John Maloney

[Criminal Code, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-409 proposes that we repeal the Firearms Act and indeed all gun control legislation in Canada without giving it a reasonable time to work.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville would propose sunsetting a complex piece of legislation and an important public safety initiative just one year after it is fully implemented. In this scheme it would be impossible to accurately measure the comprehensive benefits of the firearms program. For this reason the Minister of Justice is firmly opposed to Bill C-409.

The Department of Justice already has a plan to evaluate the program's success in achieving its objectives. Bill C-409 ignores the public safety accomplishments that have already been achieved by the Firearms Act even before implementation is complete.

Canadians can already see the positive impact of Bill C-68 and continue to strongly support the government's position. The hon. member knows that more than 80% of Canadians support gun control and that the Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously found the Firearms Act to be both constitutional and directed to enhancing public safety. It is perplexing that the member for Yorkton—Melville chooses to ignore the foregoing.

I would like to talk about what the Firearms Act has already done for public safety. The Minister of Justice is confident that within a reasonable time after the new firearms law has been fully implemented its effectiveness will be even more demonstrable. However, the short timeframe proposed in Bill C-409 is simply unworkable.

For the first time ever the new law requires instant background checks before any firearms transfer can proceed. As of the beginning of September of this year, over 4,352 potentially dangerous gun sales were sent to further investigations. These cases included people with past or recent histories of violence, break and enter, theft, drug involvement, or people who were trying to acquire guns they were not licensed to purchase. Background checks are an important step in ensuring that potentially dangerous individuals do not have access to firearms.

This is the kind of situation the new system was designed to control. Every member of the House should share the goal of keeping firearms out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals.

Almost one million Canadians have complied with the licensing requirements. To date more than 898 licence applications have been refused for public safety concerns. Additionally, 1,217 licences have been revoked for individuals deemed no longer eligible to hold a licence.

As a result of the new system's capacity to more effectively check police and court records, the number of licence revocations is close to 20 times higher than the total of the previous five years. In light of such information, even the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville cannot deny the value of the gun control provisions. It is through results such as this that the Canadian public knows the new gun control program will make their homes and their communities as a whole much safer.

The choices laid out today are clear. If Bill C-409 were to become law and all Canadian gun laws were sunsetted, Canada would be left with no licensing, no registration, nothing. The adoption of Bill C-409 would put lives at risk, and that is unacceptable.

At a time when the rest of the world, in search of a better way to control firearms, turns to Canada as a world leader, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville wants Canada to revoke the gun control legislation.

The government, unlike members opposite, is committed to promoting a culture of safety and making Canada safer. We have listened to the Canadian public. Again and again Canadians tell us they support our firearms program. Indeed a majority of Canadians surveyed in a poll released by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville on the day of the tragic events at Columbine high school felt that, if I may quote, “ensuring that all rifles and shotguns are registered” is a priority.

Let us talk about specific parts of the bill. The hon. member would have the auditor general and his office evaluate a complex piece of legislation and a major public safety program. To meet the bill's timelines an evaluation would have to end before all the benefits of our program could be measured.

However I agree with the need to evaluate laws. We heard months of testimony on gun control. We listened to what Canadians told us. We made sure the law would be effective. We built in an assessment program. We continue to streamline and improve the program and will continue to ensure the program meets the public safety objectives Canadians expect.

The fact remains, however, that when any new law comes into force we need to allow a certain amount of time before we can assess its impact and effectiveness. Individuals need to adjust to new requirements. Law enforcement agencies need to adjust to new responsibilities. The judiciary needs time to consider the law's meaning and intent as cases are presented. It takes more time than the hon. member's proposal would allow.

The Firearms Act is no different. To assess its effect on public safety, on the incidence of violent crime, and on cost effectiveness, we have to allow time for the act to be fully implemented.

The hon. member should know that when the former Minister of Justice appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs he spoke about the evaluation process. He stated that the Department of Justice would be monitoring experience with registration, licensing to determine what improvements could be made and making that information available to parliament and to the public.

The evaluation plan calls for assessments of the extent to which the operational elements of the Firearms Act, part III of the criminal code, and their associate programs have been implemented and whether their objectives are being achieved.

Let me repeat again. Bill C-409 is not realistic in its timeframes, and the Minister of Justice is opposed to it.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-17 which is an omnibus package that proposes amendments in a number of areas of the criminal code.

In a nutshell, these amendments will improve the criminal law in a number of areas, such as tougher laws to protect animals from cruelty, better protection for peace officers acting in the line of duty, and improvements to respond to concerns from firearms businesses with respect to the administration of the firearms system. Other amendments will provide greater procedural safeguards to persons with disabilities who are victims of sexual exploitation.

I would now like to focus on the parts of the bill amending certain current provisions of the criminal code having to do with cruelty to animals. These amendments have attracted considerable public interest and I will start with them.

For over 10 years humane societies have been asking ministers of justice to improve and strengthen the law on cruelty to animals. Humane societies are established by provincial legislation and have the statutory mandate to prevent cruelty to animals, to relieve animals in distress and to educate the public about animal cruelty and welfare.

Many humane society officers are designated as peace officers and have the power to investigate and lay charges of cruelty under the criminal code. These are the organizations that are largely responsible for administering the criminal law and provincial laws in this area. These are the people who know when the system is not working and they in fact told ministers of justice for over 10 years that the system was not working as well as it should.

Let us be clear from the start about what cruelty is. Cruelty is about the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. It is the causing of avoidable pain, the causing of pain for no reason or through extreme neglect. Society rightly abhors such conduct. Who would choose to harm an animal if they did not have to?

Cruelty to animals is not about the appropriate standard for animal care in various specific contexts such as farming practices or slaughter methods. These activities are directly regulated by specific laws and regulations both provincially and federally and are understood to fall outside the criminal law. Our law recognizes that animals can be used for a variety of purposes to satisfy certain human needs if they are treated humanely and with respect at every stage. That is what Canadians expect.

After reviewing this area of law, the minister and her department consulted with the public and interested groups in September 1998. We sought their views on the modernization and strengthening of the current laws. The response was really quite significant and took us all by surprise.

Thousands of Canadians wrote in and signed petitions telling us that they wanted animal abuse treated more seriously. To this day the Department of Justice continues to receive many letters every week, sometimes hundreds, applauding the government for introducing this bill.

I would also like to note that support for modernization and tougher penalties came from national and provincial veterinary associations and from many provincial attorneys general. Members of the House may be interested to know that last November, just weeks before the bill was introduced, the Ontario legislature passed a resolution with all party support that urged this government to strengthen our laws on animal cruelty, to do the very thing that Bill C-17 does.

The Ontario government continues to be very interested in stronger animal cruelty laws. As recently as last week Solicitor General Tsubouchi, who had previously written to the minister and urged the government to strengthen the animal cruelty laws, continued to emphasize the need for stronger penalties against cruelty to animals at the launch of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Violence Prevention Week.

What has all these organizations and individuals concerned? If I may, I will remind members of the House what cruelty is and how it happens all too frequently in the country.

Across the country dogs have been beaten with hockey sticks and golf clubs, thrown off balconies and dragged behind cars. Cats have been mutilated, burned, tied to railroad tracks and left for oncoming trains. Animals have been trained to be aggressive and forced to fight each other to the death for entertainment and economic profit. I need not horrify members with further gory details.

In some but by no means all cases, charges are laid. Even where charges are laid, prosecutors often choose not to proceed in all but the most extreme circumstances. In the rare cases where a conviction is obtained, the penalties range from a small fine to, on rare occasions, a brief stint in prison, typically a few days or weeks. Canadians think we can do better than this, that we can prevent some of these acts with stronger deterrents and tougher penalties.

However, all members should know that it is not only the animals that will benefit from such measures. Canadians are perceptive and they realize a society that cares for its animals also shows more respect and compassion for its people. They know already that the people who abuse animals may already be doing the same or worse to the people in their lives. It is common sense, if people are never made to account for their violence, that violence may be more likely to escalate.

Simply put, violence is violence. A person determined to cause pain and suffering often does not care who or what the victim is. Animal cruelty is another form of violence in our society. If we do not treat it seriously then we fail to tackle the problem of violence in all its aspects.

As I mentioned, there is also a particular correlation between animal cruelty and domestic violence. This is supported by a growing number of studies involving battered women which show that a clear majority of their batterers also abuse pets in their home. They also show, sadly, that around half these women report that they stayed in the abusive household longer than they otherwise would have out of fear for the safety of the pet. Animal abuse clearly figures into a larger pattern of violence and abuse.

Animal abuse in the home can also have a devastating impact on children. We all know of the natural bond that children form with animals. A child that witnesses its beloved pet being beaten by a parent will be psychologically traumatized. That child may well be more likely to be abused if a parent is abusing a pet. There is also data that suggests that children could be more likely to grow up committing violent offences themselves, imitating what they witnessed their parents do at home. If a child manages to avoid a life of crime, he or she may suffer from learning problems and social and developmental difficulties.

If we take the issue of animal abuse seriously, if we make a reasonable effort to identify and punish it, we will stand a better chance of preventing violence and other forms of mistreatment with respect to human beings.

With that background I will briefly outline the main features of the amendments relating to cruelty to animals. One thing the amendments do is modernize and simplify the law. The law right now is confusing and incoherently organized. The basic structure is a result of piecemeal amendments to 100 year old provisions. There is overlap between sections and outdated distinctions are built into the law.

Bill C-17 will modernize the language of existing offences, eliminate archaic distinctions and provide uniform protection for all animals. It also proposes a rational and coherent set of offences, for the first time distinguishing between intentional cruelty and cruelty by criminal neglect. The person who loves his or her animals but has too many to keep well fed commits a different kind of crime his or her than the person who senselessly brutalizes an animal. In short, the amendments will make the law more logical and easier to use by law enforcement, prosecutors and judges.

The main thrust of the amendment is penalty enhancement. Even the most heinous and barbarous act today carries a maximum six months in prison or a $2,000 fine. It is little wonder that the police do not often expand their limited resources on cruelty charges. I have heard time and time again from Canadians that penalties must be higher to deter this behaviour and to denounce and punish those who simply will not abide by societal standards.

The bill would give prosecutors more choice on how to proceed, based on the seriousness of the circumstances. In really serious cases the prosecution can proceed by indictment and the maximum penalty will be five years in prison. It takes a strong statement from parliament to get some people to understand that cruelty will not be tolerated and to get cases brought before the courts.

The five year maximum penalty is appropriate for this offence. It is important to remember that the maximum penalty is reserved for the most serious crimes committed by the worst offenders.

I invite members to compare this penalty with that for assault, which also has a maximum penalty of five years. Assault can be committed simply by spitting on someone or pushing someone who did not consent to be touched. If bodily harm is caused in the course of an assault then the maximum penalty jumps to 10 years. I certainly think it is appropriate to have the same maximum sentence for torturing and mutilating an animal as that which exists for simple assault.

Another sentencing measure in the bill relates to the court's power to prohibit an offender from owning or having care and control of an animal subsequent to a conviction. Right now the courts can order a convicted offender not to own or possess animals for up to two years.

It is commonly felt, including by some judges, that the two year maximum is too short. Prohibition orders can be very effective by preventing future harm without being overly punitive. Even some provincial animal welfare statutes are stronger than the criminal code and let the court decide what time is appropriate. The bill will therefore give courts the much needed discretion to fix the appropriate time limit on prohibition orders.

Another new sentencing feature is the power of the court to order the convicted animal abuser to repay reasonable costs to the humane society that cared for the animal in question. Restitution orders have the potential to greatly assist humane societies in fulfilling their statutory mandates to care for abused animals. These organizations receive little public funding but they play a vital role in taking in and caring for animals. Humane societies should be reimbursed the reasonable costs they expend in performing this valuable function.

Restitution orders are also a valuable sentencing mechanism because they help instil a sense of responsibility in an offender by holding him or her accountable for the damage or injury the crimes have caused.

With regard to what kinds of acts constitute crimes, the bill carries over existing offences and actually eliminates a few offences that overlap with others. Bill C-17 strengthens the law in many respects but actually creates only two new offences. It will be an offence to brutally or viciously kill an animal. Assuming that a person has a legitimate reason to kill an animal, right now the law places no limits on the way in which animals can be killed. The law only requires that unnecessary pain or suffering not be caused in the course of a killing, but a quick and painless killing is not necessarily synonymous with a humane or acceptable one.

For instance, it is not acceptable to kill an animal with explosives or to leave it to be run over by a train, even though the animal may die instantly. These things actually happen. Killing an animal in a particularly brutal or vicious way is a special kind of crime which may in fact be just the sort of conduct that causes the greatest risk to society. It reveals the most depraved and sadistic intent. Evidence shows that many serial killers acquired their taste for killing by practising on animals.

All members of the House should support this measure, which is aimed squarely at brutality and which gives the police and the courts the tools they need to arrest and punish these individuals, who may be extremely dangerous.

The bill also introduces a new offence of training an animal to fight other animals. Certain acts related to animal fighting are already crimes in Canada but are very hard to prosecute. Humane society investigators rarely come across a fight actually taking place. The training of fighting animals, dogs and cocks in particular, is cruel to those animals and sometimes to other animals such as kittens which may be used to train dogs to attack and kill.

The people who engage in this activity train dogs to be aggressive and deadly. Although it is not seen by most of us, there does seem to be evidence of active cock fighting and dog fighting rings in Ontario and British Columbia. This new offence will provide investigators with a new tool in their efforts to identify and shut down this insidious practice.

These are the main features of Bill C-17 as it relates to animal cruelty. The bill responds to what can only be called overwhelming public support and interest in better legal protection for animals from unnecessary pain and suffering. The government is pleased to make these amendments to recognize that animal cruelty is a crime of violence and should be taken more seriously than it has been for the sake of the animals and for our communities.

Some members may not know that the government has heard a number of concerns from certain groups representing farmers, hunters and animal researchers. They are concerned that these proposals, the way they are currently drafted, are vague and imprecise and could therefore impinge upon their businesses or livelihoods. I take this opportunity to thank these groups for having shared their concerns and their ideas with members of the minister's staff and Department of Justice officials at numerous meetings over the course of the spring. Such interventions are a helpful part of the law reform process.

As an aside, I point out that hunters and farmers are in fact vocal supporters of strong animal cruelty laws. The overwhelming majority of farmers, hunters and others who use animals do so responsibly and humanely and in accordance with the law. They are among the first to denounce those who fall below acceptable standards. The concerns heard relate to uncertainty about the interpretation of certain words and the application of the provisions.

In my view some of these concerns are based on a number of misunderstandings about the legal impact of the amendments and fail to recognize the existence of fundamental criminal laws, rules and principles which are not written in the criminal code. It is not difficult to understand, if lawyers and judges can disagree about the interpretation of some laws, that other Canadians may also be reasonably uncertain.

It is important for members of the House and for those concerned to remember that there are already laws against cruelty to animals, laws which our courts have interpreted and applied time and time again. The bill does not create a new regime where none existed before.

Aside from changing penalties the bill makes only very slight changes to the law we already have. The criminal law has never been used inappropriately to target the humane treatment of animals in normal human activities. This is because the law and the courts already recognize that there are many valid reasons for the use of animals and that those reasons sometimes require the animals to suffer or be killed. The bill does not change that. In short, what is lawful today will be lawful the day after the bill becomes law.

The Minister of Justice is determined that the criminal law be clear and accessible to everyone, not just to criminal lawyers and judges. It has been said before that our criminal laws already recognize the humane treatment of animals in the course of legitimate and normal activities such as farming, hunting, fishing and animal research. As parliamentary secretary I would like to assure those involved in such activities that the government will include a statement in the bill to that effect when it is before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

At committee all concerns can be discussed in greater detail. We are prepared to make sure that if further clarification or modifications to the principles of Bill C-17 are required so as to improve the law and more clearly set out its objectives, we will make them. We can work together to produce a law that everyone is happy with and can support.

While I have devoted the bulk of my remarks to the cruelty of animals component of Bill C-17, I want to speak to another proposal in the bill which responds to concerns related to police safety.

The bill will create a new offence of disarming a peace officer. Every member should support this measure. Police officers are required as part of their duties in investigating crime to enter situations that are potentially dangerous. That danger can be suddenly increased tenfold if a suspect grabs the officer's weapon. Suddenly there is a life threatening situation. In fact we are told by the Canadian Police Association that the taking of an officer's firearm has sometimes resulted in the murder of the officer. We are pleased to report to the Canadian Police Association that the government has responded to its concerns on this very important issue.

The names Scott Rossiter, Michael O'Leary and Aurele Bourgeois may not be familiar to members of the House. They were all shot with their own police weapons. Rossiter, a constable from Ingersoll, Ontario, was shot by a suspect in 1991. Constable O'Leary and Corporal Bourgeois were disarmed in the course of trying to arrest two kidnappers in 1974. The offender then shot the two policemen. I will not comment further at this time except to say that if proof of the need for a specific offence of disarming a police officer is needed, these three examples provide that proof.

These are the highlights of this omnibus package. The government is committed to ongoing review of the criminal law and to the maintenance of effective legislative measures to protect society and its members. As part of this effort the legislation contains a series of other measures to address concerns about the legislation, adjust offences and punishments, modernize the statute and correct oversights enacted in previous legislative initiatives.

We will continue to monitor the legislation and bring forward further changes as the need for them becomes apparent. I look forward to the support of all members of the House for this important criminal code omnibus legislation.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-3, the youth criminal justice act.

As the cornerstone of the Government of Canada's youth justice renewal strategy Bill C-3 provides for a fair and effective youth justice system that involves young people, families, victims and communities. This legislation modernizes the youth justice system and builds stronger links with other programs and services that help children and youth.

Experience has shown that the current youth justice system is not working as well as it should. More must be done to prevent youth crime in the first place, to develop meaningful responses to youth crime when it does occur, and to emphasize rehabilitation and reintegration so that youth who do get into trouble with the law can turn their lives around. Working toward these three key objectives is the best way to ensure the protection of society.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights I have had the benefit of hearing from many Canadians with insightful ideas about youth justice. The Government of Canada has been listening. As a result of the input received from the thoughtful witnesses who appeared before the committee on Bill C-3, and through consultations with provincial and territorial governments, professionals, the legal community, academics, aboriginal groups, voluntary and stakeholder groups, and young people and their families, the government is proposing amendments designed to improve upon the approach in Bill C-3.

The proposed Youth Criminal Justice Act sets out the purpose of the youth justice system through its principles. The new principles reinforce that the criminal justice system for youth is different from the one for adults. Bill C-3 emphasizes preventing crime, ensuring meaningful consequences for offending behaviour, and rehabilitating and reintegrating a young person as the most effective way to contribute to the long term protection of society.

A number of witnesses who appeared before committee put forward suggestions that seek to clarify further the principles in the bill, some of which have been accepted by the government. For example, we are proposing the inclusion in the principles of a reference to the importance of timeliness in dealing with youth offending behaviour. We are also proposing a provision specifically requiring judges to take into account a young person's individual needs and level of development.

Another amendment to the principles would stipulate that measures taken should respond to the needs of aboriginal young persons. In addition, while the importance of treating victims with courtesy, compassion and respect, and of providing them with information about proceedings and an opportunity to participate and be heard, a proposed amendment would enshrine the interests of victims in the preamble of the legislation. We would also propose emphasizing in the preamble the importance of making information about the youth justice system publicly available.

Bill C-3 makes a distinction in the way we deal with the small number of youth who commit the most serious violent crimes and the vast majority who commit less serious offences, providing more effective measures for dealing with both.

Bill C-3 gives the police more tools for dealing with youth in their communities in order to try to turn youth around before they get on to commit more serious crimes. Greater police and crown discretion early in the process will lead to meaningful, effective and faster resolutions of the majority of less serious cases. The formal court process and custody will be used to deal with the more serious crimes.

We have heard concerns expressed about the definitions of non-violent, violent and serious violent offences in Bill C-3. Some have indicated that the definitions may lead to confusion as to what comes within a certain category of offence. To remove any ambiguity the government proposes to delete the definitions of non-violent and violent offences from the legislation.

The difference between a non-violent and a violent offence is obvious and therefore these terms do not need to be defined in legislation. In addition, we would improve the definition of serious violent offences by replacing the phrase “creates a substantial risk of serious bodily harm” with a reference to “attempts to cause serious bodily harm”. These proposed amendments should provide greater clarity to the categories of offences.

We know that it is important to involve others in the youth justice system in order to improve upon understanding and to provide support for victims, youth, families and communities in responding constructively and meaningfully to offending behaviour.

Among other things Bill C-3 specifically encourages conferences at many stages of the proceedings. Some conferences may involve bringing together professionals such as child care workers, school psychologists or others who are already involved with youth to seek advice and ensure continuity of services. Others may be in the nature of sentencing circles or family group conferences involving victims, offenders and their families.

While conferencing has been strongly endorsed, some are concerned about the lack of definition in the bill. Therefore we are proposing amendments clarifying who may hold a conference and giving provinces and territories scope to regulate non-judicial conferences.

A number of witnesses also expressed concerns about youth ending up in the criminal justice system when their problems and needs could be more effectively dealt with through the child welfare system. A proposed amendment to Bill C-3 would recognize that a judge can make a referral of a young person to child welfare authorities for an assessment. While this is something that judges already have the authority to do, the amendments would encourage a link between the two systems in appropriate cases.

A major flaw of the Young Offenders Act is that it does not include sufficient provisions for safe, supervised reintegration into the community. Bill C-3 aims to better support the young person's reintegration back into the community, which protects the public by guarding against further crime.

The bill provides that periods of incarceration will be followed by periods of supervision in the community. To ensure “truth in sentencing” and clarity for the young person at the time of imposing the sentence, the judge will state in open court the portion of time that is to be served in custody and the portion to be served in the community. Breaching conditions of community supervision could result in the youth being returned to custody.

Generally the reintegration scheme has been strongly endorsed. Some, however, have expressed concern about requiring that the period of supervision in the community be half as long as the period of custody in all cases. Under a proposed government amendment, where a young person rebuts the presumption for an adult sentence on a presumptive offence, judges will have the discretion to set the periods in custody and the periods in the community. This will allow more flexibility in dealing with those who receive youth sentences for the most serious violent crimes.

A number of witnesses have raised concern about the admissibility of statements made by youth. The legitimate concern of the police and others that the exclusion of youth statements for technical reasons under the Young Offenders Act brings the administration of justice into question needs to be addressed.

Bill C-3 currently permits a judge to allow the introduction of a statement that has not been taken in accordance with the requirements set out in the bill if the admission of the statement would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In order to clarify the intent in drafting this provision, the government is proposing an amendment specifying that this applies only to technical breaches and that statements will only be admitted if the admission would not bring into disrepute the principle of enhanced procedural protections for youth.

An important concern about the Young Offenders Act has been voiced by both the police community and victims groups. The existing law does not allow for publication, without a court order, of information that would identify young victims or witnesses who are involved in a young offender's case, even where the victim or witness and his or her family want the information to be published. This means, for example, that parents of a deceased child victim of a young offender do not have the right to publish the name of their son or daughter without facing criminal sanctions.

A proposed amendment to Bill C-3 would correct this situation by allowing a young victim or witness to have his or her identity published with parental consent, and in the case of a deceased young victim, by allowing parents to publish or cause to be published information identifying their deceased son or daughter.

Finally, many of the proposed government amendments are aimed at enhancing the clarity and reducing the complexity of Bill C-3. These amendments include improvements to drafting language in the bill and the consolidation of certain clauses in order to streamline the legislation. In addition, at the request of the provinces and territories, the Government of Canada is proposing a number of technical amendments aimed at facilitating the administration of the new legislation.

The new Youth Criminal Justice Act is built upon the values Canadians want in their youth justice system. Canadians want a system that prevents crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person's offending behaviour. They also want a system that seeks to rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and reintegrate them into society. The system must also ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences for his or her offence. Canadians know this is the most effective way to achieve the long term protection of society.

Our new approach also responds to the concern of Canadians that the youth justice system has to do a better job of instilling values such as accountability, responsibility and respect. The system must also be more responsive to victims needs, encourage young people to acknowledge the harm done and provide restitution where appropriate.

I am confident that Bill C-3 will provide Canadians with the kind of youth justice system they want and deserve.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the second reading debate of Bill C-321, an act to amend the criminal code to provide for the forfeiture of property relating to child pornography crimes. At the outset I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Lethbridge for his concern about child pornography, a concern that the government shares with him and a great number of Canadians.

Our children are the most vulnerable members of our society and we must do all that we can to protect our children from harm. No one will deny that child pornography seriously harms children. I believe it does so in at least two ways. It creates a permanent record of the sexual abuse of children and perpetuates the message that children are appropriate sexual objects. Indeed, they are not.

Child pornography was specifically prohibited by amendment to the criminal code, enacted in 1993. This amendment, which is now subsection 163.1 of the criminal code, created new offences for the importation, distribution, sale, production and simple possession of child pornography. All these offences carry a greater penalty than the offences prohibiting obscene materials involving adults.

These criminal code provisions against child pornography take on a greater importance with the rapidly expanding use of the Internet. It is now easier to communicate valuable information and carry on discussions on all kinds of subjects with people who share our interests. Unfortunately it also makes it easier to disseminate and collect images of child pornography.

The purpose of the child pornography provisions is primarily to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation, but also to send a clear message that it is not appropriate to have sex with children or to portray them as sexual objects. I know that Canadians are greatly supportive of this legislation prohibiting child pornography.

The purpose of Bill C-321 is very much in line with the purpose of the child pornography provisions since its purpose is to create an additional deterrent to child pornography. It would add to the sentence currently available under the criminal code a financial penalty that would result from a forfeiture to the crown of all tools and instruments that have been used in the commission of the offence. Bill C-321 would provide the judge with discretion to forfeit anything “by means of or in relation to which” a child pornography offence was committed. I wholeheartedly support this purpose.

However, I have some questions on the working of the provisions as drafted. I am particularly concerned that the bill might unnecessarily penalize individuals who have nothing to do with the offence.

It would be the case of an employee who uses the Internet during his lunch hour to download child pornography images on an office computer. He might also transmit these images to others; to do so, he would use the computer provided by his employer for conducting business for which he is employed. He would also use it to access and distribute child pornography without the knowledge of his employer and, of course, without his consent.

The offence would clearly be committed by means of the computer. If the employee was convicted of a child pornography offence, the judge could, in addition to sentencing him to imprisonment for up to 10 years, order the forfeiture of the computer. Bill C-321 would allow this. In this case the forfeiture would penalize the employer and not the employee who committed the offence. The person penalized would be an innocent third party and not the person guilty of the offence. This is a consideration that we should keep in mind.

I can see another problem in relation to forfeiture of “anything by means of which the offence was committed”. In order to receive and transmit on the Internet one needs a server or a router, which is typically owned by a service provider. Could the server be forfeited? I do not see anything in the bill that would prevent it. Other criminal code provisions that would allow forfeiture of the tools used in the commission of an offence specifically exempt public communications facilities and equipment from forfeiture. That is not the case here.

I support the purpose of this bill, but I have concerns with its practical implications. This bill may require further consideration and amendment.

[Privilege, September 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, you may recall on June 15, 2000, the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington raised a point of privilege concerning the defeat of his private member's bill, Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act at second reading.

The question of privilege alleges that the Department of Justice may have wilfully deceived MPs by means of a document marked exhibit A, which MPs received on their desks in the House prior to the June 6 vote on Bill C-206. The documents stated that “the privacy commissioner had expressed concerns that, under Bill C-206, 30 year old records would be made accessible resulting in the potential release of personal information held by the government”. It is alleged that the document falsely attributed these concerns to the privacy commissioner.

It is also claimed that the privacy commissioner's concerns were misrepresented in a talking points document dated May 26 to cabinet ministers, which was marked exhibit B. This document, which was provided to cabinet ministers for discussion purposes, stated that the privacy commissioner considered Bill C-206 to be “a serious threat to the privacy of Canadians”.

I will demonstrate that exhibits A and B are a fair representation of the privacy commissioner's concerns regarding Bill C-206.

According to the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington “The problem is the privacy commissioner was not in official communication with the Department of Justice on Bill C-206 until 10 days after the May 26 memo outlining his position and never described his concerns as a serious threat, nor ever provided the example cited in the document above”. In fact, those concerns were exposed and expressed in different forums long before May 26.

There appears to be some misunderstanding of the facts. From October 1999 to June 2000, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner consistently indicated that Bill C-206 raised privacy concerns. Let me illustrate.

In October 1999 the executive director of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner called a meeting with Department of Justice officials. Officials from the privacy commissioner's office indicated that they had two major problems with the changes proposed in Bill C-206.

First, they were concerned that the changes proposed in clause 14 of Bill C-206 would “eviscerate” the Privacy Act by imposing a mandatory obligation to disclose personal information. The example used was that data collected by Revenue Canada is shared with HRDC under section 8 of the Privacy Act. Changing the discretionary “may” disclose to “shall” disclose would result in all the income tax returns of Canadians for the last 10 years being accessible.

Second, they were concerned that the proposed 30-year rule, which would release virtually all documents after 30 years, would have privacy implications. The confidential information collected by the government continues to be sensitive even after 30 years.

Justice officials took the concerns of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner very seriously.

On May 16, 2000 the privacy commissioner tabled his annual report in which he referred to, at page 75, the bill by the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Bill C-264, which was the predecessor to Bill C-206. He indicated the bill could have “negative privacy impact” and that the proposed disclosure of information older than 30 years would, in his view, “completely disregard the protections of the Privacy Act”. Furthermore, he expressed concern over the removal of the critical discretion that the Privacy Act gives heads of federal institutions to determine whether to disclose individuals' personal information to third parties.

Based on these statements, the document marked exhibit B was prepared for cabinet ministers. It concluded that “The privacy commissioner believes Bill C-206 is a serious threat to the privacy of Canadians”. This statement is clearly a fair representation of the views expressed by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner during the October meeting and in the privacy commissioner's annual report of May 16, 1999.

Furthermore, in a letter to the Minister of Justice dated June 5, 2000, the privacy commissioner confirmed what his office had previously flagged. The privacy commissioner stated at line 2 in the second paragraph of the letter “while I support the ultimate goal of a more transparent and accountable government, I fear the bill will have, perhaps unintentionally, a detrimental effect on the Privacy Act”.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Act protects the private information of Canadians held by government institutions. Therefore, anything that would have a detrimental effect on the Privacy Act would be a threat to the privacy of Canadians.

There was no deception on the part of the Department of Justice. The privacy commissioner's office expressed serious concerns about clause 14 and the 30 year rule in October 1999. The commissioner's annual report of May 16, 2000 reaffirmed in a more general manner these concerns.

On June 5, 2000 the privacy commissioner officially indicated that the same clauses would have a detrimental effect on the Privacy Act. From October 1999 to June 2000 the message to the Department of Justice from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner was the same: Bill C-206 represented a serious threat to the privacy of individuals. The examples used indicate the nature of that threat.

I would like to remind the House that at the beginning of the previous parliament the government indicated that private members' business would be subject to free votes. Each member must assess the long term implications of any private member's bill or motion and vote accordingly.

The Minister of Justice simply and correctly expressed a legitimate concern about Bill C-206 and shared the information she had with her colleagues.

[Privilege, September 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to a question of privilege filed by the member for Wentworth—Burlington, if you are prepared to entertain the government's response.

[Young Offenders Act, September 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the bill provides flexibility. The bill allows for the Quebec system to continue as it would. This is good legislation. It is balanced across this wide country.

[Young Offenders Act, September 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said on numerous occasions, Bill C-3 is about accountability and responsibility. It is a balanced approach. It is a flexible approach.

On many occasions we have asked the hon. member where in the bill does it not allow Quebec to carry on the philosophy as they do now. Show me in the bill where you are prevented from doing so.

[Justice, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a white paper entitled “Law Enforcement and Criminal Liability”.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening to speak to this legislation.

With Bill C-82 of the previous session and Bill C-18 of this session, the government will have implemented every recommendation for a specific criminal code change that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights made in its report toward eliminating impaired driving.

It was a distinct pleasure to observe the non-partisan approach taken by all parties during the committee's review of the impaired driving provisions. I believe the collegial atmosphere in committee was an extension of the unanimous support given by the House to the motion of the official opposition in October 1998 which initiated the committee's review.

I am certain that all members agree that impaired driving is a totally unnecessary behaviour. The consequences of impaired driving are tragic precisely because, in hindsight, other actions so shocking in their simplicity could have avoided the heart-rending results.

While we can easily agree on the pernicious problem, we are not always agreed on the solutions. I accept that we will not always fully agree on the appropriate solutions. Most importantly, I would not want to diminish our unity concerning the unacceptability of driving while impaired because that bedrock message needs to go out from this House. That message is best supported when we show respect for views on impaired driving solutions that differ from our own but which are just as sincerely held. I say this because there are some differing opinions on one particular clause in Bill C-18.

The Bloc Quebecois is concerned that raising the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death from 14 years imprisonment to life imprisonment, as proposed in Bill C-18, is too harsh. I respect the Bloc's view. However, I believe that this amendment would enhance deterrence and denunciation of impaired driving causing death. The amendment would harmonize the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death with the maximum penalty for manslaughter and for criminal negligence causing death.

The proposed amendment in Bill C-18 addresses only the maximum penalty that may be imposed. I again remind all members that a maximum penalty is reserved for the worst offender and the worst offence circumstances.

Governments, private and public organizations, families and individuals play key roles in the struggle against impaired driving. I want to acknowledge the successes that such combined efforts have achieved. I am happy to note that there has been significant improvement over the past dozen years.

Fatally injured drivers whose blood alcohol concentration was over the criminal law limit comprised 43% of all fatally injured drivers in 1987. By 1997 this dropped to 32%. This occurred at the same time that the number of road deaths from all causes was decreasing. Therefore, the lowered statistic of fatally injured drivers who were over the legal limit, as a percentage of all fatally injured drivers, is very significant.

Although we have seen progress in reducing alcohol involved road fatalities, we should not forget that impaired driving behaviour remains a very great challenge. A Traffic Injury Research Foundation survey published in 1999 suggested that in Canada there are some 12.5 million impaired driving trips taken each year. Some 2.6% of drivers account for 84% of impaired driving trips. In British Columbia in 1998 more than 80% of alcohol involved road fatalities were persons in or on the alcohol involved driver's vehicle, including the alcohol involved driver. In 1997 it is estimated that there were 1,350 alcohol involved impaired driving deaths nationally.

Impaired driving has shown itself to be a persistent problem. Parliament first introduced a driving while intoxicated offence in 1921. In 1925 it introduced the first intoxicated driving offence related to a drug. Prior to 1969 there were several significant changes to the impaired driving provisions, including the creation of an offence for driving while impaired by alcohol or a drug. In 1969 the offence of driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per cent was added.

There were significant changes in 1985 that created the offences of impaired driving causing bodily harm or death. Since 1985 parliament amended the impaired driving provisions on at least a half dozen occasions. These changes address interpretations in the case law and drafting difficulties. The need for Bill C-82 and Bill C-18 remind us just how persistent a problem impaired driving is.

We should also bear in mind that every five years we have a new cohort of young people aged 16 to 21 who are entering the driving population. It is estimated that by 2010 the percentage of Canadians aged 16 to 24 will return to levels not seen since the early 1980s. Even if we could eliminate all impaired driving today there would be much work to be done for new drivers of the future. It is important to reach out continually to new drivers.

As we enter into this happy period of graduations and school proms, I urge our students not to drink and drive. Students are loved and cherished by their families and friends and should not, under any circumstances, become tragic statistics. Those who must drink should respect the designated driver tradition. All Canadians will be glad for that, especially the moms and dads.

The criminal law is an important measure amongst a combination of measures that can be brought to bear upon the problem of impaired driving. However, while criminal legislation must do its part, criminal legislation by itself cannot be expected to eliminate impaired driving. The conviction rate for criminal charges of impaired driving, at 77% in 1997, is amongst the highest, if not the highest, for any criminal code offence.

Yet the persons who are apprehended and charged with impaired driving offences represent a small percentage of the actual number of impaired driving trips taken. This is a very alarming and a disturbing thought.

It is the combination of efforts aimed against impaired driving that our hope for further progress is nourished. Bill C-18 is one part of the needed combination of measures.