Bill C-36 (Historical)

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Criminal Code with regard to the right of persons convicted of murder or high treason to be eligible to apply for early parole.

Child Protection Act (Online Sexual Exploitation)

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate at second reading of Bill C-58, the latest bill the government has brought forward.

It struck me as peculiar that the bill was just tabled and, all of a sudden, it is before the House for debate without briefing notes from the minister, without a legislative summary, and without consultation or somehow engaging the members to consider the issue before us.

The issue is not really about Internet laws, but about the protection of children. That is what the bill is about. If we put it in that context, we will understand that this specific bill relating to child protection is a very small piece of the discussion. That concerns me, and I think that concern is slowly emerging.

We are at second reading of this bill. The reason I wanted to rise is that I would like to encourage members to put on the table as many recommendations as possible for committee to consider, not just this very narrow bill as it stands. We need to examine how this bill could have been part of a comprehensive approach to child protection beyond simply dealing with those who happen to detect child pornography on a computer, whether they be individuals or organizations.

When I saw the penalties for a first offence, in this particular case a $1,000, I thought, “My goodness, child pornography probably generates millions of dollars, so the $1,000 just does not seem to be in the ball park”. My premise is that if one is not part of the solution, then one must be part of the problem.

The previous speaker from the Bloc raised for members' consideration the issue of prevention and, of course, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection raised the need for us to do much more.

Whenever a criminal justice bill is before the House, not being a lawyer, I can enjoy the luxury of asking, what do I know about and how do I feel about this bill and what does it do to address the problem before us? I look at the issue that we are talking about and why we are doing what we propose and the elements of penalties and incarceration that are included. I also ask what are the issues with regard to rehabilitation, if possible, and what are the issues with regard to prevention?

I say this because when we talk about criminal justice issues, we have to deal with them before and after we have the problem. We know from all of the work that has ever been done on health and justice issues and from wherever we have social problems that understanding and admitting that we have a problem is the first step. The next step has to be, how do we prevent some of these problems?

I should say at the outset that the bill, in its narrow way, is worthwhile sending to committee and, I suspect, supporting to become law. But it is so narrow in its approach, it is tinkering. How many times have we asked why does the government not come forward with comprehensive legislation that actually addresses the issue? The issue is child protection, and we have problems there.

When I looked at the speech by the Minister of State for the Status of Women, who gave the government's position, I am pretty sure that somebody wrote it for her. Nonetheless, at least two or three times it mentions that Canada has “one of the most comprehensive frameworks in the world to combat child pornography” and that “we can and must do better”. A little later in the speech, the minister continued that “Canadian criminal laws against child pornography are among the most comprehensive in the world and apply to representations involving real and imaginary children”. That point is later repeated.

We can say that is the truth, but if Canadians look at the statistics, they should know that 39% of those accessing child pornography are viewing images of children between the ages of three and five years of age, and 19% are viewing images of infants under three years old. The public does not really know that, but we should consider that we are talking about a significant problem of children five years of age or younger. The vast majority of this problem is among children five years of age or younger.

Why does the government not ask itself how is it that a child five years or under could actually be a victim of child pornography? Can we imagine our own children being involved in this? If so, why? If not, why not? From our knowledge and experience, we know collectively the conditions that are fertile for bad or wrong things happening. We understand those things, but we are tinkering here. We have a serious problem. The minister of state admits it, but also says that we have the most comprehensive framework to deal with it. Well, we do not.

When we have a problem as pervasive as this, we can look back at some of the history of it and recall that we had a joint Commons-Senate report entitled “For the Sake of the Children”. It dealt with issues of family breakdown and recommended, for example, that if there were a custody dispute in an acrimonious divorce, there must be a parenting plan in place before a divorce can be granted by the courts. That was a joint Commons-Senate report done years ago.

It never happened. I have spent a fair bit of time working on children's issues. I wrote a book called The Child Poverty Solution dealing with the causes of child poverty. Child poverty is one of those things that tugs on the heart. Who could be against dealing with child poverty? However, it is family poverty, because every child in a poor family is poor. Why are families poor? On a scale divided into quartiles, no matter how much anybody makes, somebody will be in the fourth quartile.

Under the definition we have right now, if one is in the fourth quartile, one is basically counted as being among Canada's poor. Poverty needs a definition, but I am not going to get into that because the bill is not about child poverty other than the fact that such poverty is a contributing factor to a child being accessible and vulnerable to being a victim of child pornography.

I wrote another book called Divorce—The Bold Facts, which also dealt with family breakdown and the impact on children. The research that I did was just amazing. The implications for children of family breakdown are enormous. Where those children end up and the quality of care they get and the circumstances they have to live in, tell me that these are fertile areas for bad things to happen.

I wrote another book called Strong Families... Make a Strong Country dealing with the same thing. It showed statistically that the intact family, a child with a biological mother and biological father, had the least incidence of bad outcomes for children. The statistics show this out; it is not a subjective opinion. It is subjectively determinative, and this has been shown so many times. Another related book I wrote was called TRAGIC TOLERANCE... of Domestic Violence.

I am wearing my white ribbon because we are talking right now about an area that is extremely important. Domestic violence and violence against women are still rampant in our country. I spent five years on the board of my shelter for battered women, called Interim Place, and helped them get a second shelter built. However, I am hoping that these shelters will go out of business. In a perfect world, we would not need shelters for women and children who are abused.

We just considered Bill C-36, the bill dealing with the faint hope clause. Here, four out of the six women who applied for the faint hope clause were abused women who had killed their husbands and been convicted of first degree murder. All of them had children. Four of the six who applied actually were granted early parole, and while they still have a life sentence, they were granted early parole because of the compassionate understanding that bad things happen. In a couple of those cases, the husband was having an affair on the side and there were other consequential things, but there was a first degree murder. It is terrible that murder occurs, but Bill C-36 eliminates the opportunity for parole after 15 years. It says that if someone commits first degree murder, that person is going to serve 25 years before he or she gets the first opportunity for parole. Can we imagine what that does to a family with children? I do not understand why repeal of the faint hope clause is going to happen. I do not support the elimination of faint hope, but that is not before us right now.

I have said so many times in this place that public education—

Justice and Human Rights

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted in committee on Wednesday, November 25, 2009, the committee has considered the matter concerning a request for documents pertaining to Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, and has agreed to report the matter to the House.

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare the amendment lost.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the question is on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-36. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh to the motion at third reading of Bill C-36.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from November 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Very briefly, I'll simply give my thoughts on whether or not the motion that Mr. Comartin has raised here relates to parliamentary privilege.

In my mind, it definitely does. Members of this committee, while conducting a study on a bill, in this case Bill C-36, properly asked questions of one of the witnesses. The witness said he had the information to be able to answer the questions but not in his physical possession at that time. He was then asked if he could provide that information to the members of the committee through the chair before November 16, as we were going to clause-by-clause at that time. The witness clearly stated that, yes, he could do so.

On November 16 we presented ourselves for clause-by-clause, and some members asked where the information was from that witness. They were informed that the information had been sent to their offices, that it had been distributed to all members.

In answer to Mr. Moore's statement, those members, having being informed they were in possession of the information they felt they needed to properly conduct their duties and responsibilities as parliamentarians and proceed to clause-by-clause as it would inform their decisions on the clause-by-clause, did not make an issue of it because they assumed the fault was theirs or that of their staff.

It was only once we had completed clause-by-clause that we were informed, or at least some members were informed, that this information had been available but had been...I hesitate to use the word “diverted”, but had landed in the office of the minister and had not been distributed to members of this committee. Therefore, these members, Mr. Comartin in particular and Mr. Lemay, proceeded to clause-by-clause based on erroneous information.

I believe it does relate to parliamentary privilege. We have a duty and a responsibility to do what we feel is necessary to prepare ourselves when we're conducting a study of legislation in that particular case. Some members felt they needed certain information prior to feeling comfortable to moving to clause-by-clause. They were informed they would get the information. In fact, they did not get it but were misinformed that they had gotten the information.

My view is that it does relate to parliamentary privilege and to a potential breach of parliamentary privilege.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are one or two members who weren't here at the last meeting, so I'll just do this quick overview.

I and Mr. Lemay had asked for certain data from Mr. Don Head, Head of Corrections Canada. He in fact had provided that. I now have information, which I didn't have then, that on November 13, having committed to do that for us in advance of the clause-by-clause meeting on Bill C-36 on November 16, unfortunately he sent the letter, although it was addressed to the clerk of this committee, to the minister's office of Public Safety and National Security. That letter then sat there until it was handed to me yesterday; I received a copy of it from the government House leader yesterday. I believe it has been now delivered today to all members of the committee. This is the advice from my office this afternoon, anyway.

So we have finally received it. Of course, we received it after clause-by-clause and after the debate took place in the House on Monday and Tuesday of this week. There was absolutely no reason given, either by Mr. Head or the minister's office, and the minister himself, as to why the material wasn't provided to us as had been promised and undertaken by Mr. Head in the meeting when he attended on November 4.

There is, I think, ample precedent, Mr. Chair, for the fact that when that type of undertaking is given it is to be complied with by a public servant. If Mr. Head felt that he was under some compunction or compulsion to give that to the minister before it got to this committee, I'm not sure where he would have come by that. That's not the proper process. But at the very least, if he passed it on to the minister's office, the minister's office should have been responsible for getting it to this committee in a timely fashion, as had been committed to this committee.

If they couldn't have done that, Mr. Chair, they should have advised the committee and the committee could have taken appropriate steps to ensure that the material was before us before we conducted clause-by-clause by adjourning clause-by-clause to a later date until the information was received.

The information clearly was pertinent. I say that from having only had some time to go over it. It was clearly pertinent to the issues that were contained in Bill C-36 and it would have been very much pointed to, at least by me and Mr. Lemay, as to why Bill C-36 should not have proceeded as prepared.

Mr. Chair, again, for maybe a couple of the members who weren't here on Monday, what is required at this point, if I can go ahead with my point of privilege in the House, is for this committee to send a report to the House to advise the Speaker, who has authority to determine whether in fact there has been a breach of my parliamentary privilege and that of Mr. Lemay's, and I think of the committee as a whole. In order for the Speaker to be able to determine that, the Speaker has to have a report from us as to what in fact occurred. And, again, I had given the committee a summary of the report that I thought was appropriate. I read that into the record on Monday afternoon at our last meeting.

In addition, there is some urgency on this, as I again made the point on Monday. If you are going to pursue a point of privilege, you have to pursue it at the first opportunity. For me, that opportunity arose on Monday morning when I found out that in fact this material that I and Mr. Lemay had requested and committed to receive had never been delivered to us, as I had been informed previously, and as I understand some other members of the committee had. We in fact never got it. We were advised that it had been given to us. We thought we had simply misplaced it or we had simply not seen it.

I became aware that it had never been received and that the minister's office had somehow intervened in this process. My time in bringing my point of privilege started running on Monday. I think the general rule is that you should get this before the House within a day or two. This is now the second day, I suppose you could argue maybe even the third day. The Speaker has made it clear in the past, not only this Speaker but others, that you must move on this quickly.

So it's absolutely essential that we deal with this today, that we issue the report, get it back to the House either tomorrow or Friday, so I can bring my point of privilege before the House.

Bill C-36

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I present this motion on behalf of my colleague the chief government whip. There have been discussions between all parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, if the recorded division on the amendment to the third reading motion of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code is negatived, the Speaker shall immediately put the question on the third reading motion of Bill C-36 without further debate or amendment.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise here to speak to a bill for the second time today, but first of all, I must say I will probably be less critical of Bill C-31 than I was, and I will continue to be, of Bill C-36, if that bill ever comes back to the House. That being said, this is an interesting bill, and the Bloc Québécois will support it so it can be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for a more thorough study.

I hear some Conservative Party members applauding. I invite them to save their applause for five or ten minutes from now. I am not sure if they will still want to applaud, but for now, I cannot help but notice their applause, and I think it is interesting.

I do not know why, but the Conservatives tend to insert what we call a poison pill into an interesting bill. We were reading the bill, which has about 30 pages and 40 clauses, and everything was going well until we got to clause 39, which would amend the Identification of Criminals Act. I will come back to this. Our criminal law includes a very important principle, which the Supreme Court has reiterated on a number of occasions, and that is the presumption of innocence. A person is presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury or a judge who knows the law, on the basis of evidence introduced before his peers. The Supreme Court has said this time and time again. I would remind the members that we do not believe that subsection 2(1) of the Identification of Criminals Act can be amended, because that would go against the presumption of innocence.

I will take this argument further. The main downside to this bill is one small paragraph on the last page of the bill that seeks to amend paragraph 2(1)(a) and that reads as follows:

(a) any person who is in lawful custody after being arrested for...

That means that this paragraph would apply to everyone who is arrested for any reason. People could be fingerprinted and photographed from now on. It is clear that, if the government maintains its position and insists on amending this section, we will fight to the finish to vote against this bill and against this clause, and it is clear that we will try to have this clause removed from the bill in committee. We hope to do so with the support of the Liberals and my NDP colleague.

Why remove this clause? Because it would open the door to all sorts of abuses. My colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert can say what he likes, but you have to know the territory, as we say, you have to have argued cases and know criminal records to know that the police have a tendency to go overboard. Often, they are willing to keep a record on anyone for anything. Obviously, this is not always true, and it is not true of all police officers. But there are safeguards in place, and one of them says that a person cannot be fingerprinted until he or she is charged with or convicted of an offence. That means that at present, an individual who is convicted or who is charged—because the person has to be charged—can be photographed and fingerprinted.

In general, this is how it works. A person receives a summons requiring them to appear in court. They must plead guilty or not guilty and then they may be fingerprinted and photographed.

This process must not change and we will do everything in our power to ensure that it does not change because it is the fundamental right of an individual to be presumed innocent until found guilty. This presumption of innocence is extremely important in our criminal law.

It is unfortunate because it overshadows good intentions. I come from an area 600 km north of Ottawa that is regularly visited by the itinerant court. I also argued before this court when I was a lawyer. The itinerant court travels to Inuit and Cree villages on the shores of James Bay, Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay as well as in regions such as ours.

I will return to the main point of Bill C-31: telewarrants. We believe that the process must be modernized. Police forces are quite right to ask that telewarrants be easier to obtain and that they be made available more quickly.

For the benefit of our audience, telewarrants are search warrants or other types of warrants. The first example that comes to mind is this. Someone is stopped after a motor vehicle accident. The police approach the vehicle and smell alcohol. The person is in his car and unable to give his consent because he is unconscious or too drunk. In any event, he must be taken to hospital. The police accompany him to hospital and obtain a telewarrant over the phone. A justice of the peace, located in an office somewhere in Quebec, will authorize the taking of a blood sample from the individual to determine his blood alcohol level. We agree with the legislator that this telewarrant process should be retained and made more accessible.

The police are right. At present, in 2009, if they suspect that a criminal act has been or is about to be committed, and if they must quickly obtain a search warrant, they have to go before a judge, have him sign a document and then proceed with the search.

We think that the bill is a good idea, because it would modernize the Criminal Code. Even though I am a criminal lawyer, I think that we need to make it easier for police officers to do their jobs and gather evidence. One way of doing this is through telewarrants.

We feel that improving access to telewarrants is a good thing. Police officers must have the possibility of obtaining telewarrants, whether or not they are written or used.

This bill deals with many other things, such as fleeing to another province, and the amendment in response to the Supreme Court ruling in R. v. Six Accused Persons, which amends section 184 of the Criminal Code. There were a number of amendments to be made to the Criminal Code.

There are many details. This bill is long and very technical, but it is interesting. However, there are two main points I want to talk about. The first is representation by an agent, or non-lawyer.

I have a hard time accepting that an agent could represent a client in court, when the client is being charged with a summary offence. The Bloc Québécois has a hard time agreeing with this proposal for a number of reasons.

Representation by a lawyer is extremely important, especially in criminal law. When it comes to appearing, we could probably make some concessions. But I have some serious problems with having an agent question and cross-examine witnesses for and on behalf of the defendant.

I have the same concerns as the Quebec bar, which has provided us with information on this subject, saying:

The Barreau du Québec is concerned that this proposal, as written, causes confusion about the meaning of “agent”, and could lead to lawsuits against individuals for illegally practising the profession.

I am also very worried about this proposal. In Quebec, lots of people have acted as lawyers and have represented individuals, such as claimants before Quebec's occupational health and safety commission. The same thing has happened at the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. People with no legal skills whatsoever have represented others before the board of referees because, they said, they were friends of the claimants. If that same system were to apply to the Criminal Code, we would start having serious problems.

I am very surprised that the government would propose such a thing at the provinces' request. I can confirm that the Quebec bar does not support this proposal. I would be very surprised to hear that the Government of Quebec requested this kind of third-party representation. I believe that the committee will have to pay special attention to the issue of representation by lawyers when it comes time to study this bill.

The other point I want to raise has to do with the amendment to section 2 of the Identification of Criminals Act. I want to discuss this because I think it is important not to create this option. Above all, we must not give the police unrestricted power to take a person's fingerprints and photograph, because there is no telling where that information might end up. Such records, known in our jargon as anthropometric records, could make their way to the Canadian border, to customs, or elsewhere.

If that happened, an individual who has never been charged with anything might be prevented from leaving Canada. The police might go so far as to arrest people for dangerous driving or a highway safety code violation, and tell them to go to the police station for fingerprinting and photographing. The police might even have photographic and fingerprinting equipment with them at the scene of the arrest. I think this goes very, very far. We have to create a process for destroying the fingerprints and photos of people who are not charged with anything and will never be charged, people against whom no complaint or charge will be filed.

At present, not only do we have an individual's fingerprints and photograph—the anthropometric record also included that information—but we know that genetic records can be kept on people who have given a drop of blood, saliva or a single hair for the purposes of DNA identification. We must not forget that.

However, section 10 of the DNA Identification Act contains a provision for the destruction of genetic material.

We think this clause needs to be amended to include the destruction of photos and anthropometric records if no charges are laid within a given timeframe.

One needs to have practised criminal law to understand that it is very rare for clients to come back to us when no charges are laid to ask that their fingerprints and photos be destroyed, even when they have been lawfully taken.

When someone is acquitted of the charges laid against him, his fingerprints and photos should be destroyed automatically, but that is not the case at this time. That is not what happens. Needless to say, this certainly is not more likely to happen if we allow the Identification of Criminals Act to be amended.

We believe that the title of the legislation says it all. It is called the Identification of Criminals Act. So why should someone who has not yet been declared a criminal be forced to submit his photos and fingerprints? In our opinion, this makes no sense, and we find this extremely prejudicial for someone who is arrested.

We think this bill is important. It is an interesting bill and I will close by talking about fighting. I listened to my colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe and also to my colleague from Windsor. They asked a very important question. There is prizefighting and now throughout the United States there is this type of extreme fighting where violence is involved, of course, but also bets and so forth.

However, we have to be careful because there is very well organized fighting. We know about boxing, but in terms of the Olympic movement, judo and karate have now been introduced. These are extremely interesting sports that are gaining in popularity in Canada.

Judo and karate events are organized under the supervision of national and international agencies. International agencies including the International Olympic Committee, the International Judo Federation, and the World Karate Federation have asked us to ensure that the Criminal Code is amended. I will give an example related to this type of fighting. Canada cannot host the world cup of karate or judo because under the Criminal Code, such fighting is illegal.

We think it is important that this be amended in the Criminal Code. That is what a number of provinces and Quebec are asking for. Judo-Québec, the Fédération québécoise de karaté, the National Karate Association of Canada and Judo Canada, following representations by the International Olympic Committee, which would like to hold major competitions in these two sports, cannot take part.

I see that my time is almost up, but I will close by saying that this is an interesting bill that we will have to address in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. There are two points, and I have mentioned them, but I think it is important that we respond to the requests and modernize the Criminal Code

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is before the House for one simple reason. The government withheld information that the committee should have had.

It is very clear that the amendment brought forward by the very learned member for Windsor—Tecumseh comes as a result of a clear violation of committee privilege. His amendment says:

Bill C-36...be not read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 with a view to making any amendments which may be called for as a result of information undertaken to be placed before the committee by departmental officials on November 4, but which the office of the Minister of Public Safety failed to provide before the committee considered the bill at clause-by-clause stage.

The amendment is very clear. Even Conservatives should support it. Why? Because there are broader principles at work.

The parliamentary committee was endeavouring to do its work. It requested specific information. That information was provided by departmental officials and withheld from committee by the Minister of Public Safety. We are not talking about objective partisan information. We are talking about information that committee needed to do its work.

I have before me the letter that was just received. It was forwarded to the ministry a few days prior to the clause-by-clause discussion on the bill, which resulted in the bill we are debating today. In other words, this information was withheld by the government for up to a week and a half. It was only today, after the amendment was moved, that the government endeavoured to provide the information it had withheld.

That is why the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who has been ranked year after year as the most learned and most informed member of the House of Commons, brought forward the amendment. The government hid information that committee needed in order to make the bill effective in what it endeavoured to do.

In this corner of the House the NDP always does its homework. We always read our reports. We always ensure we are well prepared. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh asked for specific information, and the Conservatives, rather than provide that information to make the bill an effective one, withheld it.

It is not just in the Afghanistan torture scandal that we see the withholding of government documents. It is not just on the Canada-Colombia trade deal. Information has come forward about a study that was commissioned by the Government of Canada. The government will not release it now because it shows that what the NDP has said all along was right, that the Colombia trade deal would not enhance human rights in Colombia but quite the contrary. My colleague from Elmwood—Transcona mentioned the gun registry report. This again was withheld by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives try to hide information. They try to keep information secret. They try to monkey wrench their own Parliament. They were elected as a minority government and rather than try to make government function, the Conservatives try to monkey wrench on every occasion. They try to withhold important documentation, important information, on every occasion. This is just one more example of how mean-spirited the Conservatives are when it comes to parliamentary work.

What did the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue ask for? They asked for very clear statistics and a summary dealing with the number of indeterminate offenders and the number of offenders subject to the 25 year restriction. They asked for valuable information for committee while it discussed clause-by-clause.

This is not some sort of high school. This is parliamentary business and clause-by-clause consideration makes a real difference on how the clauses are worded, whether the clauses would effectively do their work or not.

Why, for goodness sake, would the mean-spirited Conservative government withhold all that information from parliamentarians and then try to drive the bill through? When the information becomes public, we suddenly realize that these clauses need to be re-crafted, that the information was not provided, that it was withheld.

This is, as I mentioned earlier, not the first time the Conservatives have withheld information. This is systematic. This is a government that holds meanness and secrecy as paramount virtues, but that is certainly not what Canadians want or need. They want to see a Parliament that works. They want to see parliamentarians given the information. They want to see parliamentarians provided with that public information for which taxpayers have paid.

The government and taxpayer money is not some private piggy bank for Conservatives to do with what they may, that they can take government funds, taxpayer funds, and say that information belongs to them. The same way they cannot take the government funds that should be allocated on a governmental basis and put a big Conservative “C” on their cheques to show that it is not taxpayer money, it is not Canadians' money, it belongs to Conservatives.

That sense of entitlement will bring the Conservatives down. It certainly brought them down in New Westminster—Coquitlam. It is why their poll numbers are going down as well. Canadians see, tragically, that mean-spiritedness every day, whether it is the HST in British Columbia and Ontario or the general air of secrecy and mean-spiritedness of the government.

The information was withheld for a week and a half. It was provided to the member for Windsor—Tecumseh just a few short moments ago. Very clearly the committee was unable to get the information it required from the government, information the government possessed. We are not talking about information that was lost. We are talking about information the government had in hand and the Minister of Public Safety said no, that committee would not get this valuable information so it could complete clause-by-clause and have a bill that held together.

It is ridiculous and Irresponsible. There are many terms both parliamentary and unparliamentary that we could apply to this kind of mean-spirited strategy. Most Canadians do not accept the idea that taxpayer funds are Conservative funds, that taxpayer government information is Conservative information only. That is why this amendment is before the House and we will look to get Bill C-36 back to the committee to try to address the inaccuracies in the bill that were established through the government's own mean-spiritedness. I will not say incompetence because it knew full well what it was doing. It is not incompetence, it is mean-spiritedness when it withholds information from a parliamentary committee. It is also irresponsible, but that is the government we live under currently. I believe a lot of Canadians are waking up to that fact. Certainly people in British Columbia are waking up to the fact that the government is not on their side, and I think there will be some changes whenever the next election comes.

The amendment proposes to move the bill back to committee and fix it. When I spoke on the bill originally, I said that we believed firmly in an approach to the justice system that was based on four pillars. One of those pillars is ensuring victims' rights. I have my own bill in front of the House, which the Conservatives refuse to bring forward, that allows for victims' compensation. We believe very strongly in that principle of the public safety system.

There are other pillars too and this is where Conservative approach on crime legislation falls tragically short. It is not just the hypocrisy of bringing forward a bill on Colombia with a government that is inundated with connections to parliamentary thugs, parliamentary murderers and drug lords. This shows the clear hypocrisy that once outside Canada we can deal with anyone, no matter how many drugs they distribute, which hurt kids, or how many paramilitary thugs are out there killing innocent civilians. The Conservatives support that bill, which shows a pretty clear hypocrisy.

However, when we talk about the Conservative approach, it also has to have the pillars of crime prevention. It has to have the pillar of supporting community policing. It also has to have a pillar of ensuring that we have a working court system. Any evaluation of the approach of the Conservatives on crime has to be evaluated, taking those other pillars. This is a smart approach to crime, which the leader of the NDP and members of this caucus have put forward.

What have the Conservatives done? They have cut back and slashed crime prevention programs, even if they know, and we know, that every dollar invested in crime prevention saves $6 later in policing and court costs. It means no victims as well. They have not followed through on their promises for 2,500 police officers and have not even brought in the public safety officer compensation fund. On crime issues, they simply do not have credibility.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, there are really two issues. One of them is the issue of the substance of the debate on Bill C-36. The other one is the one that addresses procedures in the House as represented by the motion by one of my hon. colleagues that addresses the issue of whether committees can function if the government deliberately withholds information.

I know that he will recall that a member of his own caucus gave an indication that, using the royal we, the government actually did have the information that it has not shared with committee.

No committee in this House can function properly and render services to the Canadian public if it is deprived of some of the basic information as requested for committee, as I outlined in my five questions, and others have as well. It speaks to the sense of forthrightness and honesty on the part of the government that it would withhold such information.

It is not qualifying information. It is objective data. It is data that members of Parliament can use in shaping their own assessments of whether they would develop a particular view contrary or pro to the government's bill. The government, however, has chosen to simply suggest that its views are the ones that will be debated, because it certainly is not offering or willing to offer any data to substantiate its position.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Alleged Misleading Statement

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing the issue to the House.

I just received a transcript of the actual clause by clause proceedings of the justice committee during question period, prior to him raising his question of privilege. I had an opportunity to speak with my colleagues, both within my party and within one of the other opposition parties, and they confirmed that I had abstained throughout clause by clause, except for the final vote where they confirm, as had been alleged by a member of the Conservative Party during questions and comments to me during the debate on Bill C-36, that I had in fact said nay.

Therefore, in that case, as I also stated, and the member did not mention it, if in fact I had voted and it was accurate that I had voted, that I would apologize. I do apologize. I was wrong in my recounting of the information. The member for Burlington was correct. My memory was faulty and I apologize to this House.

The records of the Standing Committee on Justice on clause by clause are correct. I abstained throughout all of the votes except for the final vote, which stated, “Should this bill, as amended, carry?”. It was a recorded vote and I did say nay, so there are not two versions before the House. There is one version, the version that was originally given by the member of the Conservative Party for Burlington.

I apologize for having doubted his word and I beg the indulgence of the House. I apologize to everyone. I have now corrected the transcript and the official record of the House of Commons that there is only one version.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened but I feel the need to rise today on a question of privilege. I believe that on Monday, November 23, a member opposite deliberately misled the House. I do not make that suggestion without pause and reflection. It is a serious accusation.

On page 119 of Erskine May, 22nd edition, states:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt.

In the allegation that I am making, this occurred during the debate on Bill C-36, an act to abolish the so-called faint hope clause. The hon. member for Burlington quite rightly asked the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine why, if she supposedly supports the bill to abolish the faint hope clause, she voted against the bill at committee.

During the debate on this point, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine said:

If in fact the minutes of the November 16 meeting of the standing committee indicate what he has said, I will ensure that those minutes are corrected because every single member at that meeting knows very well that I did not vote on any of the questions that were put to the committee regarding Bill C-36, including whether or not the title should pass, whether the bill should pass, or whether 500 new copies should be printed.

I am a member of that committee and I was at that meeting. I and all other members at the committee know very well that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, when asked in a recorded vote, “Shall the bill carry, as amended?”, she responded, “No”. The House need not take my word for it. If members check the audio recording of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on November 16, at the 34 minute and 18 second mark, they can clearly hear the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine say “no” when her name was called by the clerk in order to vote on the following question, “Shall the bill carry, as amended?”.

This is why the minutes of that meeting also have the member listed in the column under nays.

I believe this is a clear case of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine deliberately misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker, I refer you to your ruling of February 1, 2002. In that case, the then hon. member for Portage—Lisgar alleged that the then minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House, as the minister left two differing versions of events on the record. In your ruling, you referred page 67 of Marleau and Montpetit, which states:

There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties....

Mr. Speaker, you later went on to say:

On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air.

You then invited the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar to move his motion.

What we have here is a tantamount situation. We have two versions before Parliament involving proceedings on Bill C-36. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is recorded as voting against Bill C-36 at committee and she has stated in the House that she “did not vote on any of the questions”.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, with due respect, as you did on February 1, 2002, that you find there is a prima facie question of privilege and allow me to move the appropriate motion. I await your direction.

Criminal Code

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, like so many other Canadians, I have been following this debate, not only in the House over the course of the last several hours, but over the course of the last several months. All of us are interested in establishing and maintaining the reputation of the country as one that respects the rule of law and has mechanisms in place in order to enforce it and maintain that observance.

We think that the observance of the rule of law as it emanates from legislative bodies like this one is really a hallmark of our civil society. It is one that renders us a truly compassionate and humanitarian society, because it means that we care for each other's well-being and that we take the measures necessary to ensure that that well-being is respected and nurtured by all citizens.

The second thing that has attracted me to this debate is of course the claims that the government is putting forward regarding this particular bill. As a partisan individual but also as a sincere Canadian, I have been looking at the argument that we need to have a tough on crime agenda. There is not anybody I know who does not want to be tough on crime. What everybody wants, though, is an expression of the mechanisms that are in place to ensure that we monitor behaviour, observe the law and observe the mechanisms in order to capture those individuals who fall outside those basic human requirements of observance.

One individual on the street today told me to say the following. We have legislation because we want to keep in check the fact that less than 1% of the population that does not agree with the conventions that we think make us civil with each other. I add that we need to be able to have the rules in place so that we can identify what it is that differentiates that less than 1% from the rest. I take that particular issue here. I realize that those figures were used grosso modo in order to project a view.

The government members have a tendency to use this expression very loosely and largely. Every time there is a difficulty in the House with legislation and the parliamentary agenda, out comes the rabbit called the crime and justice agenda. They do not move on it very quickly. These kinds of agenda items and proposals could easily be moved through the House if they were sincere about moving the agenda along and having an intelligent debate.

Through the questions of all opposition members, and I regret to say but not government members, I see a desire to get information so that we can make the appropriate decisions on behalf of Canadians who have entrusted us with being scrupulous about the kinds of conventions that we establish as Canadian law, the kinds of conventions that we indicate are reflective of Canadian values and society and the kinds of conventions that we put down for law enforcement and maintenance, not only in terms of punishment, but in terms of modifying behaviour.

Over the course of this last hour, I have been taken aback that government members have said that we shall not have the information we think we need in order to make the appropriate decision. They have told us to trust them. This is an open society and an open Parliament. Some would say that it is an adversarial environment, but the antagonism inherent in our parliamentary system is designed to ferret out the truth. If the government decides that it will keep the truth away from the prying eyes of the official opposition and other opposition parties, then it is diminishing the value of Parliament and its trust in democracy.

The hon. member for Halifax, who is a new member in the House, said that she thinks she is entitled to have information in order to make an intelligent decision. It is almost shameful that she would have to say it, but I applaud her for doing it. What did she ask for? I noted her questions. She kept saying “we have” or “we need”. I was not sure whether she was using the royal we on behalf of the government or the opposition.

Of course the royal we, the government, already has all the information that the member for Halifax wants shared with all committee members, that she wants shared by all parliamentarians. The royal we has that information and unfortunately, the royal we, the government, is withholding that information from the prying eyes of opposition members. What is it afraid of?

I noted that with great eloquence, my colleague from Mississauga South said, “Look, just answer the following questions”. They have been asked in committee as well. For example, how often has this faint hope clause been utilized in the last 10 years? Surely the government has that information. Surely the information gives the basis, the premise upon which the government is basing Bill C-36, and they may well be right, but at least share them with us.

We are thinking men and women and we can make an analysis on behalf of Canadians, the way all parliamentarians are expected to do so. We need to know how many times and how many people apply at the very first opportunity to have section 745 applied to them. How many times has that happened? Surely that is not offensive information. Surely that should not compromise national security. Surely that will not compromise the value of fairness that all Canadians expect to be shared among Canadians.

We need them to tell us how many times this first request has been granted. Surely the information is available. We are not flying by the seat of our pants, collectively. The government might be, but surely members of Parliament are not in the habit of doing that. At least it has not been my practice. From what I have seen in the last 21 years in this place, members of Parliament want to know the facts. They want to apply the facts and they want to have those facts tested against the scrutiny of other people's criticisms. That is why we get elected to this place. We do it not for ourselves. We do it for all those Canadians who are either in the seats or in front of the television, or reading and watching the criticisms as they develop in the debate.

I sometimes wonder whether the government is actually interested in debate. Certainly it does not appear to have an interest in sharing facts that it has already collected, so when colleagues here wonder why we are not privy to the same information that the government says is absolutely crucial in order to understand the impact of these bills, such as Bill C-36, I think that is an offence against parliamentarians. It is an offence against Parliament and it denigrates the concept of democracy.

Why? It is because all those who believe in democracy are not afraid of sharing the facts, because the facts give us an opportunity to rally around what we will define as truth, and that truth is that which encapsulates all of those Canadian values that are held up as a standard around the world. We do not give ourselves an opportunity to do that and we allow the government, in its own rather retrograde way, to say, “We make the decisions. To heck with the rest of you”.

That is not right. It is not parliamentary. It is not democratic.

Why will it not give us some of the basic facts that it already has? For example, it wants to paint everybody with the same brush. Why not give us the gender and the ages of all of those people who might be eligible for application of section 745?

We are not talking about those who are going to be given the faint hope. The process is very elaborate. It is very rarely applied. Why scare everybody into thinking that the process itself is wrong and therefore everybody who is in jail already is absolutely condemned to be there forever?

We believe in punishment. We do not believe that any crime should go unpunished. None of us in the opposition, from what I can tell, would suggest that the laws should be scoffed at. No, what we need to do is have an understanding of the balance between retribution and reform, between final punishment and an opportunity to change behaviour, but we want to make an intelligent decision. We need to know, for example, what the recidivism rate is of those who apply under this section.

The government has that information. Why will it not share it? Why is it so privileged that it cannot justify its own legislation with the facts? The government is afraid that people will actually think that it might be wrong, and that can only happen if there is a proper debate. I do not think the government should shut it down.