Sue Barnes

[Criminal Code, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I agree in the House to allow the hon. member to vote the way he wants on the bill. All I am saying is it is time to vote.

[Criminal Code, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us is as follows and I will quote it because it is important for the Canadian public to understand the amendment. The amendment put by the opposition party states:

Bill C-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for the purpose of reconsidering all of its clauses, with the view to eliminate loopholes identified by the nation's most notorious child pornographer, Robin Sharpe.

That is the official opposition's hoist motion.

I understand from this amendment that child pornographer Robin Sharpe claims to like Bill C-12, the protection of children and other vulnerable persons bill. Sharpe is said to like Bill C-12's proposed new sexual exploitation of children offence on the basis that he thinks it would provide an accused with the opportunity to cross-examine the young victim on their sexual relationship, and that this could in turn both educate and entertain the public about child-adult relationships.

It is incredibly important to restate again that the government finds absolutely nothing entertaining or educational about the sexual exploitation of children.

While Mr. Sharpe is entitled to his own personal opinion, as are all members of the House, we do not on this side of the House look to convicted child pornographers for legal advice. Bill C-12 would directly respond to the issues that the government and indeed Canadians have identified as demanding new legislative responses.

First, it would provide young persons with additional protection against sexual exploitation by creating a new offence. With the proposed new offence, a court could infer that a relationship is exploitive of the young person based on the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including the age of the young person, any difference of age, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person.

The primary focus of this review is not on the sexual activity, but rather on whether the accused exploited the young person. For example, it focuses on how young was the victim and how much older was the accused. Did the accused control or influence the young person by befriending, for example, a wayward or neglected young person, or by buying things for this young person?

In this way the focus is on the offending conduct of the accused, rather than the young person's consent to that conduct. This is consistent with the criminal law's treatment of sexual assault. The proposed new offence does not create the opportunity that Mr. Sharpe claims.

Second, Bill C-12 proposes amendments to prevent a self-represented accused from personally cross-examining the young victim and to permit the judge to appoint counsel to conduct the cross-examination in his or her place.

These amendments would prevent exactly the kind of abuse Mr. Sharpe claims is permitted. It is not what the other misperception of the bill says. Here we are actually dealing with the situation. We have the solution to the problem. Judges have an inherent jurisdiction to control proceedings in their court and some have appointed counsel for self-represented accused without relying on a specific code provision.

Judges would determine whether evidence was relevant and questioning was appropriate. They would not readily permit the type of questioning Mr. Sharpe advocates.

Moreover, the police would investigate and lay charges based on the facts. If the accused had sexually exploited the victim, determined by the conduct and the circumstances, the nature of the relationship, if any, and the age and age difference between the victim and the accused, the appropriate charges would be laid and prosecuted.

Bill C-12 was thoroughly reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The committee heard from a large number of witnesses who spoke to all issues addressed by the bill. The committee considered the evidence and considered the bill and, indeed, made amendments to the bill before reporting Bill C-12 back to the House.

We should not be looking to undermine the important work of the standing committee. It has done its job and now let us do ours and vote against this motion.

Robin Sharpe is entitled to his opinions. All people are entitled to opinion, as long as the opinion does not break any laws. He once thought that the prohibition against the possession of child pornography was unconstitutional and quite frankly the Supreme Court of Canada disagreed with him. This government disagrees with Robin Sharpe yet again.

I call on all hon. members to oppose this motion and to support instead the swift passage of Bill C-12 and, with that hopefully, we will be able to continue on to third reading after we have finished with this hoist motion.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of Bill C-23, a bill that I believe is good for all first nations and also for Canada.

I particularly wanted to mention Chief Tom Bressette who is in southwestern Ontario, the area of the country in which I live. I know he has worked very hard, as have other distinguished people working on this bill. I think the bill is a tribute to the hard work of these individuals who gave their input so that we could be in this chamber today discussing the bill.

The four institutions that are central to the legislation will provide a means for aboriginal peoples to participate more actively in the Canadian economy and foster business friendly environments while meeting the specific needs of their communities.

Just a few short decades ago the economic prospects for first nations and Inuit communities were extremely limited. Government policies restricted the ability of these communities to exploit natural resources on their ancestral lands. Many communities, already geographically remote, were further isolated by undeveloped communications and transportation links.

Today it is different. Aboriginal businesses operate in every sector of the economy: in primary industries, such as mining; in secondary industries, such as manufacturing; and in tertiary industries, such as telecommunications. More and more aboriginal businesses export their goods and services abroad and aboriginal trade associations help fledgling entrepreneurs grow their businesses.

Despite these improvements, first nations still face many barriers to sustainable growth and economic development. These obstacles include the challenge faced by aboriginal entrepreneurs and communities in acquiring sufficient equity and debt capital to undertake development initiatives.

Many first nations have already demonstrated that once they gain access to capital they can invest wisely. In the western oil patch, for example, the Dene Tha' and the Saddle Lake First Nations have acquired stakes in a total of five oil rigs that operate under contract to petrochemical companies. Squamish First Nation, as another example, is participating in a $17 million hydro-generation project on Furry Creek.

These investments create employment and training opportunities for band members. The projects also generate profits that can be reinvested in the local community: in social services, in health care and in education.

I believe the first nations fiscal and statistical management act, a first nations-led initiative, would offer first nation communities access to tools that will enable greater economic development and growth and improve the quality of life in the communities.

While the benefits of the act would be many, I believe its potential to unlock economic development opportunities for first nations deserves some very special attention.

The legislation, the result of more than a decade of work by first nation leaders and other partners, would establish four institutions that will be operated by and for first nations. These institutions would improve the ability of first nation governments to provide services, build infrastructure and, most important, create employment.

For example, one of the institutions, the first nations finance authority, would enable a band council, just like any other local government, to raise long term private capital at preferred rates. Currently, first nations seeking to borrow funds for community infrastructure face prohibitive transaction costs, processing times and interest rates. Due to the lack of an appropriate legislative and institutional framework, $1 of first nations' tax revenue buys 30% to 50% less in capital works than the revenue of other governments. I think this has to be changed.

Improving first nation access to affordable capital would help pay for much needed economic infrastructure, infrastructure that would not only make a difference to the lives of the people in first nation communities but would also increase first nation participation in the economy, make first nation communities better able to draw investors and enable first nation entrepreneurs to launch successful businesses and attract partners.

Aboriginal entrepreneurship represents a tremendous opportunity for all Canadians. Indeed, I am convinced that fostering aboriginal entrepreneurship is vital to Canada's long term prosperity.

Let us consider for a moment Canada's changing population. We are currently experiencing an aboriginal baby boom, particularly in the western provinces and in the northern territories. The aboriginal population, already significantly younger than the rest of the Canadian population, is also growing much more quickly.

Furthermore, aboriginal young people are twice as likely as other Canadian youth to start businesses. I think that is an important statistic. I believe these trends represent significant opportunities for economic growth.

To make the most of these opportunities though, aboriginal communities must be able to participate more readily in the economy. To do this they must have clear access to their resources and to affordable capital for economic development. Entrepreneurs require business partners.

With the practical fiscal management tools that are at the heart of the legislation, first nations would be able to better manage their land and could more easily acquire the funds that they need to engage in community building projects.

Bill C-23 would also lead to greater and more immediate decision making powers, enabling the first nations themselves to capitalize on existing business relationships and build new ones.

As first nation economic development expands, the range of work experience available to first nation peoples will continue to broaden. It is precisely that breadth of experience that will foster ongoing innovations and stimulate Canada's economy.

A new generation of aboriginal entrepreneurs, bursting with ideas, energy and confidence, is keen to make a mark on the business world. Canada, the major exporter in an increasingly competitive business world, cannot afford to waste any of that talent nor that energy.

A second of the four institutions that would be created by the act is the first nations management board. The board would certify financial management systems, practices and standards of first nations that choose to participate and would also ensure financial performance remains constant. Certifying the credit worthiness of first nation communities will strengthen their ability to gain access to low cost capital.

As well, the institution would promote financial management capacity development and encourage adherence to sound financial management practices. This is being done already in a lot of the communities and I encourage this practice.

I believe the first nation communities and businesses that are built on solid financial management foundations will attract more investors and a greater number of business partners from private sector and public sector alike.

As the House will recall, the government made a pledge in the Speech from the Throne to see real economic opportunities for aboriginal individuals and communities.

Over the last 10 or 11 years I have had the pleasure of chairing the aboriginal committee and the finance committee. In my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I now get to travel the width and the breadth of this nation. I have met with many of the aboriginal people and leadership across the country and I see that we can be moving forward. Sometimes it will be in partnership and sometimes it will be the entrepreneurs but the talent and the expertise is there.

We are getting the education in place for the younger people. I think we have to be facilitative, encouraging and be champions for the things that can better the lives of our aboriginal Canadians. The bill goes in that direction.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is asking me a serious question. The only thing is, I cannot speak on behalf of the Supreme Court of Canada.

What I know on the bill and what I believe to be exactly true is that a sentence may not be lengthened by the receiving state, but the enforcement of the sentence is governed by the laws of the receiving state. There has to be some comparability in the charges and the sections of the codes that we are dealing with. That is partially what this modernization is doing. It is trying to bring these bills up to date.

There are situations where what happens overseas in some countries is not a criminal offence here. There has to be some comparability in the situation. It is always in the parameters of this bill that to have a transfer occur, there have to be three consents: that of the offender; that of Canada, whether it is as the receiving nation or the sending nation; and that of the other jurisdiction.

In a situation here in Canada, if it was an offence where the sentence would be two years less a day whether it be in our provincial or territorial court system, we would have to go to the consenting mechanism there. This is not unilateral. It is a multi-party effort to make sure that everyone is in agreement. If it is a situation here, the receiving state has some regulations and rules to be followed if there has been consent.

I hope that clarifies the situation in some form. If it does not, I would suggest the member contact the officials in the justice department for even greater clarification. I could help facilitate that if he so wished.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in the debate today because it deals with an issue of concern to some of my constituents, thankfully, a small portion of them. I am pleased today to participate in the third reading debate of the government's initiative to update the Transfer of Offenders Act. It has been quite some time since it has been updated.

The parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights gave detailed consideration of the measures, and has returned Bill C-15 to the House for final consideration. I see nothing in the legislation that might delay its passage.

Before proceeding to the specifics of amending the Transfer of Offenders Act, I believe members of the House would indulge me for a brief reflection on the progress of the bill since its introduction.

It is gratifying to see and observe the spirit of cooperation that has brought us to third reading of Bill C-15. I am aware that some hon. colleagues opposite do not feel the same strength about humane treatment where offenders are concerned, but I think the vast majority in the House agree that this is not only right but necessary. However, the broad support of most of my colleagues in this place reflects several factors in relationship to the proposals contained in this legislation. First, there is recognition that the legislation is necessary. Second, the confidence of hon. members in the proposals put forward by the legislation is a fair indicator of the thoroughness of the consultative process that preceded the introduction of Bill C-15.

There is no doubt that all parties, with a stake in this area of criminal justice, were carefully canvassed. The bill reflects a broad range of inputs in numerous sensitive areas in such a way that the approbation of the House and the committee were forthcoming with neither delay nor, I am glad to say, rancorous debate.

I would like to thank the members and the chair of the standing committee for their timely review of the legislation and approval of the bill. This committee has had much business before it. It always has a busy schedule and all of that schedule is important.

There are those who would ask why we should concern ourselves with the circumstances in which offenders serve their sentences in lands foreign to them. I must point out that Canadians who offend abroad and those from foreign lands who are sentenced by Canadian courts are as worthy of humane treatment as are Canadian inmates punished in Canada.

We have laws, policies and practices applicable both at home and abroad that recognize that the deprivation of liberty should be the only penalty for an offence against society. Capital and corporal punishments are things of the past in most democratic countries and we, as Canadians, would support efforts to eliminate physically onerous penalties anywhere in the world.

Offenders come from communities and are our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters and our extended family. In Canada, almost one in ten citizens has some sort of criminal record. No right thinking individual would maintain that one in ten of his fellow citizens in Canada presents a continuing, serious threat to the community.

I have had parents come to my constituency office, trying to get a child back to Canada to complete a sentence that has been doled out in a foreign jurisdiction. It is a difficult situation, as my hon. colleague pointed out, not just for the offender but also for the extended family who are trying to support that member of their either immediate or extended family.

By the same token, it is not up to us to determine that a Canadian teenager convicted of drug abuse abroad, that might result in a fine in Canada, should serve a sentence of a number of years in an over-crowded jail with adults serving sentences for much more serious offences, and this does happen. Even if it were true that the offender apparently deserved the extent of the foreign sentence, is it up to us to decide that he or she should always serve time in an environment foreign to the individual in all ways, where nutrition, health care and attention to human rights may all be compromised in comparison to the Canadian correctional milieu?

I am not saying that our correctional milieu is without fault. There are some jurisdictions that have quite difficult positions, and I think I am being generous when I say that.

Do the families of our Canadians incarcerated abroad deserve to be deprived of their loved ones and kept in uncertainty as to their condition and whereabouts for the duration of their sentences? It is well known to practitioners in the areas of corrections and conditional release that offenders do far better upon release if they have the support within the community, both during and after their incarceration.

If we leave Canadians abroad for the full term of their sentences, we will welcome them back, untreated and not rehabilitated, as offenders to our own shores inside Canada. It is far better if they are returned to Canadian custody, to the support of their families and communities and eventually to supervised release. I think it is apparent to us that this latter course is a preferable course for our jurisdiction.

I agree that the community at large should be protected from the reoccurrence of criminal activities to the extent possible. The legislation before us contributes to that goal. It will provide the framework by which Canada can continue to treat its citizens humanely while ensuring that they are gradually and safely reintegrated into Canadian society. It is because of initiatives such as the one before us that Canada is a respected leader in criminal justice and corrections in the international community.

As pointed out by others in the House and in deference to those who promote “the law and order approach” above all others, it is recognized that the legislation contains principles that ensure that due deference is shown to the sentences handed down by any of the courts that may be involved. Each country receiving one of its nationals from a foreign correctional system is bound to respect foreign sentence as rendered to the extent that it is compatible with our own legislation. As with all other international agreements, any variance of this practice would soon lead to the disuse of the very mechanisms established by the bill before us.

Some hon. members opposite have asked if the bill is more concerned about offenders than victims. I heard that again this morning. As my colleagues have pointed out, we are considering a bill that is not only designed to implement transfer of offenders treaties, but also to assist in carrying out the correction principles and practices that are known to work.

Some hon. members find these measures unpalatable and that is most unfortunate. What is preferable? Transferring Canadian offenders back to Canada while under sentence so that they can be gradually reintegrated into our society under the supervision of correctional authorities or having a foreign state deport them at the end of sentence to arrive here without any controls? Our research has shown that the control on the offender is helpful to the safer reintegration into society.

I put that this option is by far the most sensible. Once offenders are transferred to Canada, correctional authorities carefully assess their needs and the risk to the public. Those who are eligible and can be safely managed in the community are released under supervision. Offenders, on the other hand, who pose a risk and cannot be managed in the community remain in incarcerated in Canada. This is not coddling offenders. It is realistic, it is appropriate and it is the responsible management of offenders in keeping with sound correctional principles and practices.

It does not make sense to incarcerate offenders beyond the point in the sentence that they can be safely reintegrated into society. In fact research indicates that the extension of imprisonment by itself does not contribute to public safety. Members opposite who favour penalties that would extend incarceration for reasons of deterrence should take heed.

Victims are not excluded from the process. An offender who wishes to leave Canada will have been convicted in open court and held at a penal institution. In both instances it is common for victims to make statements that will henceforth follow the offender as part of his or her record. A victim impact statement may influence sentencing or it may be germane to the administration of an offender's sentence in determining the security level of an offender's custody, for example. Those with an interest in the circumstances of how a foreign offender might be serving his or her sentence can make their view known for the record.

In the case of a Canadian offender wishing to leave a foreign penal system, local laws would prevail. Before the application is processed, we know that the foreign state has consented to the transfer. Presumably, if a mechanism exists for hearing victims' views, the state would factor that input into its decision.

There is nothing in Bill C-15 that would prevent victim participation at either end of the process. It seems to me that victim participation should be considered entirely relevant to the international transfer process, but by the time a transfer to or from Canada could be considered, victim input would have already been on the record. Therefore it is outside the process in this particular bill. I do not want to say that victims are not important in the system. That is not the case.

Although not directly related to the bill before us, it has come to my attention that an hon. member opposite has recently stated in the House that Bill C-16, the sex offender information registration act, does not have a retroactive application. Let me set the record straight. Bill C-16 is retroactive. It provides for inclusion in the federal registry all offenders previously convicted of a prescribed offence who were under sentence as of the date of coming into force of the legislation, as well as offenders registered under the provincial Ontario sex offender registry act. This is what all provinces and territories agreed to and that is what is provided for in Bill C-16. I just wanted to take a moment to clarify that.

In the case of the proposals we have before us today in Bill C-15, the government of the day, in recognizing the importance of implementing change in the area, and quite frankly for modernization since it has been since approximately 1978, proceeded to study options for reform and to present a government bill to the House. This bill proposes simple but comprehensive reform and results from a consensus of those with knowledge in the subject.

The justice committee was fully informed of the balancing of the various interests and alternatives considered before the objectives of the legislation crystallized. They were cognizant of the need to create an act and have acted accordingly. Bill C-15 in my opinion, and I hope in the opinion of many hon. members in the House, clearly promotes public safety by allowing offenders to resume productive lives in their home countries.

Therefore I do urge all hon. members of the House to help with the passage of this necessary and sensible legislation.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague this. I have had occasion over the years where parents have come to my constituency office quite distressed. They are working parents in Canada, but they have a child incarcerated, often in the United States. To visit and see their child creates considerable hardship on the parents who often take time off work.

We know the support of family is ultimately one of the factors that helps people change behaviour. This is especially true when these are sentences that will come to an end at some point in time. However, the safety of the community is very important.

Has the hon. member had experience with this type of situation in his area?

[Open Government Act, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is this on division?

[Open Government Act, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-462, which is a lengthy private member's bill that would make a considerable number of amendments to the Access to Information Act. Indeed, I do not think it is going too far to say that Bill C-462 constitutes a major effort to overhaul the Access to Information Act.

Clearly, the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot once again has focused our attention on the Access to Information Act by bringing forward his extensive bill. Accordingly, my purpose today is to comment on the member's bill, which I intend to do from more than one perspective. Before doing that, I want to take a moment or two to make some introductory and background comments.

I do not know if all the members of the House are aware of how long the member has been working on reforming the Access to Information Act. I believe I am right when I say that he first introduced a private member's bill to amend the act in the fall of 1997. The bill was then numbered as Bill C-264. The member made certain improvements to Bill C-264 and reintroduced it in 1998 as Bill C-206. In the summer of 2000, Bill C-206 was defeated. Prior to this, the member had twice obtained more than 100 signatures in support of his bill.

I want to elaborate on a point to which I alluded a moment ago, which is the importance of access to information legislation. Here in Canada, we are fortunate to have had such legislation in place at the federal level since Canada Day 1983. As so often happens, we have a tendency to take this for granted because we have benefited from the Access to Information Act for more than 20 years.

The Supreme Court of Canada has said that one of the pillars or cornerstones of a democracy is a law that gives citizens a right to gain access to government information. Of course, this right to government information is not absolute or unfettered, and certain government information must still be kept confidential. Some good examples of this are taxpayer information, sensitive and confidential business information that a company provides to the government, sensitive government information such as the contents of an upcoming budget, and information relating to the defence of Canada.

These examples do not detract from the general principle that most government information should be accessible so that Canadians can, if they wish, find out what the government is doing. Put simply, allowing Canadians to check up on the government is an important part of our democracy.

Although many may not realize this, Canada is viewed as somewhat of a pioneer in the field of access to information legislation. Various countries in the world are developing democratic principles for themselves and some of these countries seek Canada's advice on how to create access to information legislation for themselves. In some of these countries, the government can, based on whimsy or whatever good or bad reason it chooses, completely ignore a citizen's request for government information or untruthfully tell the citizen that the information does not exist. Regardless of whether our Access to Information Act is out of date and in need of some modernization, the fact remains that, fortunately for us, the situations I just mentioned are contrary to our federal law.

So far I have attempted to make the general point that we are fortunate to have access to information legislation. I wish now to turn to Bill C-462 itself. What I intend to do in the next few minutes is mention a number of proposed amendments in the bill that are worthwhile and then draw the House's attention to a few proposals that I think require some additional thinking, examination and refinement.

Before doing this, let me say that, as we know, the Minister of Justice is responsible for any reform of the Access to Information Act. The minister does not oppose the general direction of this bill. However, certain concerns needs to be addressed.

In the category of worthwhile amendments that are proposed in Bill C-462, I want to begin with one in particular. As everyone in the House knows, the repercussions of the horrifying attacks that took place on September 11, 2001, are still with us. In this regard, this bill proposes a seemingly small but, in my view, quite important addition to the Access to Information Act.

Currently, section 20 of the act essentially protects trade secrets and other confidential commercial information that a government institution receives from a third party, usually a company. The proposal in this bill is that this exemption be amended to add a specific protection for information relating to critical infrastructure. As I mentioned earlier, the right to gain access to government information is not absolute. Certain information must be kept confidential, and I think that for security reasons information on critical infrastructure falls neatly into this category.

Sometimes an issue arises when a request is made under the act for records subject to solicitor and client privilege. Certainly, the act currently contains an exemption that can be used to protect records covered by this privilege. However, when the government is willing to discuss part of a record covered by solicitor and client privilege, there is concern that the privilege in relationship to the remainder of the material might be endangered. Bill C-462 tries to address this concern by specifying that the disclosure of part of such a record does not constitute a waiver of the privilege in relationship to the remainder of the record. This proposal is worth examining further.

I have one further comment to make in the positive category before moving to some of my concerns. At present, the act states that if a requester is unhappy with how her or his request has been handled, or with the records that she or he has been given, the requester can complain to the information commissioner within one year from the date on which the request was made.

The difficulty that requesters can encounter with this section is that sometimes, legitimately or not, government institutions do not respond to requests until later than one year after the date on which the request was made. The proposal in the bill, which I view as entirely sensible, is to amend this section to say that a requester can complain within 12 months from the date of the request or such other time as the information commissioner may allow.

Turning now to my concerns, the following two proposals concern me because I believe they go further than necessary to accomplish the policy goal. Therefore, at the very least, they need to be very carefully scrutinized. First, the bill is proposing the outright repeal of section 24 of the act. Let me take a moment to described what that section does.

As I mentioned earlier in this speech, the Access to Information Act contains several specific exemptions that serve to protect from disclosure certain types of confidential information. One exemption, section 24, is slightly different. It requires the protection of information that is described as confidential in other statutes.

Attached to section 24 is a schedule that lists the confidentiality provisions in the other statutes of Parliament. Included in the list are, for example, a section of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Defence Production Act, the Income Tax Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Statistics Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, and sections of the Criminal Code and the Patent Act. In addition to these, the list in the schedule contains about 50 other statutes. I do not believe the complete repeal of section 24 is the correct approach.

No conclusion regarding section 24 should be reached until after each and every confidentiality clause listed in the schedule has been examined and evaluated, and every entity that could be affected, for example, CSIS, Statistics Canada and the anti-money-laundering agency, Fintrac, has been thoroughly consulted. We simply cannot afford to not get this right.

The second proposal that causes me considerable concern again does so because I think the proposal in its current form may well go too far. I am referring to the proposal in the bill that the definition in the act of a government institution be expanded to include not only parent crown corporations but also their wholly owned subsidiaries and “any incorporated not for profit organization which receives at least two-thirds of its financing through federal government appropriations”.

I am not entirely sure what this proposal would mean in practice. It seems to mean that any charity that receives most of its money from the government would be subject to the Access to Information Act. This might require charities to expend time and money on creating the necessary infrastructure to deal with requests under the act. If I am right, is this result desirable? It is a question.

Regarding the wholly owned subsidiaries of crown corporations, we need to have a complete and up to date list of these so we know exactly which entities we are talking about.

Furthermore, a related proposal in Bill C-462 makes it clear that the CBC would be covered by the Access to Information Act. Would this mean that people could send Access to Information Act requests to the CBC in the hope of discovering information about confidential sources or investigative reports? Again, if I am right, is it appropriate and desirable?

I wish to move now to certain points that concern me less but to which I still want to draw the House's attention. We are puzzled with one proposal in Bill C-462. A few years ago, as a result of another private member's bill, C-208, a criminal offence was added to the Access to Information Act to cover essentially the intentional destruction, alteration or concealment of a record in order to thwart the Access to Information Act. Accordingly, I do not understand why the member sponsoring this bill is proposing to add another quite similar criminal offence to the act.

The final concern is related to an issue I mentioned a moment ago, and that is the coverage of crown corporations and their wholly owned subsidiaries.

The Minister of Justice does not oppose the general direction of the bill, nor does he oppose this bill going to committee. However, he strongly believes that certain concerns need to be addressed. I mentioned a few. It remains an open question whether this bill could in fact be repaired at the committee stage. That is the position of the justice department.

[Health, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that our national health care system is a cherished legacy that the Liberal government will never abandon.

Through its ongoing support of our national health care system, the Liberal government helps women maintain and improve their health. For example, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research bring together the best researchers from across Canada to study the issues of concern to women. We also provide stable, ongoing funding to the Canadian breast cancer initiative and provide funds to improve pre-natal nutrition, food safety, food supplementation and to support referral and lifestyle counselling.

In areas of concern to Canadian women, such as primary care, home care and access to drug coverage, the Liberal government is helping to accelerate changes to the health care infrastructure.

In budget 2004 the Prime Minister committed an additional $2 billion in funding for health care, bringing the annual federal contribution to public health spending in Canada to $36.8 billion, about 40% of the total.

The Liberal government is proud to support health and health care and women issues as a priority.

[Criminal Code, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on third reading debate, I also made an appeal to the House. Debate is wonderful. We have debated in the House, we have debated in committee and we have debated at report stage. I am appealing to the House to collapse the debate now so we can go on to the vote. We know another subamendment has been proposed to hoist this back to committee. What the country needs after debate is not just more debate, it really needs the bill.

I implore that hon. member. I understand his differences on the bill. His party has made them known. However, the bill has so many good provisions to help child witnesses, vulnerable witnesses and to address some of the issues that we have had to deal with legally in a respectful manner of the charter. I believe this side of the House and many people around the House feel that we have to respect the charter, but we have to do it by crafting a bill that complies with the charter and also helps with the travesty of when children are exploited.

That is my position, and I hope that the debate now ends. Would the member allow this debate to end so we can vote? The vote, as I say, is only on a hoist motion to take this debate back to committee. That is what he has asked for, so let us have that vote and democratically decide this issue.