Art Hanger

[Criminal Code, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question which addresses a portion of the bill that will be very difficult to enforce. I cannot see how the testimony of any individual living outside the country can be brought forward in any form. We have no jurisdiction in other lands. My colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca mentioned Thailand as being one place where this kind of trade exists. It will be very difficult to enforce any kind of Canadian law or to compel witnesses who live outside the country to attend and testify in a Canadian court of law.

There may be other ways to address this issue. Perhaps we could focus on the tour guides who arrange for such tours into other nations. We could crack down on the marketing side of it here. Again, evidence will be difficult to accumulate and the proof would still lie at the other end of the trip to really establish that something did in fact happen. That part of the bill will be difficult to address.

[Criminal Code, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address this bill in a different fashion. We have been talking a lot about criminal justice matters over the last few days and there is going to be more on the plate of this Parliament as the justice minister tries to push through other bills. I understand there are two in the line of succession. There is an anti-gang coming forward. What shape that is going to take is anybody's guess.

I want to talk to the moms and dads for a while, and specifically those moms and dads who have perhaps had their daughters, young ladies, run away from home and fall into the clutches of an unsavoury procurer, a pimp in common language on the street.

It is a heart wrenching thing to see some of these young girls who have run away and have come into the grasp of these leeches who hang around waiting for these unsuspecting young people. They are there ready to take hold of them and actually in a very few short months after these young people have run away turn them on to something they never dreamed would be possible for them to be doing.

I can relate to a situation some years back in my police career where one such criminal was so intrusive into the lives of some of these young people and had pushed so many of them out on to the street into prostitution that we had to form a special unit to deal with him. He and his henchmen were solely set on grabbing these young runaways and putting them on the street and they had done so in great numbers.

How would this criminal go about doing that and have young people willingly prostituting themselves on the street? How would he go about doing that? I do not believe the majority of politicians even understand what happens to a young lady who has run away from home, somebody's daughter, and falls into the clutches of these criminals. I do not believe that most politicians understand. In fact I do not believe that a lot of people really understand what happens.

I am going to tell the story because it happens all too frequently. I think it needs harsh treatment for those who abuse.

In any event, this guy who was the overseer of all these thugs on the street was also a cocaine dealer. Of course his intent was to have the prostitutes out there. He wanted to control his band of girls. Some as young as 12 to 13 years old were under his so-called guidance. He would have his henchmen prowl the streets at night. It was pretty common knowledge where the runaways would go if they left home. Some of them got away unscathed but many of them fell into the clutches of these characters.

They would grab the girls. These thugs would treat them very well at first. They would pay attention to them. They would buy them gifts. They would show that they cared in some fashion. It was all very superficial of course because there was an underlying reason for doing these things.

Then they would start the girls on a bit of cocaine at a party. They would pay lots of attention to them over two, three or four days. There were some things the girls wanted from mom and dad and they felt that their needs could be met by these characters. Little did they know what was in store for them.

As time went on the cocaine amounts would increase. Then, when a dependency on the substance took hold, it was time for Mr. Big to say "you owe me now, I am going to put you on the street and you are going to be one of my girls". The young ladies were prepared for the street by being gang raped for two or three days. They were kept in confinement.

This brings to mind another revision to the Criminal Code which was made by the justice minister that lessened sentences concerning confinement.

The young girls would be put out on the street with their cocaine habit. The thugs were relentless in digging up whoever they could. The runaways were a prime target. There was an endless supply.

It was difficult for the police to pinpoint the abusers and it was difficult for the courts to convict. Seldom did they get the evidence required unless the girls were willing to testify in court. However, intimidation by the pimps was so great that many of them were afraid to testify.

After a period of time of being abused sexually they had such low self-esteem that they did not really care about a lot of things. The procurers and the pimps remained, for the most part, untouched.

I can remember one project in which we tried to nail one guy. We never did get him on prostitution. We got him on drugs but not on prostitution because that evidence was not forthcoming. The destruction that was brought about by his actions left an indelible mark on a lot of lives. It is up to the law to offer some protection to the witnesses who come forward.

That is the ugly side of life. It is there. I do not think it should be totally hidden to parliamentarians. I certainly do not think it should be hidden to the general public. I believe that the general public would not find the actions of any pimp to be acceptable.

I do not know about all the information that was before the committee and the justice minister when this bill was drafted. However, I assume they must have taken into account some very devious criminals when they suggested a mandatory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment. I think it is still going to be a very hard one to prove. But the questions do come up about this type of legislation. It will no doubt be challenged.

I have read some of the outline reference to this provision and it is almost anticipated by the justice minister and the department that the matter will be challenged under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think there has to be some sort of test. If the public in general finds this unacceptable, I think that is the test, not what the courts say. Some code charges and criminal offences are certainly higher in the minds of the public than others, and this is one that is sometimes hidden and secluded. But it is there. It is real and it is still very detrimental because it does cost society a lot when it comes to paying for rehabilitation of the victim. Those who are caught up in this terrible whirlwind of events of prostitution and drugs have to go through a terrible amount of rehabilitation.

The provisions of the Criminal Code as outlined in Bill C-27 I agree with. I think there should be minimum mandatory sentences. I believe that is quite positive. I am certainly prepared to support those in every way that I can.

A second point that I found very interesting is the whole area of harassment or stalking. In 1991 an Ontario study found that 61 per cent of women who were murdered in the province between 1974 and 1990 had been killed by intimate male partners, whether current or estranged, and that 75 per cent of these had taken place in the victim's home.

The minister through Bill C-27 desires to make stalking which results in a death a first degree murder charge. I agree with that. I believe for the most part it is a first degree murder charge. One would have to prove the whole stalking event.

Here is where I have a bit of a problem. The legislation sounds very good, quite positive. Overall it sounds like something I would draft. However, look at the results of the 745 applications. From the time of the first application until mid-1995 I believe there were 46 applications from first degree murderers for early release, and 11 applicants who had their sentences reduced murdered women, their wives, girlfriends or women they knew.

I have to come back to the legislation. Sure, it sounds wonderful but let us look at the statistics of release under section 745 and the true story will be heard. Of the 46 applicants, 8 murdered policemen and three murdered children. So 14 out of the 46 murdered women and children, charged with first degree murdered, applied for early release and had their sentences reduced.

It is okay to come out with what sounds like a good piece of legislation which is supportive of women and children in the country.

When people look at the statistics on release and how the government views those who commit such violent acts, we have to ask ourselves why they should be let out earlier. When we talk about those who have taken the lives of their partners, we are talking mostly of men committing acts of violence against women.

I am pleased to see good, sound legislation come in. However, it is like all the other bills we have had. Bill C-45 tinkers with section 745 on early release. One bill steps on the violent offender and the other undoes everything the first bill stated.

I have major questions about how a government can act in that fashion. Looking at the broader picture, it is somewhat deceitful. The whole picture is not seen before looking at everything.

A third part of this bill deals with female genital mutilation. It is good to see provisions dealing with that offence. In some countries it is commonly practised. In Canada it is not acceptable. I agree with that aspect of Bill C-27.

I am encouraged by one bill, which does not sound very good. However, one bill coming from the government actually deals precisely with these offences. There are no provisions that weaken the bill although I pointed out section 745, which is in another bill and in another part of the Criminal Code.

In that respect, we support the bill and look forward to debating the next one.

[Criminal Code, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's comments in reference to the bill, specifically to the children and how many of them have been affected by crime and abuse in society. I have to agree with him. I thought his statements were very appropriate.

As a police officer for 20-some years I came across many heart-wrenching situations that impacted directly on families and children. We want to deal with the perpetrators, the ones who abuse. We want to hit them hard, to tell them it is inappropriate behaviour and to get the point across. The way the courts have shifted over the years, they really do not impact in that way. They do not strike the abuser as he should be struck by being put in his place.

In one section a new offence will be created under subparagraph (2.1). It is called aggravated procuring and is applicable to:

every person who lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person under the age of 18 years, and who

(a) for the purposes of profit, aids, abets, counsels or compels the person-to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally, and

(b) uses, threatens to use or attempts to use violence, intimidation-in relation to the person-

It goes beyond the regular section of procuring. It deals with a child or a person under the age of 18. Attached to it is a mandatory minimum term of five years in prison to a maximum of 14 years, which is above the Criminal Code provisions at the present time. For all intents and purposes it is good that the abuser of children will be hit with a minimum sentence.

A charter argument of cruel and unusual punishment comes into play. It has been used time and time again. It has been brought forward frequently under other pieces of legislation. Some pieces of legislation have been struck from the record even though the intent on the part of the government was to move it through and certainly make it sound good. That has happened.

Would the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca like to comment on the fact that the provision is for a minimum mandatory sentence of five years? Does he believe it would be a suitable case for a charter argument to have this provision struck from the record as being cruel and unusual?

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the member. I do not think the parliamentary secretary is getting the point of my question.

I asked him to lay on the table in this House the justification for reducing maximum sentences as opposed to increasing them.

The Liberal government has a tendency to constantly want to trivialize some of the more serious Criminal Code charges and there are more than three examples. Dual procedure offences can be handled as indictable or as summary convictions. However, the parliamentary secretary does not want to answer that question.

Where are the facts for bringing about any changes in the law and placing it before Parliament and passing it? I do not see any of that information flowing from the government side, apart from the fact that somebody in the legal community wants it this way or there is a charter argument that states we cannot do it that way any more. That is strictly an opinion that is offered too often by the justice department.

I want to see the facts for justifying a reduction in those maximum sentences.

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the hon. parliamentary secretary to the justice minister.

First, has the justice department or the member ever researched the three strikes legislation in California? I point out to the member

that I have been doing that on a regular basis for approximately one year. I have received interesting statistics on what is happening.

I am going to dispel one statement that is often used on the government side in reference to the three strikes legislation. It targets 6, 7 or 8 per cent of the criminal element. The most violent, habitual, intrusive, abusive type of people are by far mostly the male population. What it spells out is this. An individual commits an offence, he is charged and he is sent away. He serves the major part of his sentence. The second time he offends, it is spelled out to him very clearly that if he messes up with another violent offence, he will serve an even greater portion of his sentence, a longer one.

If that individual commits any crime again whatsoever, even stealing a pizza, as is often said, because he has had two violent offences against him, he will be put away for life.

In effect, for the offender who commits these violent acts, who has a greater propensity to commit a violent act such as taking someone's life, there is the death penalty in the state of California.

The research put forward by the Department of Justice and those who initiated this bill was quite substantive. It brought about this piece of legislation. It is targeting. It is effective. Did he examine any data or research to see how and why the department arrived at what it did? Maybe it is in the state of California, but also here sentences have been reduced.

This omnibus bill, Bill C-17, is alleged to modernize the law and streamline court proceedings. It quickly points out that the maximum sentences for very serious criminal activity, including unlawful confinement which is a crime against a person, that the maximum sentence be reduced.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to justify why those sentences were reduced and to produce the facts that justify this legislation in its total form. Lay it on the table here. Can the parliamentary secretary address that point?

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 1997]

The parliamentary secretary cannot grasp what is being said here. The courts have taken this trend, and a lot of it is because of appointments from the government to many of the judges within the court of Queen's bench appeal court and the supreme court and the pressure coming to bear to change some of the sentences delivered.

That is not what the people in this country want. They are crying out, calling out, for stiffer sentences. Take the troublemaker off the street, not turn him out earlier, not reduce his sentence and especially with violence and those areas where there is a potential for violence. With break and enter there is always the potential for violence.

I know many people do not talk about the fraud side of things but there are hundreds of millions of dollars lost every year in credit card fraud. That would certainly address the point of organized crime.

Organized criminals have engaged in this activity big time. They are the most abusive and intrusive form of criminal into the whole area of credit card fraud and deceit through other means. It stretches into unemployment insurance fraud and welfare fraud in the organized criminal mind.

When the drafters of the Criminal Code brought these sections into being they were very much aware of what had to be done. The legal minds of the day were concerned about organized crime. What would it take to shut down an organized criminal? I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice may not be aware that some of these fraud criminal rings operate on an international scale. It is international crime with hundreds of millions of dollars in credit card fraud alone. They obtain cards and they can actually change the data on the strip on the back of the card. This is a very sophisticated, organized type of criminal. It certainly has an impact on the community and society. Who pays for it all? We do. We pay for the service charges at the bank. We pay for the purchase of those goods that are never recovered. We pay the price at the stores because everyone builds into their price list the losses incurred because of this organized criminal element. These sophisticated crimes should addressed by a maximum penalty that is higher instead of lower.

We talked about the greatest shortfall of the bill, the reduction of maximum sentences in the Criminal Code. The real reasons Reform will have to support the bill are two provisions that the justice minister put in at the last minute.

There is the conditional release where violent offenders are actually given conditional sentences, some of them for rape. Some did not even go to jail. The other one is the victim impact statements on section 745. They were not mandatory. In Bill C-41

the government granted victims the right to give their statement and then in Bill C-45 took the right away.

Seeing the error of its ways, the government brought in the two quick amendments to Bill C-17 which have nothing to do with the original bill, but the subsections are essential and Reform has chosen to support the government on the bill.

On section 745 under the Criminal Code, the faint hope clause, there has been so much talk about the faint hope clause over the years and especially since many of these first degree murderers are now eligible for application for a hearing. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding this.

The government introduced legislation that tinkered with it. It now requires the unanimous consent of a jury to reduce the killer's request for a reduced sentence.

I want to talk more about victim impact statements. However, I think we should look at some other facts before we get into that aspect. Let us look at the judicial review decisions as of mid-1995. In total there were 46 judicial reviews. I looked at the record of those making application for early release. I am talking about first degree murderers. Of the 46 killers who had their sentences reduced 11 killed women. Some were their wives. Some were acquaintances. Some were female children.

The government talks about what it wants to do when it comes to supporting women and giving them opportunity. There is nothing wrong with that, but I have to question the government when it comes to looking at the cold hard facts.

Why would a government want to allow killers who deliberately took the lives of someone else to be released back into society? They prey on moms, wives and children. As of mid-1995, 11 of the 46 applied. Another 8 killed police officers. A police officer has a significant role in society, as do mothers. As the statement goes, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Let us think of the power of that statement about mothers. It is a powerful statement. One day children have significant influence on society.

Of the 46 applicants, 11 females were murdered by these killers, 8 police officers were murdered by these killers and 3 children. The applicants had reduced sentences.

I would like to have those statistics brought up to date. What is the record from mid-1995 to today? I could add one or two more to the list who killed police officers and had their sentences reduced. How many more women and how many more children were killed? The government is intent on letting them out. It could have stopped that once and for all by repealing section 745. Ultimately we should be talking about repealing section 745.

The statistics send a shiver up my spine, to think this is what society is doing. There is no punishment. Speaking of punishment, it used to play a very prominent role in the judicial system. It was essential. There was a different understanding of what had to happen. That different understanding dealt with the view of the Liberal thinker of what a man is capable of doing and of what would stop him from doing it.

The role of government is to protect those who have done good in society and to punish those who have done wrong. That is what order is all about. It is about punishing those who do wrong to correct their behaviour. Only punishment can do that.

The model of rehabilitation is struggling. It has fallen into the mud. It has failed society. Yet the Liberal mentality of the day continues with rehabilitation as the way to correct problems when it comes to offenders.

In 1976 the Liberals abolished capital punishment against the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians. I was never consulted or asked for my opinion. Nor was anyone in my community whom I know of. It was a unilateral action taken on the part of the Liberal government to get rid of that section of the Criminal Code.

In 1962 the last person was hanged in the country. It was the form of capital punishment of the day. In 1976 it was completely abolished. Also 1962 was the last time corporal punishment was administered. Since 1962 violent crime has increase over 400 per cent.

Let us look at the big picture because it tells the story. Since 1962 there has been over a 400 per cent increase in violent crime. I do not buy the story-nor do most police officers and others who analyse the crime situation-that crime is going down. It is going down only in the short term.

Since 1962 there has been over a 500 per cent increase in property crime. I think 1962 is a very significant date. Not 1976 or 1984. The last time corporal punishment and capital punishment were administered was in 1962. It was ripped away from the people. They were never consulted. Since that time we have been paying the price. The list of victims increases as time goes on.

It is now to the point where our jails are full. Prisoners are being turned out quicker than we can put them in. They are being turned out without them being rehabilitated. This is a very common occurrence. Rehabilitation does not work. This is a deep concern.

We heard lately questions being put to the minister about ongoing victimization. My colleague from Fraser Valley East has

been very pointed with the Minister of Justice. I am ashamed to say the Minister of Justice in his replies will never address the concern about what is happening. We want to stop victimization.

Only a small element of criminals involve themselves in this kind of activity. It is only 6 per cent to 8 per cent, so let us target the 8 per cent.

I was interested in the statistics and the reaction to the three strikes and you are out legislation in California. I have communicated a great deal with the gentleman who initiated that bill. Two valid strikes and any one criminal offence after that puts the criminal away for life. That bill was passed. The citizens of California wanted it. They were tired of their sons, daughters, moms and dads being shot, mutilated and killed in every fashion. They got behind Mr. Reynold as he introduced that citizen's initiative. It was passed through their legislature and became law.

That was three years ago. Since then violent crime has gone down. They targeted 6 per cent or 8 per cent of the most violent criminals in their society, took them off the street and put them away for life. It did not fill their jails up to overflowing. They had to build one or two more but it is beginning to show results. It is beginning to protect people.

We talk about section 745 and wanting to turn killers out. Where the justice is in that? It is not there. We argue about how the victim impact statement will be presented in the courtroom. It is sad to see victims watching their statements being torn apart by a judge and judge telling them that they are editorializing, that those sections of their statements have to be removed and that they cannot be emotional. They want to take emotion out of the whole process.

I would be emotional if my wife, my son or my daughter were killed. I do not blame them for being emotional. I want them to be emotional because it is an emotional situation to have a loved one ripped away.

We are arguing about the statements when the government should be completely removing the section and allowing for the total closure on behalf of victims. They should not have to contend with another hearing and another hearing and another hearing. It would be over. It would be done with.

Bill C-17 certainly will go forward. We will support it. We will give its provisions the benefit of the doubt and allow the provision overlooked by the justice minister to go through. The bill is so flawed and so abusive to those who do not deserve to be abused that I have a difficult time supporting it. We should be repealing the section completely. We should be removing it from the books.

I have sat in several hearings to listen to statements given by victims. Some cannot even go to court. Some have a difficult time going to court so they have the prosecutor or someone else read it. The difficulty for me was to see those victims struggle with that and to watch judges tear their statements apart and sanitize the whole courtroom with filtered evidence. Reports were submitted by so-called experts who could never be questioned or cross-examined.

I have a parole report in my briefcase which I will not o get into right now. It is devastating to see condensed versions of reality or the truth. They are paraphrased and placed into a court record with hardly any opportunity for questioning or cross-examining. So-called experts come up conclusions to justify the existence of their testimony to ensure a reduced sentence from the jury. The jury sits in a sanitized courtroom. I do not think that is justice at all. The truth is not being heard.

Again I put on the record that Reform will support the bill reluctantly, but our fight to have this section repealed and truth in sentencing initiated, that is a sentence delivered is a sentence served and life means life, will not rest until such is accomplished.

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I was relating some of the shortcomings of that bill. I dealt with section 348(1) of the Criminal Code, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house for which the maximum sentence is being reduced from an indictable offence only to a dual procedure one, having a maximum sentence of 10 years.

I was relating a situation that occurred in Calgary. It was a shop break-in. Several offenders had entered the shop in the early morning hours of a weekday. While they were conducting their activities within that shop, the owner, a recently arrived immigrant to Canada, had come into the shop to do his work. Unbeknownst to him three culprits who had entered through the roof were in the store. When he walked in he was immediately confronted by the three shop breakers, one of whom was armed.

There was a physical confrontation and the shopkeeper was shot in the neck. He was a breath away from dying. The culprits scattered. Some climbed back on to the roof, the point of entry. One ran through the parking lot. Fortunately a call was placed to police and a nearby cruiser responded. The police response was so immediate that two culprits were trapped on the roof. The third culprit ran through the parking lot firing his gun as the police approached him. It was a semi-automatic weapon.

There was the offence against the owner of the shop and charges were also laid as a result of the culprit firing at police officers. Fortunately no one else was hit. There was a good resolution to this incident. For one reason or another the police never returned fire although they had every opportunity to do so. Maybe they looked at the conditions around the site at the time and did not return fire for that reason.

That is a very serious offence, a shop breaking. It can be looked at as a property offence which is the way it has been classified. It is unfortunate that the government seems to be looking at those offences as being rather minor in nature. As a result of that view we see a change in the legislation that trivializes the offence by it being reduced with its maximum sentence diluted.

There was a shop breaking. Armed offenders entered the premises. A confrontation ensued because a man who had contributed to society got up a little earlier than normal and went to work to look after his books and a few other items. He confronted these subjects and almost lost his life.

As far as I am concerned shop breaking is a serious offence. So is house breaking. However, the maximum penalties will now be reduced to a dual procedure. They can be proceeded with as summary conviction offences which may yield just a few months in prison.

To my way of thinking and in the eyes of a lot of Canadians, culprits like that should get the maximum penalty just for that offence. Now it has been reduced. It should be an indictable offence. Even if the crown proceeds in that fashion the maximum time delivered will be 10 years which is not acceptable.

Another thing will happen in this case. The charges will all go forward: discharging a firearm in a public place; attempted murder; and all forms of criminal charges adequate to this offence. They will be presented in court. As in most cases of this nature where multiple charges are laid, the courts will look on the charges in the following fashion. The most serious charge is attempted murder, the second most serious is shooting at the police officers and the third is the shop breaking itself.

Those three charges will go forward and most likely the most serious penalty will be allotted to the attempted murderer, as it should be, but all the rest, even though they may yield four, five or however many years the court deems necessary, will serve their sentences concurrently. In other words, they will all be served at the same time, as opposed to consecutively. Seldom do we see the courts ordering consecutive sentencing. I find that a little unsettling because it is so common in our courtrooms today.

Charges such as shop breaking, a breaking and entering offence other than in a dwelling house, have been reduced in scope. Frequently charges for shop breaking are reduced. I have a concern about the provision in section 348(1) which would reduce maximum sentencing.

The member for Crowfoot has been diligently following this bill. He is very much aware of its ramifications. He clearly pointed out the fact that our party would have voted against this bill. However, other provisions have been thrown into the legislation which make it almost necessary for us to support it.

Section 349 deals with being unlawfully in a dwelling house. Again it is a dual procedure which has a maximum sentence of ten years. It is an indictable charge. We are talking about a dwelling house in which people live. It is their castle. It is their refuge. The charge concerns an uninvited person being in the house. It is a situation which occurs frequently. The person may not even give a

reason for being in the house but will only face a maximum sentence of ten years.

I was a police officer. The hon. member for Crowfoot was in a similar type of career. He struggled through 14 years and saw some very significant happenings when it came to the things that some people will do to others. I know that people are very unsettled when someone walks uninvited into their home and disturbs the possessions they cherish. I am concerned about the reduction in the sentencing for being unlawfully in a dwelling house. There is no reason an uninvited guest should not get the maximum penalty.

I see that the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister is in his seat. I do not know if he understands what I am saying, but when it comes to breaking into a house, the victims do not forget that there was an intruder in their house. They never forget it. It is very unsettling for them, especially if the intruder touched their possessions.

It has happened to me. Some of my police paraphernalia was stolen from my home by an intruder. I know how it feels. I want to point out that for female members of a family it is very disturbing and they never forget. They have to wash all the clothes because somebody uninvited intruded in their privacy.

When it comes to a dwelling house I see the need to keep offences much higher than most. It is so important that people get the message that the government intends to protect what they own, their refuge, the only refuge that really no one else is permitted to enter apart from members of the family or those who have permission to do so. That is my concern about this part of the bill.

There are other provisions in the bill. One is dealing with forgery. Again it is being reduced from 14 years to a maximum of 10 years.

Prior to my election to the House I was a commercial crime investigator. I have been involved in some major cases of embezzlement, fraud and misappropriation of funds. I have seen numerous people lose their livelihood over the greed of others who had been hired or who were in partnership with them in businesses. It troubles me to see again someone who has committed such a crime and who can lay a complete business to waste because they were in a trusted position and then get away with a lower sentence.

I refer to a statement that was made in one of the government reports. It was the intent of the government to modernize the Criminal Code in these areas. What on earth does modernizing the Criminal Code have to do with reducing the sentences on very important sections of the Criminal Code? What on earth does that have to do with modernizing it?

[Petitions, April 11th, 1997]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions dealing with two strikes legislation. They have 273 signatures.

The petitioners call on Parliament to enact two strikes legislation requiring everyone who is convicted for the second time of one or more sexual offences against a minor to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility of parole or early release.

Also, for anyone awaiting trial on any such offences mentioned in the petition, the petitioners pray that such a person be held in custody without eligibility for bail or release in any form or any manner until the case is concluded in a court of law.

[Petitions, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to set the age of consent at 18 years of age except within a husband and wife relationship so as to provide protection from exploitation and abuse.

[Petitions, April 11th, 1997]

I have several petitions, Mr. Speaker, dealing with pedophiles.

In the first one, the petitioners call on Parliament to eliminate the right of convicted pedophiles to be let out of jail on bail pending an appeal.

The second petition on pedophiles deals with a registry and states that Parliament enact legislation to establish a pedophile registry.