Eleni Bakopanos

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands proved my point about the rhetoric once more.

As far as acting, I do not think there is any monopoly in this House on the other side in what is morally right. There is no monopoly whatsoever on who will protect the most defenceless in our society.

There is a law. We have intervened in a decision that was made in a B.C. provincial court. I will repeat what I said because I want all Canadians to understand this. The law does stand. The law will be respected everywhere in this country, once the decision is rendered in terms of the appeal process in B.C., on which we will continue to intervene. We did act. Elsewhere in this country law enforcement officers will continue to arrest anyone who possesses child pornography.

Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code will be respected in this country despite the rhetoric on the other side.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on January 15 a ruling was released by a trial level judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia striking down the prohibition in the Criminal Code against the possession of child pornography. It sparked an intense national debate. Since that day, a day has not gone by when most of us have not been confronted with someone's deep felt emotion on the matter, be it in print, in the media, in our offices here and at home, in the House, on the streets or elsewhere.

The decision has provoked strong reactions. It is difficult to understand why someone would decide that it should not be a crime to possess materials which represent the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. On the other hand, the type of rhetoric from the Reform Party is the fearmongering that has taken place in the House over and over again, saying that pedophiles are running amok in the country, that they are running loose so we should shut our children away. This is not the type of debate that should take place in the House.

When the minister made the comment about silly, it was on those remarks alone and not on the issues that were being debated in this House.

The type of mob mentality that is being fueled by the Reform Party in B.C. is not the type of judicial system we want in this country. Respect for the judiciary is one of the fundamental frameworks of what our democracy is all about.

While that decision had a major impact in terms of the reaction among Canadians, a large number of people do not realize that, at this point in time, the legal repercussions are limited.

Except for British Columbia, where that decision is only binding on provincial court judges, the act prohibiting the simple possession of child pornography still remains in force. In all other parts of Canada, and contrary to what hon. members have said in this House, it is illegal to have this kind of material in one's possession.

Most people find the idea that possession of child pornography could be legal in any part of the country for even a short period of time unacceptable. We share the distressing feeling that this material not only represents child sexual abuse and exploitation, but is also used in an attempt to convince the most vulnerable that it is all right to engage in sexual activities with adults.

Those who abuse and exploit children often make use of visual material such as child pornography to desensitize young people and to encourage them to perform certain acts by making them believe that their peers have taken part in similar acts.

It was to dissuade and prevent such abuse and exploitation that prohibitions specifically aimed at child pornography were proclaimed into force a number of years ago. While the Criminal Code definition of obscenity in section 163 was interpreted in the 1992 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Butler case to include pornography that involves the use of children, determined action was nevertheless taken by parliament to target the market for these materials.

In 1993, offences were introduced which were subject to greater penalties than those existing at the time. The new offence of simple possession was included in recognition of the underground nature of the market and the need to attack the problem at its base level: the individual who creates or trades in child pornography for his personal use.

These amendments to the laws on child pornography were unanimously supported by this House. The ruling which sparked this debate is now the subject of an appeal by the Attorney General of British Columbia to the court of appeal in that province. He has requested that this matter be dealt with expeditiously.

At the federal level, the Minister of Justice has announced that in her role as Attorney General of Canada she is seeking leave to intervene in the matter which is clearly an issue of national importance. We did act immediately. The government has stressed that it supports this legislation, that it believes it is constitutionally sound, and that it will fight to ensure that it is upheld.

Obviously, we want this matter to be solved as quickly as possible. We must, however, acknowledge that the court appeal process is the appropriate approach to take. The purpose of this system is to allow decisions to be reviewed when questions of law or of fact are in dispute.

I understand why other approaches have been suggested, particularly the taking of immediate steps to reinstate the legislation banning the possession of child pornography, which was struck down by this decision, but only in British Columbia. I do not, however, believe we should take that route.

If we believe our current legislation is valid, no steps ought to be taken which could harm that position.

The necessary steps have been taken to see that it is remedied as quickly as possible. Other than in British Columbia—and I did say this at the beginning of my speech but I will repeat it—where this decision is binding upon the provincial court judges, the law prohibiting the simple possession of child pornography remains in force. It is illegal everywhere in Canada to possess these materials.

None of the cases across Canada outside of B.C. is in jeopardy at this time. The ruling is only binding on provincial court judges in B.C. Elsewhere cases continue to be investigated and will proceed before the courts.

Even in B.C. law enforcement continues to work on these cases. In other jurisdictions the law prohibiting possession continues to be in force as in the past. As I said, fearmongering is not going to solve this problem.

In the interim, we in this House can declare our support for the current laws against child pornography found in section 163.1 of the Criminal Code as well as our support for those at the front lines, at our borders, in our communities and in our courtrooms who work unfailingly to see that these laws are enforced and continue to remain in force.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice already stated in this House that the entire human rights legislation will soon be reviewed by the government. We will indeed be looking at this aspect of the legislation.

[Violence Against Women, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in Montreal and across Canada, the tragedy that took place nine years ago at l'École Polytechnique, in Montreal, was remembered. December 6 is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

I would like to pay tribute to all the organizations that, tirelessly and without recognition, provide assistance to abused women and their families.

Each year, in my riding of Ahuntsic, the director of the Mélanie Cabay foundation, Mireille Bélisle, who lost her daughter Mélanie, holds a rally whose ultimate purpose is to eradicate violence.

It is an event where individuals and community organizations come together to show solidarity against all forms of violence in our society.

I invite all members of the House to support the Secretary of State for the Status of Women and Multiculturalism and her territorial and provincial counterparts in their leadership in the Iqaluit declaration and their commitment to end violence and leave a safer world for our children.

[The Environment, December 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to report that Canada is actively pursuing initiatives and making great progress in the management and control of persistent organic pollutants or POPs, particularly with respect to foreign sources of substances that are impacting on the health and environment of Canada.

In speaking to this item I wish to begin by thanking the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Minister of Natural Resources for the effective way in which we have all worked together to make the POPs protocol a success story for Canada. I also thank the member for Davenport for raising this very important issue.

Our tracking of the POPs issue indicates that we are also making progress in aspects of great importance for the federal government, such as health, children and aboriginal peoples.

Although Canada has banned or greatly cut back on the use of POPs in the Canadian North, other countries continue to use them.

POPs continue to be a problem for Canadians since they are carried by air currents from sources outside Canada and are deposited in Canadian ecosystems, particularly in northern Canada.

Canada has contributed significantly to the science that has enabled us to substantiate the need for international action and agreements on persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals. We have stopped releases from most Canadian sources of POPs and reduced domestic emissions of heavy metals. Unfortunately domestic efforts are not enough to protect the peoples of the Arctic.

Reducing POPs in Canada's Arctic requires concerted international efforts. Canada has played a leading role in using the scientific information contained in the Canadian Arctic contaminants assessment report and AMAP reports to achieve international action on contaminants reaching the Arctic.

Regional protocols on the reduction of POPs and heavy metals have been drawn up under the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

These protocols, signed in June 1998 by 34 countries, including Canada, the United States, and the countries of Eastern and Western Europe, as well as the former Soviet Union, are the first enforceable major multinational agreements aimed at protecting the environment and human health by imposing limits on the release of POPs and heavy metals.

These protocols will serve as a model for even broader world-wide participation.

In June, under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program, Canada hosted the initial session to negotiate a global POPs agreement, which is expected to be signed around the year 2000.

Canada strongly supports this effort and is committed to playing a vigorous leadership role. The government is committed to a continuing leadership role in moving the UNEP global initiative to a successful conclusion, for it is only through the concerted and vigorous action of all countries to eliminate or reduce their emissions of hazardous substances that Canada can achieve the protection it requires from these chemicals that know no borders.

By signing and ratifying the protocols, Canada demonstrates its ongoing and serious commitment to actively looking for ways to lead an international campaign on health and environmental issues of concern to Canadians.

We must play a leadership role in these initiatives in order to ensure that the serious risks POPs represent for the environment and for the health of Canadians, particularly aboriginal peoples in the north, are taken into account. This approach is consistent with the priority our government accords to native issues.

Canada's signature of the protocols will be an important step towards signature of the UNEP global agreement on POPs.

At the recent joint meeting of ministers of energy and environment in Halifax, all provinces and territories supported the expeditious ratification of the POPs protocol.

It is the government's intent to conclude the ratification of the POPs protocol, as well as the companion heavy metals protocol, before the end of this year. Indeed, Canada will be one of the first, if not the first country to formally accept the controls on POPs specified in this agreement.

I want to thank the hon. member for Davenport for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

[Young Offenders, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer in French, seeing that the question was put to me in French.

We did respond in the House to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice, and the minister will be introducing a new young offenders bill during the next session, whenever it opens.

[Nunavut Act, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut court of justice and to amend other acts in consequence.

The bill represents the fulfilment of a commitment made by the federal government to the people of Nunavut to bring forward legislation in a timely fashion to establish a single level trial court in Nunavut.

The establishment of a trial court which is specifically designed to meet the needs of the people of the north is part of the larger dream of the Inuit of the eastern Arctic to shape their own future. I am very proud today to be part of a process that will help the people of Nunavut realize that dream. We are all part of a new process making history today.

The witnesses who appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights praised the consultative process through which Bill C-57 was developed.

As Ms. Rebecca Williams, the assistant deputy minister designate for Nunavut so eloquently said:

The process we used to develop the Nunavut Court of Justice was revolutionary in our history because it involved Inuit. Inuit were able to express what kinds of systems they needed to handle conflicts and to work for peace and safe communities in the future. The process itself has given me hope about the future of our public government in Nunavut. I learned from this process ways of bringing our time of silence to an end.

Similar sentiments were expressed by Ms. Nora Sanders, the deputy minister designate for Nunavut, who praised the open, respectful and meaningful way in which federal officials conducted the consultation process in respect of Bill C-57. They should be commended.

The development of Bill C-57 also signals the commencement of a new phase in the partnership between the federal government and the people of Nunavut. It is a concrete acknowledgement that reform of the criminal justice system in Nunavut now and in the future must be responsive to the needs and wishes of the people of Nunavut.

I am very pleased to announce that, when the Minister of Justice appeared before the standing committee last week, the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservative Party indicated to her that they supported Bill C-57.

I call upon all members of this House to support this bill, and thus help the people of Nunavut to realize their dream of establishing a single-level trial court before April 1, 1999.

Since Bill C-57 was studied so thoroughly by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I have no intention of discussing the content of the bill in detail. I would, however, like to go over its salient points, which bring out certain unique aspects of the Nunavut Court of Justice.

One of the important characteristics of the Court of Justice is that, unlike judges in other jurisdictions, the judges of this court will be authorized to hear all cases. An amendment to the Nunavut Act authorizes a judge in the Nunavut Court of Justice to exercise and perform all powers, duties and functions which any law in force in Nunavut confers upon a representative of the judiciary.

The amendments made to a specific part of the Criminal Code provide that a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice has and may exercise and perform all the powers, duties and functions of any court or agent of the judicial authority prescribed in the Criminal Code.

Consequently, a single judge of the Nunavut court of justice will be able to do in a remote locality what cannot be done anywhere else in Canada, that is to hear all matters on the docket of a given circuit court, from the most mundane to the most serious cases, in both adult and youth courts.

Territorial legislation will also enable judges to hear all cases, whether family or civil. I have no doubt that this characteristic of the new court will expedite trials and ensure speedier access to justice.

Another important point is that the bill confers on the Nunavut court of justice the jurisdiction of a superior court. Because of the demands associated with the administration of justice in Northern Canada, judges of the Nunavut court of justice will, of necessity, perform most of the functions and duties normally performed by other agents of the judicial authority. However, these judges will perform these duties in their capacity as superior court judges and will have all the powers vested in superior court judges.

Since the judges will reside in Nunavut and be in frequent contact with the various communities in Nunavut, I have no doubt that the people of Nunavut will notice an improvement in terms of access to justice. They will also be able to explain their problems to judges who are familiar with their culture, their values and their needs.

I am pleased to say that the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to establish a single level trial court will not curtail in any way the rights of the parties before the court.

This respect for equity is reflected, for example, both in the appeal provisions and in the new statutory form of review designed to ensure the review of certain key decisions made under the criminal justice process.

Bill C-57 preserves the full ambit and scope of appeal rights relating to summary convictions made under all legal proceedings instituted in Nunavut. The appeal of summary convictions made by the Nunavut court of justice will be heard by a single judge of the court of appeal. At the second level, the appeal will be heard by three judges from the court of appeal.

As for the changes made to the legislation, those hon. members who take a close interest in the more technical aspects of a single-level court system will note that, unlike provincial and territorial court rulings, the decisions of the Nunavut court of justice cannot be reviewed through prerogative writs, since the Nunavut court of justice will be a superior court.

To compensate for this, the provisions of this bill will create a new statutory form of review for certain important decisions in the criminal justice process. As is the case with summary conviction appeals, the review will be conducted by a single judge of the court of appeal and an appeal will lie from the review decision to a three person panel of the court of appeal.

In describing these features of the statutory review scheme in some detail, I want to emphasize that one of the important purposes of the scheme is to ensure that the people of Nunavut are not treated as second class citizens when it comes to the rights accorded to them by their court system.

It is because of these features that the government can say in the summary printed on the first page of Bill C-57 that the bill:

—creates a single-level trial court system for the territory of Nunavut in order to provide an efficient and accessible court structure capable of responding to the unique needs of Nunavut while, at the same time, maintaining substantive and procedural rights equivalent to those enjoyed elsewhere in Canada.

A final theme in Bill C-57 concerns the changes to the Judges Act necessary to accommodate the operation of a single level trial court in Nunavut at the superior court level.

The amendments to the Judges Act provide for the appointment of three superior court judges to the Nunavut court of justice. As I indicated earlier, all of them will be resident in the territory itself.

The Minister of Justice is committed to finding candidates who are qualified, experienced and committed to the north to be appointed to the Nunavut bench. The hon. minister is on record with a commitment to consult the people of the north to ensure that appointments reflect and respond to the unique demands, culture and conditions in Nunavut.

The establishment of a single level trial court in Nunavut represents the starting point in developing a justice system which meets the needs of the people it serves.

The Department of Justice is committed to working closely with the interim commissioner of Nunavut, Nunavut organizations and the new Nunavut government when it is established to help further adapt the justice system to the needs of the Nunavut people.

For example, one very important issue relates to the training of justices of the peace to ensure that they will have the ability to complement the work of the Nunavut court of justice by resolving less serious matters at the community level. While the training of justices of the peace is a territorial responsibility, the Department of Justice will do everything it can to assist the new territory in this important task.

Another aspect of the administration of justice which will continue to be an important aspect of justice delivery in the north is the use of both community justice committees and youth justice committees. Continued funding for both committees will be the responsibility of the new territory.

Youth justice committees are extensively used on Baffin Island and deal with youth in a pre-charge context. Youth justice committees are also recognized as alternative measures programs pursuant to the Young Offenders Act. Both the youth justice committees and the community justice committees have been and will continue to be an important part of the broader justice system in Nunavut.

The creation of a single level trial court brings with it high hopes for a court structure which is more responsive to the needs of the people of Nunavut, the people it stands to serve.

The new system proposed in Bill C-57 is unprecedented. There will be a need therefore to monitor and evaluate the system in the years ahead to ensure that it achieves the objective of providing an efficient, effective and accessible justice system in the north. The Department of Justice is working with the interim commissioner's office to design a monitoring and evaluating system to identify problems and possible changes to the court system which might be needed.

The creation of Nunavut in a mere four months from now is a momentous event in Canadian history. It signals a realization of a 25 year old dream of the Inuit of the eastern Arctic. It signals the creation of the first single level trial court for criminal, civil and family matters in Canada. It signals a new chapter in partnership between the Inuit and the federal government. As one witness indicated to the standing committee last week, it signals the dawn of a new age of hope for the Nunavut people.

The evidence given before the standing committee last week by Miss Leena Evic-Twerdin, policy adviser for Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated is noteworthy in this regard. I quote:

Today we are beginning the process of reclaiming our identity and our ways. It is the opportunity that is unfolding in front of us that is allowing us to begin the process. Nunavut is that opportunity and everything that falls under the establishment of Nunavut is a chance for a positive impact on the future of the Inuit. The successful passage of Bill C-57 will mean a better opportunity for Nunavut and its people. That is why we are here to encourage you to support the bill.

I thank all the members of the committee and of this House on behalf of the minister for their attention today. I ask for their support in the speedy passage of Bill C-57 so that we may make history together.

[Salaries For Stay At Home Mothers And Fathers, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to give a more detailed answer to the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve about the approval process for AIDS medication.

The Canadian approval process is still one of the most highly respected drug regulation mechanisms in the world. At the present time, 13 antiretroviral drugs have been approved for AIDS therapy in Canada. There are several other medications especially designed to target opportunistic infections and illnesses affecting AIDS victims.

HIV-AIDS drugs submissions are eligible for priority review or fast tracking where there is probable clinical evidence that the drug may provide an important therapeutic gain. A number of HIV-AIDS drugs were reviewed on a priority basis. New drug submissions for HIV-AIDS drugs are generally reviewed within defined performance standards which are comparable to international standards.

Medication for HIV/AIDS that is still experimental, or is not for general sale in Canada, is accessible to Canadians through clinical trials, extended access programs, and the special access program. The latter provides AIDS patients with rapid access to experimental drugs on special authorization at the attending physician's request.

Additionally, with the announcement of the notice of compliance with conditions policy, drugs are permitted to be marketed in Canada when there is predictive rather than conclusive evidence of clinical benefit in the treatment of serious life threatening diseases. Under this policy the drug product manufacturer is required to continue to study the drug in order to confirm its benefit.

Health Canada is involved in several initiatives which ought to simplify the drug examination process. These include development of an electronic drug submission system, harmonization—

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would welcome the occasion to repeat what I said in my speech about the different initiatives undertaken by the government, but I will not repeat it because I am sure most Canadians listened to what I said.

In terms of the United Nations index, the member may not know that for five years in a row Canada has been chosen as the best country in the world. No one is saying that we have no poverty. No one is saying that there are not problems. However, the difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House is that we look for solutions to problems. We do not criticize; we look for solutions. We have proven that we have given solutions to Canadians. We have proven that we have solutions to address most of the problems of the world.

The United Nations human development index indicated that the Australians, the Americans and the French regard Canada as the country they would most like to live in. I am very proud of the government's record and I see a legacy for our children. We look for solutions that are in collaboration and in consultation with our provincial and territorial partners.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the opposition member we will not set an artificial deadline for negotiations. Negotiations are ongoing. We have shown flexibility and openness.

We intend to work in collaboration with the provinces to arrive at a social union that is the best social union in the world, as we have worked toward assuring Canada is the best country in the world. We will not put an artificial deadline on such important negotiations.