Stephen Owen

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the anti-terrorism bill deals with terrorist activity by giving important new tools to police, security forces and prosecutors. It also has provisions to protect against hatred to minority communities in Canada. The bill will amend the criminal code to prohibit online use of hate propaganda. It will create new offences against those who desecrate religious sites or places of worship. It will amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to extend the prohibitions against hate speech.

Cultural diversity is one of the strengths of Canadians--

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 provides for the offence of terrorist activity which is broadly described to include facilitating, participating in, financing or directing terrorist activities.

The decision not to ban membership of groups is to overcome a major legal difficulty of proving membership. It also can have constitutional implications. The way of targeting anyone who takes part in terrorist activity or facilitates, participates in, finances or leads it is a much more effective way of catching those who are responsible.

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 allows the Government of Canada to implement more than 12 international conventions dealing with terrorism. Many of those provisions allow for extraterritorial charges to be laid and proceeded with in Canada, but also provide obligations for extradition where appropriate.

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have provisions now in the Immigration Act, section 40, which allow for the deportation and removal of people who have been suspected of terrorist activities. We have mutual legal assistance treaties with many countries. We have extradition treaties with many countries.

Bill C-36 also addresses the issue of people who facilitate terrorist activity as described. These people can be detained and they can be extradited or deported in the appropriate circumstances.

[Marriage Capacity Act, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-264 proposes certain amendments to the Marriage Act to allow legal marriage for same sex couples. I will begin by commending the member for Burnaby--Douglas in as strong and sincere terms as I can for his tireless and principled work over many years for the equality of gay and lesbian Canadians. All members of the House and all Canadians should feel proud of his achievements and his determination.

At the outset I emphasize that the Government of Canada takes seriously its obligations to ensure equal treatment of all its citizens including gay and lesbian Canadians. It is because of this constitutional obligation that the government moved last year to enact the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act which provides equal treatment for common law same sex partners by extending the same benefits and obligations under federal law that are granted to common law opposite sex partners.

I am proud to say that not only does the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act fully comply with our constitutional obligations. It goes further than any other jurisdiction in Canada in ensuring equal treatment for gay and lesbian Canadians. I am also proud to say that Canada is in the forefront of the world in ensuring that gay and lesbian couples are treated under the federal law with dignity and respect.

Bill C-264 proposes to fundamentally alter the legal concept of marriage by legislatively overriding the common law and civil law rule on legal capacity that a marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”.

Canada is unique in the world for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that our laws are based on two of the great legal traditions, the common law and the civil law. In both these traditions there is a clarity as to the legal meaning of the term marriage which can be traced back into history. Because of this Canada is not alone in its understanding of the legal concept of marriage.

European countries that have provided a registration system similar to marriage have deliberately chosen to maintain a clear distinction in law between registration and marriage. In terms of the approach taken by the House last year, a review of other countries shows that few have enacted legislation designed to extend benefits and obligations to same sex couples on the same basis as to opposite sex couples.

As mentioned previously, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act extends equal treatment to common law same sex couples and common law opposite sex couples with respect to federal benefits and obligations.

The act was a comprehensive piece of legislation. It amended 68 federal statutes falling within the mandate of some 23 federal departments and agencies. Some of the major federal statutes of general application that were modernized by the act include the Canadian pension plan, the Old Age Security Act, the Income Tax Act and the criminal code.

The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act provides a responsible and balanced approach to extending equal treatment to same sex couples and ensuring that same sex couples receive the same benefits and obligations under the law as opposite sex couples.

I will turn for a moment to some of the legal difficulties with the bill before us today. Because provincial and territorial laws are based on the same concepts of marriage that are reflected in federal law, Bill C-264 would affect hundreds of laws from coast to coast. Other legal rules about capacity to marry that are currently in the common law are based on the opposite sex nature of marriage. These rules have been developed over many years and would require radical and even legislative change to fit same sex couples.

For example, opposite sex couples can be granted an annulment under the common law for lack of consummation. Adultery is grounds for divorce. Incest in the criminal code is based on an opposite sex model. All these would need to be fundamentally altered to fit same sex relationships.

Various court challenges address a number of issues including constitutional jurisdiction with respect to altering the definition of marriage. The hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas has mentioned the B.C. case which is working its way to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. As such it would be premature to act at this time before we receive guidance from the courts on this point. Once we have received guidance from the courts parliament can decide to act if it is necessary and appropriate at that time.

With respect to Bill C-264, legally there is an additional problem. The bill proposes to simply change the title of the current act and add one clause. However the whole statute is based on opposite sex relationships and represents the entire set of limitations on who can legally marry whom. If the bill were to proceed without the appropriate adjustments it would effectively create a new discrimination.

The government believes strongly in ensuring equal treatment and legal recognition for people in both same sex unions and opposite sex relationships. Recognizing the commitment of spouses and common law partners, including those in same sex unions, is an important and worthy goal and one that is strongly supported by a majority of Canadians.

The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act achieves this objective. For these reasons the Minister of Justice cannot support Bill C-264.

[Anti-terrorism Legislation, October 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there are well established rules in Canadian law for governments to be held civilly liable for mistaken actions by police or by prosecutors. Of course these civil remedies will always be available to Canadians who may have their rights infringed in any way by public authorities.

[Anti-Terrorism Legislation, October 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings up a good point and that is the advice coming from the Senate and the House committees looking into Bill C-36. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have said in the House repeatedly that the government, while it has put forward preferred options, is willing to consider all reasonable advice coming from those committees.

[National Rivers Day, October 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in support of the motion put forward by my colleague from York North. We celebrate B.C. Rivers Day annually in British Columbia.

I recognize and appreciate the comments of members opposite, particularly my colleague from British Columbia, the member for Dewdney--Alouette. His constituency shares the border of the mighty Fraser River that runs through both our constituencies. As it passes my constituency of Vancouver Quadra it also passes West Point Gray and then flows into the Pacific Ocean.

The Fraser River is of particular importance to us as we consider the importance of having a national rivers day. It exemplifies more than any other river in the country the wonderful words from the poem of T. S. Eliot as quoted by my colleague.

We have a T. S. Eliot of sorts in British Columbia. His name is Mark Angelo. Mr. Angelo was the originator and energizer of the concept of B.C. Rivers Day. He was the long time member and leader of the outdoor recreation council of British Columbia. The council brings together dozens of different outdoor recreational environmental groups and tens of thousands of British Columbians who enjoy themselves throughout the year by teaching and instructing us. It helps to protect the outstanding recreational environmental values of British Columbia and has been the leader and energizer of the very successful B.C. Rivers Day.

Indeed the Fraser River has stimulated one of the most interesting governance institutions in our country, the Fraser Basin Council. The Fraser basin and all the tributaries that run into the Fraser River take up approximately 60% of the land base of British Columbia. This makes it a tremendous catchment area. It covers first nations traditional territories and dozens of municipalities. It attracts the important attention of all levels of government, whether municipal, provincial, federal or first nations.

Until very recently the president of the Fraser Council was Iona Campagnolo, a former member of the House. She was later sworn in as lieutenant-governor of British Columbia. She led the Fraser Council as a new form of governance which combined the mandates, the energies and in many ways the resources of all levels of government, whether federal, provincial, municipal or first nations, that are within the catchment area, the watershed of the Fraser River. Those are some of the important issues in British Columbia to focus upon in terms of the wealth of our rivers.

As Canadians we know how lucky we are to live in one of the world's most beautiful countries. How well do we know what makes our country such a unique place? How many of us know that Canada has the world's longest coastline but, more important, holds the globe's greatest reservoir of freshwater? Our hydrographic wealth is such that it is perhaps impossible to determine exactly how many rivers flow in Canada and how many flow into the Fraser River.

I had the opportunity to take part in a ceremony which recognized the restoration and regeneration of spawning in a river through the beautiful Pacific Spirit Regional Park which is in the constituency of Vancouver Quadra. It is part of the traditional lands of the Musqueam Band that worked thousands of hours of volunteer time with the Suzuki Foundation of British Columbia to restore that spawning stream which had lost its vital potential.

The true importance of our rivers cannot be measured in their number or in their kilometres of length, width or cubic metres of flow. Rivers are part of Canada. They have opened up the country to the successive generations of people who lived here for thousands of years. They have helped us become one of the great success stories of the 20th century.

Whether our ancestors explored this land in birchbark canoes or came here in French caravels or British square-riggers or whether we first saw the splendour of our natural heritage from the airplane that brought us or our forefathers to Canada, we know that rivers are part of the history of Canada and will continue to shape the future of its citizens.

My hon. colleague opposite informed us in a very interesting way of the number of national days that we celebrate in Canada. I am not sure if it was his underlying intent but it certainly had the impact on me of demonstrating what a gap we have in not having a national rivers day in Canada. I thank him for pointing out that oversight and for his support of the motion to make sure we plug that gap.

Perhaps no other country in the world owes so much to its rivers. Perhaps nobody more than this generation of Canadians should want to repay that debt. Our rivers need us today as much as we needed them in times gone by.

That takes us to the most important part of something like a national rivers day. We have celebrated B.C. Rivers Day for over 20 years now. My colleague from Dewdney--Alouette and I have had the great pleasure of taking part in B.C. Rivers Days events. It brings together thousands of people and helps us to become educated, energized and determined to ensure that what has been damaged is restored and what is still healthy remains so for the wealth and health of Canadians.

Our government is very proud of what has been accomplished in favour of our national parks, national historic sites, heritage rivers and marine conservation areas over the past few years. Let me mention a few of the accomplishments.

They are: the appointment of the expert panel on the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks, followed by plans to implement most of the 127 recommendations of the panel; the creation of 7 new national parks, including 3 extraordinary parks in the remote reaches of our Arctic; the approval of 14 new designated Canadian heritage rivers and the nomination of 4 candidate Canadian heritage rivers; the setting aside of pristine spaces in the Gulf Islands of British Columbia, an essential part of Canada's Pacific marine heritage legacy; the inclusion of Middle Island in Point Pelee National Park; and the creation of the new National Parks Act with ecological integrity as the paramount priority.

Other accomplishments are: the introduction of the new national marine conservation areas legislation; the first marine park in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence region; permanent caps on commercial development in national parks and fixed boundaries for all park communities; 90% of Canada's Rocky Mountains parks designated as wilderness areas; legislation creating the Parks Canada agency; the first national historic sites system plan; the honouring of historic achievements of aboriginal peoples, Canadian women and ethnocultural communities; the commemoration of over 150 national historic sites across Canada; the creation of urban discovery centres to connect Canada's students to their natural heritage; the involvement of thousands of students in British Columbia on B.C. Rivers Day, which presents the promise of education, energy, awareness and support from our youth across the country for a national rivers day; and the commitment in red book three to expend $130 million on new national parks and ecological integrity over the next four years.

These many accomplishments of the last few years have been led by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The sponsor of the motion has rightly singled out among the many initiatives taken by Parks Canada those that aim specifically to protect and enhance our national rivers system and our marine conservation areas. I believe national rivers day would help immensely to publicize these efforts and build support for them. It would also provide an opportunity to bring Canada's river communities closer together on tangible projects nationally, regionally and locally.

I take great pride and honour in endorsing the motion and I hope all members of the House will give it their full support.

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise today to introduce the debate at third reading of Bill C-15A, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other acts.

Hon. members will recall that Bill C-15A contains the amendments introduced in the House as Bill C-15, the criminal law omnibus bill, minus the proposed amendments dealing with cruelty to animals and those in relation to the firearms registration program. It was the wisdom of the House that the cruelty to animals and firearms amendments be dealt with as a separate piece of legislation, Bill C-15B.

Bill C-15B is now being studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and will be reported back to the House in accordance with the will of the House on or before November 30. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, under the able leadership of the hon. member for Fredericton, conducted a thorough examination of Bill C-15A and reported it back to the chamber on October 5.

Let me remind hon. members of the various components of the bill. They are: measures that provide additional protection to children from sexual exploitation, including sexual exploitation involving use of the Internet; proposed amendments to strengthen the law in the areas of criminal harassment, home invasions and disarming a police officer; amendments to review the process for allegations of miscarriage of justice; criminal procedure reform amendments; and finally, amendments to the National Capital Act and the National Defence Act.

Each and every part of Bill C-15A contains necessary amendments designed to improve the administration of criminal justice in the country. I do not propose to review details of the bill with the House; we reviewed the details during second reading and they have not changed. I would, however, like to refer to some of the matters that were dealt with during committee hearings.

Concerning the measures for the protection of children against sexual exploitation, I am pleased to note that there was a great deal of support expressed for these amendments during committee proceedings and we know that there is a great deal of support for these amendments on both sides of the House. The committee heard witnesses, and all those who spoke on these measures expressed support for them. These amendments create an offence of luring, to criminalize those who communicate with children in order to facilitate the commission of a child sexual exploitation offence against children. They create new offences of exporting, transmitting, making available and accessing child pornography in order to ensure that the child pornography is prohibited at all stages from production to consumption, whether or not a computer system is used in the commission of an offence.

Concerns were raised that these new offences could make Internet service providers, ISPs, criminally liable when acting as mere conduits for child pornography without knowledge of or control over the material. This is not the case. In order to commit any of the child pornography offences, Internet service providers, like anybody else, must know that they are dealing with child pornography.

Other provisions would also contribute to the protection of children. Judges would be given the authority to order the deletion of child pornography from the Internet after giving the person who posted the material an opportunity to be heard. Deletion could be ordered even in cases where the person who posted the material cannot be found or is outside the country. The provisions would allow forfeiture of instruments used in the commission of a child pornography offence that are owned by the person found guilty of the offence. Property rights of innocent third parties would be protected. All child pornography offences and offences of luring would be added to the list of offences for which a judge is authorized to make an order to keep a person away from children. Finally, the bill would facilitate the prosecution in Canada of Canadians who commit a sexual offence against children in a foreign country.

All these measures would contribute to the better protection of our children from sexual exploitation and I urge hon. members to support the government in the speedy passage of the legislation.

Bill C-15A also proposes to: increase the maximum penalty for criminal harassment; require judges to consider home invasions as an aggravating factor at the time of sentencing; and enact a new offence of disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer.

The standing committee heard the overwhelming support of the police community for the latter measure, the new offence of disarming a police officer, and the clear support of witnesses for the other measures as well.

We are confident that these reforms would strengthen the criminal justice system.

As I have already noted, Bill C-15A's proposed reforms that would provide children with increased protection from sexual exploitation have been very much welcomed by all members of the House. I do recognize, however, that some hon. members have said that these do not go far enough and that we need to do more to protect our children. In this regard concerns were expressed in committee about the current provisions concerning the age of consent.

Late in 1999 the Department of Justice launched a comprehensive review and consultation on the need for criminal law and policy reforms related to the definition of specific offences against children, the age of consent to sexual activity, children's testimony and sentencing. The minister is looking forward to receiving a final report on the results of this review and consultation by the end of this year and to the opportunity to discuss options for further reform with her federal, provincial and territorial counterparts thereafter.

Another area of the bill that had received attention in the committee hearings is the proposed amendments to the process for review of alleged wrongful convictions. Bill C-15A contains very important amendments to the conviction review process. These amendments would make the review of alleged wrongful conviction cases in Canada more efficient, open and accountable. These amendments would address the concerns of critics of the current section 690 conviction review process.

As we heard during the committee proceedings, some feel that Canada requires a formal independent body to review wrongful convictions, similar to the criminal cases review commission which was created in 1997 in Great Britain.

Prior to introducing these amendments the minister met with British officials and extensively studied the British system. The minister concluded that an independent body was inappropriate in the Canadian context. The Canadian experience with cases of wrongful conviction bears little resemblance to that of the United Kingdom. For example, the British criminal cases review commission, as it is called there, was established because of a perceived conflict of interest of the home secretary, who is responsible for policing and prisons as well as for the review of allegations of wrongful conviction. Many of these cases involved allegations of misconduct by police.

The Minister of Justice is not in the same perceived conflict of interest as the case of the home secretary in Great Britain. In Canada the Minister of Justice is not responsible for the police or the prison system. Furthermore, the provinces are largely responsible for prosecutions.

One of the key criticisms of the current conviction review process in Canada is how long it takes to review an application. However, as we have learned from the British example, the creation of an independent body will not necessarily lead to timely reviews.

After an extensive consultation process, the minister was convinced that the ultimate decision making in post-appellate conviction review should remain with the federal Minister of Justice. This recognizes and maintains the traditional jurisdiction of the courts while providing a fair and just remedy in those exceptional cases that have somehow fallen through the cracks of the conventional justice system. The minister is accountable to parliament and to the people of Canada.

I want to note that the reforms before us today in Bill C-15A propose a number of new features that would substantially improve the review process that exists today. Section 690 of the criminal code does not currently state when one is eligible to apply for a review. The proposed amendments clarify eligibility to apply for a review: the person must have exhausted all avenues of appeal. This amendment would make it clear that the conviction review process is not an alternative to the judicial system.

The power to review alleged wrongful convictions would be expanded to include the review of summary conviction cases. There is a need to set out the procedural requirements for conviction reviews as it is not clear under the present law how one applies for a review and what documents are required to file an application. The amendments would allow for the enactment of regulations setting out the form, information and documents needed to apply for a conviction review. This would make the process much more accessible.

Critics claim that the current process of conviction review is secretive, as applicants are unaware of the review process. The amendments provide that the stages of the review process would be set out in regulations. This would assist applicants by making the entire process of conviction review more open and understandable.

Section 690 does not currently provide powers of investigation. Under the proposed amendments, those investigating applications on behalf of the minister would have the appropriate investigating powers. This would enhance the thoroughness, effectiveness and timeliness of the review process.

As well, the factors that would be considered in determining when an applicant may be entitled to a remedy are clearly set out in the proposed amendment. Ministers of Justice will be held more accountable in that they will be required to provide an annual report to parliament with respect to applications for a conviction review. A special adviser will be appointed from outside the Department of Justice to oversee the review of alleged wrongful convictions and that person will report directly to the Minister of Justice, thereby adding a degree of independence from the department.

The government is confident that these amendments are the most efficient and effective way to improve the post-appellate, extrajudicial conviction review process at the present time and hence deserve the support of the House.

For all of these reasons I urge the House to move forward expeditiously with the important and worthwhile amendments contained in Bill C-15A.

[Criminal Code, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member's suggestions. I think all of us in the House support the condemnation of hate motivated crimes.

Many provinces have hate crimes units. British Columbia has one which looks into such matters through the province's prosecution services and police forces. Canada's multiculturalism programs must give these issues the special attention they are due.

Earlier this week the Minister of Justice tabled in the House the government's package of anti-terrorism measures. Included in Bill C-36 is an amendment that would create a new criminal offence of mischief to religious buildings or property which is “motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin”.

These measures, in addition to the provisions I have mentioned and the multiculturalism policies of Canada, can be focused on the concerns the hon. member has raised.