countries of the world in particular, criminals prey on those want to improve their lives. The wish to improve one's life is universal and a worthy aspect of human nature. To see this positive virtue taken advantage of by criminals, is quite simply heartbreaking.

These criminals target the vulnerable. They care not what harm they perpetrate. They make lavish promises of possibilities in western countries to those eager to believe. Then they cruelly dash this hope by trapping their victims in virtual enslavement.

Listen to what Irene Sushko of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has to say. She says that trafficking of human beings “constitutes horrific acts of slavery, the shameful assault on the dignity of children, the exploitation of the vulnerable for profit”. She goes on to say that 80% of victims are women and children who are lured from developing countries with false promises of jobs and a better life.

Think of it. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how a human being could twist himself into being so cruel and heartless. Women and girls, with virtually nothing, become filled with hope of a better life. Only later after they land in their new country do they discover the tragic truth that they must toil work as prostitutes to pay the cost for their trip.

I do not believe there is a single member in the House who is not appalled by these circumstances. Let us translate this gut reaction into concrete action that will protect these vulnerable people.

Yes, it is time to take more aggressive action to combat the scourge of human trafficking. It is especially timely, given the preparations Canada must make due to our hosting of the 2010 Winter Olympics. Soon we will see the cruel cycle of hope raised only to be dashed replayed unless we act. If we do not act, criminals will be at work setting their traps to entice desperate people to make their way to Canada when we host the Winter Olympics.

It is clear. The time for Canada to take action is now. Consider that during a recent committee meeting, Benjamin Perrin of The Future Group warned parliamentarians that traffickers would consider the Vancouver Olympics to be a windfall. He said, “a large influx of that hard currency and foreigners with a lot of time on their hands and a sense of impunity will essentially drive this industry”. Let us take action today to drive a stake into the heart of this so-called industry.

As a member of Canada's new government, I stand with my colleagues in supporting tough measures to prevent criminals from having their way. I am supportive of the government's acting to protect women and children from being exploited by cruel and heartless criminals.

That is not to say that constructive action has not already been taken. I would be remiss in not thanking the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for the actions he has already taken to give comfort to the victims of this cruel crime who are identified here in Canada.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has empowered immigration officers to issue temporary resident permits to victims of human trafficking, thereby helping them to recover from the impact of this horrible crime. We can only imagine the healing of the spirit that must be involved in this recovery. I am heartened that our government shows compassion for these victims. Furthermore, these victims are exempted from the usual processing fee and are eligible for health care benefits.

I know that the minister and his officials at Citizenship and Immigration Canada have worked hard to support officers on the ground to assist victims. I thank them for this good work. This compassion on the part of the Government of Canada toward victims of crime makes me very proud to be Canadian.

The Minister of Public Safety has also taken steps to help protect victims of human trafficking. Bill C-22, if passed, would protect younger victims by raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years, an issue that I raised when in opposition in the last session. I urge members to support Bill C-22 so that Canada can make clear to international visitors and our own population the serious consequences should they break the law.

The passing of Bill C-22 would add another element to the tool kit our authorities must be provided by government in order that we do not provide a supportive environment for victims to be exploited. Simply put, by lowering demand, we can expect to reduce the supply of victims to Canada.

Needless to say, Canada will also need to work with other countries in order to similarly lower demand in those countries. In this manner we can address the motion's call to combat trafficking worldwide.

As I say, we have taken some steps in the right direction to meet the goals of the motion now before the House. I also note that Canada is already a signatory to the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children.

Today's motion is a clarion call for us as members of Parliament to call out for ever greater efforts to do more to stop this criminal activity and do more to prevent an ever growing list of victims.

The cause is certainly just. This is not to say that the problem is easy to solve. Nevertheless, by taking actions here at home, as we have already done, we can show the world that Canada is a leader in the fight against human trafficking. By working with other countries around the world, we can display this leadership to the world at large.

It is time to set our sights on doing more to prevent human trafficking, doing more to protect its victims and doing more to prosecute offenders. Passing this motion would set us in the right direction. Consequently, I call on all members to support this motion.

Criminal Code

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the member for Louis-Hébert asked the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities a question about Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act. The minister misled this House by stating that the Bloc Québécois was opposed to BIll C-22, when the Bloc Québécois has spoken in favour of the bill and will be voting for it.

I demand an apology from the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Age of Consent

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present a petition from about 350 constituents of mine from Prince George, Mackenzie, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Pouce Coupé, Cecil Lake, Charlie Lake, Rose Prairie, Baldonnel, all from my riding, and from Valemount, B.C.

These citizens call upon Parliament to immediately take all necessary steps to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. Hopefully they will note that the government has moved in this regard and has introduced Bill C-22. It is my hope that the bill will pass forthwith.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues opposite to listen to what I have to say. I hope you will forgive me at once, Mr. Speaker, if, in the course of making my argument, I refer to you as “your honour” because my 25 years of practising criminal law will have shown through and caused me to err in that.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would be showing you respect because if I were to call you “your honour”, your salary would increase by nearly $100,000. This is why we have judges who, as a matter of conscience and in the work they do every day, are able to decide the appropriate sentence for any individual appearing before them. There is a fundamental flaw in the bill before us; Bill C-27 is making a big mistake and the party in power must realize that. If we have to, we will defeat it before it even reaches second reading because this bill seeks to punish crimes, not individuals. Allow me to explain.

When an accused person appears before the court, he is accused of an offence and must answer for his actions and, of course, his offence. Let us take, for example, one of the offences this bill seeks to punish: attempt to commit murder or invitation to sexual touching. Actually, take any one of the offences mentioned in the bill. If we take attempt to commit murder, the individual who appears before the court must be sentenced.

The party opposite is forgetting one of the fundamental principles: the sentence must be individualized. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, it must be individualized. This means that the judge addresses the individual and hands down a sentence that takes into account the sentencing criteria established by the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. For the information of my colleagues opposite, these are called “sentencing principles”.

We humbly believe that this bill is contrary to all those principles, because what the Supreme Court has said over and over, and will say again if this bill has to end up before the Supreme Court, is that a sentence is unique. It must be addressed to the individual who is before the judge. That is not what this bill is trying to do. What this bill is trying to do is make it so that if an individual is convicted of a serious crime for the third time, he or she is then “out” for life. The person is in prison.

That is not what must be done. It is unacceptable to think like this. Yes, there really are dangerous criminals in society. But saying that is not a solution to all our problems. We have to make it so that people who do not deserve to live in society are excluded from society, for as long as possible, when they exhibit such little respect for the laws of this country and continually reoffend.

We have before us a bill that goes even farther, in that it reverses the burden of proof. I am going to provide some further explanation for my colleagues opposite. One of the most important principles, as stated by the Supreme Court and by the Privy Council in London, a principle that is the backbone of the legal system, the criminal justice system, in Canada, is that the Crown has the burden not only of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual is guilty, but also of showing what sentence must be imposed on the individual.

What this bill is trying to do is to reverse the burden of proof. I can tell this House, from experience, that it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will give this bill its approval, for more than one reason. First, and particularly, because of section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which our good Prime Minister prides himself on his respect for. He is not respecting it with this bill. He is placing the burden of proof on the accused.

It seems to me that we did a good job. In fact, the Bloc Québécois was not always opposed to this bill. The evidence of that is that as recently as yesterday I was saying to this House that Bill C-22 was a good bill. The people on the other side of the House can get things right. I will keep saying it: unfortunately, they are trying to punish the crime rather than the individual who committed the crime. That is unfortunate, and it is unacceptable. The Barreau du Québec, the Law Society of Ontario and the Canadian Bar Association have said so repeatedly and will say so again when they appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights, of which I am a member.

Members will realize from this introduction that the Bloc Québécois is against this bill. I hope that is quite clear. The Bloc is against it for a number of reasons. This bill proposes a harmful and ineffective approach that will not improve public safety. Worse yet, it would allow for automatic sentencing, which is dangerous and irresponsible. I rise in this House to say that reversing the burden of proof is not justified.

If my colleagues opposite had had good lawyers, they would have turned to section 753 of the Criminal Code. Section 753 of the Criminal Code is clear, or at least I think it is. I have relied on it a number of times in court. This is what that section says:

753. (1) The court may, on application made under this Part following the filing of an assessment report under subsection 752.1(2), find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied—

The court may find the offender to be a dangerous offender if all the conditions are met. The Criminal Code has all the arguments, all the elements and all the clauses to control dangerous individuals.

Section 753 asks that the following conditions be met:

753. (1)(a) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression in section 752—

I will spare you all these details and focus on the essential point. When arguing before the court, the Crown must show:

753. (1)(a)(i) a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a failure to restrain his or her behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his or her behaviour—

I did not make this up. It is in the Criminal Code. I repeat, it is in the Criminal Code. We do not need Bill C-27. Paragraph 753(1)(a)(ii) adds:

753. (1)(a)(ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour—

I will spare the House the rest but will translate it into plain language for my hon. colleagues across the aisle.

This is what is happening now, this very day, before a court somewhere in Canada. I have had to argue cases and can tell the House how it works.

It can happen as early as the first offence or the first charge. An individual is brought before the court accused of attempted murder. He shows no signs of remorse. He even says and repeats that if he is freed, he will take care of a few other people too. That has already happened.

Here is another example. A serial rapist says, “If I get out, don’t get all worked up, but all women are going to get it”. That is totally unacceptable.

So what do we do? What does the crown attorney do? He asks the court to declare the person a “long-term offender”. That is done now. There is no need for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Legal precedents and the testimony of people who know the accused are submitted and the court hands down a decision. It is true that this decision can be appealed, but it certainly is not easy. Once a court has handed down a judgment and supported it well, it is virtually unassailable. That is how it is. We have already been through it. This procedure exists and can be implemented as early as the first offence.

So why Bill C-27? In the Bloc Québécois—I am one of those who say it along with my hon. colleague from Hochelaga—we say that justice must be based on a personalized process that is geared to each case and based on the principle of rehabilitation.

I will put that into plain language for my hon. colleagues across the aisle. One of the most important principles established by courts of appeal and supreme courts is that punishments must be just and proportional to the offence but also aimed at rehabilitating the accused. With this bill, the government wants to get rid of rehabilitation. There is no place for rehabilitation in a country with a bill like this, and it does not look as if the government wants reconsider its position.

Let us take this even further. As if that were not enough, we have section 761 of the Criminal Code, which is also clear. It exists. It is still there, just as it was there yesterday when I looked at the Criminal Code. It has not disappeared. Section 761 states, and I quote:

—where a person is in custody under a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period, the National Parole Board shall, as soon as possible after the expiration of seven years from the day on which that person was taken into custody and not later than every two years after the previous review, review the condition, history and circumstances of that person—

What does that section mean? It means that if we have a dangerous, long-term offender as identified by the court, the court sends that offender to an institution where he is held in custody. After seven years, the National Parole Board will again carefully review that individual's case to determine if that individual can possibly, I repeat possibly, be rehabilitated or if that individual has begun a rehabilitation process. If that is not the case, the National Parole Board must justify its decision.

We already have all the tools we need. We do not need Bill C-27. Neither Quebec nor Canada needs it. I hope this is clear enough. We already have all the tools we need to put away individuals who do not deserve to be and should not be in society.

Only after a fair and equitable trial, after the court has declared an individual to be a dangerous, long-term offender, can this apply. Then, the sentence will be individualized. That is what this bill does not do. We must not forget that this is extremely dangerous.

This bill would make changes to the process of declaring someone a dangerous offender. An accused person would be presumed to meet the criteria for designation as a dangerous offender as soon as he is convicted of a third serious offence. There is no middle ground, it is all or nothing. Rehabilitation is no longer an option.

Even worse, that presumption would shift the burden of proof from the Crown to the accused, who would then have to prove to the judge that he should not be declared a dangerous offender.

With respect, I must say that the Canadian judicial system will never tolerate that. In my opinion, reversing the burden of proof is unfair and would violate section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which entitles us to a full defence. In Canada, it is not up to the accused to defend himself—we will have to explain this again to our colleagues opposite—it is up to the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

If the Conservatives want to change that, if they want to reverse the burden of proof and take a new approach, let them table a bill, but not one like Bill C-27. This new bill would probably be unacceptable as well because the Bloc Québécois does not believe that Canadian and Quebec societies would accept the reversal of the burden of proof.

If the colleagues opposite, in government, believe that this bill will fight crime, then I have good and bad news for them. The goods news is that is false. The bad news is that it will completely choke the justice system. Before a case is closed, what will happen when an accused discovers that he may be declared a dangerous offender with the reversal of the burden of proof? It is not difficult to see that all proceedings will be taken as far as possible and the court rooms will be overflowing.

We already have this problem. In Quebec City, Toronto, here in Ottawa, Kingston and Vancouver the court rooms are full. It is not this kind of bill that will solve the problem of crime in Quebec and in Canada.

As I only have one more minute I will conclude my speech. Time goes so quickly that I will allow myself to answer the questions.

Based on my 25 years of experience in criminal law, this reversal of the burden of proof is wrong and unacceptable, and I believe that we would be going in a very dangerous direction, to the far right, were we to accept even considering this bill and having it adopted by Parliament. I therefore urge all members of this House to vote against the bill.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the federal New Democrat caucus on second reading of Bill C-27.

First, I would like to pay tribute to the very able justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who has given the NDP caucus incredible guidance, information and led the debate within the caucus on this bill as well as close to a dozen bills that have been thrown at the justice committee from the Conservative government. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh has earned respect from all sides of the House for his intelligence and wisdom and how he has approached these matters. I certainly speak today based on the wisdom and guidance that he has provided to the NDP caucus.

We are at a very interesting and critical juncture in this debate. Being the fourth party to speak, it has been clear to anyone watching the debate and if it was not clear to the government previously it would be clear to it now, that this bill is going down. Three parties are opposed to this bill at second reading, which as we know is a debate in principle. It looks like the bill will not go forward to committee. That is a very serious situation.

I listened, sometimes with a smile on my face, to the political rhetoric that has spewed forth time and time again from the government on this bill and many of the others. The government's mantra is that members who do not support these bills are soft on crime, that if they do not support Bill C-27, they are soft on crime; they are giving a free ride to criminals, they do not care about the public, they do not care about victims, they do not care about anything. We have heard it over and over again. Government members must dream about it and repeat in their sleep.

One of the members said we should look at reality. Let us look at reality. There are three opposition parties basically saying no to this bill because it is a very fundamentally flawed bill. The parties that have spoken thus far have given very strong both philosophical and intellectual reasons but also legal and practical reasons why this bill just does not cut it. That needs to be said.

We have heard from the Prime Minister that the opposition is delaying the crime bills. Bill C-22, the age of consent bill, was introduced in June but the government itself did not call it until yesterday. So much for the delay. The same goes for this bill. This is the first time we have had an opportunity to debate it.

Let us put aside all the political bunk and rhetoric and focus on the merits of this bill and whether or not it is a good, sound piece of legislation. Presumably that is what we come to this place to do, to represent our constituents, to represent sound public policy, public interest and to decide whether or not legislation that comes from the government is good. We make our judgment on that and decide whether the legislation should continue. That is what we are debating here today, not all the political rhetoric.

In terms of Bill C-27, as I said, the NDP caucus is opposed to it. I note that in the information put out by the justice minister's office we are told that this particular bill will make it easier for crown prosecutors to obtain dangerous offender designations. It goes on to point out that a cornerstone of the reforms in this bill is that an offender found guilty and convicted of a third designated violent or sexual offence must prove that he or she does not qualify as a dangerous offender. This is what is referred to as the reverse onus. This is one of the major reasons that certainly the NDP and other parties we have heard from today are opposed to this bill. Why is that so?

I would like to quote a very good article written by Paula Simons which appeared in the Edmonton Journal in October, as well as in the Regina Leader-Post, and maybe other publications. In that article the author pointed out:

It's a rule of law as old as the Magna Carta, a golden thread that runs through almost 800 years of British legal tradition. And it's enshrined in Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees that any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I begin with this first argument and fundamental point because it is very much the underpinning of the concerns that we have about the bill. The bill brings forward a provision that will bring in reverse onus and will remove from the system the state's responsibility to bring forward evidence to show that someone is a dangerous offender. The onus will be put on the offender to show why he or she is not a dangerous offender.

I point out that in basically eliminating these hundreds of years of tradition, we did have sections in the Criminal Code that did have reverse onus clauses. This is something that was actually contained in our Criminal Code before the charter, but since 1982 when the charter came in, those provisions have been either struck down by the courts or voluntarily removed through successive Criminal Code reviews and amendments.

We really need to understand that within our judicial system we have had a long-standing practice of assuming someone's innocence until he or she is proven guilty and looking at each case on its merit. We are not talking about a cookie cutter system where one checks off a little box and it is either black or white, yes or no. We are dealing with individual offences. We are dealing with individual victims. The basis of our justice system is that we have the capacity and the ability to make judgments based on applying the law as it exists to determine each of those cases.

Bill C-27 will be a massive reversal of that very important democratic and just tradition within our judicial system. For that reason alone, we are opposed to the bill.

In the current environment in our judicial system, 85% of current dangerous offenders are still in custody. They do not get out. We are talking about longer than a life sentence if someone is convicted as a dangerous offender.

I would argue, and I know our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, would argue that there is no doubt the provisions and the system we have require improvements, but the basic provisions that are there actually are working. Basically completely eliminating that provision and bringing in the reverse onus we see as something that one, will be struck down and will be subject to a charter challenge, and two, will not necessarily improve the safety of Canadians. We have heard that today throughout the debate.

The second problem I can identify is that the bill crosses a boundary whereby it will allow a federal jurisdiction, the federal government, to move into a provincial jurisdiction and tell prosecutors, who are under provincial jurisdiction under the administration of the law, what they should be doing. This is very problematic and is likely to be challenged and struck down.

It makes one think why a bill would be brought forward when two of its basic tenets are things that are legally very open to challenge. As we have heard today, there have been many expert opinions that these particular provisions would be struck down.

There is of course an enormous amount of concern in Canadian society about crime, safety and making sure that people who are dangerous are not on our streets. These are very legitimate things. As New Democrats, we want to ensure that we have the best criminal justice system which ensures that when a dangerous offence has taken place, someone is convicted and the appropriate sentence is given.

It seems surprising to us that under this proposed bill, we would wait until someone had been convicted a second and third time before this kind of provision would apply. The most efficient, intelligent and practical thing to do would be to make sure that the system is working as early as possible, in terms of earlier intervention, by providing crown prosecutors with the resources they need to get the convictions they need, when they can see that there is information and evidence before them.

Right now if a prosecutor is of a mind that there may be information that leads him or her to believe that someone should be prosecuted as a dangerous offender, it is expensive and it takes time to do that. It takes a lot of resources to do the investigation. The reality is that in some instances, prosecutors may back away from that because they are simply overwhelmed by the system as it is and what they can deal with in terms of managing the cases that they have.

The point I am trying to make is that if we are truly interested in making sure that dangerous offenders are locked up and that the public and our communities are safe, then surely we would want to ensure that the system is responding in a way that the prosecutors can actually do their jobs.

Rather than waiting for the second or the third conviction and then placing the onus on the offender to show why he or she would not be a dangerous offender or a risk to society, why not give the prosecutors the tools and the resources to actually do the job they need to do, so that we do not even get into those other situations? We believe that would be a much better scenario, a much better set of rules under which to operate.

What kind of message are we sending out to the public with this bill? We have heard the rhetoric from the government that it is all about getting tough on crime, but actually what we are saying is that it is okay to wait for the second or third time. Do we want to give offenders that third time?

From our point of view, it is much better to have a system that provides the resources and the tools to make the system work as it should and to make sure that the prosecutors are actually able to deal with these cases, and where they can see that the dangerous offender designation is required through prosecution, that they are actually able to follow that up. That is a very important point.

A fourth argument I would like to raise is that if there were a seriousness about this bill and dealing with dangerous offenders, then we should be looking at what we can change that would actually improve the work that takes place. One example would be changes to the evidentiary burden on the prosecutors. Right now they have to line up three psychiatrists when they are trying to prove their case for a dangerous offender. Maybe we should be looking at that. Maybe we should be saying that only two psychiatrists are necessary in order for the prosecutor to bring forward the required expert information.

There are a number of things that could be done within the system to actually improve the resources of the prosecutors to do their jobs, but this is being completely overlooked by the government. Instead we have this very heavy-handed approach that has been brought in by the government where there is absolutely no confidence whatsoever from anybody in the justice system and the law profession that this law will actually be upheld.

In fact earlier I heard the member from the Bloc say that this is why they are afraid of the government. It was a very interesting remark. I think it echoes a sentiment in the public that we see the government loading in these crime bills and there seems to be very little thought to some of them.

The opposition parties have worked together very closely at the justice committee and have tried to convince the government why some of these bills are so seriously flawed. Yet the government does not seem willing to engage in that debate. Therefore, one is left with the conclusion that it is about political spin. It is about the politics of fear. It is about playing on people's fear about crime and safety, which people have, without really ever addressing it.

One of the fears Canadians have is that we are moving closer and closer to the U.S. style of justice system where it has the “three strikes and you're out” laws in effect. The evidence shows us that it has not worked. Again, from this very good article in the Edmonton Journal, it quotes from a 2004 report by the Justice Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. It cited FBI crime statistics that showed violent crime and homicide rates between 1993 and 2002 dropped faster in states without the three strikes law. This is very interesting and we should learn from the very real evidence available in the United States.

I know members of the Conservative government will argue that this is not exactly the same law, but it is based on the same kinds of principles and it is moving us closer and closer to the kind of system we see in the United States. We have heard its kind of mantra on getting tough on crime.

The report also compared California to New York. California has the toughest three strikes law. It sent people to jail for life even if their third crime was stealing a piece of pizza. New York has no such legislation, yet its overall crime index fell 50% from 1993 to 2002. California's overall crime index fell only 39%.

Despite the fall in crime rate between 1994 and 2004, in the 10 years experience of the California three strikes policy, its prison population rose by almost 23%. The Justice Policy Institute study estimated that building and staffing the extra prisons to house all those prisoners cost the state an extra $8 billion U.S. over 10 years.

I bring forward these points of information because they are very pertinent to this debate, not only in terms of this bill but also other bills that are before the House. As a Bloc member said, this is why we are so afraid of the government. It is embarking on a radical departure. It seems hell-bent on radical changes whether they are shown to work or not. This should be of very grave concern to all of us.

I totally reject the arguments, which will come forward now, that the NDP is soft on crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to be intelligent about our response to crime and justice in our country. We want to ensure that there is sound public policy development. We want to ensure that we do not adopt legislation that has been shown not to work, that may create incredible havoc within the judicial system and that will undermine very fundamental principles established over many hundreds of years.

The government needs to take note. This is a minority Parliament. We have a majority of members in the House who say, with a united voice, that this is not good legislation and that it will be defeated. Therefore, the government members can squawk all they want about that. They can try to put out their political line that nobody on this side cares about crime, which we know is absolute nonsense, or they can get serious and engage in a real debate about what changes need to be made to the justice system. I have offered a few today, so have the other parties.

The Conservatives can choose if they so wish. If they are serious about putting public policy first and protecting the Canadian public, they can look at changes that will work within our judicial system. It is their decision. I do not know what they will decide, but they should take note of the fact that three parties now oppose the bill.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to speak to Bill C-27, an act that amends part XXIV of the Criminal Code regarding the dangerous offender provisions in section 810.1 and 810.2 of the peace bonds.

I wish I could be as happy with respect to Bill C-22, in which the NDP voted against sending this to committee and not supporting the age of protection bill. I am very concerned about that, and I think Canadians will be too.

Bill C-27 is a significant step to strengthen the existing provisions of the Criminal Code that target the most dangerous and high risk offenders in the country. It follows through on our commitments to tackle the very real problem of dangerous repeat predators who are released into our communities without adequate sentencing and management. This is common sense legislation.

Canadians have told us that steps must be taken to deal with these individuals. I am standing in this House today to let Canadians know that Canada's new government agrees with them. Our government cares deeply about safe streets and security. The government is going to stand up for Canadians by making it easier for crown attorneys to get dangerous offender designations on those who deserve them.

This bill places the onus on predators who have committed two prior serious violent sexual crimes to convince the court why they should not be designated a dangerous offender and by lengthening and strengthening the terms of peace bonds made pursuant to section 810 of the Criminal Code.

Simply put, our government is going to the wall on an issue that matters most to Canadians. Getting things done for families and taxpayers means keeping our most dangerous criminals off the streets and behind bars. Canadians want, and deserve, nothing less.

These same concerns have been expressed to us by all provincial attorneys general, by police, by victims and, most important, by individual Canadians from all walks of life. However, I want to make it clear from the beginning that these reforms were very carefully tailored. This bill would achieve a proper balance between the rights of Canadians to be safe from violent and sexual crimes with the fundamental rights of individuals facing lengthy prison terms.

The bill focuses on reforms in two areas of the Criminal Code. First and foremost, we are proposing several significant amendments that would provide crown prosecutors with enhanced abilities to obtain dangerous offender designations where it is justifiable to do so.

Second, we are proposing a number of amendments to the specific peace bond provisions that target high risk sexual and violent predators, doubling their duration to two years and clarifying the extent of conditions that may be imposed by a court.

Currently, the dangerous offender designation in part XXIV of the Criminal Code is arguably the toughest sanction available in Canadian law. As the law now stands, each and every time an individual is designated as a dangerous offender under section 753, the sentence imposed is indeterminate, with no opportunity for parole for seven years.

In reality, very few of these individuals are released. Most live out the rest of their lives behind bars. Dangerous offenders, on average, are imprisoned for even longer periods than individuals serving a life sentence for murder. That is why the Supreme Court of Canada has referred to the dangerous offender application as the harshest sentence available in Canadian law, reserved for the worst of the worst.

That being said, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the indeterminate sentence that goes with the dangerous offender designation is constitutional where it is the only reasonable way that we can protect the public.

The Lyons decision was the first challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada on the dangerous offender designation after the 1982 entrenchment into the Constitution Act of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court indicated that the provision was constitutional primarily because the sentencing judge retained discretion to refuse to impose the indeterminate sentence.

In 1997, a decade after the decision in Lyons, Parliament proclaimed significant amendments to the dangerous offender provisions. Prior to 1997, where an individual was declared to be a dangerous offender, the court had the choice of sentencing the individual to an indeterminate sentence, with no parole for three years, or to a determinate sentence of any length suitable in the circumstances.

The 1997 changes removed this discretion of the court and made the indeterminate sentence automatic for every dangerous offender designation while lengthening the duration before the first parole application to seven years.

The 1997 amendments also created the option of the long term offender designation where the individual did not meet the onerous standards for dangerous offender designation. This new instrument allowed the court to impose, in addition to a regular sentence of imprisonment, a court ordered period of post-release community supervision of up to 10 years.

In 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its first ruling on the constitutionality of the 1997 changes to the dangerous offender designation. The case was the Johnson decision, an appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal. At stake was whether the 1997 changes requiring the indeterminate sentence with no discretion had gone too far.

While the Supreme Court of Canada in Johnson upheld the 1997 changes as constitutional, it also held that in fact the sentencing court did retain its ultimate discretion in the matter. Specifically, the court said that even where the Crown had fully discharged its burden to prove that the offender fully met all of the prerequisite criteria of a dangerous offender designation under subsection 753.(1), the sentencing judge still had a duty to exercise his discretion by determining whether the risk the offender posed to the general public could be successfully managed under a lesser sentence.

The court indicated that before a sentencing judge could impose the indeterminate sentence, it had to explicitly consider the specific issue of whether the individual's risk to society could be successfully managed under the long term offender designation or any other sentence.

While this decision was consistent with the court's previous decision in Lyons and reflected longstanding principles of sentencing, the impact of Johnson was felt across the country. There was a flurry of appeals filed by existing dangerous offenders who argued that the sentencing judge had failed to consider the long term offender sentence option as required by the Supreme Court.

In the 18 months subsequent to Johnson, over 30 such appeals were argued, resulting in 20 orders for a new dangerous offender hearing because of the error. The number of annual designations was halved from about 25 per year to about 12 designations due primarily to confusion in the sentencing courts of how to apply the principle in Johnson in practice.

Following Johnson, the Crown's success rate of applications fell well below 50% whereas the traditional rate was about 70%. Those individuals who previously would have faced dangerous offender applications simply were not subject to that any more as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

It was in this context that the new government committed to develop a policy to respond to this unacceptable situation. Throughout this process we were all encouraged by the support of provincial and territorial ministers of justice. This legislation is an effective and coherent response to the changes brought about by the court decision in Johnson.

I would like to outline the changes that are contained in this bill.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in light of what the government House leader said just a few moments ago, I wonder if you could see if there is unanimous consent in the House at this moment for the following motion: That Bill C-9 be deemed to have been concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed; that Bills C-18, C-19 and C-23 be deemed to have been reported from committee, without amendments, concurred in at the report stage, read a third time and passed; and that Bills,C-22 and C-26 be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported from committee without amendments, concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-28, the bill to implement the 2006 budget tax measures. This would be followed, time permitting, with Bill S-2, hazardous materials, and Bill C-6, the aeronautics amendments.

Tomorrow we will continue with the business from today with the possibility as well of completing the third reading stage of Bill C-16. I will talk to the opposition House leader about that after this.

Next week we hope to begin debate on some of the government's justice bills. The first one will be on the age of consent, Bill C-22. If we could get unanimous consent to pass that at all stages that would be very much appreciated.

We will go then to Bill C-27, our dangerous offenders bill and any cooperation we can get to move that along would be appreciated, I think, by the people of this country.

I am looking forward to sitting down with the official opposition and other parties to discuss the speedy passage of the many popular bills that the government has introduced and I am looking forward to their cooperation on that.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), I would like to designate Tuesday, October 31, as the day to continue debate on the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

In response to the member's questions, consideration in committee of the whole of the votes under the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, shall take place on Wednesday, November 1, 2006, pursuant to the Standing Orders. The second day for consideration of committee of the whole will be November 7, 2006.

As well, I should indicate that Thursday, November 2, 2006, shall be an allotted day.

With respect to the member's questions with respect to the same sex marriage, we will fulfill our campaign promise on that and we will be proceeding with it this fall.

Justice

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 proposes to increase the age of protection from 14 to 16 years of age. It also puts in place a close in age exemption of five years. The purpose is not to criminalize consenting sexual activity among teenagers, but to protect 14 and 15 year olds from adult sexual predators.

This is a common sense approach. It is supported by police and the public across the country. The opposition should also step up, support the bill and get it through the House.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over my time as the member of Parliament for the tri-cities, no issue has been more frequently raised by my constituents than the frustration over the seeming injustice in our justice system.

I and this Conservative government have heard those concerns and we are taking action to make our streets safer.

For example, we have introduced tough new legislation. Bill C-9 will limit or eliminate house arrest for dangerous violent criminals. Bill C-10 will establish a mandatory minimum amount of jail time for gun violence. Bill C-19 will create a new Criminal Code offence for street racing. Bill C-22 will raise the age of protection to 16 and protect tens of thousands of children from sexual abuse.

In our budget we committed millions toward tougher border security and millions more toward hiring new police officers from coast to coast.

The first responsibility of the state, before all else, is to protect law-abiding citizens from those who would do them harm. For 13 years the Liberals did nothing and for 13 years the NDP encouraged the Liberals to soften our already soft laws on crime.

This Conservative government is getting tough on crime and protecting Canadian families.

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Income Tax Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

As I speak today, I am thinking about the reality we have faced for the past several years, that is, the increase in terrorist activities and the tools we have tried to put in place to fight against terrorism. As we all know, the Bloc Québécois took up a major challenge in the past regarding the fight against organized crime.

I would remind the House of the battle waged here, led by the Bloc, to enact anti-gang legislation. Many individuals have continued that battle, including the leader of the Bloc Québécois and hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and the hon. member for Hochelaga—a young child in his riding was unfortunately a victim of organized crime warfare. My former colleague, Michel Bellehumeur—who is now a judge, but who was the justice critic at that time—successfully led one offensive after another, as did Richard Marceau, regarding the elimination of the $1,000 bill. The Bloc Québécois' credibility is well established here, as it is in many other areas.

We have led battles and we have helped to develop the best laws possible. Today, we are discussing legislation that the Bloc Québécois will support because it will enable Canada to comply with the recommendations of the financial action task force on money laundering. This is a group that was created by the G-7 to examine in depth the issue of the financing of organized crime world wide. The group can make recommendations to all countries on ways of countering criminal use of money. It has been said that money is the sinews of war, and it is the same in the fight against terrorism.

There is a real battle that can be fought on the ground in terms of propaganda, but there is also the whole issue of financing. Let us hope that we can do our share in a meaningful and concrete way.

However, at the same time—this will be a continuing concern for the Bloc—during the committee stage, we must ensure that in the application of the law we are not faced with the excesses we have already seen, such as in the case of the treatment of Maher Arar by the RCMP. We know that the RCMP slipped through the cracks in existing mechanisms to end up accusing Mr. Arar and that he suffered unacceptable treatment. In the final analysis, Mr. Arar suffered harm that will be very difficult to repair.

In the previous instance, it was the case of an individual. Today, we are dealing with the financing of terrorism. We must ensure that in the application of this law that there is no similar hole in the legislation.

I am referring, for example, to the fact that under the law an official of the Department of National Revenue would have the power to forward information that was sent by another official under the provisions of the charities registration act. That information could be forwarded to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.

This could be done in good faith and be completely legal. It could involve the forwarding of relevant information; however, we must ensure that there are safeguards to prevent excesses.

After they have debated the actual principle of this bill and its general appropriateness, the committee members should pay particular attention to the issue of protection of personal information. I would like the privacy commissioner to appear before the committee so that she could say how the act for which she is responsible applies to the reality of Bill C-25 and to the regulatory framework defining how to track the financing of terrorist groups so that such financing is clearly opposed and minimized, and how at the same time the rights of individuals will be respected.

We should recall that Bill C-22 was the forerunner of Bill C-25, which we have before us. It was tabled on behalf of the Minister of Finance in 1999 and intended to counter money laundering. That was Bill C-22. It was very similar to Bill C-80, presented in May 1999, but died on the order paper when the House was prorogued.

The general objective of the bill was to correct the shortcomings of Canadian legislation respecting money laundering, as they were identified in the 1997-98 report by the FATF, the financial action task force on money laundering, created by the G-7.

In addition, the FATF recommended in its report that any provisions respecting reports in Canada—which at present are voluntary—be made public and that a financial information unit be created with the responsibility of gathering, managing, analyzing and distributing reports of suspicious operations and other relevant information. So it was an international committee that made the recommendations and the 1999 bill was designed to put them into force.

That bill was passed. Since then it has been mandatory for regulated financial institutions, exchange offices, casinos and other financial intermediaries to report suspicious financial transactions. Another of the bill’s objectives was to put in place, together with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, a system for reporting large cross-border movements of currency. A lot of money changes hands. We will see a little later that the quantities of money are very significant.

Furthermore, the bill provided for the creation of a new independent agency, namely the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada. This centre receives and administers the information reported. Bill C-22 was enacted on June 21, 2000, and replaced the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act then in effect.

The Conservative government is proposing to amend Bill C-22 with Bill C-25, which we are debating today. This new bill is designed to increase financial institutions' duties to keep records and report suspicious transactions, with a view to eliminating funding for terrorist organizations. The idea is to achieve greater transparency in the circulation of money. Banks are institutions that are responsible for the quality of their work. In my opinion, in the fight against terrorism, they need much clearer and more specific guidelines and instructions. Let us hope that this bill will clarify the situation.

First of all, the bill extends the application of the act to all organizations that, in addition to dealing in securities, deal in other financial instruments. Targeting securities alone does not go far enough, in light of terrorists' investment methods. The act also applies to persons and entities engaged in the business of remitting or transmitting funds by any means or through an intermediary to electronic funds transfer companies or of issuing or redeeming money orders, traveller's cheques or other similar negotiable instruments. In other words, the framers of the bill became aware of all the actions and the financial and monetary transactions that the bill needed to cover to try and control the circulation of money used to finance terrorist activities. The people who sell prescribed precious metals will be subject to Bill C-25.

The new bill prohibits any entity from opening an account if the bank cannot establish the identity of the client. The bank must be certain that it knows the identity of the client. Furthermore, the bill ensures requires any institution that does business with a politically exposed foreign person, foreign judge, head of state or minister, to obtain the approval of its senior management before entering into a transaction. Thus, safeguards are established. Such requirements apply to all sectors. For example, in the case of electronic funds transfers, the bank or other business must include the name, address, account number and all client reference numbers, whether sending or receiving such transfers.

This is where we must consider the issue of authorization given to officials of the Canada Revenue Agency to disclose information to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada. We will have to be very vigilant to ensure that we do not erode the right to protection of personal information and to establish an appropriate balance so that the legislation falls within the desired framework.

Of particular concern is the laundering of proceeds of crime, which is the conversion of the proceeds of criminal activities into goods making it difficult to trace the proceeds to their criminal origins. It consists of hiding proceeds of crime by making them seem legitimate. It is money laundering. A large portion of these goods and assets are derived from the illegal drug trade and others result from criminal activities such as burglary and cigarette smuggling. The criminal activities that they seek to hide are, by their very nature, clandestine activities. It is difficult to have a precise idea of the extent of money laundering operations.

Experts estimate that, overall, some US$300 billion to US$500 billion in criminally derived funds enter international capital markets annually; $300 to $500 billion is a lot of money.

In Canada, the federal government estimates that between $5 billion and $17 billion in criminal proceeds are laundered in this country each year. There was therefore a need to take action and find a way of shedding light on these transactions in order, at least, to reduce them as much as possible.

There is also the problem of the financing of terrorist organizations. We know that terrorists were going so far as to take advantage of charitable organizations and ultimately use them for purposes other than those they were intended for. We need to re-consider things in this regard as well to be sure that we can also follow the financial transactions.

The financial action task force on money laundering established in 1989 is an international organization which wants to ensure that the different countries around the world have legislation for dealing with this problem. However, we have seen a major increase in terrorist group activity over the last few years. I think that we need to move faster and provide more support. The FATF’s mandate was renewed in 2004 to run until 2012, and it will continue to monitor the situation.

Through the mandatory reporting of suspicious transactions, this bill will ensure that we do not suddenly find ourselves in a situation where a whole series of suspicious transactions have to be identified because they were not being followed. The mechanism being put in place will hopefully take care of this.

In regard to the reporting of major cross-border currency movements, the bill will ensure that certain precious metals are also regulated and included in the currency to be reported.

There are two provisions authorizing customs officers to search people or the vehicles of people when the officers have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the people are hiding on or near their persons currency or monetary instruments that were not reported in accordance with the act's regulations. Finally, a new provision makes it possible to conclude cooperation agreements between Canada and the customs agencies of foreign countries that have similar requirements to report cross-border movements of currency and monetary instruments.

The comparison I made with the Arar affair also applies here. We must ensure that we are not creating a ripple effect by inadequately protecting personal information. When we give information to a foreign agency, we must ensure that we do so in accordance with the law and that the other country uses it in accordance with the law. We must not damage people's reputations because of incorrectly conducted transactions. In this case, it might not end with the kind of torture Mr. Arar suffered through, but it could damage reputations. We must be vigilant in ensuring that, if necessary, this bill is amended in such a way as to guarantee the protection of personal information.

The third important element is the creation of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada covered under clauses 40 to 72. This is the framework, the organization, the structure that will ensure the implementation of this legislation. We hope the centre can operate because it will be responsible for analyzing and evaluating the reports it receives, as well as other information. If necessary, it will provide information to law enforcement organizations. It will also be responsible for making recommendations to the Department of Justice, the RCMP or other organizations. Here, too, we must be vigilant to ensure that the management and analysis of personal information are done correctly.

Bill C-25 sets out guidelines concerning individuals and groups eligible for registration with the centre. Any person whose name appears on the list of terrorist groups, who was convicted of terrorist activity or of participating in, facilitating, instructing to carry out or inciting to commit terrorist activities, who was convicted of participating in organized crime activities, or who was convicted once on indictment or more than once for fraudulent transactions or for an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, except for consumption, is eligible to register.

Clearly, what we are seeking is a comprehensive framework that will allow for proper intervention regarding cash flow linked to terrorists. Accordingly, the Bloc Québécois believes that this bill deserves our support.

It also includes serious offences so that criminals are well aware of the seriousness of their actions.

To conclude, I refer back to my comment on privacy. I would like to see this bill passed as quickly as possible, given the study that will be required in committee. Indeed, it must be carefully studied to prevent individual cases from slipping through security and, above all, to prevent honest, law-abiding citizens from being penalized by such legislation.

Significant amounts of money circulate in this area of activity and this legislation could, in due course, have implications for human life. Terrorist activities funded at the source by this type of monetary flow often lead to the deaths of innocent bystanders.

It is a fine idea to create tools to stop this money from circulating, but we must strike a balance with the protection of privacy.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. We will see if, through amendments, we can adapt it more to the reality of these people and make it more compliant with the Privacy Act.

Age of Consent

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today. The first is signed by nearly 700 constituents of mine requesting that Parliament raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. These petitioners support Bill C-22, the new Conservative government's age of sexual protection bill.

The constituents are all from Alberta, including: Acme, Big Lake, Beiseker, Calgary, Camrose, Castor, Coronation, Consort, Craigmyle, Edberg, Erskine, Irricana, Hanna, Linden, Stettler, Three Hills and Trochu. I am sure I missed some towns.