John Bryden

[Criminal Code, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was not planning to speak on this bill but I listened to the people speaking before me and they certainly made it very clear that Bill C-205 is a very important piece of legislation.

However, I think I can add to the debate on a very sombre note. Over the past few weeks I have been reading a series of Alfred Hitchcock mysteries. I have been reading this series of mysteries, which are short stories, in French as a way of practising that language.

As it happens one of those stories deals with a plot wherein a novelist is very successful in writing various kinds of crime stories. The plot revolves around the fact that he gets the sense of verisimilitude or the sense of reality by actually committing the crimes himself. He does a number of murders. He also attempts suicide and the twist of the story is that in order to get the reality for his novels he kills his own child. He is subsequently murdered by his wife as a result.

That may seem a very improbable scenario, just fiction and crime and mystery fiction at that. I draw the House's attention to a reality that has come today. I find it difficult to even speak of it because it is the Bernardo case in which Canadians learn through the reporting of the court case of the torture and murder of two young girls. One aspect of that case that was revealed was the fact that the murderer, Paul Bernardo, took videotapes of the actual torturing of these two young ladies. He did not actually film the murders but he certainly did film the rest.

I am someone who has been in the communications business for a long time. In talking to my friends I learned that behind this business of videotaping a crime, and a terrible crime at that, is an international trade in what are called snuff films. Because of the advances of technology it is possible to very cheaply produce high quality films on video. There has become a very lucrative trade in movies and videotapes which involve the actual torturing or killing of people. This is a trade that is active worldwide.

Obviously this is the sickest of the sickest types of crime, a crime that is motivated by the crass profit of killing somebody and marketing the film. It is a very lucrative trade.

The advantage to Bill C-205 is that it directly addresses this terrible problem in that it will make it impossible for a murderer who is convicted of the crime to take advantage of the proceeds of the film that might be for sale as a result of a murder. I am suggesting a murder that is conducted solely for the purpose of creating a film for sale. This is the type of crime I am talking about.

Unfortunately there is a downside to not having capital punishment. The type of individual who would be so depraved as to kill someone in order to film it and sell it is the type of person who would stop at nothing short of the prospect of capital punishment. This is a person who, when caught, would still be in a position of going to jail and yet theoretically would have the film and still be able to sell it on the international market.

Bill C-205 in my mind adequately addresses this terrible prospect not only because it changes the Criminal Code and makes it impossible for the convicted killer to profit from his crime but more important because it addresses the copyright issue.

Because the crown takes possession of the copyright of any such film, play or novel that is based on an actual crime done by the person who would otherwise owned the copyright, it prevents this type of activity from occurring in Canada. It would discourage someone participating in easy money in creating a film of this nature.

I am not talking about something that is really very improbable. We learned in the news only recently of events on the high seas which demonstrated that the value of human life in other jurisdictions is held very low.

We also learn that there is international traffic in child prostitution and that kind of thing. These things are going on and are part of the really negative costs of the global economy that we are entering.

I support Bill C-205 very much. I took note of the criticisms of the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn who pointed out that there were problems with the Berne convention when other countries might take exception to Canada ruling that criminals cannot have a right to their own copyright and market it abroad. I answer that by saying that Canada leads the way in so many things. This is a case where we should not look abroad for instruction. We should lead the way ourselves. In that sense, I support 100 per cent the initiative of the member for Scarborough West.

This is a fine piece of legislation. I would like to see it get the unanimous support of the House.

[Canada Trust Scholarship, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I know you are always interested in meeting people whose good works and public spirit are an inspiration to all Canadians. I would therefore like to draw your attention to 21 young people visiting the House of Commons today who this morning were honoured by the Governor General as recipients of the Canada Trust Scholarship for Outstanding Community Leadership.

With young people like this, we in this House can rest assured that the future of Canada will be well taken care of.

[Petitions, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today which calling on Parliament to support a binding national referendum at the time of the next election on whether Canadians are in favour of the funding of abortion on demand.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few remarks here and I thank my colleague for her remarks.

A few days ago the member for Halifax made this statement with respect to the amendments brought by members. She said those amendments "involved fearmongering, intolerant and un-Canadian sentiments".

The member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso again used the word fearmongering in connection with the amendments that were brought by his colleagues a few days ago and defeated yesterday.

I was one of those members who brought an amendment forward and I wish my colleagues to know that it was not un-Canadian, it was not as a result of fearmongering. I brought the amendment forward because I believe that some Canadians are genuinely concerned about Bill C-33, not because they are against discrimination, but because Bill C-33 is vague and imprecise in its application.

Canadians do not know what the impact will be. The Minister of Justice has assured us the bill is designed to be limited to the workplace but there is a genuine concern among many Canadians that it may have impact in interpretations that pertain to the definition of family and marital status in the context of same sex relationships and same sex benefits.

The reason for my amendment, and the amendments of several other members on both sides, was to try to draw parameters around the bill in the precise manner that the Minister of Justice had proposed. He had said that the bill should apply to discrimination in the workplace. I think 90 per cent of all Canadians would agree with him that this is a very good thing.

I can assure the House that if I was confident the bill did apply only to discrimination in the workplace then I would support it with all my heart. I am afraid for some reason, and I do not know why there has been a reluctance on the part of the government to do what it so easily can do, that is to put in a few phrases which simply state that this bill is not to be taken in any context that pertains to the redefinition of family, marital status or anything to do with same sex relationships. This could have been done. This was in the amendments that were put forward and all were defeated in the House.

I would ask the member for Burlington who spoke very well and I would agree with her that we should deplore any form of discrimination in the workplace pertaining to sexual orientation.

Does she not feel that the government could have moved so much further forward, could have answered so many of the worries of Canadians if only it had defined a little bit more precisely what it means by family and to put it in the body of a statute rather than to leave it has it is.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Motion No. 1, which also pertains to Motion No. 8.

This would change the amendment proposed by Bill C-33 so that the only difference in wording in the purpose section of the Canadian Human Rights Act would be the addition of the words sexual orientation.

These motions would go a long way toward addressing the fear of many Canadians that Bill C-33 as it now stands would lead to court interpretations such that gay couples could claim marriage and family benefits as a matter of right, that the legal privileges the state confers on conjugal couples of the opposite sex would be equally guaranteed by right to couples of the same sex.

The justice minister has explicitly said this is not the intention of Bill C-33. He said it is workplace legislation and nothing more. He has assured us it has nothing to do with the definition of family, of same sex benefits or of same sex couples.

If the vast majority of Canadians can be convinced of that, they will support Bill C-33. If Canadians could be sure it will be limited in effect to the workplace, at least 90 per cent would support it.

By and large we are a tolerant society. Canadians do not like discrimination. They deplore it, whether it is because of sexual orientation, race, language or religion. It does not matter. Discrimination is discrimination.

If Canadians could be certain that the impact of Bill C-33 would be confined in interpretation to protecting gays from harassment and unfair treatment in the workplace, then I suggest the bill would enjoy overwhelming support.

However, many MPs in the House, including myself, in representing our constituents were unable to vote for Bill C-33 during second reading. They felt, as I do, that there is good reason to believe that as it stands it could trigger interpretations by the courts that would enlarge the legal definition of family to include same sex couples.

In my instance, I am concerned that this will open the door in turn to an interpretation of section 1 of the charter of rights and freedoms, such as under provincial law, where discretion to

consider the pros and cons of sexual orientation in child custody cases would cease to exist.

In other words, the sexuality of gay parents could no longer be considered in an application to adopt. I am afraid that this might be an infringement on the rights of a child who, when all other factors are equal, might better be raised by heterosexual parents rather than homosexual parents.

I am not saying that gay couples should never be able to adopt. Only that children should have a right to have the sexual orientation of parents taken into consideration when the authorities are placing them for adoption.

That is my primary concern about Bill C-33 as it now stands. Other MPs have other concerns but most of them stem from the implications of Bill C-33 in terms of the legal definition of marital status and the family.

We have some good reason to be worried. Bill C-33 does more than add the words sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. It also changes its purpose from being applicable to every individual to being applicable to all individuals. The change to all individuals in Bill C-33 is not trivial. The term every individual is exclusionary in meaning. The term all individuals is inclusive. The former connotes individuals in isolation, the latter individuals in groups.

I have talked to lawyers who are of the opinion that judges could interpret the phrase "all individuals" as including same sex couples for the purposes of the act. This is all the more certain in that Bill C-33 also changes the words "himself" or "herself" and "he" or "she" to "themselves" and "they".

My Motions No. 1 and 8 would restore the original wording of the purpose section of the Canadian Human Rights Act so that the only words added by Bill C-33 are the words sexual orientation and nothing more.

It is my understanding from the drafters of this legislation that the change from "every" to "all individuals" was done for no particular reason. Indeed, I could not get an adequate explanation. I suppose the syntax was tidier.

However, by changing the wording as proposed for the purpose section back to "every individual" from "all individuals" and to "himself" and "herself" from "themselves" we members of the House of Commons can send a strong message to the courts that it is our intent to limit this legislation to individuals in isolation, not to individuals in groups.

By passing this motion we say to the courts that it is absolutely not our intention that the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act is to be interpreted in terms of any form of same sex partnership, implicit or explicit.

By voting for the motion, my colleagues are saying that Bill C-33 exists outside the issue of same sex marriage, outside the issue of same sex parents, outside the issue of same sex benefits. This bill is to do with individuals only, not relationships between individuals.

We cannot make the will of Parliament clearer. Having done so by enacting this amendment into law, the way becomes open, the road smooth, to support Bill C-33. Then it becomes with as much guarantee as we can hope, a law to do exactly that envisaged by the justice minister, a law that will fight harassment and discrimination against individuals in the workplace. It will then become a law of which all Canadians can be proud.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

moved:

That Bill C-33, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3, on page 1, with the following:

"firms the dignity and worth of every individual and recognizes that every individual has the right to be".

[Petitions, May 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition from my constituents of Hamilton-Wentworth calling on Parliament to refrain from implementing taxes on health and dental benefits.

[Department Of Health Act, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga South and the member for Calgary Centre who both touched on a very important aspect of the Krever commission debate on Canada's blood supply. However, they did not explore it as fully as I would like to in my remarks.

We sometimes have the problem that rhetoric gets in the way of a clear discussion of the consequences of events evolving around us. In the case of the Krever commission and the Somalia inquiry, the issue of the destruction of documents has been repeatedly raised. This is a central issue to the accountability of all government departments, including the accountability of Health Canada.

If officials are allowed to destroy documents without fear of severe consequences, not only would the public be denied access to the truth but there would be no such thing as ministerial accountability. How could a minister know, be it the minister of defence or the health minister, what was actually occurring if officialswere destroying documents and preventing people from getting at the truth?

It is not just an issue of whether the media, the press or even MPs have access to the documents that tell the story, perhaps a very terrible story, the issue is whether the minister actually has access to these documents.

The Access to Information Act contains no provision which specifically applies sanctions to government officials' destroying documents. This is a terrific omission. I will say publicly that the information commissioner, John Grace, has done a wonderful job in bringing before the public the entire issue of the destruction of documents.

This is a very essential issue, essential to our very democracy, this question of whether officials, elected or unelected, can cover-up accidents of incompetence, to use the words of the official opposition. We are probably talking more about incompetence than malfeasance here.

Unfortunately not only is there no provision in the Access to Information Act to prevent this, there is no other provision save for one clause. I do not remember the section number, but one section in the Criminal Code forbids government functionaries from deliberately wilfully destroying documents. However, the penalty is less than two years.

Opposition parties as well as government members would do well to pay very close attention to this failure in existing legislation to protect Canadians, to give Canadians the opportunity, be they elected officials or ordinary Canadians, to have access to the truth of what goes on in the events that affect them the most.

I cannot prejudge the findings of either the Somalia inquiry or the Krever inquiry, but at issue here is not just what the truth was but whether the truth will ever be available to Canadians. On issues in all ministries, certainly in Health Canada, because decisions are made that affect human lives, we as Canadians need the opportunity to examine those decisions.

I use the analogy of mad cow disease in Britain. Certain decisions were made by both government and bureaucrats that have put in jeopardy about $11 billion in the economy and possibly human lives as well. We need the opportunity when major government departments are making decisions on our behalf to to examine them to make sure those decisions are being made wisely and well.

I think the member for Mississauga South would support me in suggesting that changes to the Access to Information Act would be of great assistance to giving the kind of accountability we demand of the best health service in the world, Health Canada.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am mystified by the member's challenge about the simple premise that charities be more accountable. There is a major revenue issue here in the sense that there is $86 billion in revenue going through charities without proper monitoring or decent monitoring by Revenue Canada. Therefore if we have only 10 per cent abuse in that sector we have $8.6 billion that has been lost to the economy.

As to the issue of special interest groups, many of the special interest groups funded by government are charities, which is precisely the problem. I do not believe they should be charities. I do not believe they should have charitable status, particularly if they are advocacy groups.

This is an area in which I am merely calling for legislation to bring a greater degree of accountability to public organizations. The member does surprise me by finding this unacceptable.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this debate on the budget. I will address one small aspect but one which is very important to me.

During his budget speech the finance minister suggested there would be increased opportunities for Canadians to donate to charities and he proposed raising the annual limit on charitable donations from 20 per cent to 50 per cent and that the limit would be increased to 100 per cent for gifts willed to charities.

The rationale behind this, as it emerged from the minister's remarks, was that as government gets more and more out of services to Canadians it is hoped charities in Canada will take up the slack, as it were.

I applaud the minister's intention in giving greater opportunities for charities to have a larger role in bringing services to Canadians and giving Canadians, in turn, an opportunity to donate more effectively to charities.

In one sense the finance minister's move is premature. Unfortunately the charitable industry in Canada, which consists of some 73,000 charities with about $86 billion in revenue, is an industry which is essentially unregulated.

It is controlled almost solely by certain amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1976, which pertain basically to a few rules about how charities should spend their money and provide for an annual information return that charities have to fill out.

Beyond that there is little regulation of this huge industry. This is exceptional. In Britain, the United States and in France the charitable is very closely controlled under a great number of regulations.

The problem is that with the lack of government regulation comes lack of accountability. Over the past two months I have undertaken a rather elaborate study of charities by looking at their T3010 forms. This is an annual financial reporting instrument they have to fill out. This form is very inadequate for getting a grip on what they are doing but it is the only tool the public has.

In reviewing these forms and in examining quite a spectrum of charities, perhaps 500, all kinds of problems come to the surface. There are charities engaged in actual political activity, supporting or opposing political candidates. There are companies giving funds to foundations and then borrowing back the money, which is not something we want to see. We see excessively disproportionate fundraising costs versus the amount of funds raised.

There are marketing firms that actually set up charities in order to give themselves an income. There are charities that do not fit definitions of charities. The definition of charity is so loose that virtually anyone can apply to set up a charity and be successful and get the tax breaks associated with it.

Some charities are engaged in all manner of special interest group campaigns that have little or nothing to do with helping the general public. It goes on and on. There are offshore charities that raise money in Canada that are controlled entirely offshore. There is no accountability even there.

Perhaps the most salient point, there are charities that have huge finance and management costs quite disproportionate to the amount of money they spend on the charitable activities.

When the finance minister proposes getting the charitable sector more actively involved in serving Canadians, we have to consider whether the charitable sector is at present able to fulfil the function adequately and effectively.

The ultimate problem is that for years Revenue Canada has resisted suggestions, including suggestions coming from the auditor general, that charities be subject to penalty when they fail to comply with existing rules and regulations.

Unfortunately there is no penalty to discipline charities that are abusing their responsibility other than revocation of charitable status. This is a lengthy and difficult process which usually does not occur except in very small numbers.

We have the fundamental problem associated. Where it has enormous meaning to what the finance minister has proposed with respect to encouraging Canadians to participate in charities is something called the 80 per cent rule.

In 1976 an amendment to the Income Tax Act required that charities spend 80 per cent of their tax receiptable donations on charitable services. That left 20 per cent for management, administration and salaries.

Unfortunately the authors of that amendment confined it purely to tax receiptable donations when charitable income is mainly and ultimately, believe it or not, from government. Most governments at every level support charities which may be universities, hospitals or CIDA charities associated with foreign affairs or charities associated with Heritage Canada or Health Canada.

Unfortunately because the 80 per cent rule applies only to tax receiptable donations, it does not apply to grants from government or funds raised by other means, for instance, bingos. It does not apply to bequests left by people in their wills. If we examine a couple of hundred T3010 forms we would find that the vast majority of charities are nowhere near the 80 per cent rule with regard to their total revenues.

Charities are by a large not very well managed. Some charities are spending perhaps 30, 40 or 50 per cent of their total revenue on actual charitable activities. This is quite an enormous inefficiency which Canadians would be very concerned about when they put up their charitable dollars.

The problem is we have no way of controlling that with charities as the legislation now stands. The revenue minister cannot dictate to a charity to improve its management. There is the possibility of an audit of a charity but an audit looks only at fraudulent use or improprieties by a charity. It does not look at the ethics of spending by a charity. Consequently a charity could be very small and could choose to pay $180,000 to its executive director or, as was recently in the news, the case of the Red Cross deciding to pay $1,000 a day to a former principal officer so he could testify before the Krever commission.

There are all kinds of ethical problems within charities because there is no mechanism for an ethical audit. One reason there is no mechanism is that there is not the level of disclosure or regulation existing either within the law or any other means which pertain to charities. We have no decent control on how well charities do their business. Therefore the finance minister proposes involving charities more and more with helping Canadians and taking over where government leaves off in providing services to Canadians.

We are sure the level of management of these charities is actually below that of our own bureaucracy. We must ask ourselves if the finance minister's move is wise. The finance minister is aiming in the right direction. Before we can involve charities in the way proposed in the budget speech we must have legislation which will set the house of charities in order.

We need new legislation similar to what has been put forward in the United Kingdom where charities have been completely overhauled. We need to do this in Canada and then the finance minister's proposal to tap the generosity of Canadians to support charities, bring new services to people and to encourage the very good charities and get rid of the ones that are poorly managed. Then it will be a very fine move.