Paul Forseth

[Justice, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that is a predictable answer, again a legal vacuum from this Liberal government.

Disabled groups fear this new loophole in the law will take Canada down a slippery slope of devalued life. What does the minister say to the disabled who are now in fear? What is the minister going to do to protect the helpless and also provide a meaningful Criminal Code?

[Justice, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Yesterday in Saskatchewan the judge bypassed the law of Parliament saying in the Latimer case that Canada's murder laws are all wrong. The situation begs some signal of intent from the justice minister. Does the Criminal Code have meaning or do judges just select terms to their liking?

What legislative action is the minister contemplating in view of what the judge has done to the Criminal Code in his Latimer decision?

[Organized Crime, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to respond to the minister's statement today on behalf of average Canadians from the official opposition.

In his opening remarks the solicitor general stated that organized crime is big business and it is bad business. I agree.

Gang business is far from simply riding around on loud, outrageous motorcycles. It is about the almighty dollar and finding the most direct way of getting lots of it, whether it is being done legally or illegally. In almost every case the fastest way is the illegal way, drugs, theft, prostitution and business scams.

Earlier this month, the 10 month undercover police sting at Edmonton led to 51 drug trafficking, possession and conspiracy charges against 10 gang members. This is what the police seized: $800,000 worth of property including two homes, one worth $350,000 and the other $300,000, four motorcycles, a Lamborghini sports car, several firearms, not registered I suppose, TVs and a great deal of cash, well into the thousands. This is no small town operation.

The minister is also right when he states that this issue is of great concern to all Canadians. Canadians really fear for their safety. Organized crime affects each and every Canadian. It is not something that is untouched or does not affect the local community. With the continued operation of the notorious biker gangs, each and every one of us sitting in the House is at risk. Our families are at risk.

A couple of weeks ago in Quebec a man who was linked to the Hell's Angels was gunned down in a restaurant. Then a couple of days later a gang sympathizer was discovered dead in the trunk of a car. Gang wars in Quebec are out of control. Edmonton is another city that is starting to feel similar pressures. The violence is absolutely unacceptable. Since 1989 there have been well over 65 gang related homicides in Quebec alone.

I was astounded to learn the number of gang members there are in Canada. According to Staff Sergeant Jean-Pierre Levesque who is with the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada there are about 1,200 gang members in total in Canada formally recognized. However, if we count friends, connections, business associates, the number may be as high as 12,000.

In addition, according to Interpol there are close to 95 chapters of the Hell's Angels operating in 16 different countries around the world. To say they are well connected would definitely be an understatement.

Almost daily there are news stories directly related to gangs. Canadians are concerned. They want solutions and, most important, they want solutions that are going to work.

Today the solicitor general trumpeted the government's record. This government has had over four years to correct the flaws of the justice system but all it did was often tinker with it. I do not think the government should be too proud today. It should perhaps apologize to Canadians for not doing enough. It has had enough time.

The power to implement change was there to use. It had complete majority governments, but all it did was sit on its hands and hope that everything would get better, until the cries could not be stemmed anymore.

In the solicitor general's statement he said that his government listened to the police and passed tough, comprehensive gang legislation: “Anti-gang legislation is being used right now. Arrests and seizures regularly make headlines. We are monitoring its implementation. I will provide a status report in the next year's statement on organized crime”.

I can honestly say that I eagerly await next year's statement. I want the minister to stand up and say how gang violence has dramatically dropped from one date to the next. It is the government's administration and its responsibility. I want the minister to say at that time that his new legislation has not been overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada because it infringed on the charter of rights and freedoms.

On November 2 of this year gang member Ettore Sabastiani was apparently the first person to be convicted using the new law. He was sentenced to five years in prison. The solicitor general may be proud of his headlines, but he cannot be proud of what is in the article. Two of the headlines surrounding this story were: “Gang member first convicted under new law” in the Ottawa Sun ; and “Sabastiani sentence believed to be the first convicted under the new anti-gang legislation” from the Kingston Whig Standard . But here is where the minister's happiness perhaps ends. I want to read two clips, first from the Sun article and the second from the Whig Standard :

But Friday, Sabastiani tried to withdraw his plea to the anti-gang charge. He lawyer, Wayne King, argued that the law violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it is too vague, too broad and contradicts the provisions for freedom of association.

The next quote:

If Sabastiani had not plead guilty, a constitutional challenge would have likely been allowed and may still happen in other cases. The legislation has a good chance of being struck down if it is challenged, said King.

The Kingston Whig Standard had similar words:

Queen's law professor Don Stewart agrees with King. He said in an interview yesterday that it's a bad piece of legislation because it is so loose that it is ripe for misuse and ineffective against organized crime. It was drafted in great haste—to get votes in Quebec where there was concern of the Rock Machine and the Hell's Angels—it's a very bad piece of legislation. The law is likely to be challenged under the charter as too vague, too broad.

Bringing forward legislation should never be done just for short term political purposes. It should be done for the well-being of all Canadians, for the long term vision of a great society.

Reform supported the organized crime bill in the last Parliament because there was need for something to take place. The bill was a start in providing the necessary tools for law enforcement. But the questions we asked then are the same as we are asking today. Is the law constitutionally sound? Ten months ago was the time to make the changes. It may now be too late.

So, like the minister, I want to see an immediate stop to organized crime. I also want to see laws that will withstand the supreme court challenges. When is the government going to understand that a major overhaul of the justice system is needed?

Ministerial statements are fine, but ministerial action is preferred. The longer the government waits to act, the worse our streets will become.

The solicitor general has made his statement. He is directly responsible for the administration of federal prisons. Yet organized crime flourishes in our prisons and he has been unable to respond to it. We hope that on this score he will clean up the backlog of union grievances and fully support his staff to rid us of organized crime in federal jails.

Since the second world war we have had many years of Liberal governments. With that backdrop of a history of administration, the government must more fully accept its responsibility for where we are today in society.

There are broad sociological reasons for the success of organized crime. Some of it has to do with the general legal and economic culture which the government is creating.

When economic prospects are dim, young people are more easily preyed upon to become involved in street level crime supervised by the organized crime bosses. When tax policy kills the spirit, the sinister elements can more easily get a foothold. When governments in the past have erected unreasonably high differentials between the U.S. and Canada, unnecessary economic incentives are created for the perverse to arise. Capacity creates its own demand.

Historically the Liberals have been very soft on crime. We are pleased when we can get the government to move substantively rather than just in a cosmetic fashion. If the government can gather courage and do what is right rather than just what is politically convenient, we will certainly support those efforts. Sadly, how many times in the House has the general debate gone on about some crime measure?

On our side after looking at the bill, we are calling for more substance, a more comprehensive approach, a more thorough job than just tentative measures.

The most recent example was the DNA evidence collection bill. It is good as far as it goes, but here again it stops far short of what is needed.

These are the broad societal reasons for the success of organized crime. The government has to accept a share of the blame for the context of the culture it has created for organized crime to flourish. If it could learn those lessons, then the courses of action would become evident.

Everything that we have brought to this House on the economy was helpful in fighting organized crime. One of the biggest crime prevention strategies is low unemployment.

I applaud the minister for anything he can do on this file. He is now committed to an annual statement. It is hoped that he will be able to measure how the government's rather haphazard administration of public affairs is successfully responding to this challenge which will be measured from year to year.

The vision for the national voyage must be based upon honesty, competence and real leadership. May the legislation that flows from the government statement be honestly presented. May the government administer with the highest of standards guided by real accountability measures. The annual statement may form a bit of an accountability measure.

May the government gather some courage to legislate against crime and to lead, for whatever increases hope will also exalt courage. If the government faints from these principles, the nation knows that we on this side of the House are more than ready.

[Criminal Code, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would have liked to have heard more positive comments than what I got to hear. I think the parliamentary secretary for the government is sadly misled.

When I was talking about deterrents, it was not the main issue. Identification and prevention are. The resistance to what I am proposing flies in the face, I think, of what average Canadians want from Parliament. The Liberals are out of touch on this issue and of course the NDP are not even in the game.

The arguments advanced against this are completely fallacious. What we get with it is a condescending attitude that frustrates the public will. That is absolutely incredible.

The NDP then come along and talk about root causes and insult the poor and associate poverty with root causes of prostitution. We have to think about that combination of where it keeps coming from. Round and round we have heard the arguments now and enough of the basis of the general arguments of why we are in Canada today where we are. The representative arguments that we have heard in the last hour are reflective of years and years of hand-wringing and doing absolutely nothing. The public has heard enough. I do not think we need to hear any more that we cannot do anything.

I am going to summarize clearly that there are broad societal reasons why we should do this. We need to do it on behalf of local communities and on behalf of victims. Whether it is those who get trapped into the lifestyle or the community that is the victim, we need to act.

Administratively, we also need to provide more flexible tools for the police so that they may exercise discretion in dealing with local variances and emerging problems. Moreover, we need to narrow the door that permits kids from getting involved in prostitution in the first place and have another legal way to get them into social services.

My bill is a small technical amendment which could help victims and bring safety to our neighbourhoods and bring a change which has been both recommended by national consultation and by local police forces. I wanted to see more common sense and support for this idea. The people of the country are watching.

We went to a committee and this bill was deemed non-votable, which is really an offence. In any case, we have covered the arguments and the people listening will be able to hear. However, I want the members of this House to pay attention to what I am about to move and not make a mistake. It is important that this issue be debated fully. Therefore, I appeal to the members of this House for unanimous consent to move:

That Bill C-206 be withdrawn, the order for second reading discharged and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[Criminal Code, November 25th, 1997]

moved that Bill C-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, my private member's bill is deceptively simple. It in itself is a minor technical point in the Criminal Code, but it is my belief that the clarity and improvement it makes can bring a significant positive result, for communities to take back their streets, for local merchants to have their sidewalks back again and for parents to renew their confidence in the safety of local school yards.

My bill amends section 213 of the Criminal Code to change the available upper penalty but more importantly the kind of process available against a person charged with talking in a public place about buying or selling sex. It changes the street prostitution section.

In Canada it is a Criminal Code offence, a crime to try and sell or buy sex, prostitution in a public place such as a street corner, a taxi cab, a bar, a pub, or the lobby of a hotel. That is the law. We have had the national conversation about whether that kind of activity should be controlled by criminal sanction, and it is a crime. It is also a crime to live off the avails of prostitution, to be a helper or employer to benefit from the trade, or to keep a place of prostitution. Of course involving juveniles is a very serious crime.

However the private act of prostitution itself is not a crime. I do not know why it is not a crime as the history of abuse, exploitation and degradation associated with those who tend to become sex trade workers appears to be condoned in a double standard. However that is a completely different debate and is beyond the scope of what I am trying to do today. I have observed that what is helpful procedure is to more directly respond to the street trade in prostitution.

We have a social problem in our society for if there were no buyers there would be no sellers. That is a societal problem. Nevertheless mitigating against exploitation is historically the Canadian way. We must provide the legal symbols which provide the appropriate social context for citizens to voluntarily do the right thing while we defend the helpless and minister to them rather than allow them to be exploited.

My proposed change is important for broad societal reasons. There is also a national problem of street prostitution across this country that did not exist in such a pervasive manner just a few years ago. However since the advent of the charter and also the repeal of vagrancy laws, the legal capacity has created its own demand. Whenever we create a loophole for the perverse, the legal vacuum will soon be filled.

Street prostitution goes far beyond just being a local nuisance. Wherever it takes a foothold, the surrounding communities soon learn that the drug crowd follows, as does breaking and entering, theft from cars and an attraction of those with criminal histories becomes entangled in the culture of the street. These trends develop wherever prostitution is openly traded.

Mothers do not appreciate walking their children to school over needles and condoms along the school yard fence. Merchants should not have to patrol their front sidewalk and doorways cleaning up from the night trade.

However the fundamental point I observed as a probation officer before I came to this Parliament attempting to bring social services to bear to individuals caught up in this sad cycle is that street prostitution itself is the wide open door for the young to become involved. Runaway children can so easily stand on a street corner and get involved in prostitution as a way to support themselves on the street. The wide open door and the legal and social tolerance of street prostitution is a major source of the national problem, how it is fed and kept going.

My experience in attempting to help young people in conflict with the law and those who are on the street made me acutely aware of how the summary conviction status of communication for prostitution was so much in conflict with all of our concern and expenditure to help street kids and preserve the peace and safety of our neighbourhoods.

Politicians of the Liberal government side have in the past been very sanctimonious about juveniles and prostitution. NDP members also talk about the awful violence against sex trade workers and claim to be concerned about children on the street. Yet historically they have resisted suggestions to mitigate against allowing kids to be on the street and supporting themselves through the sex trade.

This is not a new problem, yet today we in Parliament after years of talk are still dithering about this matter. The justice minister said to me just a few days ago that consultations are still continuing and that any legislation will be “done right”. That is the same put off and delaying answer I received from the previous justice minister back in 1994. And the Conservatives were no better in that there were reports and plenty of consultation but during their tenure the whole prostitution file was not effectively dealt with. Even worse, the NDP has appeared to support prostitution itself through its advocacy of what it affectionately calls street trade workers. I think the NDP would like to unionize them.

I come from a different perspective, one that is rather pragmatic. We may not like prostitution in society. We also may not like the overwhelming violation of rights it might take to eliminate most of it. Nevertheless, as parliamentarians we also do not need to pave a golden street for the sex trade to flourish. Therefore as an interim measure we need to pass my bill so we can get on with the more important comprehensive measures that the government claims it is considering and that the justice department has been studying for years.

Prostitution is exploitive and a lot of other crime and degradation seems to go with it, especially all of what is commonly known about the drug trade and drug abuse. All these tragedies are tied together, so there are practical reasons to have the public communications section of the code made as flexible as possible in its application.

The police are also using section 503 of the code to issue what is called no go orders to keep repetitious, obnoxious and aggressive prostitutes who are leading the trade and shepherding others into the trade to be subject to geographic prohibitions of not entering into common strolls. If the recognizance is breached, that becomes an offence and is easier to enforce that gathering new evidence under section 213 every time. However these restrictions are time limited and are tied to the process of other charges so they are of limited value.

Although section 213 is gender neutral, gathering evidence against buyers is difficult. Police are unlikely to assign much of their precious police time resources to suppress a problem if the offence is only a summary one and after the expenditure of thousands of dollars in enforcement routines only results in a few charges and nets the perpetrators a $100 fine which becomes just another nuisance cost of doing the job.

Flexibility rather than just a heavy-handed approach is what I am promoting. The change would allow, if needed, to fingerprint and photograph if some cases were proceeded with through the optional indictment process. It would be used as needed and would form part of a broader tool kit of resources that would support crime prevention objectives. It would greatly enhance breaking the cycle of lifestyle for some youths and more effectively get them into community remedial programs.

We must have the political courage to intervene so that the inherent discretion that lies throughout the system can flexibly respond to the individual need.

In the 1995 interim report of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Prostitution, the results of national consultations indicated several recommendations to combat prostitution, one of them being to change section 213. The deputy minister of justice established the working group in 1992 from the federal, provincial and territorial governments. With regard to the recommendation, the most important factor for change was not to punish prostitutes but rather for identification purposes. In many cases, prostitutes use false identification.

The Identification of Criminals Act states that fingerprints and photographs cannot be taken when a person is charged summarily. With fingerprints and photographs, police would be able to track down runaways and to clear the backlog of outstanding arrest warrants of prostitutes who have used false identities. It would also solve some serious crimes. It would send a most necessary and needed message to the community, to both the customers and sellers, that such acts are not to be taken lightly and they are not in society's interest.

The response from the working group stated that identification of prostitutes along with the use of false identities was considered a serious problem by law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, one which might be solved with such amendments. The ability to fingerprint and photograph would make it easier to identify and prosecute repeat offenders.

Something most people are not aware of is the fact that many street prostitutes are runaways living under false names and identities. They become involved and perhaps trapped in a dangerous subculture. Parents of these children desperately want to find a way of tracing their child's whereabouts but because of false identities little can be done. They desperately want to find a way to bring their children home.

The research that has been done on street prostitution suggests that decisions to enter into the prostitution trade are decided in the time of youth. In fact in 1984 the Badgley Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youth found that of all the prostitutes interviewed, 93% of females and 97% of males had run away from home. In another report in a 1990 journal of Canada's Mental Health , authors Earls and David found that the average age of female prostitutes leaving home was 13.7 years.

People who support the sex trade say that it is really not a big problem and that politicians are just blowing it out of proportion, but here are three comments from those affected by street prostitution. The first is from a Vancouver resident, the second by a Toronto resident and the third from the former mayor of Toronto and current minister of defence.

First: “When prostitutes operate openly in a neighbourhood, all women in the area become targets for cruising johns in cars or on foot. Soon every female from 8 to 60, from your daughter to your mother, will have been on the receiving end of some sort of disgusting advance from a stranger while walking to the store or playing in the park”.

The second quote: “My apartment has become a refuge from streets which become enemy territory every night, streets where I am approached by drug traffickers, accosted by cruising johns and insulted by hookers; streets where menacing groups of young people take over the corners to haggle over drug prices and yell out to people in passing cars”.

Appearing before a parliamentary committee in 1989, the current minister of defence stated: “I support these changes to Bill C-49 as well as other recommendations our police are putting forward to help us once again regain control of our streets, namely that this offence be changed from a summary offence to a hybrid offence requiring that those arrested be fingerprinted and photographed, which is important in dealing with runaways who can change their identities and their names, and others who are trying to avoid prosecution, and that it remains, in addition to that, within the absolute jurisdiction of a provincial court judge”.

The minister of defence clearly stated that such a small change to the Criminal Code could make a huge difference in the fight against street prostitution. I hope he will be a man of principle and lean on his cabinet colleagues to help me so that we can all do the right thing.

In 1995 the Minister of Justice introduced an omnibus bill that touched on the Criminal Code changes to prostitution. Unfortunately, section 213 was not changed but still today communication offences are mere fines and slaps on the wrist.

Street prostitutes are not afraid of getting caught, nor are they deterred in any way to give up this dark and sad way of living.

In summary, I advocate the passage of my bill for several broad reasons. There are symbolic sociological and national policy reasons why we should do this. Also on behalf of local communities most effected, they are aghast at the lack of action to preserve the safety of their neighbourhoods. We can do it for them.

Important, on behalf of victims, whether it is those who get trapped in the lifestyle or the community as victim, we need to act. Administratively we also need to provide more flexible tools for the police so they may exercise discretion in dealing with local variances and emerging problems.

Moreover, we need to narrow the door that permits kids from getting involved in prostitution in the first place and have another legal way to get them into social services.

In closing, I ask other members of this House to not obfuscate and confuse what I am talking about, get off track and start talking about the generalities of prostitution in society or violence against women or developing legalized brothels or any number of related topics not appropriate to wind into the narrow proposal I brought forward today.

My bill is a small technical amendment which could help victims and bring safety to our neighbourhoods. I hope it will receive non-partisan support in that light. It is time for action. Our communities which have sent us here expect no less.

[Cancer, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, prostate cancer kills more men in Canada than any cancer except lung cancer. The treatment of the 20,000 men who are expected to be diagnosed with prostate cancer in Canada this year will cost our health care system approximately $300 million.

The medical community considers prostate cancer as the male equivalent of breast cancer. Their incidence and mortality rates are very similar. Both diseases are very serious and are analogous as both are hormonal.

The government promotes itself on gender equity. Perhaps it is time to rethink its definition of equal. Before allocating any money for medical research, I urge the government to base its decisions on scientific, measurable and transparent criteria. Fairness across the board is the only way.

[Parenting Arrangements, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion to establish a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate.

Last February a rather historic and public discussion ensued across the country on Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act. By the time the bill got to the Senate, alarm bells began to be heard in the community.

The groundswell was enormous and powerful. Public support for the Senate's actions to slow down and review Bill C-41 was profound and unprecedented. Public concern for fairness in the divorce law was strongly expressed.

We only have the motion today because the government was forced into a situation in order to get Bill C-41 passed in the last Parliament.

The government ignored the pleas of Canadians last time. Now that we have a committee we hope to make it work.

The government, in rushing the bill to passage, rushed the committee's work. In fact, public support for the position taken by the Senate surprised the government.

The dominant public wish and the one which most frequently and repeatedly was articulated was the wish that we in Parliament would return balance, fairness and equilibrium to the Divorce Act, to the practice of family law, to the courts and to the administration of justice.

I quote one letter written by Toronto lawyer Bruce Haines, Queen's counsel. He wrote in part:

For over thirty years I have practised family law in Ontario and during that time I have watched the development of the law and the dramatically changed social conditions which have not only seen a very high percentage of married women move into the work force in most every area but have also seen a significant narrowing of the income differentials between men and women. During that same period I have watched spousal social expectations change in that husbands have embraced a full participation in all aspects of family functions, particularly in the nurturing and raising of their children.

Changes to the divorce law have rarely kept pace with changing attitudes and, despite the gender neutral language of the Divorce Act, its actual implementation in the areas of child custody and child support has continued to be marked by an entrenched systemic gender bias that “mother knows best and father pays best”. The administration of justice does not treat spouses equally when it comes to assigning child custody. By and large, custody is almost always assigned to mothers and the most fathers can hope for is a generous access order. Where fathers interfere with custody orders they will ordinarily bear the full weight of the law while mothers who flaunt access orders will, by and large, receive judicial admonitions with usually little other consequence.

Section 16(10) of the Divorce Act requires courts to take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate contact of the child with each spouse. Practising family lawyers know that this section is almost never invoked.

—you have an opportunity to correct at least some of the mischief inherent in this deeply flawed legislation.

I urge—to reject Bill C-41 in its present form and to approach all of the issues on a remedial basis. In considering custody and child support, there is a need to restore greater balance between the rights of mothers and fathers. I have not ventured into other areas of family law where the similarly entrenched systemic gender biases seems to exist.

This was one of the many letters of the view that divorce legislation must be balanced and fair. That was widely held across the country by most Canadians, men and women.

Senators amended Bill C-41 and passed the amended bill on February 13, 1997. The House of Commons concurred with the amendments the next day. As part of the passage of Bill C-41, the government, in response to the concerns of senators and non-custodial parents, committed itself to studying the issues of custody and access. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada said:

—this government will take the steps necessary to introduce a motion in this session to establish a joint Senate-House of Commons committee to study issues related to custody and access under the Divorce Act. The government is offering this commitment in response to concerns raised by some senators on behalf of non-custodial parents, who believe that this issue should be re-examined.

Family issues are fundamental to our society. In the last election our party made a commitment to make families a priority. We said among other things that we made a commitment to the country to make families a priority and ensure that government policies and regulations are family friendly. We said that we would extend the $3,000 to $5,000 child care deduction to all parents including those who care for their children at home. We would increase the spousal amount from $5,380 to $7,900, levelling the field for parents who chose to stay at home to look after young children and help families to meet the needs of a more demanding economy.

We would help provinces and local governments ensure that deadbeat parents live up to their responsibility to support their children when families break down. We would ensure that agreements concerning access to children are respected an enforced. A zero tolerance policy would be enacted on family violence and we would crack down on child prostitution and child pornography.

We also said that we would make families a priority. I quote from our literature:

While the federal government has been catering to special interest groups, the voice of Canadian families in the policy debate has grown weaker and weaker. This has resulted in social and economic policies that undermine the security of Canadian families, causing unnecessary levels of stress, burnout, and financial hardship.

Family time is not a luxury. It is absolutely essential if we are to preserve health and happiness in our homes. It's time to make families a priority again.

For too long these issues of custody and access have been begging Parliamentary committee study. Witnesses related to the numerous and extensive problems in the areas of custody and access and the problems facing non-custodial parents. They also described many problems including parental alienation syndrome, commonly known as PAS, and false sexual abuse allegations in divorce and custody disputes.

The new payment guidelines of Bill C-41 sound good, but I have a letter from one parent who claims that the change has brought a loss to the children, a loss of relationship. He says in part:

As you may have gathered I am one of the so called non-custodial parents. I have paid my share of my children's expenses through child support payments for the past eleven years. Now the government has decided that I am really just a wallet for my kids—It seems to me that pressures have swung the pendulum all the way to the other side.

I am now having to pay so much to my ex and Revenue Canada that I will no longer be able to visit with my children or have them come to stay with me.

I think that when the law was enacted too much consideration was given to the custodial parents—and not enough to the non-custodial parents.

Again I tell you that this law has now made it so that this will be the last summer that I will be spending with my children and I don't anticipate visiting as often as I live 600 kilometres away. I just cannot afford the luxury and that is what the new law has made it.

I hope you understand what is happening and can do something about the law to make it fair.

Parental alienation syndrome is an effort by one parent, the custodial parent, to eliminate access between the children of divorce and their non-custodial parent. Elimination of access is often a significant indicator in an effort to alienate the non-custodial parent, eliminating access on a permanent basis.

Dr. Richard Gardner coined the term parental alienation syndrome to describe the process whereby one parent initiates the systematic vilification of the other parent by manipulation of the child with the intent of alienating the child from the other parent. The manipulation of time becomes the prime weapon in the hands of the alienator.

Parent alienation syndrome occurs when one parent is engaged in an attempt not merely to destroy the other parent and the other parent's relationship with the child but also to cause the child to join in the process. The child enters the dynamic becoming a weapon, a spokesperson, a co-combatant in the process.

Another problem is the use of false sexual abuse allegations in divorce and custody proceedings. The use of false allegations in divorce and custody proceedings has become epidemic in this country and it has been described as the weapon of choice in custodial disputes.

Of particular note is that these peculiar false allegations arise in the context of divorce and custody disputes. False allegations, as in the case Plesh v. Plesh, the trial judge, Mr. Justice Carr of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench in his 1992 judgment stated about an applicant “I conclude she never believed that their son had been abused, not when she reported the abuse and not now”.

These are only some of the many problems in the operation and application of the law with respect to custody and access.

In the last Parliament, former member of Parliament Daphne Jennings championed a grandparents' right private member's bill to extend better legal standing for grandparents in court contested custody cases.

On the issue of access, the 1995 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Gordon v. Goertz was significant. The issues for adjudication were custody access and contact between the child and non-custodial parent. In her reasons for judgment Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote “Important as contact with the non-custodial parent may be, it should be noted that not all experts agree on the weight to be given to such contact in assessing the best interests of children”. That statement and judgment caused a lot of anxiety and anguish to non-custodial parents across this land and caused many to ask Parliament to study the issues of custody and access.

As Mr. Haines pointed out earlier in the letter that I quoted “Marriage and society in general have moved toward joint parenting and joint responsibility for children. You may divorce your spouse, you don't divorce your kids”.

So too in many jurisdictions has divorce law moved toward joint or shared parenting. Some jurisdictions have even abandoned the antiquated term “custody” in favour of the modern term “parenting”. As a former divorce mediator, I have special awareness of these kinds of problems.

However, in 1991 the justice minister, then professor of law, wrote a discussion paper for the Alberta Advisory Council on Women's Issues entitled “Women and the Process of Constitutional Reform”. In this paper she argued that constitutional devolution of federal government powers to the provinces would give provincial governments control over the family, such as that certain proceedings in separation and divorce would fall under provincial jurisdiction by virtue of the provinces' power over property and civil rights. Such devolution, she believes, would result in joint custody after a divorce.

She apparently was not in support of it. She stated “If through constitutional reform, divorce became a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, provinces could legislate comprehensively in the area of the family. Some provincial legislatures may choose to impose a presumption of joint custody and require mandatory mediation in the resolution of family disputes”.

The minister also said “An increasing number of commentators now suggest that joint custody may simply perpetuate the influence and domination of men over the lives of women”. What an incredible statement.

The public's rejection of ideology in family law drove the public support for a second look at Bill C-41. Therefore I support the terms of the committee. The terms have been read out by the Speaker.

In general the courts typically deal somewhat acceptably with money, but they deal very poorly and handle with great difficulty custody, access and guardianship. The federal Divorce Act and similar provincial family court acts leave a messy jurisdictional problem within the area of family law. Therefore, the renewed parliamentary attention to outstanding issues on family law is welcome. Reformers recognize the fundamental importance of family to society and Reformers agree that changes to family law need to be addressed to ensure the rules are more family friendly.

We will certainly emphasize the need for such an issue to be raised in Parliament in order to raise the profile of the family and family issues as it clearly is a priority topic in the community. Consequently we will fully participate and will work to ensure reasonable cost in the conduct of the committee while we also ensure we have balanced deliberations.

[Dna Identification Act, November 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I have been given only a few minutes to make some quick observations about Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification. The bill would make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts and has been brought forward by the solicitor general.

In the last Parliament we passed provision 487 of the Criminal Code for obtaining a search warrant to seize a bodily substance for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. This was in respect of a limited list of offences to be used in the course of an investigation. I truly hope that this bill fully extends and complements those provisions.

The bill establishes a national databank for DNA profiles, containing a crime scene index and a convicted offenders' index, including samples derived from some who are currently serving sentences.

Technology marches on. Twenty years ago no one would have guessed that we would be capable of sending such a large amount of data through a telephone line. Today we can use e-mail and the Internet to talk. We can send information via e-mail and post data via the Internet with moving pictures. It seems now that instead of exchanging phone numbers we exchange e-mail addresses. Soon ordinary camera film and the old dedicated TV sets will also be obsolete.

I came across an article recently by Sheryl Mercer, who is a Toronto writer, which provided me with some insight into our history. She said that when it was introduced, fingerprint evidence caused as much controversy and furor as DNA is doing today. When photography was first introduced, people seriously questioned whether pictures could be used as evidence in a criminal case. Today it is commonplace to use security video camera evidence of a crime.

In 1908 an order in council sanctioned the use of fingerprints under the Identification of Criminals Act of 1898. Like the Internet and photography, fingerprinting was considered revolutionary.

The history of fingerprints is applicable to Bill C-3 and the whole issue of DNA and DNA banking.

Argentina was the first country to adopt fingerprinting. The country also was the first to solve a murder by fingerprint evidence. In 1892 Francesca Rojas murdered her two sons so that she could marry a lover. Her bloody fingerprint was left at the scene of the crime. After identifying the print as that of Rojas, she confessed to the murders.

In 1905 police inspector Edward Foster, a fingerprinting pioneer, was assigned to fingerprint prisoners at the Kingston penitentiary. The project was scrapped because of a lack of funding and political will.

It is noteworthy that Foster's revolutionary work was even scoffed at by politicians of the day. In 1910 a prisoner, Joe Chartrand, escaped from Kingston. Chartrand, a cop killer, was soon captured. When the public heard that he had never been photographed and fingerprinted they were outraged at the callous inattention. The public was ahead of the politicians.

Soon after the Kingston escape, Edward Foster was promoted by the justice minister to be in charge of the new Canadian criminal identification bureau. The police created a Canadian fingerprint repository in 1911.

In 1914 Peter Daracatch and Gregory Parachique, who broke into a Canadian Pacific Railway station, were the first to be convicted in Canada based on fingerprint evidence.

In our time, in 1985, a British scientist discovered that certain sections of the body's genetic material found in DNA differentiated individuals from one another and today we are discussing whether Canada should have a national databank, containing DNA profiles of convicted offenders and unsolved crime scenes.

Through this century Canadians have wanted governments to do whatever they could to make our streets safer. We want incorrigibles behind bars. We need safer communities. We want efficient trials and fair justice administration which we can trust. However, people preoccupied with their version of human rights are up in arms over this type of legislation. They believe that the rights of some will be violated.

That is not the case in this instance. Nevertheless, striking the right balance among competing principles is very important. Unfortunately, instead of sincerely seeking that balance, Liberals too frequently find these situations requiring a kind of legislative courage not often found in their ranks. In our ranks we are looking for the complete normalization of DNA evidence without convoluted exceptions.

In 1988 the supreme court dealt with the privacy of fingerprinting. In his ruling, Justice La Forest stated “a person who is arrested on reasonable and probable grounds that he has committed a serious crime—must expect a significant loss of personal privacy”. La Forest also pointed out the purpose of setting up a fingerprint registry was to establish the identity and criminal record of the accused, to discover if there are outstanding warrants against the accused and to determine if the accused is an escapee.

The same can be said with DNA evidence. However, a 1994 supreme court ruling disagreed. The ruling stated that police had no lawful means to obtain a search warrant for the seizure of bodily substances for the purposes of DNA typing and that any such evidence was in jeopardy of being excluded at trial. It is hoped that Parliament's response to this problem, the new 487 clause in the Criminal Code, will endure all tests.

With a history of these references over, I want to speak specifically about Bill C-3. When we are elected as representatives, it is our duty to create legislation that is in accordance with the basic aspirations of Canadians.

I have travelled from coast to coast. I have talked to many groups, some who support the policies of the Reform Party and others who do not. Nevertheless, the general consensus is always the same. People say not to go half way against crime. People tell me that if we are going to create legislative capacity, not to tinker here and there, having only the appearance and form without operational substance. Be honest with Canadians. Do what is right rather than what seems to be convenient to the various competing voices.

Unfortunately it appears that Bill C-3 does not go the distance. The Liberals are afraid of going all the way. They are more concerned with the privacy rights of the accused and less concerned with innocent victims.

The bill does not contemplate the collection of DNA until after the accused is convicted. It is easy for the accused to skip bail and commit another crime. If further crimes are committed the chance of linking the crimes becomes a lot more difficult.

In the bill it is rightly an offence to use DNA samples for purposes other than those of the act. DNA obtained under the Criminal Code provision should not be used for medical research or other purposes not related to solving crime. Opponents of DNA banking should consider the relief it would bring to victims, such as if a rapist is convicted because of DNA based on perhaps charges of breaking and entry arising several years earlier. The improved certainty that DNA profiles can bring to the justice system is most welcomed.

Fingerprinting was once seen as intrusive on the privacy of individuals. So was taking a breath sample for impaired driving. I am certain the statistics are overwhelming of how many crimes have been solved using fingerprint evidence. There was a a long process to advance the technical and ethical context of fingerprinting. Need we go through the same things with DNA?

Simply put, a DNA sample should be collected from all persons accused of serious crimes in the same way that fingerprints are collected. Although the technical capacity is somewhat different, the ethical and legal issues are basically the same. The DNA profile should then remain on file for a indeterminate amount of time. If the accused is released from all charges, it should be his or her responsibility to appeal to have the record removed.

Why make a distinction between fingerprints and DNA profiles? Let us get on with it and have basically the same rules for DNA as there are for fingerprints. It took decades to sort out fingerprinting and taking breath samples for drunk driving. A lot of unnecessary pain and death occurred while lawyers resisted, argued, game played and ignored the public interest.

DNA not need go down the same winding road. The Reform Party supports amending the Criminal Code so that police can, on the basis of probable cause, demand DNA samples from suspects of serious crime. The government has created a very convoluted bill that will not technically work very well and all the permutations and the mistakes will eventually be revealed in the application. It is likely that Parliament will have to come back and fix the bill. The technocrats, of course, are understandably proud of their work and they will defend it. The real problem is the lack of political leadership and resolve from the Liberal cabinet.

In conclusion, we can learn from the past so that we can boldly go forward. The community expects no less. I am pleased that the government has finally addressed the topic of DNA. However, I had hoped for a much bolder approach. I have confidence that we have the legal talent in Canada to write a simple, ironclad law that works and appropriately balances individual and community concerns. I urge the government to have more resolve to respond to crime. May we work together to make Canada a safer place to live.

[Penitentiaries, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.

The pressure cooker of the Kingston prison is ready to blow: prisoners assault guards without fear of consequence, sue for compensation with 13 prison lawsuits claiming $23 million and guards disciplined if they do not keep the jail quiet. The result is hundreds of unsettled union grievances and perhaps even riots in the making.

Will the minister convince his colleague ministers of the need to take back control of these con run prisons and do what is right rather than what is convenient?

[Criminal Code, October 22nd, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-258, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review).

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for York South—Weston introduced a private member's bill which would repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code dealing with judicial reviews of a life sentence for murder.

Today I have the privilege of introducing a similar bill with one exception. It reads: “That the repeal of section 745 will not be retroactive”. Previous attempts at repealing this section raised constitutional argument. I think only bleeding hearts and murderers want this clause.

An original advocate of the clause no longer has a seat in this House. Warren Allmand is gone and so should section 745 of the Criminal Code.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)