Debates of May 30th, 1996

Supply

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon what we got from the member for Okanagan Centre is the usual mantra, the usual tirade, the usual fearmongering from the Reform Party and the usual attacks on certain Canadians, as aboriginals and Quebecers.

Members of the House know I hold no grief for separatists and separatism. Members of the Reform Party go around-

[An hon. member]

Tell the truth.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Do you want to listen?

[An hon. member]

Not if you are going to lie like that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

This is the place for debate but we should conduct it in a parliamentary fashion. Please make all interventions through the Chair.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to point out the Reform Party would like one day to be a national party. It says someday it would like to govern the country. Yet there is hardly a day when members of the Reform Party do not try to sully the province of Quebec. Not a day goes by that they do not try to sully francophones How do they ever expect to govern the country when they tarnish and besmirch and sully the citizens of the province of Quebec? There is no way a they can govern a country if they choose to attack one group of people day in and day out.

These people who pretend to be such model democrats should actually be very ashamed of themselves for that kind of behaviour.

The member for Okanagan Centre talked about wanting to adjust the economy. Of course we want to adjust the economy for the better. He does not say anything about the job creation that has taken place since the fall of 1993. It never crossed his lips that 636,000 jobs have been created since the fall of 1993. He does not mention that whatsoever.

There have to be changes. He talked about the country only being only eighth in productivity. Maybe we are only eighth in productivity but we are trying to be number one and we are aiming that way. He said the deficit was too high. Has he noticed the deficit is coming down?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 5.49 p.m., proceedings on the motion have expired. The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion 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.

Criminal Code

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I please to speak in the House today and support Bill C-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act to prevent criminals from profiting by selling stories of their crimes.

One of the first lessons we learn in life is that crime does not pay. We are taught that justice always prevails and criminals are always punished. As we grow into adulthood we realize this is not always so. We learn that crime sometimes does pay and that justice does not always prevail. This is wrong. That is why we need legislation like Bill C-205 which will ensure crime does not pay.

This bill is based on two principles, the first being that no criminal should ever profit from telling the story of his crime. This is not an outrageous statement. This is the common law that societies have existed on for centuries. This is why a man who murders his wife cannot collect her life insurance, even as the named beneficiary. However, should that same man make a movie or write a book about killing his wife and make profits from that sale, there is no law that prohibits this. This is unjust. Surely receiving payments for writing a book is as much profiting from the crime as collecting the insurance money.

This bill will put a stop to profiting from authorship respecting a crime. Bill C-205 amends the Criminal Code to include in the definition of proceeds of crime any profit or benefit gained by a person or a family member from the creation of a work based on the indictable offence for which that person was convicted. Therefore the government would be able to seize such profits under the current Criminal Code provisions respecting search for and seizure and detention of proceeds of crime.

This alone would not help if as an example a criminal sells his or her story to a movie or book producer in the United States who then deposits the criminal's payment into a U.S. bank account. In order to deal with such a possibility Bill C-205 will amend also the Copyright Act to provide that the sentence for an indictable offence is deemed to include an order that any work based on this offence is subject to a new section in the Copyright Act.

The bill amends the Copyright Act to provide that in such a work the copyright that would otherwise belong to the criminal becomes and remains the property of the crown forever. This would permit Canada to bring action in any country of the world which is a signatory to the Berne Convention on Copyright to enforce its rights, including seizure of funds paid to the criminal or injunctions to halt the sale of books, movies, videos and the like.

Many people will say the bill goes against society's belief of freedom of speech. This is not so. The second principle of the bill is based on the fact that criminals have the right of freedom of speech and expression provided they do not profit from it. The bill is not imposing a gag order on criminals. It is saying they cannot make money from their criminal activities.

The province of Ontario recently became the first Canadian province to pass a law similar to that of Bill C-205. Under the law criminals and people wishing to capitalize on crime must notify the province's trustee of any deal struck. All profits going to the offender must pass through the trustee's office. The trustee will ensure the money is first used to satisfy awards to the victims. The state of California also recently passed such a law following the notorious Simpson case.

Bill C-205 will also provide much needed protection for victims of crime and ensure their pain and suffering are not exploited. Imagine dealing with the grief of losing a child, a loved one, only to be revictimized by the killer's making stories and profiting from his activities. The effect of such exploitation on victims is overwhelming and unacceptable. Canada must do more to protect victims of crime. This bill will ensure victims' rights and freedoms are respected as well.

We live in a sensationalist society where criminals are quickly elevated to almost a hero status. Even the most horrendous crimes are considered glamorous. One need only remember the Jeffrey Dahmer case in the United States. In 1991 Jeffrey Dahmer was convicted of the deaths and dismemberment of 17 men and boys. While serving his time in prison Mr. Dahmer received over $100,000 from his so-called fans around the world. Even today, after Mr. Dahmer's death, there are several web sites dedicated to him on the Internet. How tragic.

One does not need to look south of the border to find another example of this type of sensationalism. In Canada one need only look at the infamous Clifford Olson. Mr. Olson has managed to provoke publicity over the past 14 years since he pleaded guilty in 1982 to murdering 11 young people in British Columbia. He has established a network of pen pals and groupies around the world and has written stories about his crimes. Recently he has made videotapes entitled "Motivational Sexual Homicide Patterns of Serial Child Killer Clifford Robert Olson". Mr. Olson has even gone as far as to register a copyright on the videos. My heart goes out to the families of these victims. How horrible it must be to relive the crimes through these videos. These families are being victimized over and over again.

Bill C-205 will not stop Clifford Olson from telling his story and seeking more publicity. However, it will certainly prevent Mr. Olson from ever making a cent from these tapes. Perhaps that alone is enough to help ease the pain of the families.

I urge all hon. members to support the bill. It will help to ensure victims and their families are not further victimized by criminals. It will also reaffirm the principle inherent in the Canadian criminal justice system that crime does not pay. It is of paramount importance that this bill become federal law in Canada.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my support to this bill. Essentially, what the member for Scarborough West is attempting to do with this bill is prevent a person convicted of a crime from benefiting from the crime through a book, a video or some other work. It would be inconsistent to condemn an act and yet allow someone to benefit from it. I therefore support the intent of this bill, which is to correct an uncommon situation, but one we saw recently in the Olson case and which could arise again at any time.

It is indeed fairly rare that a person who has committed a crime has the gall to display it in the full light of day in a video or a book. However, since the law currently contains no provision against such behaviour, there is a gap to be filled, and this is what the member for Scarborough West is proposing.

Our role as members of this House is to propose or support measures intended to bring our laws into line with reality. When a member sees a gap and takes the initiative to introduce legislation to correct the matter, we must put aside our differences and vote in favour of his bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, in his speech on May 15, applauded the motives that led the member to want to amend the law to prevent criminals from writing the story of their crime or threatening to do so in exchange for money.

He went on to say, and I quote: "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?" He added: "It is therefore something which I believe should be addressed and I commend my colleague for attempting to do so through this bill".

However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is against this bill because it would unduly limit freedom of expression in a free and democratic society, as stipulated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In our opinion, we can answer this by saying that section 1 of the charter allows for the restriction of certain rights within reasonable limits that can be justified in a free and democratic society. It is under section 1 that courts can justify random vehicle searches to check the drivers' blood alcohol level.

Section 163 of the Criminal Code prohibits the publication of something obscene or a crime comic. The Supreme Court recognized that this violation of the freedom of expression was justifiable.

While it is true that the bill before us restricts freedom of expression by depriving a person of copyright royalties, there is a rational link between this restriction and the widespread disapproval generated by the release of a video or a book by an offender. This bill seeks, among other things, to protect the privacy of witnesses and victims, so as to encourage them to report a crime and to testify before the courts.

We feel that such an objective justifies restricting the freedom of expression of an offender. Many measures seeking to protect witnesses actually violate certain basic guarantees, but are deemed acceptable by the courts, including provisions allowing witnesses to testify outside the courts or in camera. Even the right of the accused to cross-examine a witness can be restricted in order to protect the victim. In certain situations, the court can also ban the publication of any information that could lead to the identification of the plaintiff or a witness. As you can see, the Criminal Code already provides for several restrictions on freedom of speech in order to protect the witnesses. The restriction proposed in this bill seems to have a similar intent, in my opinion.

The parliamentary secretary has also opposed this bill because this matter is under provincial jurisdiction, dealing as it does with civil rights, specifically the right to write a book and make a profit from it. I can understand this objection, but the intent of the bill is not to regulate artistic creation, but to preserve the anonymity of witnesses in criminal proceedings and deter crime. To the extent that the objective sought is obviously within the jurisdiction of this Parliament, it can decree all the ancillary provisions necessary to ensure that its legislation is effective and complete.

That is precisely what this bill does, and I will therefore vote in favour, despite the fact that the member for Scarborough West objected to my witness protection bill. I have tried not to be influenced by this in my comments today, and especially in my analysis of his bill.

Finally, one final argument raised by the parliamentary secretary in opposition to this bill runs along the lines that the creation of a work by the author of a crime cannot be added to the list of proceeds of crime, since the simple fact of writing a book is not, in itself, a criminal act, even if this book is a recitation of criminal activities for which the author has been sentenced. In this regard, I do not share the view of the parliamentary secretary. I do not see why the definition of "proceeds of crime" would not include money arising from the publication of a work describing a crime. The advantage of using this definition is that the product of the publication can be seized and confiscated.

This is therefore an entirely appropriate technique in order to put some teeth into this legislation, which is an improvement to the Criminal Code.

[English]

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening on Bill C-205, the proposed legislation which would amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act to prohibit a criminal from profiting by selling, authorizing or authoring the story or details of a crime.

Copyright refers to a system of legal rights that has been developed to acknowledge and protect the intellectual labour and works of authors and creators of every nature: literary, artistic, dramatic, musical. Copyright allows these individuals to control the exploitation of their works, to profit from their works and to protect the integrity of their works. Copyright should not be unduly interfered with, only under exceptional circumstances. Bill C-205 is one of these circumstances.

This bill amends the Criminal Code to include the definition of proceeds of crime as any profit or benefit gained by a person convicted of an indictable offence, or his family, from the creation of a work based on that offence.

This amendment extends to such profits or benefits in the existing provisions of the Criminal Code respecting search for, seizure and detention of proceeds of crime. It provides that a 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.

The bill amends the Copyright Act to provide that in such a work the copyright that would otherwise belong to the convicted person becomes and remains the property of the crown even after payment of any fine or service of any period of imprisonment. The bill does not prevent any person from creating or publishing such a work but prohibits any profit or benefit that might accrue to the convicted person or to his family.

There is an interesting paradox in Canadian society today. On one hand the public decries it should have the right to know the details of a crime. We saw the outrage surrounding recent publication bans with the infamous Homolka trial. On the other hand, many of the same people say that the rights of victims and their families should be paramount. I happen to agree with the latter sentiment. No criminal should ever profit from relating the story of their crimes.

It is clear that the groups representing victims of violence and crime strongly support Bill C-205. In the words of Mrs. Priscilla de Villiers of CAVEAT: "Criminals and their families should never be allowed to accrue rich rewards for their offences anywhere, any time, any place". I agree.

The Canadian Police Association says: "This bill will provide much needed protection for the victims of crime, and ensure that their pain and suffering is not exploited". I agree. A press release from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime stated: "This bill strikes an appropriate balance between the criminal's rights and the victim's rights". I agree.

Debbie Mahaffy said that despicable, unconscionable entrepreneurs and yes, even the public, were exploiting and profiting by selling their spin on Leslie's murder to the rest of the public which felt it had the right to know the details. The French family from my neighbouring community of St. Catharines said: "The fact that people want to profit from someone else's tragedy is disgusting but the fact that the criminals themselves can profit from crime is an outrage". I agree.

These quotes are overwhelming testimony to the revictimization that occurs when criminals profit financially from their crimes. I share this outrage.

I support Bill C-205 for three basic reasons. First, 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 deterrent aspect of such an amendment is of vital importance as criminals continue to be portrayed as heroes. If criminal acts continue to promise heroic status and financial profit both to the offenders and their families, the escalation of heinous crimes will never be deterred.

Second, this bill would also help to ensure that victims and their families are not further victimized by criminals. The effect of such exploitation on victims is overwhelming and unacceptable. Canada must do more to protect victims and to ensure their rights and freedoms are respected.

Third, this bill strikes an appropriate and difficult balance between the criminal's rights and those of the victim. There is concern that a criminal has the right under our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to tell his story in any form, and to pocket the profits. We are faced with balancing the protection of victims and their families with the rights of criminals to freedom of speech.

This bill provides that criminals need not be prevented from telling their stories, provided they do not profit from telling them. There are many of us who wish these horrible accounts could be silenced forever. The next best thing is to send a clear message that no criminal will ever profit financially from a crime.

I commend my hon. colleague for Scarborough West for his research and thoughtful dealing with this issue. Part of this bill deals with changes to the Copyright Act. It provides that a sentence for an indictable offence is deemed to include on order that any work based on that offence is subject to a new section, that in such a work the copyright which would otherwise belong to the convicted person becomes and remains the property of the crown forever.

The government could bring action in any country that is a signatory to the Berne Convention on Copyright to enforce its rights. This would include the seizure of funds paid to the criminal or injunctions to halt the sale of books, movies, videos, et cetera.

Our world is an ever expanding universe of technology with the ability to transfer money abroad. Criminals can access this technology. The enormous financial cost Canada incurs in enforcing law and order and public safety affects the community as a whole. It is only fitting that any proceeds from the exploitation of such crimes should revert to the crown to recompense society for at least part of those expenses. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the provisions for the seizure of such profits.

I wish to address my hon. colleague's comments regarding the ability of Canadian consumers to make choices on these goods. Murder, violence, degradation, dehumanization and pornography are currently being marketed in novels, electronic games, slasher movies and videos. It could go on and on and must be stopped.

There is already an array of horrific material available. I do not see signs that publishers and directors are being sent a clear message from the public that this is unacceptable. Quite the contrary. It took legislation by this House to limit the sale and import of the macabre serial killer cards.

I thank my colleague again for his efforts to protect the victims and their families and ultimately all Canadians who do not want to see criminals being allowed to profit from their crimes. It is time that our society examined more opportunities to have criminals pay for what they do to victims and to society. The criminal must pay for the crime, not the victim, nor the victim's family.

Public confidence in a just and safe society depends on societal values being reflected by the justice system which is exactly what this bill does. I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this most worthy bill.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-205. On behalf of the Reform Party I want to express my strong support for this bill.

I would also like to extend congratulations to the member for Scarborough West for his hard work in bringing this proposal forward and in gaining acceptance and support from all sides of the House.

As the member discovered in the last hour of debate, the Minister of Justice's representative is one of the few members who does not support this measure. The minister and his representative think it is okay for criminals to profit from their crimes. We should not be surprised that he is the same minister who has failed to get tough with criminals since the opening of this Parliament. I believe that the will of the people will be done here even against the minister's wishes. We are going to send a message that crime does not pay.

It is unfortunate that we must consider laws like this, but it has become a sad reality in today's Canadian society that fascination with violence and crime provides a profitable opportunity for publishers, entertainers and the media.

How did we get to such a sad place in Canadian history? What has happened to Canadians that so many take an interest in the violence and the sickness of criminality? How did we come to a place where we believe that crime should pay? Some might like to say that the cultural industry of crime and violence which Hollywood likes to export into our living rooms and our movie theatres has provoked the change. We cannot blame it all on Hollywood. The problem is deeper and it is home grown.

I have an explanation with regard to leadership in Canadian society. It is about the kind of leadership that is being offered in this Parliament by the justice minister and the Prime Minister. For the past few decades we have followed leaders whose philosophy was: Do whatever feels good and do not worry about the consequences. These leaders have failed to encourage personal responsibility.

The proof is in front of this Parliament every day. We are dealing with a massive debt problem because we would not take the personal responsibility to pay for the programs we wanted. Instead we borrowed. We decided to make it somebody else's problem to pay the money back.

We have massive social programs like UI which send the message for those who are job hunting: Go out and do your own thing and if you get into trouble it is not your fault; the government will bail you out.

We have taken that approach with our criminal justice system too. We said capital punishment was just too harsh for those who deliberately took the life of another. Then we said that a life sentence in prison was too hard to serve and that 25 years should be adequate. Then a more recent Liberal government with the member for Notre Dame-de-Grâce as justice minister decided that 25 years was still too harsh. It gave us section 745, the opportunity to get out of jail free after 15 years.

The story of crime and punishment with respect to first degree murder is representative of the decay in the rest of the justice system. Even when the majority of MPs in this House attempt to reverse the trend, as with the proposal to repeal section 745 or as with this bill, the minister and his support in committee oppose the democratic will of the people. They give us leadership but in a direction we do not want to go. They say that crime should pay.

There are many other examples of decay in our justice system. This decay has been accelerated by the charter. The charter is responsible for people literally getting away with murder. Whether it was the recent drunk defence cases or the Askov cases where thousands of criminals awaiting trial were freed because their charter right to a free trial had supposedly been violated, the criminals' rights had become more important than the rights of victims in society.

Our immigration system also displays the same philosophy. We knowingly bring terrorists and other undesirables into Canada so that they will escape so-called persecution back home. None are held accountable for their actions once they arrive here. For these supposed refugees, Canada is the land of escape from personal responsibility.

We have mandatory parole for violent criminals. There is no truth in sentencing. Even if a judge gives somebody the maximum sentence, the criminal can still be back on the streets courtesy of the parole board after serving a fraction of the sentence.

It would not be possible to examine the underlying philosophy of our justice system without examining the Young Offenders Act. Here is the example of justice we provide for our children. No one in this House can deny that young offenders escape taking personal responsibility for their actions. Their names are not published and their sentences are laughable. Their parents are not held accountable either.

If the young offenders are under the age of 12 then they are completely free to do whatever they want with total immunity from the law. If anyone wants proof, talk to the parents of the 13-year

old girl who was violently raped in Toronto recently. Her attacker will never be punished because the justice minister does not believe that 11-year olds will commit crimes. Where is the personal responsibility in the Young Offenders Act? It does not exist.

We have been living with a justice system that for 30 years has continually gone softer on criminals, shrinking their sentences, supplying their cigarettes and cable television, paying for their university education and paying their green fees on the Corrections Canada golf courses. We have sent them and indeed all Canadians the message that crime can and does pay.

It is time to reverse that trend. We can do that in part by making sure that crime will not pay financial dividends to those criminals who try to profit from sensationalizing their lawlessness. If we as political leaders in Canadian society can send a strong message that crime does not pay, then we start to reverse the trend we now see in society. We need to develop a philosophy and personal responsibility in society. As one of my constituents said to me, if you do the crime, you have got to do the time.

Crime cannot be a paying proposition any longer. We must start punishing those who are entering the system as teenagers. Young offenders need to get the message that the consequences of criminal actions are not worthwhile.

If we prevent the Paul Bernardos and Clifford Olsons of this country from profiting from their crimes, we send a strong message that crime cannot and must not pay. Just as we confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking, we should confiscate the profits of those criminal entrepreneurs. If we as legislators can offer real leadership in reversing the trend toward lawlessness, then we can also encourage others to join in, including the media. Instead of sensationalizing crime we can stigmatize it. Instead of encouraging criminality, especially among our youth, we can set a trend toward respect for the law, authority and our institutions.

Canada's Constitution says that we should foster peace, order and good government. I believe this bill reflects all three principles and I encourage all members to support it.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking my hon. colleague from Scarborough West for giving me the opportunity to speak on this most important and timely initiative.

Bill C-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and Copyright Act, will prevent criminals from profiting from authorship respecting a crime. This legislation is long overdue. If passed, criminals will no longer be able to make money off the backs of their victims. They will be prevented from adding to the pain and misery they have already caused their victims and their families.

To allow a person convicted of a crime, especially murder, to receive compensation for his or her story is obscene. How do we explain to the victims or their loved ones that the person who caused them so much grief is now adding to their humiliation by profiting from their crimes?

We should follow the lead of the province of Ontario. In 1994 a private member's bill was passed which gives victims the first right to any profits earned from work produced by a person convicted of a crime. Before any deal is struck by a convicted person, the Public Trustee's Office must be notified. Subsequently, all moneys generated by the work go to that office.

This is the kind of law all Canada needs and must have. The federal government must follow suit with legislation of its own so it will be right across the country and not just in one province. Bill C-205 would accomplish this. Surely if the province of Ontario sees fit to pass such legislation, I believe the federal government should do the same.

I find it hard to believe that this type of legislation has not been adopted in the House in the past. I understand that proposals of this kind have been introduced before, but all have failed to be acted on. Therefore, I urge all members of the House to act unanimously to ensure that Bill C-205 is pursued successfully.

Bill C-205 will guard against further public humiliation of victims and their families. Most important, Bill C-205 will take away the criminal's right to profit from his or her story.

There will always be television shows, movie producers or book publishers who will be willing to pay, and pay well, to get a story. That is fine. We cannot take away that right, but we can dictate where that money goes. How we can justify a person convicted of a crime making a profit from their illegal actions is beyond me. That is exactly what this bill addresses.

Unfortunately, we cannot prohibit a criminal from telling his or her story to the press or other media outlets. However, we can take away the incentive. Hopefully they will be less willing to offer their story to the media if they know they will not see a dime for their efforts.

Do we really need to hear the full story of how Clifford Olson committed his horrible and sick crimes, or how Karla Homolka assisted in the murders of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy? I do not want to see these crimes sensationalized by the media. I do not want my children and all the children of the world to have access to these horrific tales. The thought of having the authors of these stories profiting from the proceeds makes me sick.

How any responsible journalist, television or movie producer, or book publisher can possibly justify profiting from another person's pain is beyond me. These stories do nothing but glorify violence.

Some paint false pictures of the victims and their families and basically succeed in sensationalizing crime.

It is sad, but there will always be some element of the general population that is interested in hearing or reading these warped stories. That is why we see the market inundated with the so-called true story movies and biographies of infamous criminals and the even more perverse serial killer trading cards and board games. To allow these items on the market is one thing. To allow the criminals responsible for the crimes glorified in them to profit is another. This we cannot morally allow.

Take for example the story that would be told by serial killer Clifford Olson. Do we really need to hear details of how he brutally murdered those poor innocent children? No we do not. However, as I said before, there will always be someone who is willing to print, produce or buy his story. Since we cannot prevent that from happening, we must at least prevent Clifford Olson from profiting from his horrible crimes.

Bill C-205 would amend the Criminal Code to prohibit a criminal or members of his or her family from profiting by selling the story of his or her crime. By taking away any moneys he or she may have made in the future, the incentive would be totally taken away from them.

Perhaps the crown could see fit to put the moneys generated by these movies toward various victims rights groups. It is high time that criminals really paid for their crimes in the true sense of the word.

This bill will further amend the Copyright Act to provide that the copyright of any work based on a crime where the work was created by the convicted person becomes the property of the crown. What this means is that when a book, a movie or other work based primarily on a crime is produced by a person convicted of that crime, Canada would become the sole owner of that work. Any proceeds from that work would go directly to the crown. Further, any sales or distribution of the work would be at the discretion of the crown, meaning that Canada would have the right to prevent future sales and distribution which is very important.

Also, seeing as Canada is a signatory to the Berne convention, which deals with the copyright and ownership of works, this bill would not only have a national scope but an international one as well. Canada could conceivably block any sales or distribution of a work in any country which is also a participant to the convention.

If passed, this bill will go a long way to preventing the sensationalizing of crime and violence not only in Canada but indeed in other countries as well.

Some opponents of this bill would say that it would limit the right to freedom of expression as put forth in the charter. On the contrary, let me emphasize this bill does not prohibit a person from telling his or her story. An individual who wishes to share his or her story is free to do so. All this bill simply states is that the individual would not be able to profit from the sale of the story. Society is always quick to ensure the rights of the offender are upheld. It is about time that we all stood up for the rights of the victim. This bill will ensure that the victim's rights do come first.

As I stated before, many organizations support this bill. The Canadian Police Association has stated that this bill would provide much needed protection for the victims of crime and ensure that their pain and suffering is not exploited.

CAVEAT, which represents Canadians against violence, also supports this bill. It stated that the enormous financial cost incurred by Canada in enforcing the law affects all Canadians. CAVEAT goes on to say that it is only fitting that the proceeds from the exploitation of any crime should revert to the crown.

One of the biggest supporters of this bill is an individual who stands to suffer a great deal if this bill is passed. Deborah Mahaffy is a director of the victims rights group ACTION. She is also the mother of Leslie Mahaffy, one of the young school girls who was violently abused and murdered by Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. Deborah Mahaffy and her family have endured enough pain and sorrow to last a lifetime. We need to ensure that her grief is not further exploited by her daughter's killers.

In closing, I would again urge all members of the House to support Bill C-205. Let us put our political differences aside and vote in favour of this bill. We must use this opportunity to reinforce the old adage that crime does not pay.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Scarborough West on his efforts in Bill C-205. I will deal with some of the problems I see in the bill. I agree with the comments made by previous speakers about individuals not profiting from their crimes, such as in the Bernardo and Mahaffy matter. However, we have to take a look at the bill to see what it does.

First, let me give a summary of how copyright works in Canada. Copyright is a legal system of rights developed to reward authors for their intellectual labour and thus encourage them to continue creating original works for the benefit of society.

Copyright is made up of statutory, economic and moral rights that allow authors to control the exploitation of their works, to profit from their works and to protect the integrity of their works. Copyright protects the expression of the work and not the idea

embodied in the work and comes into existence as soon as an original work has been fixed in a medium.

Categories of protected works as defined by the Copyright Act are literary works such as books, poems and stories, or artistic works which are paintings, sculptures, photographs, dramatic works such as plays, television programs, movies, scripts and musical works, for example, notes transcribed on paper or song lyrics.

The Copyright Act gives authors of works exclusive economic rights and these are the right to authorized reproduction, performance in public, publication, communication to the public by telecommunication, adaptation of certain works, commercial rental of computer programs and exhibitions of certain artistic works.

Moral rights protect the work's integrity and author's reputation. Moral rights can be waived but not transferred. They are the right to the integrity of the work, the right to be named as the work's author or the right to remain anonymous and the right to prevent the use of the work in association with a product, service, cause or institution.

The author is normally the first owner of copyright in a work, but employers normally own the copyright in works produced by employees in the course of employment and copyright ownership is alienable by assignment or succession.

Canadians recognize the importance of allowing authors to earn a livelihood from their works. They understand the benefits to society that derive from the creation of works such as cultural identity, private enjoyment of books, music, art and television and the wealth of information that is distributed through these works.

The issue becomes difficult when society, and this includes victims of criminal acts, believes that a work has been created by someone who does not deserve to make money from such works. More specifically, convicted criminals who write about their crimes and profit financially from their publication.

Bill C-205 offers one solution to the problem: to take away the copyright and proceeds of copyright from authorize who are convicted of indictable offences when they write about the offences they have committed. However, the proposed amendment to the Copyright Act runs the risk of contravening our international obligations under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The spirit of the Berne convention limits the state regulation of copyright in the criminal law.

In addition, Bill C-205 is too far reaching. It extends beyond the incarceration period throughout the lifetime of ex-offenders who have done their time and to their family members for 50 years following an ex-convict's death. For example, take someone convicted of drunk driving. This bill covers many offences, not just murder, manslaughter or sexual offences. It covers thefts, mischief, prostitution and drunk driving.

Should a person who has been convicted of drunk driving decide in his old age to write his memoirs, he could not write about the offence without losing copyright or proceeds from the work, even if the work decries drunk driving. His family would also be disinherited although they did not commit the crime. The same applies to individuals who may have been convicted of possessing marijuana and then at a later time writing about their experiences and the bad effects of drugs, could not benefit from such writings.

It is the same for individuals who have been involved in the prostitution trade. Neither the men or women who have been involved and who have been victimized in that trade could write about it years later, damning that type of trade because the copyright would be with the government. It is not a matter of them writing and not being able to profit. It is a matter of them not being able to publish it because the copyright is in the name of the state and the state must consent to publication.

Canada is not a country that is in the habit of taking away rights. It is a country with a strong charter of rights and freedoms that is respected worldwide. There are other solutions to this problem that do not involve the expropriation of rights or discrimination against ex-offenders and their families. Rather they involve choices made by the Canadian public and the respect of the rights of all Canadians.

Books written by criminals about their crimes often appeal to the curiosity of the population. Canadians can choose to buy them or not to buy them. Those who choose to buy them do so knowing that copyright proceeds may go to the author. Those who choose not to buy or read the works of the offenders who write about their crimes are making a statement. If enough Canadians boycott a particular account of a criminal then that person will not benefit financially from copyright.

Let us put our trust in Canadian consumers that they will make the decision for themselves.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not planning to speak on this bill but I listened to the people speaking before me and they certainly made it very clear that Bill C-205 is a very important piece of legislation.

However, I think I can add to the debate on a very sombre note. Over the past few weeks I have been reading a series of Alfred Hitchcock mysteries. I have been reading this series of mysteries, which are short stories, in French as a way of practising that language.

As it happens one of those stories deals with a plot wherein a novelist is very successful in writing various kinds of crime stories. The plot revolves around the fact that he gets the sense of verisimilitude or the sense of reality by actually committing the crimes himself. He does a number of murders. He also attempts suicide and the twist of the story is that in order to get the reality for his novels he kills his own child. He is subsequently murdered by his wife as a result.

That may seem a very improbable scenario, just fiction and crime and mystery fiction at that. I draw the House's attention to a reality that has come today. I find it difficult to even speak of it because it is the Bernardo case in which Canadians learn through the reporting of the court case of the torture and murder of two young girls. One aspect of that case that was revealed was the fact that the murderer, Paul Bernardo, took videotapes of the actual torturing of these two young ladies. He did not actually film the murders but he certainly did film the rest.

I am someone who has been in the communications business for a long time. In talking to my friends I learned that behind this business of videotaping a crime, and a terrible crime at that, is an international trade in what are called snuff films. Because of the advances of technology it is possible to very cheaply produce high quality films on video. There has become a very lucrative trade in movies and videotapes which involve the actual torturing or killing of people. This is a trade that is active worldwide.

Obviously this is the sickest of the sickest types of crime, a crime that is motivated by the crass profit of killing somebody and marketing the film. It is a very lucrative trade.

The advantage to Bill C-205 is that it directly addresses this terrible problem in that it will make it impossible for a murderer who is convicted of the crime to take advantage of the proceeds of the film that might be for sale as a result of a murder. I am suggesting a murder that is conducted solely for the purpose of creating a film for sale. This is the type of crime I am talking about.

Unfortunately there is a downside to not having capital punishment. The type of individual who would be so depraved as to kill someone in order to film it and sell it is the type of person who would stop at nothing short of the prospect of capital punishment. This is a person who, when caught, would still be in a position of going to jail and yet theoretically would have the film and still be able to sell it on the international market.

Bill C-205 in my mind adequately addresses this terrible prospect not only because it changes the Criminal Code and makes it impossible for the convicted killer to profit from his crime but more important because it addresses the copyright issue.

Because the crown takes possession of the copyright of any such film, play or novel that is based on an actual crime done by the person who would otherwise owned the copyright, it prevents this type of activity from occurring in Canada. It would discourage someone participating in easy money in creating a film of this nature.

I am not talking about something that is really very improbable. We learned in the news only recently of events on the high seas which demonstrated that the value of human life in other jurisdictions is held very low.

We also learn that there is international traffic in child prostitution and that kind of thing. These things are going on and are part of the really negative costs of the global economy that we are entering.

I support Bill C-205 very much. I took note of the criticisms of the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn who pointed out that there were problems with the Berne convention when other countries might take exception to Canada ruling that criminals cannot have a right to their own copyright and market it abroad. I answer that by saying that Canada leads the way in so many things. This is a case where we should not look abroad for instruction. We should lead the way ourselves. In that sense, I support 100 per cent the initiative of the member for Scarborough West.

This is a fine piece of legislation. I would like to see it get the unanimous support of the House.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in speaking to Bill C-205, which is very important legislation. I felt really confident this afternoon after listening to many of my colleagues both on this side and on the opposite side of the House giving their support to this measure.

If there is something that our country needs at this point, it is assurances to the people on our streets, our families who have children walking our streets, that the streets are safe to the degree that we believe they are.

Much has been said about the fact that when criminals break the law, basically they do not do very much time. There ought to be a recognition that the real victims of crime are the ones who have lost family members in many cases, those who have been robbed perhaps of their property. There is not a community in this country that is exempt from those kinds of things taking place.

In my community a week and a half ago, two break-ins took place where there was a tremendous amount of property stolen. The report from the police was that they would not likely find those people. If they did, their property would never be recovered. The real victims are the ones who have lost property and, more so, those who have lost family members.

There was a murder in our community two years ago. Recently someone was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. It is a terrible thing that none of us can really appreciate unless we know someone who has gone through the experience. Perhaps there are those within the House who have experienced it within their families.

It is important to appreciate that sensationalism attracts people's attention. In arcades we find young people entertaining themselves. Where do they entertain themselves mostly? In those machines where there is a great deal of violence. Our young people are very much subjected to crime and violent acts, even from a very young age. It is my contention that we ought to be doing much more than we are in terms of cleaning up the kind of material being given to our children for viewing on television.

There has been much support for this measure. For the record, I read what has been said. The Canadian Police Association stated:

The Canadian Police Association is pleased to announce its support for Mr. Tom Wappel in his efforts to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes. Mr. Wappel's private member's bill will ensure 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 long standing value entrenched in the Canadian justice system and Canadian society.

CAVEAT stated:

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, any time, any place.

Mrs. Deborah Mahaffy, the mother of Leslie Mahaffy, wrote:

I endorse and fully support this innovative, resourceful and compassionate bill that recognizes that criminals must pay for their crimes, not the victims, who pay over and over again. Crime will continue to pay if we continue to let the criminals run our country and our courts.

We cannot afford to not support Bill C-205. Mr. Wappel has done his research and the Government of Canada and the people of Canada shall reap the benefits of prohibiting criminals from profiting from their crimes.

This mother certainly knows what crime is. This mother will forever have in her memory that she at one time had a daughter. She no longer has that family member. I sympathize with that situation, as do many others in the country.

It would behove all of us to give serious consideration to unanimously endorsing this kind of legislation. It is the kind of legislation which would give credence to the kinds of things which we believe are important. It is important for us to support this legislation. I thank the opposition members who have given voice to that support this afternoon. I look forward to their support when we vote on this bill at a later time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Corporal Michel Purnelle was arrested on April 26, 1996 in order to prevent him from providing any information to the Somalia inquiry being carried out by Mr. Justice Gilles Létourneau.

Seven charges were laid against him. He was placed under surveillance for six months. He was relieved of his military duties until June 15, and faces the possibility of permanent suspension or other sanctions. He has been prevented from publishing his book Une armée en déroute .

And why was he harassed in this way? Simply because he had the courage to defy the orders of a superior who wanted to prevent him from speaking out, from telling the entire truth about the 1993 incidents in Somalia involving the Airborne Regiment. He is accused of having given unauthorized interviews to the media and of having taken unauthorized leave from his job.

What is the message that the Canadian Armed Forces are giving to their members? If you tell the truth, if you co-operate with the Somalia inquiry, you will be hauled up in front of a court martial, relieved of your duties, and subjected to blackmail, even intimidation. Sad but true.

Justice Létourneau issued a strong warning to the armed forces when he learned of the decision of military authorities to lay charges against Corporal Purnelle. He pointed out that this decision sent a contradictory message to soldiers who perhaps had relevant information. This message is in sharp contrast to the official encouragement given soldiers to co-operate in any way possible in fulfilling the mandate of the commission. Double talk.

The minister refuses to co-operate. He says to anyone who will listen that no members of the armed forces have been prevented from providing information. Now it is time to shed light on this whole incident. I remind you that a man died in Somalia. This is a source of shame to Canada and Quebec.

As you know, before these unfortunate events, Canada enjoyed a spotless reputation as a peacekeeper. In any peacekeeping mission, our soldiers and especially their leaders, who represent us and who are our ambassadors, must act with dignity and professionalism. Their behaviour must be beyond reproach. They must not disappoint us. Such incidents must never happen again.

This is affecting our troops' morale. As long as the Canadian Forces are led by people who are more concerned about their own personal careers than about the reputation of our armed forces, such situations may come up again. Were our soldiers justified in losing confidence in their leader? Are their leaders worthy of our trust? Is the Minister of National Defence still credible? Who is leading the Canadian Forces? The minister has a duty to shed light on all the cloudy aspects of this unfortunate tragedy. He is accountable to Parliament and to the people of Canada for our armed forces and he must assume this responsibility. If the minister no longer has any control over the armed forces, he can no longer run the department.

It is time for the minister to take his responsibilities. The Bloc Quebecois, representing the official opposition in this House, demands that the minister do all he can to ensure that witnesses like Michel Purnelle will be able to give evidence freely. The minister must not allow any attempt to muzzle or threaten witnesses in any way, so that light can be shed on the unfortunate and tragic incident in Somalia.

Again, the people of Canada want the truth.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for allowing me the opportunity to elaborate on this very important issue, Canadian forces members' responsibilities with regard to the commission of inquiry and with regard to the ongoing responsibilities of Canadian forces members under their code of discipline.

As the minister stated, the commission of inquiry was established precisely to get to the bottom of all incidents that occurred during the Canadian forces tour in Somalia. I am very confident it will do that.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces headquarters have and will continue to encourage people with any information which may be of interest to the commission to bring it forward to the commission.

It has been stated on several occasions in the House that members of the Canadian forces have the right, the duty and the obligation to bring forward any evidence they may have related to the Somalia incidents.

This does not, however, relieve members of the Canadian forces of their obligation to respect their code of discipline. If they choose to disregard their code of discipline they expose themselves to administrative or disciplinary measures.

While soldiers have a duty to come forward with any evidence relating to Somalia, they also have a duty to serve at their post. The two are not contradictory. All a soldier has to do is inform his or her commanding officer that he or she wishes to give evidence and obtain permission to go. It is a simple process.

What a solider cannot do is abandon his or her post on a whim without informing his or her superiors. That is very straightforward. For example, soldiers on peacekeeping duties in Haiti or in Bosnia implementing the peace accord cannot simply walk away from their posts.

I stress that discipline is a very important component of a military system. Discipline must be maintained without exception, for only with properly disciplined troops can we be assured of obedience in times of crisis.

Members of the Canadian forces must be held accountable to respect the code of discipline at all times.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

(The House adjourned at 6.58 p.m.)