Paul MacKlin

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his support.

Speaking French is always a challenge for those of us who are learning it later in life. I thank the member for his support.

In terms of the concept of where we are going to be able to go with this, I think each and every one of us is concerned that there are areas where this law is going to have to be examined with great care, and this has already been raised in debate in the House today. That would have to go into the drafting of the bill and would also have to go into the process as we go forward in terms of bringing the bill before the House and then ultimately dealing with it and hopefully turning it into law.

The precision that we would have to deal with certainly would take time. In fairness, as we look at the legislative calendar and see the items that we must deal with in that period of time, I hope that we would set aside enough time to do this in a proper and effective way.

Although we would like to cooperate fully and move legislation forward with speed, part of our duty is to make sure that we have examined it fully and looked at all of the implications, in particular the law of unforeseen consequences, to see if we can deal with those issues. That would take time. From the perspective of the Minister of Justice, he wants to make certain that we bring forth a law that would be effective and yet not overstep its reach.

Let me say to the hon. member that we will do everything within our power to speedily bring the bill through the parliamentary process, but we will do so only when all of us are sure we have done it in an appropriate and effective manner so that we will not have too many unforeseen consequences to affect us later.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is always important that the work of the government continue.

As I was saying, that legislation and the activities of FINTRAC that are undertaken pursuant to it are a key part of Canada's response to the problem of money laundering.

FINTRAC collects, assesses and discloses information to the law enforcement to assist in detecting, preventing and deterring money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities in Canada and abroad. This legislation is very important to our work against proceeds of crime and organized crime, as well as terrorism.

In addition, I note that the government has committed substantial money to fund the integrated proceeds of crime initiative, which is sometimes referred to as IPOC. These initiatives fund IPOC units across the country which take a strategic approach to finding, seizing and forfeiting proceeds of crime.

Proceeds of crime can be concealed in numerous ways. These IPOC units bring together federal, provincial and municipal police, Justice Canada crown counsel, customs officers, federal tax investigators, forensic accountants and asset managers as part of an integrated team effort to attack proceeds of crime.

I am pleased that the recent federal budget announced a renewal of the funding for this initiative.

I would be remiss in not also mentioning major new organized crime legislation that was introduced and passed by this House in 2001.

That legislation introduced major new amendments in four categories.

First, the act created new criminal organization offences that comprehensively target a full range of activities undertaken for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. This includes provisions allowing for the imposition of tough penalties, including provision for consecutive sentences and reduced parole eligibility.

Second, the act included measures to improve the protection from intimidation of people who play a role in the justice system.

Third, the act created a process to protect designated law enforcement officers from liability for offences for certain otherwise illegal acts committed in the course of investigations, provided that their actions are reasonable and proportional in the circumstances.

Fourth—and most pertinently with respect to the subject matter before the House today—the act broadened the powers of law enforcement officers to seize and forfeit property that was used in a crime. In particular, in this last regard, the new legislation passed in 2001 broadened the application of the proceeds of crime provisions in the Criminal Code to almost all federal indictable offences and expanded the ability to obtain the forfeiture of offence-related property.

Since the various provisions of this new organized crime and law enforcement legislation came into force in early 2002, implementation of the new measures has been ongoing. This has been aided by a substantial investment of federal money that was made in association with these new measures.

As can be seen, the government has done much to target organized crime and, in particular, to go after the proceeds of crime. That does not mean, however, that improvements cannot be made. It must be recognized that realizing on the proceeds of crime can be an arduous task. Criminals and those in organized crime in particular can be experts in defeating attempts to go after their ill-gotten gains.

We recognize that we have to do better, including making legislative improvements as necessary. The area of proceeds of crime is not the only one where we are looking at potential changes.

We recognize that there are challenges associated with prosecuting large and complex criminal cases and that certain especially great challenges have arisen in organized crime megatrials. Some of the challenges in megatrials include high costs, burdens on judges and juries, procedural difficulties, and the need for special training, facilities and security measures.

At their meeting in January of this year, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice agreed with recommendations concerning megatrials from a steering committee on justice efficiencies and access to the justice system. Recommended changes include both the practical steps on the management of megatrials and the legislative changes as well. These recommendations have been referred to the Department of Justice for additional policy work needed to move them forward.

Closely related is a government initiative with respect to disclosure reform. Of course the right of an accused person to the disclosure of relevant information in the possession or control of the Crown is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, in recent years difficulties in making the required disclosure have arisen, particularly in large and complex criminal prosecutions such as those against organized crime.

Justice Canada has developed proposals for amendments to assist in ensuring that disclosure obligations are fulfilled more efficiently and effectively. A public consultation paper was released on this subject.

Closely related is a government initiative with respect to disclosure reform. Of course, the right of an accused person to disclosure of relevant information in the possession or control of the Crown is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, in recent years, difficulties in making the required disclosure have arisen, in particular in large and complex criminal prosecutions, such as those against organized crime. Justice Canada has developed proposals for amendments to assist in ensuring that disclosure obligations are fulfilled more efficiently and effectively and a public consultation paper was released on this subject.

All of these previous changes and new measures being contemplated—including changes in the area of proceeds of crime—are designed to make the justice system more effective in the way it handles serious crime. Of course, we must recognize that proposed new measures being contemplated are significant and complex and will not happen overnight.

At the same time we must also recognize that any changes we make must be consistent with the charter. Respect for the charter is not a mere incidental aspect of legislation introduced by the government but is core to what the government is committed to respect.

In this respect we must ensure that any presumptions put into legislation must make sense in what they presume in law. Further, we must ensure that legislation, however noble in its intention, must not be abusive or over-reaching in its effect. I think all parliamentarians can agree on that.

Reverse onus provisions in our criminal law are not impossible to achieve within these bounds; however, they are ones that do inherently raise concerns and must be very carefully considered before they are put in place. In this regard the government would very closely review any such legislation before it is put forward. I can assure the House that this is now taking place.

In line with the commitment already made by the Minister of Justice at a meeting of his federal, provincial and territorial counterparts, I feel that I can support the thrust of this amendment. Of course the exact timing and introduction will be of the government's prerogative.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the motion introduced by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles concerning the proceeds of crime.

In this motion, we are asked to consider the introduction of potential government legislation that would reverse the burden of proof regarding the proceeds of crime, requiring persons who have been found guilty to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that their assets are not proceeds of their criminal activities. This motion follows up on a bill introduced in this session by the same member—Bill C-242—which in fact proposes such a reverse onus provision be added to the Criminal Code.

I am pleased to be able to agree with the impetus behind this opposition motion. Indeed, it is a principle already of Canadian law that persons convicted of offences should not be permitted to keep the proceeds of their crime.

The reasoning behind this principle is clear. If property, benefits or advantages have been gained by convicted persons from their crime, this is considered to be illicit property, benefits or gains and is not legitimately in that person's ownership or control. It should be forfeited.

The principle is clear. As a result, we have had provisions in our law for some time now that follow up on those principles. I would refer hon. members to an entire part of the Criminal Code, part XII.2, which deals extensively with this very subject.

The potential legislation we are being asked to contemplate today is not a new matter. It is already the subject of previous government initiatives and extensive legislative provisions.

What we are being asked to consider in the motion before the House today are potential improvements to the current legislative provisions, ones which would build upon our current capacity to forfeit the proceeds of crime.

The government is very willing to consider improvements in this area of the law. The bill which the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles introduced was noted with interest by the government. I can assure the House that government policy review in the area of proceeds of crime has taken place with a specific focus on what legislative changes consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be advisable.

Further, this issue was discussed during a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for Justice in January 2005. At that meeting, the Minister of Justice Canada indicated his receptiveness to reviewing the current proceeds of crime provisions. The following public news release was made at the conclusion of discussions of federal, provincial and territorial ministers.

Ministers discussed proposals to change the Criminal Code to create a reverse onus for the proceeds of crime regime. Offenders would have to prove on a balance of probabilities that their property is not the proceeds of crime.

All ministers agreed that the ability to obtain the forfeiture of proceeds of crime is needed and the federal justice minister said he intends to move forward as quickly as possible with changes that meet charter requirements.

Changes in this area are clearly something that the Minister of Justice is interested in pursuing. It may be asked why legislative provisions are in place currently in the law and why we need to consider additional legislation. The background and reasoning underlying this is clear and is referred to directly in the bill that has already been introduced by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The main impetus is organized crime. Organized crime is behind a substantial portion of serious crime in Canada, including drug trafficking, human trafficking, illegal trafficking in firearms, smuggling of contraband tobacco, exploitation of women in organized prostitution, money laundering, credit card fraud, and other criminal activities as well. As a result, organized crime continues to have a substantial negative impact on our communities and our country as a whole.

Canada has specific and strong laws in place to deal with organized crime of which the proceeds of crime provisions currently in the Criminal Code are an important element.

In addition to proceeds of crime sections of the code, I would remind hon. members that legislation such as Bill C-95 enacted in 1997 introduced the definition of criminal organization into the Criminal Code and introduced a specific criminal organization offence.

Among its measures the 1997 legislation also provided special rules regarding wiretap authorizations for investigations relating to criminal organizations. It created the power to order the forfeiture of offence related property in respect of criminal organization offences. It created a power to order a person to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour where there is a fear on reasonable grounds that the person will commit a criminal organization offence.

The government did not stop there in its efforts to address organized crime. There have been a number of additional new initiatives, specifically for example in areas directly related to proceeds of crime.

The government introduced and Parliament enacted the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act in 2000. This legislation requires financial institutions such as banks, credit unions, life insurance companies, money service businesses and so forth to report certain types of transactions to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, commonly known as FINTRAC. Additional measures to combat money laundering related to terrorism were introduced in 2002 when this act was renamed the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act.

[Food and Drugs Act, March 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, Canadian and American police forces work together very well. This is part of the approach that we want to continue to take with respect to enforcement.

In the message accompanying the recent drug majors report submitted to Congress, President Bush stated, “The big picture is certainly encouraging. United States and Canadian law enforcement personnel have collaborated on a number of investigations that have led to dismantling several major criminal organizations”.

As for the concern in the report about the “lack of significant judicial sanctions against marijuana producers” which is what my friend is raising, Bill C-17 as was mentioned earlier, proposes doubling the maximum penalty for marijuana cultivation and requiring the judge to justify not imposing a sentence of imprisonment where more than four plants are involved and there are aggravating circumstances.

That is extraordinarily important. It changes the whole perspective of the way in which the legislation has been historically treated. We look forward to the standing committee's consideration of Bill C-17 and its recommendations for change, if it concludes that these proposals need strengthening.

[Food and Drugs Act, March 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's comments on Bill C-17, the cannabis reform bill and its effects, show a profound misunderstanding of the legislation.

Bill C-17 reflects a balanced approach to the laws on cannabis. The proposed legislation would allow for a ticketing regime for the possession of 15 grams of marijuana, and a ticketing option for the possession of more than 15 grams, up to 30 grams. At the same time, new offences under this proposed legislation will provide tougher penalties for those involved in the large marijuana growing operations about which the member is concerned.

The bill proposes that the cultivation of one to three plants be punishable by a fine of $500, or $250 for a young person. If a person grows 4 to 25 plants, the bill proposes a maximum penalty on indictment of five years less a day and 18 months and/or up to a $25,000 fine on summary conviction. In the case of 26 to 50 plants, the offender faces a maximum of 10 years. Where a person cultivates more than 50 plants, the maximum sentence would be 14 years, double the current maximum.

The hon. member for Surrey South—White Rock—Cloverdale wants this bill to include minimum sentences. This would run counter to the sentencing principles set out in sections 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. More specifically, minimum sentences run counter to the principle of proportionality and restraint with respect to sentencing.

Research into the effectiveness of minimum sentences has shown that these have no dissuasive or educational effect and are no more effective than lighter sentences as far as crime prevention is concerned.

This was confirmed in 2001 by a study commissioned by Justice Canada. It concluded that there was no correlation whatsoever between the crime rate and the severity of sentences.

Moreover, the presence of minimum sentences encourages plea bargaining. For example, a study of section 85 of the Criminal Code reached the conclusion that two-thirds of charges with a minimum one-year prison sentence were withdrawn, rejected or cancelled. Not only do American statistics illustrate similar results, they also show a transfer of discretionary powers from the court room to its corridors or to prosecutor's offices.

Experience shows us that minimum sentences are treated as maximum thresholds in sentencing rather than being seen as minimal thresholds, and this type of sentence creates substantial costs for provincial and territorial correctional services and for Correctional Services Canada.

The undesired effects of using minimum sentences are felt not just in Canada. American research shows that minimum sentences do not incite the accused to plead guilty, and so increase the number, duration and accumulation of trials.

[Criminal Code, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is not supporting Bill C-275, nor am I. In opposing the bill, I want to tell the member opposite that I simply do not agree with him that Bill C-275 is in the category of an ultimate solution to the member's concerns.

Parliament has created in section 252 of the Criminal Code the offence of failing to stop at the scene of an accident with the intent to escape civil or criminal liability. Let me be very clear. I fully support the existing provisions in section 252 of the Criminal Code that are aimed against the pernicious behaviour of leaving the scene of an accident in order to escape liability.

In no way does my opposition to Bill C-275 mean that I condone leaving the scene of an accident to escape civil or criminal liability. The present maximum penalty under section 252 for leaving the scene of an accident is five years imprisonment where the prosecution proceeds by indictment. I note that the procedure for the indictable offence is a more serious procedure than the procedure for a summary conviction offence.

Bill C-275 does not propose to change this maximum penalty of five years. At present, in a case where the fleeing offender knows that a person has died or knows that there is bodily harm and is reckless about whether death ensues and death does occur, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment under the Criminal Code.

Bill C-275 does not propose to change this. I note that life imprisonment is equal to the maximum penalty for manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, dangerous driving during a police chase causing death, and impaired driving causing death.

In a case where a fleeing offender knows that there is bodily harm, the current maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment. This maximum penalty is equal to the maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and impaired driving causing bodily harm. Inexplicably, Bill C-275 proposes a new maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the bodily harm situation which equals the maximum penalty for leaving the scene where there is a death.

Not only does this defy the principle that there should be proportionality in the criminal penalties with respect to the harm, this proposal in Bill C-275 would make the maximum penalty for the bodily harm in leaving the scene situation completely at odds with the maximum penalty that Parliament has set for each of the other Criminal Code bodily harm offences that I have just named.

Further, the bill proposes to create a minimum penalty of seven years imprisonment for the offence of leaving the scene of an accident where death is involved, and a minimum penalty of four years imprisonment where bodily harm is involved. I note that the similar offences which I have already mentioned do not carry these seven and four year minimum penalties.

As much as I am concerned about the maximum penalty provision for leaving the scene of an accident in a bodily harm situation and the bill's minimum penalty provisions, Bill C-275 contains an even more alarming proposal. This is the provision that would eliminate the mental element of the offence of leaving the scene of an accident in those cases that are the most serious forms of the offence, namely situations where death and bodily harm results.

Each criminal offence must contain in its definition not only an act, but also a mental element, sometimes referred to as a guilty mind in English or mens rea in Latin. The mental element can be framed in the terms of intention, knowledge or wilfulness. Outside the criminal law we may find offences for which there is liability based only on an act without any mental element, for example, in some regulatory matters.

However, I emphasize again that in criminal matters, an offence must not only have an act, but also a mental element. The more serious the offence and the resulting penalty, the more important it is that the offence contains a mental element.

Bill C-275 turns this fundamental principle of criminal justice upside down. In Bill C-275, the proposal is not to retain the mental element for leaving the scene where there is no injury or death but to eliminate it completely from the more serious cases of resulting injury or death.

I find it absolutely astonishing that the bill proposes that where there is a more serious act and a more serious penalty, there would be no mental element in the definition of the offence. This is beyond belief. One expects to find a mental element and not the complete elimination of the mental element for any criminal offence, let alone the more serious criminal offence.

It is highly likely that if such legislation were enacted by Parliament in the face of all logic, that courts would find that the combination of the disproportionate minimum penalties and the elimination of the mental element would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is an integral part of the Canadian Constitution.

I remind members that the Constitution is the supreme law against which all other laws must be tested. As parliamentarians we must keep in mind that legislative proposals must respect the charter, including its guarantee that no one be deprived of liberty, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

In my view, it is extremely important to have the offences and penalties that now exist for drivers who leave the scene of an accident with the intent to escape civil or criminal liability, especially where someone is killed or injured.

To the extent that the particular convicted offender will be deterred from repeating the behaviour and to the extent that there will be a general deterrence for others who in the future might contemplate such behaviour, the existing Criminal Code provisions are necessary and appropriate in the context of the charter.

We often hear the claim that the charter protects the wrongdoer. Such rhetoric misses the point. The criminal law is society's strongest sanction against improper and injurious behaviour. Therefore, fundamental principles such as the need for the mental element for a criminal offence protect each of us who might without a guilty mind do something purely accidentally. Without the requirement of a mental element for a criminal offence, the pure accident would be criminalized.

Think for a moment of a driver who leaves the scene of an accident with the intent to get help for an injured person. If the offence is simply leaving and there is no requirement of the mental element of intending to escape liability, the driver who leaves the scene to get help would be committing a criminal offence under the proposed Bill C-275.

Keep in mind that such a person who left the scene under Bill C-275 would be convicted and given a seven year minimum period of imprisonment if an injured person died. The court would not have the discretion to hand down a lesser sentence, no matter how favourable the reason for leaving was or how favourable the personal circumstances of the offender were.

Bill C-275 has the aim of reducing situations where someone leaves the scene of an accident where there is death or bodily harm. However, it is so contrary to the important principles of fundamental justice that it would be cynical to pass Bill C-275 knowing that it will most likely run afoul of the charter.

If members truly believe that fundamental principles of justice are unimportant, then there should be a constitutional amendment to the charter, the fundamental law against which all other laws are tested and not an end run that attacks these fundamental principles by means of an amendment to the Criminal Code.

I am sure that all of us in this House are highly sympathetic to the victims who have been injured and to the surviving family members of victims who have died in accidents where the driver fled from the scene with intent to avoid criminal or civil liability. Such an offender's behaviour is despicable.

Our reaction is to want to do something so that the behaviour will not be repeated by that offender or any other driver. The proposals in Bill C-275 are not that something. The bill simply does not respect the fundamental criminal law principles nor the protection afforded by the charter. Bill C-275 accordingly must be opposed.

[The Budget, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government is taking very seriously the problem of trafficking of women and children to sexually exploit them through the sex trade. The government has committed itself at the highest levels to strengthen our domestic response to combat the trafficking of persons and indeed, to work with the international community for a global response.

That commitment is being realized through many initiatives to prevent human trafficking, to protect its victims, and to ensure that traffickers are held accountable through prosecution. These initiatives include: raising public awareness about the issue; exchanging best practices in combating human trafficking; supporting victims of trafficking who are primarily women and children; and enforcing and strengthening our legislation response to human trafficking.

The government is working closely with the international community to ensure comprehensive and cross-sectoral responses to combat this global practice. The government acknowledges that more needs to be done and the government's commitment is to work together with domestic and other global partners to ensure a concerted long term and comprehensive response.

[The Budget, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question on the government's response to combat the trafficking of women and children for the purpose of sexually exploiting them, particularly through the sex trade. The question addresses a very serious issue and I rise tonight to confirm the government's commitment to address it through concrete measures.

During the Prime Minister's address to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2004, he spoke of the need to remain vigilant in the face of new forms of abuse, such as international trafficking of people and children in the sex trade.

In October 2004 in the Speech from the Throne, the government committed itself to table legislation to better protect against trafficking in persons. As well, in March 2004, the Minister of Justice identified trafficking in persons as one of his priorities.

All of this signals the Government of Canada 's commitment at the highest level to strengthen our response to human trafficking in all of its forms. The government has been working to address human trafficking, both at the domestic and international levels, by focusing on what we call the three Ps: prevention, protection of trafficking victims, and prosecution of traffickers.

For example, within the past year, and in support of prevention, the government's activities have included: the launch of a new trafficking information website that is located on the Department of Justice website, an anti-trafficking poster to raise awareness about the problem in Canada, and an anti-trafficking information pamphlet available in 14 languages for potential victims, which has been widely disseminated within Canada and abroad through our Canadian embassies.

The government has also partnered with others, including the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and the British Columbia Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, to co-host round tables at the community level to educate and increase public awareness about the situation of victims of trafficking, especially youth, children and women, and to explore strategies to prevent and combat trafficking in persons.

The protection of victims is a matter of shared responsibility between the federal, provincial and territorial levels of government and as such, at the recent January meeting of the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice, provincial and territorial ministers expressed support for the efforts of the federal Minister of Justice to strengthen the criminal justice system's response to trafficking in persons with a view to ensuring that traffickers are held accountable and victims are better protected against it.

Trafficking victims may receive protection at the federal level under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. For example, they may be a person in need of protection. Conventional refugees are eligible to remain in Canada for humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

Traffickers can be prosecuted under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which came into effect in 2002 and created a new trafficking in persons offence that is punishable by a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a $1 million fine.

Traffickers are also being prosecuted and convicted under the existing Criminal Code offences that address trafficking related conduct, including prostitution related offences. On this important note, I want to emphasize that the existing criminal law prohibits prostitution of all persons under the age of 18 years.

As well I would note again, the government is commitment to table legislation to better protect against human trafficking, to which, I am sure, all of us look forward.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member spoke with concern and passion about the civic marriage officials who issue licences and who expressed their concerns. I think the hon. member is likely aware that at the recent federal-provincial-territorial justice ministers meeting this came up as an issue in terms of how to ensure those concerns would not come to fruition.

In talking with the justice ministers from Quebec and Ontario, the two most populist of our provinces, they indicated that they had numerous marriage licences issued without any particular problems. Obviously, they have managed to find an accommodation.

Many provinces and territories I am advised have already amended their laws to add specific protections for religious freedom. For example, Quebec has done this to protect religious officials who refuse to marry a couple. Others actually provide within their legislation an exemption for religious organizations as part of their human rights code.

Does the hon. member think the provinces and territories should go ahead and pursue this line to ensure they protect their officials, as it appears such protections are available and do work?

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, marriage has had a specific connotation. However some of my constituents do not realize that two ceremonies actually take place within our marriage ceremony. One is a religious ceremony, assuming one is having a religious marriage, and the other is a civil ceremony. When papers are signed in the church those papers usually are with respect to the civil side of the ceremony. Most of us have the mental approach to marriage as being simply one ceremony when in fact there are two.

The Constitution gave us the ability to deal with the definition of marriage but it was not a religious definition. It was a civil definition. Therefore we are restricted, short of a constitutional amendment, to deal with marriage as it is set out in our Constitution. We cannot broaden it without going through a constitutional amendment.

I respectfully suggest to the member that we are proceeding to deal with only the civil side of marriage. Although I know the connotation in many minds is that there is one process, there are in fact two separate processes going on at the same time.

With respect to his second question about discrimination, I am not referring to some form of genetic discrimination. Section 1 of the Constitution clearly states that rights can be limited where it is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. I submit that the reason the geneticist was brought in when we were making changes to the table of consanguinity and who could marry whom, was the health reasons. Looking back at some of the history involving royalty, it was demonstrated that when they intermarried it was unhealthy to have that inbred nature thrust upon society.

It is clear that there are solid scientific and genetic reasons why one would not simply disregard the relationships of one to another, why we have done investigations in the past, and why we have a table of consanguinity relating to who can marry whom.