Sue Barnes

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 60, supplementary, could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.

[Government Response to Petitions, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.

[Order in Council Appointments, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.

[Canada Marriage Act, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I did want to talk about the fact that we have voluntary agreements. They have been successful in the past at reducing the fuel consumption of Canadian motor vehicles and are currently being used to improve fuel efficiency in other major markets. It is reasonable to make this the best choice for an agreement in Canada.

Voluntary agreements do have an advantage in terms of flexibility in design over regulated standards and ultimately the voluntary approach, which leaves the choice of vehicles and technologies to the marketplace, will lead to the most economic solutions for manufacturers and consumers alike.

While the government does have an authority to regulate vehicle efficiency, the government at this point in time would rather make serious efforts toward the voluntary approach, considering the potential benefits it offers. If we are unable to come to a mutually acceptable agreement, other approaches, including regulation, should and will be examined.

I hope that gives an indication to my hon. colleague who I know has worked very long and hard over many years in all the environmental areas.

[Canada Marriage Act, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by giving a brief history of motor vehicle fuel efficiency in North America. The United States passed its corporate average fuel economy legislation in 1975 after the 1973 OPEC oil embargo and Congress set fuel economy standards for cars for every year from 1977 through 1985. Standards were added later for light trucks.

Canada's cabinet approved and announced automobile fuel consumption standards in 1976 that were based on the U.S. standards. Parliament subsequently passed the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act in 1982 to enforce these standards. Vehicle manufacturers then committed to meet the standards voluntarily and proclamation of the act was postponed.

Canadian company average fuel consumption standards currently match U.S. standards. The standards are 8.6 litres per 100 kilometres for passenger cars and 11.4 litres per 100 kilometres for light trucks, including pick-ups, minivans and sport utility vehicles. The standards apply to the average fuel consumption of all new vehicles sold each year in Canada by every automobile company, no matter where the vehicles are manufactured.

Historically, vehicle manufacturers have not only met these standards, but they have exceeded them compared with the U.S. new vehicle fleet. Currently, new cars are 7% lower or better than the standard and new light trucks are 3% lower than the standard.

While the performance of Canadian manufacturers has been excellent in the past, fuel consumption standards have not improved for nearly 20 years for passenger cars and about 10 years for light trucks. There is a need for improvement. I know my colleague knows this.

Canada has ratified the Kyoto agreement and committed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Because motor vehicles account for 11% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency are an important element of any strategy to reduce emissions.

Given this, the motor vehicle fuel efficiency initiative was first announced in action plan 2000, and the 25% target was announced in the climate change plan of November 2002. Our goal with this initiative is to reach a voluntary agreement with manufacturers on a new target for 2010, based on a 25% improvement from our current voluntary company average fuel consumption standards.

We realize this target is challenging but believe it is feasible and cost effective for both manufacturers and for consumers. There are many currently available and upcoming technologies that can be used to improve fuel consumption by 25% by 2010. Moreover, recent Canadian and U.S. studies have shown that reducing fuel consumption does not require sacrifices in performance and other attributes consumers value, and the cost of most technologies will be paid for through fuel savings over the life of the vehicle.

Canadian consumers, by way of their purchasing choices, continually demonstrate that they value fuel efficiency. The Canadian vehicle market is quite different than the U.S. market in that Canadians mainly buy smaller vehicles with better fuel efficiency. A new fuel consumption agreement will stimulate fuel efficiency innovation and will therefore make more choices available to Canadians in these market segments, and improve technologies in all segments. With NRCan's enhanced programs in consumer education and awareness, we are optimistic that Canadians will respond positively to a wider range of fuel efficient vehicles.

We regard these consultations as a first step to addressing the longer term issue of reducing vehicle greenhouse gas emissions in North America. Improving vehicle fuel efficiency is a necessary step.

I have more information and perhaps I will pass it directly to the member.

[Canada Marriage Act, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the private member's bill before us today, Bill C-450, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act, addresses a subject matter with which the House is becoming very familiar. It seeks to re-enact the former common law requirement that marriage is “a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife”.

What makes this subject so familiar? The definition of marriage was voted on by the House last fall in an opposition day motion, and then in another private member's bill, Bill C-447, six weeks later. The response then was the same response that we have now. This bill is premature.

The government has set in place a full and responsible approach to this important question of marriage, one which both addresses its complexities and allows for a fully informed discussion. Marriage is an important cornerstone of our society and the expansion to include same sex couples has important consequences both for marriage and for the protection of minorities. It is deserving of this comprehensive and thoughtful approach.

Bill C-450, on the other hand, is simply another attempt to short-circuit that approach and bring the issue forward in a rushed manner that does a disservice to parliamentarians. Members of the House will have an opportunity for a full and informed debate on this very issue, but the time for that debate is not now, because at this time the debate cannot be a fully informed one as we do not yet have the guidance of the highest court in the land.

Let me briefly review the process the government is following to ensure that the debate is a fully informed one and, in so doing, to respect both the role of Parliament and the role of the courts.

Under our Constitution, courts have the mandate to examine laws to determine if they meet the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was itself, I would remind all members of the House, passed by Parliament in a democratic process. As members will recall, courts in three provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, have now ruled that, based on the equality guarantees of the charter, the law restricting civil marriage to opposite sex couples only is discriminatory to gay and lesbian Canadians who wish to demonstrate the same degree of commitment.

Based on these new interpretations of the charter equality guarantees, the government was faced with a choice. Either we could continue appealing to the courts or we could review the earlier approach of restricting the definition of marriage to opposite sex couples.

Rather than leaving this important social policy issue to the courts alone to decide by appealing the unanimous opinions of two appellate courts, the government decided to take a responsible leadership role and proposed legislation that would respect the ruling of both courts.

It did this by drafting a bill with two provisions. The first defines marriage to be “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others”. The second states, “Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs”.

Unlike the bill before us today, the government's draft bill fully respects two fundamental principles: equality based on personal characteristics, in this case the sexual orientation, and freedom of religion. The government believes that it is essential to ensure full respect for both and to ensure that all religious groups continue to have the right to refuse to perform marriages for any couple that does not meet the requirements of their respective faiths.

This is not new. Religious officials have always had the authority to add qualifications, such as attending marriage courses, or refusing to marry couples where it would be against their religious beliefs, such as some religions refusing to marry divorced people or refusing interfaith couples. Because of the importance of religious freedom, the government wanted to ensure that this authority to refuse would also apply in cases of marriages for same sex couples, as we believe that it would.

Because of this, the government decided to refer the draft bill to the Supreme Court of Canada prior to its introduction in Parliament. This was not done to in any way preclude the parliamentary process. Rather, it is to clarify for members of Parliament their choices within the framework of the charter and, in particular, the freedom of religion.

Initially, last July the government asked the court to provide information on three key questions. First, is the draft bill within the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada?

Second, if the answer to question number one is yes, is the proposal in the draft bill to extend capacity to marry to persons of the same sex consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Finally, does the freedom of religion guaranteed in the charter protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex, a marriage that is contrary to their religious beliefs?

Then, at the beginning of this year, the new administration, the new government, reviewed these questions and made a decision to add a fourth question that would specifically ask about the constitutionality of the opposite sex requirement for marriage. In so doing, the government wanted to respond to concern of many Canadians and members of this House that the views of the highest court in the land on this central question are important to the eventual debate that will take place in this chamber.

It was also consistent with the response of the government to broader concerns over democratic process and with the goal of providing this House with as much information as possible to support parliamentarians, who took part in that debate and in that eventual vote, in their decisions on a very complex issue.

The Supreme Court of Canada will now hear arguments on all four questions this fall, over three days from October 6 to October 8. The court has granted intervener status to 18 non-governmental groups and individuals. Three provincial Attorneys General will also participate in the hearing. In this way, the court will have the advantage of a full range of opinions and submissions before it, and a decision would likely be rendered sometime next spring, although that is not in Parliament's domain but the court's.

It is at this point that the government will table its draft legislation and a full and informed debate will ensue in this House. Members will have before them the analysis of the legal issues by the Supreme Court of Canada and will be aware of the impact of the constitutional and legal framework on the choices available to them. They will also then be in a position to know the court's views on the ability of religions to set their own terms in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Responsible leadership calls for the approach we have chosen: a proposed legislative approach that the government believes meets both of the important charter guarantees of equality and religious freedom; the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada of that proposed legislative approach for its considered legal opinion so that questions and concerns of Canadians can be resolved before the legislation is considered in Parliament; and then a full debate in Parliament culminating in a free vote, at least on this side.

Bill C-450 threatens to cut short this process. Consequently, it is not in the best interests of this House.

Canadians have indicated that the issue of extending marriage to same sex couples is both important to them and extremely divisive. Because of this, it is especially crucial to proceed in this comprehensive and balanced way which ensures that both the Supreme Court of Canada and the members of this House can fully benefit from the full range of opinion on the important aspects of this issue.

Once we have the advice of the Supreme Court of Canada on the legal questions, we can all be in a position to responsibly discharge our duty to our electorate and vote with what we believe is the right approach. At that time, it could be that some of the members of this House will agree that the approach in Bill C-450 is the only choice, although I hope that will not be the case.

Whatever one's position is on the issue, the process that we have outlined will serve us well, better than moving ahead today as a knee-jerk reaction that would render the entire Supreme Court of Canada reference process redundant and would short-circuit the carefully balanced and responsible approach of the government to this complex question. As I said in my opening remarks, this bill is a disservice to this House.

[Criminal Code, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-29, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Bill C-29 proposes a range of reforms to the provisions of the criminal law to govern persons found unfit to stand trial and not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Before highlighting the key features of the bill, I would like to provide members of the House some background, or history, of these provisions.

It is a longstanding principle of our criminal law that persons who suffer from mental disorder and do not understand the nature and quality of their acts or know that they are wrong should not be held criminally responsible. In 1991 Parliament made significant reforms to modernize the law that governed persons found not guilty by reason of insanity. The 1991 reforms reflected the need to balance the rights of the mentally ill and also to balance this with the protection of public safety.

The reforms included in Bill C-29 share the same goals as the 1991 reforms, to further modernize the law and to effectively balance the rights of the mentally ill who come into conflict with the law with the public's right to safety.

It is also worth noting that the 1991 amendments called for a parliamentary review of the legislation five years after proclamation. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conducted a comprehensive review of the legislation in the spring 2002. The committee received submissions and heard testimony from over 30 stakeholders, including members of the Bar, crown attorneys, psychiatric hospital administrators, review board chairpersons, service providers and mental health advocates.

It is fair to say that, in general, witnesses appearing before the committee agreed that the legislation was working very well. However, they noted that further refinements would ensure that the law continued to work very well to govern persons found unfit to stand trial and not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

In June 2002, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled its report and made recommendations calling for both legislative reform and other initiatives. Its report explains why reforms are needed and in some cases proposes a specific amendment.

The standing committee report included 19 recommendations. The key recommendations for Criminal Code reform called for, and this is in no particular order: the repeal of parts of the 1991 regime that were never proclaimed into forced, including the capping provisions that would have set the maximum time limit on the supervision or detention of the accused; streamlining the transfer of accused persons between provinces and territories; new provisions to deal with persons who are permanently unfit to stand trial; and enhanced protections for the victims of crime who attend review board hearings, for example, publication bans on their identity in appropriate circumstances and the opportunity to prepare a victim impact statement.

The committee also made recommendations calling for more indepth research and consultation on emerging issues, such as the appropriate standard to determine fitness to stand trial and whether professionals, other than psychiatrists, should conduct assessments.

The need to consult with provincial and territorial ministers of health was also recommended to review the resources available to meet the needs of the mentally disordered accused, and the availability of facilities for youth. This is very serious.

The standing committee should be commended for its thorough review of the mental disorder provisions. Bill C-29 reflects the advice and guidance provided by the committee and all of those who appeared before the committee.

Bill C-29 includes reforms that respond to the issues raised by the committee. In some cases the amendment is not exactly as the committee proposed. I am sure the committee will agree, following its consideration of Bill C-29, that its key recommendations have been addressed.

Bill C-29 also includes reforms that the committee did not specifically recommend, but that complement the committee's recommendations and also reflect issues raised in the case law, and also through very important consultations conducted by the Department of Justice with key stakeholders over the past 10 years.

The key features of Bill C-29 provide new powers for review boards that have been established in each province and territory to make key decisions governing mentally disordered and unfit accused. For example, review boards would be able to order an assessment of the mental condition of the accused to assist them in making the appropriate disposition. Victim impact statements could be read aloud by victims at review board hearings. The bill would be streamline transfer provisions to permit the safe and efficient transfer of a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder or unfit from one province or territory to another. Courts would have new authority to determine whether a judicial stay of proceedings should be ordered for a permanently unfit accused who did not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

More options are in the bill for police to enforce disposition and assessment orders that take into account the need for the accused person's treatment to continue. The provisions of the 1991 law that were never proclaimed will be repealed; capping and the related dangerous mentally disordered accused provisions and the hospital orders provision. Also, there are a range of clarifying and procedural amendments to ensure the effective application of the goals of the law.

This bill is not a whole scale reform of the law. Rather, the bill is the next step in ensuring that our laws are effective, efficient and fair in governing mentally disordered accused.

This is a very complex area of the law. However, make no mistake, these reforms are necessary. The provisions of the code have remained the same since 1991, but the case law has evolved, as has the application of the code. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated in several recent cases, including Winko and Tulikorpi, that the code regime has two goals: protection of the rights of the mentally disordered accused and protection of public safety. Punishment is not one of the goals. As I indicated earlier, our law does not hold the mentally disordered accused criminally responsible.

I look forward to the prompt consideration of this bill by a committee of the House. It is my hope that the committee will support these amendments and see their hard work reflected in the bill. Very good work has been done by the committee before. The ultimate goal is the speedy passage of any of these bills by the House. I hope all members will support the amendments.

I thank the House for the opportunity to start the discussion. I know we will have important discussion on the bill. While this gets ready to go to committee, we can have more indepth discussion at committee. I thank all the members of the House for their consideration.

[Criminal Code, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it protects under both situations. If the accused has sexually exploited the victim, determined by the conduct and circumstances, the nature of the relationship, if any, and the age and the age difference between the victim and the accused, the appropriate charges will be laid and prosecuted.

[Criminal Code, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke on this, and I believe the member was present in the House, in my opening speech on third reading debate. It has been spoken of many times over the hours.

There is nothing I can say to convince the member to change his mind. I readily accept that. I would be talking until I was blue in the face. I am saying let us move. Let us have the vote. That is the democratic process. Let us get to the vote.

[Criminal Code, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the bill has many good provisions. We can delay and delay or we can pass the bill and the amendments to the bill.

Earlier this week we voted on an amendment to a hoist motion. Now we will vote, when we finally get to it, on the hoist motion itself. Then we will get back to the third reading debate, on which we were originally supposed to be voting.

These procedural motions have made it very difficult for the bill to progress to its final stages of third reading in the House. After third reading in this House, the bill has to go to the other House. There are so many important pieces of the bill, like voyeurism, which is one piece, and protecting young people.

The Criminal Code already makes it a crime, for example, to involve any young person under the age of 18 years in prostitution activities. Furthermore, any person convicted of living wholly or partially on the avails of prostitution of a young person under the age of 18 years and who has forced the young person to engage in any prostitution activities faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison.

We have sections in place in the bill that extend protection above the age of consent if there is exploitation. These are important provisions. Not only are these provisions around the conduct of sexual exploitation important, but there are new provisions in the bill. I mentioned the voyeurism provision.

Getting all those screens and support persons for when young people have to go into a courtroom, these very important procedural assistants to vulnerable people in the courtroom, are there to help prevent them from being re-traumatized during the necessary court process. Even though they are discretionary now and available to a judge in a courtroom, the bill would go a long way to improving the situation for those people, those victims.

I urge the House to please let this debate on an amendment to a hoist motion end so we can get a little step closer to passing the bill to actually helps our children. I agree that debate is important. We have had enough debate. Let us keep going to get the bill in place.