Debates of Oct. 4th, 1994

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, CSIS denies categorically attempting to infiltrate the postal workers union.

However, I am informed that the Security Intelligence Review Committee will be reviewing the most recent allegations made on television last night on this matter.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Solicitor General rely on the Security Intelligence Review Committee to shed light on this issue, when its own chairman is being contradicted by CBC's findings?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I think the allegations of the hon. member relate to earlier statements by the chairman. What we are talking about are reports of stories on CBC television last night, which I am informed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee will be looked into by them.

Immigration

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the immigration minister, a quarter million immigrants into Canada is no problem. But the Minister of National Revenue knows that there are a group of people who have come into Canada, the so-called astronaut families, who establish residences of convenience here and then avoid paying taxes.

Because these people are giving a bad name to the honest, upright, upstanding immigrants who make the majority of immigrants, what is the minister going to do to resolve this situation?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not attempt to target any particular group, be they from any particular part of the world or living in any part of Vancouver.

I would suggest to the hon. member that we are, as he knows from press reports, continuing to follow up any leads or information we may have of any individual, whether from that particular group or any other to make sure they pay their fair share of taxes.

I have made it perfectly clear in the House on many occasions that we intend to make sure that taxes are paid and we have a level playing field in Canada.

With respect to the question of people who live in Canada and work overseas, I believe a provincial court judge in Vancouver on Monday of this week gave a decision which found a person guilty and I believe charged him some $140,000 in fines and evasion of taxes.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the wonderful world according to the Liberal front bench. The reality is that with a quarter of a million people coming into Canada this minister's resources are being flooded. The Vancouver Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe on September 29 said:

Interestingly, most of the calls I have had in recent days about this issue have come from the Chinese Canadian community who express some knowledge of the tax evasion and they say they are outraged.

I ask the minister again, can he tell us, considering that he has obviously limited resources, what is the real agenda of the Liberal government by flooding Canada with too many immigrants?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is that Canada has too many immigrants. We could equally take his question as being that the Minister of National Revenue has too few inspectors and auditors.

We carry out as best as we can efforts to make sure that all Canadians, regardless of where they come from, obey the law with respect to paying their taxes. It is vital to do this to make sure that people generally throughout Canada recognize that it is a fair system and that there are not free loaders getting away with taking services and not paying their share. We do this regardless of whether people happen to be immigrants, recent immigrants, or whether they happen to be Canadians of longstanding.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1994

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-42, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (miscellaneous matters), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to debate the second reading motion of Bill C-42. Bill C-42, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (miscellaneous matters), is not to be confused with Bill C-40, the 1994 miscellaneous statute law amendment bill passed by the House on June 20. It was concerned with a variety of minor technical amendments to correct anomalies, inconsistencies and errors in federal statutes and to repeal provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.

That bill also made amendments of a minor, non-controversial and uncomplicated nature to a number of statutes. The bill we are concerned with today, which if passed this year will be known as the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1994, focuses mainly on the Criminal Code but also contains some amendments to the Canada Evidence Act, the Contraventions Act, the Mutual Legal Assistance and Criminal Matters Act and the Supreme Court Act.

While some of the proposed amendments might be considered technical, many are more significant and will result in improvements to our criminal justice system. A bill such as this one is long overdue.

Historically this bill and ones like it were introduced on a regular basis. However the last such bill was introduced in 1985. The Minister of Justice intends to return to the previous pattern. He anticipates bringing forward a second bill of this nature once Parliament has dealt with this one.

The primary source for most of these amendments is the criminal law section of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. The section is composed of delegates from each province, territory and the federal government and includes crown and defence lawyers. At annual meetings of the Uniform Law Conference, the section considers resolutions calling for amendments to the Criminal Code and other relevant statutes.

The other amendments in the bill originated from suggestions of the former Law Reform Commission of Canada, various judges, members of the bar, and federal and provincial departments and officials. These amendments, taken as a whole, represent significant changes to the criminal law aimed at increasing the efficiency of the justice system to the benefit of every Canadian.

When the Minister of Justice recently wrote provincial and territorial colleagues about the bill, he noted that each proposal fell within one or more of the categories said to be generally encompassed by the Uniform Law Conference resolutions.

In short, these seven categories cover proposals directed at, first, enhancing public confidence in our criminal justice system; second, making the Criminal Code provisions more efficient and more effective; third, implementing or achieving compliance with court decisions; fourth, filling perceived gaps in the Criminal Code; fifth, taking advantage of the advances in computer, communications and video technology; sixth, improving court procedures; and, seventh, ensuring greater fairness to the participants in the procedural process.

These categories illustrate laudable criminal law policy objectives and encompass the major themes of the bill. To date, the response we have received from the provinces to these proposals has been very positive.

I emphasize that the overall effect of these proposals will result in a more cost effective system of criminal justice while at the same time maintain or even improve the fundamental fairness of our justice.

The amendments to the Criminal Code are mostly procedural. Their cumulative effect will be to modernize procedure to make the Criminal Code more effective and more efficient. Procedural proposals range from permitting the Attorney General of Canada to take over private prosecutions for offences under federal legislation other than those under the Criminal Code, to proposals permitting the greater use of telephone, video technology and fax for certain procedural matters.

Under these amendments, authority would be given to permit judges to finish trials in progress on appointment to another court. When a judge has to be replaced during the trial for other reasons it would be possible for a new judge to carry on without having to start over again in appropriate cases of course.

These particular proposals should help in maintaining public confidence in our criminal justice system. They will also ensure greater fairness to participants, particularly the victims and the witnesses.

Other changes are aimed at making it easier for trial and appeal courts to establish rules of court. It will be easier to adjourn certain procedures when a judge is not available and it will be possible to arrange for a trial date upon committal after a preliminary hearing.

Changes to the Supreme Court Act would make it easier for the court to manage its workload and to remand cases to lower courts for further proceedings when that would be just in the circumstances.

Some proposals are directed at making improvements in the way in which some evidence issues are handled. For instance, several amendments would permit evidentiary proof by way of a certificate, thereby avoiding the need to require individuals to appear in person to testify. Other changes are directed at the manner in which evidence is to be obtained abroad and at ensuring that any such evidence is more readily admissible in Canadian proceedings.

Some amendments are aimed at increasing the use of technology, for instance permitting the use of a fax machine in limited circumstances. Another section would allow a person to appear by closed circuit television in some portions of a preliminary hearing.

A number of the proposals relate to arrest, pretrial release and other matters involving police practices and procedures. For instance, a significant improvement in the use of policing and court resources will be achieved by permitting police to release an arrested person on certain conditions restricting their liberty rather than as is now the case, having only the choice of releasing unconditionally or detaining an accused in custody until a hearing before the justice of the peace could be arranged.

Greater fairness to accused persons will be achieved through reducing unnecessary pretrial custody. Police will be able to spend more time on the beat preventing crime or detecting offenders rather than waiting in the corridors of courtrooms.

Perhaps the most significant changes which will contribute to a more effective and efficient criminal justice system are directed at trial procedures applicable to certain offences. The choice of trial procedure, summary conviction or indictable, would be given to the crown for the present indictable offences of assault causing bodily harm, unlawfully causing bodily harm and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm.

The summary conviction maximum term of imprisonment for these offences as well as for the basic sexual assault offences would be 18 months instead of the normal six months for Criminal Code summary conviction offences.

This will relieve court congestion in the superior courts, reduce the strain on witnesses, particularly victims, and help contain the time needed to deal with many court cases to time periods required by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The changes will also send a strong signal to judges that significant punishment might be in order even for the minor instances of violent offences.

Similar benefits will be achieved by raising the monetary limit for theft and other property offences to $5,000 from $1,000. This is being done so that many more common offences related to property will be kept in the provincial court system, eliminating the need for preliminary hearings and jury trials for cases which rarely attract imprisonment.

There are proposals aimed at removing obsolete provisions or filling gaps created by changing circumstances. Gaps which presently exist with respect to publicity for certain pretrial proceedings would be closed.

It is important that the rights of accused persons to a fair trial before an impartial jury not be compromised by premature publicity of information which may or may not be relevant in admissible evidence.

The rights of witnesses and victims also require protection from the needless public disclosure of personal information. A prohibition would be created to ensure that sensitive material disclosed to the accused for the purposes of making a full answer in defence is not made public except for that purpose. This will serve to maintain the balance of interest between the right of the accused to a full answer in defence and the confidence that the public needs to encourage co-operation in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

The bill also seeks to enhance preventive measures already found in our law by proposing several changes aimed at making the peace bond process more effective. These changes will also ensure greater fairness to those participants in the criminal justice process who are in fear of threatened violence.

A peace bond is an undertaking given by a person on the order of a justice to be of good behaviour for a period of up to 12 months. It is a way of preventing a crime or, more important, the acts of violence constituting the crime from happening.

Their effectiveness will be improved by making violation of peace bonds punishable on indictment as well as on summary conviction, and by obliging justices to consider imposing specified conditions such as staying away from or prohibiting contact with the complainant. Police and others will also be able to apply for peace bonds on behalf of persons who are at risk of harm.

According to Statistics Canada's national survey on violence against women in 1993 three in ten women currently or previously married in Canada have experienced at least one incident of physical and sexual violence at the hands of a marital partner. Almost one-half or 45 per cent of wife assault cases resulted in physical injury to the woman. The survey also showed that one-third of women who were assaulted by a partner feared for their lives at some point during the abusive relationship.

It is also important to indicate that children witnessed violence against their mothers in almost 40 per cent of the marriages with violence. According to the same survey, the police were only informed of about 26 per cent of wife assault cases.

These figures show there is a large number of women who are victims of various forms of assault. These provisions are important tools in trying to cope with domestic violence and will help implement one of the red book commitments to work effectively in keeping abusers away from women and children.

We have to start thinking of using our criminal justice system to prevent crime from happening rather than, as is more often the case now, picking up the pieces which are all too often the shattered remnants of human tragedy.

It is clear that the bill covers a wide range of matters and I have only touched on a small number of the matters dealt with in the over 100 clauses the bill contains. Many of the provisions are quite technical and may not attract attention in the course of debate, but together with those already outlined they are all aimed at improving the administration of criminal justice in Canada and at enhancing the confidence the public must have in our criminal law.

Efficiency of operation combined with effectiveness of operation must be enhanced in our administration of justice. It is our job as legislators to seek ways to improve our administration so that even better service is given to the Canadian public.

I am confident all the members of this House will be satisfied with the common sense benefits this bill provides. This bill is long overdue. It contains provisions which should be put in place as soon as possible. I very much hope it can be treated in a non-partisan manner and that it will be considered by the committee carefully but quickly.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on Bill C-42. This bill contains over 100 amendments to the Criminal Code.

Certainly we know that crime is a national issue in the press these days. During the election constituents told me they wanted to see the Canadian government toughen up our criminal justice system and make it work for them rather than just seemingly for the criminal.

Canadians refer to the justice system as their criminal justice system because they own it. However many times in this House I have heard members of Parliament speak as if they were the only ones who had the expertise and they were the ones who were going to make the changes to it without wide consultation, without having broad political support or without really being accountable to the community.

I do ask: Does the application of the Criminal Code in present day represent mainstream Canadian values?

The spirit of this bill must be tied into Bill C-41 which is still at second reading stage. Canadians say they want to feel safe on their streets. Last week for example over 3,000 people turned out in Coquitlam, British Columbia to voice their concerns and frustrations over the Young Offenders Act.

Canadians are serious about protection. They are serious about appropriately denouncing crime. Newspapers are filled with reports of criminal activity. The public wants to know what can be done to curb what they see as an unacceptable level of crime.

We cannot wait around for crime to get out of control before we make changes. We must do what the public wants now. The Reform Party wants changes. We must remember that change begins with the recognition that a problem exists.

When I went through the bill I came across several interesting things I could not pass without making some comment. Bill C-42 is an acceptable bill but is far from being a perfect or great one. Some amendments will indeed strengthen the Criminal Code. However, Bill C-42 does frustrate me in parts.

For example, clause 28(3) of the bill states "everyone who commits a theft in relation to property, the value of which exceeds $5,000". This amendment would replace the word "one" with the word "five". If we were to look back to previous Parliaments with respect to this Criminal Code section we would find some very interesting things.

In 1954 the dollar indicated for theft over and theft under was $50. If someone were to be convicted of theft over $50 the punishment was an indictable offence. Consequently for the theft under $50 the punishment was a summary conviction. The next time this section was changed was in 1975 when any theft over $200 was an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years.

The law as we know it today was amended in 1985 to $1,000. The punishment is an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years for any theft over $1,000. For anything under $1,000 the punishment is a summary conviction.

The increase since 1954 certainly is amazing. From $50 to $200 is an increase of 400 per cent; $200 then to $1,000 is a 500 per cent increase; and $1,000 to $5,000 is again a 500 per cent increase. However in the 40 years that have passed it has totalled an increase of 10,000 per cent.

This is a softening of the law. If we were to use history as a benchmark I suppose the next amendment would make it $25,000. Incredulous. Someone could then steal all the furniture in my house and only get away with a summary conviction. This is not acceptable.

Property crimes in Canada have historically accounted for most Criminal Code offences. In fact in 1990 thefts over and under $1,000 comprised over two-thirds of all property crimes reported to the police. A StatsCanada report in 1990 indicates that all property offence categories recorded increased in 1990 over the previous year, including a 13 per cent rise in thefts of motor vehicles, a 9 per cent rise in break and enters, 8 per cent in possession of stolen goods, 8 per cent in theft over and under

$1,000 and 7 per cent in frauds. Interestingly enough this was the seventh consecutive year that an increase was recorded for theft of motor vehicles. In 1992 there were 823,748 theft under incidents reported in Canada. That made up almost one-half of all property crime for that year.

If the government now raises the dollar limit for theft under the numbers will increase and theft over will decrease, one would expect. What we will hear from the Liberals then is that serious thefts of crime are on the decrease, but are they really? I would not think so. If the same logic of thinking is to be followed, why not raise the limit to $100,000 if you really want to lower one area of the published crime rate? Instead of trying to create a deterrent for the crime the government is making this into a game of shuffling statistics.

The area of concern is the theft over category. From 1986, one year following the dollar cut off being raised to $1,000 until 1992, theft over had increased by 9 per cent. I am sure the government of the time felt that by raising the rate from $200 to $1,000 would help curb published property crime rates. Today with Bill C-42 the government hopes that by raising the limit from $1,000 to $5,000 this increase will help curb property crime rates in 1995 and beyond. The government should take a careful look back at history to see how things failed before charging ahead with only a hope that it is going to work.

The government should keep the dollar amount at $1,000 and continue with the same consequences therein. Strangely enough if a person were to go out today and steal a 28-inch television and a hi-fi VCR from an electronics store, they would be charged with an indictable offence and subject to a maximum of 10 years in prison. Consequently, if that person were to steal the same merchandise following the passage of this bill, their sentence might only be a summary conviction with a possible maximum of 18 months in prison. I would call that a reduction in the sentence and a softening of the law.

The government is telling criminals everywhere and the message is clear: "Here is your grand opportunity. Go and steal some big ticket items and we will barely slap you on the wrist". Getting softer with criminals is not going to reduce the crime rate. It sends the wrong message out to the community.

Capacity creates its own demand. In other words a legal vacuum is all too soon filled with the negative potential of human nature. The government wants the public to think it is getting tough with crime. However, when you look closely at this legislation you can see where the Liberal agenda is off the rails.

Bill C-42 proposes dual procedure offences that would allow the crown prosecutor to have the option to deal with a case either as an indictable offence or as a summary conviction. For example, assault causing bodily harm, unlawfully causing bodily harm, and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm are all currently indictable offences, but if the crown so wishes it may change them to summary convictions under this bill.

I want to point out something I caught in the news release by the Minister of Justice when this bill was first tabled in the House. He was referring to the reasoning behind the dual procedure clause and the option. He stated that typically, a summary conviction procedure is quicker, more straight forward and involves less stress and inconvenience to victims and witnesses. If someone is assaulted and bodily harm is involved, am I to understand the minister believes the victim would rather see the offender get a light summary conviction and be out of jail in no time or perhaps no jail sentence at all rather than see real justice take place and make sure that the offender stays behind bars for a good long time?

Currently a summary conviction in the Criminal Code has a maximum penalty of six months in prison. Bill C-42 raises that maximum sentence to 18 months and for this I applaud the government. This harsher sentence will surely help to stop some of the crime that is plaguing our cities and towns. It provides the court with greater latitude for severity. Therefore the bill does have some valid amendments. As Her Majesty's loyal constructive opposition and alternative it is our duty to analyze the entire bill and to point out areas of concern as well as areas of support.

On a different note, we see technology changing before our eyes each and every day. I used to think the fax machine was an amazing tool until personal computers came along. Now I cannot believe how compact they have become. Sending a letter through the mail system was certainly the fastest and most efficient way to get a document from one place to another until E-mail and the information superhighway entered the workplace. We have to adapt to keep up with technology in order to remain effective.

Bill C-42 proposes that fax machines and closed circuit televisions be allowed at certain portions in hearings. This will surely help to lessen the cost of flying in witnesses from all parts of the country in order that they can attend a hearing. With closed circuit television, a witness can attend a hearing, be part of it even if they are a thousand miles away. This will cut costs and for that the government has done something correct. Now if it would only cut costs across the board, we would all be in better shape, would we not?

As a justice professional I have spent a great amount of time in the courtroom. A person giving evidence usually has had a choice of going to the witness stand either on oath or affirmation. However in seeing it firsthand so many times it was apparent that many were confused as to how to give evidence on this affirmation option. With this bill the affirmation is now clarified in the Criminal Code.

In another section there is a clause in this bill that would allow the police to obtain a warrant for a blood sample up to four hours following an accident. The current time period is two hours and this by no means is long enough. In speaking with police officers it is apparent they are inundated with logistics following an accident. If the person involved in an accident is unconscious but suspected of a blood alcohol level above the legal limit, the officer with the increase in time to four hours will have sufficient time to obtain a warrant in order to have a blood sample taken.

Drunk driving is a serious problem in Canada. Groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, better known as MADD, will certainly be happy with this provision amending the code. I see this as a good amendment to the Criminal Code one which reflects the current community mood.

There is one amendment that I would have especially liked to have seen in Bill C-42 but I did not find it. That is the development of a national registry of DNA samples taken from persons convicted of a serious crime. That serious crime could be first degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, child abuse, sexual offences, and so on, indictable offences.

The idea of banking information is not new. Under the Identification of Criminals Act and the Canada Evidence Act police have been banking fingerprint information and have used it extensively to track down possible suspects. Fingerprints are fundamental to the operation of the justice system and similarly then so should be DNA typing.

DNA typing has been used in the United States and is gaining notoriety in such cases as the one involving O.J. Simpson. With the exception of red blood cells, all cellular material in the human body can be typed for example, white blood cells, root hair, saliva, semen, skin and even bone. Since DNA is essentially the same from cell to cell, any part of the body can be compared to another part of the same body. With only minute samplings needed a police investigator is able to identify a victim much easier and therefore have a much more certain tool pointing to a suspect. Such hard evidence can defend as well as convict.

We want to create laws that will also save money as the justice system is overburdened and this could be one of them. Police investigations are extremely costly to the public purse and are very time consuming. With over 100 amendments in this bill the government passed over something that would have really aided the law enforcement officials to do a better job and to help protect the public.

In the United States, 21 states have enacted legislation to permit DNA banking in various degrees. In addition, seven other states have introduced bills dealing with this very issue. The American National Academy of Science stated that if DNA profiles of samples from a population were stored in computer databases, DNA typing could be applied in crimes without suspects. Investigators could compare DNA profiles of biological evidence samples with a database to search for suspects.

A British royal commission pointed out that a data bank would also enable unsolved earlier offences where DNA evidence had been found but not linked with the offender to be cleared up if DNA samples taken from a suspect in connection with a later offence matched the evidence found at the scene of an earlier crime.

If this government is serious about solving crime and bringing forth justice it will not sit idle and wait for the world to leave Canada behind in the dark ages of technology. We can demand a blood sample for impaired driving but we cannot do that for rape and murder. This does not make sense.

Another tough penalty I am encouraged to see in this bill is the increase in punishment for those who fail to remain at the scene of an accident. Currently the maximum is two years and this is quite unacceptable. An amendment in Bill C-42 will make it a possible five years.

In conclusion, this bill missed the mark in several areas. The over and under dollar value is way too high and is out of sync with what Canadians expect of the justice system. This is clearly a scheme by which the government wished to perhaps lower the crime rate in its published statistics. For example, dual procedures will only cause more criminals to walk the streets sooner and lawyers to get more of their clients through the courts. This is a clear softening of the law.

The biggest miss of this entire bill is its failure to include the national registry of DNA samples. The Minister of Justice has previously stated many of these changes, referring to amendments in Bill C-42, will lead to significant costs and time savings for the administration of justice and will assist the law enforcement officials to do their jobs effectively.

That is what he is claiming. My only remark to this would be does the minister really understand what law enforcement officials could use to save time and money? If he did then he certainly would have included DNA as a registry in Bill C-42 or Bill C-41.

We will support this bill at this stage. As a Reform member of Parliament I am committed to being the constructive alternative to the government. This bill has some amendments that will strengthen the Criminal Code. Again, the government has to

understand that victims of crime want to feel protected by the code because right now it seems that the only person who is protected is the offender.

For example, this week we have heard more cases going the wrong way in the community's eyes because of technical problems with the law. I encourage the government to bring forward more amendments, to give some of the many private members' bills a chance and give them an appropriate assent if it is unable to bring forward bills of its own.

During committee of the whole I will be moving an amendment to hold the line of the current standard in the Criminal Code. I hope our constructive help will be recognized by this government.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make a speech. I want to clarify a few of the points that were brought up in the speech by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby.

First, with respect to the hybrid offences where it can be summary or indictable, in some cases the reason we want to have hybrid offences and proceed in a summary conviction is that the courts will not convict certain offenders on indictable offences. It is quite true that in many cases charges are not even brought where there are indictable offences, whereas if there were summary offences we would at least get the cases to court to get a conviction.

It remains with the judge as to the penalty. The fact of the matter is it may be a reduced penalty but in many cases a reduced penalty is better than no penalty at all. We want to have that flexibility.

With respect to the increase in the maximum on property offences from $1,000 to $5,000 that could be heard in provincial courts, it is the opinion of the Minister of Justice and myself that we want to have more of these cases heard in provincial court. They can be done more quickly. We have the expertise and the provincial court judges to hear them.

Because we are increasing from $1,000 to $5,000 does not mean there is going to be five times more work for the provincial court judges. There is going to be an increase, but there is going to be a corresponding decrease in the higher courts in the country. We feel it is going to be more efficient. We are going to have the same high level of justice. It is going to be less costly.

The other point concerns the national registry on the DNA. The hon. member makes a very good point. However, the reason it was not included is that there is a discussion paper now circulating on DNA. The Minister of Justice promised to give until November 20 for submissions on this discussion paper.

He is undertaking that new legislation will be brought forward, if not by the end of the year then early in the new year. This whole question of a registry is being reviewed along with other questions on DNA.

At this point I would like to move that we now move into committee of the whole. I think we will have unanimous agreement among all parties to proceed that way.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilger in the chair.)

On clause 2:

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I think you would find consent to call clauses 2 to 19 as a block. I think they could all be carried at once. If you could call clause 20 we might deal with that.

[The Assistant Deputy Chairman]

Is there consent to include clauses 2 to 19 and ask that they be carried?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Clauses 2 to 19 inclusive agreed to.)

On clause 20:

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I am going to be making a motion. I will move the motion first and then speak to it. I move:

That clause 20 be amended by striking out the word "five" and substituting the word "one" and in paragraph (2) by striking out the word "five" and substituting the word "one".

Mr. Chairman, the division between what is commonly known as theft under and theft over has been a demarcation in the courts which really sends a message to the community. It was not that long ago when theft under and theft over was $50. We then moved it to $200. Now in the percentage increase we are operating with the division of $1,000. I can just imagine the message that is going to send to my community when theft under procedures are going to be dealt with by theft under $5,000.

I can understand from the criminal justice administrative point of view the desirability of perhaps doing this to alleviate the procedures of proceeding by indictment, but it is not just the experts who own the criminal justice system. There is the educative role of the symbol of the message that the law sends to the community as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. This amendment seems to be out of sync with the community mood and what is appropriate at this time.

I do not hear anything in the community that is suggesting that we have a real problem in the courts at this point that we must make this significant move from theft under $1,000 to theft under $5,000.

I question the basis as to what problem it is trying to solve. However, I also point out the serious message that it sends in a softening of the law to the community. I hope to hear from other members on this point.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Chairman, I understand what the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby is saying. There is a concern among the public about crime, all types of crime at the present time. The public wants justice. It wants the justice system to react and deal with crime.

I do not want to say that property crime is not significant because it is extremely significant. Right now, however, the main concern is violent crime with a great many people in our cities. They want to make sure that our system can deal swiftly with violent crime.

If we move theft under $5,000 to the provincial courts as opposed to theft under $1,000, as is the situation now, that is not going to diminish justice in any way. All it is going to do is take some cases which are now tried by the superior courts and have them heard in the provincial courts.

The provincial court judges right now are of an excellent calibre. The cases can be brought forward more quickly. Justice is dealt with more expediently. As a result, there is less cost to the system and the decisions and results are equally good.

I honestly feel that we are not diminishing the calibre or quality of justice by this provision.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make sure I understand the government's amendment which increases the amount from $1,000 to $5,000 and, consequently, the Reform Party's amendment. Does the amendment mean that all theft under $5,000 can be dealt with summary conviction?

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS]

Mr. Chairman, theft under $5,000 can be dealt with by indictment but under the jurisdiction of the provincial court judge.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

But that is after the amendment. Today, theft of $4,500 is not dealt with by summary conviction.

What is the impact of this amendment, in the context of this bill? We may not have the same understanding of the amendment, since one member says yes and the other member says no. We are on clause 20.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS]

Mr. Chairman, the purpose is to move more of the cases of theft into the provincial court system and away from the superior court system. That is not to say that because we are going from $1,000 to $5,000 we are going to increase the theft cases in the provincial court system five times. Nor are we going to say that we are reducing the penalties because it is going to a provincial court. This discretion remains with the pertinent judge sitting at that particular time.

What we are saying is that these cases can be tried very competently under the provincial court system and that it is really more efficient to do so without any reduction in the quality of the justice dispensed.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Chairman, if we move cases from the superior court to the provincial court, would we not just be increasing the workload of the provincial court and what would happen to the cases already in provincial court? Would we decide then that we are not going to prosecute even more cases? Does it not just move the bell curve that far over that we are not going to bother prosecuting these cases?

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS]

Mr. Speaker, these changes have been dialogued with the provinces for their approval and their consideration.

The fact is that in the provincial court system, the preliminary documentation, the waiting periods are not as long as they are in the superior court system. This will free up some time in the superior court system. It will in some cases add to the provincial court system, but in the opinion of the Department of Justice and the provincial authorities of the attorneys general departments and ministers of justice provincially it is not going to be a problem and add that much that the provincial court systems will be overloaded.

It will allow more time for the superior courts to hear cases of theft involving larger amounts and violent crimes.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that this is going to reduce the offence. It is going to reduce the offence for what now amounts to theft over $1,000.

The summary conviction provides for a maximum sentence of 18 months. If we move up to $5,000, offences that today are punishable by indictment with as I understand it a maximum 10 years imprisonment are now going to be subject to an 18 month prison term if they get the maximum under the provincial court system.

There is no question that this is softening the law. I would object to a softening of the law. We are now moving into an area where we are going to be subjecting people convicted of theft to a lesser penalty potentially. It is simply there. It is in the writing. What alarms me is what I heard my hon. colleague say before we entered committee of the whole, that one of the reasons we are

moving to this situation is because the courts were not convicting because it was an indictable offence.

Now, if that is wrong-