Debates of Oct. 8th, 1998

Committees Of The House

[The Deputy Speaker]

With great respect, I do not think that is a point of order, but I am indicating to the hon. parliamentary secretary that this is questions and comments and there are other members who want to make comments and ask questions. The hon. member has used up half the time already. I would ask him to bring his comments to a close within the next 15 seconds, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised points in terms of the NAFO meeting in Lisbon and the 100% observer coverage. I just want to point out to him that there are other checks and balances in terms of observers that come from foreign countries on those boats. There is spot monitoring by our own vessels and there is dockside—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for St. John's East may wish to respond. If not, I will go to another member who wishes to comment.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is Burin—St. George's. I am sure if the hon. member for St. John's East were here, being a Newfoundlander he would want to respond, but I will take the opportunity to answer the parliamentary secretary.

When I was talking about the changes to the co-ordinates for the first time since 1949 in moving a line in area 3M to be now called 3MA to allow foreigners to catch shrimp on the nose of the Grand Banks, for some reason in his speech the parliamentary secretary conveniently forgot to allude to that.

This is a very serious situation. We are now allowing foreigners to catch shrimp in the nursery area of the Grand Banks for the first time since 1949. As I said before, they have fished shrimp for five or six years. Then we go off to another NAFO meeting and the foreigners will say “Now we have been into that new 3MA zone for five years, we have historical fishing rights there so we want cod and flounder there”. I say to the parliamentary secretary that is what is going to happen. And the government will try to justify that by saying “But yes, we have 100% observer coverage. On every vessel we will have an observer, a foreign observer on a foreign vessel”.

There is no protection. All it does is make the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans feel good. He pounds his chest about 100% observer coverage, but they are foreign observers on foreign boats.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague from Burin—St. George's a question. I certainly agree with the comments he has made today.

The parliamentary secretary thinks Canadians are going to believe, and I will quote him, “foreign fishers only get what Canadians don't want”. This is an unbelievable statement. He should go back to growing spuds.

The member for Burin—St. George's worked very hard on this report and all it got was the chairman of the fisheries committee fired. There are some great recommendations in that report. They are good for fisheries in Canada.

We also know there is a report on the west coast fisheries coming out. The member for Burin—St. George's has forgotten more about fisheries than the minister of fisheries or his parliamentary secretary will ever know. What advice could he give us on the west coast to make sure the west coast does not end up with the same disaster from this government that there is on the east coast?

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the west coast has problems that are different and unique.

The problems on the west coast are the direct result of the policy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. What it has done on the west coast, more so than it has done on the east coast, is it goes under the guise of consultations. It goes about having these consultative hearings but it does not listen to a word that is said. Consequently the minister has had a great charade out there of consultations, but he has not listened to the people.

Those in top management in DFO continue in spite of those consultations in their old ways. Consequently we see the west coast fishery coming apart the same as has happened on the east coast. The same management personnel that have made decisions for the last 10 or 15 years are still there making the same decisions.

If the government is going to go about it right, make some changes in top management and when consulting with the people, listen to the people. Take their message seriously and make some changes.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join this debate. I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

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

Division No. 238

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from October 7, consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-51, introduced by the Minister of Justice.

This bill is entitled: An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It cleans out a lot of our penal law system.

This is an omnibus bill. Traditionally, these omnibus bills always require particular attention from parliamentarians, since they involve several laws.

A careful examination of the measures proposed in Bill C-51 would show how pertinent the minister's proposals are. I must take this opportunity to point out how important the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be.

On numerous occasions in this House we have criticized the quality of the work done by the parliamentary committees, because of the government's systematic obstruction . It rarely acts on the recommendations made to it. It is therefore vital for the opposition parties to join together to demand transparency from the government in committee proceedings. As I have done for a number of other bills, I offer the minister my full co-operation in improving this bill, if possible.

Since this is an omnibus bill, I am going to address a number of extremely important matters, naturally those which involve the concerns of Quebeckers most directly.

The first part I am going to address deals with casinos on cruise ships. Since other Bloc Quebecois MPs have already spoken on this, I shall be brief.

Bill C-51 deals with certain amendments relating to casinos on cruise ships. I will give a brief historical review. Without the St. Lawrence River, Quebec and Canada—the entire North American continent in fact—would have developed in a very different way. Very early on in our history, it was the route taken by the foreign explorers who discovered the marvellous part of this continent now known as Quebec.

Although its role has changed over the years, this great navigable waterway has always influenced the development of our communities, culturally, economically and touristically. Until know, however, our legislation has had a direct impact on the river's tourism potential, by preventing cruise ships from operating casinos.

Cruise ships had to shut down their casinos when they hit the waters off Anticosti Island, or in other words two days before reaching Quebec City. The direct result was that a number of carriers avoided stopovers at Quebec City and those that did put in did so for a much shorter period of time, in the interests of keeping their passengers happy.

Since the Bloc Quebecois was elected in 1993, the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans has been trying to get the House and the government to see the disastrous impact of existing legislation on cruise ships with casinos.

If these ships are allowed to operate their casinos in the St. Lawrence River, tourism in the Quebec City area will pick up, as passengers will be able to disembark and spend more time in the area, returning to the ship at night to enjoy the casino. This will be legal. When passengers disembark, they will provide the Quebec City area with a significant economic boost.

For this, we owe a big thank you to the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, and to all members from the Quebec City area, who worked together to get the government to see the advantage of this amendment, and especially how important it was to Quebec to amend the Criminal Code so that cruise ships could continue on their way, but be able to stop over in Quebec City, so that neither the region nor vacationers would suffer.

The other important thing I wanted to mention about Bill C-51 is the accelerated parole review provision. I would like to speak to this briefly.

In 1997, the media brought us the Lagana affair. It will be recalled that this involved a lawyer, Joseph Lagana, sentenced in 1995 to 13 years in prison for his involvement in a drug importing case and for laundering almost $47.4 million. The worse part of this story is that Mr. Lagana was released after serving only one sixth of his sentence, that is 26 months instead of the 13 years of imprisonment he had been sentenced to by the judge.

The accelerated parole review procedure provided in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act benefited this major drug trafficker, who was released after serving only one sixth of his sentence because his crime was considered a non-violent offence under the law and he had not served time before.

On this subject, let me digress to say a word about the application criteria of this accelerated review procedure. In 1987, the chief justice of the supreme court made a decision in the Smith affair, saying:

Because they are the direct cause of the hardship experienced by their victims and their families, we must ensure these importers of narcotics bear their share of culpability for the countless serious crimes of all sorts committed by drug addicts to support their addiction.

It read further:

With due respect, I believe that, when convicted, these individuals, with very few exceptions, should be sentenced and actually serve long term sentences.

This shows that the supreme court considers drug trafficking to be a scourge of serious magnitude that must be eradicated. In our view, since money laundering sustains this scourge, anyone who is found guilty should indeed, in the words of the supreme court justice, serve long term sentences.

But the Liberal government obviously does not agree, since it is allowing criminals like Joseph Lagana to take advantage of accelerated parole reviews. The Lagana affair prompted the Bloc Quebecois, through the member for Charlesbourg, to introduce a private member's bill to have this kind of review denied to criminals found guilty of money laundering, among other offences.

While Bill C-51 is a step in the right direction, the new provisions will not apply to Mr. Lagana and others like him, because bankers and lawyers who are convicted for money laundering but not for an organized crime offence will still get away with serving one sixth of their sentence. This is totally unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois. We will not tolerate other Lagana cases.

Therefore, we are informing the House that, on Bill C-51, the Bloc Quebecois will be proposing amendments to offset the Liberal government's lack of courage on this issue.

The fact that the government is making a minor correction to a situation does not release it from all its obligations.

I also want to discuss the powers of the attorney general of Canada.

Bill C-51 affects the respective powers of the federal and provincial attorneys general regarding criminal proceedings. Indeed, while section 2 of the Criminal Code gives provincial attorneys general exclusive authority to institute criminal proceedings, Bill C-51 introduces an exception in the case of proceedings that relate to the trafficking of uncut rough diamonds. In fact, the bill creates a concurrent power for this type of offence, while pointing out that the new provisions do not affect the powers of the provinces in this area.

In spite of that clarification, we feel the amendment proposed in clause 16 of the bill opens the door to new federal intrusions in the administration of criminal justice which, as we know, is an area under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The Department of Justice justifies this undermining of the provinces' authority by saying that the mining of diamonds takes place almost exclusively in the Northwest Territories. Under section 2 of the Criminal Code, the attorney general of Canada has, exceptionally, the authority to institute proceedings in the two Canadian territories.

Since the illegal trafficking of uncut rough diamonds can take place across provincial borders, the department feels it would be wise to allow the federal attorney general, who institutes criminal proceedings in the Canadian territories, to be able to bring these proceedings to conclusion in the provinces, if necessary.

However, we feel this is not enough of a justification. The diamond traffic , like many other offences listed in the Criminal Code, can be dealt with through co-operation between the federal and provincial attorneys general, so that criminal proceedings can be brought to a fruitful conclusion. Such co-operation currently exists, and nothing indicates that it would not exist in the specific case of the trafficking of uncut rough diamonds. I am asking the government to respect the jurisdictions established in the Canadian constitution—its own constitution—and not to get involved in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

The other very important characteristic of this bill is that it deals with section 227 of the Criminal Code, which states that “no person commits culpable homicide—unless the death occurs within one year and one day from the time of the occurrence of the last event”. The bill would repeal this provision linked to British legislation from the Middle Ages. That was a long time ago.

The centuries old one year and one day rule remained part of our criminal legislation without its relevancy ever being seriously challenged. Over the years, two main reasons were offered to justify this rule.

First, it was argued that it would be unacceptable for a person to be indefinitely subject to prosecution for murder. Second, in cases where the victim lives a long time after an injury, a causal connection between the act in question and the subsequent death may be difficult to establish.

In spite of these justifications, the rule set out in section 227 of the Criminal Code continues to be strongly criticized. The first criticism is that the rule flies in the face of the principle that homicide procedures are not subject to any statute of limitation in Canada. Furthermore, the “one-year-and-one-day” rule is viewed as an arbitrary rule that brings our justice system into disrepute.

While a causal connection may be obvious, death may occur immediately following the period of prescription provided for in section 227 of the Criminal Code, which means that the act in question could no longer qualify as culpable homicide.

Finally, we must bear in mind that, with technological progress, crime victims may survive for longer periods. Technological breakthroughs in medicine help artificially prolong the lives of patients who otherwise would have died much sooner.

By proposing that section 227 of the Criminal Code be repealed, Bill C-51 addresses these many criticisms.

By rescinding the year and a day rule, parliament would, among other things, be acting on the recommendation of the federal-provincial task force on homicide, which, in 1991, wanted to have sections 224 and 227 of the Criminal Code replaced. This recommendation would have led to the formulation of a causality rule, which is in keeping with the jurisprudence.

To this end, it is also important to point out that the repeal of section 227 would clear the way for the rules formulated by the supreme court in the Smithers case on the determination of a causal link between a death and an illegal act.

Under this jurisprudence, the only requirement of the illegal act is that it at least contributed to the death of the victim and that its contribution was not insignificant. Even if the act itself did not cause the death in question, it may nevertheless constitute a legal cause once it contributed in any way whatsoever.

In the light of the foregoing, the repeal of section 227 of the Criminal Code appears justified. Nevertheless, the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights should enable us to dispel all ambiguity on this matter and I hope to question doctors and lawyers about it so that we end up with the best section possible in the Criminal Code dealing with this.

In introducing Bill C-51, the government could have been braver and proposed measures more vigorously attacking the real problems of the Canadian justice system. As we mentioned earlier, the amendments to the accelerated parole review in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act are inadequate. The battle against money laundering does not seem to be a priority for this government, which takes a piecemeal approach to things. The solutions it is proposing do not go nearly far enough.

There is no doubt about this government's apathy, because it could, right now, take effective action against money laundering. The Bloc Quebecois has been raising this whole issue for a long time now.

Listeners will probably recall that we even made it part of our platform in the last election campaign, and that we were not short of suggestions for what this government should do about this terrible problem in Canada. As I mentioned earlier, the member for Charlesbourg introduced a private member's bill to deal with the issue. Since its purpose is to do something about the problem of money laundering, I trust that it will have the support of the government.

One thing the government could easily and rapidly do, even in Bill C-51 before us, is to eliminate $1,000 bank notes, which is a top priority for the Bloc Quebecois. Canada is one of the only countries to issue such a high denomination. Police forces tell us that this makes it easier for criminals to launder their ill-gotten gains.

The Bloc Quebecois is also suggesting that financial institutions should in future be required to inform the police of any dubious transaction involving $10,000 or more. This requirement would also apply to casinos and travel agencies.

Despite what it is saying, the Liberal government's response to money laundering has been far from effective. Strict measures are long in coming. Because of that inertia, we must constantly raise the issue and hound the government, as we did in the case of the motorcycle gangs, for instance. The government finally decided to act following the enormous pressure exerted by the Bloc Quebecois regarding that issue. I do hope that, following our private members' bills and our representations, the government will finally take action regarding money laundering, if not with Bill C-51, then in a subsequent piece of legislation.

Since time is running out, I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois is pleased that operating casinos on cruise ships on the St. Lawrence River will now be permitted. As I said earlier, thanks to the hard work of several MPs from the Quebec City area, the government finally realized that the situation could no longer persist. The tourist industry in the Quebec City area will now be in a position to thrive even more.

The Bloc Quebecois is also pleased to have made the government realize that the accelerated review process was flawed.

Again, the Bloc Quebecois said repeatedly that it was unacceptable to see a notorious drug trafficker take advantage of that procedure. Unfortunately, the government did not realize the magnitude of the problem, since its proposed amendments do not go far enough.

When will the government understand that it is useless to try to fight gangs if nothing is done about money laundering?

In the area of crime, as in any other one, money is everything. However, the government does not seem to have understood that yet, or at least it is slow to do so. It is slow to amend the legislation, so that Canada can finally lose its unenviable title of money laundering haven.

The Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-51, to the extent that the government is aware that the legislation has a number of flaws on which the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will have to work.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am as always pleased to rise and take part in the debate, in particular a debate as important as this involving substantial changes to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Bill C-51, as has been previously mentioned, is an omnibus bill to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The Minister of Justice and the solicitor general both tend to avoid substantive changes to our statutes. I was surprised to see that the government had tendered this bill to change the legislation in June.

Optimistically I would like to believe that this is finally a sign that this government takes issues of law and order seriously, but for reasons that I will outline later I remain sceptical.

This omnibus bill is nevertheless positive legislation. I want to state that at the outset. The federal government, the provinces and the territories share jurisdiction over a number of these issues. The bill itself takes into consideration many of the consultations which have taken place between these levels of government.

As mentioned by previous speakers, it would amend the Criminal Code with regard to homicide, child prostitution, conditional sentencing and parole. These are serious issues of which all Canadians should take note. It was also amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, dealing specifically with sentencing and criminal liability for on duty law enforcement officers. Finally, the bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to exclude those convicted of organized crime offences from the eligibility for accelerated parole review.

This comes at a time when organized crime units across the country sadly are being cut or scaled down by the current government. In my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough the local Stellarton detachment has undergone this downsizing. Able and very dedicated officers like Constable Pat Martin sadly have been taken away from the crime and specifically the drug units of this detachment.

I would like to outline some of the significant provisions of this bill. The Criminal Code currently disallows the prosecution of an individual for murder, manslaughter and other capital offences after more than a year and a day have passed from the death of the victim, regardless of how clearly it may be proven that the victim's death was caused by the accused. This was certainly a situation sadly in need of change. This bill would remove that provision in light of advances in forensic science and the medical profession.

It is ultimately the government with the support of the NDP and the Bloc, however, that decided to neuter the DNA Identification Act which would further strengthen and stress the importance of this particular amendment.

Other amendments to the Criminal Code included in this bill would simplify the prosecution of an individual if he or she attempts to procure the sexual services of a prostitute that they know is under the age of 18 years. It would also allow police officers to use electronic surveillance and technology in this area to investigate prostitution related offences.

I am very pleased to note the government's amendment to the conditional sentencing provisions in Bill C-51. If an offender breaches his or her conditional sentence this bill now allows the justice system to permit the issuance of an arrest warrant until a court hearing is held on the breach itself. Again, I view this as a positive amendment.

The breach hearing limit of 30 days would also be changed to permit the court to deal with the offenders who cannot be found or brought to court within that time period.

It is, however, very unfortunate that the government did not choose to further restrict conditional sentencing provisions period so that no offender convicted of a crime of violence is granted a conditional sentence. This is a situation I would strongly urge the government to reconsider. It should be remedied and, at the very least, there should be efforts made to ensure that conditional sentences are not applied to certain designated offences such as sexual assault and capital offences and those involving high end violence.

The amendments themselves would ensure that offenders with ties to organized crime or gangs would no longer receive accelerated parole review. I view this as positive change. While this is an extremely positive step, I would like to know why the government has lectured members for months that it would be inappropriate to propose amendments while statutory review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was underway at the justice committee.

Once again we have seen a bit of a contradiction in what the government says and what the government does.

If the Liberal government is willing to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in this way before the statutory review is complete then surely it should be willing to support positive and constructive amendments to the CCRA review from private members in this House on both government and opposition side because I know there are government members who have brought forward very intelligent and insightful private members' bills as they reflect on the criminal justice system.

I also question the government's true commitment to fighting organized crime given that the solicitor general and the Liberal government itself could be doing much more in this area. Recent revelations from the auditor general seem to indicate that contrary to what the solicitor general announced publicly about this government's commitment to organized crime, the reality is that millions of dollars have been taken out of the RCMP budget.

We also know that in the last year to year and a half we have seen the devolution of the ports police in areas like Halifax and Vancouver. I assure this House that one very prevalent factor waiting in the wings is the decision to make Halifax a post-Panamax port. With this decision there will be significantly increased traffic on that port. Instead of a specialized police force, the ports police aimed at combating organized crime and the importation of drugs, weapons and other contraband materials, now we have that duty being passed on along with other duties the current Halifax metro police and RCMP are charged with.

It is not a partisan comment on my part. That is simply the conclusion that has been reached in examining these facts. I do not reach this conclusion alone. Each year the U.S. State Department prepares a report called “International Narcotics Control Strategy Report”. In its most recent report, the State Department singled out Canada as an easy target for drug related and other types of money laundering. The same report also listed Canada in the same category as Columbia, Brazil and the Cayman Islands as an attractive location to hide illegal cash. Finally, the same report was very critical of Canada's lack of legislation to control cross-border money flow.

The Canadian Police Association, as it is a very insightful group, has also echoed similar concerns. London police Chief Julian Fantino, head of the organized crime committee in the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said that money laundering is an easy feat in Canada. According to some reports, the RCMP has estimated the value of laundering money in Canada between $3 billion and $10 billion. The solicitor general recognizes this problem, should be aware of it and should act on it.

During the government's first ever annual statement on organized crime, the solicitor general promised new anti-organized crime legislation that would finally require significant steps toward combating this situation. It would also require that financial institutions report suspicious transactions and cross-border currency movements.

As a matter of interest, the solicitor general's predecessor and the current Deputy Prime Minister made a similar commitment in September 1996 following the conference on organized crime. Sadly, Canadians continue to wait and organized crime continues to penetrate this country.

In April of this year the present solicitor general repeated that promise again and had a conference that was very well publicized. There was a great deal of ballyhoo about the solicitor general's initiatives and spoke quite openly about his intentions for combating organized crime.

He made the same promise to the police in the past year in August and in the span of nearly two years this government has made the same promise on four separate occasions but have delivered nothing.

I would concede that the solicitor general has a laudable commitment to consultation as well as airline conversations but he also should know that the law enforcement community has had enough and does not want any more shallow promises. The government is incessantly holding conferences under the guise of consultation and yet there do not seem to be any meaningful consequences that come about as a result of these consultations.

The solicitor general's dismal response to the problem of organized crime and this government's manipulation of consultation has become a tool of delay and frustrated police to the point where the executive director of the Canadian Police Association recently stated to the media: “Quite frankly, we don't care what this government has to say anymore”. That is a very telling comment from the Canadian Police Association when saying this in response to the government's commitment to organized crime.

Are we to believe the brave talk of the solicitor general? Given his credibility problems of late, that does stretch it quite a bit. The solicitor general since June 1997 has said we would do away with any problem recognizing his statements that fighting organized crime is one of his strategic priorities.

We are patiently waiting, as are the Canadian people, the Canadian Police Association and indeed all police associations across the country. Police and the public are forced to judge the solicitor general's commitment to strategic priorities by actions and results. Words alone, no matter how tough they sound, just do not cut it when it comes to fighting organized crime.

There are also significant amendments with respect to telemarketing fraud. Proceeds gained from deceptive telemarketing practices that would be subject to seizure and forfeiture under Bill C-51 are a positive step. This bill would also make it illegal to generate currency by copying bank notes by computer assisted or electronic means. Certainly forgery has become a problem in this country as it has around the world.

I commend the government for this positive amendment although it is unfortunate that we have yet to see other measures aimed specifically at organized crime in this country.

Given the rising market value of forged currency, this amendment would establish theft and smuggling of other valuable commodities such as diamonds, gemstones or any rock or ore. It is a positive focus of this omnibus bill and would make offences aimed at those types of forgeries punishable under the Criminal Code.

Bill C-51 is also an amendment to legislation regarding non-communication orders. Previous speakers have highlighted this as one of the more positive and more significant changes brought about by Bill C-51 and I tend to concur with that assessment. This amendment would allow a judge who remands or denies the bail of an arrested person into custody to order that they not communicate while in custody.

Mr. Speaker would know that unfortunately this does happen and where the riding of Kingston also includes the Kingston penitentiary, there are means now available for prisoners to contact victims or contact other cohorts involved in their crime or perhaps involved in the case itself that may still be pending before the courts.

I suggest this is a very significant amendment that has been brought forward and one which I commend the government for.

This amendment would the allow judge who remands the arrested person into custody to order that they not communicate with any witness or any other person between the time of the arrest and the bail hearing for judicial interim release hearing. The law currently deals with the judge's power to order non-communication orders only at the time of the bail hearing. That lag time in between does permit for this communication to occur.

With respect to gaming which is also touched by this bill and the Criminal Code, we would like to highlight the fact that under this bill to exempt international cruise boats from offences pertaining to the Canadian gaming provisions is a positive step as well. Cruise boats would be able to operate casinos while in Canadian waters, but not in Canadian ports. This has very broad sweeping ramifications for the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec as a significant number of cruise ships currently attend ports in both of those provinces.

The bill would also allow provincial governments to conduct and manage dice games in order to compete with similar operations that are under way in the United States. There are tremendous earnings and tremendous amounts of money that change hands over the dice games.

I have some concern with this provision in light of the ongoing capitulation of the provincial Liberal government in my home province of Nova Scotia in dealing with the ITT Sheraton casinos in both Halifax and Sydney. I would like to see this amendment further scrutinized by the justice committee to see exactly what the long term ramifications will be.

Bill C-51 would also provide that a peace officer or agent is not guilty of an offence while acting under and for the purposes of upholding the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This amendment is aimed specifically at support for front line police officers and officers who find themselves in the line of duty in a situation that results in a charge surrounding their behaviour. This would be outside any internal disciplinary action that might be taken under a forum like the RCMP Public Complaints Commission which is going on currently in Vancouver.

This allows an opportune time to suggest to the House that the commission as we have come to know it is aimed specifically at police conduct, not the conduct of any individual outside the RCMP Act. It is not the forum to look at situations such as political interference that might come from sources like the PMO or other bodies in Ottawa. The RCMP Public Complaints Commission is a body that has a mandate set up to look at RCMP conduct and to call witnesses and as we see under the current process, to look at the actions specifically of officers of the RCMP.

This particular change to the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is an important move forward. Our party is in support of this particular change. The act has been sorely lacking and needs to have a change in this manner.

In conclusion I would like to express the guarded support of the Progressive Conservative Party for these initiatives. We would like to see further amendments as they are deemed appropriate under this omnibus bill. Hopefully the government will take a more open, constructive and non-partisan attitude toward bills that are brought forward in the House as they pertain to justice and criminal law in Canada.

We would have liked to have seen a number of changes to other bills such as Bill C-3, the DNA data bank bill, or to the Bill C-68 regulations at the very least if we could not have that bill struck completely from the rolls. We would have liked to have seen some amendments that perhaps would have been a little kinder to organized shooting clubs and to members of the public generally who are engaged in the lawful exercise of either hunting or sport shooting. Sadly however, partisanship raises its ugly head in the justice system as it does everywhere else.

I would like to give our guarded support and our guarded optimistic view that the government has recognized the need for changes in these justice bills in this omnibus bill. Bill C-51 is seen as a positive step forward.

A number of bills will be coming before the House in the next weeks, months and years, bills such as the bill put forward by the member for Mississauga East that deals specifically with the issue of consecutive sentences. I advise the House at this time that the Progressive Conservative Party will be in support of the hon. member for Mississauga East in her ongoing efforts to have the bill brought to fruition.

I will bring forward a bill with respect to changes to the sentencing and probation provisions of the Criminal Code as they pertain to the ability of a judge to put certain restrictions on those convicted of sexual assault or assault against children. It would allow a judge the ability to put restrictions so that a person convicted of those types of offences would not be able to attend the dwelling house and be in the presence of a child without the supervision of an adult.

I would take this opportunity again to commend Ms. Donna Goler from Nova Scotia for bringing this to the attention of all members of the House. Her ongoing efforts in this area are extremely significant in light of her own personal tragedy.

Again, I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada with regard to these important changes to the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I would be glad to take any questions from hon. members present with respect to my remarks.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, again I comment quite favourably on the speech of the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, or New Glasgow to be more specific. I thank him for his comments. There are a couple of things I would like him to elaborate on if at all possible.

He speaks of the solicitor general but after the last couple of days, I think we should be speaking of the Office of the Solicitor General because we in our party more or less think of the current solicitor general in the de facto mode.

With regard to the responsibilities of the port police and what has happened in Nova Scotia and Vancouver regarding two major ports and the easier access organized crime now has to smuggle contraband items of any kind, whether they are drugs, weapons, forged money or whatever, those responsibilities are now merging with the ones of the municipal police or the city police of the area. Of course, I am in total disagreement with that. I really appreciated the idea of a separate police force or enforcement agency and that their business was strictly only that, not only in the two major centres but in the smaller centres as well, in the smaller ports.

He mentioned a concern about the drug trade and our cuts to foreign aid. Would he and his party not also agree that one way of reducing organized crime's efforts to bring in contraband drugs for example, would be for our foreign affairs department, our immigration department, CIDA, et cetera to give third world countries more access to capital? Their farmers and people in the agricultural industries, and I am thinking of Asia, Columbia and other third world countries, would then get away from their dependency on things like cocaine, heroin and poppy seeds and would be able to concentrate on more economic alternatives.

As he knows, the cuts to foreign aid to these countries have made these people very desperate for any cash or income of any kind. They resort to what we would call the criminal element and grow the cocaine and heroin that organized crime brings into our country. Of course, the effect of cuts to our military and cuts to our police allow organized crime to bring this contraband into our major ports as well as to our coastal communities.

Communities on all three coasts are being devastated by economic cuts in terms of fisheries and other related matters. People are moving away from those communities and we do not even have a civilian presence in some of these communities, which makes it easier for organized crime to do its job.

I would like the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough to comment, please.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, a fellow Bluenoser. He is obviously very aware of the fact that Nova Scotia in particular, because of its extensive coastline is very vulnerable to the importation of illegal drugs and other contraband material.

With respect to any number of the questions he posed, regarding Canada's increased foreign aid as a means of attacking the continued worldwide problem of production of drugs by less financially sound countries, it may sound somewhat shallow but my initial reaction is that we have a great deal to do in our own country first.

Canada has had a wonderful international reputation for having given foreign aid to any number of countries, in any number of causes and causes that are very important and very real. As the hon. member knows, we have a very significant economic problem facing our country, with a $600 billion debt, a dollar that is continuing to fall on the international markets and decreasing confidence from outside the country as to the economic stability of Canada. In simple terms we have to clean up our backyard first and foremost. If we cannot take care of things here, we are not going to be in a position in the future to extend that helping hand.

Regarding the member's comments on the ports police specifically in Halifax which is close to his riding, there has been a very unfortunate decision made by the current government to devolve or do away with Canada's ports police on both the east coast and the west coast. I know that there have been efforts made to absorb some of those officers into the existing forces, like the Halifax Metropolitan Police and the RCMP.

The fact remains, and the member has highlighted it in his remarks, that the ports police served a very specific purpose. They had specific training. They had a specific aim in combating the movement of contraband material through ports in Canada.

The member makes the significant point that there are a number of communities in Nova Scotia that not only do not have the presence of law enforcement officers, but are virtually becoming wastelands because of the departure of their citizens. Nova Scotia and other maritime provinces have been facing this reality and this unfortunate situation for a long time. Young, talented and educated people are leaving because of the lack of work and the lack of economic opportunities. That does not apply only to the young, it applies to young and old and everybody in between.

This gives me the opportunity to state uncategorically that this government has not done its job with respect to taking care of all of the regions of this country, in particular the regions such as the province the hon. member and I share and call our home.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak after the Progressive Conservative House leader and hear his words. I know he was a prosecutor in his province. His words are taken well in this House, in fact so well that I hope he will come to our united alternative convention in February. He would make a great solicitor general in a new government after the next election.

Canadians are very concerned about crime. On a scale of one to ten, Canadians rated it 8.3. Compared to five years ago 91% of Canadians are either much more or somewhat more concerned about crime. Eighty-nine per cent of Canadians strongly or somewhat agree that we should increase the severity of sentences of young offenders who commit serious crimes.

Bill C-51 which is before us now at second reading could have begun a change in the right direction and begun to address the concerns of all Canadians. Instead it is late off the mark and weak in areas such as child prostitution, conditional sentencing and organized crime.

Why is the government so hesitant to provide alternatives to the most likely to participate in crime? Why is the government so hesitant to provide a tougher prison system and give the police the resources to prevent and fight crime? We only have to look at Bill C-3, the DNA bill.

Bill C-51 is the quintessential omnibus bill, an inch deep and a mile wide. It is cosmetic at best and timid in its degree of efficacy in change. Bill C-51 could have gone a lot further. There are areas where the Reform Party will move amendments at the appropriate stage of debate.

I ask the following questions concerning Bill C-51 and the impact it has on the feelings of Canadians concerning crime.

In 1982, 35% of Canadians were afraid of walking alone at night; today 42% are afraid. Does Bill C-51 do anything to change that? In 1982, 61% of Canadians were afraid of having their homes burglarised; today 63% share that fear.

Does Bill C-51 do anything to allay these fears? In 1982, 48% of Canadians were afraid to go downtown alone. Today 58% are afraid to go downtown alone. Does Bill C-51 do anything to dispel these fears? It is not what is in Bill C-51 that is objectionable. It is what is not in Bill C-51 that concerns the Reform Party.

Bill C-51 surely reflects how the government feels about crime: don't get tough, shuffle some paper, commission a study, hire a consultant, and above all don't offend criminals.

Let us take a look at the specifics of Bill C-51 and what we are being asked to support. The whole concept of conditional sentencing from the start has been ill conceived and an unfortunate episode. In Bill C-51 the loophole in conditional sentencing of having time on a conditional sentence, even when the person is alleged to have breached the condition, is now closed and the hearing can now go beyond 30 days.

This is an acceptable change, but it does not address the most glaring problem with conditional sentencing, specifically its use for violent offenders. Why would the minister ignore this obvious issue? This is the real problem in the area of conditional sentencing. Why avoid it again? The bottom line is that conditional sentencing should not be used for violent offenders. Case after case in this area begs for change. The minister will only go so far to correct the problem and then she pulls back.

A simple amendment to section 742.1 to exempt convictions for serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 would prevent such travesties as the two Haitian rapists in Montreal last year who did not go to jail. This was a particularly heinous crime by violent individuals who received a conditional sentence, and the two Haitians are licensed to do it again thanks to conditional sentencing. Is there any sense of justice or backbone in the government?

We can be accused in the House of being partisan. Let me quote what a few judges, who everyone in the House would agree are not partisan, say about conditional sentencing. An article in the Edmonton Sun headlined “Top judges skeptical of soft sentence trend” read:

Early trends in conditional sentencing, a method of punishing offenders that is still in its infancy, got a damning review by Alberta's highest court yesterday.

Chief Justice Catherine Fraser in a decision indicated:

Surgery should not be performed simply because a surgeon has a new scalpel—. Improperly used or skimpily drafted, it will undermine the respect for the law. Like all tools or instruments, it is to be used for the right situation, not the wrong situation.

This was a judge talking about conditional sentencing, not a politician. In a 50 page ruling the appeals justices detailed several major complaints they had with the way judges and lawyers had been applying the reforms. Yet we see no changes in the legislation which will allay the fears of judges.

Another articled headlined “Judges attack improper use—conditional sentencing undermines respect for the law” read:

Alberta's highest court criticized judges across Canada for the unimaginative and skimpy conditional sentences they've imposed and urged them to be tough and creative instead.

These are judges talking about a law brought in by parliament, and the bill does nothing to change that.

Even the Minister of Justice in a headline in the Edmonton Journal supports a court ruling critical of conditional sentencing. I quote from the Edmonton Journal :

Canada's justice minister says she's pleased with an Alberta Court of Appeal decision critical of the way in which conditional sentences are applied across the country.

“There have been some circumstances in which I believe conditional sentences were used when it was not the intention of parliament to have them used, and those should be appealed”—

That is what the justice minister said Thursday. The justice minister had an opportunity with the bill to make changes so that the courts do not have to appeal these things. She could have made the changes and she did not make the changes. That is why the bill is faulty. That is why we will move amendments when the time comes.

I could go on and on. I have quotes from newspapers across the country indicating that judges, lawyers and Canadians do not like the conditional sentencing that has been brought in by the government.

In a survey of 850 police, lawyers, probation officers and corrections staff the following was revealed: 90% thought the sentences imposed by the courts were not respected and 69% thought the actual amount of time served should be the same as the sentence imposed. Is it not an amazing thought that somebody can be given some time in jail by a judge and other people in the system would allow them out in a very short period of time? We have all heard of how short some of these sentences really are.

Some 76% of the people in the business thought criminals avoided jail too often and 55% considered the law to be too soft. As one crown attorney said, this does not make any sense. If we do not have the resources to keep somebody in jail then let us not sentence them to jail. The system is losing credibility.

One judge out of eleven interviewed said:

Fundamentally, they couldn't care less what we say when we send someone to jail for 30 days and they only serve 5. It's as if we miscalculated and we were fools for imposing 30 day sentences when they did not deserve them.

When judges imposes a 30 day sentence it should be a 30 day sentence, but the government through its legislation makes the judges look like they are fools. Bill C-51 does nothing to solve the problem. It is about time we had some real truth in sentencing. It could start with Bill C-51 if the government had the will. We will move amendments, hoping the government has the will.

I will discuss another story in relation to conditional sentencing. Domenico Tozzi, the greatest money launderer in Canadian history, was sentenced to 10 years and a fine of $150,000 for his role in the importation of 2,500 kilos of cocaine plus 25 tonnes of hashish. When he did not pay his fine the sentence was increased to 12 years and he was released after only serving two years in jail.

I do not know what 2,500 kilos of cocaine and 25 tonnes of hashish are worth, but I would guarantee it is in the millions. A judge put him in jail for 10 years and gives him a $150,000 fine. He wondered why he should pay the fine if he would only get two more years in jail. Then our great system allowed this man back on the streets after just two years in jail.

Bill C-51 does nothing to solve that problem. We are going to make amendments to it. As my Conservative colleague said, hopefully the government and the rest of the House can work on this in a non-partisan way to bring in laws all Canadians want.

Ex-lawyer Joseph Lagana was involved in the importation of 558 kilos of cocaine and in laundering $47.4 million. He was sentenced by a judge to 13 years. He was released after two years and two months to a halfway house where he is free from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.

What message does that send to Canadians? He imported cocaine which kills young people and laundered $47.4 million. That probably goes right over top of of the average Canadian's head. It is astounding. Average Canadians cannot even think of figures that large. What does he get? Two years and two months.

That shows young people that a life of crime pays. It creates career criminals. Will this man go back to an honest job? Will anybody in Canada be convinced that after two years and two months he has been rehabilitated?

Anthony Volpato, described by the papers as one of the leading figures in the Montreal Mafia, was sentenced to six years for conspiracy to import 180 kilos of cocaine. He was freed after only one year. This kind of sentencing has to stop and we have to make amendments to the bill to make sure it stops.

Let us talk about organized crime, another area in which Bill C-51 is sadly lacking. As Bill C-51 implies organized crime figures are not choir boys. Why would we treat them that way? The minister thinks she is getting tough in Bill C-51 by eliminating the accelerated parole hearing after one-sixth of a sentence has been served. It is better than before. Organized crime figures will still have access to day parole and be released after serving one-third of their sentences.

As I said in my previous comments on conditional sentencing, this is a joke. It is objectionable, unacceptable and naive. Organized crime laughs at going to jail for a couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you like going to the movies. The part of the bill on organized crime kind of reminds me of the movie Goodfellows . In that movie three Mafia members were convicted of a crime and doing time by having pasta dinners in prison. They are sitting tight being model prisoners, knowing they will get out before their full sentence is served. The notion and the part of the movie with the Mafia members drinking Chianti and making pasta is as comical as Bill C-51 in that regard.

Let me remind the justice minister that members of criminal organizations are by definition in section 2 members of a group of at least five persons, formally or informally organized, having as a primary activity the commission of an indictable offence and the members having been in the preceding five years in a series of such offences. That is very serious stuff. In short, these people should be held for their full sentences. They should not get full parole as Bill C-51 allows. Serious crime, serious time. We have to get that message across to organized crime.

These people should not enjoy the generous system of day parole, full parole and statutory release. There should be no exception for organized crime. Does the minister really believe, be it one-sixth or one-third, that these people can be rehabilitated in such a short period of time?

I gave an example before of those with 13 years sentences being out in two years for crimes involving millions of dollars. They will, as the movie Goodfellows portrays so accurately, sit tight, keep up the connections while incarcerated and return to their lives of crime when released. Is the minister expecting organized crime members to have some sort of Epiphany while in prison? This is another sadly lacking element in Bill C-51 and one we cannot support.

Let me turn to another item lacking in Bill C-51 in the area of child prostitution. Bill C-51 calls for giving police more tools in the juvenile prostitution area. All Canadians say wonderful, that is great. Living off the avails of a child prostitute, keeping a common bawdy house and using an underage prostitute are made offences justifying the issuance of a wiretap order. The offence of attempting to obtain such services is expanded to include communicating with anyone for the purpose of prostitution.

This is commendable, but surely we could go further in dealing with this parasitic behaviour by sick people who prey on juveniles. Right off the top, how about a mandatory minimum jail sentence for those convicted of procuring under 18 year olds? Why not send a clear message that society frowns on such perverted, exploitive behaviour?

Let us get these offenders off the street and let us keep them off the street. Why is the government so fearful to change the penalty which remains at five years maximum? The fact is no one changes the penalty. Judges give discharges, suspend the sentence or impose the good old conditional sentence.

Too many young children in our big cities today are getting into child prostitution. We have to let the pimps know, the people involved in that business, that the Parliament of Canada does not accept that. It is happening too often in our cities today. The life of crime has been shown to these young people as a way to live. We have a responsibility with the bill to toughen this law and reduce child prostitution. My party will put those amendments in the proper place.

Around and around the charade goes. The government is doing nothing to change this perverted procurement by perverted individuals. A slap on the wrist will not be a deterrent, and the tools we just gave the police to wiretap are moot. Give with one hand, take away with the other. This ensures inertia, which is a specialty of the government. It is time to get serious with child prostitution. The Reform Party wants mandatory jail time for first offences and repeat offenders to get triple time with no possibility of serving a sentence intermittently.

I put the minister on notice. This is not good enough and we will deal appropriately at committee and report stage with this aspect of Bill C-51.

Another area of the Criminal Code that begged for change and for a change got it is the so-called year and a day rule for homicide. It only took 12 years for this lethargic government to move on a recommendation first made by the Law Reform Commission back in 1987. The commission brought this forth and recommended an immediate amendment 12 years ago. But in typical government fashion it had to be studied to death and the government waited to stick this necessary and easy amendment into an omnibus bill. One simple bill and one simple line would have accomplished this but the government has to wait for another example of an outdated law allowing a heinous crime to go unpunished; a government would be so lackadaisical as to allow a law to stand which allows a killer to avoid a murder charge if the death of the person he assaults is a year and a day after the offence. As my colleague says, there is just no value on life. Why does it take so long? It is absolutely incredible.

Allow me to tell a story that finally shook the government out of its sleepiness into including an amendment in this bill. It involves a mentally challenged 50 year old Winnipeg man, Marvin Ward, who was savagely beaten by a 17 year old using a baseball bat. The perpetrator stole a grand total of 75 cents in the robbery of Mr. Ward.

Unfortunately Mr. Ward died 14 months after the vicious attack. Due to the centuries old law, as I said earlier that was recommended to be changed in 1987, the government allowed to languish on the books, the individual could not be charged for murder because Mr. Ward died more than a year after the attack.

This punk served 28 months in closed custody for robbery and assault with a weapon, because the law was not changed, even though an amendment was recommended in 1987. This government should be ashamed that it took this long to make this kind of change.

Why in the world have successive governments allowed this law to go unchanged knowing how easy it would have been to change it and reverse this travesty that took place? It is tragic. Despite the Law Reform Commission expression of concern in 1987, a recommendation by the federal-provincial working group on homicide in 1991 and consultations in 1994-95 by the justice department on the general causation rule nothing was done.

In March 1997 the former minister of justice promised to change the law. It was reiterated by the current minister in September 1997. Why did the current minister wait so long? It was just to tie it into a series of unrelated amendments contained in Bill C-51. Surely there was more urgency or was she just embarrassed by her inaction as she thought no one would notice it hidden away in Bill C-51, the omnibus bill?

The member for Wild Rose attempted through his private member's Bill C-215 to change this year and a day disgrace. Unfortunately it was not deemed votable. It was another example of the Reform Party leading the way on criminal justice and dragging this lazy government along into the present day.

As Lee Iaccoca used to say, lead, follow or get out of the way. That is certainly not the motto of this government. It does not get out of the way. It certainly does not lead but it is pretty good at following. Liberals just sit back, wait, follow and then when they get embarrassed they sneak it into the middle of a bill.

The government's delay is inexcusable. During debate on the bill by the member for Wild Rose the government's lethargy was exposed. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said: “While there is little doubt that change ought to occur, it may be premature to support this bill at this time”. How often do we hear that? Whether it is in committee or in this House, it is premature to do it at this time because it is not the government's idea.

A great example of this is a private member's bill that passed in the House the other day because members on the other side on the back benches are maybe getting a little restless when certain people are getting fired and moved around. So to show a little independence they pass a private member's bill. Wait until it gets to committee and they pull the whips out. A good bill will die and that is unfortunate.

Can anyone believe the parliamentary secretary? What more proof did she need? She and her government could not bring themselves to support this initiative and we had to wait until they got around to drafting their own amendment. This was not only insecure and petty on their part, it was also negligent for them to allow this issue to drag on.

There is not a lot to support in this dog's breakfast of amendments. A lot of it could have been done incrementally over the years if the government were not so lazy. The important part is that we will be ready to scrutinize the other aspects of this legislation and prepared to deal with substantive amendments as we proceed.

Many support a triple E Senate. How about a triple E justice system, effective, efficient and equitable. It is time we get started.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak to Bill C-51 today. This is a bill that makes at least 12 amendments to the Criminal Code

I will give you examples of some of the amendments, in order to demonstrate what a catchall it is. One could call it a tutti-frutti bill. It tries to cover all the bases. I would like to list some of the amendments.

The purpose of the bill is to widen the scope of the offence of obtaining the services of a prostitute under eighteen years old; to modernize the provisions concerning the offence of making likenesses of bank notes; and to bring deceptive telemarketing offences against the Competition Act under the forfeiture provisions for the proceeds of crime.

These are but a few of the amendments, and I have listed them to demonstrate how impossible it is to seriously address all of these aspects—scattered as they are—in the time allotted me.

I would, however, like to point out that this bill marks a great victory for the Bloc Quebecois. The section in question is the one on cruise ship casinos. This will have a definite economic impact on the Quebec City region, my riding in particular. I will come back to this later.

I would also like to mention the Bloc Quebecois' partial victory concerning amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that exclude those convicted of organized-crime offences from eligibility for accelerated parole review.

These amendments to the Criminal Code are a result of the pressure brought to bear by the Bloc Quebecois, which introduced private members' bills in the House. They are certainly the result of the many questions put by the members with responsibility for these files.

Today, as I have already mentioned, I will be focusing on the Criminal Code amendment that permits the operation of casinos on international cruise ships that are Canadian or in Canadian waters. If time permits, I would also like to speak to the amendment having to do with eligibility for accelerated parole review.

The Bloc Quebecois therefore supports the bill introduced by the Minister of Justice yesterday, which we are discussing today, all the more so as it is the response to a request that goes back more than 10 years. Ten years ago, Port of Quebec authorities made a request, which has had the strong support of the Bloc Quebecois since we arrived on the federal political scene in 1993.

For 10 years, these harbour authorities have been asking for an amendment to the Criminal Code. It is a small amendment, but one which has deprived the entire Quebec City area of important economic benefits in various sectors of the tourism industry.

I would therefore like to take a few moments to look at the existing legislation, so as to shed some light on the proposed legislation.

Games of chance, including casinos, come under federal jurisdiction, and are prohibited under the Criminal Code except where authorized by a competent provincial authority under section 207 of the Code.

Because casinos on board ship fall under the Criminal Code definition of gaming houses, enforcement of the federal legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces as soon as a ship arrives in one of the ports on their territory, if the ship has committed an offence at any point since it entered Canadian territorial waters 12 miles off the coast line.

This is not much of a disadvantage for international cruise ships headed for ports in British Columbia or the maritimes. Why? Because those ports are just 12 miles away from international waters, all gambling activities are shut down just before docking, which is not the case for the St. Lawrence ports. When ships enter the St. Lawrence, they come under the Criminal Code as soon as they are 12 miles off the eastern tip of Anticosti Island. This means that gaming tables have to be shut down as soon as they pass that strategic point and remain shut down until they sail out of Canadian territorial waters, which takes two to three days.

When tourists pay for cruises that have casinos, it is because they want to be able to gamble. The Quebec City region was penalized because all casino activity had to be shut down as soon as they were off Anticosti Island. This meant that, for two or three days before arrival at the Quebec City and other St. Lawrence ports, passengers could not use the casino. It is therefore quite clear how much Quebec City was at a disadvantage.

As well, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, casino activities in Canada were legal only if directly operated by a provincial government, or under provincial licence by a religious or charitable organization or the board of a fair or exhibition.

Only an amendment to the Criminal Code could settle the question of casinos aboard cruise ships, and today I can state that, as the MP for the riding of Québec, I am pleased the government has finally been able to make this amendment to the legislation.

Let us now look at how the proposed legislative amendment will remedy the situation. Clause 7 of Bill C-51 proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code which will make it possible for casinos to operate on board ship provided they are not within five nautical miles of a Canadian port at which the ship calls or is scheduled to call. Unless I am mistaken, a distance of five nautical miles means about 12 kilometres before arriving to the port. So, we are very pleased with that provision.

Interestingly, one of the positive aspects of these amendments is that they only change in a minor way the legislation prohibiting the operation of casinos in Canada, except for section 207 of the Criminal Code. In spite of its minor importance, this legislative amendment will have a major impact for the province of Quebec. Because of Bill C-51, the St. Lawrence River will finally be on the same footing as the other Canadian maritime regions, such as Vancouver and Halifax, to name but two.

And this fair balance will be restored without having to change the spirit of the law, and without affecting in any way the plans that some provincial governments may have about operating casinos. Indeed, this legislation does not seek to compete with casinos operated by the Government of Quebec or by other provinces. The gambling rooms will be closed when the ship is in a port.

While we stress the fairness that the new legislation will bring about, we should not forget the major economic spinoffs that it will provide for the Quebec City area. The cruise industry has an economic impact of several millions of dollars for the Quebec City region.

Studies indicate that each tourist spends $110 when a ship calls at a port. Since the provision of the Criminal Code currently in effect prevents about 25 ships with an average of 1,000 to 1,500 passengers from coming to Quebec City, the resulting shortfall is huge. It totals $2.5 million per year, and we have been asking for that change for 10 years. It is pretty easy to figure out that an annual shortfall of $2.5 million over a 10 year period represents a considerable amount of money for the Quebec City region.

Supposing that more cruise ships—and everyone knows that the industry is growing—stayed longer, what economic impact would this have on the tourism industry in the greater Quebec City region?

Clearly put, the new legislation will have a major economic impact on our region, lengthening the tourism season and increasing activity.

The decision will have an effect on the life of Quebec City and bring in even more tourists. It could even cause tourists caught in the charm of Quebec City during a stop there to return to visit our region and to promote it within their own communities. We are delighted.

We must remind those watching us and our colleagues in this House that the Quebec National Assembly passed a bill quite similar to Bill C-51, and that was in 1995. The Bloc Quebecois has been very active since its arrival in Ottawa in an attempt to correct this inequity.

My colleague from Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans introduced a bill in the House in February 1997 with the full support of the members in the caucus from the Quebec City region. Because of the election in 1997, he had to start all over, as he did in June. A number of press conferences followed the tabling of these two bills. The Bloc Quebecois was persistent in this matter, because of the economic benefits for the region.

So, I remind you that the request from the Quebec City port authorities is 10 years old and that many stakeholders were steadfast in their support of our action to have the Criminal Code amended. They include the Quebec City Urban Community, the Quebec City Region Tourist and Convention Bureau, the Secrétariat à la mise en valeur du St. Lawrence, the Corporation of the Lower St. Lawrence Pilots, the Société de développement économique du Saint-Laurent, the Quebec department of tourism, and representatives of the business community. They were all behind us to have the legislation changed.

We are delighted Bill C-51 has been changed to permit the operation of casinos on cruise ships, but we regret the slowness of the federal government and its lack of flexibility. Bloc members had to press hard for this bill before our efforts finally paid off.

If we relate this issue to other issues, it seems paradoxical that a controversial bill like Bill C-36 establishing the millennium scholarships, for example, would be adopted as quickly as it was. I sat on the committee. A few weeks is all it took to change the legislation and establish the scholarships. The consensus in Quebec was against this legislation, unlike the one concerning cruise ships. We were against the establishment of a millennium scholarship foundation and we find the federal government's logic lacking when it comes to legislation that could favour Quebec.

For Bill C-36 establishing the millennium scholarships that no one in Quebec supported, the Liberal government managed to find $2.5 billion in two weeks.

But a minor change to the Criminal Code, with a major economic impact, took 10 years. The logic of this government still eludes us, when it is quick to act on issues that serve its interests and drags its feet on those serving Quebec's economic interests.

If I have a few minutes left, I would like to address the part of Bill C-51 dealing with eligibility for accelerated parole review. Here again, we feel the government is not going far enough. Granted, this would be a major change. It would give teeth to our legislation dealing with certain drug traffickers.

I will use the few minutes I have left to try to explain how this amendment could prove worthwhile and be improved upon by the government.

In August 1997, we learned of the Lagana affair from newspaper reports. A lawyer had been sentenced in 1995 to 13 years in prison for importing cocaine and laundering $47.4 million. As we know, Mr. Lagana was released after serving only 26 months, or one-sixth of his sentence, because he had become eligible for accelerated parole review. After serving just one-sixth of his or her sentence, any non-violent criminal who has never done time before may apply for parole.

In response, the Bloc Quebecois, through the member for Charlesbourg, introduced a private member's bill to eliminate this accelerated procedure for those found guilty of money laundering.

In Bill C-51, the government wants to correct this situation. It is proposing to exclude those convicted of organized crime offences from eligibility for accelerated parole review. This amendment is a step in the right direction, but it is limited to the provision of the Criminal Code dealing with organized crime. It does not affect bankers, individuals or lawyers convicted of money laundering who are not part of organized crime. Such individuals may therefore continue to launder millions of dollars and serve only one sixth of their sentence in jail.

We would have liked to see this amendment extended to include lawyers and bankers who launder money. This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. We in the Bloc Quebecois will not stand for another case like that of Lagana. We will introduce amendments to make up for the Liberal government's lack of courage.

We would also have liked to see $1,000 bank notes taken out of circulation, because we know that it is easier to launder that denomination. We are one of the only countries in the world with this denomination in circulation.

We would also like financial institutions to be permitted to alert the police about suspicious transactions of $10,000 and over.

I will not be able to address all the other items. Since there are a good dozen amendments in Bill C-51, it is difficult to give them the attention they deserve in a mere fifteen or twenty minutes.

In conclusion, as I mentioned, we are very happy with the Criminal Code amendment having to do with cruise ships.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-51 this afternoon, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Canadians have been waiting for many, many months to finally see legislation from our Minister of Justice. One would almost think that justice reform is not a very high priority with this government.

Bill C-51 is an omnibus bill which will make amendments to the criminal law. It is an attempt to respond to the changing conditions within our society. Much of what is being proposed is long overdue. Many of the proposals within this bill make sense and cause very little concern. Canadians must wonder why these issues have not been addressed before now.

It is unfortunate that this minister and this government continue to lurch ahead with half measures because of politics. Canadians continue to be shortchanged when it comes to improvements to our criminal law.

First I have a brief comment on the bill's proposal to amend section 186 of the Criminal Code. It concerns invasion of privacy under part VI of the code.

In the 1970s the federal government introduced a whole scheme to permit police to legally intercept private communications to assist them in their investigations.

The law permitted authorized personnel to install, maintain and monitor communications through the installation of devices such as bugs or wiretaps. It has taken over 20 years for the government to amend the legislation to also permit the authorized removal of those bugs and wiretaps. I suppose this falls into the category of “better late than never”.

Bill C-51 proposes to permit the operation of casinos on international cruise ships that are Canadian or operating in Canadian waters. Dice games will now be permitted and will be managed by the provinces and territories.

While it can be argued that casinos and dice games will improve the competitive nature of Canadian assets, there is significant opposition to gambling of any form in many parts of the country. I will be interested in the justice committee review of this legislation.

I understand that international cruise ships which operate within the Canadian inside passage route to Alaska already operate casinos within Canadian waters. It will be interesting to see just how this has occurred.

Another proposal would eliminate the requirement for a victim to die within a year and a day of an assault in order that a charge of murder, manslaughter or causing death by criminal negligence can be brought. With modern medical advancements it has become much easier to maintain victims on life support for extended periods of time.

Charges and convictions were often based merely on when the life support machines were turned off. Individuals who cause the death of others must be accountable for their actions, no matter how long the victims manage to hang on.

It seems impossible, but this government and its predecessors have been permitting killers to walk free just because their victims have managed to survive, often in a comatose or vegetative state.

One can only begin to imagine the anguish foisted on a family when they learn that the perpetrator has escaped justice because their loved one lived too long. This problem was first discussed 12 years ago and, as I have stated, some provisions are long overdue.

This bill contains a proposal to amend the offence section for the prostitution of a person under 18 years of age. It is amendments such as this that illustrate why it appears to take forever for this government to bring forth much needed legislation.

Bill C-51 proposes to amend section 212(4) of the code. I note that just last year Bill C-27 amended the same section. A number of thoughts cross my mind when I look at this. I wonder whether the previous Minister of Justice did not know what he was doing the first time around. I wonder whether this government even has a plan to address juvenile prostitution. I wonder why they refuse to consider increasing the penalty for engaging the services of our children.

Why will they not legislate an increase in the age of consent from 14 to 16 years for sexual activity between a young person and an adult?

Two weeks ago, while in my constituency, I attended a function at which Diane Sowden, the courageous mother of one of these sexually exploited young people, was honoured with an award from the attorney general of British Columbia for her tireless devotion to these issues. I have presented numerous petitions in this House on her behalf, but still nothing from this government.

I have similar concerns over amending section 742.6 of the code. Again I wonder whether the previous Minister of Justice got anything right during his term in the position. Section 742.6 came into being through Bill C-41 in 1995. It concerns the very controversial conditional sentencing provision whereby criminals are permitted to serve their sentences at home to avoid the costs of incarceration.

In spite of Reform Party proposals to limit conditional sentencing to non-violent and non-drug offenders, the former minister maintained that he knew better and made it quite clear that he was not open to changes.

Nevertheless there was soon public outrage over the weakness of the legislation. Violent criminals were being released back into the community almost every day without serving any time in jail for their crimes.

The former minister of justice appears to be joining in the Prime Minister's mantra of don't worry, be happy. Perhaps he was auditioning for the role.

Eventually pressures became so great that he was compelled to amend his conditional sentencing legislation. But did he limit it to non-violent, non-drug offenders? No, he cranked up the spin machine to con Canadians into thinking that he was making major improvements when in reality he was only tinkering, again.

In Bill C-17, which was passed in 1997, he tried to persuade our courts to pay more attention to community safety when considering conditional sentencing. But even today we find hardened and dangerous criminals still receiving this Liberal perk of serving a sentence in the comfort of their own home.

For example, we have recently seen police raising serious concerns over losing the battle against organized crime. Canadians have witnessed vastly increased violence among biker gangs as they fight over control of criminal activity.

The solicitor general has been quick to board the political bandwagon to announce a strategic partnership with the provinces, the police and customs officials. I wonder what he must think and what he can say when recently a member of the Hell's Angels was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to serve his time in the comfort of his own home.

This government is once again amending the conditional sentencing legislation but as usual it is failing to properly address one of its most fundamental flaws.

Last but not least, the minister wants to change the accelerated parole provisions. They messed with sections in Bill C-45 in 1995 and that same year in Bill C-55 they reduced parole eligibility to one sixth of the sentence. They had another go at it with Bill C-95 in 1997 and now they want to change the section again to exempt organized criminals from receiving such lenient early parole eligibility.

In their rush to reduce prison populations they changed the law to permit the release at one sixth but now realizing that organized gang members are not very nice people, they say they should serve a little more time than that. Reality, what a concept.

Perhaps they should consider truth in sentencing. Many citizens are disillusioned with our justice system just because of instances such as this whereby the government acts irrationally, without forethought and with purely political motives.

If criminals were properly sentenced and served those sentences citizens would be much more inclined to understand and support that process.

I would like to address the funding problems of the RCMP we are having in B.C. RCMP boats are tied up, helicopters are grounded, and there have been overtime bans. My riding is in the city of Surrey, a large city of over 300,000. It is the largest detachment of the RCMP in Canada. Frontline officers have serious concerns about their abilities to provide adequate services and protection to the public. My constituents would like some answers.

The attorney general of British Columbia is now talking about getting rid of the RCMP altogether and forming a provincial police force. He has been requesting a meeting with the solicitor general to discuss these funding problems. Maybe they could meet on an airplane.

I have asked the solicitor general what he is doing about the problems with the violent crimes linkage analysis system in B.C. I have not received any answers. I see today in newspaper reports that the Minister of Justice is now concerned that her youth justice proposals may be in jeopardy unless she can pry some money out of the Minister of Finance.

She did not seem so concerned about that last spring when she unveiled her proposals amid much fanfare and glossy brochures. I have to wonder if this is just another example of a whole lot of talk and no action.

Now instead citizens are told that murderers are to receive life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years only to learn later that there is a chance of parole in as early as 15 years. They are told that the government is getting touch on crime by increasing sentences only to discover the same government is reducing the period of eligibility for parole to only one sixth of the sentence.

They are told that the government is seriously interested in attacking organized crime. Then they see drug dealing gang members serve their sentences at home.

I have serious reservations over some provisions of this bill. Some elements are long overdue and that is a travesty in itself. Other aspects are a result of this government's again changing its own legislation within months because instead of getting it right the first time it waits until there is a public backlash. And in some cases this government once again only goes half way toward addressing the problem.

Unless this legislation is amended in the areas of juvenile prostitution and conditional sentencing I will be opposing it.