Debates of May 15th, 1996

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more that five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

Group No. 2. A vote on Motion No. 4 applies to Motions Nos. 5 through 12 and Motions Nos. 16 through 24.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-20, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 43, on page 10, and lines 1 to 3, on page 11, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be a ) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-20, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 43, on page 10, and lines 1 to 3, on page 11, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be b ) sent by mail and by electronic means;''.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-20, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 43, on page 10, and lines 1 to 3, on page 11, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be

(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,

(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and

(iii) to every user and other person who has, at least 10 days before, notified the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under this Act; c ) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and d ) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph ( c ) have been complied with.''

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-20, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 46, on page 11, and lines 1 to 7, on page 12, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be a ) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-20, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 46, on page 11, and lines 1 to 7, on page 12, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be b ) sent by mail and by electronic means''.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-20, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 46, on page 11, and lines 1 to 7, on page 12, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be

(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,

(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and

(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under this Act; c ) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and d ) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph ( c ) have been complied with.''

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-20, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 30, on page 13, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be a ) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-20, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 30, on page 13, with the following

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be b ) sent by mail and by electronic means''.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-20, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 30, on page 13, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be

(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,

(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and

(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under this Act; c ) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and d ) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph ( c ) have been complied with.''

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-20, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43, on page 20, and lines 1 and 2, on page 21, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be a ) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-20, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43, on page 20, and lines 1 and 2, on page 21, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be b ) sent by mail and by electronic means''.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-20, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43, on page 20, and lines 1 and 2, on page 21, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be

(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,

(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and

(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under this Act; c ) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and d ) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph (c) have been complied with.''

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-20, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 43, on page 21, and lines 1 to 17, on page 22, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be a ) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-20, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 43, on page 21, and lines 1 to 17, on page 22, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be b ) sent by mail and by electronic means''.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-20, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 43, on page 21, and lines 1 to 17, on page 22, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be

(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,

(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and

(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under this Act; c ) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and d ) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph ( c ) have been complied with.''

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-20, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 20, on page 24, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be a ) published in every news paper that primarily serves the regions that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge;''.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-20, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 20, on page 24, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be b ) sent by mail and by electronic means''.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-20, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 20, on page 24, with the following:

"(3) A copy of the notice shall be

(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the Corporation, will be affected by the new or revised charge,

(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion of the Corporation, be affected by the new or revised charge, and

(iii) to users and other persons who have, at least 10 days before, notified the Corporation of their desire to receive notices or announcements under this Act; c ) posted in an electronic version in a location that is generally accessible to persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet; and d ) filed with the Agency after subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and paragraph ( c ) have been complied with.''

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motions in Group No. 2 deal with clauses 15, 18, 21, 36, 37 and 40. We put forward 18 motions on these six clauses, which goes to show how important this group of motions are.

The main objective of these motions-which is also why they were grouped together-is to ensure broader distribution of the notices Nav Canada has to give in some instances stipulated in the act. The main instances where Nav Canada has to give such notices to the regions and the organizations concerned are the following. It has to do with the notices Nav Canada has to give when it wants to increase or reduce the services it provides.

Another specific clause deals with the instances where Nav Canada wants to increase, reduce or modify designated northern or remote services.

Lastly, Nav Canada must give notices when it wants to establish a new charge or revise an existing charge or review the organizations that have to pay those charges.

Those are the three instances where Nav Canada must give notices. In these three cases, the current legislation provides for notices to be given to the organizations concerned. However, the problem we have with this, and which deserves our attention, is that the list of organizations that may be concerned is too vague, as are the means to be used to reach these organizations.

All our motions propose, in the three cases I just mentioned-changes in services, changes in northern or remote services, changes in user charges-that advance notice be served first to all local daily newspapers. Obviously people must be advised of such important changes as those to the services provided by Nav Canada.

We also think that, if need be, the band council or councils concerned should be informed. Generally, theses notices should be sent as much as possible not only by mail but also by E-mail.

We also want the large and small organizations representing the users to be advised of changes to the user charges and services. Finally, since individuals should not be forgotten, anyone who has expressed an interest in the previous ten days should be informed. This, then, covers the cases in which we want notices to be sent and the type of notices to be sent.

We do not think these provisions are useless. We just want to specify the means that must be used. Let us not forget that, since Nav Canada necessarily has a commercial purpose, we, as legislators, must protect ourselves and protect users against the tendency Nav Canada could have, for financial reasons, not to announce widely the measures it intends to take, or to save money in the way it makes these announcements.

We want to avoid anything arbitrary in the way Nav Canada provides information concerning the measures it intends to take. Again, these amendments are based on the general principle that even though Ottawa delegates some of its powers to a private organization that has to provide a public service, it does not mean that this service must be reduced in terms of quality and quantity. In this second group of motions, this service is the provision of information.

Since we are talking about information, I will take this opportunity to draw a parallel between this and another creation of the federal government, namely Aéroports de Montréal. ADM is another example of the government's unfortunate tendency to delegate responsibilities to an organization in a way that allows it to use this organization to avoid providing services that it had an obligation to provide before this delegation of responsibilities took place.

The parallel being drawn here, with respect to information, is justified by the fact that ADM has just taken a decision that is extremely important for the region and even, I would say, for Quebec and for Canada, because it involves international airports. With respect to the measure taken by ADM, my office asked for copies of the studies on which ADM is basing its decision. If you can believe it, we were told that ADM is subject to the requirements of the Access to Information Act and that therefore they do

not have to provide us with the studies on which they are basing their decision. We therefore have here another federal creature, which, thanks to the delegation of authority, may decline to justify in a manner satisfactory to the public the decisions it wants to take.

We therefore see that there is a risk that the federal government will create agencies in order not to have to provide the public with the information it has a responsibility to provide and which it must provide when there is no delegation of authority to an intermediate agency, which, under the label of private service, may decline to give out information that, in this case, one is entitled to expect from an agency providing a service to the public.

The point is that the ADM precedent is an indication that we should be very wary that Nav Canada does not become a convenient screen that the government can use to shirk certain of its obligations. In this case, the obligations that we want to be sure Nav Canada assumes concern the distribution of notices in the cases provided for in the bill in the manner and according to the terms regarding the media that we have mentioned.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the motions being put forward by members of the Bloc. Talk about latitude. I do not know how we got on to the issue of the ADM, or Aéroports de Montreal.

I want to remind members of this place and the hon. member opposite that ADM, or Aéroports de Montreal, is the body which looks after the operations of Mirabel and Dorval airports.

It has been charged with responsibilities that are no longer under federal jurisdiction. It is the working group that will manage the two airports in that area. The government's intent is to split off the business of running business away from the federal government and let the communities take control of their destinies. It is the communities, on many levels, municipal, provincial, et cetera, that are represented on this local airport authority called ADM and are charged with these responsibilities.

It is a measure that has been put forward by the government which has been overwhelmingly endorsed by Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is producing very dramatic, very appreciable and well supported, far reaching opportunities for all the airports, including my airport in Hamilton, Ontario.

I must respond to and strongly disagree with the concerns outlined by the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans and others in the Bloc who allege that the regions are not fully represented on the Nav Canada board.

On the subject of the request by Bloc members in their motions for representation for large and small carriers on the board of directors of Nav Canada, this request is entirely unnecessary. This request was debated in committee. I am not sure how a lot of these motions got put in at report stage. Exactly the same motions were dealt with in committee, but that is a matter for another day.

Why is it completely unnecessary? This matter is already taken care of by the bylaws of the corporation. Four directors are appointed by ATAC, which is the Air Transport Association of Canada. It is the largest trade association, representing carriers of all sizes and from all regions of the country.

ATAC membership includes major national and international carriers, regional air carriers, and I stress the word regional, local service carriers and even flying clubs.

On the specific issue of regional representation, Nav Canada's bylaws require the corporation to consult with bona fide regional trade associations in the appointment of its directors. It is worth noting that one of the four directors appointed by ATAC is the former president and chief executive officer of a regional air carrier.

Organizations representing smaller air carriers also have an opportunity to influence Nav Canada's decision making process through an advisory committee provided for in the Nav Canada bylaws.

At Nav Canada's first annual general meeting held last April 10, 15 individuals were elected to the advisory committee. Among these individuals were representatives of several regional associations, typically consisting of smaller commercial operators such as the British Columbia Aviation Council and Mr. Jenner at the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens. Therefore, the representation is there and the Bloc's concerns that the regions are not represented are entirely unfounded.

Moving to the next group and in response to the hon. member's motions, particularly Motion No. 4, can anyone imagine the impracticality of giving notice in every newspaper serving the regions to be affected by a proposal, whether in respect of changes in services or changes in charges?

If one carries that logic to the logical extension, in the case of an en route charge where one is taking it right across the country, that would impose a requirement on the new not for profit corporation called Nav Canada to publish in every newspaper across the entire country. Can you just imagine the fees and charges that would entail in making notice on a change in charges, for example?

Incidentally, the motion also contains an error. Clause 15 deals with changes in services and facilities, not charges. The notification requirement established in clause 15(3) already ensures that all interested persons will know about a Nav Canada proposal. It is there.

In addition, the Nav Canada bylaws require that notice be given in the two largest national circulation newspapers in each of the official languages of our country.

In Motion No. 5 presented by the Bloc members, the requirement to send by mail and electronic means would clearly represent an unproductive duplication of effort. The Bloc motion refers to mail and electronic means.

What if an individual, organization or group was not equipped to receive a notice by electronic means? There must be a few of them in Canada. Nav Canada could be in breach of its obligation to provide notice if it did not send a notice electronically to such a person or a group because, and I remind the hon. member opposite, the motion refers to mail and electronic means. Nav Canada should be allowed to use either mail or electronic means, which makes the most sense in terms of the specific interested individual.

On Motion No. 6, Bill C-20 identifies only one group of persons specifically, that is, the users. This does not mean that only users have a role. Everyone else is covered by the expression "other person". The reference to "other person" is in Bill C-20. To single out, as the Bloc requests to do in this motion, band councils from all other interested persons seems rather inappropriate.

The association of commercial pilots which appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport would be one group that might expect explicit recognition. Airport operators would be another group that might feel this way.

The expression "representative organization of users" seems pretty clear. It is clear enough that a change to "organizations representing users" is entirely unnecessary.

On Motion No. 7, the reference is incorrect. It should be clause 18, not clause 15. It would be impractical to give notice in every newspaper primarily serving the regions to be affected by a proposal, whether we are talking about changes in northern or remote services or changes in charges. In the case of an en route service where one is taking it right across the country, this proposal could impose a requirement on Nav Canada to publish in every newspaper in outlying regions of the entire country. This is not very practical.

Motion No. 8 contains a reference which appears to be incorrect. It should be clause 18 and not clause 15. The requirement to send by mail and electronic means would represent that unproductive duplication of effort we spoke about earlier.

Motion No. 9 contains an incorrect reference. It should be clause 18, not clause 15. I repeat that Bill C-20 identifies only one group of persons specifically, that is, the users. That does not mean that only users have a role. Of course everyone else is covered by the expression "other persons".

The remaining Motions Nos. 10 to 12 and Motions Nos. 16 to 24 are amendments which repeat all the impracticalities put forward by the Bloc. They are impractical and unproductive amendments which I addressed in the first nine motions of this group.

In the closing remarks of the last group the Bloc raised its concerns about safety. I cannot stress enough to hon. members opposite that Transport Canada prides itself, whether it is the Minister of Transport, members on this side of the House or all the men and women who work for Transport Canada, on the safety record in transportation in this country. Transportation safety is always priority one in that department.

When the hon. members speak I dare say politically on the issue of safety and their concerns, I recognize they have concerns. However I want to remind them and I must remind them that where safety is concerned, the supremacy of safety in Bill C-20 is clearly established through references to the Aeronautics Act within the body of Bill C-20 and regulations made pursuant to the act.

We cannot do a better job putting those requirements or preambles to motions within the body of Bill C-20. We cannot do a better job than referring to the Aeronautics Act. It is the best instrument to address safety, better than anything the Bloc might want to move motions on.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a couple of little housekeeping items first. Both the Bloc member and the parliamentary secretary mentioned a couple of areas.

Bloc members were concerned that the Quebec transport association was not getting a proper voice. For the record, Mr. Jenner of that organization was offered a seat on the board of directors and turned it down. He acknowledged this right in committee. I am not quite sure where the Bloc is coming from on that. He was offered exactly what they say he should have got and he turned it down.

Also Bloc members talked about ADM. As the parliamentary secretary said, I do not know how that found its way into this discussion. I have one point for clarification. What they are asking for is the Montreal authority be ruled by the federal government.

If Bloc members are saying that rather than having local authorities in Quebec rule on things, they want the federal government to rule on it instead, they had better re-evaluate their entire mandate as separatists. What they want is to come away from the federal government and take control but when they have it, they are saying they want the federal government to take it back. They should clarify why they are really here in the first place.

With regard to the variety of motions in Group No. 2 dealing with information and the process of advertising that information, I talked with the Bloc members on this in committee where it had been brought up by them. I did not support them at the committee level because while they had a good concept, it went too far. It was far too onerous.

I said that they should come down with something simple. They were telling me they wanted better notification for changes in services or deletion of services particularly in northern areas where there may not be good information dissemination. I said I could support that if they could word it in such a way that they did not get into all those other areas. That is still a great concept, to have a better type of advertisement in some of the more remote and hard to reach areas. However instead of simplifying their motion, if anything, they have made it more complex.

The parliamentary secretary correctly pointed out that if a general change were made in the fee structure, which obviously will happen from time to time-God knows I would love it if I were still paying the same for food, a haircut or gasoline that I paid in 1970 but that is not the case. And it is not going to happen with Nav Canada neither. From time to time its fees are going to change. The way it reads for most of the motions is that every time Nav Canada changes its fee structure, as it will do, it must advertise in every newspaper in this country. That is so onerous and makes it absolutely impossible.

It seems ironic that the government, correctly though it may have been, speaking against better dissemination of information mainly because it was too onerous should turn around in another area and try to promote the dissemination of information that probably should not be going out.

At committee we dealt with a motion by Reform which actually added to the bill a requirement that Nav Canada meet the same parameters of the Privacy Act as was done when it was a government organization. It follows exactly the same format the government used for the official languages bill. In fact, it was a subclause to that same section of the bill. This is not something which the privacy commissioner, who has the responsibility for this, spoke against. In fact, he came to committee to see if we would please put it in. Nav Canada did not have any objection and was basically going to do this anyway.

It put in an assurance to the users that it was going to be taken care of and it passed. Reform, who put it in, voted for it. The Bloc, who had a similar amendment, voted for it as did some Liberals.

As the parliamentary secretary is fond of saying, a committee is master of its own destiny. If we ignore what the committee does and overrule it by Liberals only, then why bother even having the committee? If the Liberals are going to pass only the things they like and overrule things that get passed in spite of them, then why do we bother having these committees in the first place? The government might as well write out its four year agenda, pass it and that is the end of it.

I am very shocked and disappointed to see the Liberals trying to take out a clause that their own Liberal dominated committee passed. It is astounding.

Reform will not be supporting the motions brought forward by the Bloc in Group No. 2. The only area we support are some technical motions that are going to be discussed later in Group No. 3 brought forward by the Liberal Party. We do not have a problem with that. Because of what I would have to say is a rather deceitful motion by the government, we will probably also support the Bloc motion to try to put it back in, even though it is by a somewhat convoluted method.

It is a good bill. It is unfortunate that we get into these debates on various types of changes, some of which are political. The bill has been drawn up out of eight possibilities that were looked at early on which were quickly narrowed down to two and soon focused in on one. The users, the employees, the service providers are all working together to provide a not for profit organization so that somebody is not going to try to get rich from this.

Could the bill have been better? I doubt there is a bill that is ever passed that could not perhaps be slightly better. Maybe we will find some improvements to make on it as we watch it unfold. We may find there are some corrections we could make.

On the whole it has the support of the industry, albeit some people are a little nervous because it is new and change is always a little scary for a lot of people. It has the support of the users. It has the support of the people who work in the industry. It will have the support of the Reform Party as well.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To assist the chair, if we have completed debate on this group, maybe we could call for the question and move on to the next group.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary is being very co-operative but unless I am

mistaken I think there are members from other parties who still want to speak to these motions in Group No. 2.

My hesitation was more on the basis of the clock. I do not know of too many members who would seek the floor to speak for 30 seconds or one minute. However, that is not a subject of concern to any of us any more.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-243, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (reimbursement of election expenses), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Canada Elections Act

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

moved that Bill C-243, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (reimbursement of election expenses), as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank members in the House and in particular in the committee that dealt with the bill for their assistance. I also thank the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and Elections Canada for their assistance in putting the bill together.

The idea behind the bill was that election expenses, money paid by the government, by the taxpayers of Canada, to registered political parties is done so for good reason. There are some who say there should be none paid and there are others who say it should be paid differently. Today the country reimburses political parties and candidates a certain amount of the expenses they incur in their political activities.

In the case of individuals running for political office federally there must be a hurdle to be met. That hurdle is that in addition to whatever else one does one must get 15 per cent of the total votes cast in one's constituency in order to qualify for reimbursement of election expenses, which amounts to 22.5 per cent of whatever qualifies.

The case with registered political parties federally was that all that was required was that a minimum threshold be met in spending. It seemed reasonable that if members had to receive a minimum amount of popular support in their constituencies, registered political parties should also receive some popular support.

When the bill was examined in committee the question was raised of what the threshold should be. There were those among us who said the threshold should be fairly high and there were those who said it should be fairly low.

The compromise of a 5 per cent threshold of a political party's having to garner either 2 per cent of the votes nationally or 5 per cent of the votes in the constituencies in which a political party fielded candidates was a compromise between those who wanted a lower number, say 2 per cent, and those who wanted a higher number, say 8 per cent or 9 per cent.

In committee we determined that 5 per cent was a compromise and that is how we arrived at 2 per cent of the total votes cast nationally or 5 per cent of the votes in the constituencies in which a political party ran candidates.

I want very much to thank all of the members who participated in committee who helped give consideration to the bill. It does not have a particularly large effect in the scheme of things on the pocket book of the nation, although it is over $1 million we are talking about, and that is not small change in anybody's lexicon.

Most important, it brings into the body politic the necessity to be accountable for what we do as citizens and how we spend the nation's treasury.

I welcome the debate that will follow and I thank everyone for their participation and consideration of the bill. I thank Elections Canada and affirm to everyone in the Chamber today this measure fits exactly with the report of the Chief Electoral Officer submitted to Parliament in February.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-243, sponsored by the member for Edmonton Southwest.

Bill C-243 is a short bill which proposes amendments to only one subsection of the Canada Elections Act. However, it touches on the important issue of financial controls for the electoral process. I believe this is fundamental to representative democracy.

We on this side of the House support Bill C-243. We do so for three main reasons. Bill C-243 would promote both fiscal restraint and fairness in the electoral system. With respect to fiscal restraint there is a need to ensure that the scarce tax dollars are not directed to electoral activities that receive marginal or trivial voter support. With respect to fairness, there is a need to ensure the system for financing electoral campaigns does not unduly restrict the electoral choices of Canadians.

The bill, we believe, represents a good balance between these often conflicting goals. Let me explain this balance in greater detail.

A registered political party is required to field candidates in at least 50 electoral districts in order to obtain and maintain its registration. Section 322(1) of the Canada Elections Act sets out the conditions that allow registered political parties to receive 22.5 per cent reimbursement of eligible electoral expenses. In order to claim reimbursement a registered political party must spend more than 10 per cent of its election expenses limit as determined under section 39(1) of the act.

Registered political parties become entitled to the reimbursement no matter how few or how many votes they receive. This reimbursement is tied in part to the political party's ability to spend.

There has been criticism of this reimbursement regime. It follows no logical except perhaps to reward the ability to spend, which no electoral system should encourage.

We are familiar with the abuses of the last general election. We noted in the House in May last year the platform of certain political parties whose ideas did not seem to follow the national debate; the Rhinoceros Party and the Yogic Flyers are two that come to mind. Many Canadians perceived their campaigns perhaps as a humorous interlude in the midst of a very serious electoral event. Others we not amused.

We also noted at that time that although most of these registered organizations received marginal public support, less than 1 per cent of the total votes cast, Canadian taxpayers, as my hon. colleague has already pointed out, were required to spend in excess of $1 million in eligible reimbursements. That did not sit well with many Canadians. Questions were asked and Canadians wanted to know why their government handed over such sums to subsidize organizations whose objective did not appear to be one of a political party.

I am not saying these organizations should not exist or that they should not have the right to speak out or to field candidates in any electoral event. That is their right. That is any Canadian's right.

Rather, this debate focuses on the need to apply some fiscal restraint. Moreover, this restraint should be applied in a logical and fair manner.

We believe and agree with our hon. colleague that Bill C-243 would drop the current requirement that a political party spend at least 10 per cent of its allowable election expenses to be eligible for reimbursement. That makes sense.

The basis for reimbursement should not be a political party's ability to spend. Instead, eligibility for reimbursement would be limited to registered political parties which receive either 2 per cent or more of the number of valid votes cast at the election or 5 per cent of the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the registered party endorsed a candidate. In other words, reimbursement would be voter based. Political parties would be rewarded for their efforts in convincing the electorate of the validity of their principles and their overall platform. That makes sense. The bill also ensures the deck is not stacked against the establishment of new national or regionally based parties.

The royal commission on electoral reform and party financing noted Canadians wanted a broader choice in the selection of their electoral representatives. The bill is in keeping with that viewpoint. In doing so it also supports the fundamental charter right of freedom of expression.

The bill in our opinion is also in keeping with the red book commitments of electoral financing. That is the second reason we as Liberals rise in support of the bill. The red book noted the need to limit the role of special interest groups in campaigns, the need to impose tougher spending limits and the need to close certain loopholes in election spending. Bill C-243 makes an important contribution toward these objectives.

The third and final reason for our support concerns the comprehensive manner in which the bill was developed. The Canada Elections Act is a complex piece of legislation. In general its provisions must not be considered independently from one another. Piecemeal amendments to the act are usually discouraged. However, in this case we can all point to the in depth review conducted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs last fall.

The original proposal of the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest was amended, with his concurrence and support, to take into account the concerns of all committee members. There was a consensus that the bill, as amended, was worthwhile and would not impact inadvertently on the other provisions of the act. It shows what can be accomplished when members work together.

The government's support of the bill today is tangible proof of its belief in the importance and the relevance of private members' bills.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit out of breath, having rushed here from a meeting of the national security committee, where we would have greatly appreciated the presence of the hon. member for Scarborough West. Oh well, maybe next time.

I took part in the examination of the bill known during the first session of this Parliament as C-319, and now with reprinting and Motion No. 1 it has become Bill C-243. As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal has said, this is a compromise, reached after many

efforts on all sides by all of the parties represented on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I would like to commend the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest, if I may, for all the energy he has devoted to this entire process, first of all, in having managed to get his bill into the works, then in having defended it before the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business, and then in having defended it brilliantly before the procedure and House affairs committee.

My congratulations, not just to the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest, but also to the colleagues who contributed to this compromise: the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, of course, who chaired the committee, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, who shared his experience with us, and the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who, as usual, helped us draw up a better bill.

As has been mentioned, but I will take the liberty of repeating it, we focused on one thing: avoiding having public funds, the public purse, used to support marginal groups, which, through sometimes contorted interpretations of the law, manage to register as political parties and, by spending an amount of money, manage to recover certain amounts.

The aim was simply to eliminate the flakey. In no way did we question the political programs or options of any party. That was far from our intention. We set minimum criteria that enable parties with some popular support to develop in a democracy. It was certainly not our idea to limit access to Parliament, in practical terms, to existing parties or to parties that had existed in the past.

The criterion we chose was that a party, to obtain reimbursement from the public purse, had to have 2 per cent of national votes or 5 per cent of votes in ridings where they ran a candidate. With the elections act requiring a party to have at least 50 candidates in order to register, we felt this standard was high enough to eliminate the completely flakey organizations while allowing the development of political parties that failed to gather 30 or 35 per cent of votes in an initial election.

It is a tricky balance to strike, but it was feasible with everyone's patience and co-operation. Credit here must be given to the member for Edmonton Southwest for endlessly contributing, with constructive suggestions, to the improvement of the bill and successfully creating a consensus on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Of course we have to come back to the funding of political parties by looking at other aspects of the question. This does not end the debate. An important point has been reached, however, and unanimously I assume. But, we must not stop here. One day we have to deal with the funding of political parties. In this case, we are only dealing with reimbursement. But how are parties funded?

We had proposed in a motion which was voted down by this House by only a few votes-members of both opposition parties had overwhelmingly voted in favour of it-that contributions to political party election funds at the federal level be subject to the same rules as in Quebec. Contributions to political parties registered in Quebec can only be made by individual voters and cannot exceed $3,000 per party, a reasonable limit in a free and democratic country.

This House came very close to passing such a measure and having a bill to this effect. If I remember right, motion M-150 moved by the member for Richelieu dealt with this issue. We will have to resurrect it some day because Canadians have the right to know who is funding political parties in this country.

The rule is simple: "Tell me who is funding you and I will tell you whom you are serving". The Bloc Quebecois has nothing to hide, we are entirely funded by our own members. We went way beyond the Canada Elections Act by choosing to accept contributions only from our members who could vote and by limiting contributions to $5,000. I must say that this maximum is rarely reached, contributions are often more modest.

As most Canadians know, in Quebec, we raise money for our party through all kinds of events, giving us the opportunity to have a good time while holding more in-depth political debates, and ensuring grassroot funding. By using this form of funding, the Bloc Quebecois makes sure it is its own creature.

We are only accountable to those who elected us. If a contributor were to insist too much, it would be easy to say: "Listen, I will write you a cheque-in this case it would be an Air Canada passenger coupon more than a cheque-I will write you a cheque, here is your refund". But there are no such situations.

If I had received $50,000 or $60,000 from the Royal Bank, I could perhaps write the first cheque, but as things stand, I am not sure my bank or caisse populaire would honour it. I would have a hard time paying it back.

That is the problem they have on the other side. I hope the problem has not yet reached the Reform Party, because they seem unable to define their position on this.

Our friends on the other side have a problem: they get their funds from large corporations, big business, and they are first and foremost accountable to those who provide those funds. Tell me who pays your way, I will tell you who you serve.

Of course, the president of a large corporation who contributed to an election fund to the tune of a five or six-figure amount will

probably get some private telephone numbers or cellular phone numbers that will give him access to influential people.

In our party, it is very easy, our numbers are in the phone book. All voters are welcome, whatever their political colours, blue, red, multicolored or any other colour you want. Reformers are a bit on the green side, I would say, but they are welcome too. When we are elected, we are, as yourselves, here to represent everyone. We are here to serve not only Bloc party members, but also Liberals, former Conservatives and NDP members who need our support.

In conclusion, it is with this in mind that I send this message, so we can debate the financing of political parties in the near future. This would be a major reform, one of the great reforms of Canadian parliamentary process, as it was in Quebec.

If we had to choose the most important piece of legislation in Quebec in the past 50 years, the first prize would go to the political party financing legislation, which only allows persons qualified to vote, ordinary citizens, to finance political parties, not unions, corporations or body corporates. This measure has revolutionized parliamentary customs.

And if we were to adopt it here, of course, it is more difficult to build up campaign funds with $20, $50 or $100 here and there, although tax provisions allow for a generous refund of up to 75 per cent on the first hundred dollars, which may help sometimes.

So, it is not so difficult, but we have to take the trouble to do it. Of course, it is always easier to make a phone call and receive a big cheque, but we stay in touch with the grassroots when we go from town to town in our ridings, to see our constituents and ask them for a contribution to a fund raising campaign. They are able to give us the message, to tell us what they want us to do in the House of Commons and which issues they want us to deal with first. This is a wonderful way for us to keep in mind we are accountable first and foremost to those who have given us, for a limited time, the seats we are sitting in so that we can rise from time to time and make some interventions such as this one, which is coming to an end.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the comments of the member for Bellechasse, in my case and I hope in the case of every other member of this House, we are here to serve our constituents no matter what their political stripes may be. Whether they are NDP, Bloc, Liberal, Conservative or Reform, I feel it is my obligation to serve my constituents to the best of my ability. I am sure other members of the House feel likewise.

I want to be on record as saying that given my druthers I would advocate doing away with all taxpayer financial support to political election campaigns. I would put the onus on political parties or individual politicians to convince their constituents that their political viewpoints or the capability of a specific candidate are such that citizens would be willing to provide financial backing to put forward those views or to support that candidate.

Because this view does not now seem to be accepted by the current Canadian political establishment and because it is a step in the right direction, I am pleased to address at third reading Bill C-243 which will amend the Canada Elections Act and clamp down on federal election refunds to fringe parties.

In 1974, section 322 of the Canada Elections Act was adopted, establishing an expense related system that allowed any registered party to receive a 22.5 per cent refund if it spent at least 10 per cent of its eligible expenses on its election campaign. At the same time, the new law imposed election campaign spending limits on parties and qualified candidates who received at least 15 per cent of the votes in their electoral district to receive a 50 per cent rebate on their actual campaign expenses.

These reforms were important because they enabled greater public scrutiny and assisted in restoring public confidence in the political and electoral system.

At that time, the face of the Canadian multi-party system was quite different than it is today. Those legislators did not foresee the emergence of multiple fringe parties that have very limited public support, but because of the money they spend during their campaign have under current regulations become eligible for a taxpayer subsidy.

Last fall, as a new member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I took part in the study of Bill C-319 which has been reintroduced in the new session of Parliament as Bill C-243. During that study, modifications were adopted to ensure that this amendment to the Canada Elections Act will not impede the democratic process nor the ability of concerned citizens to organize and put forward candidates to run on any set platform.

The goal of the amendment is to eliminate federal subsidies to fringe groups that have little or no significant degree of public support. Not only a matter of principle, it is in the interest of effecting greater fiscal responsibility for the taxpayer.

I wish to reaffirm that Reform remains committed to the elimination of all political subsidies. Our party, on forming a government, will eliminate those political subsidies in keeping with our commitment to party policies and principles born through consultation with Canadians.

For more than 20 years now, Canadian taxpayers have paid large election expense reimbursements and tax credits, thus directly

supporting election campaigns and indirectly topping up political war chests between election periods.

Canadian taxpayers object to being forced to finance and thus support political parties they do not wish to support. This is particularly true at a time when it is increasingly obvious that political parties are able to raise the money required to run campaigns.

Would they still be able to raise these funds, particularly the fringe parties, if there were no political contribution income tax deduction available? After the 1993 election, candidates eligible for the Elections Canada reimbursement held an average surplus of $1,518 in their accounts, without the federal subsidy.

Again, in 1993 the top five political parties reported a total income of $63 million in campaign contributions but only actually spent $31 million on the campaign. From these figures, it is evident that the taxpayer could easily have been spared more than $7 million in reimbursements to the top five parties.

Further, knowing a 22.5 per cent reward will be paid based solely on their election expenses, there is little incentive for registered parties to be fiscally responsible in their campaign spending.

Initially, the purpose of the national campaign refund was to ensure national or regional parties were kept alive and well between elections. With new fund raising techniques, these seed funds are no longer necessary. Current statistics indicate all parties could well function without them. The grants are simply not required to obtain voter support.

While it is undoubtedly difficult for political parties to give up what has become a crutch, if the voter support is there the money will follow. Campaigns can be run with less glitz and still be effective.

Clearly, the total elimination of election reimbursements would prove to be the most effective means to level the election playing field. Moving back to the issue at hand, the official registration of an organized political party gives it the right to issue tax receipts for donations and affords that privilege at rates well in excess of those granted to charitable organizations. I think it is unconscionable that contributions to a political party should exceed those given to an organization that is in direct support of people who need that help.

The participation of fringe parties during the last two federal elections has prompted a growing public concern that some groups have used election campaigns as springboards for causes or issues that are largely dismissed by the general population as irrelevant to the political debate.

In proposing the bill, the member for Edmonton Southwest is attempting to gain the consensus of the House in agreeing to take one small step toward an important electoral reform, a reform which will not deny the ability of individuals to form new parties and run candidates in even a relatively small number of ridings but will put an end to one of the identified flagrant abuses of the public purse.

The bill will amend section 322 of the Canada Elections Act by imposing a minimum level of voter support as a condition to receive a refund for election expenses. This will be achieved by eliminating election refunds for registered regional parties which fail to receive at least 5 per cent of the valid votes in the electoral districts in which they run candidates, or authorizing refunds only for registered national parties which receive a minimum of 2 per cent of the total number of valid votes cast in that election. All reimbursement requirements will remain the same.

The bill is of importance to all Canadians and of interest to parties of all political stripes. It will save taxpayers an unnecessary expense. Had it been law in the last general election, about $1 million in election refunds would have been saved. It will not adversely effect regional parties geared to expressing the concerns and representing the interests of that region. It will allow a smaller faction to form a party, field candidates and promote a platform specific to that constituency.

Politicians of all stripes must have the courage to lead by example. This bill represents only a small step in the right direction, but it is an important step because it is clear there is substantial support for the concept of eliminating election subsidies to political fringe groups.

It is my hope, and I have been given reassurance, that the House will today give unanimous support to this important private member's initiative. I am pleased to congratulate hon. members on their sensible reaction to it.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

Criminal Code

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

moved that Bill C-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act (profit from authorship respecting a crime), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all listening to imagine a country in which serial killers, child rapists, murderers and violent criminals can, from their jail cells, write stories of their crimes, sell the books to the citizens of the country within which they wreaked such havoc and bank the money anywhere in the world.

Imagine a country in which these same heinous criminals can collaborate with movie producers, sell the stories of their crimes, be technical advisors to the creation of movies of their infamous activities and bank their ill gotten profits anywhere in the world.

Many Canadians would be shocked to know that country is Canada. This is despite the fact that the common law of the country has held for centuries that a criminal may not profit from his or her crime. That is why a person who murders their spouse cannot collect the victim's life insurance even as the named beneficiary.

Should the murderer write a book about their crime, about how they plotted to kill their spouse in order to get the insurance proceeds, and thereby make a profit from the sale of that book, surely that is as much profiting from the crime as collecting the insurance. Yet there is no prohibition of this in Canadian law.

A few might argue these miscreants have a right under our charter to sell their stories in whatever form and pocket the profits. The vast majority of Canadians, I included, do not share this view.

How can we prevent such a perversion of the most fundamental principles of crime and punishment, indeed of justice? My private member's Bill C-205 is an attempt to insure that no criminal may profit from writing about or selling the story of their sordid activities.

The idea for the bill was born in the summer of 1993 when I read a news report that Karla Homolka was reported to be considering selling her story for a profit. There may be some who do not remember the name Karla Homolka. Let it simply be said she pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the murder of two young girls in southern Ontario, together with her spouse who was charged with first degree murder, Paul Bernardo, who was subsequently convicted.

In July 1993 I read a newspaper article. I quote two paragraphs from it. I am sure most Canadians would not believe what they were reading. The title of the article is "Teale Free to Profit on Story". The House may remember that Bernardo and his wife changed their name to Teale at one point: "Karla Teale is free to get rich by selling the story of her guilt in the sex slayings of two teenaged girls, federal legal experts say. Officials in both the justice ministry and corrections Canada said yesterday there is no law barring Teale from selling her tale to the U.S. media networks or to book publishers". That is a shock to most Canadians.

At the time there was a publication ban on the case because Bernardo had not yet been brought to trial. That publication ban is now over. We know all the sordid details of the case. Yet she is by the admission of the justice department and by the admission of corrections Canada free to pander her story to whomever will buy it, to take that money, put it in the bank and use it for her own purposes, whatever they may be. There has to be something wrong with a country and with a system of justice that would allow that. That simply does not make sense.

How do we do something about it? Let us ask a rhetorical question. If Karla Homolka is free to write a book or to sell her story and collaborate on a screenplay, free to open up a Swiss bank account, free to make whatever deals she wishes to make with whatever producer is wanting to make some money from her story, then why not Paul Bernardo? Why not Clifford Olson or Denis Lortie or any of the other heinous criminals we can think of, including the torturer murderers of Toronto shoe shine boy Emmanuel Jacques, which shocked my community a few years back?

In the summer of 1993 when I read this article I could not believe it. Being a lawyer, the first thing I did was realize I must never believe what is in the media without checking it. I looked in the Criminal Code. Sure enough, there is no prohibition in the Criminal Code. There is no prohibition anywhere for criminals selling their stories. That was then.

Since then Ontario has passed a bill to prevent this kind of thing. However, this is an extremely piecemeal approach, which I will talk about later, because what we are basically saying is that if a criminal happens to be housed for a period of time in Ontario they cannot do something, but the minute they are housed in another institution in another province they can do it.

The Criminal Code applies all across Canada. We are not the United States with 50 separate Criminal Codes. Canada has only one Criminal Code. Surely we should be able to tell criminals they must not profit from telling the story of what they did. If they want to clear their conscience by writing about it, fine. This bill does not prevent anybody from telling their story or writing a book about their story, but it does try to prevent them from selling their story and making money on it.

I then consulted with colleagues of mine in the legal community in Ottawa, in particular general lawyers. I thank in particularMr. Frank Brown. I also consulted copyright lawyers. I thank Mr. John Macera from the Copyright Bar of Ontario for helping me and working with me in formulating this bill.

I reiterate very clearly what this bill is and what it is not and on what principles it is based. It is based really on two principles. First, no criminal should ever profit from telling the story of their crimes. Second, criminals need not be prevented from telling their stories provided they do not profit from the telling.

This bill is a nutshell bill as it has only three sections. It is very simple. It includes in the Criminal Code definition of proceeds of crime any profit or benefit gained by a person or his family from the creation of a work based on the indictable offence for which the person was convicted.

Thus we would be able to seize such profits under the current Criminal Code provisions dealing with proceeds of crime. This is clearly criminal law jurisdiction under our Constitution.

I underscore there is no difference in my view, as I said earlier, with a criminal killing their spouse and then trying to collect the proceeds of the insurance. The insurance has nothing to do with the crime. The insurance is a private contract made under provincial laws between the insured and the insurance company. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual crime. The insurance policy may have been taken out 10 or 15 years earlier when the couple were on their honeymoon perhaps. Therefore there is no direct relationship between the insurance policy and the proceeds of the insurance policy and the crime.

However, it is obvious no civilized society can convict someone for the murder of their spouse, put them in jail and then force an insurance company to pay a million dollar policy to the person who killed his spouse. Even though the insurance policy is not directly related to the actual murder, common law has always stated one cannot profit from one's crime.

The same analysis can be made to either writing a book or selling one's story. Obviously it is not directly related to the crime because it clearly must occur after the crime. The crime has to be committed first, otherwise there is nothing to write a book about or sell the story. However, it is just as related in terms of the principle of profiting from one's crime as an insurance policy is.

It does not make any sense to permit Paul Bernardo to sell a screenplay of what he did to some American producer and then have that money banked in Switzerland and used for whatever purposes he wants. There has to be a way of dealing with this. For reasons I will expand on in a moment, this bill will enable us to deal with virtually the entire civilized world and not just Canada.

The Criminal Code provision would be changed to include in the definition of proceeds of crime a work created by someone who has committed a crime. This alone would not help us if the story or book were sold outside Canada. It would only help us inside Canada. I will take members through the sentencing procedures in a moment.

We still want to be able to go extraterritorially to prevent a Bernardo or Olson from making a deal outside Canada and banking the money outside Canada. How can that be achieved? We could look to the Copyright Act, which again is federal jurisdiction. There can be no question or debate about that.

The bill amends the Copyright Act to provide, first, that the sentence for an indictable offence is deemed to include an order that any work based on the offence is subject to a new section in the Copyright Act, which is in Bill C-205 and, second, to provide in the new section that in such a work the copyright that would otherwise belong to the convicted person becomes and remains the property of the crown forever.

This would permit Canada to bring legal action in any country that is a signatory to the Berne convention on copyright to enforce its rights of copyright, including seizure of funds paid to the criminal or injunctions to halt the sale of books, movies, videos, et cetera.

In three little sections of a bill criminals would be prevented from profiting from their crimes and would vest the copyright of any such story in the Government of Canada which could then enforce its rights to prevent the sale in any country to which the Berne convention applies, which is approximately 180 countries.

Let me use someone like Paul Bernardo as an example. What would happen if this bill was in place? In addition to being sentenced to life in prison, on conviction there would be a new section in the Criminal Code which would automatically deem as part of his sentence "an order that the convicted person and any work related to the offence be subject to section 12.1 of the Copyright Act".

Section 12.1 of the Copyright Act, which is also part of this bill, provides that any work which is principally based on an offence or the circumstances of its commission-the copyright of that work which would otherwise belong to the offender-would belong to Canada and would never revert to the offender. The work is a very technical legal question defined in the Copyright Act.

If Mr. Bernardo wrote a book or screen play or collaborated on a book or a screen play and was paid for so doing, he would be unable to earn any money. He would have no copyright to sell because the only copyright available is in the Government of Canada which, of course, would seize the funds. That is how the bill would work.

I want to stress how important it is that this be done on a national level. It is ludicrous to suggest that this be done on a patchwork or provincial basis. Ten different laws would be required. Even if there were 12 different laws, one for each province and a law for each of the territories, that were all identical and covered the prisoner in Canada, it would not stop the prisoner from selling the story anywhere else in the world, including the United States, and putting the money in a Swiss bank account to use for any purpose.

It is not an answer, with great respect, to say it should be done by the provinces. That is patchwork at best. If nothing else, it guarantees that the story would be sold in the United States, West Germany, Great Britain or wherever there is someone who is

prepared to pay for the story in order to make money from it. We all know that there have been some pretty gruesome movies made.

The bill would not stop criminals from writing a story and asking that the crown send the profits to the victims. It would not stop criminals from writing a story simply to purge their conscience. The bill asks only one thing and that is to ensure criminals do not receive money for telling their story.

I would like to advise the House that the bill has the endorsement of the following organizations: the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, Families Against Crime Today Society, End Violence Against Children, Citizens United for Safety and Justice, Victims for Justice, Emotional Support for Victims of Violence and their Family, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, known as CAVEAT, Victims for Justice, and Canadians Taking Action Against Violence.

I would like to read a few quotations from some of the organizations that support the bill. I will begin with the Canadian Police Association, which stated:

The Canadian Police Association is pleased to announce its support forMr. Tom Wappel in his efforts to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes. Mr. Wappel's Private Member's Bill will ensure that convicted criminals will not be permitted to profit financially through writing a book or selling their story. This bill will provide much needed protection for victims of crime, and ensure that their pain and suffering is not exploited.

The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime stated:

The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime is pleased to announce our support for Mr. Tom Wappel's Private Member's Bill concerning the proceeds of crime. If successful, this Bill would prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes if, for example, they write a book detailing their criminal activities.

This kind of legislation has been a long time coming, and will go a long way in ensuring that crime does not pay. That principle is a longstanding value entrenched in the Canadian justice system and Canadian society.

The letter from CAVEAT reads:

We would like to thank you for this Private Member's Bill which addresses the spectre of convicted offenders who stand to profit by exploiting their crimes-

Public confidence in a just and safe society depends on societal values being reflected by the Justice System. Canadian society views violent offences, in particular, with revulsion and distaste. Criminals and their families should never be allowed to accrue rich rewards for their offences anywhere, anytime, any place.

To that I say amen.

In closing, I want to, in advance, thank any and all members and parties that choose to support this bill. I know there have been discussions, but I do not wish to presume anything. I want to remind members that we are at second reading. When this bill is voted on we will be asked to approve the principle behind the bill. It can then to go the justice and legal affairs committee. The experts can look at it, fix whatever needs fixing and strengthen it by perhaps putting in a section directing that the money must go to the victims, for example. I am open to any reasonable proposal which would strengthen the bill and which would meet its fundamental principle, which is that no criminal should make a dime for committing a crime.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-205. The purpose of this bill, which was introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, is to prevent a convicted offender from benefiting from his crime by creating a work, a book or a video for example, describing part or all of the crime. This bill amends both the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act.

According to the popular saying, crime does not pay. Yet, an individual convicted of an offence could now benefit from his crime. I agree, for several reasons, with the hon. member for Scarborough West that it is unacceptable and immoral for anyone to profit from his or her crime.

First of all, profiting from one's crime in this case is no more acceptable than letting a thief keep the money it has stolen or a drug dealer keep the proceeds of his trafficking. Under this new measure, conviction for an indictable offence, that is to say a major crime, will automatically entail the forfeiture of the intellectual proceeds of crime, namely royalties on the story.

Forfeiture of the proceeds of crime is ordered by the courts as a matter of normal practice. This bill merely extends the power to seize in order to prevent a person who has committed a crime to get rich as a result. Not only would the offender be deprived of any profit gained from the creation of a work based on the offence, but so would a member of his family or a person dependent on him. Otherwise, the offender might be tempted to create a work that would benefit the members of his family.

The term "family" should be defined so as to include the father, the mother, the children, the brothers and sisters, the current spouse, and the spouse at the time the offence was committed, even in case of a divorce. However, the term "family" should exclude the victim of the criminal act, even if that person is a member of the family of the offender.

Why should the victim, even if a member of the family, not be allowed to tell what he or she went through and gain from it? Publishing a book can be a legitimate means of expressing oneself and sharing one's experience with the public.

It would be too bad to punish victims, when we are taking all sorts of steps to encourage them to speak out against crime and to testify in the courts. It could be of benefit to everyone to hear what they have been through.

Everyone remembers the Lortie affair, the corporal in the Canadian army who fired a gun within the Quebec National Assembly. His ex-wife has just put out a book about the events surrounding the slaughter committed by her then husband.

The bill before us does not apply to this situation, becauseMrs. Lortie is publishing her book without the participation of her ex-husband. The French text of the bill, for once, is an improvement on the English and reveals clearly the intentions of the member for Scarborough West.

The English text would gain in clarity if the words "from him" were added after "collaboration or cooperation", in order to clearly indicate that the copyright would be confiscated only if the author of the crime either wrote or contributed to the work.

Therefore, family members would be to benefit from the work based on the offence if the author of the crime is not involved in the creation of the work. I therefore support this bill, first of all to prevent the author of a crime or the members of his family from gaining any advantage from it, but also because the proposed measure constitutes a measure of additional protection for the victims. This is an excellent measure for ensuring that victims or witnesses may testify against the author of a crime without losing anonymity.

Why do so many people not speak out? Very often, they fear publicity, fear having their names and what they experienced made public. Without the amendment proposed today, all other sections of the Criminal Code aimed at facilitating the laying of charges and testimony by victims and witnesses during a criminal trial are pointless. If the author of the crime can reveal victims' and witnesses' names, relate in detail what he did to them and how they reacted, do the victims and witnesses have any protection? They have been tricked.

They co-operated with the police, they testified in court. They were led to believe their anonymity was protected by hearings in camera or by a ban on publication. Then, once a conviction has been obtained, the author of the crime writes a book and reveals all. This is how they become victims a second time. We can assume the private life of victims is totally unprotected without this measure.

This bill is in keeping with provisions already made and with others under consideration, all with the aim of encouraging victims of criminal acts to identify their aggressors and helping them testify in court.

The Reform Party introduced a motion in this House on April 29 to have a Canadian declaration of victims' rights proclaimed. We held that it was a provincial matter, but that the federal government could, secondarily, legislate victims' rights under the Criminal Code. The measure proposed today is such an example. We hope it will receive the support of the House.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-205. I commend the member from Scarborough for an excellent presentation of his bill.

As legislators there are often times when we find there are loopholes or something missing in our judicial system. Unfortunately it is brought to our attention by the criminal elements in our society. In the past couple of years there have been two such cases which come to mind.

Back in March of this year we were informed that in an agreement with a former warden Clifford Olson had produced a dozen videotapes in prison modestly titled "Motivational Sexual Homicide Patterns of Serial Killer Clifford Robert Olson", recorded by a willing prison staff person. The purpose of the videos was apparently to provide insight into Olson's motives for committing 11 sex murders of children in B.C. before his arrest in 1981. He also agreed to provide new information about unsolved murders.

Then Mr. Olson registered for a copyright on the series of videotapes. This I might add is usually done for material with commercial potential. The fact that Olson would receive copyright protection of these videos was appalling at the time of discovery and it remains so today.

Before the videotapes were exposed however, last fall my hon. colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley received a letter from Olson who claimed to be writing a book for an American publisher. He wanted a picture of her and permission to use documents prepared by her office in his book.

In addition to the tapes and this letter, Mr. Olson registered a copyright in 1989 on a book entitled Profile of a Serial Killer: The Clifford Olson Case . He registered a second copyright in 1992 on a volume entitled Inside the Mind of a Serial Killer: A Profile . Later in August 1993 it was revealed in Saturday Night magazine that Mr. Olson had access to a reporter for 18 months of regular meetings, hundreds of hours of telephone conversations and active correspondence with him. He revealed that he had already made 35 cassette tapes of his autobiography.

As the House can see, Mr. Olson has produced a number of pieces of work with the potential for him to profit from them. In the case of the videotapes, they are the property of Correctional Services Canada and not Olson. He will therefore not profit, not

this time. However we have to prepare for the next time. The threat of him being able to profit from any such material always exists.

Olson has already manipulated the system for personal profit on one occasion. This was back in 1981 when the RCMP made a contract with him which allowed him to benefit financially from the deaths of the children he murdered. In 1982 the parents of Olson's victims sued Olson in civil court to have the money taken away from Olson and his family. The case was taken to the supreme court but unlike the American system, there were no laws in Canada to prevent him from profiting from these crimes. Beyond these frustrations is the fact that it has forced the families of Olson's victims to relive their tragedies again. These families feared all along that Olson would profit from the deaths of their children.

On March 17, 1996 I received a letter from Gary Rosenfeldt, one of the founders of Victims of Violence. He expressed fear that Olson or his lawyer might try to sell the videotapes to an American tabloid television program. It is clear that in the past couple of years he has produced enough work that has the potential to gain profit. This is why it is so important for Bill C-205 to be passed immediately into law.

This issue was once again revived in the wake of the manslaughter conviction of Karla Homolka who was sentenced to 12 years in prison for her part in the killings of teenagers Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. There was speculation that Homolka could be offered a television or book deal. Once again we are faced with the situation where there is no law barring Homolka from selling her story to the U.S. media networks or book publishers.

According to the mother of Leslie Mahaffy, the sensationalism began with a book called Lethal Marriage . Since that time there have been many articles published and the knowledge that at least three more books, a movie contract, magazine specials, TV specials and talk show offers have given Mrs. Mahaffy no comfort, only apprehension as to whether Homolka or Bernardo will collaborate in any of these productions.

Beyond these two cases we have had two others where the people have profited from their crimes. Roger Caron, a former bank robber, would not have been able to collect royalties on his Governor General's award winning book Go-boy which he wrote while still in prison. In the case of Lawrencia Bembenek, she would have had to forgo payment for her book Woman on Trial published in 1993. In this case she used the proceeds to help pay Canadian lawyers for the work they did on her case. She probably would not have written the story otherwise.

In all of these cases, Bill C-205 would deny these individuals the opportunity to profit from their crimes. This is a much needed step in the right direction. In today's society there is a tendency to make criminals celebrities with no regard to the moral questions involved. Today we have criminals collaborating on movie deals, becoming technical advisers in the creation of their movies and simply banking the profits.

Sensationalism is at the forefront of most major news stories. The more sensational the story, the more profit there is to be made. It is bad enough when people want to profit from someone else's tragedy but the fact that the criminals themselves can profit from the crimes is outrageous. It is simply hard to believe that Canada would allow serial killers, child rapists, murderers and violent criminals to write their stories of crime and be able to bank the money anywhere in the world.

Criminal acts are now held in such heroic stature that the escalation of these horrible crimes may never be deterred. Now is the time for action and this piece of legislation is the kind of law we need. We have to send a message that crime does not pay.

My hon. colleague for Scarborough West has sought to rectify these situations in his Private Member's Bill C-205. He has attempted to ensure that no criminals will profit from writing about or selling the story of their criminal activities.

Many of the victims of crime have been pushing for this legislation for a long time. The suffering these families endure on a good day is overwhelming, but as Leslie Mahaffy's mother states: "We cannot afford not to stop the sale of violence, profit from crime, especially murder which is obscene. Murder, violence, degradation, dehumanization, pornography are currently being marketed in novels, electronic games, slasher movies, videos and this must be stopped".

All in all, this legislation will ensure that victims and their families are not further victimized by criminals. We must do more for victims of crime and ensure that their rights and freedoms are respected as well. It is only right that the proceeds from such crimes should revert to the crown in order to reimburse society for some of the costs for ensuring safety in our society. Once and for all, the victims of crime must be considered before the criminals themselves.

With these thoughts in mind, I intend to move an amendment in the future which will allow the victims of crime to benefit directly. This is based on a model developed in the province of Ontario. In 1994 legislation was adopted that empowered the Attorney General of Ontario to seize all proceeds earned by criminals selling their stories. Under Bill 85, all money made by criminals would be sent to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which would directly help the families of the victims of crime. If this is possible provincially, there is no reason it could not work federally.

Therefore, I will be working toward this amendment which will be presented to the justice committee in the weeks to come.

Once again, my congratulations to the member for Scarborough West. May this bill become law.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted to participate in the debate on Bill C-205 which was introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West. I commend the hon. member for all the hard work and detailed research he has done with respect to this bill, as he has done in other cases.

The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code and to the Copyright Act. I will take a few minutes to review and comment on the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code.

The bill amends part XII.2 of the Criminal Code so as to include in the definition of proceeds of crime, any profit, benefit or advantage gained by a person convicted of an indictable offence or by any member of his or her family from the creation of a work based on the offence. This amendment would extend to such profits, benefits and advantages the existing provisions of the Criminal Code respecting the search, seizure and restraint of proceeds of crime, as well as the provisions concerning confiscation.

The bill also provides that a sentence for an indictable offence is deemed to include an order that any work based on an offence is subject to a new section which this bill proposes to the Copyright Act. The amendment to the Copyright Act would have the effect of vesting in Her Majesty any copyright in a work that would otherwise belong to the convicted person which is based on the offence for which he or she was convicted.

I would like to state at the outset that I am extremely sympathetic to the motives which lie behind my distinguished colleague's efforts to amend the law in this area and to those who have spoken in favour of this change. The phenomenon of criminals writing or threatening to write accounts of their crimes in exchange for money or for other benefits is a relatively new thing in Canada.

The very idea that a criminal who has committed a violent act or a series of violent acts, such as in the Bernardo case, could actually benefit financially from the recounting of his or her criminal acts is extremely offensive to many. If the victims of those crimes are made to be subject to those accounts, are they not being victimized again?

It is therefore something which I believe should be addressed and I commend my colleague for attempting to do so through this bill. The real question that remains is how to achieve that goal without unduly limiting the expression of ideas in a free and democratic society.

The bill we have before us, and more particularly the amendments which my distinguished colleague proposes to the Criminal Code, contain certain fundamental difficulties. As I mentioned earlier, this bill would amend part XII.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada which deals with the proceeds of crime. It should be noted that part XII.2 of the Criminal Code contains a comprehensive and complex legal regime designed to seize, restrain and ultimately confiscate proceeds from the commission of enterprised crime offences or designated drug offences.

However, the moneys sought to be regulated by my colleague's bill are not derived directly or indirectly from the commission of a crime. On the contrary, they would be derived from a totally legitimate activity, writing a book or some other similarly legitimate activity. The simple act of writing a book is not in and of itself a criminal offence even if that book is a recounting of criminal activities for which the author has been convicted.

On the other hand, part XII.2 is meant to be engaged only when the proceeds are derived from the commission of a crime, which is simply not the case with the writing and publication of a book or selling the rights for a movie.

The proposed amendments to part XII.2 of the Criminal Code would subvert the purpose of this part of the code by enabling the use of the provisions of this part of the code to confiscate moneys earned from a non-criminal act. Even if one were to attempt to characterize moneys derived from the publication of a book written by a convicted person as the proceeds of crime, it would be almost impossible to justify trying to deprive moneys earned by a member of the convicted person's family who has not been convicted of anything and who has written a book about the convicted person's criminal activities.

Any regulation imposed on income earned by an individual from materials such as books, videos, movies or other activities relating to his or her criminal activities raises constitutional concerns, most notably concerns relating to the charter. Section 2(b) of the charter guarantees to all Canadians the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media communication.

It has been suggested this bill's amendment to the Criminal Code does not infringe or restrict freedom of expression. It is argued that the regulation of moneys earned from materials relating to an individual's criminal activity does not impair freedom of expression in any way. The person is always at liberty to publish accounts of his or her crimes, but any money earned from the publication would go to the government.

If this line of argument were followed, regulation of the financial exploitation of criminality would not offend section 2(b) of the charter. However, there is another approach which results in a different conclusion. This approach to the characterization of this

legislative initiative would result in the finding of a prima facie breach of section 2(b) of the charter.

The approach holds that any attempt to regulate the moneys paid to a convicted person for publishing an account of his or her crimes amounts to a content based restriction on freedom of expression. The logic behind this approach rests on the fact that the only basis for depriving an author of any financial benefit from such an account of his or her crime is the content of the publication or expression itself. Typically the courts have found that content based limitations violate section 2(b) of the charter.

This initiative may also raise constitutional division of powers concerns. I mention this because the division of legislative powers established by sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 assigns responsibility over certain activities to the federal government and other activities to provincial jurisdictions. Section 91(27) gives federal Parliament the exclusive power to enact criminal laws and laws relating to criminal procedure. Sections 92(13) and 92(16) permit provincial legislatures to enact laws affecting civil rights in matters of a private nature.

In the Queen v. Zelinski a bare majority of the supreme court held that an accused person could be ordered to compensate victims of crime provided that such an order was an element of the sentencing process in criminal proceedings. This case dates back to 1978. Subsequent jurisprudence suggests the creation of a civil right of action for breach of the criminal law is very likely ultra vires of Parliament. That is, outside the jurisdiction of Parliament.

It has been suggested the laws seeking to attach money earned from publishing accounts of criminal activity do not fit comfortably within section 91(27) of the Constitution Act of 1867, within the federal powers.

Part XXI.2 of the Criminal Code already contains a legal regime designed to assist in confiscating proceeds obtained as a consequence of the commission of certain designated crimes. However, the moneys sought to be regulated here have only the most tenuous relationship to the crimes of which the individual has been convicted.

Numerous publications have made significant literary, historical, criminological, sociological and psychological contributions to society. One such book, Go Boy by Roger Caron, which depicts a number of bank robberies the author committed, resulted in the author's receiving the governor general's award for literacy.

The act of writing a book, producing a movie, even when based on a crime, is not criminal. The moneys earned directly from those acts are sought to be taken away from the author. Simply put, it is difficult to characterize these as fruits or proceeds of crime. Rather, the financial exploitation of crime is more accurately characterized as the regulation of contractual rights, that is, within the legislative power of the province. This has been enacted in one province and certainly options are open for other provinces to to follow the lead of Ontario.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice correctly, he is saying that if the federal government were to proceed with this bill, some aspects of it would be contrary to the charter.

Yet he is making the recommendation that the provinces have the authority to do this and that they would not be enacting a piece of legislation contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms. I see an inconsistency in this that is a justification for the government not to support the bill.

In other words, if Ontario's Bill 84 is constitutionally sound, I am sure a similar bill passed by the government at the federal level would be constitutionally sound as well. Therefore I do not understand the argument of my colleague across the way.

I rise in support of this bill. It would prohibit a criminal from profiting by selling, authorizing or offering the story of their crimes. I commend the member for Scarborough West for putting forward this bill.

It is unfortunate but not surprising the government he represents does not see fit to initiate a bill of this nature, one which reaffirms the rights of victims, the right not to be revictimized.

We need this bill because no criminal should ever profit from the exploitation of their crime.

During the heart wrenching testimony of the grandmother of murder victim Sylvain Leduc in front of the justice standing committee, we heard the horrible graphic details about that heinous crime.

We heard about Sylvain. We heard how he was taken from his home in the middle of the night, how he was tortured and beaten until he died. We learned about the sadistic mutilation of the two young women who were also held hostage during this night of terror.

We watched as the tears rolled down the cheeks of Sylvain's mother and welled up in the eyes of those in attendance as this horror story was related.

We watched the sadness and the rage surface within Sylvain's grandmother as she relived the nightmare of her grandson's brutal murder. We can only imagine the pain and suffering Sylvain's family has endured and continues to endure.

Hopefully we will never know this kind of anguish. To allow that anguish to keep festering, to allow the wound to be opened and reopened is wrong. If this bill does not pass, if we do not stop thieves, sexual offenders and murderers like those who took the life of Sylvain Leduc from receiving money for telling their story in

any form we will simply be adding to those horrendous crimes and to the suffering of those who have been victimized.

In the absence of this bill not only would victims and victims' families have to endure reading or watching the horrific events they lived, they would be watching knowing their sexual attacker or their son or daughter's killer was profiting financially. Criminals and their families should never be allowed to accrue rewards for their criminal offences anywhere, any time or any place.

How a civilized country like ours could and would allow criminals like Paul Bernardo, Karla Homolka or Clifford Olson to reap any kind of reward for their sordid activities is incomprehensible.

The bill from the member for Scarborough West will not prevent a criminal from creating a work or collaborating on a work based on their offence, which many argue is within their charter rights. However, it will prevent those convicted of an indictable offence from profiting from their offence. I am sure it will eliminate the monetary motive for proceeding in the first place.

I support CAVEAT's proposal with regard to this bill that any proceeds from the exploitation of crimes should revert to the crown for restitution to the victims of crime and to recompense society for the enormous financial costs of enforcing the law.

The media reported very accurately and graphically the murder of Sylvain Leduc and the gang torturing of his female cousins. The press also adequately portrayed the shock, rage and sadness of the family, friends and the community. However, what it failed to reveal was the less sensational part of this horror story, the part of the story regarding money. We do not hear much about the financial cost of crimes.

Unbeknownst to the Canadian public which read daily about this crime, Sylvain's single mother on welfare did not have enough money to bury her son. Although Sylvain's mother Carol applied to victims of compensation and qualified for emergency help, she was told it would be years before she receives any money.

Fortunately for her enough money was collected from families and friends to assist her. If this was not bad enough, I would like to mention the wonderful treatment Carol received from our bureaucrats.

Sylvain was killed on October 25. Three days later, October 28, Carol was called by the welfare office to tell her that since her son had died her cheque for the month of November would be reduced.

Bill C-205 is about victims. It is about the rights of victims, rights that are being denied in this country in favour of criminal rights. I have to stop here for a moment and touch on those individuals who may oppose the bill on the basis that this kind of activity would somehow have a rehabilitative effect on the offenders, that somehow the writing of these stories, the participation in videos or movies is somehow a rehabilitative procedure. I am sure we will hear that if this bill goes before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I cannot help but recall those witnesses that have appeared before the standing committee on a number of bills who have cried out for greater rights for those who have been convicted and are serving time in institutions.

I remember reading the report of Madam Louise Arbour on the riot in the Kingston prison for women. She made an enormous effort to support the rights of the inmates who had rioted, had assaulted and had completely disregarded the rights of the guards whom they attacked and the responsibility of the authorities to maintain security and order.

The author of that report even criticized the correctional facility for not ensuring that the six inmates, after they had continued to riot for three or four days before being placed into segregation, had one hour of recreational activity during the period of rioting. It was a shock to me to read that report. It should be mandatory reading for every member of the House.

I would like to read from a letter which Sylvain's grandmother wrote to the Minister of Justice and which she read to the justice committee. If this testimony does not move all members of the House to support Bill C-205 I do not know what will. The letter reads:

The most painful thing in life is to live with the knowledge that your child lies naked and cold in a morgue-

My grandson was in the morgue for three days. I was frozen to death; I could not warm up. I was in a hot tub for three days. I couldn't stand it until I knew that he had clothes on him.

My heart is a pump that keeps blood flowing through my veins. I have a special sacred place situated below my stomach. Some people call this "Intestinal Fortitude"-I call it my soul. It is there that love, hope, hate, courage, faith, humour, anger, compassion, happiness, conscience and God dwell-The horrible murder of my grandson has made my soul very sick. At times it is numb, other days it is like Jello. It has lost its desire for living. It doesn't care much about everyday things anymore. It has lost its desire for food, sex, enjoyment, travel, books, etc. There is an emptiness there, a hole that will never be filled. My grandson left this earth with part of it-

Horror and fear live there also. Sylvain's murderers have done this to me-When all is quiet, I cannot stop my mind from imagining the pain and horror Sylvain suffered before dying. I must take sleeping medication to dull these horrible pictures-

I receive psychiatric care but I find it difficult to speak of Sylvain in the past tense. It takes so much energy to get there. I find it all so hopeless. I feel like a dead flower that's been trampled down. I feel like I have been robbed.

Once again I commend the hon. member for Scarborough West for helping to put a stop to the pain and suffering of Sylvain's family, Kristen French's family and Leslie Mahaffy's family and all the families of victims of violent crimes. I support this private member's bill, as I believe the vast majority of Canadians do.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I take notice that the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester has been in the House for this full hour of debate. Possibly she might lead the next hour of debate on Bill C-205 when it returns to the House.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 7.04 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 7.05 p.m.)