John Maloney

[Blood Samples Act, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-244, an act to provide for the taking of samples of blood for the benefit of persons administering and enforcing the law and good Samaritans and to amend the criminal code, introduced by the hon. member for Fraser Valley.

The government and all of us in this place are fully aware that some persons in the execution of their duties, which include helping people and even saving human lives, are at risk of being contaminated by the exchange of infected bodily fluids. This is a very sensitive issue.

We appreciate the personal difficulties which these persons who devote their lives to help others may experience. We owe it to these fine Canadians to provide them with a means to regain peace of mind as soon as possible after they have been involved in circumstances that may raise the spectre of contamination. However well meaning, and it is very well meaning, Bill C-244 does not represent the solution to this problem.

The bill is offering to us the creation of legislation that establishes a mechanism for obtaining and executing a search warrant on the human body. Part I of the bill provides that a firefighter, a medical practitioner or a person whose profession is to care for sick people may ask a justice of the peace to issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to require a qualified medical practitioner or a qualified technician to take samples of blood. These samples would be taken from a person who was assisted by the firefighter or the medical practitioner where there has been contact of body fluid and where the person is suspected of being infected with some disease.

The bill would also cover the situation of an arrest without a warrant by a person other than a peace officer or when a person lawfully assists a police officer. I note in passing that the bill is not clear as to whether health practitioners can be forced to take the sample and, for that matter, whether and how much force can be used to compel the person to submit to the taking of bodily fluids.

The examination of these substances would determine according to the proposed scheme whether the person carried the virus of hepatitis B or hepatitis C or a human autoimmune deficiency virus. In order to issue such a warrant the justice of the peace would have to be satisfied by the person requesting the warrant that four essential elements are present.

First, the justice has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant came into contact with a bodily substance from another person while engaged in the performance of his or her functions in relation to that person, or while assisting that person believing that his or her life was in danger or that the person had suffered or was about to suffer physical injury.

Second, the justice may issue a warrant if by reason of the circumstances in which the applicant came into contact with the bodily substance he or she is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the applicant may have been infected by a virus.

Third, the justice could issue a warrant if he or she believes that by reason of a lengthy incubation period for diseases caused by these viruses and the methods available for ascertaining their presence in the human body an analysis of the applicant's blood would not accurately determine in a timely manner whether the applicant had been infected by such a virus that might have been present in the bodily substances with which the applicant came into contact.

Finally a warrant could be issued if a qualified medical practitioner is of the opinion that the taking of samples of blood from the person mentioned in the warrant would not endanger the life and health of the person.

As we can see the scope of the bill which relates to persons involved in situations where there is an exchange of bodily fluids is remarkably wide. On its face the bill does not apply in cases where an offence is alleged to have been committed but rather in any case where there has been an exchange of bodily fluids.

The bill assumes that no offence has been committed for the power to seek a search warrant. Thus a warrant to obtain a body sample is sought without any offence being committed. Therefore there is no nexus with criminal law.

What criminal law purpose is served by these amendments? Why then are we seeking to amend the criminal code? The search warrants in our law are for the purposes of advancing an investigation of offences. This search warrant is, on the contrary, for the sole purpose of obtaining some information about someone who has not committed any offence. This is an invasion of the privacy of someone, an invasion that is remarkably intrusive, for no reason that would have anything to do with criminal law.

The bill raises important concerns relating to privacy, searches, seizures and human rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The taking of bodily substances always raises significant constitutional issues. The taking of bodily substances without any charges being laid or before conviction raises issues under section 7 on life, liberty and security of the person as well as under section 8 on reasonable search and seizure of our charter of rights and freedoms.

Beyond the legal impediments in pursuing the legislation there are also clear limitations as to what can be accomplished from a scientific standpoint even if a warrant could be obtained. Thus another reason for not supporting the bill is that even if it were possible to adopt this kind legislation its value as an instrument to comfort those who fear they have been affected is certainly less than adequate.

The issue of blood samples was studied in depth in relation to criminal law and in the context of sexual assault. The medical experts are of the opinion that the only way a sexual assault victim can be sure that he or she has not been contaminated is to undergo a test to detect the hepatitis B or C virus, or HIV, following the recommended procedures.

There is a variable period of time between the moment of infection and the capacity of routinely available antibody tests to detect the presence of the antibodies to the virus. Experts in the field refer to that as the window period. Accordingly, relying on the test results could provide false assurances to the victim. For example, a person who would be the object of a search warrant may be tested and the results negative. A peace officer or a firefighter who relies on this information might in fact later test positive if the person tested was in the window period when he or she tested negative.

The issue of blood testing clearly belongs to the domain of health. The Department of Justice is actively working with other departments, in particular Health Canada, to ensure that more is done to provide support and assistance to those who may be concerned about the risk of hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HIV infection. This is where our efforts should be concentrated. I encourage these departments to continue these efforts on an expedited basis.

I certainly appreciate that the sponsor of the bill means well. I acknowledge him for his initiative in this regard. The use of search warrants to invade privacy where nothing of a criminal natural is even suspected should be of grave concern to the House when, on top of that, the information that may be obtained with such a search warrant is at best of very limited value. One questions what can be usefully achieved by Bill C-244 notwithstanding its good intentions.

[Divorce Act, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard today from many parliamentarians on the merits of counselling, and the government takes no issue with that. The issue is mandatory counselling. In order to consider the merits of Bill C-235, we have to compare the current Divorce Act to see what it would add.

There are currently several sections in the Divorce Act that already refer to reconciliation. For example, section 10 requires the court to assess the possibility of a reconciliation of the spouses that come before it.

Pursuant to subsection 10(1), the court must satisfy itself that there is no possibility of reconciliation of the spouses before the court can even consider the evidence on the matter.

Subsection 10(2) provides that if it appears at any stage of the court proceedings that there is a possibility of the spouses reconciling, the court must adjourn the proceedings and nominate a marriage counsellor to assist the spouses to achieve this reconciliation if it is possible.

Bill C-235 does not refer to section 10 but rather proposes to replace section 9(1) of the Divorce Act. As I have already noted, section 9(1) currently creates a duty for all legal advisors to inform spouses of the available marital counselling services.

Specifically, section 9(1) requires every barrister, solicitor, lawyer or advocate who undertakes to act on behalf of the spouses in a divorce proceeding to do two things: first, to draw the attention of the spouse to the provisions of the Divorce Act that have as their object the reconciliation of the spouses; and second, to discuss with the spouse the possibility of reconciliation and to inform the spouse of the marriage counselling or guidance facilities known to him or her that might be able to assist the spouses to achieve reconciliation. This duty is imposed unless the circumstances of the case are such that it would clearly not be appropriate to do so.

There may also be constitutional and cost implications associated with requiring mandatory marriage counselling for all divorcing couples. Counselling can be expensive and would impose an additional cost on parents. Provinces and territories could also be reluctant to co-operate if they viewed this legal requirement as a federal intrusion into matters of provincial jurisdiction. There would be a strong expectation that the federal government would provide the financial funding for those counselling services since this legal requirement would be imposed on them by the federal government and it could be very costly.

I commend the member for Mississauga South on his initiative and his continuing crusade to support family and children. He is to be commended for it.

[Child Pornography, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to our children. When this horrendous decision came down we quickly sought intervener status to go before the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

This has limited application. It applies only in one province. In nine provinces and three territories, the law is fully enforced. Investigations and prosecutions go on.

I also point out that the other provisions of child pornography, such as production, distribution, importation and sale are still illegal in all provinces of Canada. The government stands firmly against child pornography.

[Diabetes, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, between one million and two million Canadians are affected by diabetes and it exacts a serious toll on them and their families. I know because it has had an impact on my family.

I applaud the Minister of Health's recent announcement that funding to the Canadian diabetes strategy be increased by $60 million to $115 million over five years. These funds will help inform Canadians, help prevent diabetes where possible and help people better manage the disease and its complications.

There are approximately 60,000 new cases of diabetes diagnosed in Canada each and every year. Approximately one-third of persons with diabetes are undiagnosed.

There are two major types diabetes. Approximately 90% of people with diabetes have type II diabetes which usually occurs after age 40. Two major risk factors for type t are obesity and inactivity, which are modifiable. The strategy will link with healthy eating, nutrition and active living programs to deliver messages and education to target audiences on how to eat better and become more active. A sustained national focus on prevention and public education will aim to reduce the costs and harm associated with type II diabetes.

Congratulations to the minister for his foresight and strategy of prevention.

[An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak to Bill C-237, an act to amend an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.

In brief terms this bill would amend the Canadian bill of rights. The Minister of Justice feels strongly about the important role of property rights in our society. Property rights represent one of the fundamental pillars of our legal system and our democratic society. Indeed, our legal system is replete with protection for property rights. However, the Minister of Justice cannot support the bill because it raises some very important concerns.

The Canadian bill of rights already contains provisions for property rights in paragraph 1(a). Bill C-237 would remove these provisions and would enact new and broader provisions dealing with property rights. These broader provisions would have untold implications for federal laws. For example, they could affect everything from federal laws dealing with pollution to shareholder rights to divorce laws making provision for the division of property.

One only has to look at the American experience with constitutional property rights to understand the implications of extending property rights. In the United States property rights have been extended in ways that no one could have anticipated. This has led to huge amounts of litigation and has complicated and burdened the process of lawmaking.

Early on in the history of the United States important social reforms were struck down by the courts in the name of property rights. I am not saying that this kind of unfortunate judicial intervention would necessarily happen here, but to date no proper consideration has been given to this possibility. One has to think very carefully before importing this kind of law into the Canadian context.

The protection of property rights is, of course, an important principle in Canadian society. No one in this Chamber would dispute that. While agreeing with the principle of protecting property rights, we must be careful to have a clear understanding of the impact that the kind of legislation being proposed by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville will have.

In any event, as I have indicated, I think it is very important to remember that our legal system presently and appropriately acknowledges property rights. The concept of property rights is fundamental to our legal system. It is the basis of the operation of our economy. This is reflected in the legal framework that governs our economy. Every day property rights guide our actions in the way we do business. Contract law, real property law, personal property law and so on are built on the concept of property rights.

Our legal system could not function without it. As such, our legal system provides, as a matter of the common law that has been built over hundreds of years through court decisions, basic protections for property owners. Hundreds of years of jurisprudence must not be lightly disregarded.

The common law provides basic protections for individuals regarding state action that affects their property, and statute law is also filled with protections for property rights. Whether we are looking at shareholder laws, banking laws, criminal laws or otherwise, these laws contain a wide variety of provisions that are designed to ensure fair dealing with property.

Let us not forget that the Canadian bill of rights already provides protection for property rights. As the member has pointed out, section 1(a) of the Canadian bill of rights provides for “the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law”.

The hon. member's bill would also amend the Canadian bill of rights in a way that is not consistent with the treatment of other rights in the Canadian bill of rights. The bill would add charter-like provisions to the Canadian bill of rights that would be applicable only to property rights and not to the other human rights and fundamental freedoms contained in the Canadian bill of rights. This would include new provisions dealing with imposing limits on rights, overriding rights, and obtaining judicial remedies.

I am not certain why property rights are treated differently. I am not certain what the logic or rationale, if any, is for this. It seems to me that the bill is so focused on one issue that it does not recognize that the Canadian bill of rights contains other rights and freedoms, that the proposed changes do not fit in and that they do not treat all rights and freedoms on a consistent basis.

My reaction is that when we are dealing with something as fundamental as basic Canadian legal instruments for the protection of human rights, we need to examine all of the implications. Let me be clear, property rights are fundamental to our legal system and society. We will continue to support property rights and to promote respect for these and all rights of Canadians, but we cannot support a bill that unwittingly would put into jeopardy social and economic laws and policies that are important to the people of Canada.

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-18 of the present session and Bill C-82 of the previous session, the government has responded positively to every one of the 10 recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for specific amendments to Criminal Code provisions related to impaired driving.

In October 1997, the House of Commons directed the standing committee to review the impaired driving provisions of the Criminal Code. On May 25, 1999 the committee tabled its report entitled “Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving” with an appended draft bill.

Within two weeks of receiving that report, the government introduced Bill C-82, which was fast-tracked and given royal assent, as amended, on June 17, 1999.

As tabled, Bill C-82 followed very closely the draft bill which the standing committee had appended to its report.

In order to achieve speedy passage, the provision raising the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death to life imprisonment was removed from Bill C-82 and placed in Bill C-87.

Bill C-82 came into force on July 1, 1999. With prorogation, Bill C-87 died on the order paper. The government committed itself to reintroducing in this session the provision that was found within Bill C-87.

Bill C-82 amended seven penalty provisions and one investigation provision as follows. It increased the minimum fine for impaired driving offences to $600. It raised the minimum driving prohibitions for all impaired driving offenders and increased the maximum driving prohibitions for second and subsequent offenders. The bill specified that judges must consider a blood alcohol concentration reading above 160 milligrams per cent as an aggravating factor in sentencing. It specified that a judge may make a probation order for assessment and treatment in relation to addiction in a jurisdiction that has such a program. The bill also specified that a judge may make a probation order for ignition interlock use in a jurisdiction that has such a program. It introduced a new maximum penalty of 10 years of imprisonment for leaving the scene of an accident knowing that someone was injured. It also introduced a new maximum penalty of life imprisonment for leaving the scene of an accident knowing that there was a death or an injury and not caring whether death ensued and death did ensue. It raised the maximum penalty for driving while disqualified to five years of imprisonment where the crown elects to proceed by indictment. Finally, the bill extended the period from two hours to three hours during which an officer with reasonable grounds to believe an impaired driving offence had occurred can demand a breath sample.

Bill C-18 follows through on the government's commitment to reintroduce the provision found in Bill C-87. It would raise the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death from 14 years to life imprisonment, as recommended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in its report. This maximum penalty would equal the maximum penalty for the offences of manslaughter and for criminal negligence causing death.

A maximum penalty is reserved for cases involving the worst offender in the worst factual circumstances. However, even when considering the appropriate sentences for offenders who are not sentenced to the maximum penalty, the courts can consider the fact that the maximum penalty for an offence has been raised and adjust the penalty accordingly. This amendment will contribute to the message that still needs to be sent: society will not tolerate impaired driving.

There is another amendment in Bill C-18 that implements the positive response by the government to a recommendation made by the standing committee in its report “Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving”. This is an amendment that would add drugs to section 256 of the criminal code as a basis upon which a peace officer may seek a warrant to obtain a blood sample. Currently, the warrant may only be sought where the officer reasonably believes that a driver committed an impaired driving offence involving alcohol, in circumstances involving an injury or a death, and where the driver is unable to consent to the taking of a blood sample. This will add to the tools that peace officers may use in investigating certain drug impaired driving offences committed in violation of paragraph 253(a) of the criminal code.

Besides meeting commitments for specific legislative changes made by the government on October 22, 1999, when it tabled its response to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Bill C-18 also contains two provisions that are technical in nature.

One of these would amend the French definition of a motor vehicle found in section 2 of the criminal code to accord with the English definition, which excludes vehicles propelled by means of muscular power.

The other technical amendment will delete the offence of driving while disqualified from the list of indictable offences found in section 553 of the code that come within the absolute jurisdiction of a provincial court judge. This is necessary because Bill C-82 raised the maximum penalty for driving while disqualified from two years to five years of imprisonment where the crown proceeds by indictment. The charter provides the right to a jury trial for an offence carrying a maximum penalty of five years or more. Therefore, the amendment in Bill C-18 will ensure that section 553 is in compliance with the charter.

The government did not naively believe when it put forward the amendments contained in Bill C-82 that criminal code changes by themselves would eliminate all incidents of impaired driving. Nor was the standing committee naive in makings its proposals. The criminal law must do its part in the struggle against impaired driving; however, other systems must also fulfill their important parts. Governments, many public and private organizations, families and individuals have contributed to a real shift in public attitudes toward impaired driving over a period of time.

However, despite significant reductions over the past decade in the percentage of fatally injured drivers who have a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit, the remaining extent of impaired driving is still an enormous problem. The government will continue to work with other governments and organizations to combat impaired driving.

In addition to continuing work in the field of criminal law, prevention and educational work related to impaired driving is carried out by Health Canada as part of Canada's national drug strategy. Improving road safety measures to fight impaired driving is an important aspect of work carried out by Transport Canada. If we have learned anything from the standing committee's review of the impaired driving provisions, it is that individuals and organizations are working with various levels of government and police agencies to develop a combination of countermeasures that will eliminate impaired driving. It has been a pleasure to observe parliamentarians of all political stripes laying aside partisan politics and working together in order to address the serious problem of impaired driving. I wish especially to thank all members of the standing committee for their hard work in writing a report and drafting legislation to meet a common goal.

It is also gratifying to see the extent of public interest and participation in the development of criminal law responses to impaired driving.

While we may not all agree on every measure that has been proposed to eliminate impaired driving, together we have taken some important steps which improve the criminal law and contribute to the combination of measures aimed against impaired driving.

I ask that members of the House give their support to Bill C-18 which responds to the standing committee's remaining two recommendations for specific criminal code amendments.

[Criminal Code, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am please to rise to speak to Bill C-209, an act to amend the criminal code, prohibited sexual acts, introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. The Minister of Justice cannot support Bill C-209 at this time for three very compelling reasons.

First, on November 29, 1999, the Department of Justice released a consultation document entitled “Child Victims in the Criminal Justice System”. The document examines possible changes to the criminal code and the Canada Evidence Act to improve protection for children from extreme harm by adults. The paper examines some of the most pressing issues and sets out options for change.

More specifically, areas being considered include the creation of further specific offences that may be committed against children, sentencing to protect children from those who might reoffend, and facilitating of children's testimony.

The release of the document is actually another step toward a broader and needed public consultation with all Canadians. The justice department is concerned with the breadth of possible implications of any change to the criminal code on young persons. It considers legislation of this nature to be premature. By undertaking very full consultations the department is taking these concerns to all Canadians interested in the welfare of young children. This process already began through early consultations with provincial and territorial officials.

Recently the department convened a conference on working together to protect children in late September of this year, a two day conference which I attended. The conference brought together provincial and territorial stakeholders, as well as professionals, non-governmental organizations and others working with children, in order to examine the issues of prevention and protection of children from harm.

At the conference the minister announced the release of the consultation paper, “Child Victims in the Criminal Justice System”. Responses are being sought from all Canadians concerned with the welfare of children. The paper also seeks the opinions of government officials, interested organizations, individuals and professionals dealing with children. Extra copies are available upon request at the Department of Justice Canadian Internet site or by calling the Department of Justice. Interested Canadians may also obtain a copy by writing to child victim consultation, family, children and youth section, Department of Justice, Ottawa.

Canadians who take an interest in the well-being of children are encouraged to take part in the consultation. The Department of Justice is also asking public servants, stakeholders, private individuals and professionals working with children to participate.

A copy of the consultation paper can be obtained by visiting the Internet site of the Department of Justice, or by writing to the Minister of Justice.

Bill C-209 proposes to amend several sections of the criminal code where the general minimum age of consent is part of the definition of sexual offences involving a child victim. The current age of consent to most forms of sexual activity is 14. There is an exception for consensual sexual activity between young people close in age and under 16.

Bill C-209 proposes to increase the general age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16. The age of the complainant in the existing exception would also be raised to 16. The proposed bill would also substitute under 16 for under 14 in connection with the powers of the court to make prohibition orders against offenders who are convicted, or who are discharged on conditions in a probation order, of certain sexual offences against a person under 14.

Bill C-209 raises valid concerns about the current protection provided to young people. For example, it has been argued that the present general age of consent, which is 14, is too low to provide effective protection from sexual exploitation by adults. The relatively low age may allow pimps, for example, to seduce young girls with the intention of luring them into prostitution without fear of prosecution. However the hon. member for Calgary Northeast seems to think that all that is involved in addressing the complex issue of age of consent is simply to change the age. That is not the case.

Protecting our children goes beyond a simple and arbitrary increase of the age of consent to sexual activity. It means addressing the broader issue of the safety and well-being of our children. Our objective is to develop and maintain effective comprehensive measures to protect children from serious injury and death at the hands of adults. The achievement of this objective rests with an essential collaborative effort of the provinces, the territories and the Government of Canada.

While the provision of services to children who are in need of protection is the responsibility of the provinces and territories, the assurance that appropriate offences and penalties are available for serious harm done to children is the responsibility of the Government of Canada. By targeting extreme forms of harm through the criminal code, the Government of Canada would provide strong support for provincial and territorial initiatives to protect children.

Second, the bill does not address the criminal code consequences of raising the general age at which sexual activity with young people would be criminalized. Bill C-209 proposes an amendment that is inconsistent with other relevant sections of the criminal code. For example, even though the complainant's age would be raised to 16 there is no consequential change to the age of the accused in the exception that prevents criminalizing consensual sexual activity between young people close in age and under 16.

The result is that a teenager over 16 who has consensual sex with a person under 16 but who is close in age would be engaging in criminal conduct. At the same time a younger teenager would be able to consent to sexual activity with a person close in age. This outcome would appear to be not only discriminatory but also contrary to common sense. Consequently Bill C-209 would not address the issue but rather would create confusion.

Third, the bill does not address the broader implications that arise from an amendment to the general age of consent. Since legislative changes do not take place in a vacuum, we must be aware that a change in the age of consent may have an impact on other legislation. For example, such changes may impact on the age 14 for providing assistance to child witnesses and for competency to testify in the criminal code and the Canada Evidence Act.

The question is whether an amendment to the age of consent to sexual activity would require amendments to other age related provisions of the criminal code. Furthermore, any arbitrary changes in the criminal code would be inconsistent with the government's commitment to consult with the provinces and territories before introducing amendments intended to support their efforts to protect children from abuse, neglect and exploitation.

In fact the justice minister is meeting with her provincial and territorial counterparts today and tomorrow on federal-provincial-territorial issues.

In conclusion, the need to review the issue of age of consent is a real concern. Children deserve to live in a safe society and to be protected from any forms of serious harm caused by adults.

To be effective, everyone in the community and every level of government must work together because we all have an important role to play. We believe all Canadians should be given an opportunity to express their views on this issue. We also believe that the age of consent should be dealt within the broader context of other age related issues in the criminal code.

That is why the Department of Justice issued its consultation paper and looks forward to learning from Canadians on this topic with sound and reasoned action to follow.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today to speak to this matter. Certainly the debate in itself will send a message to organized criminal elements that their behaviour and activities will not be tolerated for the reasons which have been elaborated and which I will continue to elaborate.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough East.

I would like to take a bit of a different tack in my address. I would like to address some of the key international activities of the federal government in addressing organized crime.

As members on both sides of the House will appreciate, international co-operation in combating organized crime is very vital. Canada, like other countries, is faced with responding to an increased movement of goods and people as our economy globalizes. At the same time, increased use of telecommunications and finance in everyday affairs shrinks our world.

To be sure, criminals are quick to try to capitalize on the opportunity that globalization and technological change present. Canadian ministers and officials are required regularly to attend meetings or conferences where key discussions and negotiations occur and where decisions are taken as to how to combat organized crime. It is a very complex issue. The objective is always to support a co-ordinated international approach to deal with this problem while recognizing that the sovereign interest of states must be respected.

An important recent meeting was the 1994 UN ministerial conference on organized transnational crime held in Naples. At that session a political declaration and global plan of action on organized crime was produced. This document has served as a framework for future multilateral activity in this area, some of which I will now describe.

At the Halifax summit of 1995, on the initiative of the Canadian government, the G-8 heads of state created an experts group on transnational organized crime, now called the Lyon Group. The Lyon Group has produced 40 recommendations on fostering closer co-operative legal assistance, law enforcement and other efforts to address the problem. This was followed by a meeting of G-8 justice and interior ministers on high tech crime in December 1997, a video conference of the G-8 ministers of justice and interior in December 1998, and most recently a meeting of G-8 ministers in Moscow on October 19 and 20 of this year where discussions focused on financial crime, high tech crime and illegal immigration.

The relationship between the Canadian and the United States governments and their agencies in combating organized crime is very important given the economic and cultural ties that we and our neighbours share. We share the same North American space and many of the same interests in combating transborder and transnational crime.

In February 1997, on the initiative of the Solicitor General of Canada and the Attorney General of the United States, it was agreed that Canada and the United States would form the Canada-United States cross-border crime forum. This agreement was reinforced by the commitment of the Prime Minister and President Clinton in April 1997 to form a bi-national body on criminal justice issues.

The Canadian group is comprised of officials from the Department of the Solicitor General, which co-chairs the forum with the U.S. Justice Department, the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Correctional Service Canada, Revenue Canada, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration, Foreign Affairs, the Department of Finance, as well as representatives from provincial governments, including Quebec, and our police forces.

The U.S. group is comprised of U.S. attorneys, officials from the FBI, the DEA, the U.S. Marshalls Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Customs, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service and regional and state officials.

The first full meeting of the cross-border crime forum took place in Ottawa in October 1997. The forum met again in Washington on May 21, 1998. The most recent meeting of the forum was in June of this year in Prince Edward Island.

The forum provides a regular opportunity for officials from Canada and the United States to discuss transnational crime problems and strategies to improve operational and policy co-operation and co-ordination. The work of officials through the forum's subgroups on intelligence, enforcement, prosecutions and telemarketing fraud is ongoing.

Bi-national strategies and threat assessments have been developed and continue to be refined. Officials are also evaluating current priorities and examining practices and legislation on both sides of the border to support co-operation at the national level, as well as regionally and locally in communities where border crime is a serious public safety concern.

The next meeting of the forum is to take place in May or June 2000 in the United States.

Still looking at the Americas, the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions participated on behalf of the solicitor general at a ministerial level conference on money laundering held in Buenos Aires in December 1995. The conference produced an action plan on how to deal with money laundering in the Americas in terms of strengthening law enforcement, regulatory and legal measures. The action plan is an important marker for efforts in this hemisphere to combat organized crime.

I would also note Canada's activities in the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission, or CICAD as it is known by its Spanish acronym, of the Organization of American States. The focus of the commission is to address drug abuse and trafficking within the Americas, as well as related activities such as money laundering.

The Deputy Solicitor General of Canada was elected chair of CICAD's multilateral evaluation and monitoring working group at the May 1998 meeting of CICAD in Washington, D.C. This working group has developed a framework to evaluate member states' anti-drug efforts, which was completed at a meeting held August 31 to September 2 of this year.

Canada, as a member of the G-7 countries, was a founding member of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, the FATF. This task force was created at the G-7 summit held in Paris in 1989 to consider whatever measures were deemed necessary to eliminate money laundering and to develop international standards in this area.

The FATF released a report including 40 recommendations to fight money laundering, which are now considered model measures to be taken at the national and the international levels to put a stop to money laundering.

These recommendations were reviewed in 1996 to reflect the new patterns and the countermeasures taken in this area, like money laundering on the Internet.

The FATF now brings together 28 member states representing the main financial centres of the world.

Canada is also a collaborative and supportive member of the CFATF, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force, a sister organization of the FATF.

The group members are committed to promoting and implementing the 40 FATF recommendations.

I mentioned the United Nations in my earlier comments. Canada is an active participant on crime issues in the United Nations and its specialized commissions, in particular the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.

A convention on transnational organized crime is being negotiated now in the UN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Commission. The work on this convention will have an impact on Canada's domestic policies and programs. Canada must be ready to meet its obligations and governments must take account of this.

At the same time, the convention will provide general tools for law enforcement and legal assistance among countries at the international level. It is expected that the convention will be adopted by the Millennium United Nations General Assembly in the year 2000.

A comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to combating organized crime nationally is essential to make Canada an effective international partner.

The main objectives of Canada's international activities are to promote Canadian values and policies while building a strong network for practical co-operation.

In this exercise, it is important that the federal government works in partnership with the provinces and territories, and with the communities across the country. We must ensure that our domestic arrangements and our international arrangements are compatible and support each other.

[Witness Protection Program Act, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am please to have the opportunity to address Bill C-223, an act to amend the witness protection program. I acknowledge the initiative of the member for Prince George—Peace River in bringing the issue before the House for consideration.

The bill seeks to address the protection of spousal abuse victims under the witness protection program. There is no doubt that the victims of spousal abuse are in an extremely difficult and sometimes even life threatening situation.

As all of us are aware most of the victims are women. Often their children are involved as well. Addressing their needs and ensuring their safety have involved many agencies in our communities: government and social services, law enforcement, and as voluntary and non-profit organizations.

While the federal government has an important role to play in this regard, it is my view that the safety of victims of spousal abuse will not be improved by going forward with the measures under Bill C-223 at this time.

In order to explain why Bill C-223 is not the right initiative let me first say a few words about the Canadian witness protection program. The program is managed by our national police force, the RCMP. It has become an important weapon in the law enforcement arsenal of investigative techniques. Its primary use has been to protect witnesses who may be at risk because they assisted with police investigations.

When it was formalized into legislation in 1996, it was enacted as a federal government initiative in partnership with provincial and territorial governments and law enforcement organizations to combat organized crime. Historically witness protection programs are most closely associated with the investigation of organized crime. As most of us know, organized crime covers a broad range of criminal activity, including large scale drug trafficking, murder, serious assault, money laundering and extortion, and robbery. As often as not, these crimes go hand in hand with the use of fear and intimidation to ensure the silence of potential witnesses and informants.

However, witness protection today has a broader application. A disturbing trend in recent years has been the use of fear and intimidation by lone criminals. These people are willing to go to any length to avoid conviction or to extract retribution from witnesses. As a consequence there are a growing number of people who need protection as a result of their roles in cases that have nothing to do with organized crime.

To deal with this growing need for witness and informant protection in response to the increased enforcement priority placed on fighting major national and international drug trafficking organizations, the RCMP source witness protection program was started in 1984. It was the forerunner of the legislative program now in place.

The current program offers protective services to provincial and municipal police forces across Canada. While many of these police forces rely entirely on the RCMP for witness protection services, some of the larger police departments also have their own witness protection initiatives. Obviously not every witness qualifies for witness protection despite numerous serious assaults that take place in Canada each year. The RCMP and other police forces must exercise care and good judgment when deciding who is eligible for witness protection and who is not.

Over the years witness protection programs of the RCMP and other police departments have become highly effective enforcement tools against criminals who previously were able to use threats and violence against witnesses as a means to avoid prosecution and conviction. Witnesses and informants who assist the police are an invaluable asset to the criminal justice system and in many cases their testimony cannot be replaced by any other investigative means.

This is especially true in drug enforcement. Here the availability of the RCMP witness protection program has prompted informants and witnesses to come forward to assist the police and to testify in court against major national and international drug traffickers. These witnesses have provided crucial firsthand information to further investigations which otherwise would have been obtained at considerable cost in police resources, human or otherwise, or not at all.

Major police investigations often require the police to use a wide variety of investigative techniques. A witness protection program is one of the most sensitive of these techniques. Witness protection is not a cure for violent crime or organized crime, but it is an important tool that is being used for law enforcement investigations, one that has been of major help to police in fighting organized and serious crime in Canada. For that reason I do not think the special needs of the victims of family violence would best be addressed by simply tacking spousal safety measures on to this law enforcement program as suggested by Bill C-223.

Family violence is more than just a law enforcement issue. While enforcement certainly plays a role in addressing the problem, family violence is a problem that Canadians have also addressed through social services such as counselling to ensure the well-being of spousal abuse victims and their families. A response of this kind is not within the normal domain of a police administered witness protection program.

The federal government currently addresses family violence through a number of programs in place. In addition, the national strategy on community safety and crime prevention has funded several community programs to address the problem. The federal government has renewed its commitment to reduce family violence in Canada. The family violence initiative promotes public awareness of the risk factors of family violence and the need for public involvement in responding to it.

The initiative has strengthened the ability of the criminal justice system and the housing system to respond. It supports data collection and research and evaluation efforts to identify effective interventions. It is an initiative that marks a new stage in federal efforts to reduce family violence. The issue of family violence has been integrated into ongoing programs in many government departments. We have learned that the best way to address family violence is to support a common vision and a co-ordinated approach.

This does not mean, of course, that we can ignore the very real security issues that arise in spousal abuse situations. These issues must be addressed as part of a co-ordinated approach.

I am pleased to say that there is, in fact, a national initiative in place to assist certain spousal abuse victims. It has been developed with provincial and territorial partners under the leadership and co-ordination of Human Resources Development Canada. The initiative is called the “New Identities Program” and it is for victims of life threatening relationships.

This initiative allows a chance for abused spouses and their children to start new lives in greater safety and security. Various measures taken under this process are designed to help remove those at risk from the access of their abusers and to ensure that their safety and security is maintained. It is, of course, a measure of last resort, since removal of the victims can create hardships on the victims themselves. It is only used in exceptional cases where other safety measures have been or will be inadequate.

Our present day responses to spousal abuse can always be improved, but I believe that the specific measures under Bill C-223 are not the best way to do this. While the proposals in Bill C-223 may appear to offer a response to the immediate security concerns of spousal abuse victims, it may not best serve their interests when there are other more appropriate and viable alternatives possible. These alternatives, which build on what is already in place, must be pursued.

Among the possible alternatives is that some future connection to the witness protection program may be considered. However, the various alternatives must be fully evaluated together and should be allowed to evolve out of the current spousal security measures.

We should not predetermine a single choice and implement it through an unco-ordinated mingling of different initiatives. Let us not forget the role of the provinces and territories in this matter. Providing support for victims of family violence includes important elements falling under provincial jurisdiction.

Provincial consultation and co-ordination are absolutely vital to the success of additional efforts in this area. Of course, we also cannot forget the needs and concerns of those who would be directly affected, the family violence victims themselves. Establishing a new identity is only part of the solution and it cannot be considered separately from other needs.

Human Resources Development Canada is taking steps to improve the new identities program. It has established a working group that includes the provinces and territories to examine possible changes and suggested improvements in consultation with victims' groups.

The federal government is seeking to improve Canada's response to family violence. We do that through our family violence initiative. We do it through our national strategy on community safety and crime prevention and we do it through what Human Resources Development Canada is doing right now.

I believe our best option is to let existing programs and processes continue their excellent work. We should support those efforts currently under way.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 26th, 1999]

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its 1995 concluding observations to Canada's first report under the Convention on the Rights of the Child expressed its concern that sufficient attention had not been paid to the establishment of a permanent monitoring mechanism that would enable an effective system of implementation of the convention in all parts of the country. Since that time the Government of Canada has funded the development of a monitoring mechanism by the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children. Since the monitoring project began in February 1996 a growing number of organizations and individuals have contributed their knowledge and ideas. As a result the monitoring framework continues to evolve.

The mandate of the coalition is to ensure a collective voice for Canadian organizations and youth concerned with the rights of children as described in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the World Summit for Children Declaration. Information on this project can be found at the following website: http://www.cfc-efc.ca/ccrc/monitor.htm

The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children may also be reached at Suite 339, 180 Argyle Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 1B7, or at telephone number [phone].