Bill C-31 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

The enactment amends the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and makes a consequential amendment to the Canada Evidence Act.
Among other things, the amendments
(a) provide greater access to the telewarrant process for peace officers and public officers;
(b) reform the expert evidence regime to give parties more time to prepare and respond to expert evidence;
(c) allow the provinces to authorize programs or establish criteria governing the use of agents by defendants who are individuals;
(d) authorize the fingerprinting of, photographing of or application of other identification processes to, persons who are in lawful custody for specified offences but who have not yet been charged;
(e) expand the jurisdiction of Canadian courts to include bribery offences committed by Canadians outside Canada;
(f) expand the list of permitted sports under the prize fighting provisions;
(g) make minor corrections to the pari-mutuel betting provisions, delete unnecessary provisions and update the calculation of pool payouts;
(h) update the provisions on interceptions of private communications in exceptional circumstances;
(i) reclassify six non-violent offences as hybrid offences;
(j) create an offence of leaving the jurisdiction in contravention of an undertaking or recognizance; and
(k) delete provisions of the Criminal Code that are no longer valid, correct or clarify wording in various provisions and make minor updates to others.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights)

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-209. As the previous speaker pointed out, this issue was also addressed in Bill C-31, which was introduced in a previous Parliament.

Bill S-209 seeks to update section 82 of the Criminal Code to include mixed martial arts and, more generally, prize fights. Debates on this issue can get quite heated, since some people disapprove of these sports for reasons that are sometimes emotional, but nonetheless legitimate.

As my hon. colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel so eloquently stated, this is first and foremost a legislative issue, not a sports-related one. This distinction must be clear, since sporting activities can become a social issue. As legislators, I believe that our role is to ensure that there is a clear legal framework in place to properly regulate sports.

What does “properly regulate” mean? That is a very important question. At this time, we all know that mixed martial arts fights take place throughout most of Canada, in most municipalities, provinces and territories, where the athletics commissions that have been created apply their own definitions to the sport in order to circumvent section 82 of the Criminal Code and make these fights subject to provincial legislation.

For instance, when the UFC—the most popular and largest mixed martial arts league—championships were held in Montreal, Quebec, the Government of Quebec logo appeared on the referees' jackets, sending the message that the provincial government is very involved in regulating the sport and can impose sanctions.

We are in a rather odd situation, given that the sport is practised regardless, even though the Criminal Code is rather vague about it all. This means that major leagues like the UFC have to carefully watch over and protect their athletes, for insurance reasons, among others. Nevertheless, smaller leagues are less subject to this obligation.

Decriminalizing these fights will give the provinces the discretion to decide whether such fights can take place within their borders. Furthermore, bringing the smaller leagues and all fights into the spotlight will help ensure that they are all properly sanctioned and regulated.

The example given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is very interesting. Historically speaking, and even more recently, the most tragic incidents have occurred during illegal or underground fights. Given that this sport will continue to be practised regardless of the outcome of our vote on this bill, we do not want to see these fights go underground. In order to properly regulate this sport, we want everything to be clear. I cannot emphasize this enough, for it is truly key. This is really a legal issue, not a sports-related one, as the various members who have already spoken on the matter have pointed out.

I would like to bring up another interesting point. We asked people why they oppose this sport, and their reasons were often emotional ones. People seem to think that the injury rate is very high. Yet, studies have shown the opposite. There are fewer concussions in mixed martial arts than in boxing, for example.

That shows that people sometimes forget that mixed marital arts blends a number of disciplines—some of which are permitted at and part of the Olympics—such as tae kwon do, judo and wrestling. Boxing is legal in Canada and it involves only hits to the head. There are various ways of winning a fight in mixed marital arts, including by submission. It is important to point that out because certain studies have shown that there are far fewer injuries than in other sports, such as football and hockey. People need to take that into consideration before they write the sport off as being more dangerous.

The witnesses heard by the Senate committee were divided, particularly those in the medical community. I would be remiss if I did not mention those who oppose this type of contest and only mentioned those who are in favour. The Canadian Medical Association, for example, has spoken out against this bill. I would like to talk more about why. Doctors are stakeholders in this issue, but they do not have reason enough to oppose the sport. The Canadian Medical Association opposes all sports that aim to incapacitate an opponent. However, there is a grey area there.

The same goes for football, where there is blocking, and hockey, where there is checking. A person playing defence might be tasked with neutralizing his opponent in a certain way. In that context, we understand the association's position, but in this case enough studies show and enough doctors agree that there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the injury rate is higher in combative sport. In fact, quite the opposite is true. I thought that was very important to point out.

In mixed martial arts, the rules in place ensure that the athletes are in good health and that they do not suffer serious injuries, such as concussions. The current rules are better than the ones for football and hockey. Other sports should consider adopting similar rules. For example, an athlete who has participated in a fight cannot participate in another before a significant period of time has passed. What is more, the provincial governments are responsible for making the rules. When we are talking about the rate of injury and concussions, we have to keep in mind that there is already a solid set of rules in place.

Speaking of the provinces, only a handful of them still do not allow this sport. I wonder what they have to say about all this. The bill is interesting in that sense because it leaves the final decision to the provinces and does not tell them what to do. It is all there in black and white. If a province decides to allow this sport to be practised in its jurisdiction, then it is up to that province to set up an athletic commission to govern this sport. We are not talking about legalizing a sport. We are talking about decriminalizing it and then leaving it up to the provinces to use their sound judgment and wisdom in their own jurisdiction to oversee the whole thing.

Finally—and I cannot stress this enough—this is not a matter of promoting one sport over another. This is a legal issue. It is a question of removing an ambiguity that currently exists and decriminalizing a sport so that the provinces can regulate it better. This sport already exists, and the athletes who practise it—and we know that their numbers are growing in Canada—need to be properly monitored and kept safe.

That is what we are trying to do today. For that reason, I will support the bill.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today in support of Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights).

Most of the attention given to Bill S-209 has focused upon the professional mixed martial arts matches that are contemplated by the bill, and that will be my first area of focus. Somewhat less attention has been given to the aspects of the bill that deal with amateur combative sports. I will speak later about that aspect of Bill S-209.

When the prize fight offence was first enacted by Parliament in 1892, there were no exceptions to the offence. In the Statutes of Canada, 1932-33, exceptions were made for boxing prizefights. Currently section 83 of the Criminal Code bans all prizefights, and then lists the exceptions to the offence. The first exception is for amateur boxing matches that meet the minimum glove weight. That is the requirement, the minimum glove weight. Each amateur boxing glove must weigh at least 140 grams.

The second exception is for a pro boxing match that is licensed by a province or an amateur “under glove weight” boxing match that is licensed by a province. Throughout my remarks, please understand that when I say province, this includes territories, which is exactly how the Interpretation Act defines it.

The amateur and professional boxing exceptions that I have just spoken of are the only exceptions that currently exist within section 83 of the Criminal Code. Former Bill C-31, introduced during the second session of the 40th Parliament, died on the order paper. This included a proposal to expand the exceptions in section 83, but only for amateur combative sports. An exception to the section 83 ban on prizefights for professional mixed martial arts was not a feature of the former Bill C-31.

Some provinces have chosen to license professional mixed martial arts contests as professional boxing matches under section 83 of the Criminal Code. While not all provinces have interpreted professional boxing in this way, it is clear that it is the responsibility of the Attorney General of the province to determine whether section 83 of the Criminal Code has been breached, and if so, whether to prosecute those involved with a mixed martial arts contest.

In any case, Bill S-209 will certainly clarify that provinces may license professional mixed martial arts contests, and the matches will clearly fall within the section 83 exceptions to the prizefighting offence. Some provinces are awaiting this clarity before they will move to license professional mixed martial arts matches.

Under Bill S-209, a professional boxing match that is licensed by a province and a professional mixed martial arts match that is licensed by a province would be the only forms of professional combative sport that would be exempted from the section 83 prizefighting offence. Bill S-209 does not contemplate other professional combative sport exceptions.

I want to note that professional wrestling has not been considered to engage the prizefight offence provisions in section 83 of the Criminal Code. Although professional wrestlers are trained athletes, professional wrestling is viewed as entertainment that is carefully choreographed and therefore not as a prizefight.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has heard about the many safeguards that exist in the world of professional mixed martial arts, including the use of medical doctors who are independent of the athletes and who do assessments before, during and after the matches. Moreover, unlike boxing, the athlete may tap out, thereby signalling submission. Most importantly, under Bill S-209, the province would determine what additional safeguards and conditions it will attach to the provincial license for a professional mixed martial arts contest.

Professional mixed martial arts and professional boxing each carry a risk of injury. While a knockout is one way to win a match in boxing, a match can also be won on points that include blows to the body. In mixed martial arts, matches can be won by submission holds or by an athlete tapping to signal submission.

It seems to me that it is better to allow provincial regulation of boxing and mixed martial arts, because a regulated environment is a safer environment than one that is not regulated. Conditions can be inserted that promote health and safety of athletes. I am satisfied that the provinces are best placed to determine the acceptance by the provincial public of pro boxing and pro mixed martial arts matches, and to determine the conditions to granting a provincial license for a prizefight. If Bill S-209 is adopted, the police will continue to have investigative responsibility for prizefights in combative sports that are unsanctioned and therefore illegal.

With regard to prosecution, the Attorney General of each province, as I have noted earlier, is responsible for the prosecution of Criminal Code offences within the province. Bill S-209 would not in any way change this investigative or prosecutorial responsibility. I am confident that the police and prosecutors will be vigilant in investigating and prosecuting prizefights that are not sanctioned by a province.

There has been recent media attention to an unsanctioned martial arts contest in the United States in which a Canadian athlete died. Amending the Criminal Code, section 83, would encourage professional athletes in Canada to participate in licensed boxing and mixed martial arts events where there is medical supervision before, during and after the match, and also in situations where rules and conditions of licensing are carefully considered by the provinces.

Let me speak now about amateur combative sports. With one small addition that I shall soon discuss, Bill S-209 reproduces the proposed amateur combative sport amendments to section 83 that were found in former Bill C-31. That bill would have amended section 83 of the Criminal Code in order to expand amateur prizefights beyond amateur boxing to include any amateur combative sport contest that is sanctioned by the province. Similarly, Bill S-209 would expand the range of provincial decision-making related to amateur combative sports.

They key concepts in Bill S-209 relating to amateur combative sports are the following:

First, a province would be able to authorize a prizefight in an amateur combative sport that is on the Olympic program. The addition, found within Bill S-209 but not found in former Bill 31, which I mentioned earlier, adds that a province would be able to authorize amateur prizefights in a combative sport that is on the Paralympic program. Moreover, if the province so chooses, it could require licensing for prizefights in Olympic or Paralympic amateur sports.

Second, a province would be able to authorize a prizefight in an amateur combative sport that the province chooses to place on a list of designated amateur combative sports. Here again, if the province desires, it could require licensing.

Third, Bill S-209 adds an exception for any amateur combative sport prizefight if the province has granted a licence. This gives a province the ability to license an amateur combative sport prizefight even if the amateur combative sport is not on the Olympic program, the Paralympic program or the provincially designated amateur combative sport list.

Bill S-209 would introduce far greater provincial choice on the range of amateur combative sport prizefights that could occur than currently exists under section 83 of the Criminal Code. This seems entirely fitting, because provinces are best placed to determine whether there is public acceptance and what measures need to be in place to assure athlete safety in a particular amateur combative sport or for a particular competition.

In this day and age it is entirely appropriate to update the Criminal Code to ensure that amateur combative sport prizefights are clearly on side with the law. I believe that amateur athletes in combative sports beyond boxing should clearly be able to participate in prizefights if the province has sanctioned the matches.

Members will have noticed a small change in Bill S-209 relating to amateur boxing when compared with the existing section 83 of the Criminal Code. Currently an amateur boxing match that uses the minimum glove weight does not need to have any provincial sanction. If “underweight” gloves are used, currently the match must obtain a provincial licence. With Bill S-209, even if the current minimum glove weight is used for an amateur boxing prize fight, the province will decide whether it will simply allow the match because amateur boxing is on the Olympic program or whether it will require that the amateur boxing prizefight obtain a provincial licence.

While not everyone enjoys watching professional mixed martial arts matches, the sport has reached the point of great popularity in Canada for both fans and athletes. I am much happier to see these events clearly legalized so that whenever a province grants a licence for a match, we can be assured that athlete safety is top of mind.

Having provincially sanctioned matches will make it very clear that a mixed martial arts prizefight that does not hold a provincial licence is an illegal activity. I want to underscore that promoters, participants, surgeons, aides, referees, attendees and even reporters at illegal prizefights are subject to police investigation and to prosecution under section 83 of the Criminal Code.

In closing, I encourage all members to support the bill.

[Senator Bob Runciman]

Thank you to the committee for inviting me to speak about Bill S-209. This bill updates the definition of “prize fighting” in section 83 of the Criminal Code, a definition that hasn't been changed in nearly 80 years. When the current offence of prize fighting became part of the code, the only exception allowed was for a boxing match held under the jurisdiction of a provincial athletic board.

As we all know, a lot has changed since then, and that's why the bill is necessary. Other combative sports have increased in popularity in the intervening decades, particularly at the amateur level.

Mixed martial arts is the fastest growing professional sport in North America, yet technically all these sports, including some Olympic events, are illegal. Provinces are forced to skirt the law when they allow these competitions to go ahead. I describe it as creative interpretations of the Criminal Code.

Bill S-209 updates the definition of a “prize fight” to include an encounter with fists, hands, or feet, and expands the list of exemptions to the offence to include amateur combative sports that are on the program of the International Olympic Committee or the program of the International Paralympic Committee, other amateur sports as designated or approved by the province, and boxing contests and mixed martial arts contests held under the authority of a provincial athletic board, commission. or a similar body.

In all exemptions, provincial permission is required and the contests are supervised by provincial or municipal regulators. Most of the provisions of this bill are identical to those in former Bill C-31, from the second session of the 40th Parliament, provisions that were the result of extensive consultation dating back more than a decade among the federal government, the provinces, and national sports organizations. The only change from Bill C-31 is the addition of the words “or mixed martial arts contest” in paragraph 1(2)(d).

Regulators at both the provincial and municipal levels support this bill. Ken Hayashi, who is the long-time athletics commissioner of Ontario, and Pat Reid, the executive director of the Edmonton Combative Sports Commission, both testified at the Senate committee about the need to update the Criminal Code. These are people, I can tell you from my experience as consumer minister in Ontario, who take their job very seriously, who want to ensure all the rules are complied with, and that athletes' health and safety are protected.

Their job is more difficult when the law they enforce no longer reflects reality. I know that for members of Parliament the top-of-mind concern will be safety of the athletes. Regulators require physicians to be at ringside during combative sport competitions, and competitors are subject to extensive pre- and post-fight medical tests and examinations, examinations that are conducted and supervised independently, unlike other sports.

The Edmonton Combative Sports Commission has compiled 10 years of evidence comparing injuries in mixed martial arts and boxing, that demonstrate that boxing is in fact more dangerous than mixed martial arts. They examined 556 boxing matches and found 9.5% of the fighters suffered concussions. They looked at 1,119 mixed martial arts bouts, and they found that the concussion rate was at 4.9%, just over half of that of boxing.

Regulators and competitors say the lower incidence of brain injuries in mixed martial arts is due to the nature of the combat and the various ways a fight can end, including the tap-out, which is a form of voluntary submission. Thirty per cent of UFC bouts end with a tap-out.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to sit here and tell you and other members of the committee that there are not significant risks of injuries in combative sports. There are. The question is, how do we best mitigate that risk?

In my view, proper regulation and supervision is crucial. Regulators want a more secure legal framework in which to operate. Bill S-209 is part of that process. By updating the Criminal Code to reflect modern reality, we are giving regulators one of the tools they need to keep athletes safe.

Again, I thank the committee for inviting me and look forward to any questions you might have.

[Karen Audcent]

The draft of Bill C-55comes from Bill C-30. Previously, it was Bill C-50 and at the outset, it was Bill C-31. The only change that we made to the content of Bill C-30 in order to incorporate it into Bill C-55 was to include the restriction for police officers. The Supreme Court had indicated that it would be a good idea to do so, and the government wanted to reflect that.

[Karen Audcent, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

We've previously included responses to the reactions in Bill C-31. Then there was Bill C-50. But those responses pertained to lower court rulings. Then came Bill C-30. The Supreme Court rendered its decision on April 13, 2012. So we've been working on responses to the Supreme Court decisions since then.

Prior to that, we were basing our study on the rulings of lower courts, because the British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec courts indicated that we had to examine this section of the Criminal Code because it raised constitutional concerns.

Criminal Code

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in favour of Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights).

I would like to begin by noting that Bill S-209 is a private member's bill that was introduced in the other place by Senator Runciman. It proposes to amend section 83 of the Criminal Code. Currently, section 83 makes it a summary conviction offence to engage in a prize fight, to promote a prize fight or to attend a prize fight as an aid, second, surgeon, umpire, backer or reporter. Section 83 then carves out exceptions to the prize fighting offence for certain amateur boxing contests and for certain professional boxing contests.

The exception for an amateur boxing contest arises if each glove used meets the minimum weight of 140 grams. An amateur boxing contest where the gloves to be used do not meet the minimum weight specified in section 83 of the Criminal Code can still be excepted from the prize fighting offence if the province issues a licence for the contest. Similarly, any professional boxing contest is exempted from the section 83 prize fighting offence if the province issues a licence for the contest.

Bill S-209 contains proposals to extend the exemption in section 83 for amateur boxing contests to cover other amateur combative sport contests, including contests in sports such as judo, karate, tae kwon do, kick-boxing and mixed martial arts. Bill S-209 would also clarify that the exemption in section 83 which covers professional boxing contests would include professional mixed martial arts contests.

It is important to underscore that Bill S-209 contemplates provincial decision making with respect to both amateur exceptions and the professional exceptions to prize fights that are found in Bill S-209.

First, I will speak about the amateur combative sport contest aspect of Bill S-209 and then I will turn to the professional boxing and professional mixed martial contest aspect of the bill.

The reforms to the amateur prize fighting provisions of the Criminal Code found in Bill S-209 replicate those that were found in former government Bill C-31 introduced during the second session of the 40th Parliament, which died on the order paper. However, Bill C-31 proposed reforms only to the amateur prize fighting aspect of section 83 of the Criminal Code. Former Bill C-31 did not propose to extend current exemptions to the prize fighting offence for a professional boxing contest that held a licence from the province to any other professional combative sport contest.

Bill S-209 would extend the exemption for amateur prize fights in a way that would respect provincial decision making.

First, it would allow any amateur combative sport event in a sport that is on the Olympic or Paralympic program. If the province chooses, it can require that the Olympic or Paralympic combative sport contest obtain a licence from the province.

Second, Bill S-209 would make an exception to the prize fight offence for any amateur sport contest that would be on a list of designated amateur combative sports by the province and the province could choose to require that a licence is necessary for the designated amateur combative sport contest.

Third, Bill S-209 would make an exception for any other amateur combative sport contest for which a province had chosen to grant a licence.

As I have said, these amendments for amateur exceptions to the prize fighting offence were found in the government's previous bill, Bill C-31. They reflected consultations between federal and provincial officials at a time when professional mixed martial arts had not developed to the point where it is today in terms of its fan base and its rules.

Turning to the current professional boxing exemption from the section 83 prize fighting offence, Bill S-209 would clarify that a professional mixed martial arts contest that was licensed by a province would be an exception to the prize fighting offence in section 83 of the Criminal Code. British Columbia has requested that the code be amended to clarify any doubt in the matter. I note that there are other provinces, for example, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, which have licensed professional mixed martial arts contests as professional boxing contests. Bill S-209 would bring clarity in respect of professional mixed martial arts contests.

The professional exception in Bill S-209 does not extend to professional combative sports other than professional boxing and professional mixed martial arts. Perhaps this is because these two professional combative sports have television coverage and it does not appear that any other combative sports are on the verge of developing in Canada a professional aspect with such a fan base and television coverage.

We can see that where Bill S-209 would contemplate licensing, it is a provincial licensing that is identified. Bill S-209 would not try to go around the province by exempting a prize fight licensed by a municipality, for example, because a municipality is in fact the creation of a provincial legislature. If a province wished to establish a municipal body as a licensing body, it could choose to do so, but it would be for the province to decide.

As I noted earlier, the amendments to section 83 of the Criminal Code would respect provincial decision-making in the area of permitted exceptions to the prize-fighting offence. In my view, the provinces are best placed to determine public acceptance of combative sports within the range set by the Criminal Code. No province would be forced to permit an amateur combative sport or to license a professional boxing contest or a professional mixed martial arts contest. The province might decide that it did not want to permit any or all of these contests, and if such were the case, the province would not be obligated to license them.

Provinces are also best placed to determine what rules and safety measures they want to see in place prior to having a combative sport contest occur in their jurisdiction. With professional mixed martial arts, there has been tremendous development over the past decades, both in terms of fan support in Canada and the rules of the sport. There is a medical doctor who now decides when a fight should stop, rather than the referee or the coach. There are rules related to striking and holds that are barred. There are rules that permit an athlete to tap an opponent on the mat, which are not present in professional boxing, for example.

The reforms in Bill S-209 regarding amateur combative sports and professional mixed martial arts are long awaited. The amendments in Bill S-209 would modernize the amateur combative sport contest exceptions in section 83 of the Criminal Code. They would also clarify that a province could license a professional mixed martial arts contest as an exception to the prize-fighting offence in section 83 of the Criminal Code.

I urge all members to support Bill S-209.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in the debate on the motion to prevent debate on the content and substance of Bill C-59. I find it rather odd that the Bloc has supported the government's attempt to stifle any attempt at debate on the substance of this bill.

No one in the House can accuse the Liberals of not supporting the idea of eliminating parole eligibility after one-sixth of the sentence is served for economic crimes. Two years ago, my colleague from Bourassa, our candidate in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert and our member for Lac-Saint-Louis participated in a press conference with several of Earl Jones' victims to call on the government to quickly bring forward a bill to eliminate parole eligibility after one-sixth of the sentence is served, especially for criminals who commit major fraud and have multiple victims.

No one can accuse the Liberals of not supporting that idea. I think it is really dishonest of the government to make that kind of accusation when it knows very well what the Liberals' position is. This was pointed out by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Now I would like to talk about the debate and the fact that the Conservatives and the Bloc members want to limit the scope of the debate. Just seven months ago the members of the Bloc rose in the House to criticize the government for doing the exact same thing it is doing now with Bill C-59. The government moved a motion to block debate.

Last June, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain rose in the House to criticize the government for moving a motion to block debate on the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. The Bloc member for Hochelaga also rose to oppose a government motion to block debate on Bill C-9, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, by imposing time allocation.

We are opposed to this time allocation motion because we believe that Bill C-59 addresses a very important issue. Furthermore, for two years now, the Liberals have been calling on the government to eliminate parole eligibility after one-sixth of the sentence is served for economic crimes like those committed by Earl Jones, Vincent Lacroix and others.

I think it is a shame that some would have people believe that the Liberals do not want to protect victims. That is simply not true. When the government introduced Bill C-21 on economic crimes and it was referred to committee, the Liberal justice critic proposed an amendment to the bill to eliminate eligibility for parole after one-sixth of the sentence in cases of economic crime. The Conservatives and the Bloc defeated the motion.

Every MP is entitled to his or her opinion on bills that we are called on to debate in the House. It is a fundamental aspect of the democratic process. The operative word here is “debate”, and the collusion between the Conservatives and the Bloc is preventing us from acting as responsible parliamentarians.

We would like to hear from experts. We want to know how this bill will truly address a gap in the law, how it will do justice to victims, how this bill will improve the chances of rehabilitation for those who once lost control of their lives.

Perhaps we should indeed eliminate parole after one-sixth of a sentence for offenders who have committed serious economic crimes and left a number of victims.

However, for non-violent criminal acts that are not fraud, we believe that evidence has shown that parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been very effective and that the rate of recidivism is much lower.

We will never know what the experts might have said since this closure motion eliminates any chance to consult experts. With this government so eager to control everything, it has become somewhat of a tradition to just pass a bill without any idea of the facts that might call it into question.

The Liberals are against this closure motion. It is not justified, and we regret that the Bloc has decided to join the Conservatives to limit the debate on this bill. As far as the substance of the bill is concerned, in the past and still today, no one could accuse the Liberals of not showing their support for eliminating parole after one-sixth of the sentence for economic crimes.

In order to illustrate the government's intellectual dishonesty, I would like to present a chronology of the Conservatives' failures in their so-called fight against crime.

I am referring here to the various bills that have died on the order paper for all sorts of reasons or that have remained in the House or at committee indefinitely.

Here they are. Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued; Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), died on the order paper before the House had a chance to vote on it; Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), also died on the order paper. It is certainly not the opposition that forced the government to prorogue Parliament.

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, died on the order paper, and Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, on the faint hope clause, died on the order paper before being brought back this session. One committee meeting was held on Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, before it died on the order paper. Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), which is related to Bill C-59, the bill we are dealing with today, died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued. Bill C-58, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, died on the order paper. The prorogation of Parliament killed many bills.

Among the bills introduced by the Minister of Public Safety was Bill C-34, the Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, which also died on the order paper. The bill to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act died on the order paper. Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code, died on the order paper. Bill C-47, An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations, died on the order paper. Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole review) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, died on the order paper. Bill C-60, An Act to implement the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, died on the order paper.

To date, no meetings have been held to discuss Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), was given first reading 51 days after Parliament was prorogued, and the committee still has not met to discuss that bill.

Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), was fast-tracked at committee in just one meeting and still has not reached second reading. Bill C-22, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, was given first reading 64 days after Parliament was prorogued, and the government delayed it for 26 days at report stage because of the debate on the short title.

Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, was given first reading 89 days after Parliament was prorogued, and we are still waiting for the next step. Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (interception of private communications and related warrants and orders), was given first reading after 94 days, and we are still waiting. First reading of An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act took place 243 days after Parliament was prorogued. Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), was given first reading and nothing more.

Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children) only made it to first reading. Bill C-5, An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act was introduced at first reading by the Minister of Public Safety 15 days after prorogation. Two committee meetings were held and nothing has happened since. As for Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, we are still waiting. After a few meetings on the subject, the minister was supposed to come back with amendments that he felt were necessary in order to make the bill more comprehensive and definitely more respectful. Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts was introduced for first reading 104 days after prorogation and we still have not met in committee to discuss it. Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act was introduced for first reading 232 days after prorogation and there it remains. Bill C-52, An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations was also introduced for first reading 243 days after prorogation and we are waiting for the next step. The Senate introduced Bill S-7, An Act to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act for first reading 49 days after prorogation and we are still waiting for the next step. Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts was introduced for first reading in the Senate 60 days after prorogation. Bill S-13, An Act to implement the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America was introduced for first reading 237 days after prorogation.

I am pointing this out to prove that it is not the opposition parties that are slowing the process down. For all sorts of unknown reasons, the government introduces these bill and then goes no further with them.

To conclude, I would like to question the justification for Bill C-59 and the fact that the Conservatives and the Bloc felt this was urgent enough to warrant this closure motion, which is an affront to parliamentary dialogue.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to state for the record that this kind of situation must never happen ever again. At our last meeting, we heard from 10 witnesses, which did not leave us enough time for even one round of questions. In addition, I would like the speaking order to be respected.

If we are to hear from witnesses, we need to take the time to ask them questions and to listen to what they have to say. I want this message to be conveyed clearly to the members sitting opposite. They were responsible for the fact that we had 10 people on the witness list and that's unacceptable. I hope that this won't happen again. Even if it means we have to hold one or two more meetings, we need to do our job properly, as far as Bill C-31is concerned.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all parties and I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the House to receive the 27th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, setting out the membership for the legislative committee on Bill C-31.

Criminal Code

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add a few comments to this very important debate on Bill C-31. It is a rare omnibus bill before the House.

My colleague and our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, spoke on this matter and praised the government for finally bringing forward an omnibus bill dealing with a number of serious issues that ought not to be presented on an individual basis but, in fact, presented for collective consideration.

He has made the point on numerous other occasions that some of the bills introduced by the Conservative government should have been part of an omnibus bill and that it did not make sense to use the time of the House to bring forward very individual, specific pieces to this big puzzle that we are all trying to grapple with, which is how to best crack down on crime in this country and do so responsibly.

We stand in the House so often and hear Conservative members across the way accusing members on this side of the House of being soft on crime every time we dare question or debate a particular item. I hope they are learning from today's debate, both on Bill C-58 and now on Bill C-31, that the New Democratic Party gives very serious consideration to each bill that is before us. We analyze them thoroughly and make constructive suggestions.

On the basis of our analysis, we then choose whether to support a bill or not. If the positives outweigh any negatives and if we cannot get the perfect bill, we usually hold our noses and support the government of the day. In this case, we have said that this is a good bill. It addresses many important issues, but there is one area that has been identified by New Democrat members and also by members of the Bloc that needs to be reconsidered. It has to do with fingerprinting.

We are hoping that, by raising these concerns today in a very serious way with substantial backing and evidence, the government will consider our proposition and ensure that we can deal with this matter at committee.

In the past, members have given their support for the competition about the most wisest MP among us. Members in the House have collectively shown that they agree that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is the most wise and knowledgeable among us. In fact, he has come to the House on numerous occasions with very wise suggestions and other members have listened to him many times.

Today has to be one of those times. He makes the very important point that we in the House should not be supporting legislation that allows for the taking of fingerprints before a person is charged. I want to quote from his speech. He said:

The taking of fingerprints and this point of not being allowed to take fingerprints unless our police are going to charge an accused person goes way back. It has been in the Criminal Code for more than half a century, since shortly after we had the technology of fingerprinting. It goes way back into the last century.

I think the amendment that we will be proposing at committee needs to be taken very seriously. I am sure that the Bloc will be doing the same. In fact, we hope that will be considered on an expeditious basis because none of us want to see this bill held up. We know that it deals with numerous important issues like providing greater access to the telewarrant process for peace officers. It provides for a mandatory 10-day adjournment where notice provisions have not been followed.

It empowers each province to authorize programs and establish criteria outlining when an agent or a non-lawyer can represent a defendant. It expands the jurisdiction of Canadian courts to include bribery offences committed by Canadians outside Canada. It creates an offence of leaving the jurisdiction in violation of bail conditions. It permits a province to expand the list of permitted exceptions to the prize fighting offence. It updates the legislative language of parimutuel betting provisions.

It updates the provisions on interceptions of private communications in exceptional circumstances. It reclassifies six non-violent offences as hybrid offences. Finally, it deletes provisions of the Criminal Code that are no longer valid or correct, and clarifies wording in various provisions and makes minor updates to others.

That is a long list of important issues. We support 99.9% of this list. We want to see the bill passed to committee and implemented quickly.

We would like the government to seriously recognize the wisdom of my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh and others in the House for making an amendment on fingerprinting.

In the few minutes that I have remaining I want to talk just generally about the issue of crime and the approach that needs to be taken.

Too often, as I said earlier, we are accused of not giving prompt and swift attention to every procedure and every program presented to us by the Conservative government. Our biggest concern has to do with the fact that the government continues to take a narrow approach to the issue of crime and justice in our society today.

There is nothing wrong with putting dangerous offenders in jail and making sure they serve proper time. There is nothing wrong with making sure that we actually do everything possible to cut down on gang behaviour, drug dealing, the sex trade, and child pornography, which we just dealt with this morning, every issue that is offensive to our sense of what should and ought to be part of any kind of a civil society. Too little time in this place is spent on the root causes of crime.

I want to commend to all members in the House a study that was done in Winnipeg by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives entitled “If You Want to Change Violence in the 'Hood, You Have to Change the 'Hood: Violence and Street Gangs in Winnipeg's Inner City”. It was written by Elizabeth Comack, Lawrence Deane, Larry Morrissette and Jim Silver. What they say in one very brief phrase is that we must look at the root causes of crime as well as have the harsh consequences in place for those who commit the crime. All of the gang members who spoke to these researchers said repeatedly that we need to look at what caused them to get into a life of crime in the first place.

If we can start to look at the lack of inclusion, the poverty, the insecurity, the despair, the previous sexual violence that had been committed, and the root causes of crime, then we will have made a real difference.

I look forward to the government's approach on this very difficult and serious issue.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that there is a new offence being put in this Bill C-31.

The new offence is called “leaving the jurisdiction”. It has been created to target people who leave the jurisdiction in violation of bail conditions. I guess the problem is fairly big in B.C. with several hundred people hanging out in Vancouver. When they are approached by police officers, they find a huge number. I actually had the statistics, but I cannot find them right now. Of these 700 people had outstanding warrants in other provinces. Because the warrants are written up in such a way that they only cover a certain radius from where the crime occurred, they are unable to be sent back.

I would like to know, what does the member think of that particular idea, and has that been a problem in his riding in Quebec over the last number of years?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by pointing out that I am not a lawyer, but as people so often say, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Anyone who has observed the debates that have been taking place here, particularly for some time now, on the subject of order, justice and the law can see why so many lawyers get into politics. It is obvious. However, we sometimes need good accountants too—that was my previous profession—to help the government with its finances. That is an important thing to do.

In lawyer speak, it was “on or about” May 15, 2009, that the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-31 for first reading in the House of Commons. The enactment amends the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and makes a consequential amendment to the Canada Evidence Act.

There are a lot of things to talk about here. The bill contains nearly 40 amendments. I am going to run through a number of points, then come back to talk about some of them in greater detail. This bill deals with the telewarrant system, as some of my colleagues mentioned earlier. It proposes a mandatory 10-day adjournment when requirements for notice have not been fulfilled. It sets out criteria for determining when a representative can represent a defendant charged with a summary conviction offence. It authorizes fingerprinting and photographing and any other identification measure for persons who are in lawful custody but have not yet been charged. We will have to come back to that point.

It expands the jurisdiction of Canadian courts to include bribery offences committed by Canadians outside Canada. The bill creates an offence of leaving the jurisdiction in violation of bail conditions. It permits the list of permitted exceptions to the prize fighting offence to be expanded. It also updates Canada's pari-mutuel betting provisions. It updates the provisions on interceptions of private communications in exceptional circumstances. It reclassifies six non-violent offences as hybrid offences. This is another case where, sometimes, even though everyone is supposed to know the law, there can be some problems in how it is interpreted. That is what we are trying to clarify, of course. The bill also deletes provisions of the Criminal Code that are no longer valid, corrects or clarifies wording in various provisions and makes minor updates to other provisions.

That was a quick rundown of what this bill addresses, updates or amends. We do hope this will improve the situation. As I was saying earlier, when I asked my colleague a question, the government claims to have collaborated with its provincial and territorial partners to develop these legislative amendments in order to deal with the gaps in the legislation.

However, we, in the Bloc Québécois, intend to hear testimony from one or more representatives from Quebec to determine how much collaboration there in fact was and whether the conclusions are satisfactory to Quebec. Needless to say—but I will say it again nonetheless—the Bloc Québécois is here, in this House, primarily to defend the interests of Quebec and to promote its sovereignty in every jurisdiction of a sovereign government.

I will now to talk about the Bloc's position on Bill C-31. This bill makes a number of amendments, which I just listed. Although some of the amendments are interesting, namely on providing greater access to telewarrants or on bribery offences committed outside Canada, other amendments cause us some concern.

I am thinking, for instance, about the attempt to regulate in a roundabout way the legal profession, which falls within Quebec's jurisdiction, particularly by allowing the application of identification processes to detained individuals who have not yet been charged.

In the face of a bill that contains some good and some bad, the Bloc Québécois will maintain its approach. We will review the bill carefully and in good faith in committee, put forward amendments as required and, then, determine whether or not to support the bill in its final form.

An analysis of the bill makes it evident that several substantive and technical changes are being made to the Criminal Code.

Let us take a moment to get into a few specific aspects.

Regarding telewarrants, clause 2 of the bill introduces the telewarrant procedure for the purpose of seizing weapons. The procedure is outlined for issuing telewarrants whether the application is made by a means of telecommunication that produces a writing or not.

The use of telewarrants is also introduced with respect to offences in connection with to disorderly houses, gaming and betting, special minerals and production orders.

With respect to another aspect, namely fleeing to another province, clause 5 of the bill creates a distinct offence for persons who are at large on an undertaking or recognizance and flee outside their province of residence.

Then, there is the 10-day adjournment, which was explained in greater detail earlier. Clause 30 of the bill amends the current rules on the requirement for one party to notify the other of its intent to call an expert witness. Subclause 2 of the provision amending subsections 653.3(4) and 653.3(5) of the Criminal Code sets at 10 days the minimum period of adjournment ordered by the court whenever the prescribed notice has not been given. This time period may be reduced by consent of the parties.

Coming back to agents other than counsel, clauses 31, 32 and 33 of the bill amend the rules on the ability of an agent other than counsel to appear, examine and cross-examine witnesses for and on behalf of the defendant.

The proposed amendments would give each province the power to establish criteria outlining when an agent, or non-lawyer, can represent a defendant charged with a summary offence, a less serious offence that involves fewer procedural requirements. These amendments would allow different approaches depending on the maximum term of imprisonment associated with the offence, among other things. The proposed amendments would, however, allow agents to appear on behalf of defendants to seek an adjournment of summary proceedings, regardless of the maximum term of imprisonment.

As I said earlier, the provinces and Quebec are responsible for regulating professions. Furthermore, Quebec and the provinces also have jurisdiction over professional regulations for lawyers, as part of the administration of justice in the provinces and in Quebec. This is something, as I mentioned before, that the Barreau du Québec is concerned about.

According to the Department of Justice, under current law, it is an offence to have any involvement in prize fighting, defined as an “encounter or fight with fists or hands”, except for amateur boxing under authority of the province.

Many amateur sporting events, even those without monetary prizes, are technically included in this offence. The proposed amendments would expand the list of permitted exceptions to the prize-fighting offence so that amateur combative sports such as judo and karate, which are now Olympic events, would be allowed. The amendments would also permit a province to decide whether to expand the list of sports permitted to take place within that province and authorize specific contests.

Another thing the Barreau du Québec is worried about is the identification of individuals who have not been charged. Clause 39 of the bill amends paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Identification of Criminals Act, which authorizes the fingerprinting and photographing of persons who are in lawful custody but who have not yet been charged or convicted of a specific offence, which means that such information regarding someone who has been detained but not charged would be on file.

The Identification of Criminals Act stipulates that law enforcement officials can take photographs, fingerprints and measurements of only certain categories of individuals. Those categories are set out in subsection 2(1) of the act:

The following persons may be fingerprinted or photographed or subjected to such other measurements, processes and operations having the object of identifying persons as are approved by order of the Governor in Council:

(a) any person who is in lawful custody charged with or convicted of

(i) an indictable offence, other than an offence that is designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act in respect of which the Attorney General, within the meaning of that Act, has made an election under section 50 of that Act, or

(ii) an offence under the Security of Information Act;

I would like say something here as an aside. There is a principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. However, when we read excerpts of legislation, we realize they can be rather difficult to understand. It takes some careful reflection. That is in fact what we want the committee to do, when it receives the bill.

The Bloc Québécois has full confidence in its representatives on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, both the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. We fully trust them to interpret things that often sound like mumbo jumbo to us.

I will continue reading the list of people specified in the act:

(b) any person who has been apprehended under the Extradition Act;

(c) any person alleged to have committed an indictable offence, other than an offence that is designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act in respect of which the Attorney General, within the meaning of that Act, has made an election under section 50 of that Act...

I will skip a short passage, because I fear I will not get to a very important part, regarding the concerns expressed by the Barreau du Québec.

Clause 39 of Bill C-31 aims to amend this situation by replacing subsection 2(1)(a) of the Identification of Criminals Act with the following:

any person who is in lawful custody after being arrested for [that is the part being added], charged with or convicted of

I will not read out the offences as I did earlier.

In short, with this bill, which primarily addresses this sphere of activity, the government is trying to circumvent the requirement for a person to be charged or convicted by bringing in a far less restrictive criterion stating that the person need only be arrested. As such, identifying information may be taken from a person arrested for an offence other than an offence designated as a contravention before that person is even charged with anything.

I would like to discuss the main issues, which are the concerns expressed by the Barreau du Québec. The Barreau du Québec's criminal law committee reviewed Bill C-31 and submitted its observations and comments on, among other things, telewarrants. To sum up, it said that this system would completely reform and modernize the criminal law process in Canada, which is what the government wants to achieve. However, even though the Barreau du Québec supports the introduction of this measure, it is concerned about how the government is going about it. For example, it believes that it would have been better to amend the section of the Criminal Code that deals with issuing search warrants to state that telewarrant rules apply in all cases, rather than making piecemeal changes.

I will now talk about agents other than lawyers. The Barreau says that regulating professions is a provincial responsibility. In addition, regulating the legal profession is also part of the provinces' responsibility for the administration of justice at the provincial level. The Barreau du Québec states that under the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec, pleading or acting for others before any tribunal is the exclusive prerogative of the practising advocate. There is already a jurisdictional problem here, and the Barreau is afraid that the proposal, as written, will create confusion as to the meaning of “agent” and could give rise to prosecutions for practising law illegally.

The Barreau du Québec also has serious concerns about identification. It is worried about the possibility of keeping a record on someone who is in custody but has not yet been charged. The Barreau considers this an extraordinary power that is currently used only in cases of terrorism. It is also concerned about the real risk that fingerprints taken under such circumstances could be used for purposes other than the ones for which they were intended. The legislative proposal broadens the use of other identification processes, but does not control the use of digital fingerprints before charges are laid and does not set rules for keeping and destroying such information. With regard to genetic fingerprints, I would remind the House that a mechanism for automatically destroying identifying material on innocent people has been introduced.

The Barreau considers that keeping a record on someone has consequences and that that is why such treatment is currently reserved for individuals who have been charged or convicted. Of course, the Barreau du Québec has concerns.

Although the Bloc Québécois sees good things in this bill and is in favour of some of the amendments, it also sees some more biased elements. We will be sure to work with the committee to amend and clarify the bill as needed so that Quebeckers are better protected against crime, but also against the Conservative government.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-31.

As a follow up to the minister's final comments when he seemed to suggest that it has to be left up to the accused to request the destruction of the fingerprints if no charges are laid, I cannot really agree with what he is proposing. I think what will happen over time is that the accused will simply forget to do it and the police will basically build a database. We have to make it a requirement.

Perhaps we could do both. We could make it a requirement that the police do it, but also have some sort of reminder for the accused to do the same. It would be a pincer movement to make sure it is done two ways. If one does not work, the other one will.

Bill C-31 is quite large. There are 39 pages to it. It is an omnibus bill. Normally we do not like omnibus bills. History shows that omnibus bills are something that governments tend to use. I am aware of one government in Manitoba a number of years ago that was great at bringing in omnibus bills. It would put in a bunch of things we liked and it would stick in some poison pills that we did not like. It was certainly a real conundrum as to how to vote on those types of bills.

That was my first experience with omnibus bills. I am sure they have been around for many years, but certainly that was one government that used them very effectively. The Conservative government has managed to do the same. In the year I have been here I have seen them a couple of times.

The NDP justice critic informs me that in the case of making legal changes, an omnibus bill approach is a good idea. As a matter of fact, he has suggested that he would actually like to see the government do more of these things. I do not think I am going to become a convert any time soon on the idea that the government should be encouraged to bring in more omnibus bills, but evidently, and I know there are a lot of learned lawyers in the chamber, in the area of crime, the NDP justice critic thinks it is a good approach.

We are dealing with some 40 changes. I want to say at the outset that we will be supporting sending this bill to committee. There is one major issue where I can see that all of the opposition parties are going to have a problem. The government probably would have known that in advance. It is the whole issue of fingerprinting. I have been reading over some of the previous speeches on the bill and pretty much everybody has focused on the fingerprinting parts of the bill. Perhaps the committee will resolve that issue with some amendments.

There are a couple of sleeper amendments that I personally would be not too happy about. They do not seem to have drawn a lot of ire from other members at this point, but there may be members in the opposition or even in my own party who may dislike some of the other provisions of this bill and may want to make some amendments.

The whole idea of the bill is to modernize the criminal justice procedures. We want to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system as an integral part of the Government of Canada's commitment to ensuring the safety and security of communities across Canada.

Through continual modernization of criminal procedures, the Government of Canada is creating a justice system that can respond to changes in criminal activity and constant evolution of technology, and certainly that is a point. We are dealing with that in the computer areas, struggling with this issue in the child pornography bill that we have just sent to committee as well as in Bill C-27 that is coming up. There is this whole area of technology, the huge changes in technology, and with it the criminals seem to just simply adapt. Sort of like the viruses, they adapt to the new realities, the new environment. They actually improve on their techniques, and crime continues. So, we do have to update the law. It is a constant battle.

As a matter of fact, the entire Criminal Code is probably in for a rewrite. It is quite ancient, quite old and it certainly needs a lot of work done on it. Perhaps rather than just simply constantly working on a piecemeal basis, the member opposite, who I know is listening right now, I am sure would be agreeable to get together. We are in a minority Parliament here. Perhaps the government should announce a plan to rewrite the whole Criminal Code with a view that in two or three years, or however long it would take, at the end of the day we could come up with a new, modernized Criminal Code that would perhaps be a little more understandable to people in the country.

The government has worked closely with its provincial and territorial partners to create 40 legislative amendments.The fact of the matter is that working with the provinces is a very important part. I know that on a government-to-government basis it is oftentimes very difficult to work with the provinces, because we are dealing with 10 different points of view, and sometimes that can lead to a lot of problems. It is easier for a federal government to simply bring in its own initiatives, even for provinces. However, sometimes in a province, when we bring in an initiative, it then causes a problem, a spillover effect into the next jurisdiction.

So, as much as possible, it is very important for provinces to get together as groups or to co-operate with the federal government. That, by necessity, often results in a very slow and bogged-down process, although I have seen some big improvements, certainly in the last couple of years in Manitoba with the Manitoba justice minister Mr. Chomiak and with Gord Mackintosh actually taking a very strong position on various crime initiatives and driving the agenda through their provincial associations and actually getting results here in Ottawa. That, to me, was proof that one little province, if it is determined and wants to push a certain agenda, can actually get results, even with Ottawa.

So, I do commend the government for actively working with the provinces. I think it should continue to do that, because out of that process, we have developed quite a few good initiatives, even over the last couple of years.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, the Identification of Criminals Act, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Canada Evidence Act will all help to ensure that Canada's laws continue to protect Canadians.

The flight offence is an interesting one. Basically this is a new offence that would target individuals who leave a jurisdiction in violation of the bail conditions. This would create a clear deterrent to fleeing a jurisdiction and would establish a record of such behaviour. Having access to this record would help prevent the release of an accused person who has, in the past, failed to abide by conditions to stay within a jurisdiction. As well, the onus would be placed on the accused to justify why he or she should be subsequently released on bail. In addition, more time may be made available for the arranging for the return of the accused to the originating jurisdiction for trial.

What that really means is that a certain area of the country, in this particular case British Columbia, and I have this in my notes, has, I believe, 700 people hanging out who are wanted on outstanding warrants in other parts of the country. I remember seeing on television and reading in the papers in the last couple of years how authorities had developed this program through which they were providing people with bus fares and sending them back to Ontario or wherever they came from. Now they have a program backed by the business community to return the people to the jurisdictions that they came from, but I believe they are turning them over to the police force. Before they would just put them on a bus and get them out of B.C. They could, of course, simply hide where they went to as well, but this would turn them over to authorities.

What was happening was that a lot of the warrants the police had for the people they were finding in B.C. covered a very limited area. The warrant was written out, for example, for shoplifting and it applied perhaps within a radius of 50 miles of Brockville or Belleville, but of course now the person was in B.C. The authorities looked at this warrant and found they could not do anything about it because they were outside the jurisdiction. So this is probably a very good provision. As I said, it is a new offence and hopefully it will take care of some of this because we should not be tolerating people shoplifting and doing other crimes and then just simply heading out of the province to hide, hoping they never get caught.

These amendments, as I indicated, are the result of an initiative led by British Columbia in a federal-provincial-territorial working group that was endorsed by ministers responsible for justice, in September 2008. That was just September 2008, and we are only a year down the road and already dealing with legislation. Who says that a minority government cannot work? I say that to the government members, but we also have the element of the Senate to deal with, so that is a different issue.

The next part of the bill deals with the identification of criminals. The Identification of Criminals Act does not currently authorize police officers to fingerprint or photograph individuals in lawful custody until they are charged or convicted. This often results in unnecessary delays, according to the police and the government, and can prolong an accused individual's stay at the police station.

The proposed amendments would streamline the process by adding the authority to fingerprint and photograph an individual who is in lawful custody involving an arrest but who is not yet charged. So once again, this is extremely controversial. It will perhaps be amended or deleted at committee, but at a bare minimum, it would have to be amended so that the police themselves would be required to destroy fingerprints that were taken. If doing that is not required, and it is left up to the accused, over time people are going to forget about this and it is not going to be done. If we have time at the end we will come back to this fingerprinting issue, because there are 40 parts to this bill and I am probably halfway through my allotted time at this point.

As for telewarrants, this sounds like a fairly reasonable position. The telewarrants will allow police officers to apply for search and seizure-related warrants by providing information to a justice of the peace on oath via telephone or other means of telecommunications. This is going to save the travel and wait time it would take if the officer had to apply in person. I can certainly see that in the northern parts of the country this should be a huge improvement, rather than having to drive 100 miles at 3 a.m. to get a warrant. The telewarrant system probably should be in place.

Under the current system, telewarrants are available only when it is impractical for the officer to appear in person and are available only on certain types of warrants, so once again, if the officer can drive the 100 miles, then that is what he or she is required to do. This change is going to make doing that optional, so that the officer can simply get the telewarrant instead.

The proposed amendments would eliminate the need to satisfy the impracticality requirement in cases where the telewarrant request is submitted in writing. The amendments would also expand the availability of telewarrants to public officers. These are officials who enforce federal non-Criminal Code legislation but who are not police officers.

Then there are provisions with regard to expert witness evidence. Certainly there is another provision dealing with the use of non-lawyers, and I might spend a minute or two talking about that.

When individuals are charged with summary offences, which are less serious offences that involve fewer procedural requirements, it is important that they have access to adequate representation. The proposed amendments would give each province the power to authorize programs and establish criteria outlining when an agent or non-lawyer can represent a defendant charged with a summary offence.

These amendments would allow for different approaches, depending upon the maximum term of imprisonment associated with the offence, among other things. The proposed amendments would, however, allow agents to appear on behalf of defendants to seek an adjournment of summary proceedings, regardless of the maximum term of imprisonment.

I do want to spend some time talking about the prize-fighting amendments to this bill. Under the current law, it is an offence to have any involvement in prize fighting, defined as an encounter or fight with fists or hands, except for amateur boxing, under the authority of the province. Once again, here we are dealing basically with the devolution of letting the provinces decide.

Many amateur sports, even those without monetary prizes, are technically included in the offence. The proposed amendments would expand the list of permitted exceptions to the prize-fighting offence so that the amateur combative sports such as judo and karate, currently in the Olympic program, would be allowed. The amendments would also permit a province to decide whether to expand the list of sports permitted to take place within the province and authorize specific contests.

Now we get to the issue of mixed martial arts fighting, which many members have seen take off in North America. It is a big deal and is certainly popular. I believe most provinces still ban it, but by approving this legislation, what we are doing is giving the provinces the right to approve these mixed martial arts. Senator John McCain once described mixed martial arts, which is a whirlwind mix of jiu-jitsu, judo, karate, boxing, kick-boxing and wrestling, as human cockfighting, so he obviously did not like it.

Just before I run out of time, a news report talked about Canada's love of hockey brawls. The company that promotes this fighting claimed that men between the ages of 18 and 35 have attention spans that are too short to watch 15 rounds of boxing, so mixed martial arts have bouts that usually last no more than 15 minutes, which are made for today's video culture.

Just before I finish, I just want to point out that with football players today, we are finding traumatic brain injuries. We are finding that football players are dying in greater numbers at young ages after they retire. We are finding, for example, that some wrestlers have the demented brains of 80-year-olds.

Clearly there are a lot of things we have to look at here within our existing sports, without promoting even more sporting activities like this, which could have even worse consequences.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to offer my strong support for Bill C-31, which would amend the Criminal Code and other acts, in order to make our justice system more efficient.

To fight crime and ensure the safety of Canadians, we need a justice system that reflects our reality, that allows us to use technology effectively, that adapts to scientific advances, to changes in the nature of evidence and scientific procedures, and that operates as efficiently as possible, while still remaining fair and equitable.

This bill is another concrete measure that demonstrates our government's ongoing commitment to fighting crime in the most effective and advanced way possible.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Justice for his continued efforts and for recognizing that making minor changes and reforming outdated procedures can also make a difference.

I would also like to take this opportunity to look at what effect some of these proposals would have on the work of the public servants who also help provide security and protection for Canadians.

Public officers are not police officers. Their primary responsibility is the enforcement of non-criminal offences covered by federal legislation other than the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. One proposed amendment would give public officers the same authority as police to deal with goods seized under section 489.1, bearing in mind that they both have the same authority to conduct searches.

At present, subsection 489.1(1), which deals with the return of seized goods, only applies to peace officers and allows them to return the goods seized directly to a person when there is no dispute as to ownership of the goods and if the goods do not need to be kept as evidence.

Subsection 489.1(2) applies to anyone who is not a peace officer and requires that they bring the goods seized before a justice of the peace or that they retain them until the justice orders that they be returned to the lawful owner.

Under these sections, a peace officer can seize an item in situ, or on the spot, in order to examine it and return it to the owner, if he is convinced that the item need not be retained as evidence.

In the same circumstances, a public officer exercising his authority under section 487 would have to bring the item before a justice or retain it until it can be reported to a justice or until the justice authorizes its return. In situ seizure under a warrant is becoming an increasingly common practice in a regulatory context because search warrants are used to investigate quasi-criminal matters often pertaining to equipment that is impossible to move in an industrial workplace or similar setting.

Another amendment would specify that the peace officer or public officer who fills out report 5.2, the report to a justice of the peace, can have another person file it under subsection 489.1(1). When the peace officer has seized items and has subsequently returned them to the lawful owner, he must report it to a justice of the peace, on Criminal Code form 5.2.

This addition will save a great deal of time for an administration that has employees in the court house, because they will be in a position to file the documents in question rather than the peace officer or public officer who completed them.

The bill also includes a new provision that will permit the release of any items seized by the police for scientific examination before the trial. The current provisions allow for the release of such items for scientific examination only at the trial stage, which often delays the trial, and is particularly difficult and inefficient in cases of trial by jury.

The new provision will allow items seized to be released before the trial with the court's permission and on the condition that appropriate measures are taken to ensure that they are properly preserved.

The provisions of the Criminal Code regarding prize fights must also be amended in order to exclude legitimate amateur sports, specifically, karate, judo, tae kwon do and wushu, which have emerged since the last amendment in 1932. Some of these sports are included in the International Olympic Committee program, which means that the international, national and provincial sports organizations in question are dedicated to the values and requirements of the IOC in matters of safety. From now on, amateur sports included in the IOC program will be excluded from the definition of “prize fighting” and the provinces can impose conditions on holding fights for these sports if they so choose.

Furthermore, the provinces could exclude any other amateur sport from the application of section 83 and could also impose conditions on holding fights for these sports. These amendments are the result of extensive consultations with the provinces and territories in 2003 and 2004, as well as consultations with national sports organizations at various times since 1998 when the issue was first brought to the government's attention.

In addition, amendments to the pari-mutuel provisions will clarify the federal government's responsibility for permitting and monitoring legitimate pari-mutuel betting on horse races. These amendments will eliminate the unnecessary power to limit the number of races on which bets can be placed at a race-course in Canada. The amendments will also allow race-courses to harmonize their method of calculating payouts with others in the “foreign race pool” when they accept bets on horse races that take place outside of Canada.

These amendments will enable Canadians to place lower bets than what is currently permitted, which will improve their chances of winning without having to spend more money.

The bill also contains an amendment to better preserve the impartiality of jurors by allowing the court to exclude jurors—on application or on its own motion—from the court room in the case of a challenge for cause. Currently, only the defence can make such an application.

This bill also amends telewarrant provisions. For example, three changes will be made to the current telewarrant system. First, the convenience criterion has been removed, except for telewarrants requested orally—in other words, by means of telecommunication that does not produce a writing. Second, access to telewarrants will be expanded. Third, public officers will now be permitted to use telewarrants.

We have also proposed eliminating the convenience criterion in the case of requests submitted in writing because of technological progress and the reliability of modern means of telecommunication. The telewarrant system enables more efficient use of justice system resources, especially the police. These amendments will save time by making it unnecessary for police officers to go to court to submit a warrant request in person, thereby giving them more time to spend on investigations.

With respect to oral telewarrants, our provincial and territorial partners have observed that requiring police officers to express their reasons in writing promotes the provision of complete and well-organized information for the judge's consideration.

It will now be possible to obtain the following warrants: warrants respecting the seizure of weapons, ammunition and explosive devices; search and seizure warrants in offences related to gambling, betting and stolen minerals; production orders for documents and business records; tracking warrants; and warrants with respect to number recorders.

Police and public officials could request a greater number of warrants by using this process, which would no doubt be beneficial to them. This will be particularly useful for federal public officials, who would otherwise have to make special arrangements in order to show up in person at various locations across the country to secure warrants. This makes the job easier.

This bill also proposes reclassifying certain Criminal Code offences as hybrid offences. This reclassification would convert an offence punishable by summary conviction or indictment under the Criminal Code into a hybrid offence. This allows the prosecution to proceed either by indictment or by summary conviction, whichever it deems most suitable under the circumstances of the case.

We feel that these changes are necessary and quite useful since they give the prosecution more latitude by allowing it to choose the most appropriate procedure for the case at hand. This will considerably simplify the administration of justice and deliver on the government's commitment to make Canada's criminal justice system more efficient.

I would also like to mention that reclassification has no impact on the seriousness of the offences in question. All it does—and I want to stress this—is allow the Crown to choose the procedure for prosecuting the alleged offender. For example, a criminal offence that becomes a hybrid offence can still be prosecuted by indictment if, under the circumstances, a more complex procedure, including a preliminary inquiry and a jury trial, is warranted. However, when the facts of the case do not warrant the full procedure or a heavier penalty, it is possible to prosecute the offence by summary conviction.

It is important that the procedure used reflect the seriousness of the offence and that we make the best use of the court's time and resources. Reclassification offers greater flexibility, making it possible to choose the most appropriate procedure under the circumstances and to increase the efficiency of our criminal justice system. The defence will still have the right to a preliminary inquiry or a jury trial where a full procedure is warranted.

This bill also includes changes to the expert witness regime. Once again, these changes are necessary because the time currently set out in the Criminal Code for communicating expert reports is sometimes not enough to allow the other party to respond appropriately to what is frequently becoming complex and highly technical evidence.

To respond to expert witness evidence, it is generally necessary to find and hire an expert in the particular field, brief that person on the case, obtain transcripts and so on. The changes make various improvements to the regime. First, to encourage compliance with the notice requirements in the Criminal Code, the bill provides for a mandatory 10-day adjournment if these requirements are not met. Second, so that all the parties are prepared to respond to expert evidence, the bill provides for a discretionary adjournment when the notice requirements have been met, but the other party has not had enough time to prepare.

Third, the Criminal Code will contain a list of factors the court must consider in deciding whether to grant an adjournment or to lengthen or shorten an adjournment that has already been granted. These factors are meant to reflect the challenges associated with a trial involving expert testimony.

Lastly, the court will have to explain if it refuses to grant an adjournment or reduce the period of adjournment. The new measures will also help the courts in rendering decisions. These changes would enable the courts to make enlightened decisions that are adapted to different cases of non-compliance and would encourage parties to adhere to the notice provisions.

These changes will not generate any additional obligations on the defence. Both parties' obligations will remain the same. The changes would simply improve the expert evidence regime in the Criminal Code to ensure that the parties can respond appropriately to the expert testimony, by providing new measures that the court can take if there is insufficient time, and to encourage parties to adhere to the notice provisions in the Criminal Code.

We know that the Identification of Criminals Act does not authorize police officers to fingerprint or photograph individuals in lawful custody until they have been charged or convicted, which often results in unnecessary delays.

Some people have called for the enforcement of this legislation to be simplified and clarified. That is what our proposed changes would do. The proposed amendments would streamline this process by adding the authority to fingerprint and photograph an individual who is in lawful custody following an arrest, but not yet charged.

For example, if the individual is not charged with an offence, if the charges are dropped or if the individual is acquitted, we know that many police forces destroy fingerprints and photographs at the request of the person involved, if the person is not found guilty. The courts have ruled that it is not unreasonable for police forces to retain fingerprints if no request is made for them to be destroyed or returned after charges are dropped.

I have listed some examples covered by this bill. It is important to note that the bill includes about 40 amendments that will all help improve, streamline and modernize our justice system. I urge all members to fully support this bill.