House of Commons Hansard #122 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was accused.


Criminal Code
Government Orders

4:40 p.m.


Pauline Picard Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for Québec, the status of women critic, for giving me this opportunity to speak to Bill C-46.

In fact, the purpose of Bill C-46 is to regulate the production of records of victims of sexual assault. This bill became necessary as a result of a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in December 1995, in the O'Connor case. This was a case of sexual assault in which a man accused of sexual assault against four young girls demanded access to the school, medical and psychological records of the complainants. In a decision that was by no means unanimous, the Supreme Court declared that in certain cases, the accused should have access to the records of complainants.

We should put this debate into the context that existed at the time. For several years, victims of sexual assault had been protected by new provisions of the Criminal Code which provided that an accused person may not attack the reputation of his victim, especially the victim's sexual reputation.

You will recall that these provisions were adopted following decades of abuse of victims by the accused. The latter could, and certainly took every opportunity, to try to tarnish the credibility of their victims by publicising the sexual past of the latter. Thus the myth was maintained that a woman who was no longer a virgin deserved to be raped. Fortunately, this is now a thing of the past, thanks to a change in attitude that was long overdue.

Women gradually won their right to equality, including the right to sexual freedom. The battle has been long and hard, but we cannot take the results for granted, especially when certain judges start to air their real feelings towards women.

Women had won a certain measure of legal protection. This protection is important because it encourages women who are victims of sexual assault to lay charges. It also encourages them to persevere, once the initial charges have been laid. Legal protection also gives victims a chance to minimize, as far as possible, the impact the assault has had on them by encouraging them to seek assistance that is available in the community and from professionals.

The framework of legal protection is essential in the battle against violence towards women. That is why it is so important to have legislation that ensures the accused is entitled to a full and complete defence but also protects the victim's access to the courts.

Such access confirms men's and women's entitlement to equality. How could we talk about equality between the sexes when men could sexually assault women almost without impunity, because the women would not report the assaults for fear of having their private life made public?

If we want a society where men and women are equal we must use every means at our disposal to ensure that men and women are equally entitled to integrity and security. The best guarantee of these rights remains, despite its failings, the legal system.

On the subject of the protection of rights, I will look at the first issue of concern, that of the balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim.

In its preamble, the bill talks of the accused's right to a full defence and the victim's right to privacy and equality. The preamble also talks of striking a balance between these rights as far as possible.

The arguments of the parties opposing this bill rest on these words, the concept of balance. On the one hand, counsel for the defence want greater access to the victims' file, basing their request on the absolute right of the accused to a full defence. The idea behind that is that it is better to free 1,000 guilty individuals than to unfairly sentence one single innocent one.

On the other hand, according to those speaking on behalf of the traditional victims of sexual assault, i.e. women, hardly any lawsuits are instigated on the basis of false accusations of sexual assault and the right of women to privacy and to not be assaulted demands that access to records be strictly forbidden.

Where is the middle ground between these two extreme positions? How can a balance be struck between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims? At present, it would appear that the rights of the accused are better protected. Let me explain. As we all know, the right of the accused to a full defence has been entrenched in the Constitution since 1982.

But this right was already afforded enough protection by the courts before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was passed. As I said earlier, it is already part of our judicial standard to protect the innocent against wrongful conviction at any cost. Indeed, especially since passage of the charter, the courts have developed a whole slew of rules and criteria to protect even better this right to a full defence.

A whole series of rulings have been made on this provision of the charter and there will likely be more still. But much less known is the right to privacy and the right to personal safety, which have not yet made it into our judicial and folk culture. Because fewer judicial decisions having a strong impact have been made on the

subject, it is wrongly viewed as less important, when in fact, both are mentioned in the charter and nowhere does it say that this right is less important.

Why is this? I think this is, unfortunately, a reflection of the lesser prominence traditionally given to women's rights. As Toronto Star journalist Michelle Landsberg has pointed out, have we ever heard of a police officer testifying at a trial and being required to disclose his medical records or sexual life in order to establish his credibility as a witness?

Why have women traditionally been subjected to such humiliation, if not because they were not given the same credibility? Yet, as this journalist noted, there is no such invasion of the victims' privacy in other criminal cases. Whenever women and sexuality are involved, our society always feels the need to impose constraints on women. Yet, their right to privacy is protected under the charter.

Now that I have raised this issue, I want to deal specifically with the justice minister's bill. The minister wants to strike a balance, but he does not provide any guidelines, any specifics as to how to achieve such a balance.

Again, at this point I am merely raising concerns. However, I wonder if, in light of the current tendency to give priority to the right to a full and complete defence, judges who will have to deal with an application for the production of records might not be involuntarily influenced, thus denying the right of the victim to privacy. We will have to take a careful look at this issue if we want to make sure that, some day, women and men are treated equally.

Another issue which raises concerns, in my opinion, is the scope of disclosure. The bill provides that the records of the plaintiff or of a witness can be the object of an application. What does this mean?

If, for example, the victim's child must testify, will the accused have access to the child's medical and therapeutic records, or to his diary? Similarly, if, as provided under the definition of "record", the content of a diary or personal journal can be produced, will the fact that a third party is mentioned as having been a sexual partner result in that person having to be involved in the process in order to protect his right to privacy?

I believe the current wording might lead to abuse and we will have to take an in-depth look at the possible impact of this legislation on third parties who are absolutely not involved in the proceedings.

Finally, I want to mention a very real concern of women's groups, namely the issue of costs. It is now clear that the O'Connor decision had a real impact on the practices of certain stakeholders. This impact varies from one organization to another, depending on their philosophy and financial resources.

In speaking with support groups for victims of sexual assault, I learned that some have simply decided not to keep files. These groups still provide assistance to victims, but no longer keep files, so that they will not have to divulge them to an accused.

The consequences of this decision are fairly major, since it is through keeping files that continuity in the assistance provided can usually be ensured, in addition to allowing the versatility that leads to better results. The consequence of this is that victims are penalized.

Other organizations, however, have decided to continue keeping files, and must therefore incur legal expenses to intervene when they receive requests to turn these files over.

We are all very aware of the cuts in funding to aid groups. I have talked about it on several occasions, as have many of my colleagues. In this era of cutbacks, how can victim assistance organizations allow themselves to spend their meagre resources on lawyers' fees? These are heartbreaking decisions to have to make. Should more women be helped, or should those already in the system be protected?

There is something wrong with a system that forces organizations that request and receive funding for victim assistance to use part of this funding, which is still inadequate, to defend victims' right to privacy.

It seems to me that the government should recognize its responsibility in this situation and include measures in the bill that will ensure that the costs of those holding files and of witnesses will be paid when they are defending the right to privacy.

In conclusion, I repeat my support in principle of Bill C-46, but on condition that the House be allowed to conduct an in-depth study of the elements that raise questions so that victims are finally granted equal rights.

I would also like to take this opportunity, at second reading, to urge the government to act in good faith and to agree to the proposals the Bloc Quebecois will be making to improve this bill.

It seems to me that, one day, we will have to stop playing petty politics when considering bills that have an impact on the most vital aspect of human beings, their integrity.

Criminal Code
Government Orders

4:55 p.m.


Jay Hill Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon and speak to Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code as it pertains to the production of records in sexual offence proceedings.

I must say at the outset that I have been very vigilant in listening to the various interventions which have been made by my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House. In particular, I wish to commend the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth who just spoke. He brought out some very real concerns about how this

particular piece of legislation will affect the rights of the accused and perhaps impact dramatically on those rights. He was concerned about how it would affect a fair trial under our judicial system because of allowed testimony, particularly as it pertains to what has been known as the repressed memory syndrome and to cases of false memory syndrome. That is a very real concern.

My hon. colleague from Calgary North in addressing the bill stated that the support of the Reform Party for this legislation is very tentative at this particular time because we want to see and hear all the relevant witnesses who will come before the justice committee to speak on it.

We have some very grave concerns. We want to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected. However, at the same time, as the member for Calgary North so eloquently put it, we have felt for a long time that the victims of crime have been overlooked by the justice system in Canada. It is high time that governments began to act in the best interests of the victims rather than always concentrating on the rights of the accused and, in many cases, the rights of convicted criminals. That is why the Reform Party supports this legislation in principle. It is why we are interested in hearing various members making their interventions and bringing up relevant points.

The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth spoke about specific cases in his riding. Constituents went to his office to voice their concerns about this legislation. That is very important. Too often members in this place and governments become unresponsive to people out in the real world who ultimately have to deal with legislation that is passed in this place.

It is important that we cast the net as widely as possible in looking at this piece of legislation and in asking witnesses to come forward. We must ask for input from Canadians from coast to coast who will undoubtedly be affected if the legislation becomes law.

A couple of hours ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice spoke about the absence of witnesses in these cases. He said quite eloquently that we are primarily talking about women and children in this legislation.

As I travel throughout my riding of Prince George-Peace River, meeting with constituents, justice is a big issue. I have taken to referring to it as the lack of justice in our legal system in Canada today.

I feel so strongly that this government is missing the boat in many areas of trying to protect the most vulnerable citizens of our country. I will bring something to the attention of the House. It is something that I had endeavoured to bring to the House quite some time ago. It was my observation at that time that my concerns fell on deaf ears. The concerns I have been bringing to the House in this area are concerns of the people back home which I consider with a great deal of respect.

This government would have the Canadian people believe that it is especially concerned about the most vulnerable, the women and children. As I have noted in the past, we have to be very careful. In our discussion of Bill C-46 today we have heard that we have to be very concerned and very careful to achieve a balance with judicial legislation, a balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims of crime. I have already heard a great many colleagues speak today about trying to achieve that balance.

The case I will refer to is related to a piece of legislation that was passed previously. Because Bill C-46 deals with sexual assault I want to zero in on a case that I was made aware of last fall. We pass legislation from time to time in the House of Commons while many times we may not really understand the possible ramifications. That is why it is so critical, as I said earlier, that hon. members bring forward the concerns of their constituents and bring them to the House of Commons for debate.

The case I want to point out flows from a bill that was passed over a year ago in this place. At that time it was known as Bill C-41, which brought about a system of conditional sentencing in our judicial system. At that time Reformers raised a number of concerns about that piece of legislation and the government in its infinite wisdom said that those concerns were unfounded, that it would make sure conditional sentencing was not used in cases of violent crime and that it was only there for the discretionary use of judges in minor crimes.

Some time ago there was a case in my home province of British Columbia that involved a woman who was a victim of sexual assault. The alleged perpetrator, the accused aggressor was a past common law spouse of this woman. At the time she reported the assault to the police she did not even report it as being a sexual assault but as just a common assault because she did not think the system would respond, that the system would respect the fact that she was sexually assaulted by a former spouse.

For reasons of anonymity I have to be careful not to reveal the location and the identities of the people. This woman lives in fear for her life and in fear of ongoing reprisal by the aggressor. When the case eventually went to court, the judge found the aggressor guilty of sexual assault.

In the judge's ruling he said: "In this case I do not believe the evidence of the accused, nor am I left in doubt by it". So he found the accused guilty.

He went on to say in making his judgment: "I think that while society might have an interest in sending [Mr. X] to jail, it seems to me that the victim and her children might be better served by [Mr. X] serving his sentence in the community and continuing to pay support". Is that not something? What we have here is an individual convicted of sexually assaulting a woman and the sentence is one year to be served in the community.

I would like to read the conditional sentence order that was imposed upon this convicted rapist. Let us call the fellow what he was, a convicted rapist. This is the conditional sentence order: "The court adjudged that the offender be sentenced to a term of one year and that the serving of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community. It is ordered that the offender shall from the date of this order, or where applicable the date of expiration of any other sentence of imprisonment, serve the sentence in the community subject to the offender's compliance with the following conditions".

What are the conditions that the judge imposed upon this convicted rapist? They are: "Namely, the said offender shall: (1) keep the peace and be of good behaviour, (2) appear before the court when required to do so by the court, (3) report to a supervisor on October 3, 1996", and it gives the location that he is ordered to report to, "and thereafter when required by the supervisor in a manner directed by the supervisor, (4) remain within the province of British Columbia unless written permission to go outside of the province is obtained from the supervisor, and (5) notify the supervisor in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the supervisor of any change of employment or occupation and in addition, shall have no contact directly or indirectly with the [name of the victim], nor attend at or near any premises occupied by her. Shall abstain absolutely from the consumption of alcohol and shall submit to a breathalizer upon the demand of a peace officer. Shall attend, participate and successfully complete any counselling as directed by your probation officer. You shall continue to provide for your dependants", signed by the judge.

I find this absolutely preposterous. It clearly shows why we have to be so very careful in this place in the legislation that we pass. Here is a judge using the old Bill C-41, the amendments to the Criminal Code, to allow a convicted rapist, to what? To serve his time in the community, to continue to pay support for his children and his estranged spouse, to take some counselling if it is directed by the probation officer. It is absolutely incredible.

Following that decision a letter was received by Reformers from the victim. I would like to read it into the record. From time to time we have to bring what happens in this place down to how it affects average Canadians, Canadian men, women and children out there in the real world.

This particular victim wrote:

I am writing to inform you of a recent court decision and the subsequent sentence imposed under guidelines of the new Bill C-41, sentence reform.

I was the victim of a sexual assault at the hands of my former common law spouse, [Mr. X].

Initially I did not disclose the sexual assault to the RCMP for fear that they would not believe me. I only disclosed the common assault. Finally, three days before the trial, I told the crown counsel the whole story. [Mr. X] was charged and subsequently convicted.

What concerned me was that after finding the accused guilty [the] judge said something about this being a good case for "community sentencing". The sentencing was conducted in [another town], therefore I was unable to see justice be done and could not have any other input other than my written victim impact statement.

Watching [Mr. X] be sentenced would have helped me put some closure to this crime. I had to find out from word of mouth about the sentence.

At the close of the trial His Honour said something about [Mr. X] and I getting along in family court the week before and he seemed to think that because of this [Mr. X] would be a good candidate for this new type of sentencing.

I have no choice but to get along with [Mr. X] in family court because I do not want the court to think that I am using my children to get back at him. I have tried very hard to keep the family and criminal matters separate. Is the court telling me that they needed to see a serious reaction from me in family court and then they would understand the extent of my fear toward this man, and then perhaps send him to jail? I would rather see him go to jail than get his child support.

As far as I am concerned, [Mr. X] got the usual slap on the wrist. How is it that he is the convicted sexual offender and I am the one who is a prisoner? I am terrified of this man. It is no consolation to know that he'll have a criminal record, or that he has a lot of conditions. He is still free and I suspect he does not feel punished. I, on the other hand, will be trying to heal for many years to come.

This type of sentence tells the public that sexual assault within a marital relationship is not that serious. Don't you think?

I think the crown counsel should appeal this sentence. I also think that our government should clarify what types of criminals will be dealt with under this new legislation. Perhaps community sentencing should be for less serious crimes.

In closing, as much as I would have liked to go to the media with this I cannot do so for fear of [Mr. X].

I submit this is a very sad case indeed. Shame on this government for not listening to those types of cases.

On November 4, 1996 in this very Chamber I raised this particular case in a question to our justice minister. Quoting from Hansard from that date, the question I asked reads as follows:

Mr. Speaker, at one time in Canada someone convicted of rape was subject to very severe penalties. Now with conditional sentencing their life does not seem to change much.

A man in B.C. was just convicted of sexual assault. What was his punishment? He is on conditional release, scot free.

These lenient decisions in three different provinces-

-because I had referred to a number of cases-

-have set dangerous precedents. Section 742 states that a conditional sentence is not an option when there is a danger to the community. Are women not part of the community?

Will the minister responsible for the legislation clarify this for women and, more important, for judges? He talks about a tool for the courts. He talks about appropriate cases. Will he clarify whether a conditional sentence is appropriate for rape?

Here is the response on November 4 from the Minister of Justice:

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago Professor Anthony Doob of the University of Toronto did a study. He showed newspaper reports of sentences, in particular of criminal cases, to members of the public and asked them if they felt the sentences were strong enough. The vast majority felt they were not.

He took the same people, the same cases, and provided all the information about the cases, all the facts involving the offender and the offences. After they had read all the facts a clear majority thought the sentences were too harsh.

The reality is that when the court looks at the offender and the offence and takes all the circumstances into account, the court does a pretty fair job of determining appropriate punishment.

This is the part I like, how the minister summed up:

Obviously, the business of this member is not to worry about the facts or the reality but to use fearmongering to make his squalid point. That is very regrettable and it is bad public policy.

That is what the justice minister said in reply to a question that I felt was very valid about a piece of legislation that he brought forward and which this Liberal government passed and how it affected one particular case, one particular woman who is out there and has failed to see justice done even though the aggressor in this case was convicted of sexual assault.

In summary, what needs to be done? What can we do in this place? I have a long list of how we can shift the balance toward supporting the victims of crime. From your indication, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not have the time to go through the whole list here today.

I challenge the government to do as Reformers are doing and start listening to the Canadian people on the issue of justice reform.

Canadians from coast to coast are crying out for the justice minister to bring about meaningful legislation to protect them and to protect the most vulnerable members of society.

Criminal Code
Government Orders

5:15 p.m.


Benoît Sauvageau Terrebonne, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In Beauchesne, with respect to decorum, citation 329 states:

In general, Speakers have enforced conservative, contemporary standards.

Everyone knows that male members must wear a jacket and tie, but the Standing Orders do not mention jeans.

My point of order is to find out whether members of this House may attend, and rise to speak, wearing jeans or whether contemporary standards require clean and suitable clothing, a suit, with jacket and tie.

Criminal Code
Government Orders

5:15 p.m.


Jay Hill Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the point of order.

As the member correctly points out, there is no reference in Beauchesne's of which I am aware, of what type of pants we are allowed to wear in this place. I wear jeans from time to time. I have noted that members on both sides of the House do from time to time. I do not do it out of any disrespect for this place.

Quite frankly, I am amazed that the member would bring up such a trivial point and consume the time of the House with such a point of order. Since he has, I would point out that jeans are the accepted apparel for a lot of working people in the real world. Certainly they do not find anything out of order with the wearing of jeans.

Criminal Code
Government Orders

5:15 p.m.


Ian McClelland Edmonton Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. Early in the first session of the 35th Parliament, I can recall very distinctly the occasion when a member opposite came into this Chamber wearing a turban.

People were all waiting for the explosive fireworks to happen. I can recall being asked about that and saying that it did not matter what was on a person's head but what mattered was what was in the person's head.

I would say today, it does not matter what kind of pants a person is wearing. What matters is what is in the pants.

Criminal Code
Government Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Criminal Code
Government Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Does anyone else want to have a go? It is hard to know how seriously to take this. Members will recall that the Chair ruled that members had to wear a tie and a female member got up and asked: "Do I have to wear a tie?"

I thank the hon. member for Terrebonne, who raised the point by quoting Beauchesne. I would like to return to this point of order. It is true that in French Beauchesne refers to "tenues classiques conformes aux usages contemporains".

The English version is that in general Speakers have enforced conservative contemporary standards. I take seriously the member for Terrebonne who is concerned that a member from a western province would be wearing blue jeans.

There are many members here who probably think all British Columbians and Albertans wear blue jeans to their weddings. I have no idea.

In light of the fact that the member has made the objection, the Chair will try to come back with some kind of refinement of what has been said in the House today. I thank the hon. member and in due course, if it seems necessary the Chair will come back with some kind of ruling on that, as possible as it might be.

The Chair has received notice from the hon. member for North Vancouver that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour tomorrow, February 5. Regrettably, it has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence. Accordingly the Chair would direct the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.

The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business will, therefore, be suspended and the House will continue to examine the matters before it at that time.

Criminal Code
Government Orders

5:20 p.m.


Ian McClelland Edmonton Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate. It was made much more interesting by the intervention of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth who brought another dimension to the debate. That dimension is that it is far better that 1,000 guilty people go free than one innocent person be convicted. That is the cornerstone of our jurisprudence and that is the way it should be.

If we go back to zero, back to the start of parliamentary democracy, I believe we will find that as parliamentarians our fiduciary responsibility is to the individual citizen and to protect those citizens from the power of the state. That is what this bill is about.

The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth dealt specifically with people who came to see him and brought to his attention that someone with false memory syndrome could totally destroy the lives of people with false accusations. The counsellor protecting the accused would not then have the ability to investigate, to prove that it was false memory syndrome that caused the problem. This is a particularly cogent criticism of the bill and it is something we should investigate very carefully in committee.

This bill has the effect of making it far more difficult, but not impossible, for defence lawyers to break down the credibility of a complainant. We must ask ourselves, why is this? I believe it is basically to protect innocent persons from being victimized by the trial process.

This was very aptly put when, in a 1988 presentation of how to go about undermining the position of a complainant, a criminal lawyer said: "Whack complainants hard at the preliminary inquiry. Attack with all you have got so that he or she will say, `I am not coming back"'. We ask if this is justice for someone who has been assaulted or sexually assaulted. It is usually only a small minority of women who are sexually assaulted that actually come forward. Why? It is because they have been invaded as it is. Then they come forward and find their whole lives being bared to everybody. They find themselves being whacked by the lawyer for the accused. We must balance the rights of the victim with the rights of the accused. As I read it, that is what this legislation is all about.

It is important to look at the mindset of a society which allows the law to put the rights of the accused far ahead of the rights of the victim. I would like to use as an example a particularly egregious incident which took place and was recently brought to light in a trial in Yukon. I am talking about the circumstances of the murder of Susan Klassen.

Let me tell the House something about Susan Klassen. She died in November 1995. She was 36. She was murdered by her husband Ralph. Her husband pleaded guilty to manslaughter, notwithstanding the fact that he killed her with his bare hands, bruising his thumbs doing it, and then knotted a pillow case around her neck.

How is that manslaughter? Manslaughter is when a person hits someone and they fall over dead. The person did not mean to kill, however, the individual hit his head and ended up dead. How is it manslaughter when you choke someone so hard that you bruise your thumbs and then you strangle them with a pillow case? How in God's name can that be manslaughter?

We wonder what it would take to get 300 people from the Yukon, on one day's notice, at minus 38 degrees, to march in honour of Susan Klassen. They were not marching just for Susan Klassen; they were marching out of frustration and rage at a judicial system that would allow provocation to be used as the excuse for killing. Provocation. My God. How on earth could anybody use provocation as why they killed somebody by strangulation so hard that they bruise their thumbs and then smother them with a pillow case? Provocation is when somebody says something, you get a little bit upset, like what happened here in this House today, you go over and you nail them, and the person winds up dead. You did not mean to kill. That is what manslaughter is all about.

Susan Klassen attended St. Angela Catholic elementary school and Sir John Thompson junior high school in Edmonton. She won the top award for excellence at Archbishop MacDonald high school, graduated from university in 1981 as an occupational therapist with distinction, and worked in the community. She probably was not an angel. None of us is. Was whatever happened in the relationship between Susan and her husband sufficient provocation for this person to kill her and then plead manslaughter because of provocation?

How does that come back to Bill C-46? It is an entirely different circumstance but it has a common root. When women-and we all know that 99 per cent of the time it is women-suffer from assault, whether it is sexual or any other kind, and when that assault is permissible because of provocation for whatever reason, then we are in a situation where a person who brutally kills someone is able to say: "I did not mean to, therefore, it was manslaughter. I did not mean to rape this girl. I did not break into her house and rape her. I was provoked into raping her because she was there".

It is time that we put an end to that. We need to balance the rights of the accused and the victim through amendments and at committee we may satisfactorily answer the question of false memory syndrome. However, the rights of the victim must at least be on par with the rights of the criminal. I would ask the House to consider this when the bill goes to committee and before it goes to third reading.

The House resumed from February 3, 1997 consideration at report stage of Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and amend other acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act
Government Orders

February 4th, 1997 / 5:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Dear colleagues, it being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-60.

Call in the members.

Before the taking of the vote:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act
Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

The question is on Motion No. 1, standing in the name of Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac).

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act
Government Orders

6 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

I declare Motion No. 1 lost.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act
Government Orders

6 p.m.


Bob Kilger Stormont—Dundas, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to report stage Motion No. 7.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act
Government Orders

6 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)

Is there unanimous consent that the vote just taken apply to report stage Motion No. 7?

Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act
Government Orders

6 p.m.

Some hon. members