Paul Forseth

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution).

Mr. Speaker, constituents of my riding are deeply concerned with the plaguing problem of street prostitution. They want the penalties made tougher in order to make control easier. They remember when the law was different and we did not have the pervasive street trade.

The way the Criminal Code reads now, public communication to obtain sexual services carries only a penalty of summary conviction. In most cases the offender is given a summons, like a traffic ticket, which brings a fine.

This bill will amend section 213 of the Criminal Code, making the penalty of communicating either an indictable offence with imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a summary conviction. It makes the section a hybrid or an electable offence.

The amendment will give the system a procedural option, something the police in my riding have been asking for. I urge the justice minister and all members of this House to strongly consider this vital improvement.

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

[Speech From The Throne, September 26th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I refer to my colleague's reference when he talked about public confidence in the court system. I recall that last year the member travelled the country and listened to average Canadians, especially around their lack of confidence in the Young Offenders Act.

I would like him to comment on what is the real mood in the community and what are the mainstream Canadian values that Canadians hold which seem to be somewhat different than what they actually get from the justice system. There seems to be a great gap between the mentality and the inside language and the inside operations of the justice system and where they are at and where the public is act. There is great dissatisfaction and the polls are showing that.

I would like the hon. member to comment on what he found when he travelled the country, the difference between what Canadians want and what they are actually getting from the justice system.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-65, in the Preamble, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 1 the following:

"conservation will be enhanced through an informed public wherein biological and socio-economic concerns are combined to achieve sustainable development with an environmental ethic,"

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-65, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 9 the following:

"(1.1) For greater certainty, for the purposes of subsection (1), "costs" include any cost to a person or organization incurred by way of a business loss suffered by virtue of the implementation of a program or measure for the conservation of wildlife species in respect of land owned by the organization or person."

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-65, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 9 with the following:

"program or measure and provide for written notice to the persons who will be directly affected by the program or measure."

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 21 with the following:

"technically, biologically and socio-economically feasible and"

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 22 with the following:

"(5) If the recovery of the wildlife species is technically, biologically and socio-economically feasible, the"

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-65, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 36 with the following:

"mentioned in subsection 60(3). The court shall take into consideration scientific and socio-economic concerns when granting any relief under this section."

[Military Bases, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I hear that the Minister of the Environment has also been to the U.S. to smile for the cameras.

The U.S. is refusing to pay the required $500 million in compensation for the clean-up but the deal it offers is for Canada to get a mere $100 million spread over 10 years if Canada agrees to purchase U.S. military hardware. Such a deal.

Is the Minister of the Environment also going to embarrass Canada just like the Prime Minister did? Will he defend his polluter

pay principle? Will the government respond to the report of the auditor general and clean up toxic dumps? Will he get the American polluters of these sites to pay their appropriate share?

[Military Bases, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just returned from a visit in Washington for the Kodak dinner.

The people of Canada want to know in between all the smiles and the hand shakes whether he happened to discuss why Canada is stuck with about a $500 million clean-up of the American mess of old military bases in Canada.

Regarding the Irving Whale barge raising or the Sydney tar ponds clean-up, why is it always that someone else leaves their garbage and yet it is the taxpayer who pays for the clean-up?

[Criminal Code, April 9th, 1997]

moved that Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trespass) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is definitely a privilege to begin the debate on my private member's Bill C-247 dealing with amending the Criminal Code with respect to trespassing. This is a time when the average Canadian gets to speak, for my measure comes from them.

In my three and a half years as a member of Parliament I have had only two bills drawn for debate. Unfortunately this is the way the old system works. I think every member will agree with me that it is difficult to bring a concern from the riding and change a statute based on that concern.

As the member for New Westminster-Burnaby, I have done much to bring concerns forward in order to make a difference in our community. After all, this is a large part of the job. Canadians count on each and every one of us to be fully accountable to their concerns. There is no question that Reform has been the most significant party that truly puts the constituent first. And while Reformers may be able to pat themselves on the back for this achievement, it is also sad to see in contrast how many Liberal and NDP MPs have treated their constituents.

In British Columbia the issue which seems to be on everyone's mind is criminal justice. British Columbians are completely fed up with the many loopholes in our statutes and what they provide.

Last month thousands protested in Vancouver when Clifford Olson issued a notice that he would seek parole through a section 745 hearing, probably one of the most significant loopholes in the Criminal Code. The Minister of Justice and local Vancouver Liberal MPs sloughed it off by saying "do not worry, Olson will not get paroled".

It is impossible for these bleeding heart Liberals to say he will not get out on parole because statistics clearly show that the accused usually has an excellent chance of being released early. The issue here is the symbolism of that offender. The symbolism that this offender can mock a community through our justice system is unacceptable.

Reformers are not going to give up the fight on section 745 and we are definitely not going to give up the fight in trying to cure the loophole disease, as I call it, that is plaguing the way justice is administered in this country.

I mentioned at the outset that I have had two private member's bills drawn in this Parliament. The other bill was Bill C-323 which dealt with amending the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Approximately two years ago a constituent approached me with a concern that a loophole in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was enabling violent offenders to be released from their commitment to pay civil court judgments. It was a loophole that was causing innocent victims unnecessary suffering.

Last year I saw an article in the Vancouver Province about a woman who was awarded $200,000 in damages for sexual abuse by her stepfather. Her stepfather was ordered after a civil court trial to make payments of $500 a month. According to the article, he made one full payment of $500, four payments of $100 and then filed for bankruptcy. He got off. It was easy. That was the end of it.

It was clear from my research and from speaking with constituents that a simple amendment to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act would eliminate the possibility for a person to use personal bankruptcy to escape from any owed damages awarded in civil court.

If we look at the way the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act reads, a bankrupt person cannot be relieved of paying, for example, any traffic fines, alimony or child maintenance payments, yet they can be relieved of paying damages for something like sexual assault, a great inconsistency. I found it amazing that no government had ever changed such a very simple clause.

After I introduced Bill C-323, the Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-5 which amended the section that my bill did. However, their amendment was fairly weak in content. What ensued were negotiations to have my private member's bill included in Bill C-5, which is now close to receiving royal assent.

The exercise proved not only that an individual MP can have a direct influence on how legislation is drafted, but it proved that MPs should be open to all concerns and suggestions brought forward to them by their constituents. In this rare instance the government listened and I also found a sympathetic minister.

That brings me to the discussion surrounding Bill C-247, what we are debating today. In coming up with my bankruptcy and insolvency bill one constituent contacted me to get me going down the road of investigation.

Now on the issue of trespassing I have received numerous complaints from police officers, regular patrons of shopping malls and public library workers. The complaint was the sheer frustration that persons are trespassing on property, causing a public disturbance and destroying a sense of community and livability for children and yet are unable to be removed for any significant amount of time.

We all know malls are popular places for youth to hang out. If members have teenage sons or daughters as I do, they will know that one of their favourite congregation points is the mall, usually the food court. Perhaps it is because there is food around or perhaps it is because there are tables to lounge on and places to sit.

The security personnel in the malls consistently have a difficult time in maintaining civility and the chief reason is that they have little if any authoritative jurisdiction. If the security staff of a mall is forced to remove a problem person, that individual can simply re-enter the mall within minutes and start the whole scenario all over again.

There is no place in the Criminal Code that states that the trespasser must stay off the property for any amount of time. The only way the person can be charged is by resisting removal from the property. Therefore, if the person never resists, the act could continue over and over, which in some cases it does as a specific plan.

Federal government officials too often forget that teenagers are extremely street smart. I served on the House Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs when we dealt with the Young Offenders Act. A witness wanted me to believe that most young offenders have no idea of the penalties they will receive if they commit a certain crime. At the time Reformers were calling for the YOA to be strengthened in order to deter young offenders from committing crime. Offenders seem all too aware of how soft the system is.

Before I became a member of Parliament I served as a court officer in the attorney general's ministry in British Columbia. I spent a great amount of time dealing on a one to one basis with young offenders. After a while one understands very clearly what they are thinking. Many offenders know exactly what they are doing when they calculate committing an offence. Many know exactly how to beat the system. If there is a loophole in the system a teenager will find it, and the word quickly travels the streets.

For the past three and a half years, Reformers have been attempting to amend the justice system by closing these loopholes one loophole at a time. I recently went on the Internet to see what I could find if I typed in the words "trespassing in Canada". Several items came up and most were of no use. One site did appear in the search, a CBC site for the television show "Street Cents," a show geared toward teenagers interested in consumer-based issues. The title of the site was "How does the law affect you in common, legal

situations, if arrested, kicked out of a mall, asked for ID or if someone is threatening to search a locker".

Whoever was doing the research for this question interviewed the Public Legal Education Society of Nova Scotia, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission and a Halifax lawyer. This is what was said at this site about trespassing in a mall or hangin' at the mall: "Provincial laws like the Protection of Property Act give mall owners and store owners the power to post signs like no loitering or only two persons at a time allowed in the store. The signs are a restriction on people's freedom of movement as defined by the charter of rights, but so far the charter's rules only apply to the federal government and federal institutions like the CBC.

"The Protection of Property Act gives property owners the power to control how their property may be used so long as they publicly post these conditions. No smoking rules are an example of how this power may be used.

"Provincial health and safety laws are responsible for a bunch of other sign restrictions like no bare feet, no pets you often see in malls. If you break any of these rules posted on signs it means mall security can simply usher you out of the mall and they don't need to give a reason. You're ushered and you're toast. It's a powerful statute.

"Some malls do not post signs forbidding loitering so hangin' out indefinitely may be just fine where you live, it depends. However, most provincial protection property laws, the dreaded P of P, do empower mall security to move on or forcibly remove persons who are in a mall and causing a disturbance. In the province of Nova Scotia the guard can even ban you from the mall or store from which you've been hurled for up to six months. It has happened. If you break the ban police can be called and you can be charged with trespassing. Heavy.

"In the case of young people swearing or physical horseplay, wrestling or hackie sac might be interpreted by some as causing a disturbance. There is a range of behaviour by individuals malls will tolerate. When it is groups of teens the range seems to narrow down. Some malls might even argue a large group of exuberant young people cause a disturbance to other customers or merchants just by their very presence. This is an area of common misunderstanding".

Every province seems to have a different way of dealing with trespassers. In British Columbia the trespassing laws are weak. Something has to be done with this most serious issue. With the provinces doing very little to remedy this situation, something should be done to amend the Criminal Code to provide a reasonable national standard of peace and order.

The amendments I have made in Bill C-247 would strengthen section 41 of the Criminal Code. Subsection 41(1) states:

Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

That is the law the way it is now.

I am proposing an amendment to section 41 of the Criminal Code, making it a mere summary conviction for a person who has already been lawfully removed from real property or a dwelling house not to be able to lawfully return for 24 hours. The reason for the 24 hours is to provide adequate time for the person to cool off. It is amazing how attitudes change in 24 hours.

Perhaps I could put my proposed legislation into a hypothetical situation. A teenager is removed from a shopping mall for offensive, rude, loud conduct. The teenager must then stay out of that shopping mall for a total of 24 hours. If that teenager decides to re-enter the mall within that 24 hours, he or she can be charged with trespassing on entrance and may be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. They would be issued a ticket, a summons to appear in court.

Additionally, as the section in the Criminal Code deals with a dwelling house, my amendment also deals with it. As a family court counsellor I was often made aware of domestic situations wherein disrupting behaviour which disturbed the peace for children in the household was a problematic situation.

For example, sometimes police are called to a residence to assist in the removal of a drunk, unwanted, former boyfriend of a young mother. Perhaps in this situation the matter is dealt with successfully by the officer on the scene, assisting in the removal of the person from the dwelling house. Subsequently, at the curb, the policeman may decide to release the individual, being that the temporary co-operation of the person appeared to have solved the situation. However, the offender may return some time later after having consumed more alcohol and start the process all over again.

In this case the perpetrator could temporarily co-operate in view of the officer. However, an hour later he might reappear at the door and start conversations or hassle again and again.

Legally the second or third appearance on the property is a separate event which would have to be dealt with by an attending officer as a legal, separate incident on a new complaint being made. My bill would solve that special set of circumstances and perhaps bring much peace into estranged domestic situations where restraining orders or no contact orders are not available or not workable.

General community order would more likely be provided if the perpetrator knew that he or she could be charged summarily if he or she reappeared on the property with 24 hours of being lawfully removed. The deterrent effect would be great and would likely

result in more non-justice system solutions with voluntary co-operation.

My amendment makes common sense, but of course I do not expect to get much help on that score from the House when the committee did not make my bill votable. I spoke yesterday, albeit briefly, on the general reputation of the government on the administration of justice. It just does not represent mainstream Canadian values on protecting the public.

I know that in this Parliament my bill will not see the light of day past this one hour. However, I hope that my Criminal Code amendment will be drawn to the attention of government lawyers in the Department of Justice whose jobs it is to make the criminal justice system more loophole free. I have personally drawn my private member's bill to the attention of the justice minister and so far I have had no response.

The bill is straightforward common sense. Its practical consequence is prevention at the street level, rather than enlarging the net. I hope this reasonable measure will find support in the House.

With the unanimous consent of the House, I would now like to move a motion. I move:

That my private member's bill be made a votable item.

Will the House accept my motion?

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I will venture forth some impromptu comments on this minor amendment to the code. It symbolically goes to the heart of the justice system and what the justice system is all about.

We as a society delegate to justice system specialists the handling of law and order. For instance, the development of police forces, the adversarial system, the concept of the burden of proof and of innocence until proven guilty are all evolutionary changes.

The justice system is now out of touch with Canadians. That delegated trust we have placed in the justice system is broken. As society values change so must the justice system change. It must reflect mainstream Canadian values. This is the point where residents of my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby are most cynical about the governance from Ottawa. They are not happy with the results delivered by the justice system. They look for answers and even provide their own common sense solutions which never seem to be listened to. They also look for who is minding the store and who is accountable for the poor results of the administration of justice.

The justice minister comes along and tries to soothe. However the Young Offenders Act and how young offenders are processed are not acceptable as far as the community is concerned. Violent offenders are still dealt with in a manner that fails to protect the community. It seems at times the whole community is hostage to an unresponsive system of weak law and weak federal government that does not have the courage to set a climate of justice and security for those who pay the bills and those whom the system is supposed to protect and serve.

With the climate of legal rights over citizenship and responsibilities to family and community, we have a government that continues to behave like many others before it. It failed to make the justice system accountable for the results it delivers. A system that once took its authority of delegation from the community fails to give due diligence to the reasonable desires of those it is supposed to serve.

The motion before us today is a small measure but is symbolic of what is needed. The justice system must serve the community and not the other way around. We must change the preoccupation of it being offender focused and make it more community focused.

When an offender is brought to court, through that delegation in effect the offender is brought before the Queen. The crown cannot fulfil its role when successive governments do not provide the laws or the appropriate social philosophy that truly delivers peace and order in our communities.

For example, section 745 of the Criminal Code should not exist. It has little support across the country. The more Canadians learn of

its absurdity and the workings of it, the more my community wants it repealed.

I have been on the front lines of endeavouring to administer the Young Offenders Act. I have been a parole office, a probation officer, a family court counsellor, a divorce mediator and an adviser to the courts. In a previous career I was in the middle of trying to balance the needs and rights of victims with the need to process offenders fairly within the limits and the bounds of law and community sentiment.

That experience and others are some of the things that motivate me to offer myself in service to the House, for the law that comes from the House sets the limits and the tone for the justice administered in the community. Therein lies the current conflict. Old fashioned parties based only on partial or limited democracy are completely out of touch.

In the main Canadians have a different view. They are correct. They are not misguided. In the final analysis the community knows best.

The Liberals therefore have a problem of the soul. The public has a basic view of the administration of criminal justice which is not being represented by the Liberal government. It does not represent mainstream Canadian values. The government is too slow to change.

Liberals are no longer the small r reformers that maybe they once were. They no longer represent the aspirations of average Canadians who expect the crown to protect them.

The motion today and perhaps the convoluted way in which we have come to this moment are evidence that the Liberals are not good administrators. They are quite lacking in being fundamentally capable of administering the country's affairs, the kind of governance Canadians so desperately want.

Canadians in my riding tell me they want a stronger, more protective justice system. They want a system that is not so offender focused. They want a system that facilitates personal deterrence and accountability for what offenders have actually done, not being able to blame everything else in society except themselves.

The guide must be taken from the good citizens of Canada. It is my commitment to my community to deliver more competent governance. We can be a safer and more just society and that is my commitment.

[Famex, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Mary Mercier and 16,000 other Canadians, I am protesting the use of the FAMEX survey by Statistics Canada. The intrusive content and threatening manner of the survey is objectionable to Canadians and violates our fundamental sense of fairness of what governments should do.

This survey certainly is unaccountable bureaucracy gone wrong. Such detailed information about one's personal income tax form, how much they spend on toilet paper in a whole year or how much interest they accumulate on their credit cards per year is of no business to a government collector.

Governments should not be threatening people with legal penalties for non co-operation to fill out a three hour long survey when the private sector can collect for itself what it needs from volunteers and then pay them for it.

Criminal legal sanctions of government should not be used to enable private market economy work.

I call on the minister responsible, if indeed there is one at this point, to ensure that Statistics Canada stop this objectionable survey which violates mainstream Canadian values.

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have been moved to make some brief comments in view of what I have heard about Bill C-71 in the House today.

One of the things I have heard is that the bill goes too far. No, the bill contains only a partial ban on tobacco advertising even though total bans have been adopted by some countries including Australia, New Zealand, France, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Italy.

The bill does not ban tobacco sponsorships even though the United States has adopted a law that will ban all tobacco sponsorship advertising effective August 28, 1998.

Then we hear the regulatory authority in the bill is too broad. The regulatory authority created by the bill is less than for products covered by the Hazardous Products Act, yet tobacco is much more dangerous. The nicotine patch is more strictly regulated under the Food and Drug Act than cigarettes will be under Bill C-71.

Then we hear events now sponsored by tobacco companies will have to be cancelled. The bill does not ban sponsorships, it only regulates the use of tobacco brand elements in sponsoring advertising.

Prominent former tobacco sponsorship recipients now have non-tobacco sponsors. In 1988, for example, the Royal Canadian Golf Association testified before a parliamentary committee that du Maurier could not be replaced as a sponsor of the men's Canadian open. The event is now sponsored by Bell Canada.

It is often said the bill will cost jobs in the tobacco industry. In some ways Bill C-71 protects jobs in the Canadian tobacco industry because advertising restrictions make it difficult for foreign companies to penetrate the Canadian market.

Even if there would even be some job impact, public health must take precedence and priority. To argue otherwise is something like arguing that World War II should have continued to prevent job losses in the munitions factory. That is the same kind of logic.

Then we hear there will be a significant adverse impact on retailers. In 1987-88 the tobacco industry claimed that Bill C-51, the Tobacco Products Control Act, which was eventually passed by Parliament banning tobacco advertising, would cost thousands of jobs. It just did not happen.

Then we hear the bill amounts to a de facto total ban on advertising. No, the bill permits tobacco advertising in publications read primarily by adults, in direct mail to adults and in places

where minors are prohibited by law. The scope remains ample for advertising, much to the chagrin of the health committee.

It is also said that the bill infringes on provincial jurisdiction. Restricting tobacco marketing was strongly upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1996 as being within the federal jurisdiction.

Then we hear tobacco is a legal product. There are other legal products or activities the advertising of which is restricted. Prescription drugs are legal but consumer advertising of prescription drugs, including the nicotine patch, is illegal. There is no such thing as the prozac tennis championship or the valium arts festival. Prostitution is legal but soliciting for prostitution is illegal. My example is clear.

The bill, it is said, infringes on the charter of rights and freedoms. The government has gone to great lengths to respond to the Supreme Court's majority judgment. Bill C-71 contains a partial ban on advertising, not a total ban. Lifestyle advertising is banned but product information can still be communicated to consumers in a manner directed primarily to adults.

Then we hear education is the complete answer. Education alone is not enough to reduce smoking. We need effective education and money spent on it, but educational interventions cannot compete with the multi-million dollar advertising campaigns of the tobacco industry.

Then we hear there is no evidence that advertising increases smoking. I would like to say that a House of Commons committee in the United Kingdom held hearings on tobacco advertising and concluded in 1992 that there was indeed a relationship between advertising and consumption.

In RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada, the attorney general case, all nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada agreed that there was a rational connection between tobacco advertising and increased consumption.

Recent studies have documented a high awareness of recall of tobacco advertising among children and adolescents with, for example, Joe Camel, the cartoon character which promotes Camel cigarettes being just as recognizable among 6-year olds as Mickey Mouse. Just think of it.

Tobacco use is the cause of 30 per cent of cancer and more than 80 per cent of lung cancer. The overwhelming number of new smokers are children. To protect our children it is essential that Bill C-71 be passed without being weakened by the tobacco lobby.

How can we in Canada neglect this blight on society? Canadians want to protect the environment in the national sense. Therefore we must also help the victims of tobacco to protect them from this form of societal pollution.

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is budget time and with all the rhetoric around the tax and spending plans of the Liberals of our money, in other words the people's money, the money and the wealth created by Canadians, not the government, with all this talk people sometimes become fed up and rather cynical.

What flows from that is the notion of average Canadians that the government always paints a rather rosy picture. When was the last time we heard a federal Conservative or Liberal government admit that things were not very rosy? Canadians then just tune out. They tune out of the budget debate. They tune out of all the commentary about finances. They say "The government brags and so we really cannot listen to them. We have the Bloc and it seems to always resort to rather self-centred whining about how hard done by Quebec is. It is always the message from the separatists of wanting". Quite frequently they use the word demanding.

Opposition parties have an obligation to compliment the government when the government goes in the right direction. When it comes to being critical the opposition must go beyond just cynicism and criticism but offer practical, credible alternatives that can stand the test of public examination.

I put it to the member of the Bloc, and he is being very negative in his tone, what are his solutions to contribute to Canada? What is the Bloc prepared to do to make Canada work rather than opt out? What is the member prepared to offer as a fiscal alternative to help all of Canada, including Canadians in Quebec, rather than just complaining and offering to opt out?