Vic Toews

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the private member's bill introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

The bill would amend sections of the criminal code that deal with prohibited sexual acts committed with children under the age of 14 and in the presence of children under the age of 14. The bill would extend the prohibition to acts committed with children under the age of 16 or in the presence of children under the age of 16.

This is the fourth time the hon. member has introduced this bill. His perseverance and dedication on behalf of children and families needs to be recognized and commended. It is a valuable bill and one that aims to protect the young and vulnerable in our society from sexual predators.

As a former police officer, the hon. member has no doubt witnessed first hand the devastating effects on 14 and 15 year old children who have been victims of the manipulation and coercion of adult sexual predators.

A person under the age of 16 is still considered a child in our society, deserving and requiring protection. Although the law states that a 14 year old has the legal authority to consent to sex with an adult, a person must be a full 18 years of age to participate in pornography. This is because the creation of permanent records of teenagers' sexual activities has consequences which children of that age may not have sufficient maturity to understand.

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Sharpe, aside from two exceptions, substantially upheld this law. However one could argue that the average 14 year old or 15 year old does not have the maturity, confidence or understanding to make a rational decision to become sexually involved with an adult. With regard to children 14 years of age and older, parents really have no legal recourse if they find that their child has been enticed into a sexual relationship with an adult.

On this note I believe that the reintroduction of this bill is very timely. It goes to answer some of the concerns raised by the secretary of state or the parliamentary assistant to the minister.

With Bill C-15 the government has recently introduced long needed legislation to protect children from Internet predators. Unfortunately, with the current age of sexual consent, this protection is only substantially provided to children under 14 years of age. Many Canadians, including concerned parents, are not aware of this present serious deficiency in the law. For example, a 30 year old man could pose as a 16 year old boy over the Internet, converse with a 14 year old girl and lure her to a private residence or hotel room. Provided that he obtains a so-called legal consent from the girl, he may legally have sexual contact with her.

Canada has one of the lowest age of consent laws in the developed world. Albania, Bolivia, Colombia, Iran, Kosovo, Romania and Serbia are among the nations that have set the age at 14. I do not think that is company we should be proud of being in with respect to this particular issue.

In contrast, the age of consent in Australia varies depending on the region, because of course the criminal law there is state based rather than based on the federal government. It varies between 16 and 17, as it does in the United Kingdom. New Zealand's age is also set at 16. The age of consent for most American states also ranges from ages 16 to 18. Only four states, Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri and South Carolina, have set the age at 14.

Simply looking at our counterparts in other developed nations should give us an indication that we may need to rethink our current age of sexual consent. For the member opposite to stand up and say we need to do more studies on this is simply avoiding the problem, trying to excuse years of inaction that the member for Calgary Northeast has identified and, to his credit, continues to raise in the House.

There are a number of groups and lobbyists and others who would like to see the legislation changed, including a very prominent group in my hometown province, Child Find Manitoba. This group has first hand experience dealing with sexual crimes against children and we need to take its concerns seriously. I recently had occasion to meet with members of that group and they are clearly concerned about the current age of sexual consent.

Sexual predators need to be controlled by specific constraints that are set out in the law. Setting the age of sexual consent at 16 would give parents and law enforcement officers the legal protection and authority they need to give these children proper protection from predators. We need to protect these children from criminals who use the current law as a defence as they coerce children into giving their consent.

One need not go very far in looking at examples. Mr. Sharpe, whose case was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada, had the audacity to say on national TV or radio that because children's bodies might be sexually maturing at age 12 he saw this as a God-given justification for allowing predators like him to take advantage of children like that.

I am not going to raise the numerous and lengthy arguments about why that kind of reasoning is perverse. I think every member here recognizes the perversity of that reasoning and the perversity of that individual. However, it does illustrate that there are actually people in our free and democratic society who think in that manner.

The amendment will send a very strong and clear signal from the Government of Canada and from this parliament to the people who look to parliament to establish these guidelines and these rules.

Speaking as a former crown prosecutor and as a member of the Manitoba attorney general's department for many years, during which time I also did child welfare work, the excuse put forward by the Liberal member that this is a complex matter is simply not correct. If there was any concern on the part of government about this issue, this law could easily accommodate concerns raised. Any consequential amendments that would have to be put in place are minor. It is simply an excuse that should not be given any credence here.

The simple reason, the simple answer, is that the government does not care enough to make these changes to protect these children and to give our parents and our law enforcement authorities the necessary jurisdiction.

[Prime Minister, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member and the BDC claim that this footnote is a forgery. No other specific part of the document has been questioned. This state of affairs clearly calls for an independent inquiry.

Rather than threatening to sue Canadians who are concerned about this issue, will the Prime Minister finally agree to open his company books to an independent judicial inquiry?

[Prime Minister, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed a document that the BDC claims is a forgery regarding the loan to the Auberge Grand-Mère. However, if the document footnote is not a forgery, it appears that $23,000 of the BDC loan went directly to J&AC, the Prime Minister's own company.

Did the Prime Minister's company receive any part of the loan from the BDC?

[Criminal Code, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in reviewing my notes during the course of question period, when I had an opportunity to break from the very interesting exchanges, I realized that I had come to the end of my speech.

I have spoken to my colleague, the member for Surrey Central, and he has some issues to raise. I will defer to his comments when he has the opportunity to address the House. It will not serve the House by repeating my comments.

[Criminal Code, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the new organized crime legislation, Bill C-24.

I was struck by the almost desperate plea that the Minister of Justice made to the House to pass the legislation. The matters I heard her raise, discuss and urge upon the House are things my party and its predecessor the Reform Party have been saying for years. They have been desperately asking the House to bring forward legislation to address organized crime. Over and over again Liberal members have simply stonewalled or refused to bring forward legislation.

I must say that I am relieved to see after years of the opposition fighting for more effective laws to help combat gangs and other criminal organizations that the federal Liberals have finally woke up.

During the election they realized that organized crime was an issue. Suddenly the government said that it better do something because there was a danger to our country and to our institutions. It said that police officers were having a difficult time coping and the courts were overwhelmed by the issue of organized crime. I therefore note, with a bit of bewilderment, that the Liberals finally woke up.

I thank the minister for bringing the bill forward because there are some very good things in it. I know the minister is also very open to ideas and prides herself in listening, discussing and accepting recommendations from time to time.

I am relieved that the government is finally acknowledging that organized crime is a serious problem. The rest of the country has been saying this for many years. It is no secret, although to the Liberal caucus it was a bit of a secret, that the level of activity of criminal organizations has increased substantially in recent years, posing a severe risk to public safety and security. Not only has there been an increase in the level of activity. There has also been an increase in the intensity of violence including bombing, threats and intimidation.

The extent of collaboration within and among criminal groups has broadened greatly. The available technology has improved their ability to conduct organized crime by leaps and bounds. Over the years Canada has become a very attractive place for these types of criminals. According to the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada, CISC, “virtually every major criminal group in the world is active in Canada”.

Antonio Nicaso, a well known organized crime specialist and author, has said that Canada has become one of the world's most important centres for global crime syndicates in part because of federal regulations and laws. He has stated that prior to Bill C-22 it was harder to import cheese into Canada due to the restriction of the minister of agriculture than it was to import a suitcase full of money.

The RCMP commissioner has said recently that for the first time there are signs of criminal organizations which are so sophisticated they are actually focusing on destabilizing certain aspects of our society.

Our party has long recognized these frightening indications and for years as the Reform Party and now the Alliance we have been calling for changes in the way the government should approach organized crime.

Over the past few years there have been a few halfhearted attempts by the government to adapt our laws to help fight these criminals. Just before the 1997 election the Liberal government pushed through parliament amendments to the criminal code that were intended to fight organized crime. However, because it was so last minute the opposition was not able to hear from witnesses to determine whether the proposed legislation would be effective.

The Canadian Police Association stated that Bill C-95 did not go far enough to provide police and prosecutors with the tools to fight organized crime. There were a few, some estimate perhaps under five, ineffective prosecutions under the bill.

Even the justice minister at the time said during the debate that he did not claim the bill represented everything needed to fight organized crime but that it was just the first step. Under intense pressure from not only opposition politicians but also from police and other concerned members in the community, the government has finally introduced some of the long needed legislation for which we have been calling.

Our party welcomes many of the proposals in the new bill, but a number of significant deficiencies in the legislation still require further amendment to adequately address the problem of gang participation and violence.

The most disturbing feature of the legislation is its failure to make it a criminal offence to be a member of a group already proven to be a criminal organization. Contrary to the suggestions of the Minister of Justice, this provision does not make participation or membership in a criminal organization illegal unless it can be proven that the person had the intention to facilitate illegal transactions for that organization.

The fact that an organization is criminal would have to be proven in each particular case over and over again. It would result in needless duplication of resources, expenses and the prolongation of criminal trials, which would again have an impact upon the court system and its resources.

Members often think that all we have to do is pass a law in the House and things will change. In the real world things are not that simple. As a minister of justice of a provincial government I actually had to carry out the laws that parliamentarians passed. The reality is not simply the law. The reality is the resources that must be provided to make even the best legislation effective.

Last fall my colleagues in the Bloc put forward a supply motion that called for parliament to make it a crime to belong to a criminal organization. The Liberal government argued that such a provision might be considered unconstitutional. However, making illegal participation in a group that has been proven to be a criminal organization is a reasonable limit on freedom of association and other freedoms in the charter.

When the primary if not the sole purpose of such an association is to commit illegal acts, the safety and security of private citizens may reasonably supersede the individual rights of the persons conspiring to commit these acts or participating in these organizations.

I ask the House to bring the Bloc proposal forward as was suggested earlier. What is the fear of bringing the proposal forward? Is it that it might be unconstitutional? If the courts do not believe that our citizens are deserving of this protection, let them tell us so.

We should not settle for second best because the Liberal government is frightened to pass the legislation that it needs to pass. The courts should tell us and we will respect the courts. If the courts believe citizens are not entitled to that protection then parliament must listen to what the courts say.

Certain members think what I am saying is funny. It is not funny. A member across the way laughs about what I am doing. I take the seriousness of the situation to heart and members have a responsibility for the safety and security of our citizens. If members opposite want to joke about that, let them joke. I can take that.

Another equally disturbing fact about the bill is the serious lack of funding and resources that has plagued and continues to plague the administrators of our justice system. Frontline officers fighting to get these criminals prosecuted have been effectively handcuffed with a serious lack of resources.

Criminal organizations have the best possible tools. They have state of the art technology. They have access to millions of dollars derived from illegal activities to fund their activities. Meanwhile our frontline police officers struggle to maintain existing technology. They are unable to adapt to new and emerging technologies because of insufficient funding.

Funding has become a vital issue in our continuing fight against the sophisticated and wealthy organized crime syndicates. Organized crime investigations are themselves resource intensive, costly, highly technical, lengthy and complex.

When the bill was first introduced over two weeks ago the justice minister announced a mere $200 million of funding. To me and the average citizen $200 million is a lot of money. The government continually includes an amount of money in a package announcement as though the money is immediately available. That is not correct.

The amount is spread over five years. It does not come close to the amount that is needed for frontline law enforcement officials to do their jobs effectively. When one looks at the $200 million over five years and where the money will go, it will not be to local police forces in Winnipeg, Calgary or Vancouver that actually do the investigations. Some of it will go to the RCMP, and we applaud that. What concerns me about the $200 million is that it will not go to the places it needs to go in terms of frontline investigation and help for the police.

I speak from experience and knowledge having dealt with that matter when I was minister of justice for a provincial government. The need to fight organized crime in whatever form we find it is a constant concern. Another concern is the lack of resources available at the provincial level and the reluctance of the federal government to put its money where its mouth is. From time to time the government comes up with bills and makes impassioned speeches to the House to pass the legislation. We agree that the legislation should be passed but we need to make it effective legislation. How do we actually carry it out? We cannot simply stand here in Ottawa and say that we have now given the tools when we pass the legislation.

We need to financially support our front line police officers. If we are not prepared to do that then all our speeches, our legislation and the studies and the years that have gone into the legislation were all for naught.

When one considers the annual RCMP expenditures alone in one year, the $200 million extra to fight organized crime is a drop in the bucket. If this was all going to front line RCMP officers it would be a good start, but everyone here in the House realizes that is not where it is going.

We are not even talking about the municipal police forces that carry out the mandate of parliament when we pass legislation. Who will help the Toronto police force or the maritime municipal police forces that have a very real interest in protecting their citizens against this pernicious criminal activity?

Even though the introduction of additional funding by the government gives the appearance of a substantive and immediate injection of funds, the funds allocated on a yearly basis will not significantly enhance police or prosecution resources when we consider that a relatively simply prosecution under this legislation can cost $10 million.

I understand from newspaper reports that a special courthouse is being built in Quebec for these types of crimes. The courthouse alone is estimated to cost $10 million.

When I was a justice minister in Manitoba we had to build a special courthouse at a cost of $3.5 million. The money was well spent. It was essential to not only have legislation in place but to put the resources in place to actually get the job done.

When we consider the ramifications to legal aid, to prosecutors, to police overtime and to clerks, $10 million for one trial is not an uncommon amount. We see the courthouse being built for $10 million in Quebec and then we think of what it will cost to conduct a trial. We cannot allow organized criminals to have even an inkling of an understanding that we are not prepared to support our police officers.

If we have actually convinced the Liberals that this is the right direction to move in, I am glad. At least they have taken the first step, the legislative step, but now they have to take the second step. The earlier legislation was only part of the first step. This is getting close to completing the first step. The huge step, the financial issue, has to be addressed but, unfortunately, it is not being addressed.

I am encouraged that the Minister of Justice might find it in her heart to convince some of her colleagues over there who might be mean-spirited enough to deny our police officers these resources. I recognize that she has a very difficult job trying to convince some of these people on the other side; not all of them, some of them are very good people. She needs to convince some of the Liberals who do not believe that this is really a problem. If that is the basis of her leadership speech, as was just mentioned, let it be her leadership speech. I do not think it is a bad thing to do. I would encourage the Minister of Justice to move in that direction, if not in the leadership, at least in terms of finding that money for our police officers.

I am making those comments to her through you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted that clear on the record.

It is somewhat heartening to see that the legislation proposes added protection from intimidation for people who work in the justice system, such as witnesses, jurors, police, prosecutors, prison guards, judges, members of parliament and senators. This is absolutely crucial. It is one of the practical steps that needed to be taken and is being taken.

There are some shortcomings in that list. I am not sure whether it adequately protects other key players in the fight against crime, especially when we look at the listing of federal MPs. Does it protect provincial MLAs or members of the national assembly in Quebec, in particular, provincial justice ministers?

I do not say that because I was a provincial justice minister but I do think they are on the front line with the police and they deserve protection as well. We do not want them, the deputy ministers nor anyone involved in provincial justice departments who are front line workers in the fight against crime to be intimidated. They need the same level of protection as federal parliamentarians.

It would seem mean-spirited of us if we granted the protection to ourselves when we do not even carry out the day to day activities and refuse to grant it to those who carry it out on a day to day basis.

In addition, as recent cases demonstrate, journalists who demonstrate their service of the public interest by reporting on organized crime also need and deserve the enhanced protection under our criminal law. It is absolutely essential.

The media is a very important tool in the fight against organized crime. One need only point out the well known case of Michel Auger, a Montreal crime reporter. That case demonstrates the need for extra protection for journalists. Last September he was shot five times as he arrived at the offices of his newspapers.

That was not the only incident in Canada where journalists had been the subject of attack, where they have had the courage to stand up and say the right things and write the right things. Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, who is now speaker of the Quebec legislature, was shot three times in the chest and the arm in the newsroom in 1973 while he was a reporter covering an inquiry into organized crime.

In 1995 a freelance reporter was shot after answering a knock on his front door. He was shot in both legs and survived what police called a warning by bikers.

We all know of the case of the editor of North America's largest Punjabi paper. He was shot and killed in his suburban Vancouver garage in 1998 by an unidentified killer.

Members of the press who research and report on all items of interest to Canadians, in particular, matters pertaining to their safety, must be protected from these types of attacks on democracy and freedom of the press.

It is not enough to say that we have a general provision that covers attempted murder or murder. As a democracy and as passionate believers in free speech, we need to send out a specific, clear, legislated message that those journalists are entitled to that protection.

The House of Commons should never allow attempts by criminal groups to intimidate any person or any democratic institution, and I include the press in those democratic institutions.

The bill also addresses the issue of police immunity. I think all right thinking people understand the need for police to have these powers. We also understand the need for clear criteria governing those activities. It was always the case that police had those clear criteria in place as policies that governed their activities. The Supreme Court of Canada has come along and said that we need to put that in legislation. I agree because I do not think it is necessary to fight on that issue. Let us put clear criteria in place but let us not hamstring and handcuff our police officers at an undue cost to our security and the security of our citizens to enjoy democracy and their democratic rights.

The minister needs to bear in mind that when we create immunity for police, we also have to address the possible adverse impacts on law-abiding citizens and the damage that might be done to their property by a police officer carrying out his or her duties under this protection.

If a police officer has to steal and destroy a car, which would be permitted under the criteria, damage other property or commit some other crime that causes damage to a citizen's property, I do not believe the citizen should have to bear that responsibility personally. This is a societal cost. This is a cost that we as a society must bear because we have given this power to the police.

[Judges Act, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the bill amends the Judges Act to implement the government's response to the recommendations made by the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. Among those recommendations is a retroactive salary increase of 11.2% for approximately 1,013 federally appointed judges. This would cost the federal government approximately $19 million.

The increase is retroactive to April 1, 2000, and would raise the base salary from $179,200 to $198,000 for judges who sit on appeal courts and superior courts in each province. The salaries for the chief justices in those courts would increase to $217,000 from $196,500. These same increases would also apply to federal court judges.

The judges on the Supreme Court of Canada would remain the highest paid. The eight regular judges would see an increase to $235,700 from $213,000, while the salary of the chief justice would rise to $254,000 from $230,200.

This is the fourth time the government has sought to amend the Judges Act. During the 35th parliament the government introduced Bill C-2 and Bill C-42, and during the 36th parliament, Bill C-37, all of which were relatively minor pieces of legislation.

In April 1998, Bill C-37 was introduced to establish the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. Bill C-37 also increased judges' salaries retroactively, providing an 8.3% pay increase over two years. This meant an average $13,000 pay increase for federal judges, with salaries increasing from $159,000 to over $172,000.

I would be hard pressed to think of any other public servant, or any hard-working Canadian for that matter, who received that kind of pay increase in 1998.

According to Statistics Canada, the consumer price index from 1996 to 1998 rose 2.55%. It is safe to assume that the salaries of most Canadians across the country would be affected by that statistic. Not only have the salaries of judges increased at a rate substantially higher than those of most Canadians, but their salaries are already indexed. I think that is important to remember.

No other senior public servant or any other lower level public employee has been given such a significant pay increase in the last number of years. While the government indicates that the raise is a reasonable one, it is interesting to note that senior public servants have received raises of no more than 5.7%.

It is not only public servants and other public employees who do not receive these types of extensive benefits. The very people who administer our justice system, the people on the ground who do the practical work in looking after the safety and security of Canadians first hand, seem to be ignored.

For example, in 1998, the same year that federal judges were given these generous salary increases, RCMP officers who had their salaries and wages frozen for five years were finally granted an increase of a mere 2% in March 1998, retroactive to January. If the concern is that judges receive these raises to ensure that there is no corruption of our justice system or any undue influence, is the same not true for the men and women who serve in our federal police forces?

A second pay increase was given to RCMP officers in April 1998 and later that year they received another small increase. However, over the five years that their salaries were frozen and in the next year, 1998, the RCMP received an increase of only 3.75%. These frontline officers are putting their lives on the line every day for Canadians, but the average three year constable received an increase of less than $2,000 over those years.

In contrast, the bill would provide an 11.2% increase to judges who are making well over $120,000 or $130,000 a year, some over $200,000 a year. There are so many other people within our justice system who are absolutely vital in ensuring that the system is functioning properly but are not getting the same kind of increase. These are often the same men and women who are forced to cope with the results of several years of cutbacks to the justice system.

One would assume that if money can be found to increase the salaries of judges, then money could also be found to give local police and RCMP the resources they need to do their jobs effectively.

Also, in many provinces crown attorneys do not have sufficient resources to prosecute the cases they are charged with. In this context I am especially thinking of the new legislation the government is bringing forward in respect of organized crime. While I support many of the principles, I wonder about the genuine attitude of the government in failing to provide adequately for the resources for frontline officers and frontline prosecutors to get the job done. There is no question that in the Canadian justice system there is a significant amount of delay and backlog, which needs to be remedied.

Another appalling situation in our country is the embarrassingly low wages paid to members of our armed forces. It is ridiculous that people who protect our nation, both at home and abroad, and put their lives at risk to ensure some measure of security for all Canadian citizens are fighting with antiquated equipment and are often forced to go to food banks to make ends meet. Now we hear that the minister is authorizing a raise in the rents that our armed forces have to pay. I do not think that is acceptable.

I understand from the government that the main rationale for this pay increase for judges is that the federal government must compete with high paying law firms to attract superior candidates to the bench. While I believe that a competitive salary is required to ensure good candidates, I do not believe that there has ever been any great shortage of candidates for the bench.

In such cities as Toronto and Vancouver, where a $200,000 plus yearly income for a lawyer may not be unusual, it is not outside the realm of possibility that such people may not be attracted to the bench for fear of a pay cut. However, in Manitoba, for example, I believe there would be no shortage of competent lawyers available for judicial appointments at $190,000 and, indeed, at perhaps even less considering the compensation packages and extra benefits that come with such appointments.

Perhaps that is a problem of the mandate of the commission and of the restrictions it had. Perhaps those regional differences should be reflected in salaries or expenses. The commission was operating at a bit of a disadvantage. It did not have the appropriate mandate to discuss those kinds of significant differences.

Many Canadians in the legal profession, no matter what their salary, would consider it a great honour to be appointed to a judgeship at any level. Over the past decade there have been an average of eight candidates for every opening on the bench. As I understand it, the eight candidates are previously screened for suitability. One assumes there would be at least one qualified applicant out of the eight. I have great respect for the legal profession. I believe there are many more than eight qualified candidates for one position.

The majority of my constituents, and most likely the majority of Canadians as a whole, would not consider a salary increase of almost 20% for federal judges over a three year period to be the best way to increase the quality of our justice system. We must ask ourselves how the government can justify giving federal judges a salary increase of 11.2% over and above the 8.2% increase they received in 1998.

The increase would in no way remedy the current backlog of federal court cases. That issue must be dealt with by the administration of the courts, the responsibility of which primarily lies with the judges. I have great confidence that the judges are capable of taking steps to ensure justice is dispensed in a timely fashion.

The pay increase would in no way help the thousands of front- line police officers who are at a severe disadvantage in their daily efforts to fight crime. I am not saying judges should not be well paid. They should be well paid and most Canadians would argue that they are. It is a question of whether they should be paid more than they are already.

My party has great reluctance in supporting the bill on the basis that it ignores the real problems of the Canadian justice system and the manner in which judges are appointed. That is another issue we could perhaps leave for another day.

The backlog of the courts would not be remedied by the bill. The appointment process, which many Canadians believe should be reformed to make the judiciary more independent and publicly accountable, would remain the same.

The administrators of the justice system, the provincial attorneys general, crown attorneys, police officers and members of the federal police force, the RCMP, would still be handcuffed by a lack of sufficient resources.

Perhaps nothing can be done with respect to the proposal in view of the structure and mandate of the commission and the constitutional obligations recently imposed upon parliament by the Supreme Court of Canada. However I urge all hon. members to consider a better way of dealing with the issue.

[Judges Act, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before commencing I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Surrey Central.

[International Child Abduction, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the motion put forward by my colleague from the Bloc, the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.

In introducing the motion, my colleague has raised an important issue that few will disagree should remain a priority for the House, that is, the protection and best interest of the children.

For many years the international community has recognized the need for countries to co-operate in order to remedy child custody and abduction problems. In 1976 the Hague convention on private international law accepted a Canadian proposal to alleviate some of these problems. This proposal led to the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction.

The objectives of the convention are: first, to secure the prompt return of a child wrongfully removed to or retained in any contracting state; and, second, to ensure that the rights of custody and access of one contracting state are effectively respected in the other contracting states.

As a leader in these negotiations, Canada was the second country to ratify the convention which came into force in December 1983. To date, 53 countries, including Canada, have adopted the convention.

According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, over 300 Canadian children have been returned under the convention.

Although the convention is supported in principle by a number of countries and has been relatively successful in achieving its aims, some recent reports say that we are not doing enough.

Let us look at the 1999 report by the international forum on parental child abduction.

The report stated that although it:

—was a giant step forward in dealing with cases of international child abduction in a more uniform, consistent way...in too many cases, the Hague Convention appears not to be working as originally intended, and too many cases remain unresolved.

Some problems cited were: a lack of systematic data; wide variations in outcome and interpretation; undue delay in reaching resolutions; lack of public awareness; and lack of enforceability of return orders.

The Canadian government has not been entirely oblivious to these problems. The government's 1998 response to a committee report reviews 14 recommendations that address similar issues relating to the Hague convention, as well as domestic issues pertaining to child custody issues and abduction.

Many of the committee's recommendations are similar, if not identical, to the provision of today's motion, although it remains to be seen what action the government has taken to implement the recommendations.

The issue must not be left unresolved. Now that it has come up again in the House, we must find real solutions and initiate concrete action on behalf of children.

Let us consider the first provision of the motion that calls on the House to take action designed to increase the number of signatory countries to the Hague convention on civil aspects of international child abduction. There is no question how absolutely crucial this is. The convention can only be effective insofar as other nations are willing both to participate and to enforce once they have signed on.

Most of Europe and North America, as well as Australia and New Zealand, have signed on. However only five African nations are signatories. In Asia and the Middle East there are six, and in South America there are seven.

The difficulties in increasing the number of signatory countries are many. In particular, the laws of some Middle Eastern and African nations may make international co-operation on the matter more complex, especially in terms of parental abductions.

In many middle eastern and African countries, as my colleague from the Bloc pointed out, the father's permission is often required for his children to leave that country. The father will often have ultimate custody, despite the fact that the child may have dual citizenship in Canada or another country.

Bearing that in mind, it may be difficult to persuade countries with such laws to subscribe to or subject themselves to these principles. In taking any steps one must obviously bear that in mind. As my colleague from the Bloc has stated, Canada needs to show leadership.

Despite the difficulties, we must step up our efforts to persuade other nations that it is in their interest to co-operate to protect children both at home and abroad. It has often been said that it takes a village to raise a child. In this case, it will take all nations of the world working together to ensure that children's rights are secured and protected and that parents do not need to live in fear for their children.

The second provision, to sign bilateral treaties that include commitments to respect custody and access orders as originally handed down by the courts, is extremely vital. If we cannot persuade non-signatory countries to sign on to the convention, we must continue to negotiate bilateral treaties with those countries.

The third and last provision of the motion is to take the necessary steps within our own borders to combat international child abduction. Of course, any international initiative must and should begin at home. Authorities, such as the solicitor general, the RCMP, the police associations and provincial and territorial ministers, should work closely together to develop a policy instructing police officers to report suspected child abductors to the missing children's registry.

All missing children reports should automatically be entered into the Canadian Police Information Centre, CPIC. Although this already occurs to some extent, our missing children's registry is nowhere near as extensive as it should be in order to be truly effective.

Within our own borders, child custody and abduction problems are extremely serious. Outside our borders, however, we have almost no control over what happens once a child is abducted. This must change if we are to give Canadian children the level of security and protection they are entitled to.

Accordingly, I would ask that all members vote in favour of the motion.

[Points Of Order, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a new point of order arising out of the comments the hon. member made.

The hon. member may well have withdrawn, and I am not clear whether she did in fact withdraw, the comment that crosses are now burning in Prince George. However the issue is not simply a matter of withdrawing the words. It is a matter of apologizing to the community because she slammed the entire community and that needs to be withdrawn.

[Organized Crime, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, organized crime, according to the RCMP continues to expand while this minister chases sportsmen and hunters. Organized crime has unlimited cash available for the best technology. Our police are handcuffed by ineffective laws and ineffective programs.

Why does the minister not support our police and Canadians by putting resources back into front line policing?