JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 28, 1998

• 1640

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Good afternoon.

Today we're continuing our hearings on Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

We have with us the Honourable Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice. Welcome, minister.

We would also welcome back Richard Mosley, who is assistant deputy minister for criminal law policy and community justice; Chris Ram, counsel, criminal law policy section; and Jodie Van Dieen, counsel, also of the criminal law policy section.

I see we've lost Monsieur Roy along the way. I understand he's not well. We really appreciate his spending so much time with us yesterday.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): We made him sick.

The Chair: We have this effect.

Anyway, Minister, I know you have to leave to take our report to your provincial and territorial colleagues. We're still flying fairly high about our report, which I'm sure you've committed to memory in the time since I last saw you at 3 p.m.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): The minister says she hasn't read it yet.

The Chair: You should know how grateful we are to your department for their assistance on that report. Also on this one we received a briefing book, which saved our bacon in terms of being able to move our committee agenda along and allow our staff to continue to complete the Victims' Rights: A Voice, Not a Veto report. So thank you. Go ahead.

The Honourable Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Let me say, first of all, on behalf of the department, but most particularly on behalf of myself, how pleased we are to receive your work on victims' rights. As you are aware, this is an issue of some considerable concern to me. I want to thank you and congratulate all of you on the very fine work you have done and the high degree of unanimity that was possible in relation to almost all recommendations found within this report. That degree of unanimity speaks to how important the rights of victims are and how seriously all of you and so many in Canadian society take the question of the inclusion of victims in a respectful way within our criminal justice system.

On behalf of everyone in my department, I thank you for this fine piece of work. While I have not had the opportunity to read it, I do plan to read it this evening on my flight to Regina. As you have indicated, I will share it with my provincial and territorial colleagues tomorrow, when I see them at our justice meeting.

It is a great pleasure for me to be here today and share with you my views in relation to Bill C-51. I do want to make clear at the outset that this is a relatively modest series of proposed changes to the criminal law. I also want to say that I make no apologies for that. We have made a number of significant changes in areas such as organized crime, but other less glamorous changes are needed from time to time as well.

The omnibus format is a very efficient use of House time and committee time, but it only works if there is a fairly broad support for the changes proposed. To make major policy changes in an omnibus bill would put members on all sides of the House who oppose some changes and support others in a difficult position. This would not give such changes the thorough debate they might warrant.

I had identified several areas where we wanted to take fairly quick action, but none of the changes was sufficiently major to warrant a stand-alone bill. My department also tracks technical problems with the Criminal Code, and they produced a list of other amendments, collecting legislative oversights and other minor problems to complete the package.

If there is a common thread that runs through most of the changes, it is that they are proposed to address concerns raised by the provinces or the criminal justice community either in our regular consultations or as a result of specific incidents or cases.

The changes to the gambling provisions, for example, originate with Quebec and Ontario, and the changes to the child prostitution provisions originate with British Columbia and Alberta. The repeal of the year and a day rule responds to concerns from a number of sources, most recently including Manitoba.

• 1645

Several provinces also requested the expansion of non-communication orders to prevent persons charged with domestic violence offences from contacting victims or witnesses both before and after their bail hearing. One of the changes dealing with criminal appeals was requested by the Supreme Court of Canada.

As I said at second reading, we recognize that the provinces have an important role to play in law enforcement and prosecution, and we are prepared to act where we can to address their concerns. Tourism and economic development is somewhat further afield for us, but in the case of the two gambling amendments we were able to respond to provincial requests without raising any major public safety or security concerns.

One of the cornerstones of the bill is the repeal of the year and a day rule, section 227 of the Criminal Code. Cases where it applies are relatively rare, but have been increasing in recent years because medical advances make it more likely that victims of assaults will survive for extended periods. Forensic advances also make it possible to prove the causation of death in cases involving disease or environmental pollution, where it would not have been possible a few years ago.

Some of the proposals for changing section 227 also propose codifying the law of causation. We considered this, but ultimately we decided against it. Given the practical nature of difficult cases, trying to formulate a rule would have greatly complicated the law and would have probably also limited the overall number of cases.

In 1985 the Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Smithers that any act that makes more than a minimal or negligible contribution to death makes the actor liable for having caused it. If Parliament tried to codify or elaborate on this, it might well result in a less stringent standard. It would also limit the ability of the courts to deal with complex fact situations appropriately.

We also considered whether the repeal could be made to apply to cases where the year and a day period had already run its course. Our view is that the charter precludes this either in paragraph 11.(g), which prohibits conviction for retroactive crimes, or section 7, which guarantees fundamental justice.

The charter case for extending the limitation period, where it is still running, is still stronger. As a matter of policy we wanted to make the repeal apply to as many cases as possible.

Another change, which was a priority for me, was the provision linking the new deceptive telemarketing offences proposed by my colleague, the Minister of Industry, in Bill C-20 with the Criminal Code proceeds of crime provisions.

When Bill C-20 was drafted and introduced it was not apparent that this was an important link. Competition Act offences are regulatory criminal law and the Competition Bureau would not usually consider any attempt to target proceeds from other offences it enforces, such as misleading advertising.

As we have seen both from our own examination of the problem and the recent media coverage of it, telemarketing fraud and deceptive telemarketing are quite a different matter. These involve the use of telephone boiler rooms to contact large numbers of victims. Individual losses may be large or small, but the overall proceeds are often very large, making confiscation a major deterrent and an important step towards compensating victims. The proceeds are so large in some cases that this sort of crime has attracted the attention of more traditional organized crime groups in Canada, making the targeting of proceeds even more important.

I take this very seriously, and the Minister for Industry agrees with me. As soon as the need for this link was identified it was included in this bill.

Another organized crime priority for both Quebec and the Solicitor General was the exclusion of those convicted of organized crime offences for accelerated parole review. This proved to be a fairly straightforward amendment and it was proceeded with, but I know there are some concerns that it does not go far enough. Perhaps we'll discuss those later.

• 1650

As proposed, organized crime offenders would be excluded as long as the organized crime element is proven either on conviction or sentence. To go further than this and catch everything at conviction might require us to restructure the money-laundering offence itself. I would be prepared to consider suggestions, but such changes go well beyond what it is reasonable for us to attempt in an omnibus bill.

The criminal organization offence was added to the Criminal Code less than two years ago, and we wanted to take fairly quick action on this issue before significant numbers of cases arise.

Another significant organized crime issue is the potential use of rough diamonds, produced in Canada, as a medium of exchange by organized crime. Clearly, with the opening of Canada's first diamond mine two weeks ago in the Northwest Territories, this has become a more pressing issue. It is too soon to tell whether this will become a problem, but if it does arise it is likely the cases will involve the Northwest Territories, where the stones originate, one or more provinces where they are smuggled or sold, and possibly other countries as well.

We had proposed to create a federal power to prosecute such cases, but as my parliamentary secretary has indicated, we are prepared to withdraw this clause from the bill because it does raise some provincial concerns. If problems arise, we will take this up with the provinces in the appropriate fora to see how best to deal with it.

I want to emphasize here that our goal is only to find the most effective ways we can work together to control organized crime, which is increasingly being committed across provincial and national boundaries.

The other major component of this bill is a series of sentencing reforms. As with other elements of the bill, our purpose here is not to make fundamental changes to sentencing policy but to address concerns that have arisen with the sentencing reform bill, which took effect in late 1996. This created a number of general rules dealing with fines, conditional sentences and other measures, and the application of the new general rules to specific provisions of the Criminal Code and other acts has had to be reconciled or adjusted in some cases.

We propose to clarify, for example, that the general application of fines does not create an exception to minimum custodial sentences where these are prescribed. Thus, if there is a minimum prison term, the offender could be sentenced to a fine in addition to it, but not instead of it.

The most important sentencing changes deal with the enforcement of conditional sentences. They are designed to ensure that the enforcement of conditional sentence orders is effective, and that offenders face appropriate consequences for breaches of their conditions. At the same time, they are not intended to make fundamental changes to the basic policy of conditional sentencing.

Madam Chair, I believe that your committee is going to look at the question of conditional sentencing. I wrote to you and I sent you the information and statistics in possession of the Department of Justice in relation to the operation in the first two years of the new conditional sentencing provisions. Certainly after you have completed that review I would be open to considering any recommendations you make in relation to more fundamental reform of the conditional sentencing provisions, if you were to find such reform necessary.

I understand that obviously the conditional sentencing provisions are controversial. As I've already indicated, these provisions are still relatively new, and it is important that we give them a chance to work properly before making major adjustments. At this point, a number of cases have been dealt with by appeal courts, and several are pending before the Supreme Court of Canada. Our criminal justice system has always allowed appeal courts to determine what measures and what severity of sentences are appropriate on a case-by-case basis, and we should see how they are dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada before we pass judgment on them ourselves.

The policy underlying conditional sentences is to conserve prison space for those who require incarceration to protect society and to create sentences that are as effective as possible for both retribution and rehabilitation. Our information thus far suggests that this is how they are being used. From September 1996 to April 1998, over 22,000 conditional sentences were imposed. The vast majority were for property and other non-violent offences, and where violence was involved, the cases were usually minor assaults. Some of the cases on appeal to the Supreme Court, not surprisingly, are exceptions to this pattern, and we are anxious to see how the court will deal with them.

• 1655

In the meantime, a problem was identified that I felt could be dealt with quickly and effectively, and the necessary amendments are in this bill. The original conditional sentencing provisions create procedures for dealing with cases where offenders breach conditions, but in some cases these were not effective. If offenders could not be found or proceedings were delayed, the courts lost jurisdiction to deal with them when the sentence ran out before the offenders could be dealt with.

The proposed amendments deal with that by stopping the clock on the sentence, which ensures that jurisdiction is preserved for as long as it takes to find the offender and deal with the breach. It also ensures that offenders do not get credit for serving time when they were not, in effect, actually serving it.

We have taken precautions to ensure fairness and provide for re-crediting of time where there was a reasonable excuse for the breach or other exceptional circumstances exist. But the bottom line is that offenders will not get credit unless they comply with whatever sentence conditions are imposed.

We felt that the change could be done quickly and that we should move forward with it as quickly as possible, and it is one of the reasons for bringing forward the omnibus bill at this time.

I understand that my officials who were here yesterday answered many of your technical questions. I think what I will do now is conclude and see if members of the committee have other questions for me. My officials are here with me and will be happy to answer any additional questions you might have.

Let me say that you did mention our colleague, Yvan Roy, yesterday. Mr. Roy was unfortunately and suddenly taken quite ill and is not able to be here. But I know the committee would like me to extend to him your best wishes for a speedy recovery, because based on what I've heard from committee members from all sides of the House, I think you find Mr. Roy to be someone who is forthcoming and elucidates many of these finer technical points of the law with clarity. I know we all wish him a speedy recovery.

With that I will conclude and happily entertain your questions.

The Chair: Thanks, Minister.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: I have about three points to make, and maybe I'll do them at once and you can answer them back.

I want to talk a little bit about conditional sentencing. I agree with you that you have to make sure some of these things have a chance to work properly, but there has been criticism on severe violent crimes. Maybe an example is the one in Montreal where two men were convicted of rape and violence and got a conditional sentence, and there was a public uproar about that.

I wonder if the minister would consider an amendment to this bill—and I know you've said you want us to review the whole situation—something that would let the judges know that the Parliament of Canada doesn't agree with the fact that people who commit these kinds of violent crimes should get conditional sentence. That's my number one request there.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Okay.

Mr. John Reynolds: Maybe I'll do all three of them at once and then you can come back, in case your staff want to put something in between.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes.

Mr. John Reynolds: Also, I compliment you on increasing the amount of time that organized crime members have to serve in jail, but I wonder if that's really enough.

We all know, if you look at the definition of organized crime, it's one of the most serious problems in this country and is becoming more so with the drugs and the money laundering. You mentioned the diamonds, which could become another issue.

I wonder if it isn't time to look at saying that anybody convicted of being a member of organized crime, as part of the crime they've committed, would now have to serve at least two-thirds of their sentence, period, before they can get out of jail. I'd like you to consider accepting that kind of amendment.

• 1700

Last is the area of people convicted of procuring people under 18 years of age. I would like to see some kind of mandatory minimum jail sentence for these people. I think once people are adults they do their own thing and they face their own penalties. But when it comes to anybody who procures a child to go into prostitution, I think this is as serious as a person getting into the drug areas. I'd like to see the judges of Canada knowing that, even if it's a first offence, if you're convicted of this type of offence you're going to serve a minimum jail term.

So those are the three areas of most concern. I agree with you that most of the bill has many things in it that had to happen.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you very much. Let me respond to these points. Rick, Chris, or Jodie may wish to add something.

First of all, I think all three issues are important. My guess is they are things to which this committee and I as minister will return in the coming months in a different context, and probably in a more detailed way.

As I mentioned, because of concerns raised in the House and elsewhere, I have asked the committee to review the relatively new area of conditional sentencing. I've asked them to review the history to date and any possibilities for reform.

You mention a number of egregious situations where lower courts have used conditional sentencing in situations where I think we would probably all agree it was inappropriate—for example, in relation to certain sexual assaults. Those cases are being dealt with by appellant courts. In fact, appellant courts in provinces like my own, in Alberta, but also in Ontario, British Columbia, and I believe Quebec, are dealing with these—I think you rightly described them as egregious cases—and are providing a much higher degree of clarification and guidance for lower courts. This guidance relates to when conditional sentences should be used, when they shouldn't be used, the conditions that should be imposed and those kinds of things.

I think one of the very best decisions in this regard came from the Alberta Court of Appeal. They gave a very detailed exposition. Chief Justice Fraser gave a very detailed exposition in terms of how that court of appeal felt conditional sentencing should and should not be used.

So I take your point. Indeed, we are concerned about it too. In this omnibus bill, I would like to deal with the more specific changes being proposed, but I have no doubt that when you do your review and when we hear from the Supreme Court of Canada, we will be in a much better position to decide and determine what the appropriate next steps are.

For example, some have suggested the attaching of a schedule of offences that are simply not subject to the possibility of a conditional sentence. I'll be honest. At this point, that is not my preferred option, but it is an option I think you should probably take a look at as a committee and come back to us with recommendations on.

Obviously organized crime is a serious issue for all of us. I believe you have made a recommendation or a suggestion related to the serving of a mandatory two-thirds of the sentence.

Rick, is there anything you want to say about this?

Mr. Richard G. Mosley (Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal Law Policy and Community Justice, Department of Justice): Minister, Madam Chair, there have been ongoing discussions with the police community and the provinces in the context of a general overview and examination of the problem of organized crime. In fact, in the coming weeks there'll be another meeting of the participants in those discussions. In this meeting, we'll be examining some proposals the Solicitor General is advancing for a national action plan or organized crime.

One of the proposals under consideration is to conduct a review of sentencing in this area in general. This may take place over the course of the next year. There are a number of considerations that have to be taken into account.

• 1705

More specifically, in relation to the question of parole eligibility, that's a matter that I think will be addressed in the context of the review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which the Solicitor General has undertaken.

On your third point, which is about procuring persons under the age of 18 years, Parliament did address that just a short while ago, making an amendment to section 212 of the Criminal Code. It's the new subsection (2.1), which provides that there is an aggravated penalty for living off the avails of persons under the age of 18 years. That's a minimum term of imprisonment of five years and a maximum of fourteen years.

The department is continuing to look at the problem of child abuse, including its effects on youth engaged in prostitution. In fact, at the ministerial conference this week in Regina, a report will be considered from federal, provincial, and territorial officials that touches on that problem. We're also looking at other issues in relation to child abuse.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I think the language Mr. Mosley uses here is important. He talked about child abuse. In fact, I think this is the way we must characterize this in terms of those who are under the age of 18.

I want to congratulate the provinces, a number of which have taken this approach to the issue. We're working with the provinces not only on child prostitution, but on the whole question of the child as a victim in society. This is certainly an important part of that.

I do want to underscore that we take this issue very seriously, hence the kinds of recent amendments to the code that Mr. Mosley has just outlined. It's important to characterize this for what it is: child abuse. I think we sometimes are less zealous in our pursuit of acts of prostitution than perhaps we should be. When one is dealing with seeking the services of a child who is under the age of 18, I think, as a society, it's important to condemn that in the strongest terms.

Therefore, I do think that we and the provinces and territories are working fairly effectively together to, first, make that point through our laws in our respective jurisdictions, and second, continue to work on this issue. Nobody has the solution, but we all have pieces of a solution, and we are trying to work more effectively together to deal with the problem.

The Chair: Chuck Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): I'll go on the next round.

The Chair: All right. I'm not timing anybody, I'm just being reasonable today.

Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Give me my gavel; Mr. MacKay is about to speak.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Minister and your support staff, I want to thank you for appearing. It's a pleasure to have you here. I want to add my congratulations to the congratulatory tone of the chair. I think this is a very positive piece of legislation. I see a lot of practical changes that I experienced in the courtroom. In particular, I'm looking at the non-communication orders and the stopping of the clock on conditional sentences. I think that was something that was identified almost immediately in courtrooms around Canada.

I have one suggestion that's a follow-up to a comment from my colleague from the Reform Party. There's the possibility of looking at including violence motivated by gang activity into the provisions in the Criminal Code that presently exist for aggravating circumstances. I'm thinking about the provisions that single out crimes motivated by racism or sexism, which would potentially include gang activity under that provision of the code. That's just one suggestion. I know we're going to look at that in this committee.

Similarly, with respect to conditional sentences—I know that this once again gets into a broader discussion—I would like to know your inclination toward carving out certain violent offences, particularly sex-related crimes, as being not appropriate for the application of conditional sentences and simply taking that discretion away. I say that in all earnestness because I think it has been inappropriately applied by some judges. Rather than wait for the appeal courts to sort this out and let those types of inappropriate sentences come down, maybe we should take legislative action.

• 1710

Specifically with respect to this bill, in particular pertaining to clause 6, have the RCMP or other law enforcement agencies conducted an analysis or looked into the impact of less stringent gambling provisions?

Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact the RCMP has not done that because the enforcement is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I do understand, however, that Minister Palladini, who made the request for the inclusion of this section on permissive authority, has contacted the Ontario Provincial Police. He has in fact been in discussion with them in relation to any concerns they might have.

Perhaps Chris or Rick may have more information about that, but as I understand it, it's not an enforcement issue that involves the RCMP, it's an enforcement issue that involves, in the case of Ontario, the OPP.

Mr. Richard Mosley: When this proposal was first advanced, we actually consulted with each of the provinces to inquire as to whether they would have any concerns about the administration of this extension from a law enforcement perspective. The response was largely negative.

There are concerns, of course, that the use of dice and games of chance can lead to cheating, but that's a concern the provinces can regulate through the rules they administer with respect to the operation of casinos. That's what they indicated to us. It's primarily a matter of close surveillance of the gaming activity. So this is something they feel they can handle. It should not in itself be an obstacle to this change in the law.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Ram.

Mr. Chris Ram (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): I have just one other point. With respect to the social side of your question, there are two aspects to this. One is the security concerns, and the other is what would the social effect be.

Generally, the outcome of the consultations that we did—I wasn't personally involved in them—was that the incorporation of gambling would influence which casinos people chose to gamble in. It would not draw more people into casinos. It has more to do with one operation competing with the other than a general expansion of gaming activity.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Peter MacKay: With that consultation in mind, I'm wondering whether the minister would agree to tabling copies of correspondence or any sort of input that was received from provincial governments, corporations, or lobby groups in favour of or against this particular change that's been enacted.

I'm thinking about the province of Nova Scotia. Although you referred in your remarks to the fact that the focal point seemed to be Ontario and Quebec, Nova Scotia and your present home province of Alberta—this is not your past home province—I think are going through quite an active debate on the issue of casinos and gambling generally.

Ms. Anne McLellan: In relation to my specific reference to the letter from Minister Palladini in Ontario, I have no objections to providing it, but I do believe that since it was a letter sent to me by a ministerial colleague from a provincial government, it would be appropriate for me to ask out of courtesy—

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sure, I understand.

Ms. Anne McLellan: —whether he has any objections to having that letter filed before the committee. So I'll do that.

Rick, in relation to other correspondence that we have received, did we receive correspondence from Nova Scotia?

Mr. Richard Mosley: I don't recall.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I don't think we did.

Mr. Richard Mosley: Well, I can't recall specifically that we did.

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, I don't think we did.

Mr. Richard Mosley: All of the provinces participate in the regular meetings of officials through to ministers, and this issue was on the table for several years at those meetings. I'm sure that Nova Scotia had an opportunity to make its views known. Whether they chose to write to us directly on the matter, I couldn't tell you today.

• 1715

One point I think we should stress of course is that it's within the control of the province as to whether they choose to permit the extension to dice games or not. So if a province does not wish to permit dice games, then it's entirely within their control.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I realize it is an opt-out exemption provision.

Thank you. That's all I have.

The Chair: Do you need copies of all 432 letters that I received?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Those are all from Windsor, I think.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: She's on the record.

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Minister, I missed the beginning of your presentation, but you seemed to be open on a point of law that I find very important, namely section 51. If I can rely on the report of our meeting, I think that Mr. Roy got the message across. Our meeting dealt basically, as far as the Bloc Québécois is concerned, with section 51, and you seem prepared for an agreement or at least some proposals.

I looked at that after the meeting and I think that we're not too far apart from each other, regarding our objective.

Madam Minister, have you read the bill tabled by the Charlesbourg MP, Bill C-416?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, I didn't.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Bill C-416 was meant in part to be a response to the Lagana affair. It's exactly the same section that the Bloc Québécois wishes to amend in Bill C-51, but differently, for example, subparagraph 125(1)(a)(iv). In your bill, you say:

(iv) an offence set out in Schedule II and sanctioned by a penalty in respect of which an order has been made under section 743.6 of the Criminal Code,(iv)

Would you have any objections, Madam Minister, to striking out from the section anything to do with an order that could be made under section 743.6?

In other words, anyone found guilty of the offences found in Schedule II of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, for example, drug trafficking in section 4, import and export in section 5 and all the rest, regardless of whether the judge says it's under section 743.6, would not be eligible for accelerated parole.

Would you agree with that? That would conform in large part to the bill we are proposing, the aim of which is to remove everything provided for in this subparagraph about section 743.6.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: Do you want to respond to that, Mr. Mosley or Mr. Ram?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Do you understand the question?

Mrs. Anne McLellan: Yes.

Mr. Chris Ram: Partially.

[English]

Let me attempt to answer. First of all, with respect to, if I understood you, proposed subparagraph 125(1)(a)(iv) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the only amendment in that provision in this bill is the correction of a cross-reference. This is being done at the request of the Solicitor General, and we would have to consult with the Solicitor General before we made any change to that. Unfortunately, his representatives aren't here.

With respect to proposed subparagraph 125(1)(a)(v), the problem essentially is that in order to—

The Chair: Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Chris Ram: I didn't understand.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I haven't yet got to subparagraph 125(1)(a)(v).

I understand that this is just a matter of concordance. I'd nevertheless like to say to the Minister and her assistants that it has to be cumulative under subparagraph (iv). It must be an offence set out in Schedule II and sanctioned by a penalty in respect of which an order has been made under section 743.6. The judge has to mention this in his decision. Why not get rid of section 743.6 for the offences in Schedule II?

• 1720

Finally, why not remove a condition? Why don't we simply talk about an offence set out in Schedule II, regardless of what the judges say?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: They're schedule II.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: These are extremely serious offences, and I think it would affect cases like the Lagana affair.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: If I understand you, Monsieur Bellehumeur, what you're suggesting is that we would amend subparagraph 125(1)(a)(iv) in clause 51 in such a way that subparagraph 125(1)(a)(iv) would end at the end of the phrase “Schedule II”.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: I think, unless Mr. Ram or Mr. Mosley is in a position to answer that at this point, that would be something we would want to consider before providing you with a final answer in that regard.

Rick, do you—

Mr. Richard Mosley: I would suggest we look at it overnight and return to the issue tomorrow.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The other thing—

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: But I take your point in terms of the cumulative nature of that section.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I have something else to say, Madam Minister, in connection with subparagraph 125(1)(a)(v). I don't have anything against there being a reference to organized crime, but I'd like you to study the issue I've just raised with regard to Bill C-416. I think we could add another subparagraph in which we could then talk about conspiracy, attempt, and aiding and abetting, for some very specific elements in Schedule II that involve money laundering.

I think that would be very constructive.

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: We will look at that overnight, as well, and officials will be here tomorrow.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: One last little question.

Mrs. Anne McLellan: Yes.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I don't know whether this is done. I don't know whether you read the article in today's Le Journal de Montréal. It's very important. It seems there is a new hallucinogenic plant that's appeared on the streets in Montreal. It's called datura stramonium. It's an ornamental plant that grows in flowerbeds in Montreal, across Quebec and across Canada. In the fall, this plant produces a fruit, whose seeds are hallucinogenic and even, in large quantities, deadly. At present, this drug is being sold on Montreal street corners, and it is even being mixed with other drugs to enhance their effect.

The hitch in this story is that it isn't regarded as a dangerous substance in Canada.

I looked in the Larousse dictionary. To my great surprise, the Larousse knows that this is a hallucinogenic plant which can even cause cardiac arrest, etc. It is an extremely important plant.

I see amendments are being made, in the omnibus bill, to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I think we would have the unanimous consent of all the parties if we could include datura stramonium in the omnibus bill at this stage. I'm not an expert, but could we add this plant if all the parties were in agreement?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: In fairness to my colleague, the Minister of Health, who actually is responsible for these listings, what I would want to do is talk to him and determine whether his officials have done the necessary research work that they do before adding or deleting substances from those lists.

I know you talked to my colleague this afternoon after question period.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes.

• 1725

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: I presume it was about this. I don't know what his response was, but certainly if you share that with me, if you so choose— I don't know what my colleague said in relation to this, but I do think I can't say yes or no, because in fact it is a matter that requires the direction of the Minister of Health. But certainly I'm more than willing to pursue this matter with him, and if you're willing to share his reaction to your concern, that would provide all of us with some sense of the urgency of this matter from his point of view.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Well, he told me he wasn't aware of it and that he didn't know it wasn't illegal in Canada. Still, he reacted pretty strongly and I think he was sincere when he said that he was going to examine the case quickly and decide what he could do.

Only, to give you an idea of what's going on, a container with enough seeds to make a whole class paranoid for two days is being sold for $5 on the street corner, in Montreal.

Poison Control Centre Quebec, last month, given that this is the height of the harvest season, was notified of 40 cases of poisoning. I think it's extremely serious and that we could react swiftly to the situation, since there are already studies about this plant demonstrating that it is very hallucinogenic.

Yet another very constructive comment from the Bloc Québécois.

Mrs. Anne McLellan: Yes. Thank you very much.

[English]

I will follow this up with Allan, and in fact if my officials this evening could talk with his health officials— In fact if he is willing to move on this quickly, I certainly have no objection to doing so.

An hon. member: It would be difficult to do it through this bill, because it's going to open up the schedule.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Right. For technical reasons, the mechanism may not be through this bill. But having said that, it does not mean we cannot move quickly on identifying the necessary legislative change and opening up, I guess, the schedule in the controlled substances.

Thank you for that, and I take your point that it is an important issue.

The Chair: Thanks.

Did you have just one question, or did— Well, please go ahead, and then I'll go to the other side.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Okay.

I think we can all concur with your words about child prostitution being child abuse, Minister. I think you're going to hear from Mr. Dosanjh about his concerns and the rising movement in B.C. about raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. I realize we can't do this with this bill, but I'd just like to get your views on that. Because the situation we run into is child prostitutes cohabiting with their pimps, but we can't get them for pimping. If we could get the age of consent raised to 16, we could certainly get them that way. Again, I think you're going to hear from Mr. Dosanjh quite extensively on that.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I think that's right. And in fact I heard from Mr. Dosanjh at the last meeting. Not only did I hear, but all his colleagues heard. In fact there appears to be some difference of opinion among provincial and territorial colleagues. Consequently, what we have done is prepared a consultation paper on the subject. I think, Rick, it has at this point gone to the provinces for their input.

One of the issues in the consultation paper is this very one, the age of consent. What we want to do after hearing back from the provinces is release that consultation paper more generally for public input, from child advocates and anyone who is interested in commenting on the discussion: the issues, the problems, and the possible solutions set out in that document.

But you are quite right, it is an important issue. It's particularly important to the Attorney General of British Columbia. And we have taken the opportunity to prepare a consultative document, which they all have in their possession. I will be looking forward to hearing their reactions to the consultative document at this meeting. So it's an issue we're very much seized on.

The Chair: Let me see. I feel psychic today, but I suspect Mr. Lee has a question or two.

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, he doesn't. Look at that.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes, he does.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I tremble at the thought of coming here and facing this troupe.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Are you all right?

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): No, I'm okay.

• 1730

The Chair: It had the reverse effect on Derek.

Mr. McKay apparently has Mr. Lee's notes. If not, that's Scarborough attitude.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): With respect to Mr. Justice Laforme's decision on the Wakeford file, Mr. Wakeford applied for the medical use of marijuana and brought up a charter challenge. Mr. Justice Laforme essentially said that you had to go to section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Apparently it caught all counsel by surprise.

You and the Minister of Health have indicated publicly some interest in moving on this area, the medical use of marijuana. I realize that this file bounces back between justice and health and health and justice, and I take the view rather seriously that courts are no place to do social policy.

The issue really is, where is justice going on this issue? Have you received any applications? Have you regimed to consider applications? How do you avoid, if you will, the slippery slope and not open it up into an absurd debate? I'd be curious as to what thinking is going on with the department.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Let me say first of all—not to pass the buck—that I view this as primarily a matter for the Minister of Health, and the health department has the lead on this issue. However, let me say that my colleague Allan Rock and I have both said publicly that we think it is very important to look at the issue of the medicinal use of marijuana, and I suppose potentially certain other soft drugs, but certainly marijuana.

Minister Rock has had his officials at work and we have been working cooperatively with them to the greatest extent possible in relation to completing that review. My colleague and I hope to be able to present to our colleagues at the social union committee, some time in the not too distant future, the work of the Department of Health. I think at this point it's inappropriate for me to say more, because the Minister of Health is the lead on this issue. But it is one where I have said I think it's an issue that's not going to go away.

Mr. John McKay: Exactly.

Ms. Anne McLellan: We're kidding ourselves if we think it's going to go away. We are going to have more situations like Mr. Wakeford, and in fact there are more presently in the judicial system. We will see more applications. I think it's incumbent upon us to show leadership on this issue and to look at the state of the science in relation to medicinal use and then make recommendations to the House in relation to this issue. So that's where we're going. That work is well on the way to being completed.

Mr. John McKay: Is there a timeframe? Is there an ability to give some comfort to the activists on this file so that we don't end up with an endless series of charter challenges, one of which will inevitably drop and will inevitably force the government's hand in an area of, shall we say, extreme social sensitivity?

Ms. Anne McLellan: In terms of a specific timeframe, no. However, let me say that the Minister of Health understands that we've had this issue for some time. He and I commented probably in the fall of 1997, first as a team if you like, in terms of the importance of doing the work necessary to make an informed decision about medicinal use. I think he and I both hope to be able to make recommendations in the near future.

I can't speak for him, and in fact the science is being done by his department. We understand that time has gone by. This is an important issue. There are people who are suffering. There are people who are probably being put to unnecessary further strain because of the uncertainty surrounding what we might ultimately decide to do.

• 1735

All I can say is we are seized with this issue, and we do not want to delay it any longer than possible. The Minister of Health and I will be making recommendations as soon as possible.

The Chair: We have about ten more minutes. Does anybody have questions?

Mr. Derek Lee: When will the officials be back here?

Ms. Anne McLellan: They'll be here tomorrow morning with answers for Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Derek Lee: Will we hear more witnesses, or do we hope to go into clause-by-clause?

The Chair: The Canadian Police Association will be here tomorrow. As it stands right now, we intend to go into clause-by-clause after that.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, thank you.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you all very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Anne McLellan: It's a pleasure to be here. I always enjoy coming.

The Chair: So far.

Ms. Anne McLellan: No, it's always interesting.

The Chair: Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.